Why Peter MacNicol?


Dreadfull casting when it came to picking Peter for this part. I certainly don't want or need my overly macho male leads and too pretty boys but this casting missjudgement is over the top wrong.
I believe it is possible to cast a sorcorers apprentice/hero as someone who would firstly look the part. This fay male Peter looks more like a provencial accountant than a mystic...what to speak of someone who ascending beyond the definiton of the warriors code of conduct to the place of mysticism. You can't get there without going through that first (that means being a warrior before being a mystic for those of you too stupid to know that that is the way it is done).
Hence the way of apprentice. This Peter looks nothing like someone who would understand such things and is therefore unfit for the part.

reply

What is wrong with Peter McNicol? I thought he did a fine job as the sorcerer's apprentice. He was cute in a unusal sort of way, he was charasmatic, his acting was quite good for it being a fantasy movie....what is your beef with him?!

reply

If you would read I expressed my reasons. It's nice of you to contest me though....see, I don't think he's charasmatic at all. But I'm always for the uncharasmatic______ it's hard to explain this one.
Y'see sometimes factors are such that (in this movie) I see where they were trying to look like they were not trying to miscast this role. But they did.
A sorcorer's apprentice is never the sorcorer - the first problem. He NEVER successes to the 'throne' of actual Sorcorer. No, his part calls for looking the part of "Always the 'sorcorer's apprentice' never the Sorcorer".
His character never arch's. In fact it's the script and it's Christianity message that is the character arch in this movie. Too bad.

So that's why Peter was picked, for his 'immature' looks. An oversite considering the title of the movie and that this is the character that carries the movie. Overall, we got ripped off by the Christians who hijacked this script and left our Dragonslayer in the dust.

jil

reply

[deleted]

I thought he was fine, wasn't crazy about his voice though

reply

I thought he did a great job of being the unlikely hero. He just exuded 'feeble' when you looked and listened to him.

reply

(that means being a warrior before being a mystic for those of you too stupid to know that that is the way it is done).

...According to whom???? There are no hard and fast rules on this subject, and fantasy literature and films contain scores of mystics and sorcerers who have no particular strength or skill as fighting men. As a young man with largely untapped magical potential who still has a lot of training to undergo, MacNicol is quite believeable. He accepts the quest out of respect for his master...and also because he's got a lot of youthful bravado. There's every indication that he's been living with the sorcerer for much of his life, that he has no other family and that his experience of the outside world is limited at best. His lack of polish is a big part of what makes him interesting.
we got ripped off by the Christians who hijacked this script and left our Dragonslayer in the dust.

???? What movie did you watch? Time-wise, the film is supposed to take place during an age when the magic and sorcerers and dragons of old are being supplanted by a new belief system - a system that is represented (but hardly valorized!) in the story line. The priest who goes to destroy the dragon is burned to a crisp. Valerian's father takes up his mantle and the people choose to believe that an act of God is responsible for the dragon's destruction, but this is a far cry from suggesting any real power or legitimacy to that belief. Meanwhile, the King climbs up onto the dragon's corpse and claims credit for its demise. Both are clearly falsehoods (unless one chooses to believe that God was in league with the Sorcerer, which would hardly be a traditional "Christian" viewpoint!). Viewers know the truth of the dragon's destruction, and the last image we are left with is a young sorcerer still learning, still surprised by the workings of his own power when his wish for a horse brings real results. Magic, and the budding sorcerer who wields it, is still very much alive - despite the efforts of the King and the Christians to supplant it. This in no way can be construed as "Christians" hijacking the script...

reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(that means being a warrior before being a mystic for those of you too stupid to know that that is the way it is done).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm glad you asked wyvernkd that's shows concern I've not heard in many milliniea! The code you are referring to is called the Warrior's Code of Conduct and it is very real and has been around since the Age of Arthur. You remember the age when Kings had to be warriors? Well, you wouldn't remember anything about the Warriors Code of Conduct from the movie Dragonslayer - it's just that bad.
In addition to the requirements to ascend to the throne (in all it's romantic glory) was the far reaching effects of this military code....because even the warriors code of conduct came down from a higher place. YOu could call this a mystical place, but there is even a higher realm than even this mystic power. Overall you can know that as this power drizzles down and down and it stops along the way stations. A true teacher (assumably any mystical lord like Merlin)is capable of teaching the student the process of coming up the ladder step by step. Now, since no one starts at the top we all start quite low and to pass into the higher realm of mystic you must pass through the warrior station (among others). You simply cannot ascend through it if you don't understand it. And when someone does understand it and see's others fake that they understand it - you can laugh very big at that faker.
It's just so wrong to see an actor better suited to pushing paper than to cast him as the sorcorers apprentice. Remember I do not say that you must be the fighting and killing warrior, but is an energy that has to be understood deeply and with great concern. It is the level (or station) that a human being begins to understand higher things. The level below (the one this actor belongs to) is more suited to humans as having no more value than animal. The warrior class is key to higher energy goals. So base in fact that no sorcorer teaches anything without first seeing this quality, you just can't teach mystik energy to someone who does not first understand themselves out of mundanity.

You must be the hero first dear wyvernkd. Then and only then will you be qualified to pull the sword from the stone!A hero's heart so to speak. And then you can go from there.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we got ripped off by the Christians who hijacked this script and left our Dragonslayer in the dust.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Actually it's true - I forget where I read it but this script was hijacked by Christians in Hollywood. The original didn't end like this with the handing over of power to Christ. A totally Christian statement if not a complete takeover of the entire message.From just a dragon and sword movie into: Jesus is Lord. I could barf! I don't want Jesus even remotely in my Sword and Dragon movies and I don't want a paper pusher in the role of sorcorers apprentice.

they could have left the script alone but they chose to alter it from the original. I'm not the only one to complain about this as you will find this a popular complaint from other fans of the book which had no Jesus stuff or implications in it. Yes I know about the time in history this movie took place which is why they chose to put this element into the script and get away with it. I simply say they (the Christians since they are acting like Christians when they put something Christian into something that otherwise had no Christ message in it) should have left it alone and the movie would have been better for it..without the meddling and inserting of Jesus stuff even though yes it was accurate for the time period in history. I still did not want to see it. It was gratiouitous and unnecessary and just so chosen and unnatural it makes me sick.

So those are two elements that make this movie a flop. Both of which have nothing to do with liking the book or sword and dragon movies in general. I simply am able to tell you why this movie was a failure. I agree with you that he had "a lack of polish" but the casting director seemed to regard this trait as the only qualification in who he chose for the part. Simple narrowmindedness when in fact our hero is deeply complex.
And as far as you say ""unless one chooses to believe that God was in league with the Sorcerer..."" - I find this a remarkable statement from you. In fact that is the secret of Merlin or sorcerey. Yes the time before Christ was a time of God and it looked like how it looked and was how it was and it was Jesus who changed all that did he not? Said things like only through me all all that rubbish when in fact prior to J.C. things were very much with God and there were many immortals around.
This God versus Jesus time was what they chose to address when they put in the Christ stuff in Dragonslayer. I do not like Jesus I prefer ole tyme God and immortals so I am in fact offended that Jesus says things that are not true like there is no way to the father except by me blah blah blah... I'll take my old fashioned heros and I like them served up proper. Dont' try to sell me a paper pushing work-a-day-Joe for a hero because I KNOW he could never have what it takes for a humane thought or a genuine heartbeat.
The heart of the dragon wyvernkd is tryly a thing of glory and not to be felt with giving it up to some Saviour. This is the secret. Jesus is a theif of God.

And now you know. I feel I have truly initiated you into Dungeons and Dragons. But why bother...more mysteries are all just more needles in the camels eye right?

Brian Eno
Here Come The Warm Jets
Needles In The Camel's Eye
Those who know
They don't let it show
They just give you one long glance
And you'll go oh, oh, oh, oh.


Goes to show
How winds blow
The weather's fine
And i feel so, so, so, so, so.
[ Brian Eno Lyrics are found on www.songlyrics.com ]


Birds of prey
With too much to say
Oh what could be my destiny
Another rainy day.


Why ask why
For by the by and by,
All mysteries are just more
Needles in the camel's eye.










reply

The code you are referring to is called the Warrior's Code of Conduct and it is very real and has been around since the Age of Arthur.

Well and good (though warrior codes of conduct around the world almost certainly predated Arthur). I still maintain that this is a fantasy film in a genre that, overall, does not demonstrate (or, indeed, require) strict adherence to such a code. Perhaps, in the realm of Dungeons and Dragons (with which I am not familiar), this code and all its prerequisite steps are deemed essential. Elsewhere? Not so much...
You must be the hero first dear wyvernkd. Then and only then will you be qualified to pull the sword from the stone!

Ah, but there's the rub! Arthur is a youth when he pulls the sword from the stone - a squire with no real social standing and untested/unproven leadership skills. It's by virtue of his bloodline, not his character, that he accomplishes this feat. Only later does he truly begin to prove himself. Countless fantasy heroes start out as awkward youths of one sort or another. MacNicol portrays that awkwardness very well, and it's part of the charm of the film - the fact that this young man has power and potential, but is still very rough around the edges. One must take the hero's journey in order to become the hero...and that is precisely what we're seeing in DRAGONSLAYER: a young man who is not a hero yet, compelled to leave home and ultimately to prove himself.

Re: Christianity in the film, you state
even though yes it was accurate for the time period in history. I still did not want to see it. It was gratiouitous and unnecessary and just so chosen and unnatural it makes me sick.

If it's "accurate for the time period," then how could it possibly be construed as "chosen and unnecessary and unnatural?" You're contradicting yourself here, and your deeply negative attitude toward Christianity doesn't help your case.
And as far as you say ""unless one chooses to believe that God was in league with the Sorcerer..."" - I find this a remarkable statement from you.

You've misread me, probably because I neglected to clarify that in context I was referring specifically to the Christian concept of God, which in the film is explicitly portrayed in opposition to the dragon (and, by extension, to the sorcerers who created dragons). If there's any truth to the accusation that the film was "hijacked by Christians," then its overall end message should be a very clear valorization of Christianity, which the film does not present at all. Is Christianity on the rise in the film? Yes. Does it demonstrate any genuine power within the context of the story line? No, not really. Do explicitly Christian figures come across as strong and righteous and capable of changing people's lives for the better? No, not really. It's the sorcerer, Ulric, with the help of his apprentice, who saves the day. If Christians did indeed try to "hijack" this film, then the filmmakers and the original storytellers had the last laugh.
I forget where I read it but this script was hijacked by Christians in Hollywood.

I've searched online and can find no evidence to support this contention. A far more likely scenario is that the theme of Christianity supplanting the old pagan ways is integral to the film's entire pseudo-historical concept. Ulric and the dragon are both very old, among the last of their kind in a world that is changing and leaving them behind. On a site called "[email protected], a poster named Velox expresses this concept beautifully (and at some length!). I've pasted his argument here in blue:
This film, and its surprisingly well-done novelization, tell a coming-of-age story set against a background of great historical change; one of the reasons it works as well as it does is that the background is very well realized, and if one ignores the fantasy elements, surprisingly accurate historically.

Dragonslayer appears to be set in the late 5th century CE, in the period after the collapse of Roman authority in England. This was a period of vast and inexorable change - as the Romano-British system of government disintegrated, the Saxons - first brought in as mercenaries to fight the encroaching Picts and Irish - swept across the English countryside, before finally being turned back at the Battle of Mount Baden. At the same time, Christianity spread rapidly throughout the region, driven by a strengthening monastic movement. It was during this period that the legends of King Arthur appear to have been born ("Arthur" was probably a war leader instrumental in turning back the Saxon armies,) and that Romano-British civilization gave way to the new Christian, Anglo-Saxon order.

The authors of Dragonslayer appear to have done their homework; it's more obvious if you read the novellization, but it's there in the film as well. The characters have an interesting mix of old British names - Ulrich, Malkin, Greil - and "new" Christian/Roman names - Valerian, Simon, and the main character Galen. Smatterings of Latin show up throughout: all of Ulrich's and Galen's incantations, and Simon's magical lance - Sicarius Dragorum, which translates roughly to 'Dragonslayer,' of course. In the novelization, Simon recounts recalls seeing the fall of a Roman garrison during his youth; the last of the Roman soldiers stood amongst the ruins, howling a battle-cry as the locals closed in for the kill. Simon says that he decided to give the lance an "old" Latin name in honor of that lone legionary's bravery. This and other little flourishes do a good job of suggesting the fall of an older order and the transition to a new one.

The political trappings of the story are relatively authentic, too. As the central Roman government collapsed, local war chiefs rose and declared themselves king; numerous battles eventually consolidated rulership under a high king, but for a long time local lords were the sum total of government. Dragonslayer's authority figure is Casiodorus Rex; he's taken a Roman name and title (as the princes of Europe were wont to do - everyone wanted to assume the mantle of Roman rulership), but is obviously mainly a local authority with a band of lackeys to back him up. Who else would care about the fate of so small a town as Urland?

One of the strongest trends of the period was the swift ascendancy of Christianity, and the theme is very noticeable throughout Dragonslayer. An itinerant priest named Jacopus is in town at the beginning of the story; he's incinerated by the dragon Vermithrax (the name is Latin for "worm of Thrace,") but the townspeople continue to ponder the madman's words, and increasingly identify with the Christian faith. Simon gives Valerian a cross when he sends her away from Urland for safety, saying that "it can't hurt," and that the tides of history are clearly flowing in its favor. Indeed, by the end of the story, a new priest has arisen in the village and even Simon is baptised, stoically surrendering to the inevitable currents of change.

The story continually emphasizes the fact that Ulrich and Vermithrax are the last of their kind, and indeed they become symbols of the old world - in destroying one another, they bring the period to a close. In a particularly telling scene, the newly-minted Christian congregation and Casiodorus reach the dragon's corpse at the same time, and both claim credit for its destruction. In much the same way, church and state would vie for supremacy and control of the old Roman political order across Europe for centuries.

All in all, Dragonslayer does an excellent job of capturing and utilizing the darkness of an uncertain time. The fading Roman cultural influences, the obvious weakness of a feeble king who nevertheless holds the common folk under his power through force of arms, the continuous references to the crumbling and enfeebled ways of the past, and the mournful inevitability with which Simon treats the Christian fervor that subsumes the beloved traditions of the ancient world - all provide a very strong background to Galen's coming-of-age story. All of it, combined with some rather brilliant cinematography - brooding forests, ancient, decaying fortresses, and the humble hominess of Urland - produce a cohesive and compelling atmosphere. Dragonslayer is a tale about growing up while the world around you falls apart and changes forever; by building the story on truly solid fundamentals, its creators have imbued it with meaning beyond what one would expect, and produced a surprisingly moving whole. If you're into that kind of thing, I'd heartily recommend it; you won't be disappointed.

Dont' try to sell me a paper pushing work-a-day-Joe for a hero because I KNOW he could never have what it takes for a humane thought or a genuine heartbeat.

Now it's my turn to be surprised. Considering the very real heroism that is all too frequently found in the most unlikely people and places, your narrow definition of the term "hero" is disappointing. There is much, much more to the world than Dungeons and Dragons...

reply

...someone who would firstly look the part. This fay male Peter looks more like a provencial accountant than a mystic...what to speak of someone who ascending beyond the definiton of the warriors code of conduct to the place of mysticism

Look the part? Since when does a person's physical appearance (which is kind of, you know, dictated by their genes and not of their own choosing) have anything to do with whether they're fit to be a mystic...or an accountant, for that matter?

So I'm curious -- what exactly, in your opinion, would be an acceptable physical appearance for someone who "would understand such things?"


________________________________________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

reply

I think that he fit in really well as the character. The character was not this great and mighty sorcerer or warrior. The character was clumsy, bumbling, overconfident, and awkward. The real power he had at first was because of the amulet. Even with that power he was not sure how to use it. The character was able to overcome the obstacles not because of his great abilities but in spite of his abilities. I think what gave him the edge was his heart.

Who's to say that his mentor wouldn't of eventually trained him into the type of apprentice that you are looking for? If it was not for them having to take down the dragon so quickly, he may very well of been trained to be greater. To me I think that is how the character was supposed to look and act to fit the story.

A man can change his stars
Fear me, Love me, do as I say, and I'll be your slave.

reply

Three words: Young and cheap.

reply

ah

reply

Galen wasn't supposed to be a badass. He was supposed to be a sorcerer's apprentice and not a very good one. Knowing what you know now of MacNicols' career yeah, it does seem like a strange choice for leading man but back in 1981 that wasn't the case.

I thought he did fine as Galen. You actually kind of agree with Tyrion sort of. I mean, THIS putz is our best hope to slay Vermithrax? Better start rounding up virgins because the next lottery is going to be a doozy.

Peter sold the unlikely hero very very well. He was likable, charismatic, not annoying and sold everything he was given.

reply