I blame the films ...

[blamebrampton]

SOME otherwise attractive, amusing and intelligent flistees of mine have been impugning the studliness of the lovely Arthur Weasley! And look, I get it, they're young. They have this thing in their heads that says 40+ is old and dull. I dare say that I thought that way, once. And the films do not help. Mark Williams is a fine character actor, but he is not the greatest looker in the world, and he does give the role a bit of a fuddy duddy edge.

But think about what we know of Arthur in the books: he has seven children, across ten-odd years, so clearly he goes like the clappers. His children are all attractive, with at least one, Bill, being wildly good looking. He's brave, having spent his twenties and then his forties battling the evil that is Voldemort even though he could easily have hidden behind his blood status. And he's romantic, falling in love with Molly and with Muggle tech, and with the idea of a better wizarding world.

When we meet him, he's 41, and at the close of canon, he's 48. I'm 43, and Mr Brammers is 41, George Clooney is 49. All eminently shaggable, let me tell you!

In conclusion, let me suggest that the films have given people a misleading mental image of Arthur Weasley, just as they have of thirtysomething Harry and Draco, and twentysomething James and Lily. Rather than thinking of the lovely but not so studly Mark Williams ...

think instead of 45-year-old David Wenham ...	or going-on-40-year-old Paul Bettany.

Admit it: you'd go there.

Comments

[cinnatart.livejournal.com]

I'd go there without a doubt - especially with Paul Bettany.

[nursedarry.livejournal.com]

LOL! David is my avatar for Charlie, since I was stamped as him over on HiH.

Great minds...

[scabbyfish.livejournal.com]

<3 Everything you said; Arthur deserves far more love!

[kerryblaze.livejournal.com]

I'll admit it.

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

HEE! Though Charlie is 20 years younger -- he'll grow up well!

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

That is because you have good taste! And Molly is a woman of standards, Arthur had to impress her something fierce!

[ant3ka.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes. I'd go there. David Wenham is now my canon!Arthur. \o/

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

Obviously no one could ever touch him because Molly would AK them, but we can all admire from a distance!

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

(It was the Bettany in a towel, wasn't it ;-)

And now I realise it is a pair of shorts. It's better as a towel ...

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

Hurrah! See, the minute you let book!verse over-rule film-verse, most things are prettier!

[potteresque_ire]

I think part of the trouble is that when the first film was cast called, it wasn't clear how old the prev-gen characters were yet. Snape was only in his 30s as well. I think the way they've cast that generation is to make everyone look around late 40s to 50s, which is on par with parents with teenage kids these days. While there are men who look mighty fine as they age, most men don't hold up as well when the late 40s strike.

Although, maybe they just have issues with matching age with looks. The epilogue thing is still making me *facepalm* not so much because their appearance isn't flattering but because they make them look so old...

[dysonrules.livejournal.com]

Paul Bettany UNF UNF UNF x ten billion.

I've always had a thing for younger guys, though. :D

But yeah, movie Arthur ruined Arthur Weasley for me, definitely. Although some artist recently drew a gorgeous porn pic of Arthur and Molly. It was lovely. Can't remember who it was now... *ponders*

[shocolate.livejournal.com]

Arthur Weasley is obviously sexy!!

ETA : I once had a review of a Harry/Ron that said : omg, are 40-year-old Harry and Ron going to have sex???

I rolled my eyes so hard they ached!

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

I think the casting for the film's older generation was just generally crazed. We knew, for example, that Lily and James were in their early 20s when they died, but the Mirror of Erised had them looking late 30s at best. Same with Snape, who should have been early 30s, but they went for the much older Alan Rickman. And look, I have friends who had a hard life, but seriously? Twenty years?

So it came as no surprise when they had everyone looking so horrid in the epilogue. Clearly the casting director is 14 and thinks everyone over 17 is gross!

[geoviki.livejournal.com]

Mmmm. I agree! And David kinda looks like my husband, and I'd tap that...

[marguerite-26.livejournal.com]

AHAHAH!!!

This post is made of WIN. But I'm afraid I just cannot see Arthur Weasley as hot, just as I cannot see Molly Weasley as hot and not because she is old but just... the movies and Harry's POV of them are totally, totally unsexy. I don't think I can ever get passed that.

HOWEVER, if either of those two lovely gents had been cast (and shown shirtless) in the movies, I would have possibly adopted a new OTP. :D

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

I admit that the lovely Bradley James, for example, should be admired at length. But this does not detract from the beauty that is Bettany! And Bettany has had over a decade more to practise in! Consider the lengths of experience Arthur Weasley could possess! (If you look at the Bettany pic for long enough, he will replace movie!Arthur in your mind FOREVER!)

[flamewarrior.livejournal.com]

Hur hur hur *leers*

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

That reviewer's mind could be broken if you wrote them going at it at 80. Go on, you know you want to!

[silvershinigami.livejournal.com]

I approve of this post. <3

[potteresque_ire]

The cast was set and the 1st movie began shooting before the 4th book was out, right? I think by that time they know Harry's birthdate (because Headless Nick's birthday party gave away the year) but I'm not sure they know about how old James and Lily were when they died.

Yeah, still... the film's casting director probably have premature aging issues himself and is trying to compensate! :D

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

So, you were keen on having a meet-up at some point, if I recall correctly. We should bring the lads ... Just to hang (ogle) ...

[flamewarrior.livejournal.com]

Amen to that.

[phoenixacid.livejournal.com]

I don't mind older men, but Williams is, like you've mentioned ... not very pretty to look at. :P

WHY DIDN'T THEY GET WENHAM OR BETTANY (did you see his body in the angel movie?) TO PLAY ARTHUR INSTEAD???!

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

Come on, Maggie, you got past the idea of Draco being pointy and appalling, because you were able to find the subtext ... it's the same here, save that Arthur is more canonically a stud!

And if they had cast Paul Bettany, I would like the movies SO much more ...