screams in the void said:
for me it’s not so much an interest in seeing a famous actor playing the part , it’s more about Brosnan’s aristocratic voice and demeanor . Coincidentally , the fact that he pays an Art thief in The Thomas Crown Affair , helps too , as Thrawn has a penchant for art. And , I think Mikkelsen probably will play him in live action , and the glowing red eyes and blue skin were enough to emphasize that he was an alien to me . Although , I always pictured him without pupils , as depicted in the Heir To The Empire comics adaptation . If Mikkelsen does play him , and they have to go with the arches , I hope they do make them a lot more subtle.
Right, I see what you mean. First character that pops into my mind when I hear Brosnan is Bond, but he obviously has more range than that. I still don’t see him doing such a menacing character though, at least not to the extent required for Thrawn. Either way I’d think an actor known for villains or anti-heroes is the best choice. When I first read the Thrawn trilogy (a couple of years before Mikkelsen did the animated version Rebels) I imagined someone like Benedict Cumberbatch. In hindsight not necessarily who I’d considered ideal for the role, but at the time it made a lot of sense as his version of Sherlock is both intellectual and sophisticated while also a little bit unhinged at the same time.
A side note to Thrawn being “aristocratic”: one thing that I love about Mikkelsen’s Thrawn voice is his subtle, but still noticeable Danish accent hiding underneath British accent we associate with the Imperials. Since Thrawn is an outsider, and the only non-human Imperial, it makes so much sense for him to not have a perfect British accent. His sophistication also has more to do with intellect and discipline, as opposed to the simple snobbishness of most high ranking Imperials. And you get a sense of all of this not just through Mikkelsen’s performance but also through Filoni simply casting a Danish actor.
I’m still 50/50 on the eyes though. On the one hand I love the simplicity of the empty red-glowing eyes, but at the same time I can understand why filmmakers wouldn’t want to remove the pupils of such an important character. I’d probably make the same decision myself as eyes are really important in live-action. It’s the kind of thing that sound great on paper, would have been creepy in real-life, but I don’t think it would translate too well to film/TV.