AGES: regarding casting

[superkick]

I see alot of people casting people who are of age with people in the book, and I think that this jsut doesnt work well, just because someone such as ayra is regarded as being 12 or soemthign in the book, I would really not want to see a 12 year old actor playing them, or a 15 year old looking actor playing robb, and their are a number of reasons.

first of all this takes place in a medieval time setting, and with regards to comparisons of todays age a person who was 15 back then is more comparable to a 25 year old now. at 15 you were a full grown man, with responsibilites an older outlook and someone who was 15 back in the middle ages would not look anything like the 15 year olds of today, and the casting should reflect that it should be a bunch of little kids prancing asround acting like men.

you know a 30-40 year old in those times were ancient, so if Eddard has a little grey along the edges, it works just fine.

While casting somone who looks like a young girl or boy jsut isnt going to work to portray the true feelings of this series, Ive always seen the characters with a much older vibe than the ages they are given and would feel much more comfortable if somone such as robb is cast by a 20 soemthign actor than a younger teenager as alot of the casting ideas that are floating around.

just my two cents.

[Stark Raving Mad Wolf]

Yes definitely. Its always hard for me to read the books with the suggested ages. I always picture the characters a few years older than they actually are.

Hollywood tends to cast older actors to play teens, so I suspect all the children will be played by actors atleast 3 or 4 years older than the character ages in the books (bar Rickon perhaps).

[redevil]

is this is called [url="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DawsonCasting"]Dawson Casting[/url]. a bit of make up can take years of a person, and give a few years too

[Dolorous Neil]

Although I agree that the producers don't have to cast strictly on age, I think there is a lot of value of doing so. If Rob is played by a fifteen year old (or at least someone who looks to be fifteen) the audience has a better sense of how much responsibility he was given at a very young age - or how much horror Arya sees at an extremely young age.

I disagree that a fifteen your old in medievil times is comporable to a twenty-five year old now. They may have the responsibilites of a twenty-five year old, but they still only have the life experience of a fifteen year old.

I doubt HBO would cast true to book ages, but I think it would make the effect on the viewer more powerful.

[Ser Greguh]

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the primary child protagonists aged a few years for the series, allowing for a slight fudging of the chronology in squeezing a couple of extra years having passed since Robert's Rebellion. Much of that decision may hinge on just how explicitly they detail Dany's marriage to Khal Drogo.

[Commodore]

for someone like Dany or Sansa, an 18 year old will do ala the Dawson Casting mentioned earlier, but a preteen like Arya can't be faked like that

[Baleraxar]

Going in the other direction, I keep seeing forty to fifty year old actors proposed for people like Littlefinger and the Hound. Let's keep in mind that these guys are supposed to be in their twenties. Hell, as much as everyone loves him, Peter Dinklage is awfully old to be Tyrion. He's older than most of the suggestions people give for Jaime and Cersei, and that just doesn't seem right.

[Lady Blackfish]

[quote name='Dolorous Neil' post='1589190' date='Nov 14 2008, 12.47']Although I agree that the producers don't have to cast strictly on age, I think there is a lot of value of doing so <snip>[/quote]
I'm with this. I used to be the other way, but I think now it would lose a lot if you erased the younger ages, it makes the society feel different from ours on that level. If they have to, they have to, but I'd prefer not.

[Dornish]

[quote name='Baleraxar' post='1589619' date='Nov 14 2008, 18.28']Going in the other direction, I keep seeing forty to fifty year old actors proposed for people like Littlefinger and the Hound. Let's keep in mind that these guys are supposed to be in their twenties. Hell, as much as everyone loves him, Peter Dinklage is awfully old to be Tyrion. He's older than most of the suggestions people give for Jaime and Cersei, and that just doesn't seem right.[/quote]For Tyrion age matters little, he's so screwy looking he's going to need makeup no matter who plays him. Actually, its one of the reasons I like Dinklage, his face is more asymmetrical than most of the other actors proposed.

[Faqa]

Frankly, I'm pretty sure aging up the characters is inevitable. Simply because it would be a COMPLETE pain in the ass to cast Dany and Sansa in their book ages, given legal issues and everything. And to no real purpose, since you can get the issues of the characters across using 16-year-old characters played by over-18's, thus eliminating the matter(hell, Sansa actually works BETTER as a "sweet sixteen" spoiled brat).

Bran would be a problem in this format, though, since I just don't think he'd work very well as a teenager himself. If there was a good actor for the role, Orson Scott Card would have snapped him up for an Ender's Game movie long since... :P

[Ormond]

[quote name='superkick' post='1588958' date='Nov 14 2008, 09.01']I see alot of people casting people who are of age with people in the book, and I think that this jsut doesnt work well, just because someone such as ayra is regarded as being 12 or soemthign in the book, I would really not want to see a 12 year old actor playing them, or a 15 year old looking actor playing robb, and their are a number of reasons.

first of all this takes place in a medieval time setting, and with regards to comparisons of todays age a person who was 15 back then is more comparable to a 25 year old now. at 15 you were a full grown man, with responsibilites an older outlook and someone who was 15 back in the middle ages would not look anything like the 15 year olds of today, and the casting should reflect that it should be a bunch of little kids prancing asround acting like men.

you know a 30-40 year old in those times were ancient, so if Eddard has a little grey along the edges, it works just fine.[/quote]

I think you have an incorrect idea of what it means when people say that a person 15 was "comparable" to a 25 year old today, or that a 40 year old was "ancient" in medieval times. This has to do with average lifespan and with social responsibilities. It does NOT have to do with puberty or physical aging.

Puberty happened much LATER on the average in medieval Europe than it does today. Actually a 15 year old in medieval times would probably have looked [i]younger[/i] to most of of us moderns than the typical 15 year old of today does.

And the fact that nutrition was poor and people frequently died from diseases and injuries that would not be life-threatening today doesn't mean that 40 year olds, especially those from the upper classes, would look at lot older than today's 40 year olds. The fact that many of them would have had bad or missing teeth would make them look older to us, but I don't think they would have had more gray hair or many more wrinkles than the average 40 year old does today. (Of course, remember that so many 40 year olds color their hair in modern times that we probably don't realize just how gray at lot of 40 year olds always have been. :) )

[Venardhi]

[u][b]There will be some spoilers in my response, fair warning is given.[/b][/u]

[quote name='Ormond' post='1590192' date='Nov 15 2008, 11.43']I think you have an incorrect idea of what it means when people say that a person 15 was "comparable" to a 25 year old today, or that a 40 year old was "ancient" in medieval times. This has to do with average lifespan and with social responsibilities. It does NOT have to do with puberty or physical aging.

Puberty happened much LATER on the average in medieval Europe than it does today. Actually a 15 year old in medieval times would probably have looked [i]younger[/i] to most of of us moderns than the typical 15 year old of today does.

And the fact that nutrition was poor and people frequently died from diseases and injuries that would not be life-threatening today doesn't mean that 40 year olds, especially those from the upper classes, would look at lot older than today's 40 year olds. The fact that many of them would have had bad or missing teeth would make them look older to us, but I don't think they would have had more gray hair or many more wrinkles than the average 40 year old does today. (Of course, remember that so many 40 year olds color their hair in modern times that we probably don't realize just how gray at lot of 40 year olds always have been. :) )[/quote]
Indeed. It is one thing to say that 40s now is the equivalent to 30s then, it is another to say that 25 now is the equivalent to 15.

We may not get a cast of 20 and 30-somethings for the majority of the adult cast, mostly because they'll probably age up Joffrey, Robb, Jon and some of the other kids a bit to avoid casting anyone too young who might change a lot in puberty. Arya and Bran and the like are harder to avoid with that but the point still stands.

Most of the adults are in their 20s and 30s in the books, and 25 was still pretty much 25 back then, they had kids sooner and might have a few more wrinkles, but they wouldn't look even near middle-aged. Look at the people in their mid twenties to mid thirties around you and take away the makeup and the skin care and the hair dye and everything else we do to look younger and while they may look older, they'll look older in a different way than 10 years actually adds. It is more important to avoid casting pretty hollywood people for most of the roles than it is to cast people who are dark-age equivalent ages. Look at someone like Seth Rogan ('Knocked Up', 'Zack and Miri') for someone who in their mid-twenties looks much older than we expect someone in their 20s to look, but at the same time doesn't look older, just not 'hollywood young'.

I would lean much more towards casting people perhaps just a few years older than the book ages and let them get by with minimal makeup and hair to give them the illusion of hard-lived lives rather than casting older Hollywood types who will just look like well-kept older people kept young by all the tricks of the trade.

Some characters really NEED that age stated in the books though for the simple fact that it effects their characters in important ways. No one is going to buy a 20-something Jon as the naive would-be-hero, and making Dany or Sansa 19 kind of ruins the point of their being married off when they're still just girls who don't yet understand what life is really like. You can't have a 20 yar old Dany crying about wanting to go home to the house with the red door, cause that just makes her seem like a bratty woman-child. Besides, she has to be younger than most of the older kids to fit her birth in the right time period.

On the whole messing with ages (other than an expected, and perhaps even necessary, 2-ish year shift up for most of the kids and 'young adults') for anyone who isn't over 40 is excessive meddling that at worst might even screw up chronology of the back-story.

Ned isn't 50, get over it.

[Jon Targaryen]

Spoilers

Going into specific ages of the children with regard to timelines,

Dany, if she marries and has sex with a 30-year old Khal Drogo, will probably be moved up to age of majority-within books 16 or maybe our age of majority 18. She ain't gonna be 13, as long as they keep the marriage and sex which I don't see how they can cut.

Since Dany was born nine months after the Sack of KL, that moves the war back to 17 or 19 years ago instead of 14 years ago. Jon, who must be born at the end of the war is 17 or 19. I agree that Robb being young plays an important part in his story. He could be born after the war but his being a bit older than Jon is also part of the story. I think 17 or 19 is still young enough to be called "Young Wolf" and the viewer will see him as young for his responsibilities as well.

Alternatively, Dany could be older than Jon and Robb. She is born before the war and is a toddler when the Sack happens. However, part of her story is being "Stormborn" on Dragonstone in exile and never having lived in Westeros proper.

Under the scenario that the war is pushed back 17 or 19 years, then Joffrey must still be born after it, obviously. He should also be born a few years not "some" years into Robert's reign though I guess that is optional. So I guess he would be a little older though he should still be young, a child when king. So I'm thinking 14, maybe 15. That moves Sansa up a year or two as she should be near in age to Joffrey.

Arya must remain young due to all the horrors she goes through. Part of the impact of her story is how young she is when she goes through all that stuff. That is a pain since an actor that young may not be able to pull off some of her scenes. But Arya has less "acting" scenes than Bran, imo. A lot of her story is calling stuff "stupid", action and normal kid behavior. The major "acting" scene I can see with her is "I am a wolf, and done with wooden teeth."

Bran needs a good actor. The holding hands with Robb scene ("An adventure" he repeated wistfully), "Take me to the crow" and Bran's general perceptiveness and intelligence demand a good actor. I could see moving his age beyond Arya making him the third child of Catelyn.

I don't know about Rickon.

[kunamasnow]

I think it could be a real problem with the younger kids, especially Arya and Bran. No one will mind it the teenagers get moved up a little in age but everyone does seem to mind with Arya and Bran. This is a problem because it is extremely hard to find even passable child actors, whenever there is a good one they are used over and over again in feature films, and even if the producers do manage to find two actors that can be made to look right and are any good at acting they then have to grow and develope with the series. Depending on how long it goes for and assuming there are no major time jumps later on, they are stuck with those same child actors.

[Aoede]

But if they don't show the sex, Dany's age shouldn't be a problem - I mean, the Zefferelli (sp?) film of Romeo and Juliet had all the characters at the specified ages, which meant Juliet wasn't even fourteen yet. CG magic means that in the dragon scene, we only need to see enough to [i]know[/i] that she's not wearing clothes; details are not plot-relevant. (And neither, frankly, is the sex - except maybe as a bit of chardev for Drogo.)

[Valyrian-Steel]

You seem to have a little confusion about the type of material HBO produces.

In Rome they had a 14 year old (roughly) Octavian having sex with his 16ish sister and peeping on his mom in the bath. They also played up orgies and pedophilia. When Atia suspected Octavian had seduced his uncle caesar, she was proud of him.

Now, for legal reasons you can't have an actual 13 year old playing Dany. But you can have an 18 year old that looks young play a 13 or 14 year old character. People aren't as shocked by that as you may think, last I knew most highschools watched Romeo and Juliet and that involves 14 year olds having sex, the old version with Olivia whatshername as Juliet has her topless in fact, and she was only 15 at the time of filming.

The point being, offending people with the concept of a 13 year old marrying a 30 year old I'm sure isn't going to be a concern for them. They won't hire an actual 13 year old, but I doubt they'll change the story much.

[quote name='Jon Targaryen' post='1590697' date='Nov 16 2008, 11.18']Spoilers

Going into specific ages of the children with regard to timelines,

Dany, if she marries and has sex with a 30-year old Khal Drogo, will probably be moved up to age of majority-within books 16 or maybe our age of majority 18. She ain't gonna be 13, as long as they keep the marriage and sex which I don't see how they can cut.

Since Dany was born nine months after the Sack of KL, that moves the war back to 17 or 19 years ago instead of 14 years ago. Jon, who must be born at the end of the war is 17 or 19. I agree that Robb being young plays an important part in his story. He could be born after the war but his being a bit older than Jon is also part of the story. I think 17 or 19 is still young enough to be called "Young Wolf" and the viewer will see him as young for his responsibilities as well.

Alternatively, Dany could be older than Jon and Robb. She is born before the war and is a toddler when the Sack happens. However, part of her story is being "Stormborn" on Dragonstone in exile and never having lived in Westeros proper.

Under the scenario that the war is pushed back 17 or 19 years, then Joffrey must still be born after it, obviously. He should also be born a few years not "some" years into Robert's reign though I guess that is optional. So I guess he would be a little older though he should still be young, a child when king. So I'm thinking 14, maybe 15. That moves Sansa up a year or two as she should be near in age to Joffrey.

Arya must remain young due to all the horrors she goes through. Part of the impact of her story is how young she is when she goes through all that stuff. That is a pain since an actor that young may not be able to pull off some of her scenes. But Arya has less "acting" scenes than Bran, imo. A lot of her story is calling stuff "stupid", action and normal kid behavior. The major "acting" scene I can see with her is "I am a wolf, and done with wooden teeth."

Bran needs a good actor. The holding hands with Robb scene ("An adventure" he repeated wistfully), "Take me to the crow" and Bran's general perceptiveness and intelligence demand a good actor. I could see moving his age beyond Arya making him the third child of Catelyn.

I don't know about Rickon.[/quote]