Flavour of the month...

[The Hound's Bastard]

... seems to be what everyone is casting from. I've never watched Rome through so i can't really speak for the actors, but it seems to me that everyone is picking the main roles for aGoT from Rome or other series that are pretty prevelant at the moment (i'm also guilty).

Does no-one else think that picking actors so fresh in the memory as another character would take away from who they're meant to be playing now?

[Valyrian-Steel]

[quote name='The Hound's Bastard' post='1592428' date='Nov 18 2008, 05.06']... seems to be what everyone is casting from. I've never watched Rome through so i can't really speak for the actors, but it seems to me that everyone is picking the main roles for aGoT from Rome or other series that are pretty prevelant at the moment (i'm also guilty).

Does no-one else think that picking actors so fresh in the memory as another character would take away from who they're meant to be playing now?[/quote]

Well there are a few issues.

1. Obviously, we think of people we've seen most recently, that is human.

2. By picking people working RIGHT NOW we can get ages right.

Too often people think "Well so and so was so good in this movie I liked in 1998" and forget that that was 10 years ago now more when you consider filming was likely done in 97 or 96, and filming for this likely wouldn't be until late 09.

But yes, you wouldn't want to pick someone who just got done doing a similar iconic role. Hiring someone who just got done doing a role is fine, Laura Roslyn from Battlestar Galactica is now a surgeon with aspergers on Grey's Anatomy. Kevin McKidd went from Vorenus on Rome, to some dude on NBC's Journeyman, to Doctor Trauma on Gray's Anatomy with barely a breather inbetween. They're all different roles, and that is fine.

What you wouldn't want to do is say start a new legal show and hire Sam Waterson as your attorney, same role, bad idea.