Ages

[The Anti-Targ]

[quote name='Ran' post='1608340' date='Dec 4 2008, 14.46']Well, properly speaking, we don't know this is in fact the case. I'm not sure why you're assuming it is.

Secondly, they should [i]not[/i] be making it clear that Jon is older even if he in fact is, because this rather threatens to give up the whole game. Catelyn believes Jon was fathered [i]after[/i] Ned married her.

Make them 18-19 is actually making them 4-5 years older, not 2-3 years older, BTW. They are 14 when the series starts.[/quote]

Fair point. So I'll revise it to 16/17 at the start of the series for those 2. I don't know why I have the impression that Jon is older. The whole timing of Jon's conception vs. Robb's is not clearly laid out so I suppose I gained that impression from snippets here and there. As there is no clear declaration of Jon's age in relation to Robb's then how they present the characters on-screen will be interesting. Robb appearing to be slightly older, vs. Jon appearing to be slightly older, vs. no indication either way.

[Venardhi]

Indeed. Robb is stated to look older at least a couple times. He is also stated to have grown a beard in ASOS and has that rugged stocky 'Tully' look that would have made him look a bit older than his years.

[Maia]

[quote name='The Anti-Targ' post='1608331' date='Dec 3 2008, 21.35']About the only age specific reference is "you've had your first moonblood " (meaning 12 or 13 as opposed to 14 or 15).[/quote]

I'd like to point out that in the past girls often didn't have it until 15 or even 16 anyway, particularly in the northern latitudes. Lack of fruit and vitamins all year round and all that.

[The Anti-Targ]

[quote name='Maia' post='1608734' date='Dec 5 2008, 02.10']I'd like to point out that in the past girls often didn't have it until 15 or even 16 anyway, particularly in the northern latitudes. Lack of fruit and vitamins all year round and all that.[/quote]

The well-fed nobility would have had younger onset fertility than the malnourished peasantry. Same reason anorexic women stop having periods really. Genetics plays a role too.

[TabbyStardust]

Replying to this comment from the Lannister casting thread because that thread is for casting suggestions only. (Thought this thread would be more appropriate.)

[quote name='The Prince' post='1609759' date='Dec 5 2008, 04.05']Lots of great suggestions, but I must say that I am somewhat puzzled by all the old Jaimes we've been getting. I picture Jaime as being 30 but looking even younger. While I'm sure someone like Josh Holloway would do a good job, it would definitely be jarring for me to see him in the role.[/quote]

Actually, if they are making the child characters a bit older I think it makes sense to pick somewhat older actors for their parents as well. Plus I'm under the impression that in past centuries people would have looked older than they do nowadays, because of the harsher living conditions, nutrition, etc. although the effect would presumably be less noticeable in the nobility who are better off than the common folk.

I wouldn't mind at all if they picked actors in their forties for the thirty-something characters, but then I have always imagined them looking a bit older anyway. :D

[Northwest]

[quote name='The Anti-Targ' post='1608331' date='Dec 4 2008, 02.35']There is no physical, emotional or behavioural difference between an 18-year old and a 19-year old and I imagine specific ages might not even get a mention on-screen. The key thing for Robb vs Jon is for people to know that Jon is older, but close in age. Precisely how many months older is not important.

Robb being 18 and Jon being 19-ish IS 2-3 years aged up, so it is within the bounds indicated by D&D.



I've said it in relation to other teen/kid characters in ASOIAF: I pretty much picture them as about 2-3 years older than they are in the books, WHEN I'm reading the books. It isn't physical look and ability that's at issue it is emotional, wisdom and other character traits that speak to particularly Robb, Jon and Dany being significantly more mature than their stated ages in the books (and to a certain extent Bran).

Personally I don't buy

SPOILER: ASOS spoiler

Jon becoming Lord Commander at 16/17

in the book, and it would be less believable on TV.

Bumping the ages up a bit still makes some of the less mature thinking and behaviour believable, while improving the believability of the more mature behaviours and decisions.

To me a 14-year old Dany is not credible, a 16-year old Dany is barely credible. But 16 is about as far as you can stretch it and keep reasonable faith with the source material.

But like I said, I doubt specific age will be mentioned, just relative age. Robb is older than Sansa, but younger than Jon. It is youthfulness and level of maturity. After all unlike 90210 (which I am proud to say I never watched an entire show) you don't have references for precise age like "highschool freshman". You have vague age references like "I'm nearly a woman grown" or "you're a man grown now, you must act like one".

About the only age specific reference is "you've had your first moonblood " (meaning 12 or 13 as opposed to 14 or 15). But that can easily be manipulated to "it's been a X time since your first moonblood" if you want to age someone up a tad. And the social standard can be manipulated to the marriagable age being 1 or 2 years after first moonblood rather than first moonblood. (A bit like cattle farming, they don't get mated when they first come in to season (6 months old), as they will be too small when they get to calving and cause problems. Instead they are first mated at 12 months or so.)[/quote]

In AGOT Robb is 14 or 15...Jon a bit older...you cant make them be 18 and 19 because they will just be to old...the whole point of those two is that Robb is a YOUNG guy trying hard to rule and avenge his father while being in puberty and Jon has to fight with that whole bastard thing...if Robb is 18 than Joff has to be 17(or 16) and then he is to old...

So Robb should be 17
Jon should be 17

Sansa should be 13 or 14
Arya can then be 10 or 11(still couple years away from puberty)
Bran can be 9
Rickon can be 5

And I dont get why everybody is so concerned with the age question?
This is fantasy...in Martins world boys are cosidered men when they turn16...girls can be married and the marriage consumated as soon as they get "moonblood"...so Robb being older than 16 or 17 at the beginning of the series would just not be good plotwise...he is a young kid...

And dont forget...in Middle ages people dies a lot earlier...in their forties...so when you turned 16...you were already a young MAN...not a boy...and women were often married away at the age of 14 or 15...

[Ran]

Jon and Robb are both 14 at the start of AGoT. They are 15 by the end. It is believed in Winterfell that Robb is older than Jon, though this may not in fact be true, but in any case, there is no reason for them to be marked as being particularly different in age. :)

[Lady Blackfish]

[quote name='Northwest' post='1615048' date='Dec 10 2008, 15.24']...the whole point of those two is that Robb is a YOUNG guy trying hard to rule and avenge his father while being in puberty and Jon has to fight with that whole bastard thing[/quote]
Agreed, you should be able to see the clash between their age and their responsibilities.

[About Yea High]

I understand the age issue is going to be a factor, but I would always weigh in favor of a quality retelling than sticking to the letter, where ages are concerned.

In my view, I would see it as a positive if all the underage characters were aged two years, and then cast actors older than that - ones who looked and could act young. If you cast a nine-year old actress to play Arya, for instance, does anyone think she can channel the sort of rage needed to carry that character? That's not even the sort of mindset the actress can grow into; in the first season (book) she shows as much open anger as any of the subsequent ones... she just doesn't [i]kill[/i] anyone.

Actually, she kills a stable boy. But you get my point. As Alyn said of Arya in [i]A Game of Thrones[/i] following Ned's broken-leg encounter with Jaime,[i]"She is a fierce little thing, my lord. I have never seen such anger in a girl."[/i]

I think she'd need to be played by an eleven year-old actress, possibly twelve. I haven't seen any child actors under the age of eleven that can convey the emotion she'd need to convey. Hell, I haven't seen any pre-teen, to be truthful. This is a very specialized role.

But the younger they go with any of these beloved characters (Sansa counts!) the more room is left for them to err.

Casting is everything.

I'm also intensely curious how they're going to solve the Danaerys age / sex issue. HBO loves to push the envelope, but a 13-year old willingly going to her wedding bed (or wedding field, or whatever) is stretching the morality meter.

Would a 15-year old be better? More tolerable? I can't say.

Dakota Fanning filmed a rape scene as a pre-teen, but it could be argued all that does is highlight the tragedy of rape. Danaerys's [i]"Yes"[/i] to Drogo isn't rape, by any stretch.