Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Conor

The Best Casting and Worst Casting (in your opinion).

Recommended Posts

Seriously, no one who hasn't studied the books in depth would know or care. And even most of those people who have studied the books probably don't give a damn, either. I certainly don't. Racial purity is not something I particularly care about. I care about whether the actor can do a good job. And so far, I've seen no reason to complain.

I never said anything about "racial purity" but it's interesting you bring it up. Phenotypes are kinda important in the ASOIAF world as they are crucial, if Baratheons didn't all have black hair it wouldn't have been known that Joffrey was a bastard. The actors playing Targs have the blonde wigs to identify them as Targs.

The actors are essentially tools to tell a story and the better the more consistently that actors fits into the story the better the story is. Having a Latin-type look and different accent for the Dornish helps distinguish them from other Westerosi, which helps the story. If they looked just like the other Westerosi it'd be very difficult to know the Roynish were a different people on the continent. That's another reason why Ona Chapman's accent was bad for the part.

Anyway, it seems that "diversity" is only good when it means less white people, I bet if the Dothraki or Summer Islanders were all cast as blonde whites you'd complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was specified, people from Lys and Volantis look very Targ-like.

"Targ-like" would be incorrect if you are describing book contemporary Volantenes. Volantis is an 'ancient' colony of Valyria .

We have no information if Targaryens were involved in the colony.

Since it's a port city it would have evolved into a mixed blood culture.

No description in the books of what the high born Volantenes look like, even if they still have some Valyrian blood.

Remember the book contemporary Targaryens are no longer pure blood Valyrians , seems Daenerys and her brother picked up an expression of the Valyrian gene (even tho George has some strange biology on Planetos at times!).

I don't think we know how old Volantis is? If the Valyrians were around 5000 years it could be thousands of years old.

Immigration and refugees would through intermarriage create a whole variety of outward appearances even among he nobility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said anything about "racial purity" but it's interesting you bring it up. Phenotypes are kinda important in the ASOIAF world as they are crucial, if Baratheons didn't all have black hair it wouldn't have been known that Joffrey was a bastard. The actors playing Targs have the blonde wigs to identify them as Targs.

The actors are essentially tools to tell a story and the better the more consistently that actors fits into the story the better the story is. Having a Latin-type look and different accent for the Dornish helps distinguish them from other Westerosi, which helps the story. If they looked just like the other Westerosi it'd be very difficult to know the Roynish were a different people on the continent. That's another reason why Ona Chapman's accent was bad for the part.

Anyway, it seems that "diversity" is only good when it means less white people, I bet if the Dothraki or Summer Islanders were all cast as blonde whites you'd complain.

They really aren't important. This is an adaptation. You might as well complain that the main characters don't look the way they are described in the books.

When casting, unless there's a physical characteristic that is absolutely necessary to play the part (like Tyrion or Brienne), then you go for the 'best actor' rather than 'looks right'. I'm sure they could have cast all red heads with blue eyes for the part of the Starks, but that doesn't mean it would have been a good idea. Just like this- complaining about skin color because they are from make-believe countries that don't have black people is pretty silly. It's a make-believe world. It can be changed. It's not as if it's a historical drama where that sort of thing matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the gal who plays arya is a bad choice. She's acted well enough, but the look of her is just wrong. Arya horseface is supposed to be lean, and athletic looking. Instead, she's round-faced and squat and not believable as a "water dancer"



I don't like Dinklage as Tyrion either. Dicklage is the Brad Pitt of little people, far too handsome to play the mismatched-eyed grotesque that is Tyrion. Don't get me wrong, Peter Dinklage is the shit and station agent is my jam. But maybe some better special effects make-up would make my argument moot.



Michelle Fairley as Catelyn seems wrong as well



Best, Jaime, Eddard. Littlefinger, the Hound, and Bran; Hempstead-Wright was excellent in "the Awakening"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They really aren't important. This is an adaptation. You might as well complain that the main characters don't look the way they are described in the books.

When casting, unless there's a physical characteristic that is absolutely necessary to play the part (like Tyrion or Brienne), then you go for the 'best actor' rather than 'looks right'. I'm sure they could have cast all red heads with blue eyes for the part of the Starks, but that doesn't mean it would have been a good idea. Just like this- complaining about skin color because they are from make-believe countries that don't have black people is pretty silly. It's a make-believe world. It can be changed. It's not as if it's a historical drama where that sort of thing matters.

This is really true. It's even the case that they may have found actors who more resembled the characters on the page but they may have been bad actors.

We know in the case of Mance the actor they wanted was both the more the physical image (if not exact) and a good actor but he turned down the role.

George C. Scott did not resemble in any , more than superficial , George S. Patton but it's hard to imagine a better actor to play him.

People complaining about book and show physical appearance don't factor in acting skills.

Would they rather have someone who resembles the character and is a bad actor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really true. It's even the case that they may have found actors who more resembled the characters on the page but they may have been bad actors.

We know in the case of Mance the actor they wanted was both the more the physical image (if not exact) and a good actor but he turned down the role.

George C. Scott did not resemble in any , more than superficial , George S. Patton but it's hard to imagine a better actor to play him.

People complaining about book and show physical appearance don't factor in acting skills.

Would they rather have someone who resembles the character and is a bad actor?

In the case of Mance, I like how the show has changed him from the books. Hinds is absolutely amazing, and has made the most of a relatively small part. I hope we get more of him next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×