The Sword and Laser discussion

I hope this is the right place to put this thread. When reading casting threads for books to movies, I am actually surprised at how many people argue against an actor because their eyes are blue instead of brown.

Am I the only person that couldn't tell you what 99% of the characters in any book I read look like? Granted I have the look of Rand Al'Thor because I was beaten about the head and shoulders thousands of times about his hair. I'm currently reading The Daylight War, but I couldn't tell you what color hair Leesha has, or anything about Rojer other than he has a small stature.

I think in today's age, the eye color can be easily changed for an actor/actress via colored contact lenses, and no one would ever know or be able to tell....so it does seem a bit silly to worry about their natural eye color.
Also, how often does eye color matter at all? Sometimes it's a crucial aspect of the plot...but very rarely does it matter.

No you aren't the only one. I keep a rough idea of character description while reading but only a rough outline. That is what makes books so awesome is that the reader gets to fill in as many details as he/she wants or needs to.

I'm the same way Brad. It seems silly to obsess over trivial physical traits, though maybe some people get a strong visual sense of a character in their head and it pulls them out of the story if an actor doesn't match that.
I remember an editorial Gary Gygax wrote in Dragon Magazine when the first Conan movie came out. He hated it partly because Schwartzenegger's hair was the wrong color.

Just look at how many threw a fit over Jennifer Lawrence getting the role of Katniss because Lawrence is a blonde and she was too curvy. It was as if they didn't think her hair could be dyed.

There was apparently a similar outcry over the TV show Vampire Diaries because book Elena is a blonde while TV Elena is a brunette.

Some people will complain about anything.

I have only one thing to mention " I am legend" ...

Rick wrote: "Some people will complain about anything."

I'm complaining about this thread about complaining about stuff! j/k

For me it's always more of how well the story is adapted and how well the character is acted vs. exact description. Within reason of course.

But there is a lot you can do with costuming and special effects.

Rik wrote: "Just look at how many threw a fit over Jennifer Lawrence getting the role of Katniss because Lawrence is a blonde and she was too curvy. It was as if they didn't think her hair could be dyed.

..."
I seriously think for most people, watching the casting will shows fans where the director plans on going with a film.

I never heard complaints about Jennifer Lawrences hair, but the curvy bit makes sense. Katniss and all the other (non primary district) kids were supposed to be starving. Hell its called the hunger games because the winning district gets extra rations for a year. The book makes a point of how much the kids tried to bulk up eating everything they could because most died in the games simply from starvation. Starvation is HUGE in these books, and well, by casting Jennifer (rather than some naturally crazy thin girl) it was saying to us that they were taking that element out. Not that I don't love her and think she played the role well, but she has an excellent well rounded body, and is way to down to earth do eat oatmeal paste in order to loose 10 pounds. I think it was just heartbreaking to the fans that such a huge element would be eliminated from the film

And, Meghan, had they featured an anorexic-looking actress they would have come under fire for that too, especially if they didn't have everyone look that thin. There's always going to be criticism - people see things differently.

But I think it's different to do what you've done and present a reasonable case in a reasonable tone and to do what some people do which is to freak out about height or eye color or something just because it doesn't match their internal image of the character.

There are going to be cases where certain physical attributes are important to a character. Superman is always going to be a big, tall, muscular guy because that is part of what makes the character. He is supposed to be kind of the physical ideal. A short fat guy isn't going to get the role.

For the most part other attributes like hair colour, eye colour, skin colour are things that can be changed and have little to no impact on the story.

Neil,

Sure, a short fat guy (or a tall skinny one) isn't going to get the part. But what about a shorter buff guy? The movies are illusion... someone can be made to look tall in relation to their surroundings even if they're 5'8". Is Superman taller than Lois? Sure.. but 5'8" is taller than 5'2" so...

Look at the Jack Reacher movie. In the books, Reacher is a tall, imposing dude. On screen, he's played by Tom Cruise who's certainly credible as an action hero but isn't close to the 6'10" of the book character. Sub in Bruce Willis or an in-his-prime Stallone... both shorter guys. The fact is that almost all of the bankable action stars are much shorter than 6'10". Similarly, do we want a really good actress playing Katniss... or a lesser actress who more closely fits the near-starving book version?

True. Attributes can be accentuated to make them more or less prominent to allow people to better fit the role they are playing. To make the actor playing the role look more like the character as written.

I was thinking more along the lines that there are only certain cases where the character as portrayed on screen (whether the actors natural look or the end result of make-up, costume, camera trickery or special effects) actually needs to match up to the character as it was written.

An intimidating antagonist could be written as being taller than the main character in the book as a way to show that they are imposing and have power. Just because an author chose to use physicality to indicate power in print doesn't mean that a director couldn't use a different approach and have an antagonist with an entirely different body type that is just as imposing due to their intimidating manner.

Sometimes physical attributes are important to the character and need to be portrayed as such for the character to be 'complete'. Sometimes physical attributes could be used indicate character traits that could be just as easily indicated in other ways.

Other times physical attributes could just be down to authors preferring blondes to brunettes and be changed without needing to unleash the wrath of the fans.

I tend to side with getting an actor who resembles the character as much as possible. That said, I think it matters more in some cases than others. Superman has to be tall, Spider-man has to be skinny, Powerman has to be big as well as black. But Hugh Jackman sold me on a movie star Wolverine, despite the fact in the comics the character is actually supposed to Danny DeVito's height.

As to picturing characters from novels, sometimes I have a clear image of them and sometimes not at all. I'm not even sure it comes down to the author's description in some cases. When I read Katherine Kurtz's Deryni books, I was constantly surprised when she kept referring to Alaric as blonde, because I kept picturing him as brunette. However, when reading Jack Chalker's Midnight at the Well of Souls, I pictured Nathan Brazil very much like Dustin Hoffman... and Chalker later mentioned the resemblance.

Rik wrote: "Just look at how many threw a fit over Jennifer Lawrence getting the role of Katniss because Lawrence is a blonde and she was too curvy. It was as if they didn't think her hair could be dyed."

I think the worst part of that adaptation were all the racists who came screaming out of the shadows about the casting of Rue. She's clearly described in the book as black and the actress was a close match, but for some reason these people freaked out. Even if they *had* changed her race from white to black, why would that matter? It was somehow even more disturbing that the character was actually black.

One movie that did a brilliant job in casting was Argo. At the end they show the real people next to the actors, and it's amazing how closely they matched. With the exception of Ben Affleck. It was some blatant showing off, but I didn't mind it since I like the behind-the-scenes stuff and the movie really was that good.

I usually can get around the issue of a character not looking like they were written, as long as they continue to act like the character. However, I did have a problem when the Dresden Files tv show (Jim Butcher) came out. In the books we are reminded at least once every book that Murphy is a short, petite blonde with curly hair and blue eyes. In the show she's a tall brunette. Somehow I couldn't get over this. Maybe because it was so emphasized in the books that I couldn't understand how they could get it wrong. But then they didn't stick to the books anyway. No wonder I couldn't watch it.

As long as there is no "racebending"(especially when they turn a "non-white" character to "white" to make it "more accesible to American viewers", then randomly cast an African-American actor for a non-black role to avoid claims of racism and balance things out in their twisted minds I guess) I don't mind physical changes to characters.

But when they turn a complex and well written three dimensional character into a cartoon villain or a comic relief character; I feel soo angry and betrayed.

What P.Jackson did to Gimli and Denethor is a major reason why I don't like LOTR movie adaptations.

Personally, I'd rather have an actor or actress that can properly portray the character than one who looks like the physical description. If a performance is good enough, we should be able to get over things such as hair colour, build etc. I tend to be apprehensive only until I have seen the person act the role, then I can judge if the casting was good or not.

Aeryn98 wrote: "I usually can get around the issue of a character not looking like they were written, as long as they continue to act like the character. However, I did have a problem when the Dresden Files tv show..."

And Dresden himself is something like 6'6". I get why they changed the Beetle to a Jeep, because it's easier to portray, but the characters become generic when you mess with them too much.

Rasnac wrote: "As long as there is no "racebending"(especially when they turn a "non-white" character to "white" to make it "more accesible to American viewers", then randomly cast an African-American actor for a non-black role to avoid claims of racism and balance things out in their twisted minds I guess) I don't mind physical changes to characters. "

That was one of the biggest issues with Starship Troopers. Verhoeven was so hell-bent on making his parallels with Nazis that he changed the race of the characters, turning Johnny Rico from Filipino to white and changing Dizzy Flores from an Hispanic guy to a white girl.

Ruth wrote: "Ruth (till-tab) | 492 comments Personally, I'd rather have an actor or actress that can properly portray the character than one who looks like the physical description. If a performance is good enough, we should be able to get over things such as hair colour, build etc. I tend to be apprehensive only until I have seen the person act the role, then I can judge if the casting was good or not. "

I agree, unless the change misses the point of the original (as with Starship Troopers). It's known as a "racelift" (a play on "facelift") to make something more palatable. But it often works the other way, once the actor becomes famous enough. Will Smith in i Am Legend, Morgan Freeman in Shawshank Redemption, etc.

Sometimes I think people build their own image of a Character in their head, regardless of how the Character is described in the book, and no actor will ever exactly match that image that has been created.

So people just complain because it doesn't fit their image.

Really late to this thread, but I remember reading that one of the reasons the actress who played Murphy on The Dresden Files got the role was that she was a fan who'd read all the books and knew the character well. Which can't be that common.

I think that in a lot of cases, though changing the characters eye color or height may not seem that big of a deal, it is also an indication of how the film/TV show is going to treat the source material. There have already been several examples in this thread of that happening (I Am Legend, Starship Troopers, LOTR). A perfect example is Peter Jackson's treatment of Tolkein's material. At first it was just a change here and there, then it was a little more, then a little more, until you have a 3 movie series about The Hobbit, which only marginally covers the material in the actual book.

I guess what I am saying is that it is a fine line once you start making compromises with the original authors decisions. If a character has blue eyes, that is a conscious choice the author made, just as real and important as that characters back story. When you change these things, you change the story. Trying to marginalize it by saying only small details were changed misses the point.