To hate when a television adaptation uses actors who look nothing like the description in the book

[Vintagejazz]

I was watching an Agatha Christie adaptation last night and two of the main characters looked absolutely nothing like the way they're described by AC. In fact one looked the exact opposite. I know casting directors have to take account of other things besides looks, but I find it irritating when there seems to be no resemblance between the book description and the actor chosen.

AIBU?

Yanbu. I'm thinking of the tv version of the girls series by Jacqueline Wilson. Ellie went from being fat to being very very slim (yet still moaned about being fat, confusing).

I can't bring myself to watch the film version of Janet Evanovich's One For The Money because I have such a clear idea in my head of what Ranger and Morelli should look like and I know that the casting bears no resemblance to it.

On the other side of the coin, Bernard Cornwell was so impressed with Sean Bean as Sharpe (who looked nothing like the description of him in the early books) that he tried not to mention Sharpe's height, hair colour, etc in the later novels - apparently after Bean had been cast and Cornwell had seen him in action, he heard his voice and saw his face in his head whenever he was writing the character.

It makes me cross, too, though there can be something oddly satisfying about a real pig's ear of an adaptation. I've yet to see a Jane Eyre with a properly plain Jane, even though it gets adapted every five minutes. Or even a properly small Jane -her tiny stature is important, fgs, so stop casting willowy actresses.

Something like AC that's going to be done and re done, YBU.

Something where the character has particular attributed that are necessary to the story YANBU.

Sean Bean looked nothing like Sharpe in the books (who had black hair) but it really didn't take me long to get over it.

Ooh, yes. Sean Bean as Sharpe is such a great example of Times When The Universe Gets It RIGHT.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm Sean Bean mmmmmmmmmmmmm

Not a TV adaptation, but Sirius Black from the Harry Potter films. He was meant to be sexy, and instead he was Gary Oldman.

But even if it's been adapted a couple of times, surely they can try and stick with the essence of how the character was meant to look.

In the adaptation I was watching last night - Hallowe'en Party' - the character Miranda was meant to have a fey beauty, which was quite important to the plot. However, they chose a sturdy ordinary looking school girl to play the part and it just didn't work.

Yy about Sirius Black.

Watched a bit of (Maeve Binchy's) Tara Road recently. Danny, one of the main characters was definitely not the image I had, of him, from the book.

Tom cruise as not jack reacher.
When you have a character that is constantly described as 'huge' do not cast a shortarse skinny bloke. No matter how good an actor he is...

Daubjackeen, I had the same problem with circle of friends.

Minnie Driver was the wrong Benny.

It always bothered me that Jane in the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice wasn't right. She was an attractive actress but the book constantly bangs on about Jane's breathtaking beauty.

LeBearPolar - I've seen the film and Morelli was spot on IMO. Ranger wasn't quite right, he didn't exude danger and charisma and he wasn't tall enough. Katherine Heigl was completely and totally WRONG. The screenplay was nothing to write home about either, it stuck faithfully to the story and the dialogue that was in the book but there was no pace to the film, it just plodded.

Game of Thrones has got it right. When I read the first book I was really impressed with how spot on the show is with its casting.

They cast someone as Jane who was beautiful by the standards of that time.

Not in the sleb-style-bikini-body-hotness that is considered "beauty" in our time.

Margot Verger in 'Hannibal' is just wrong!! Its the only big mistake they have made though. I understand its character adaption but she is described too accurately in the books to be getting her that wrong.

I remember as a child watching the television adaptation of Ballet Shoes and being incredibly disappointed when I saw the child playing Posy.

I always imagined ken stott as rebus when reading the books, john Hannah wasn't right so i was happy when he changed. Not sure he matched the original description but he is rebus.

Shetland - the books are forever saying Jimmy Perez looks Spanish, has olive skin and dark hair, people who meet him are always surprised to find he's a native Shetlander. Douglas Henshall looks absolutely nothing like that, he's very fair ginger.

BravePotato - I wasn't expecting someone with a boob job and hair extensions but in my view she was only a 6 out of 10 on the looks front. Lizzie, supposedly the plainer, was much better looking

The TV series of Game of Thrones got Ser Jorah horribly wrong, he's meant to be all hairy and not that good looking. He's not bad looking and definitely doesn't have "thick black hair" on his arms and back and head

I am a lazy reader who skips over the boring descriptions to get to the action. Doesn't bother me.

It depends whether it's important to the role, though, doesn't it?

Sean Bean was blonde and northern instead of a dark haired Londoner, but he captured the essence of Sharpe. Whereas I haven't read Jack Reacher, but casting Tom Cruise seems to go against a really important part of the character.

Agree about Jane in the BBC P&P - Rosamund Pike in the recent film was much more what I imagined for Jane.

Game of Thrones has amazed me with how right it has got the casting, pretty much everyone is spot on both in looks and in character. Twyin and Joffrey were particularly fantastic.

I was willing to give Eddie Redmayne a go in Birdsong because really, it's not that important that Stephen has black hair or a moustache, but... nah. He missed some essence of Stephen for me, something a bit more mature, more intelligent, and certainly something darker.

See. I don't think they did, BravePotato - Susannah Harker is lovely-looking, but I don't think she fits with Regency ideas of beauty at all. I think what looks 'wrong' in her case is that she doesn't particularly suit the elaborate Grecian hairstyles or the necklines and bodices of the dresses, and it does (for me) make her look plainer than Jennifer Ehle playing Lizzy.

It was the one thing that the Joe Wright film got right, I thought - casting very pretty Rosamund Pike as Jane to Kiera Knightly's skinny, dark Lizzie. (Though of course KK was wrong for all kinds of other reasons, not least the fact that she looks very 21st century, whatever period costume she's put in.)