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?

Was that Susannah Harker and Jennifer Ehle? Susannah was pretty but not stunning, and Jennifer was also pretty rather than the ordinary looks Elizabeth was meant to have.

oh Ciotog, I find myself agreeing with you!

Yes to Pride and Prejudice adaptation - it was one of the things I actually enjoyed about the Kiera Knightley film version: their house was much less grand than the BBC version, and much more in keeping with their station, and the actress who played Jane (Rosamund Pike?) was much more conventionally beautiful than Kiera Knightley: you would totally see how if they grew up as sisters she really would have been the 'pretty' one.

The other Susannah Harker problem revolves around whether you can see her without hearing 'Daddy!' and inwardly shuddering.

My DH always got on his soap box to complain about casting Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry VIII in The Tudors TV series. "He's not fat and he's not ginger!" I could live with it though.

Agree that most of the casting in Game of Thrones has been spot on.

Anna Maxwell Martin in Death Comes to Pemberley is good casting for Elizabeth: attractive, but not beautiful.

Sorry you don't find Gary Oldman sexy as Sirius Black? :o

Chisel-jawed hunk Aaron Eckhart as Roland in AS Byatt's Possession. FFS, the character's nickname is "mole". In the book he looks like Rowan Atkinson or Tom Hollander.

Hang on, did someone imply that Gary Oldman isn't hot ? I loved him as Sirius, he is one of my fantasy husbands (in my version he is alive obviously)

Wrong face it was meant to look shocked!

I agree concerning the Tudors. I really like JRM, but he was all wrong for young Henry and very wrong for old Henry. The best Henry was Keith Michell in the 1970s Six Wives of Henry VIII. I think Kevin McKidd should have been cast as Henry in the Tudors.

Completely agree that Jane and Lizzie's looks were wrong in the BBC adaptation - characters spot on, but looks wrong - and that Anna Maxwell Martin was more on the nail.

AMM's Esther Summerson was a much stronger character than written, though. But Dickens' Esther is almost unbearably drippy (much though I like Bleak House ), so it seemed a reasonable accommodation for modern viewers.

I can't watch The Tudors at all as it's a period of history I have always been interested in and I have done a lot of reading about it. I can't tell who anyone is supposed to be cos they don't look like they should!

Henry VIII wasn't always fat, but he was always tall, athletic and fair/ginger. I would have cast Daniel Craig perhaps.

Catherine of Aragon was short, dumpy and also fair going on ginger. Anne Boleyn was tall and painfully thin, with a sallow complexion and very dark hair. Jane Seymour was mousy and plain. Catherine Howard was tiny and saucy - I always think Kylie Minogue could have played her! Anne of Cleves had a massive nose and a manly figure, no waist, hips or boobs to speak of. David Walliams in drag would have suited.... Catherine Parr was middle-aged and efficient when she married Henry, not another young beauty.

I could go on....

Gina McKee in ITV's Forsyte Saga - Irene was supposed to be stunningly beautiful with a perfect figure, golden hair and brown eyes 'said to be the mark of a weak character' so not an irrelevant attribute. Nyree Dawn Porter was probably as good as you could get for the part, but Gina is dark-haired with blue/grey eyes, and a rather angular figure, and she wasn't reserved and mysterious as Irene was supposed to be, just rather awkward. It was a pity, because otherwise the ITV version was pretty good.

It can also be frustrating when the locations/sets bear no resemblance to their descriptions in the books either.

Alpaca completely agree re Tom Cruise/Jack Reacher - the books make such a feature out of his size!

Another thing that peeves me is uneccesary changes to the storyline. In "Starter For Ten" the main character thinks his friend is after "the love interest" but it is more about his won insecurities and feelings on inadequacy whereas in the film the best friend does get it on with the girl - I HATED that change. Thought it really undermined the story. Sorry if that classes as a spoiler but it really annoyed me.

Actually, Catherine Parr was 31 when she married Henry, Joely Richardson was 45 when she played her....

Not sure if this counts but I thought the casting in the BBCs adaptation of The White Queen was rather good (apart from Edward IV who was nothing like I imagined him). Shame the book and tv series were both rubbish.

Agree with GoT. Excellent casting. As for Jane Eyre- the Jane in the Fassbender version was good, shame he was a poor Rochester. Although I thought Toby Stephenson in the tv version was fantastic- just like I'd always imagined him even though he probably wasn't ugly enough. I thought he got the spirit of the character just right.

Another Harry Potter one, they got Petunia totally wrong! OK so she was skinny and beaky but she should have been blonde. I had an image of her being one of those middle aged women who insist on getting their roots done every 2 weeks and spending every waking moment at the gym so she doesnt lose her figure. I dont feel she is right in the films.

And GO as Sirius, not sexy?! Exsqueeze me?!

YY to rusty I was incadescent about Gina McKee as Irene Forsyte.

It drives me crazy when the casting is so wrong.

I was happy with Gary Oldman as Sirius though as I do find him sexy

And whilst we are on Harry Potter. Hermione is supposed to have big buck teeth and be rather plain.

My alltime worst casting award though goes to Kristen Stewart as Bella. The whole farking point is supposed to be that Bella is a plain girl and so she is overwhelmed by the interest from gorgeous Edward.

The Tudors was so wide of the mark they might as well have given everyone scooters and ipads! You just have to turn off your history buff head and groove to the soap-tastic fun of it all ...

As for Sharpe I'm going to have to dig out the DVDs and do some cough research ( this may take some time ... )

My own couldn't-be-more-horribly-wrong-if-they-tried-for-a-hundred-years award goes to just about every single element of the film version of Eagle Of The Ninth.

Ah, I'll skip that, then, UsedtobFeckless. Couldn't stand to see that ruined.

I'd love to have seen a younger Anna Maxwell Martin play Jane Eyre, come to think of it. She is attractive, but not conventionally beautiful, and is, I think, a brilliant actress.

And definitely to whoever said they got annoyed by sets that bore no resemblance to the fictional setting they are supposed to be 'playing'. The Bennets' house Longbourn is almost always far too grand, though the rampaging pigs of the Joe Wright/KK version were a bit too much in the other direction. (And who cast Donald Sutherland's TEETH?)

Sirius should have been Richard Armitage ... Sigh ...

The worst Austen casting is Harriet Smith in every Emma adaptation ever. The whole point of HS is that she's incredibly pretty in an obvious, Barbie doll sort of way - that's why Emma deludes herself that Harriet can make a good match despite illegitimacy. But casting directors always go ordinary looking.

Elena in the vampire diaries. Nina dobrev is nothing like description in the books. Neithers bonnie for that matter. Suppose it doesn't really matter as they didn't stick to the book storyline at all.