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?

I agree Thurlow, only in a lot of the GoT cases the outer appearance IS important (like I mentioned before, the Stark family - Arya having this special bond with Jon as they look alike); and I also feel that Tyrion looking so good/ nice has added to the character's misrepresentation (because really he's not 100% nice).

I love Charles Dance as Tywin though - even though he doesn't match the book description, he portrays the character perfectly, so I don't mind!

not even Olivier was right Olivier was awful as Heathcliff. On the other hand Vivien Leigh was perfect as Scarlett and Blanche although a terrible Anna.

I agree re Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch- couldn't be better.

Jack Reacher bothered me for ages, but actually who could you possibly cast instead? Cruise has a huge amount of presence (like him or not) and that kind of suits the Reacher story

Thurlow - would argue that HPs eye colour does matter, just because the phrase 'your mother's eyes' are uttered 8 bazillion times in the book, snape's whole character arc is based on his love for Lily, and the fact that Harry's eyes are the only thing that reminds him of her (as he otherwise looks so much like James) is what moves him to help Harry, he wants to look into 'her' eyes one final time as he dies, etc.

However most of the time I would agree with you.

The first time I saw Gregory Peck as Atticus I gasped because he is SO perfect!

Totally agree re the miscasting of Ginny Weasley.

As for Carey Mulligan as Bathsheba Everdene...wtaf????!!!!

I don't think either of the Rebuses have been remotely as I imagine him in books. Having said that, can't suggest any actor who would be, so not very helpful .

Re Henry VIII, will be interesting to see what the ginger (and IMO charismatic) Damian Lewis makes of him in forthcoming TV adaptation of Wolf Hall. I'm rather dreading Mark Rylance as Cromwell in that because can't imagine him as nearly as charismatic and intelligent as in books, whereas Ben Miles in the stage version was perfect, for me.

Oh and in the recentish BBC version of Sense and Sensibilty the men were really well cast - David Morrissey (almost too) gorgeous as Brandon, Dan Stevens (then unknown) as Ferrars a great improvement on Hugh Grant ( not hard) and Dominic Cooper's rather coarse looks good for the cad Willoughby.

I agree that we are still waiting for the definitive Rebus.

A little bit of TKAM trivia. Harper Lee was so impressed with Gregory Peck that she gave him her father's pocket watch that he had carried to court with him for 40 years. And one of Peck's grandson's is named Harper.

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned it but Rupert Campbell Black was a huge disappointment for me in the TV adaptation of Riders. They really need to remake that!

I watched a bit of Sleepyhead the other night, after deliberately steering clear last time.

None of the characters were anything like their descriptions in the book.

I hate adaptations at the best of times, huge swathes of a book missed out or salient points glossed over.

Whole cast of (film version of) Mamma Mia. 'nuff said.
(Theatre cast way better).

Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig were woefully miscast as Mrs Coulter and Lord Asriel in the film version of Northern Lights.

The actress who played Adora Belle in Going Postal was wrong. Right looks wise but Adora was sarcastic, funny and intelligent. She played her as angry, demanding and arrogant. Not good at all.

Moist on the other hand was perfectly cast (and v cute!)

The HP cast was always going to run the risk of missing at some point. They were cast at aged 10 ish. There was always going to be the odd one that didnt work out over the 10 year period. Bonnie doodah was great as Ginny in the first three films but didnt grow into the role. Emma Watson was out "looked" by the other girls in the first couple but soon blossomed away from the plain jane she had been before. Rupert Grint DIDNT do a Neville! He has stayed looking pretty much the same and didnt grow into the tall dashing hero he is supposed to end up being. Neville of course did do that, changing from the tubby kid to the handsome hero! The Weasley twins never stood a chance. Their lines were always so contrived and ridiculous, especially the way they worked lines between them, they were never going to come out of it well.

Hasn't been made yet, but I heard Angelina Jolie will supposedly play Kay Scarpetta from Patricia Cornwell's books. She's completely wrong for that role!

But Scarpetta is meant to be blonde and Germanic looking, isn't she? There's repeated references to her family being from Northern Italy/South Tirol and looking like Tiroleans. Also, not pouty and sexy.

I've never read or watched harry potter (i know I know!) but I'm intrigued as to why Ginny is not right can someone tell me
Thanks :)

EvilStepMam - do you mean Mark Billingham's Thorne books? If so I agree. I love me as much David Morrissey as any woman can handle, and he did do a good job and I enjoyed the show - but somehow it wasn't quite right for the books. Even ignoring the fact that Thorne's looks don't really matter.

I saw Dark Materials on stage and Timothy Dalton played Lord Asriel. Now that was good casting.

thurlow and evilstepmam what did you make of Aiden Gillen in it that did not seem right at all. I love aiden Gillen

All of the Miss Marples, apart from Joan Hickson, have been awful. Margaret Rutherford was the exact opposite of the character in the books; Geraldine McEwan came across as sly and knowing as opposed to wise and twinkly eyed; and Julia McKenzie is too young and active and just looks all wrong.

Wish Imo she was supposed to be far more ballsy and brave than she was played., but I think that was down to the screenwriting and directing.

In the first few books you dont get to know much about her because she is painfully shy around HP, and she was very confused and frightened in CoS, which was played well. But as she grew she was supposed to become ballsy, more outspoken and very popular with the boys. That didnt come across in the films, she was still quite wet, but thats because they left all of her key scenes out of the films. You dont see her squaring up to Ron after he catches her snogging her latest BF, you dont see her blossoming from the shy little girl into the confident teenager. You dont see her relationship with Harry develop, just a couple of snogs and then they are married!

I am not sure that any actress could have portrayed Ginny any better with the scenes Ginny was given and the way it was directed, which is a shame because his relationship with Ginny is one of Harrys driving forces, especially in the last book.

Aiden Gillen was just wrong in that role. Pretty much everyone was wrong. I did enjoy the show - I just felt I had to pretend it wasn't related to the books!

Another one here irritated by the Jimmy Perez casting in the Shetland series....the dark,Spanish-looking Jimmy is played by Douglas Henshall who is the complete opposite.