This is why we can't have nice names
I got my political views from reddit and that's bad
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: How to clean.
, started by SpellBlade on May 18th 2011 at 12:58:47 AM
Hate to be 'that guy' but I think this could do with a rename, because the title relies on a lot of misconceptions about casting: A) No such thing as a 'Casting Agency' or 'Casting Agent'. That's mixing up two things; a talent agency which will represent the actors and performers, and try to get them seen for roles. Then there's Casting Director - who are the people that bring the actors in to audition. Look any of them up on Twitter - most of them are very annoyed at this 'Casting Agent' myth. B) Casting is finalized by the directors and producers, not the casting director. Casting people can only bring actors into the room to audition, and give suggestions. They are an integral part of the process of course, but the directors and producers are the ones who have final say. So chances are if someone is miscast, it's the director's fault and not the casting director. And when it's stars who don't have to audition, casting directors rarely even have any involvement there.
Is it worth keeping this page if there aren't going to be examples? Is this a term that requires explanation to the point that it has its own entry? If it's just a starting point for reading about actual TV Tropes related to casting, maybe it should be an index or something.
Robot Husky
I do, and I came to this page specifically looking for examples. They're often the best part.
Someone, somewhere, might not agree with some of the examples. And That's Terrible, so nuke 'em all, I guess....
AgProv
BBC Radio Two had a really suspicious phase several years ago, when new hires as radio presenters did not come from the usual channels - ie, time-served in BBC local radio, from other BBC channels, or from non-BBC radio. People were brought in with no real experience as radio presenters, whose previous work might have been television or even print journalism, where their radio presence, to be kind, lacked charisma or authority and sometimes even lacked ability. The only common thread was that, without exception, they all came from the same talent and management agency in London, as if somebody at the BBC responsible for staff hires was deeply in bed with the Noel Gaye Management Agency. Some arrangement had clearly been arrived at. Surely this is the sort of thing this trope might highlight - shady doings between broadcaster and external agency?
Male, early sixties, Cranky old fart, at least two decades behind. So you have been warned. Functionally illiterate in several languages.
Could the name of this trope be adjusted to remove the punctuation, so we can have something more akin to the "Department of Redundancy Department"? Just think it sounds better to have weird casting choices 'brought to you courtesy of the What The Hell Casting Agency'.
The page is starting to get worse. First is was people adding people who can act in different situations than you saw them in a previous movie. Now it's people adding people who can act in an obnoxious entry where you question if Patrick Stewart can act.
Yes, Patrick Stewart would be a bad choice if Star Trek: The next generations was a remake, but it wasn't so how was a shakesperian actor a curious choice?
Hide / Show Replies
As this is a highly Subjective Trope there's little we can do about this save for an example/natter purge every so often, so that's exactly what I did. It's possible I went too far- if anyone sees any specific examples they think still work feel free to return them, just rewrite them a bit to make it more clear how they're universally WTH as opposed to "Hey Its That Guy who I recognize from a compeltely different role" or "actor took the job because he loves money".
See you in the discussion pages.
@Charred Knight: I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you weren't trying to be an arrogant Trope Nazi. Therefore, I'll calmy share my rationale for my edits.
First of all as Some Guy states, it IS a subjective trope, so I don't think you have the right to call my edits obnoxious.
Furthermore, the WTH reactions of my edits have been DOCUMENTED. Several Trek fans were up in arms that Patrick Stewart was going to play the Captain. It had NOTHING to do with his acting skills, it simply wasn't the kind of thing people were expecting in a series called Star Trek. And yes, there were some, including those at Paramount, who thought it was a bad decision. Was it logical? No, it wasn't, but then this is about logic-based reactions.
Also, since you bring it up, it is quite reasonable that people would say WTH simply because someone's acting roles to that point were completely against type. Like Mo'Nique who just won an Oscar for Precious.
Bottom line, I think you should take Some Guy's advice and let us all avoid an Edit War.
I have thought long and hard on how to say this because I don't want to be rude.
Your not really funny since your just repeating the same joke over and over again for hundreds of times on one page.
The problem is that their is no standards, even if you stick subjective on it than you still need the trope to actual mean something. Saying that people have doubts doesn't mean a thing because people always have doubts. The standard should simply be your watching something and the actors are so wrong for the part that you just say "What The Hell".
Also we have already have pages for things like Playing Against Type and Money, Dear Boy we don't need a page where we list examples in an attempt to be funny.
Edited by CharredKnight
Your logic is still flawed, but since you were kind enough to at least try to justify your point-of-view, I'll once again respond with mine.
Both the examples meet the criteria as per the trope description. It was NOT a case of them taking the roles for money, because to my knowledge I didn't think Haysbert, Sutherland, or Stewart needed the money. Nor was it about them playing against type, as all three actors have done very different roles prior to those shows (Haysbert was a southern slave and a baseball player, Sutherland was a vampire and a musketeer, and Stewart was a Roman soldier and one of the guys from Dune so....).
And you're contention that having doubts means nothing, well, I can only say that..if you think carefully about this,, EVERY example on a trope page called "W.T.H. casting agency" would involve people having doubts. Do you have issues with EVERY example on the page??
Also, you claim I'm repeating the same joke a "hundred" times (your words). Well, unless you're mixing up my edits, I've only added three examples. I notice that the last one I added about the reaction to Simon Pegg as Scotty doesn't seem to stir up your ire. Additionally, there are several other examples on the page that based on your own objections would be far more worthy of your....acute editing...than mine. For instance, where Hugh Laurie as House is concerned, it seems that a lot of the "WTH" is apocryphal at best; I myself have read several accounts that state that many people felt casting him as an irascible doctor was actually spot-on. Whereas, again, both of my examples are DOCUMENTED as creating "What the hell??" reactions.
Bottom line, I think you just don't like the comedic tone I used to add examples. Which is fine, not everybody has to get my jokes. But...my original statement stands. Your opinion of how funny or un-funny I am is just that, an opinion. I don't have to justify it or change it on account of you and I won't; I'm afraid you're just going to have to deal with it.
If your issue is legitimately with the validity of the examples as they relate to the trope description, then perhaps you want to change the trope description, otherwise I think you should leave my comments alone.
Please and thank you.
Edited by 24.190.176.237
I don't just have a problem with your edits (your simply following the leader), I have a problem with this page because theirs no real guide for what this trope actually is.
For example, your reaction to the casting of Southland Tales is going to be wildly different than your reaction to Sherlock Holmes, while Southland Tales is full of SNL cast playing serious roles, Sherlock Holmes stars Academy Award Nominated Robert Downey Jr. an actor who can basically play any type of role.
So why are they the same trope? How can you question Guy Ritchie?
Ah, now see, if your issue is with all the examples, then we can totally discuss that.
I think you need to realize that tropes do tend to overlap (Badass Crew/Ragtag Bunch of Misfits, Benevolent Boss/Reasonable Authority Figure, Chessmaster, Magnificent Bastard, Batman Gambit/etc.)
And the yes, someone can actually have the same reaction to different things for different reasons.
I had no "WTH?!" reaction to Downey in Holmes. But...it had nothing to do with questioning Guy Ritchie, who I think has made some questionable casting and script choices. I realize too that Downey can play a vast array of roles.
The fact is this trope can be invoked via different reasons for different people. Like Some Guy said, that's just the way it is.
Completely aside from that, if that was how you felt, then really you should've just said that and left out all the talk about me trying to be funny or not since it really isn't relevant to the discussion.
We are now directly questioning if people who won Academy Awards for Best Actor can in fact act.
Good God. Russel Crowe won best actor for Gladiator before he played Nash, who would question Crowe as Nash given his work in the previous year?
Per TRS
, WTH, Casting Agency? was renamed to Questionable Casting
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass. Hide / Show Replies