Meta Casting - Serious discussion

they weren't together when this was filmed tho

>>85950041
Bullshit, it aired in 2001 and they were married from 2000-2005. Even if I was wrong, I want a discussion on the notion of meta casting, not nitpicking over the examples employed to flesh out the point I was making.

>>85949973
interesting premise, but I would try to find a different adjective other than "good" - it's too pedantic and implies subjectivity in an area in which you are trying to categorize instances.

Honestly instances of "meta casting" make me feel more like I'm watching a theatre performance (in person), where part of me is fully aware I am watching actors act. I am privy to the information that those actors exist outside of their roles.

I think you may find an intersection with type-casting in your investigations, as some actors perpetually play, and are expected to perpetually play, the same archetypal characters.

I don't know, maybe I am missing your point though.

In interview with the Vampire Brad Pitt felt intimidated by Cruise and they only got along begrudgingly, not unlike their portrayed characters. I think the film was all the more better for it Is this what you mean by meta casting? Like planning out actors chemistry behind the scenes? If so, that's pretty interesting.

>>85949973
Brad was too good for Jennifer. /thread

>>85950524
> interesting premise, but I would try to find a different adjective other than "good" - it's too pedantic and implies subjectivity in an area in which you are trying to categorize instances.

Totally agree, and that's why I acknowledged that I used that term to be "at most basic". The difference I am trying to make is sort of "cheap" meta casting (it's to get cheap laughs) as opposed to a really solid use of it which has some subtlety to it but still the audience likes it (use Pulp Fiction as an example). I am just trying to get a discussion going.

> I think you may find an intersection with type-casting in your investigations, as some actors perpetually play, and are expected to perpetually play, the same archetypal characters.

Totally agree, and this is why I posted it. Trying to get some serious tvphiles and cinephiles to weigh in because I want to flesh this out. Like, I think "Dude, Where's My Car" IS meta because that audience was American Pie and That 70s Show Fans. Let's compare that with The Rock. Is his body of work "The Rock" doing shit? Or, just type casting? I think the Rock is a real grey area example. Contrast that with someone like Sasha Baron Cohen in Talladega Nights. I don't think that was meta casting, but good casting because I don't think the fact that he was Borat added to the audience's "like-level" of that role.

Anyways, you can tell I'm just sort of spitballing here and thanks for the sincere response. I'm really intrigued by this notion, so I appreciate it.

>>85950884
Cool (looking for serious responses so thank you). Trying to flesh this out because I think there are intersects with typecasting (as another anon pointed out) and chemistry (you pointed out). Let me give you a great example of chemistry - Aaron Paul and Bryan Cranston. The chemistry was so powerful it literally changed the storyline (Pinkman was supposed to die in Season 1).

However, meta is inherently about the audience. I don't think "chemistry" is meta. Just good casting.

>>85950524
To add on this by the way, I am not trained in it but I like literature alot. I think meta casting is merely a form of an "aside". So I think it is a worthwhile concept to think of.

File: James Rolfe.jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>85950206
I like this guy

All casting can be subsumed under meta casting

"Instances of casting I like" isnt what you are saying its what you mean


what the fuck are you talking about exactly

>>85949973
Keaton in Birdman, I guess. potentially great thread tbqh

>>85949973
I don't think Travolta is a good example of meta casting tbqh. One good example would be Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in Airplane!

I liked the idea of Hugh Jackman as Vegeta.

The original ghostbusters appearances in the new ghostbusters

good theory but horrible in practice

>>85951607
I disagree, and it was because of a conversation with an older dude who acknowledged that Travolta in that role was part of why he loved Pulp Fiction. TO summarize John Travolta was THE guy when he was young because Grease was so damn popular when he was in high school that Travolta would always be Danny Zuko. Travoltahad sort of fallen off the radar by the time Pulp Fiction came out, and for many people the meta aspect of it being older Danny Zuco was a great thing.

>>85951558
> "Instances of casting I like" isnt what you are saying its what you mean

This is not even close to what I have been saying. You're either retarded or didn't read.

Meta anything (including casting) is essentially a form of an "aside". The audience knows something the actors/characters themselves do not know, which adds to the experience of the audience.

File: REEEEEE.gif (930KB, 220x165px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 220x165px

>>85949973
>It's an intriguing concept and I'm trying to flesh out my ideas here.
>>85950206
>Bullshit, it aired in 2001 and they were married from 2000-2005. Even if I was wrong, I want a discussion on the notion of meta casting, not nitpicking over the examples employed to flesh out the point I was making.
How long have you been insane/autistic?

>>85951902
WTF. Here's my aside to you - no faggots allowed.

>>85951577
>>85951686

Nice dubs and pali, and both of these are good examples of what I'm talking about

File: 138.png (368KB, 506x357px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 506x357px

>>85949973
Neat idea for a thread OP. Let me think a but about it.

hmmm

I can't think of any now, except for the Simpson's 138th Episode Spectactular when Sam Simon and Matt Groening and James L Brooks made cameos.

Also Stan Lee in the Marvel movies is kinda fun..."watch for Stan!"

>>85951394
>Let me give you a great example of chemistry - Aaron Paul and Bryan Cranston
>>>/r/television

>>85951686
Also, I'm not saying meta casting is inherently a good thing. Look at Ed Shearan asa soldier /singer in GOTs. That was meta casting, but it was lame as shit and didn't fit with the atmosphere of the series

>>85952182
WTF are you talking about?

>>85949973
Ben Stiller played Jerry Stiller's dad during a childhood flashback in an episode of King of Queens.

How do you feel about the cameos in Extras - Hale and Pace, George Michael, especially Les Dennis, all had story lines that reflected what they were going through in real life

In the Episode of Queen Of Kings when Carrie discovers Doug has been having sex fantasties "The Asian nail salon girl and the Spanish doctor that they fantasize about actually happen to be Doug and carries spouses in real life"

>>85949973
There was recently a news (perhaps rumor, I don't know) article in which Sophie Turner (Sansa Stark) claimed she beat out a superior actress for a role simply because she had more social media followers.

This seems like meta casting at a level where industry professionals are no longer trying to assemble a cast with the best chemistry and performing ability, but rather who they think (/public reaction surveys show) the public would most enjoy seeing.

In that case, we (as a general populous) would yearn to see what is popular regardless of talent, merit, or perhaps even chemistry.

>>85952154
>>85952309

And this another grey area - when are cameos just cameos and when are they meta? Like I think the Simpsons examples given are just cameos. Hypothetically, let's say comic book guy had a boss who was an old ass man who dreamed of starting his own comic book franchise and everyone in Springfield made fun of him for daring to dream. Then, that character was voiced by Stan Lee. That would likely work as a meta

>>85951902
>>85950041
Why do we tolerate this?

>>85949973
I don't quite understand what meta casting is? Is JCVD playing a martial artist an example of meta casting because he is a martial artist in real life?

What I'm getting from the OP:
>cheap meta casting is just actors playing the same roles but in different movies
I still don't understand what you mean by good meta casting though.

>>85951902
Why is OP so obsessed with flesh?

>>85952579
This is why I'm posting because I want to flesh it out. I totally agree there is a difference between meta casting and simple type casting.

I think I've given a ton of examples, but I'll do another hypothetical. Film involving nerd who is bullied all the time. His father is JCVD and tells him fighting isn't the answer and asks as a massive cuck. This would be funny to the audience, given we know about JCVD's film history. Know what I mean?

>>85951879

kind of like dramatic irony but with the casting?

I feel like there'd be good examples of this with something like The Expendables (lots of in jokes and nods to the lead actors' careers as action movie stars dating back to the 80s), but I haven't seen that movie in ages.

I think maybe a good example would be a lot of what Jackie Chan's been doing since he became an action star with a very specific physical persona that carries across his films, both Hong Kong and Western, despite the fact his characters are always different. He knows the audience know him for being the 'ladder factory' guy, because its the style that he likes to do fight scenes, so when he started making action comedies in the US like Shanghai Noon or The Tuxedo or whatever he played into that and referenced it. Like when he says 'i don wan no trabble' in Rush Hour.

A really good example is Keith Richards as Jack Sparrow's dad in Pirates of the Caribbean 3, since Depp based his performance in the first movie partially on Keith Richards.

Sean Connery as Indiana Jones' dad as well.

>>85952894
>A really good example is Keith Richards as Jack Sparrow's dad in Pirates of the Caribbean 3, since Depp based his performance in the first movie partially on Keith Richards.
Great example, and that's almost 4d meta given fans of the movies a) know who he is; b) know that Johnny Depp based Jack Sparrow off of Keith Richards

This can come in multiple ways:

Adam Westing — Using an actor's famous role in a form of self-parody. Contractual Purity often results in formerly child-friendly actors behaving in very much "family unfriendly" behavior.
Casting Gag — Using their history with another actor or an older franchise incarnation. Possibly in a Remake Cameo they use The Hero of the original to be a mentor or give their blessing to the new crew.
Actor-Shared Background — The role is written with the actual (non-acting) history of the actor in place. A few former criminals with jail time (read: the likes of Danny Trejo) have gained a history of playing hardened criminals.
The Cast Show Off — The skills and talents of the actor are integrated into the character, helping the actor feel more comfortable and giving the character more depth. An episode might be written to show a previously non-singing character to have the same vocal abilities as their actor.
Cast the Expert — Rather than hiring an actor to portray a professional in some field, they hire someone who actually is in that field, which gives the performance an additional air of credibility with Shown Their Work. Martial artists are among the first people chosen to headline action movies, see Bruce Lee.

>>85952444
checked

File: c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800.jpg (37KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 800x450px

>>85953577

>>85952757
So, just dramatic irony?

>>85949973

Fuck off that episode was cringey as fuck. Worst casting ever

>>85953803
If we are to get technical, it's not really "irony". It's more casting where the audience is aware of a background outside of the production that augments the experience of the audience while the other characters are oblivious to this fact. See example of Friends - the characters were oblivious to the fact that Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston were married, and acted as the script said - Will hated Rachel. The audience enjoyed the episode on a meta level because they were aware of facts (Brad and Jennifer) the characters did not. It's closer to an aside than irony

>>85952303
That was great
Arthru was the best thing on that shit show

>>85953888
No one cares that you're too edgy to like Friends or that episode. The entire point of this post to get a chat going about meta casting and that is a 10/10 examples of meta casting. It;s actually irrelevant to the discussion whether you liked the episode or not.

P.S. Stop being a giant faggot

>>85949973

Brad Pitt is TERRIBLE in that episode. He seems nervous as hell throughout the whole thing.

>>85954985
Please see the following comment, and hopefully kill yourself due to retardation:
>>85954923

>>85955138
The way he delivered his lines was just so wooden. I get why they cast him but he was just no good.

>>85954923

I do like friends, I hate that shitty episode. How's that edgy you buzzword spewing dickhead?

>MUH BENNIFER ACTING LIKE THEY HATE EACH OTHER BUT THEY ARE ACTUALLY A COUPLE

Oh wow so meta, Fuck off

>>85951180
AJL was a step down though. A crazy chick with obvious daddy issues with a zoo full of kids.

I honestly never really thought she was hot. Every lesbian I knew did though.

>>85955222
>>85955248

Once again, you both are missing the point. Its irrelevant whether the episode is good or not. I am not positing that meta is inherently a good thing, I'm just speaking of the existence of it happening and trying to come up with a coherent explanation. There is NO question that episode was driven by the meta aspect of Will hating Rachel, but irl it was a married couple.

And "meta" is not "good". It is an aside- the audience perceives something that the characters do not which affects the experience of the audience.

You both are fixated on the quality of the episode, when I am not making any judgment on that. I am pointing out the device used, that is all. No one cares what you think about the episode because if you weren't retarded you would realize I am talking about the notion of using meta in tv and film, not necessarily its merits.

File: 13117873_464340937089624_162872058_n.jpg (112KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 640x640px

>>85949973
Good metacasting also includes when Christopher Lloyd guest starred in Sin City.

Some of the worst bullshit metacasting has been Seth MacFarlane's obsession with putting people in as references and nothing else. Like putting Patrick Stewart in American Dad or Christopher Lloyd in Million Ways to Die in the West.

The kind of casting where the audience is suppose to like it just because it's a fucking pop culture reference.

Lego Batman really missed a big chance at doing this by not having Alfred defeat Voldemort in the final fight

>>85955533
I agree. lloyd guest starring in Sin City was an excellent example of meta humour because we the audience knew about Back To The Future. Excellent example, cheers.

I also totally agree with your criticisms of Seth McFarlane, but at the same time I think he is aware of meta and acting upon it. He's just doing it the wrong way - subtle meta casting works really well, shoving it in our faces fails. This is part of my working theory, and I think we are really on the same page.

File: charlie sheen ferris buellers.jpg (138KB, 1600x839px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1600x839px

Charlie Sheen as the drug addict bad boy in Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Neil Patrick Harris as a straight guy in the Harold & Kumar movies

>>85955526
Didn't you think his interactions with David Schwimmer seemed really forced. They did not seem like they were old friends to me.

>>85949973
Damn Brad is an annoyingly hot sonofabitch Chad.
I see his family around town occasionally.

>>85949973
Can anyone explain to me what the hell Meta Casting is?

>>85956421
Examples in this thread

full house: kurt cameron showing up as the cool cousin from where ever, and candace cameron being all excited to see him. Hilarity does not ensue, but life lessons are learned

>>85951807
>Travoltahad sort of fallen off the radar
Except that Travolta was in Look Who's Talking and Look Who's Talking Too 5 and 4 years earlier which were very successful at the box office. Travolta had never faded into obscurity as Tarantino-files would have you believe. That is entirely overstated. There is absolutely no rationale for Travolta in Pulp Fiction to be considered meta according to your concept that you've laid out.

Johnny Depp in the 21 Jump Street movie could be meta as it is self-referential. Depp was an actor in the original tv series on which the film is based. This is very basic and even if Travolta had been "away" and that played into his casting that would be quite a simplistic for of meta casting.

Truly great meta casting would comment on the conventions of casting for a particular role in film. I don't think you can achieve this latter level when the simplified former level is used, maybe they are mutually exclusive?

The best I could offer is casting a well known real world professional in some field and have them perform realistically which would be at odds with the stereotypical representation of their profession. You would get the first part of simplified meta recognition and then the deeper part of meta in the comment of the awareness of film conventions.

Hope that makes sense and offers another point of view.

MASH episode where hawkeye is forced to work with a visiting doctor (alan aldas father IRL) who is a know-it-all and is constantly poking at him and telling hawkeye a better way to do things and driving him nuts.

>>85954715
It's not like an aside at all. An aside is when the content itself tells the audience something. This is literally just dramatic irony, m8.
>dramatic irony
>irony that is inherent in speeches or a situation of a drama and is understood by the audience but not grasped by the characters in the play.

>>85949973
Might as well also consider typecast actors breaking from their typical roles (I thought of this immediately because I remember Brad Pitt nearly turning down his role in Snatch because he'd be playing a bare knuckle boxing lunatic twice in two years and he didn't want to get typecast), or actors whose lives have parallels to their characters (Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler as a has-been who is still seeking glory, RDJ as Iron Man, who has a hedonistic past and is super charismatic, Michael Keaton in Birdman).

Meta casting is a broad term, and from your OP post I feel like you're only considering it's use for comedic purposes. RDJ was cast in Iron Man because they didn't have much of a script iirc; just a bunch of set pieces and an overarching villain, so they got someone who could embody the character well and flesh the character out himself.

Mickey Rourke came back for a few years and everybody was surprised to find he could actually act, so his being cast in the Wrestler adds to the character and presumably audience sympathy towards the character.

Another one to note would be Drew Barrymore at the start of Scream - she's the biggest actor in the film and she's killed off in the prologue, which I assume most people at the time would not have seen coming because of her status and billing.

The Travolta one is a good example though, I think Tarantulino did this with Pam Grier as well for Jackie Brown.

Also I don't even know what to call this sort of meta-casting but it might be worth noting (and if not, whatever, I like the joke):
https://youtu.be/cBJKmSfBu0k?t=2m59s

>>85956260
I liked the episode but I agree 100% with this, there was zero chemistry, it almost looked like a bully and his victim larping as his friend or something like that, plus I did not like how cucked Ross looked the entire episode, Ross was Rachel's boyfriend in the show at the time but everyone knew Jennifer was with Pitt in real life.. even the actors have a weird grin through the entire episode.. it was like " yeah we know what's going on here.. we know you are fuckibg each other in real life, look how hot and beatifyl you are and look how below average in comparision David is"

Go back to TV Tropes you autismotron

"Meta casting" as in casting someone simply for the sake of casting them because you're winking at the audience is distracting. It has everything to do with whether or not that actor can pull off the role well enough where you believe them in it. If you're just casting someone who has a history playing a certain role but they can do that part in your movie and it fits, then that's fine. You can use just Tarantino movies to come up with lots of examples of this.

distracting (although i was fine with all but the first):
>brad pitt as aldo
>mike myers as british military
>michael madsen in hateful eight

perfectly fine:
>channing tatum in hateful eight
>kung fu jerk-choker as bill
>michael madsen in kill bill

good shit:
>tim roth in hateful eight
>kurt russell in hateful eight and death proof
>travolta in pulp fiction
>everyone in jackie brown
>pai mei

>>85949973
How is Will Smith being cast in action comedies a meta decision? If his background is in a comedy television show, it makes sense that he'd transition to movies by also appearing in comedies.

>>85952757
I'd say this was playing AGAINST type rather than being type casted. I would argue both are a form of meta casting. You could cast a real life couple, real life enemies as opponents, have a movie within a movie that stars the worst actors playing the parts of the movie characters (Scream 2 and Stab), maybe the protagonist is a jesus freak and in a christian-centric movie, or maybe just have a cameo.

This guy lists a lot of great examples.
>>85953268

>>85949973
Travolta in pf isn't meta casting. Travolta wasn't even QT's first choice, it was written specifically for michael madsen. "good" meta, which I personally don't think exists because the concept itself comes across as cheap and gimmicky, is Michael Keaton in birdman because of his connection to batman.