XPost: rec.arts.startrek.current, rec.arts.movies.current-films, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   Anim8rFSK wrote:   
   > In article <490e0dd4$0$33539$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,   
   > "Dimensional Traveler"  wrote:   
   >   
   >>  krp wrote:   
   >>> "Dougie Roberts"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:hYkPk.38818$OT2.28498@newsfe01.iad...   
   >>>   
   >>> $0$33548$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...   
   >>>> [snip]   
   >>>>>> Screen tests aren't done "on set".   
   >>>> [snip]   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Done in studio typically. NO SET?  Kind of makes a screen test   
   >>>>> somewhat silly.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I'm sure test shots of sets are done at some point, but in any case   
   >>>> that is not what the term "screen test" means. A "screen test" is   
   >>>> the industry term for a filmed audition of an actor trying out for   
   >>>> a role. That's it. It has nothing to do with a set. It's just an   
   >>>> actor reciting some lines from the script. Roles are cast early on   
   >>>> in the production of a television show or movie, usually long   
   >>>> before any sets are built.   
   >>>   
   >>>    They usually do a SET of some kid for the readings. Screen test   
   >>> can be where an actor READS lines for the part so that the powers   
   >>> that be can make a decision. IN Jackson's case she is a good actress   
   >>> even if a TOTAL pain in the ass.   
   >>   
   >> All the screen tests that I've seen (DVD extras, etc.) have been in   
   >> empty rooms, offices and in some cases the director's or producer's   
   >> living room. (I remember seeing Jeri Ryan's screen test for 'The   
   >> Last Man'.  Not only did they do it in the living room of the   
   >> director's house, the camera wasn't even focused on her.  It was   
   >> focused on the refrigerator in the kitchen behind them.)  So, no,   
   >> they don't do sets of any kind for readings and screen tests.  Sets   
   >> cost money and there's no reason for them to spend money so early in   
   >> the process that they can't even be sure the project will be made.   
   >   
   > However . . . given that they were replacing Bujold in the midst of   
   > filming, it's POSSIBLE this could be the extraordinarily rare instance   
   > where you test on the set.   
   >   
   > Not saying it happened, just that it could have.   
      
   Pondering that, the only way I could see that happening (new screen tests on   
   the already constructed sets for a new series) is if every single actress   
   that they had already done screen tests with either said "No" or didn't   
   answer their phone for a very long period.  On most productions, maybe,   
   waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there on the far end of the bell curve you just might   
   be the one production this decade (century?) where that happens.  Given that   
   just about every actress in Hollyweird was apparently considered for   
   Janeway, I honestly can't believe it happened on 'Voyager'.  If nothing   
   else, it takes time to arrange more screen tests, film them, watch them,   
   argue over them, make a decision and then finally get the new actor in front   
   of the camera.  I would think long enough that the premiere of the series   
   would have been pushed back.   
      
   --   
   "What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???" -   
   Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)