recasting the impossible

[DenOfEarth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=minszrNtgHc&t=41s

There was some talk about replacing Ford with a new actors on Indiana Jones a while ago like 3 years ago. And i have a friend who is a popular youtube movie/show critic/movie news guy and here is an great rant on recasting established original cinematic characters and how it's impossible to do that compared to recasting novel/comic/animated to live-action/video game characters like Pennywise, Jud Crandall, Captain Abhem, Dracula, Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Joker, Jack Torrence, Frodo Baggins etc.


Some people are actually defending recasting iconic film characters with different actors. And even more so with the recent release of Solo. They actually think that all film characters are fair game for a new actor portraying them.

And it's fine that they feel that way. But him and i vehemently disagree and I just don't understand. Sure. We both do have exceptions, like Bond (he was a literature character) or characters from novels or comic books or movie versions of TV show characters. But for the most part, me and him want beloved film characters (original characters made for film and not from other sources) to remain pure and untouched by half-assed or horrible attempts to recapture lightning in a bottle.

Some roles have actors that were born to play them and there really are no substitutes. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Sylvester Stallone as Rocky Balboa, Bill Murray as Peter Venkman, Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, Linda Hamilton as Sarah Conner, Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly and Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger are all examples of this. And any actor that will attempt to play the character will pale in comparison. They have the charisma and personality that is unique only to them and that is what makes these characters so iconic and what brought them to life.

And don't give me the "They will make it their own" response. Make it their own means they will take the character and make it something completely alien to the character we all know and love in order to separate it from the original, potentially swap the genders, or just half-heartedly attempt to capture the same magic.


I have never seen a single remake, reboot or sequel with an original iconic character or film have a lead that is anywhere near as memorable or as effective as the original for these same reasons. The track record is abysmal like Freddy or Robocop (I agree with him that Richard Eden from the TV show of Robocop is the closet thing to Weller for Robocop but none of them have the same charisma as Weller) and that is why him and I don't agree with the idea of every character in every film is fair game for a re-imagining.

What's the better option, continue to dig up popular original cinematic characters out of the grave every ten or twenty years and try to do the impossible and find the perfect actor to play the role again, or stop doing that and put that effort into finding new characters for a new generation?

There need to be limits. Otherwise, you get A wannabee John Cena as RoboCop, and a southern friend redneck Freddy who sounds like Sling blade. him and i would rather these iconic made-for-cinema (created by cinema) characters be retired on film and only brought back in books, comics, and video games then see lazy attempts by Hollywood to bring them back with new faces in "new" films just to piggyback off the success of the previous franchise.


Let these beloved made for cinema original characters that you love die from film and become legends, instead of live forever and become total jokes and nothing but hollow cash grabs.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

Let these beloved made for cinema original characters that you love die from film and become legends, instead of live forever and become total jokes and nothing but hollow cash grabs.

Does this include Freddy Krueger after the 3rd movie?

[Wintendo]

so is tarkin from rogue one the middle ground in all this? prepares for star wars high ground meme

[Blu Lemmy]

Jack Nicholson made the Joker, doesn’t detract from the fact that Heath Ledger owned that role when he had the chance.

Edit: actually a poor example for this thread. But my opinion on HL stands

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by Blu Lemmy

Jack Nicholson made the Joker, doesn’t detract from the fact that Heath Ledger owned that role when he had the chance

Well since Cesar Romero was first that should have been it. No Jack or Heath.

[Impossible]

I can't be re-cast, I'm perfect already x

[Blu Lemmy]

Originally Posted by mwynn

Well since Cesar Romero was first that should have been it. No Jack or Heath.

The film world would have been a poorer place without their portrayals I’m sure we all agree

[Wintendo]

Originally Posted by Impossible

I can't be re-cast, I'm perfect already x

thats Impossible

[Doctor Jack]

Why would anyone want to recast this...

[Wintendo]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

Why would anyone want to recast this...

[Show spoiler]

i wouldnt recast but id give ewan a beard and a lightsaber.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

Why would anyone want to recast this...

[Show spoiler]

That is EXACTLY what I thought this thread was about!

[Samus Aran]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

Why would anyone want to recast this...

[Show spoiler]

The Impossible could never get made today with that cast. Could you imagine all the grief they'd get about whitewashing? Even though the people they were portraying were fine with it.

[shinobipopcorn]

I actually thought Haley did a good job in the Nightmare remake, considering what he had to work with. That Freddy just wasn't the same Freddy. As for Tarkin, Guy Henry was great, we just don't know how he would have done if he was made up to look like Cushing. He might have been good, it's just that no matter what, you can't please the purists.

Edit: now that I'm on something with a keyboard, my thoughts:

-At one point I would have said Hannibal Lector but wow did Mads change that opinion.
-They're going to have to seriously sell me on a new Wolverine after Jackman's run. Eastman's youngest looks the part but the acting matters.
-Princess Leia, full stop. Disney's already proven there is no other Solo, I'd prefer they just quit while the fire is smoldering.

[Dailyan]

I take it the OP never watched a Bond film?

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

They actually think that all film characters are fair game for a new actor portraying them.

Why shouldn't they? I'm not really a fan of reboots but we've had different generations of James Bond, Batman, Philip Marlowe, Superman, Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, Tarzan, Spiderman, etc. Granted, yes, most of the characters I have labelled are all derived from adaptations but the fact remains. Just don't watch the reboot (s), stick with the originals if you want.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

I take it the OP never watched a Bond film?

Reading comprehension fail. He specifically said, "We both do have exceptions, like Bond (he was a literature character)".

[nick4Knight]

I have heavily mixed, ever changing views on this subject and that's been true of the past decade around this topic! Here is where I stand currently;

On one hand, I think some characters are pure sacrilege... Example? Doc Brown and Marty Mcfly. It's like divine inspiration and serendipity went into the casting there. Indiana Jones. Same.

But I know lots of people felt the same applies to Han Solo, and yet they went there.. And I wasn't feeling it was sacrilege to have. I just felt they got the casting WRONG. Anthony Ingruber was born to play any prequel depicting Ford's characters. So much so that he was successfully impersonating him on Youtube near 10 years ago, as a teen, and even played young Harrison in Age of Adaline.

So, doing it wrong is the bottomline of what makes a poor concept. The degree to which you can get it wrong is on a sliding scale. It's not black and white. The chance for screwing it up with Solo was not as high as would be with Indiana Jones. So I disagree with the blank notion that the mere idea of replacing characters with a new actor is the issue at play. OR that the actor is irreplaceable by default -- It's totally contextual. There is enough for and against examples to make it a rolling debate and risk/reward proposition for movies.

[Wildcat2000]

Hate to be that guy but...the OP only seems to post to trash new and updated stuff. It’s hard for me to not see it as more complaining about reboots and sequels. Just look at the last sentence.

To answer the question I partly agree that some actors are synonymous with certain characters. I say party because I think some of it due to just being first.

If you’re the first in a role that turns out to be very popular it’s what people’s minds will automatically associate you with.

Which is fine but I think creates a bit of bias whether you mean it or not because said character is now established as them.

I think it’s important to give other actors, portrayals, versions a chance because they had no control over being first or second or whatever number.

Same goes for the movies themselves. The firsts can only be first one time. You have to allow sequels or updates to have changes.

[Zillamon51]

Story > character > actor.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by Wildcat2000

Hate to be that guy but...the OP only seems to post to trash new and updated stuff. It’s hard for me to not see it as more complaining about reboots and sequels. Just look at the last sentence.

Exactly.

[DenOfEarth]

Originally Posted by Blu Lemmy

Jack Nicholson made the Joker, doesn’t detract from the fact that Heath Ledger owned that role when he had the chance.

Edit: actually a poor example for this thread. But my opinion on HL stands

Originally Posted by Dailyan

I take it the OP never watched a Bond film?



Why shouldn't they? I'm not really a fan of reboots but we've had different generations of James Bond, Batman, Philip Marlowe, Superman, Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, Tarzan, Spiderman, etc. Granted, yes, most of the characters I have labelled are all derived from adaptations but the fact remains. Just don't watch the reboot (s), stick with the originals if you want.

Bond (He came from novels before he became a series of films), Joker, Wolverine, Dorothy Gale, Conan, Frankenstein, Tarzan, Dracula, Batman, Superman, Lara Croft, Shakespear's characters, Spider-Man etc. are ALL entirely DIFFERENT as they are characters brought from the pages of print (books, comics, video game and novels) which are different than PURE ORIGINAL CINEMATIC CHARACTERS like Freddy Krueger, Ellen Ripley, Ash Williams from Evil Dead franchise, Rocky Balboa, Indiana Jones, George Bailey, Rick Blaine (Casablanca), Han Solo, T-800 etc.

y my point, a character like Dracula is fine. It started as a novel character. Dracula is not a cinematic creation that was only created for the screen and neither was Shakespeare. Dracula is fair game and so are Shakespeare's characters.

A character like Freddy Krueger though that was brought to life by an actor on screen, that's what me with the guy in the video are talking about here. It's not worth trying to do a different interpretation of that character, because that character wouldn't be as popular or as well known without Englund's unique performance.

Film is a completely different method of storytelling than a book or a play or a video game.

Remakes are a different thing all together. And he also liked the 1990 remake of NOTLD a lot more than the original and i enjoy both versions. And with the original NOTLD and its characters and performances they aren't nearly as iconic as Robert Englund's Freddy Krueger.

Him and i honestly do feel though that Robert's performance will continue to stand the test of time for decades to come. It already has for nearly 40 years. I do see the difference. Dracula was an established character long before it was brought to the screen in 1931 by Tod Browning and Bela Lugosi.

The same applies with Shakespeare and his characters. They are not characters they were brought to life by the actors who portrayed them on film. Screenplays are a completely different story telling medium than a novel or a play.

They rely upon an individual actor to really bring that role to life and make it resonate with an audience. Freddy doesn't say that many lines in A Nightmare On Elm Street. It is Englund's presence and unique take on the character that makes that character so iconic. It isn't the script or the character by itself. It is that unique combination of actor and script that makes a cinematic character iconic.

They already tried to recast Freddy even after the first ANOES and they realized that was a bad idea. And then with the 2010 remake it was once again proven that Freddy Krueger is one of those characters like many other cinematic icons that needs the actor that portrayed them to make it work on screen.

It's better to let those characters i mentioned retire or die when the actor who put their personal stamp on it quits or passes away. Otherwise you get half assed performances like whoever has tried to play Pinhead after Doug Bradley, and many other recent examples.

Plus him and i would rather an actor put time and effort into creating a new icon than trying to fill the shoes of an old one. Now for example, John Wick is a brand new fresh cinematic icon even to the action genre and i welcome that franchise and character.


The casting wasn't bad for Freddy on the Elm Street remake. Him and i admit that. But the issue is that even with a talented actor like Jackie Earle Haley, Freddy just doesn't have the same gravitas as he does with Robert Englund. Plus the Jackie version was horrible as he felt soulless, void of charisma and personality. He is proof Robert Englund is the ONE AND ONLY Freddy Krueger, accept no substitutes. Novel characters like Jud Crandall and Pennywise for new adaptations of Pet Sematary and IT are safe to recast as they were brought to life in the pages of a book before they were movies and mini-series and aren't like original cinematic horror icons like Freddy.

Characters like Leatherface, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers are completely different! Those characters don't rely upon actors with unique personalities or charisma to bring them to life or to ultimately make them what they are.

Bond was a character long before the films came along that was brought to life on the page, and the characters of Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Leatherface don't speak and don't rely upon anything other than a physical presence to make them spring to life.

Where with Freddy or even Pinhead, the actor has to be both a physical and an emotional presence. Which is what makes those roles nearly impossible to recast. Because of how closely tied they are to the actor's performance.

The actor's performances in A Nightmare On Elm Street or Hellraiser were the largest factor in the success and impact of those characters. Their unique personalities and charisma is what made those characters icons. Without them those characters are one and done and nothing but distant memories.

Originally Posted by nick4amber

I have heavily mixed, ever changing views on this subject and that's been true of the past decade around this topic! Here is where I stand currently;

On one hand, I think some characters are pure sacrilege... Example? Doc Brown and Marty Mcfly. It's like divine inspiration and serendipity went into the casting there. Indiana Jones. Same.

But I know lots of people felt the same applies to Han Solo, and yet they went there.. And I wasn't feeling it was sacrilege to have. I just felt they got the casting WRONG. Anthony Ingruber was born to play any prequel depicting Ford's characters. So much so that he was successfully impersonating him on Youtube near 10 years ago, as a teen, and even played young Harrison in Age of Adaline.

So, doing it wrong is the bottomline of what makes a poor concept. The degree to which you can get it wrong is on a sliding scale. It's not black and white. The chance for screwing it up with Solo was not as high as would be with Indiana Jones. So I disagree with the blank notion that the mere idea of replacing characters with a new actor is the issue at play. OR that the actor is irreplaceable by default -- It's totally contextual. There is enough for and against examples to make it a rolling debate and risk/reward proposition for movies.

And even respected people in the industry are against this concept of recasting cinematic original icons. Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale as long as they are around will not sign off on a remake of Back To The Future, and plan on having the rights as a part of their estates and even give a no remake policy to the family will of both. At least they should know better as Back to the Future trilogy was lightning in a bottle and you can't capture the same magic as the trilogy, so Universal comes up with different merchandise, appereal, comics and video games throughout the years even have them on streaming sites so generations can see this amazing trilogy for what it was.

For Solo and Jones, it's fine if it's a movie or TV show about them as teenagers and anyone who is young can play teenage Indy or teen Han Solo but the adult version should be off limits.

Frank of Naked Gun will always be Leslie Neilsen and they had talks a remake with Ed Helms *cringes at the idea* but good thing it was canned, Neilsen died with Frank.

Haven't you all watched the video to see the differences between a cinematic original character and a book/video game/comic character? watch again and see his point.