It's not "looking the part" that's important, it's acting the part. That's why its called acting, not looking. Ford is fun and all, but he is a lousy character actor. William Hurt was a much better actor, and made a much better Ross.
It depends what you are looking for from the character. Ruffalo made the character fun to watch, but his version of the character wasn't anything like as messed up as Banner is usually portrayed (his approach was "its everyone else who is messed up"). But Norton, by playing it straight, was just boring. Which Banner probably would be if you met him socially.
I don't think that's related to age per se. That probably has more to do with their habit of contracting actors a rung or two below super-stardom for several movies, and once those movies are up those actors have often been able to climb those rungs making it much more expensive to renew those contracts. So instead they usually have a trilogy or so of movies centering that character giving them a (hopefully) satisfying arc.
It depends on the circumstances. Had they done the sequel trilogy after Fisher's demise, I'd have been OK with recasting her. Same thing if they had done a sequel more along the lines of Heir to the Empire, taking place a few years after Return of the Jedi – that would likely have required recasting the whole crew with younger people. Or if General Organa had had a leading rather than supporting role which would have required her to be around for the last movie as well. But once the sequels started with Fisher in an important but not leading role, I think recasting her would have been a mistake.
It's been a while since I watched The Incredible Hulk, but I don't remember Norton's performance as being "boring". Ruffalo definitely adds a little more comedy to the role, but I don't know if that's because of the actor himself or because that works better when he's not the lead. And as I understand it, the reason Norton was recast was that he apparently was a pain to work with.
Absolutely. The character is interesting. Who plays the character? Who cares? So long as they do a good job. I most certainly don't think that any character MUST ONLY be played by a single actor. Let's get a new Luke and Han Solo. Why not?
Oh, absolutely. The market responds to the incentives it's given by us, the viewing public*, and all the incentives right now point to "get a franchise, milk it dry, look for another."
Sure, I mean my issue is a bit more specific that I can't buy Mark Ruffalo as a genius of really any kind, and whilst he can do angry/bitter he hasn't really pulled that out for Banner. He's a very good actor and he's got a lot of range (c.f. his great performance in Poor Things, loved it) - he definitely doesn't just have to play nice guys, but I would personally say, aside from the gritty performance in Zodiac, in his performances as detectives or scientists who are supposed to smart (and the Zodiac guy is more just normal), he's been at his least convincing/compelling (which is still considerably above average, I must admit). With Banner he's playing him super-charming, which I appreciate him as a choice to differentiate him from various naughty word movie scientists, especially Marvel ones like Stark or the normal Reed (I presume Pedro Pascal will also tone down the naughty word factor on Reed though), but like I just don't buy the anger as alongside that. He's been great lines and delivered them with gusto, but like, I just do not believe he is, in fact, "always angry" (or a genius). I also really do think a more genuinely angry-feeling and brilliant-feeling Banner, like the one Norton did would have sparked off RDJ's Stark more. In fact, that might be part of the issue - I feel like Norton's Banner would have kind of overwhelmed/swamped RDJ's Stark, so maybe that sort of thinking helped inform some choices here.
For me, it's the opposite. The fact that he never seems to be angry, for me, is what sells the "I'm always angry" line. He's controlling his physical manifestations of his emotions, that that he's not 100% Hulk all the time.
Whilst I basically agree - I generally think recasting is fine in principle unless a character is genuinely inseparable from an actor (which is rare but does happen imho), but, but and really this is a big but, "So long as they do a good job" is absolutely hugely load-bearing here. That's got thousands of tons of stone all pressing down on that little arch!
Yeah I get that's probably what they're going for, I just don't buy it. I've met people who genuinely are always angry (but not at all psycho) and keeping a charming, controlled lid on it, and there's a fierce-ness to them that his portrayal of Banner just totally lacks. In fact I'd go as far as to say the charity sector has no shortage of people like that (I'm particularly thinking of one brilliant communications director I knew).
