Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vigilance" data-source="post: 3666326" data-attributes="member: 4275">In actuality most theater parts are written for a specific actor.But even later actors can cast long shadows, especially when the part is immortalized in some way (usually through a film version).I'm guessing you never spent much time around theater folks. When word got out that Branaugh was going to make a movie of Henry V, many people instantly wrote him off. Olivier's performance was considered the gold standard, and many MANY people ticked off how Branaugh's performance differed beat by beat with an exactness that would make some trek fans blush.There's plenty of harder roles, and many of those have been successfully recast in the past. Sure, but that bond that comes from actor as character being a weekly "guest" in our homes certainly doesn't apply to Shatner/Kirk anymore.If this were being tried in 1978, I'd call it crazy. But 1978 was 30 years ago. Time makes things acceptable.The fact is, Kirk is an amazing character. He was as likely to be recast as Bond, Hercules, Spider-Man and Superman. Did you really think there was never going to be another movie about James T. Kirk?I would characterize that opinion as naive in the extreme. Wasn't Shatner nominated for an Emmy as best actor for Kirk *and* Denny Crane? He may be stylized but that's a legitimate form of acting and one that many audience members obviously find appealing. Gielgud was stylized too and he was knighted, and packed theaters until the day he died. Shatner clearly has "it" and "it" clearly transcends character and time. He's the opposite of typecast. How many people have been the lead character in three successful TV shows? (Hint: Less than five actors)There you go. You just agreed with me that it CAN work. You just admitted that if the movie is good and the parts are well cast, that audience members are savvy enough to roll with changes. Well, I might be wrong, but I don't think many of those other remakes turning TV shows into movies had both a writing team (Transformers- $465 million worldwide) and a director (MI:III- $400 million worldwide) who have proven big summer event movie credentials.And oh yeah, they're also the minds behind a bona fide TV phenomenon. Usually, TV shows get turned into movies by McG (Charlie's Angels) and he's one of the BETTER ones. And again, it's not the like the franchise was cruising along doing great. Sometimes, you have to roll the hard 7.</blockquote>

Verification