Why do the Actors Matter?

[Dausuul]

Part of me agrees with this sentiment.

But another part of me is like... I'm tired of how everything is franchises and remakes and reboots and dragging out every beloved old IP until the last drop of blood has been wrung from its mutilated carcass. And recasting roles is overwhelmingly in service of that. The original Star Wars trilogy didn't have to recast its stars* or conjure them with digital trickery; that's only necessary now because Disney wants to keep sucking money out of the original trilogy 50 years later.

If movie roles belong to the actor who plays them, then we have to let go when that actor moves on. And that might be a good thing.

*Yes, I know they recast Palpatine between Empire and Jedi. A guy who shows up in a heavily altered hologram for one very brief scene doesn't count as a star.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The thing about theatre is you can go and see a familiar play with a different cast - and it’s a completely different experience.

And I’m pretty sure that in the alternate timeline in which RDJ was not cast as Iron Man the MCU does not exist.

 

[Ryujin]

Part of me agrees with this sentiment.

But another part of me is like... I'm tired of how everything is franchises and remakes and reboots and dragging out every beloved old IP until the last drop of blood has been wrung from its mutilated carcass. And recasting roles is overwhelmingly in service of that. The original Star Wars trilogy didn't have to recast its stars* or conjure them with digital trickery; that's only necessary now because Disney wants to keep sucking money out of the original trilogy 50 years later.

If movie roles belong to the actor who plays them, then we have to let go when that actor moves on. And that might be a good thing.

*Yes, I know they recast Palpatine between Empire and Jedi. A guy who shows up in a heavily altered hologram for one very brief scene doesn't count as a star.

I don't disagree that the absolute crap is being wrung out of franchises, and yet, they continue because the public seems to demand it. Studios are only too glad to continue as, when they hit right, they are a license to print money. Actors don't mind because getting an ongoing role, in a franchise, is the stuff of comfortable retirement, or the ability to spend the rest of their careers carefully selecting he roles they do.

 

[The Soloist]

Also, while I agree that actor continuity isn't critical, it is nice. There's just too darn many Batmen in the world today, I tell ya.

Funny guy! The only live action Batman currently active is Pattinson’s. The others are retired or were cancelled by the studio. To me, they no longer exist. I’m not hoping for a new Christian Bale Batman movie.

 

[Tonguez]

Yeah Hank Pim is a strange one to get hung up over since the character as portrayed by Douglas was a supporting character to Paul Rudd. I agree that the Michael Douglas version of Hank should be retired but if they were to do a Hank Pym Antman movie set in the 1960s I would fully expect a new actor in the role.

Iron Mans an interesting one since RDJs depiction is so iconic in the MCU - but he's now Dr Doom and they managed to recast Rhodey and (kinda) Bruce Banner without issue

 

[Willie the Duck]

I agree with Paul that this only occurred because Hank Pym is not necessary for the MCU (there are plenty of other inventor/smart exposition-characters to fill whatever role he might otherwise fill in a movie). Likewise with Aco that it is specific to certain characters, as we see with Rhodes.

Anyways, this is only coming about because they are treating the specifics of the MCU. Batman and Spider-man were re-cast, but the previous movies only supported the new one in a general 'you like seeing movies about Batman/Spider-man, right?' kind of way*. With the MCU, they are attempting to evoke a grand continuity where the viewing audience's investment in previous movies is supposed to carry over into the new movie being made.
*caveat: it's likely that the Batman of the '89-'97 movies were theoretically the same Batman, but tonally they don't seem to be the same universe.

Even before such things, it has always been hit-or-miss when an actor gets replaced in a role for movies which are supposed to be direct sequels. Sure it worked for James Bond (and few would say the problems with Terminator sequels was the recasting of John Connor), but the 90s Inspector Gadget and George of the Jungle movies recast peak Matthew Broderick and Brendan Fraser with French Stewart and Thomas Haden Church for their sequels and the results were... honestly I have no idea, I didn't see them.

When a digital Mark Hamill appeared on Mandalorian, I was totally taken out of the narrative. Same with Carrie Fischer in Rogue One. Just cast a young actor and put cinnamon buns in her hair! We will get it!

Yes, people would get it, but would they show up? I jump ship the instant people start mewling about the SW sequels. However, I will posit that a better overall story to tell would have been the immediate aftermath of the death of the emperor (be it Timothy Zahn's original trilogy, or simply the same timeframe/subject matter). I wish that is what Lucas did rather than the prequels, and that would have required re-casting*. That's my internal feeling, but at the tend of the day I don't know that it would have actually been a good choice. I don't know that new actors playing Luke, Leia, and Han would have put tickets in hand and butts in seats. For Rogue One, honestly if they don't have Fisher in the role, I'm not sure why she should be there at all. It breaks the continuity of the original movies (her ship was supposed to receive the plans as a transmission, not a data card, and no known Bothans died in the process) to have that scene -- it only existed so we could see her there.
*regardless of whether makeup could have made 15-20 years older Hamill, Fisher, and Ford look only 0-5 years older, Ford would not have signed on.

 

[Ryujin]

I agree with Paul that this only occurred because Hank Pym is not necessary for the MCU (there are plenty of other inventor/smart exposition-characters to fill whatever role he might otherwise fill in a movie). Likewise with Aco that it is specific to certain characters, as we see with Rhodes.

Hank Pym being unnecessary, from a story standpoint, is a very good point. They have diverted significantly from the original comic stories in many ways, not the least of which was that Hank Pym created Ultron, in the comics, not Tony Stark.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Iron Mans an interesting one since RDJs depiction is so iconic in the MCU - but he's now Dr Doom and they managed to recast Rhodey and (kinda) Bruce Banner without issue

That's a good point. Most movie-goers didn't/don't know an Iron Man other than RDJ's. To the point that he could give him a personality he hadn't previously had. Prior to the MCU, what RDJ did with him was more Hawkeye's personality and Stark was more 'rich, smart, arrogant, and alcoholic,' and less 'snarky and quippish.' If the recast him, they would need to decide if they wanted a new direction, or to have someone do an imitation of him. The latter kinda worked with Charles Xavier in the X-Men films (McAvoy isn't doing a direct Patrick Stewart impression, but you can definitely see his character aging into Stewart's), but oftentimes (especially if you didn't do a 'wildly different time of life' trick or the like) this would be seen as a pale imitation.

This matters most for main characters. With Pym, what they actually do in the movie (fulfilling plot demands and exposition in support of protagonist) means that many actors could do the task well and not draw direct comparisons. Pym could be recast, he just doesn't need to be.

 

[TwoSix]

I feel like it depends on the character. Like, for a project based on comics, or books, than the character came first, and you're just looking for an actor to help display the attributes already known about that character, and possibly add your own distinct twist and flavor to the portrayal.

But, if we're talking about an original character expressly made for movie or TV project, often the concept of that character is molded around the actor that originally portrays them. In that case, unless that character becomes famous enough from that portrayal to transcend the actor (like a Kirk, or an Indiana Jones, possibly; everyone will have their opinion about what characters transcend their portrayal), it can be more difficult for a fan base to accept a new casting because so much of the identity of the character is wrapped around their portrayal.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Yes, people would get it, but would they show up? I jump ship the instant people start mewling about the SW sequels. However, I will posit that a better overall story to tell would have been the immediate aftermath of the death of the emperor (be it Timothy Zahn's original trilogy, or simply the same timeframe/subject matter). I wish that is what Lucas did rather than the prequels, and that would have required re-casting*. That's my internal feeling, but at the tend of the day I don't know that it would have actually been a good choice. I don't know that new actors playing Luke, Leia, and Han would have put tickets in hand and butts in seats. For Rogue One, honestly if they don't have Fisher in the role, I'm not sure why she should be there at all. It breaks the continuity of the original movies (her ship was supposed to receive the plans as a transmission, not a data card, and no known Bothans died in the process) to have that scene -- it only existed so we could see her there.
*regardless of whether makeup could have made 15-20 years older Hamill, Fisher, and Ford look only 0-5 years older, Ford would not have signed on.

I can only speak to my own experience that I find it more distracting to have the digital facsimile of an actor rather than a new actor.

Carrie Fischer lives on Earth. Princess Leia is the one who lives in space. I don't need to see Carrie Fischer to know it's Princess Leia.