Why do the Actors Matter?

[Desdichado]

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.

No, the public doesn't really demand it. The studios just play it super safe and refuse to take a risk on new properties, or they bork opportunities for new things to take off. The public is actually rather tired of Hollywood serving us warmed up leftovers. Few of these reboots and retreads are really all that popular.

But yeah; there's certainly a creative drought, for whatever reason, and new properties aren't coming along very often that are franchiseable. The industry itself is structured to make that very difficult, even if people were writing them.

 

[Umbran]

I always find it kind of weird that some characters get so tied up in specific actors. For example, I saw a headline that Hank Pym of Marvel, played by Michael Douglas, will be retired out of the movies because Mr. Douglas won't play him any more.

I mean, my first reaction is that your perplexity comes from trusting a headline to be a largely accurate summation of the situation.

In the MCU they've recast roles before - we've had three different Bruce Banners, two James Rhodes, two Thaddeus Rosses, two Billy Maximoffs, three Howard Starks, three Cassie Langs if I recall correctly, over a dozen voice-recasts in What If...?, and so on. Reaching beyond that we've had several Fantastic Fours, Spider-Men, a multitude of X-men getting recasts....

So, really, I think we can put to bed the idea that there's some reluctance to recast roles, in general.

Why does this matter?

In most cases (like Hank Pym) it really doesn't matter.

In a few cases, individual actors become so iconic and beloved for their roles that recasting invites a lot of direct comparison that's apt to be negative, which is bad for business.

There have been a couple times where it has been done well, and even used to tell interesting stories - Professor Xavier and Magneto, for example, and Spider-Man have been recast to good effect.

And that's the key there. For someone who has thoroughly owned their role - like Robert Downey Jr. has owned Tony Stark, there's a risk that the next actor will fall in the comparison, so you don't risk it just because. You risk it if, and only if, you have some awesome story that will be enabled in that recasting.

Maybe it's because I come from such a theater background, but, I've never really tied a character with a specific actor.

The effects of recasting are still apparent in theater, though. Pretty much every hit show on Broadway starts with some casting, and the actors define those roles, and then go on to do other things. And the next person in the role has to deal with the precedent - we see this in shows like Les Mis or Phantom of the Opera, or Hamiton...

You even see it in movie/theater crossover. Robin Williams owned the Genie in the animated Aladdin. They don't even try to replicate that in the stage production - they take the Genie in a different direction, to allow the actor there some space.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There are two types of acting, the type were the actor becomes the role, and the type were the actor makes the role become them.

(Disclaimer: This is pretty much nonsense, but it sounds cool so I'll write it anyway)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Oh, whilst this is a thread about acting, aging and Michael Douglas, You really all should go and watch The Kominsky Method right now if you haven't seen it.

 

[payn]

The only reason I can think of is continuity. Its strange to switch actors in a trilogy. I mean it can and does happen, but I think folks would want to avoid it. Characters like Rhodes and Pym are a big bag of who cares compared to main liners. I think this is a combo of tipping the hat to Douglas for a long acting career, and the character just not having any more story (in this MCU run).

 

[trappedslider]

I always find it kind of weird that some characters get so tied up in specific actors. For example, I saw a headline that Hank Pym of Marvel, played by Michael Douglas, will be retired out of the movies because Mr. Douglas won't play him any more. Why does this matter? I've seen half a dozen different Supermen, god knows how many Batmen, at least three Spider-Men, and various other characters played by a boatload of different actors.

Go and look at the superman thread and see how many times it's compared to Christopher Reeve's superman/kent or any of the other actors.

Depending on the character an actor may define the role.

 

[Ryujin]

No, the public doesn't really demand it. The studios just play it super safe and refuse to take a risk on new properties, or they bork opportunities for new things to take off. The public is actually rather tired of Hollywood serving us warmed up leftovers. Few of these reboots and retreads are really all that popular.

But yeah; there's certainly a creative drought, for whatever reason, and new properties aren't coming along very often that are franchiseable. The industry itself is structured to make that very difficult, even if people were writing them.

If they don't demand it, then they at least line up to pay for it. Until they don't, it will continue.

 

[Desdichado]

If they don't demand it, then they at least line up to pay for it. Until they don't, it will continue.

But they don't. Returns for reboots, rehashes and endless sequential iterations are way down. Compare returns for, for example, the new Jurassic World reboot compared to the original Jurassic World movie, much less the original Jurassic Park movie (adjusted for inflation.) Granted, that's less recasting than rebooting with new characters, but the point is the same. The idea that the public demands endless iterations of the same thing is false. Interest fades relatively quickly.

 

[aco175]

I'm glad that when they remade the original Star Wars movies the just called them a continuation of the series with new names and bigger bad guys. I mean it was the same story copy and paste.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean, my first reaction is that your perplexity comes from trusting a headline to be a largely accurate summation of the situation.

In the MCU they've recast roles before - we've had three different Bruce Banners, two James Rhodes, two Thaddeus Rosses, two Billy Maximoffs, three Howard Starks, three Cassie Langs if I recall correctly, over a dozen voice-recasts in What If...?, and so on. Reaching beyond that we've had several Fantastic Fours, Spider-Men, a multitude of X-men getting recasts....

So, really, I think we can put to bed the idea that there's some reluctance to recast roles, in general.



In most cases (like Hank Pym) it really doesn't matter.

In a few cases, individual actors become so iconic and beloved for their roles that recasting invites a lot of direct comparison that's apt to be negative, which is bad for business.

There have been a couple times where it has been done well, and even used to tell interesting stories - Professor Xavier and Magneto, for example, and Spider-Man have been recast to good effect.

And that's the key there. For someone who has thoroughly owned their role - like Robert Downey Jr. has owned Tony Stark, there's a risk that the next actor will fall in the comparison, so you don't risk it just because. You risk it if, and only if, you have some awesome story that will be enabled in that recasting.



The effects of recasting are still apparent in theater, though. Pretty much every hit show on Broadway starts with some casting, and the actors define those roles, and then go on to do other things. And the next person in the role has to deal with the precedent - we see this in shows like Les Mis or Phantom of the Opera, or Hamiton...

You even see it in movie/theater crossover. Robin Williams owned the Genie in the animated Aladdin. They don't even try to replicate that in the stage production - they take the Genie in a different direction, to allow the actor there some space.

Well, not a lot to add to this apart from that to say it's absolutely spot-on and covers everything I was thinking re: this issue and more eruditely at that.

Particularly important re: recasting in MCU etc. is your point where there's no point risking a recast unless there's a very major potential gain from doing so.

Personally I'd note that, imho, only Mark Ruffalo's sheer charisma saved him when they recast from Norton to him as the Hulk, because I'm sorry but I cannot take Ruffalo remotely seriously as a "troubled genius scientist" whereas Ed Norton absolutely had that in lock (and I think would have had better interactions with RDJ too).