About recasting beloved 80s original cinematic icons.

[HarryCanyon1982]

And there's some talk about replacing Ford with a new actors on Indiana Jones a while ago.

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 I vehemently disagree and I just don't understand. Sure. I do have exceptions, like Bond (he was a literature character) or characters from novels or comic books. But for the most part, I 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, Bill Murray as Peter Venkman, 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 with an 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 and that is why 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 80s 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 Freddy who sounds like Sling blade. 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 made for cinema original characters that you love die and become legends, instead of live forever and become total jokes and nothing but hollow cash grabs.

Although i admit the new Mad Max is quite good and well done.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Meh.

If it sucks, just forget you ever saw It. They're just movies, and even if they can't possibly succeed as you say, it's not your money they're wasting. Let them make whatever they want to and see where the chips fall.

 

[Refuge]

It's more difficult if you loved a version and then it suffers in the new translation. Not a problem for such a revolving door type of character like Doctor Who or James Bond or if you never saw the 'original'.

 

[Mysterion]

Maybe Hollywood could just give us new stories with new characters. Just sayin'.

 

[mos6507]

Maybe Hollywood could just give us new stories with new characters. Just sayin'.

People vote with their wallets and so far that has amounted to doubling down on existing IP and not flocking to attempts to build new franchises.

I mean, what is the newest franchise that made it to the big leagues out there? Harry Potter (books starting from the late 90s)?

So we are kind of heading in a Ready Player One future where culture is sort of frozen in time, only with the addition of endless reboots and reimaginings.

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe Hollywood could just give us new stories with new characters. Just sayin'.

That would be nice.

 

[ATimson]

People vote with their wallets and so far that has amounted to doubling down on existing IP and not flocking to attempts to build new franchises.

The problem is that the studios are insisting on trying to build franchises out of the gate; they're trying to create a forest, but forget that they need to plant and grow a tree first. That's how we get gems like Terminator: Genisys.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don’t think classic characters are ‘holy’ enough never to recast them, but I’m against Hollywood money going to remakes over original projects.

 

[Timewalker]

And there's some talk about replacing Ford with a new actors on Indiana Jones a while ago.

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 I vehemently disagree and I just don't understand. Sure. I do have exceptions, like Bond (he was a literature character) or characters from novels or comic books. But for the most part, I 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, Bill Murray as Peter Venkman, 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 with an 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 and that is why 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 80s 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 Freddy who sounds like Sling blade. 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 made for cinema original characters that you love die and become legends, instead of live forever and become total jokes and nothing but hollow cash grabs.

Although i admit the new Mad Max is quite good and well done.

I agree that there are some movies that don't need to be recast. Even if it's not a matter of "OMG, so-and-so is 20 years older now and theatre-going people can't relate to anyone with grey hair! ", there are still some movies that are iconic for other reasons.

I'm really not into horses, but the chariot race in Ben-Hur never ceases to hold me mesmerized.

Are you saying you're fine with recasting actors in literary roles? I'm in two minds on that. I loved Kenneth Branagh in Henry V and Much Ado About Nothing. I can't imagine anyone else in those roles. But he was terrible as Hamlet. Mel Gibson was much better, and I say that as someone who despises the person Gibson is off-camera.

Now the flip side... Take Leonardo DiCaprio in The Man in the Iron Mask (please... take him away). I eventually came to tolerate him in that, but much prefer the Richard Chamberlain version. Sadly, I'll probably never get to see that one again since it's not available on DVD.

Can you imagine the rioting if, some day in the future, they decided to remake Titanic? Millions of women who once swooned and cried over Jack and Rose would be furious.

 

[HarryCanyon1982]

anyone can play a live-action version of He-Man since he's a toy character who got an animated show and comics and anyone can play Batman, Superman or any comic book character or novel character like Pennywise or Jack Torrence or Jud Crandall or Frodo Baggins since they are all characters from books. Same for Dracula or Frankenstein or Captain Ahab.

And anyone who is young can play child or teenage versions of Indiana Jones and Han Solo but the adult versions of the characters are off limits.

Yet adult Solo/Indiana Jones, Marty Mcfly, Peter Venkman and Freddy Krueger are entirely original cinematic beloved iconic characters that should be off limits and Murray, Englund, Fox and Ford are ALWAYS and will forever be their characters.

For original horror characters like Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Leatherface, anyone can play them. 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, the actor has to be both a physical and an emotional presence. Which is what makes that role nearly impossible to recast. Because of how closely tied he is to the actor's performance.

Robert Englund's performances in A Nightmare On Elm Street series was the largest factor in the success and impact of that character. His unique personality and charisma is what made that character a cinematic original horror icon. Without him that character is one and done and nothing but distant memories. Jackie Earl Haley while a good actor and did great as Rorschach in Watchmen SUCKED as Freddy Krueger with no charisma or personality and souless in the horrible remake of Elm Street, can't do it! Robert Englund IS and WAS Freddy.

I just want adult Solo/Indiana Jones, Freddy, Peter Venkman and Marty Mcfly to rest in peace on film and live on in merchandise, comics, video games, animated shows and all that and not on film. Look at Back to the future as an example of utilizing the brand in ways that don't mess with the legacy it left. They show enormous respect to their fanbase coming out with different merchandise and apparel and media over the years. They know you can't recreate the magic they had so they let the franchise live on through the fans love of the trilogy.

We have a fresh new cinematic icon and his name is John Wick and he's fresh/new and a new action character made for cinema.

 

[MacLeod]

Having a different actor play a younger or older version of a particular character isn't a new thing it's been going on for years so there is nothing inherently wrong with the it. Recasting roles isn't unheard off either for a variety of reason death of actor, actor unavailable for sequel(s), creative differences etc...

Nostalgia can play a big part in how we view remakes/recasting etc.... At the end of the day we all have the option to simple not see remakes or films with recast actors. Have I seen the remake of Ben-Hur for example no, do I have any real desire to see it no, I might watch it if it was on but I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it and given the choice between the new version and the 1959 I'll take the 1959 film because even though I was born years after it was made that is my version of the film.

Besides we all know Hollywood is creatively bankrupt

 

[Greg Cox]

No actor is irreplaceable. Times change, new actors reinterpret classic roles. That's how it's worked since the days of the ancient Greeks at least. "What? They recast Oedipus? That's sacrilege. Everyone knows that Timon of Athens is only real Oedipus. He originated the role!"

Honestly, I've had people tell me, with a straight face, that "anybody" can play Hamlet, but only William Shatner can play Captain Kirk. Sorry, that's just ridiculous. If we can have seven hundred Macbeths, we can survive three or four Kirks.

And we're talking about "classic" characters from the 80s being recast? Oh, please. Just wait until you're my age and your old favorites have been rebooted umpteen times. Trust me, you get used to it.

 

[Timewalker]

No actor is irreplaceable. Times change, new actors reinterpret classic roles. That's how it's worked since the days of the ancient Greeks at least. "What? They recast Oedipus? That's sacrilege. Everyone knows that Timon of Athens is only real Oedipus. He originated the role!"

Honestly, I've had people tell me, with a straight face, that "anybody" can play Hamlet, but only William Shatner can play Captain Kirk. Sorry, that's just ridiculous. If we can have seven hundred Macbeths, we can survive three or four Kirks.

And we're talking about "classic" characters from the 80s being recast. Oh, please. Just wait until you're my age and your old favorites have been rebooted umpteen times. Trust me, you get used to it.

Others have played Captain Kirk, but only William Shatner is like the original.

(I would have said that only William Shatner can play him well, but that's not true; I like Vic Mignogna's version of Kirk, too)

 

[flandry84]

/\Yep.Been going on forever,from Philip Marlowe to James Kirk.

Citing Harrison Ford is interesting because of the Alec Baldwin/Jack Ryan thing and also because he wasn’t first choice to play Indy,that was supposedly Tom Selleck’s gig.
And dont’t you know that Marvel will eventually recast every single superhero...we have had how many Spideys now?
Unhappily that is how movies are now,safe bankable “franchises” will trump any new riskier productions.

 

[Greg Cox]

/\Yep.Been going on forever,from Philip Marlowe to James Kirk.

Citing Harrison Ford is interesting because of the Alec Baldwin/Jack Ryan thing and also because he wasn’t first choice to play Indy,that was supposedly Tom Selleck’s gig..

Heck, Harrison Ford did a great job as THE FUGITIVE, a part originally played by David Janssen back in the original 1960s television series. Didn't hurt the movie one bit, although I'm sure that, at the time, there were people insisting that no one could possibly replace Janssen as Richard Kimble.

Again, there's always room for a new take on a classic character.

And as for "revolving door" characters like Bond or the Doctor, it's perhaps worth remembering that they didn't start out that way. It's only with the passage of time that we've become accustomed to them being recast every decade or so.

Just wait until Indiana Jones or Freddy Krueger have been recast three or four times. Someday they may be regarded as "revolving door" characters, too.

 

[mos6507]

No actor is irreplaceable.

The difference with film/TV vs. live drama is that we now have a visual record of all past performances. It doesn't really allow pop culture to "forget" the past anymore. If something stands the test of time, then it also sets a high bar for anything vying to take its place.

That's the double-edged sword of an existing IP. On the one hand you have instant brand recognition and on the other, everybody's gonna compare it to the original.

In the past, stuff like Star Wars or Raiders weren't 100% original but they were mixing and matching from past styles, not doing complete retreads. Even A New Hope with its comparisons to Hidden Fortress, it can't be treated as a remake. That's how I think things should be again. Draw from inspiration but don't remake.

Even as late as The Matrix it was like that, as The Matrix had its share of Star Wars-isms in it. But then it added the gnosticism, goth, cyberpunk, and kung fu on top to make it its own.

But if you ARE gonna remake, then go veer off in a different (but equally if not more interesting) direction. The new Planet of the Apes films are like that. They did something more contemporary and relevant with the source material than Tim Burton did with his attempt at a remake.

 

[Greg Cox]

But just because performances are better preserved than in the past, there's no reason you can't enjoy multiple actors playing the same character. There's no rule that says there can only be ONE definitive version of any given character or story. You can enjoy the original Indiana Jones AND a new take on the character.

Heck, I've seen THE MUMMY remade at least four times now,not counting sequels.
Do I still enjoy the original Boris Karloff version? Of course. Does that mean I can't also enjoy the Tom Tyler version, or the Christopher Lee version, or the Brendan Fraser versions, et cetera? Of course not.

Granted, the most recent MUMMY was a disappointment, but not because they recast the Mummy again. It was just a bad movie.

And even with live theater, you can enjoy a new production of "The Tempest" or "Carmen" or "Arsenic & Old Lace" even if a previous version still resides in your memory. I've seen multiple productions of "King Lear" or "A Midsummer Night's Dream," both on stage and on screen, and never been bothered by the fact that I've seen other versions with different casts. That's just how movies and TV and live theater work.

And, yeah, I kinda balk at the idea that BACK TO THE FUTURE or GHOSTBUSTERS are somehow more "iconic" than ROMEO & JULIET. . ..

 

[Timewalker]

But just because performances are better preserved than in the past, there's no reason you can't enjoy multiple actors playing the same character. There's no rule that says there can only be ONE definitive version of any given character or story. You can enjoy the original Indiana Jones AND a new take on the character.

Heck, I've seen THE MUMMY remade at least four times now,not counting sequels.
Do I still enjoy the original Boris Karloff version? Of course. Does that mean I can't also enjoy the Tom Tyler version, or the Christopher Lee version, or the Brendan Fraser versions, et cetera? Of course not.

Granted, the most recent MUMMY was a disappointment, but not because they recast the Mummy again. It was just a bad movie.

And even with live theater, you can enjoy a new production of "The Tempest" or "Carmen" or "Arsenic & Old Lace" even if a previous version still resides in your memory. I've seen multiple productions of "King Lear" or "A Midsummer Night's Dream," both on stage and on screen, and never been bothered by the fact that I've seen other versions with different casts. That's just how movies and TV and live theater work.

And, yeah, I kinda balk at the idea that BACK TO THE FUTURE or GHOSTBUSTERS are somehow more "iconic" than ROMEO & JULIET. . ..

The original Juliet wasn't even a woman, since back in the 16th/17th centuries, it was considered immoral for women to appear on stage.

Did you ever see the Highlander episode in which Duncan takes a job in a theatre company, playing one of the female characters? He found himself being attacked by the actor he replaced, and uttered one of the funniest lines I've ever heard on that show: "YOU TORE MUH DRESS!" Poor Duncan!

I used to work in musical theatre, on several backstage crews. So I've seen a lot of rehearsals, seen the finished productions, seen some of them sideways from the wings... and it was very nice, when people were coming out of the auditorium after a performance of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat," to overhear someone saying, "I saw the one in Edmonton with Donny Osmond... this one was better!".

Well, I saw the Donny Osmond version on TV. And the audience member was right. The performance she saw here was better. But the best one I ever saw was by a different theatre company in 1978 (which is the company I joined the following year). There was a magic to that one that no other performance has come close to.

Same with Jesus Christ Superstar. I've seen the movie, and worked on two different productions that were done 20 years apart. The movie was... adequate. The first production I worked on had much better singers. The second production... was adequate. The audience liked it. But I think it was obvious to those of us who had worked on both shows that the first one had a magic to it that couldn't be captured twice.

My take on Shakespeare is that if it's supposed to be set in some European locale in the 15th/16th/17th century, that's what it should look like. The only modernized version I've ever liked was West Side Story, which was based on Romeo and Juliet.

So Leonardo DiCaprio and whatsername doing their modern version of it just isn't something I like, and I consider it completely unnecessary.

 

[Greg Cox]

I like both traditional and experimental versions. One of my favorite productions of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" moved the setting to a 1950s high school, which worked surprisingly well. The production incorporated lots of vintage 50s pop songs,which perfectly fit the story: "Why must I be a teenager in love?" and so on. If nothing else it brought new meaning to the line: "Let us ROCK the ground on which these sleepers lie."

Be it BACK TO THE FUTURE or OTHELLO, the point is to play with this stuff and find new approaches to the material, as opposed to treating them like sacred relics that have to be preserved in amber for all time. Not every experiment or reboot or recasting is going to work, but better to bash them around a bit than smother them in reverence.

It's all just grist for the mill. Raw material to be reworked over time.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I think one of the major problems with recasting and remakes nowadays is the trend to be "dark" and "gritty." You know if they remade (god forbid) Back to the Future, Marty's going to be recast and played as an angst-ridden emo kid and Doc is going to be played as someone having a dark tie to the McFly family that Marty's going to discover when he goes back to 1990 in his time traveling Nissan Leaf.

Now, I didn't really have a problem with the 2016 Ghostbusters (besides it not being funny [except for Kate McKinnon, who's hilarious]) The fact that they were new characters didn't bother me in the slightest. Now, if they'd played Eleanor Spengler, Patricia Venkman, Ramona Stantz and Winona Zeddemore, then I might have had a problem with it.

Same for the RoboCop reboot. The original is one of my all time favorite movies. The fact they switched the story up where it was Murphy becoming RoboCop and not RoboCop becoming Murphy was a different take on it.