Actors being replaced in sequels - good or bad?

MakeEmLaugh

I came across this article about actors being replaced in sequels.

Who Are They Fooling? - Top Five Conspicuous Casting Replacements

Alfred Hitchcock may have believed they should "be treated like cattle", but in the inherently collaborative art-form that is cinema, few match the power held by the most successful actors. They are the ones whose names, and faces, adorn the posters of blockbusters year after year - surpassing producers, directors and (ahem) screenwriters in sheer recognisability...

What happens when actors abstain from their power to demand sky-high pay cheques at the behest of major studios? It presents filmmakers with a dilemma; stop production in its tracks, or go with another angle - more specifically, another actor. The former path may be artistically noble, but the latter is certainly better travelled...

Read the full article here.

It got me thinking, have there many good examples of this? In addition to the ones the article mentions, there are others like Elisabeth Shue replacing Claudia Wells in the Back to the Future sequels, Don Cheadle replacing Terrance Howard in the Iron Man Sequels, and Antonio Banderas replacing Carlos Gallardo in the El Mariachi sequels.

Replacing actors is also rampant in many television shows. Even The Sopranos replaced Fairuza Balk with a different actress when she played an FBI Agent sent to befriend Adriana (Drea De Matteo) with the intent of turning her informant. Scenes of Balk were re-shot with the second actress for DVD.

Do people think this is a good idea, or should filmmakers always try to preserve the original cast list when making sequels?

Sad Professor

As a rule I think filmmakers do try and preserve the original cast. Most of the time when recasting does happen it's because an actor was unavailable or refused to return, as was the case with TDK and Hannibal. Television producers have it much harder in this regard since actors often become attached to other shows on different networks and recasting roles isn't really considered acceptable, so when an actor can't return they don't have much choice but to write the character out. Re-shooting scenes for the DVD (as happened on The Sopranos) isn't an option for most tv shows.

As an aside, I see Sony is currently threatening to write Daniel Craig out of the Dragon Tattoo sequel.

MakeEmLaugh

Sad Professor wrote: »

As an aside, I see Sony is currently threatening to write Daniel Craig out of the Dragon Tattoo sequel.

Really? That's probably to save money, as Fincher's Dragon Tattoo didn't gross as much the studio were hoping, perhaps owing to its 'hard R' rating (too much sex and sexual violence).

So they're not going to recast him? They're just going to write his character out?

Actually, another disastrous example of that would be Robert Duvall refusing to do The Godfather Part III because they were paying Pacino "three or four times" what they were offering Duvall. The result was Tom Hagen written out of the film, replaced by the charmless cardboard cutout BJ Harrison (George Hamilton).

Overheal

About Rhodey: Cheadle is a lot closer to the comic book persona. Plus, Favreau wasnt happy with Howard's performance for the same reasons, and he was apparently difficult on set. Also, he was paid more than any other actor in the movie, including RDJ. When it came to sign up for IM2 there was a lot less money on the table for Howard.


Cheadle was a great fit for Rhodey and they played off this switch well in his introductory scene. I also like the idea of these megamillion budgets going more to production, effects, props, writing, than to lining the pockets of supporting actors. Great movies get made on shoestring budgets all the time, don't get me wrong, but it is kind of annoying that these guys and gals who are regularly making Bank when they produce these films will continue to have such pissing matches over money.

Sad Professor

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Really? That's probably to save money, as Fincher's Dragon Tattoo didn't gross as much the studio were hoping, perhaps owing to its 'hard R' rating (too much sex and sexual violence).

So they're not going to recast him? They're just going to write his character out?

Apparently. Although I suspect the whole story is just a negotiating tactic to get Craig to accept less money. However, I can't really see the film happening. Nobody seems particularly keen to do it.

CastorTroy

One I can think of is Ariana Richards' role in Tremors. She was in the first and third movies. The third movie was more or less a pilot for the tv series but her character was at college for the series. When she came into it for one episode, she was a diffrent actress. Though think she'd given up acting at this stage.

But don't really think there have been any cast changes that have been really jarring. The Dumbledore change was very noticeable and couldn't be helped, but it was probably better in the long run since Michael Gambon seemed more energetic.

bongomad

it happens alot but more in sequals that were b movies when the original actors wouldn't be seen dead in them, megan fox in transformers the one who replaced her rosie huntington-whiteley was brutal a mannequin would have done a better job

Lingua Franca

Ugh, does anyone recall the start of the Mummy 3? I do, as I unfortunately had to sit through it 3 times (work reasons) and the beginning of it they really rub your face in the change from Rachel Weisz to Generic Actress. It's cheesy and overdone and the very very worst way I've ever seen a movie begin.

Had I not been paid to be there I would have walked. On subsequent viewings I nipped out for a ciggie because the nudge-nudge-wink-wink opener was so cloying.

bongomad

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Ugh, does anyone recall the start of the Mummy 3? I do, as I unfortunately had to sit through it 3 times (work reasons) and the beginning of it they really rub your face in the change from Rachel Weisz to Generic Actress. It's cheesy and overdone and the very very worst way I've ever seen a movie begin.

Had I not been paid to be there I would have walked. On subsequent viewings I nipped out for a ciggie because the nudge-nudge-wink-wink opener was so cloying.

lol i turned the dvd off after ten min and i rarely do that. ten mins off my life ill never get back!!
off topic seen the man with iron fists well 5min that is lately had to leave that aswell quinton is really hit or miss

don ramo

bongomad wrote: »

off topic seen the man with iron fists well 5min that is lately had to leave that aswell quinton is really hit or miss

i hope your not crediting tarantino for that film (didnt see any other quintons in the listings), for the tiny bit he had in it, that film was all RZA

i actually liked howard as rhodey in Iron Man 1, but the man acted like a complete asshole when it came to part 2, so deservedly got the heave-ho, shame but what can ya do,

i also thought katie holmes played rachael dawes much better than maggie gyllenhaal, i thought gyllenhaal looked better with aaron eckhart, and holmes and him wouldnt have looked like a good couple, but i much preferred holmes in the part, and it was mainly down to tom cruises influence that she didnt return, i bet she regrets not doing it, alway nice to have a billion dollar film on the old C.V:D:D

bongomad

don ramo wrote: »

i hope your not crediting tarantino for that film (didnt see any other quintons in the listings), for the tiny bit he had in it, that film was all RZA

i actually liked howard as rhodey in Iron Man 1, but the man acted like a complete asshole when it came to part 2, so deservedly got the heave-ho, shame but what can ya do,

i also thought katie holmes played rachael dawes much better than maggie gyllenhaal, i thought gyllenhaal looked better with aaron eckhart, and holmes and him wouldnt have looked like a good couple, but i much preferred holmes in the part, and it was mainly down to tom cruises influence that she didnt return, i bet she regrets not doing it, alway nice to have a billion dollar film on the old C.V:D:D

my bad just seen he didnt have that much to do with it but he still put his name to it

don ramo

bongomad wrote: »

my bad just seen he didnt have that much to do with it but he still put his name to it

more like he done a buddy a favor, he tried to help him make a name for himself, its not tarantinos fault he fell flat on his face, i still dont get how RZA and Roth managed to assemble the talent that they had on that film, i cant see what anyone saw in the script,

Sleepy

I have to admit, I prefer Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner over either of his recent predecessors in the role (Eric Bana and Ed Norton).

D-FENS

I always wished Mark Hamill had stayed on for all three original Star Wars movies

MJ23

Michael Keaton did 2, Val Kilmer did 1, and George Clooney did one.
Can anyone name the character?
The first two were very good, the second two were atrocious.

Cowabunga

Overheal

MJ23 wrote: »

Michael Keaton did 2, Val Kilmer did 1, and George Clooney did one.
Can anyone name the character?
The first two were very good, the second two were atrocious.

Cowabunga

You're forgetting Christian Bale and Adam West.

But in actuality, Kevin Conroy is the true Batman. Nobody else has played the character longer, in any continuity.

The Master

Overheal wrote: »

But in actuality, Kevin Conroy is the true Batman. Nobody else has played the character longer, in any continuity.

Sorry, Voiced is the word you meant here.

I know I'm being pedantic but we're talking films/on screen/TV not the animated series

Mr Freeze

Overheal wrote: »

But in actuality, Kevin Conroy is the true Batman. Nobody else has played the character longer, in any continuity.

Voice actor or not, Conroy is definitely the best Batman to a lot of people. Including myself.

Normally actors being changed in films annoys me, but no Katie Holmes in the TDK was very welcome.

Somebody mentioned Elizabeth Shue in Back to the Future, but didn't they also replace the actor who played Marty's Dad? And in the 2nd one he is always in the background in the future scenes, and they just reused the original BttF bits for the 50's section of the film. Correct me if I am wrong.

Sad Professor

Yeah, Crispin Glover refused to return for the BTTF sequels. I think he wanted too much money.

Sinfonia

Sad Professor wrote: »

As an aside, I see Sony is currently threatening to write Daniel Craig out of the Dragon Tattoo sequel.

Sad Professor wrote: »

Apparently. Although I suspect the whole story is just a negotiating tactic to get Craig to accept less money. However, I can't really see the film happening. Nobody seems particularly keen to do it.

They couldn't do the film without Blomkvist; it would have to be a completely new story.

don ramo

Sinfonia wrote: »

They couldn't do the film without Blomkvist; it would have to be a completely new story.

yeah its called the Millennium series, and Blomkvist works at Millennium, how could they possibly write him out, but if Fincher isnt returning i dont know if i want a sequel anyway, he was the only reason i watched the american version, i didnt think i would enjoy it after watching the original one, but i was pleasantly surprised,

bongomad

MJ23 wrote: »

Michael Keaton did 2, Val Kilmer did 1, and George Clooney did one.
Can anyone name the character?
The first two were very good, the second two were atrocious.

Cowabunga

at least michael keaton did a good job! he couldnt do the 2nd he was making another movie lucky for him