• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) We may experience a temporary downtime. Thanks for the patience.

About recasting original cinematic made characters.

Hordakfan

Civilian
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
801
Reaction score
14
Points
13
I dunno about something who is thinking of recasting Indiana Jones, i just can't see that.

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 or live-action versions of cartoon characters. 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, Peter Weller as RoboCop, 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.

The rare times I have seen a remake be successful is when the character was not played by an actor that was irreplaceable or the film featured different characters altogether. And I honestly prefer the second approach. In three of the most well-received remakes of all time The Fly and The Blob, they all have one thing in common. They don't have the same characters as the originals. They have their own. And because of this their films stand on their own two feet and have created new characters that audiences loved and still remember fondly to this day.

What's the better option, continue to dig up popular 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.
 
That, or you can just not go see them.
I'm not into the endless assembly line remakes and recasts.
Although there are some that do interest me. Even some gender, ethnic, setting reinventions.
I don't think any film or character should be classified as "pure and untouchable" that seems ridiculous.

I had zero interest in them making a young Han Solo, yet a few trailers, looked fun, saw it and liked it well enough.
Also Lucas already recast Jones, I used to watch his young adventures ;)
So have at it, remake / recast what you want, it's pretty simple to skip the ones that don't interest you.

I want beloved film characters (original characters made for film and not from other sources) to remain pure and untouched...
That the character originated on film, makes no difference, someone else can play them, or put a different spin on the character.
While not everything needs to be remade, and I'd rather they came up with something new.
I also don't agree with the whole- it has to remain "pure and untouchable".
 
Last edited:
That, or you can just not go see them.
I'm not into the endless assembly line remakes and recasts.
Although there are some that do interest me. Even some gender, ethnic, setting swap reinventions.
I don't think any film or character should be classified as "pure and untouchable" that seems ridiculous.

I had zero interest in them making a young Han Solo, yet a few trailers, looked fun, saw it and liked it well enough.
Also Lucas already recast Jones, I used to watch his young adventures ;)
So have at it, remake / recast what you want, it's pretty simple to skip the ones that don't interest you.


That the character originated on film, makes no difference, someone else can play them, or put a different spin on the character.
While not everything needs to be remade, and I'd rather they came up with something new.
I also don't agree with the whole- it has to remain "pure and untouchable".

i'm talking about adult versions of the characters, anyone can play teen or kid versions of the characters.
 
i'm talking about adult versions of the characters, anyone can play teen or kid versions of the characters.

Yeah so was I, Jones was just another example I'm fine with.
As was Solo and others.
Recasting for the same age, for older, slightly older, younger, slightly younger, further; gender, ethnicity, or different setting, etc. Are all fair game.

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.

It's fine, while I'd rather they create new characters, there is nothing sacred about a character created and portrayed for film. they are not "pure and unteachable".
If it's a great character, there may be impetus to explore it further, you don't just permanently retire a character cause the actor moved on.
You like the original version great cherish it!
You don't like the new take, just don't see it.
 
Last edited:
So, no Mad Max: Fury Road?
 
Did you really just call Joel Kinnaman a wannabe John Cena? Lol wow.
 
So, no Mad Max: Fury Road?

Well that was good yet Hardy was fine but he's no Gibson yet Mad Max was an exception.

Ford IS Indiana Jones and Jackie Earl Haley SUCKED as Freddy Krueger despite being a good actor but ENGLUND IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE FREDDY! accept no substitutes.

I'm saying to let the beloved cinematic icons like Indiana Jones, Freddy Krueger, Peter Venkman, Marty McFly and Robocop to rest in peace and live on through merchandise, comics, video games and all instead of reviving old glory with "new faces".

Just come up with new and original characters like John Wick whom i dig the franchise and he's a fresh new cinematic character.
 
One of the interesting things about being an old man (like me) and being a fan of all types of movies (like me)....is that if you live long enough and watch enough movies....you will see scores of actors play the same character in various movies.

Actor "B" is going to play a character that actor "A" previously played? Must be Tuesday.
 
Except i want Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones, Elm Street, Back to the Future and Robocop to be dead and be dead with Michael J Fox, Robert Englund, Bill Murray, and Harrison Ford as no one can play Venkman, Indy and Marty more than them as they are them.

I want the characters of them to live on as legends than making them as reanimated corpses with new faces, it would be an insult.

Accept new characters like John Wick.
 
And I want to see more movies with established characters.

I want them to live and thrive with new directors, new filming techniques, new storylines.
 
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.
That's because they are : )
 
And I want to see more movies with established characters.

I want them to live and thrive with new directors, new filming techniques, new storylines.

Let them die and stay as legends as i cannot see anyone else as Indiana Jones, Venkman, Marty Mcfly or Freddy Krueger.
 
Just come up with new and original characters like John Wick whom i dig the franchise and he's a fresh new cinematic character.

While I really like John Wick, calling him fresh and original is a bit of a stretch. He's just another unkillable force of nature in a revenge movie not unlike The Bride from Kill Bill or Liam Neeson's character in Taken.

Let them die and stay as legends as i cannot see anyone else as Indiana Jones, Venkman, Marty Mcfly or Freddy Krueger.

That one already happened in 2010. If they recast Freddy once, they'll do it again. The rest you mentioned are pretty safe, I think. Especially after how Solo underperformed.
 
It's not that studios should never recast original cinematic characters. But before they do, they should ask themselves why they are doing so. There are many characters that would honestly be best served if left alone; just close their arc, and move on. The Harrison Ford characters are some of the best examples, because Harrison Ford's charisma is unique, and people not only loved Indiana Jones, but they loved Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones.

If there's a quality story to be told, then please... do so. But if it's just another shallow attempt to cash in at the expense of the original.. I'd prefer they don't.
 
It's a slippery slope.

It's not that an actor can't come in and make an iconic cinematic character theirs, it's just it's so rare. Try to name at least ten. Now name me all the ones that went wrong.

Literature, comic books, plays are one thing. They will always be open to interpretation. But yes, I agree that once an actor has put their stamp and their stamp alone on a cinematic character, it's hard to see some other actor come in to play it years or decades later.

There are exceptions. Chris Pine became a movie star playing Captain Kirk in the 2009 version. Tom Hardy did fine as Mad Max (though not quite iconic as Mel would've been).

On the other hard, we've seen it go wrong many more times. Three Stooges, anyone?

But do I want to see somebody else play Marty McFly? Or Snake Plissken? Nah!
 
If there's a quality story to be told, then please... do so. But if it's just another shallow attempt to cash in at the expense of the original.. I'd prefer they don't. Story first.

And there's the truth of it. I was entertained by some aspects of Solo, but ultimately it was completely unnecessary because the story wasn't anything special.

An Obi-Wan movie, on the other hand, I wouldn't mind at all considering Ewan McGregor was one of the best things about the prequels, he's age appropriate for the role and I believe that with the right story it could be something great, like a Spaghetti Western set on Tatooine.

But then you also have idiots on some news sites speculating about a Luke Skywalker origin movie. We got a Luke Skywalker origin movie 40 years ago. It was called Star Wars. :whatever:
 
But then you also have idiots on some news sites speculating about a Luke Skywalker origin movie. We got a Luke Skywalker origin movie 40 years ago. It was called Star Wars. :whatever:

They should make a parallel universe movie where Luke goes to Tosche Station to pick up some power converters.


There are cases where it would be a hard sell for me, to say the least, but the only recast that would really bother me is Indiana Jones. And at the end of the day, if they choose to make it, and people choose to watch it, well, I'll just be off somewhere watching anything else.
 
Sophomoric elitism.

Remakes have happened. Remakes are happening now. Remakes will happen in the future. The studios will do whatever they want and there's nothing you can do about it except to choose to either see a fim in a theater or view it on some type of "at home" service or... Don't go or view it.


I'm sorry but this complaint always sounds childish as though a person was physically hurt because of the existence of a remake. Such arbitrary rules too. "Oh well exapmle X that so obviously goes against this unenforceable rule I have come up with? Yeah, that's the exception."


Just don't go. Don't see what you don't want to. I haven't watched a Terminator film in a theater since T2 and haven't seen one in general since renting the third one lo' those many moons ago when I think it was still the norm to rent physical media from like a Blockbuster. The mere existence of subsequent installments neither vexes my psyche nor does it retroactively ruin two masterpieces of genre cinema. The sooner the fan boy/girl set understand this reality of the situation the sooner not only will they be free from some weird ass cultural anxiety but the wider population will be able to take them seriously as mature individuals that can discern reality from the fantasy they are so passionate about.
 
Just don't go. Don't see what you don't want to.

But....don't government jackbooted goons drag you to the theater and hook you up like Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and force you against your will to watch every movie made? I mean....my god....are you saying we have a....a choice....in what we watch?
 
It's not that studios should never recast original cinematic characters. But before they do, they should ask themselves why they are doing so. There are many characters that would honestly be best served if left alone; just close their arc, and move on. The Harrison Ford characters are some of the best examples, because Harrison Ford's charisma is unique, and people not only loved Indiana Jones, but they loved Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones.

If there's a quality story to be told, then please... do so. But if it's just another shallow attempt to cash in at the expense of the original.. I'd prefer they don't.

It's a slippery slope.

It's not that an actor can't come in and make an iconic cinematic character theirs, it's just it's so rare. Try to name at least ten. Now name me all the ones that went wrong.

Literature, comic books, plays are one thing. They will always be open to interpretation. But yes, I agree that once an actor has put their stamp and their stamp alone on a cinematic character, it's hard to see some other actor come in to play it years or decades later.

There are exceptions. Chris Pine became a movie star playing Captain Kirk in the 2009 version. Tom Hardy did fine as Mad Max (though not quite iconic as Mel would've been).

On the other hard, we've seen it go wrong many more times. Three Stooges, anyone?

But do I want to see somebody else play Marty McFly? Or Snake Plissken? Nah!

Star Trek is a TV show and had movies based on the show and Kirk and co are TV characters and not original cinematic made characters so anyone can play Kirk and crew since they are TV characters. And Equalizer is not a wholly original cinematic character as he's a TV character and anyone can play him.

Hell, 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 with the other 3 original Ghostbusters and Freddy Krueger are entirely original cinematic beloved iconic characters that should be off limits and Murray, Ramis, Ackroyd, Hudson, Englund, Fox and Ford are ALWAYS and will forever be their characters. Even for Egon, Ramis's character died with him.

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. There will be no more remakes or sequels because New Line looked at the bottom line and to have the series remain dead as they have new horror franchises ahead like the Conjuring series and have success with adapting books on the screen like Tolkein's books and Stephen King books.

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 that's good Hollywood
 
Last edited:
Star Trek is a TV show and had movies based on the show and Kirk and co are TV characters and not original cinematic made characters so anyone can play Kirk and crew since they are TV characters. And Equalizer is not a wholly original cinematic character as he's a TV character and anyone can play him.

Why is this so different? Kirk and Spock are iconic characters as well. People took well to the reboot films for the most part, but nobody holds Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto in a higher regard than William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.

What about characters like Tony Soprano or Walter White who are iconic in their own right? Nobody else could play those roles.
 
Why is this so different? Kirk and Spock are iconic characters as well. People took well to the reboot films for the most part, but nobody holds Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto in a higher regard than William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.

What about characters like Tony Soprano or Walter White who are iconic in their own right? Nobody else could play those roles.

I'm talking about purely cinematic made original icons that were made for film and created for film.
 
But your reasoning should be the same for those characters as cinematic characters.
 
I reckon it’s inevitable. I mean, people are saying iron man should die with Robert Downey jnr which I think is silly. There’s so many stories to tell. Some roles are bigger than one person.

I mean, imagine if Macbeth died with the original cast?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"