|
I just learned that since Arnold Schwarsenegger is the governor of California, he won't go for
terminator 4! Same goes for when I heard dumbledore was replaced by some other guy in the 3rd harry
potter. It's really lame how once you get used to a character, he gets replaced |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree completely, it totally destroys the movies when the actors leave the series. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Generally films which are based on lengthy novels or stories divided into parts come with a series.
What happens is when we start watching with the first movie of the series we start getting the
picture in our mind about a particular actor who is playing the central character or the protagonist
in the movie. As and when we move ahead with the next volumes, that particular actor gets associated
with us in the form of the character. Now if that character is replaced due to any reason then it
may happen that we may lose our interest on that film or in its forthcoming series. Or even it may
happen that the replaced actor may not suit the character that well as what the previous one used to
be. Thus it gives a visual jerk to the audience which may not be right. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with you how sometimes they have to do it, and they have to get someone who resembles to the
original character like Dumbledor, I didn't notice that much till I saw the credits, but sometimes
it ruins the movies |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I understand where you're coming from, but I do believe it is acceptable sometimes.
For example, Richard Harris, who played Dumbledore in the Harry potter films, was replaced; at first
I did not think it would be the same, but you do usually get used to the new actor; of course, it
helps if they have a vaguely similar appearance, standard of acting, etc.
Also, replacement of an actor may be permissible in certain circumstances. For example, the actor
Heath Ledger, as you probably know, recently passed, and was involved in "The Imaginarium of Dr.
Parnassus". As far as I am aware, if the film goes ahead, they're thinking of Johnny Depp as a
replacement, and apparently they can accommodate for this change as, by chance, there is apparently
a part in the film where Heath's character falls through a magic mirror, and could thus undergo a
transformation into someone new, allowing for a new actor to come into play. |
| |
 jsh4  20 Feb 2008 00:23
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I believe that the same actors should be kept throughout a film series. To me, replacing an actor or
actress spoils the series.
With a film series, we grow to enjoy how the actors portray the characters and for me it never works
if those actors keep on changing.
Obviously some films are not realistic, but to me, constantly changing actors takes away any realism
that may have been there in the first place, particularly if it's the main character that keeps
changing.
I believe that actors should be committed enough to sign up for a series of films. They may not wish
to be typecast, but they will become a household name and it may help their career.
Keeping the same actors gives a more satisfying and realistic edge to a series. I cannot sit down
and watch a film series where the main character has a different face for every film! |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
What do you propose the makers of the Harry Potter films do? Drag Richard Harris' corpse out and
prop him up using CGI to move his mouth? And good riddance to Katie Holmes and hello to Maggie
Gyllenhaal in the Christopher Nolan "Batman" movies.
Sometimes keeping actors isn't possible. Bill Murray was tossed out for the second "Charlie's
Angels" movie because the three cows who were the "stars" couldn't stand being around someone more
talented than the three put together, plus Murray is known to be a civilized human being, unlike
Drew Heroin-more, Lucy Screwloose or Cameron Ditz.
Then they're the issue of money and greed, of which there are too many instances to mention....
Finally, actors aren't always available. Three different women played the character Kitty Pryde in
the three "X Men" movies because the previous ones weren't available, making other films. |
| |
 K9 20 May 2008 18:25
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It should be up to the actors, you can't force them to do anything and if they do not choose to
sign a contract like that, then a lot of big-name productions will be stuck with unknown actors in
the lead roles.
Besides, if you're taking a movie that seriously, then you've got some problems. It's just
entertainment for crying out loud. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
