Does re-casting discard the previous movies of the series, to you?

[luca_frontino]

The most notable examples are the Batman films from '89 to '97.
When you think of Batman Forever do you place it right after Batman Returns and in the same continuity/series?
How about the Nolan duology and the character Rachel Dawes?
And the latest re-casting for Iron Man II of James Rhodes and Howard Stark?

 

[Bobber]

with Batman Returns to Forever, it really does seem like a whole new series.
A bunch of new actors and a new director, and a completely different style.

But TDK and Iron Man 2 (of course i dont know that), it still feels like the same series, and the style is pretty much the same.

 

[Chewy]

And the latest re-casting for Iron Man II of James Rhodes and Howard Stark?

He was in two pictures in the first movie, come on.

And Don Cheadle is a better actor than Terrence Howard, so that's an upgrade.

 

[arachnid-guy]

Yeah. You might as well include the "Re-Casting" of Beast from his appearance in X2 and then played by Kelsey Grammar in X3.

 

[Boom]

It typically doesn't bother me, especially if the replacement actor is an improvement.

 

[Superark]

In regards to the Batman movies, yes I consider Burton's films to be completely seperate from Schumacher. Those movies changed much more than just the actors.

As far as other recasting, it doesn't really discard the previous movies. But I do hate recasting characters

 

[SuBe]

I don't consider Batman Forever and Batman & Robin to be in the Same Continuity as Batman 89 and Returns. The styles were so different. Plus, you can see that Returns couldnt happen unless 89 did. But, Batman Forever and B&R didn't need 89 or Returns for the Stories to be told.

The Dawes/Maggie/Homles thing doesn't bother me one bit, because even though the Actors are different, the TDK couldn't happen without Begins.

It's the Same as Iron Man. As long as the Story and style is consistent, I consider it the same "Universe" or Continuity.

Just because Star Trek III: Search for Spock had a different actor to play Savik doesnt negate the Fact the Star Trek II came before it.

 

[WeaponXProject]

Yeah. You might as well include the "Re-Casting" of Beast from his appearance in X2 and then played by Kelsey Grammar in X3.

Who is he in X-2, in X-1 he is on T.V. and just human.



As for recasting it depends on if it is in a continuing series. If so I don't like it. I didn't like Dawes or Rhodes recasting, with respect to the actors, the on screen continuity was bad. Especially for Rhodes and Cheadle with the two of them different looking than eachother. But if Cheadle can keep the character in the same style as Howard then I am fine with it.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Darrin Stephens is a role. Just like Hamlet, James Bond, and Dracula.


It shouldn't matter.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Fanboys overreact to recasting...that is all.

 

[SuBe]

Darrin Stephens is a role. Just like Hamlet, James Bond, and Dracula.


It shouldn't matter.

I agree, it shouldn't matter, only if the Director Changes, then I worry.

 

[That-Guy]

One of the strangest cases of casting or not re-casting is the case of the Bond films, because issues with keeping the SAME cast members appear to convolute the story more than the ones that were re-casted.

We've had 5 different James Bonds, which makes sense given the number of films. However, we've only had 2 actors play the part of Q, the second of which was actually introduced as a replacement. It gets even more convoluted when we get to M, because Judi Dench took over the role, and in Goldeneye, Bond makes a reference to her noob status as the leader. Yet in Casino Royale, which technically should take place before Goldeneye, M is still the head of the unit. It works if Casino Royale is intended to be a new continuity (which it is, at least to some degree, with the shift in tone and the lack of gadgetry) but it's odd that they kept one of the actors.

 

[블라스]

I seriously cannot bring myself to give a sh...about any kind of recasting in any movie.
I only care if the movie is good or not. If I like it or not.
Throwing a e-hissy fit about something as stupid as this is just....ugh.

When you consider the real problems that exist in the world, *****ing about something as small as "HEY! HE'S BLOND! NOT LIKE THE ORIGINAL! THIS MOVIE IS GONNA SUCK!" just make people seem ignorant, spoiled and shallow.

We should feel lucky that we live in a country(ies) where we have the freedom to go see a movie whenever we want to.

I'm not saying you should feel like I do, but if I live in a world where some people have literally nothing to eat, I'm never going to say something like "I'M A TRUE FAN, SO I'LL BOYCOTT THIS MOVIE, WHO'S WITH ME?". In my eyes, that's just being a spoiled, ungrateful brat.

I say: enjoy what you get. You don't like a choice of casting or whatever in a movie? Fine, don't go see it and be grateful you have the choice to go see/do something else.

 

[Drizzle]

Who is he in X-2, in X-1 he is on T.V. and just human.

He was on TV in X2. He wasn't in the first one.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I don't consider any of the X-Movies to be connected since Kitty Pryde is played by a different actress in each.

 

[Symbiotic]

To answer the thread's question, no it does not.

 

[JRPJCDJC]

I really, really hate when they do that. Most recently I noticed it in Terminator's 2 & 3 and with part 4 coming out soon that will make 4 different John Connor's? Ed Furlong from Judgement Day, they main guy from Rise of the Machines AND the flashforward of adult John Connor, and then Christian Bale in Salvation. If Furlong had been in RotM it may have been able to be overlooked but he wasn't.

The X-Men ones don't bother me much because Beast has all the makeup. Kitty Pride didn't have enough of a role for it to matter for me.

The different Batman's in the first Batman series definitely hurt it. If Michael Keaton had been in all the movies it would have made it a really good series as opposed to a good series.

Overall, this can be attributed to the fact that filmmaking is still a relatively new artform and making series is damn near 'right out the box.' Now you can see the developements being made as they are shooting 2-3 movies at once or at least planning on it. Lord of the Rings, Matrix, Pirates of the Carribean, and the forthcoming G.I. Joe trilogy are all capitalizing on that process.

 

[Mr.Webs]

In my opinion, with comic book films, I consider a recast to be something like a new artist taking over the book. Looks different, but as long as the core of the character remains, it's fine.

 

[Sawyer]

He was in two pictures in the first movie, come on.

And Don Cheadle is a better actor than Terrence Howard, so that's an upgrade.

Thats debatable. And I think that Howard is a better fit for Rhodey physically, so I'm not terribly happy about the change in casting, but I can probably live with it.

But, really, I think it depends with casting changes. If you change casting for a few smaller roles (like Rachel Dawes), then I dont think it discards the previous films, but if you change roles for larger characters, it tends to seperate the two films.

 

[luca_frontino]

from Judgement Day, they main guy from Rise of the Machines AND the flashforward of adult John Connor, and then Christian Bale in Salvation.

I just noticed the series sounds better this way:

The Terminator
Judgment Day
Rise of the Machines
Salvation

Instead, when you repeat Terminator four times consecutively it's really redundant.
But it doesn't matter for that franchise, 'cause all those recasting, to me, puts the movies in different continuities, so Salvation stands on its own.
Same goes for The Dark Knight (because Rachel is an important character in both movies), Iron Man II (Rhodey), The Last Stand (Beast), Attack of the Clones & Revenge of the Sith (Anakin) and so on.