If They Recast or Replace?

[ernesth100]

I hear alot of people saying if they make a new Avengers line up without IM, Thor, Hulk and CA the big 4 they'll stop watching. I also hear people say if they recast those big 4 they'll stop watching. So my question is, what will you really do if hey recast or replace the Big Avengers?

 

[Tanin]

Watch the film and judge if the sequels after that films are still worth watching.

 

[jokesonm3]

I have a feeling that recasting Iron Man would be as controversial as when Affleck was first cast as Batman.

Brace yourselves Marvel fans.

 

[jaymes_e06]

Yeah there will be an obvious adjustment period but it wont be impossible for them to overcome. Fanboys will be fanboys. Casting will be key though.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I have a feeling that recasting Iron Man would be as controversial as when Affleck was first cast as Batman.

Brace yourselves Marvel fans.

If you think that was bad, can you imagine the reaction if WB said they were retiring the Batman character and never using him again...ever?

They have to recast. In fact, they already have (Hulk).

 

[ernesth100]

True, recasting is the smart thing to do.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

As for the topic question, 'I' would probably see it because I'm a Marvel fan, although it depends on how it is handled. If they just start focusing more on other characters like Dr. Strange, Captain Marvel, etc., I will still be interested. If they do something like callously kill off Peter Parker and replace him with some lame ripoff like Miles Morales, then no, I won't watch it.

But I know a lot of non-fans, general audience members who wouldn't give it the time of day without Iron Man and Captain America. Yes, Ant-Man was successful, but he still brought in nearly A BILLION fewer dollars than Iron Man does.

 

[Zarex]

I'm much more amenable to replacing than recasting. Introducing a thirty something up-and-comer as the new Tony Stark would kill the beautifully constructed continuity of the MCU. This is much different than the previous Bond, Spidey or Bats recastings in which the entire cinematic universe changed along with the new actor.

I'd be totally fine with a new character putting on the armor (or picking up the hammer, wielding the shield, etc.)

 

[ernesth100]

The real question is what will the GA soak in better. A new younger actor dawning the armor as Stark. Or a completely new character taking his place.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The real question is what will the GA soak in better. A new younger actor dawning the armor as Stark. Or a completely new character taking his place.

Younger actor. Definitely. The James Bond film series is the model they should be following. While there may be hiccups, it is proven that audiences will accept recasting iconic characters.

People want to see James Bond 007. Not Special Agent John Smith who takes over the same job. Just look at what happened with The Bourne Legacy when they tried doing that.

The same is true for Marvel. Look at the box office gross of the last three films with Iron Man. Now look at the grosses of the last three films without Iron Man. Even the best of them (GOTG) did half a billion dollars less than the lowest grossing one with Iron Man.

 

[jokesonm3]

If you think that was bad, can you imagine the reaction if WB said they were retiring the Batman character and never using him again...ever?

They have to recast. In fact, they already have (Hulk).

Agree with you there.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

i made a thread about rdj here and the majority of people said recast

 

[Mike5575]

I hear alot of people saying if they make a new Avengers line up without IM, Thor, Hulk and CA the big 4 they'll stop watching. I also hear people say if they recast those big 4 they'll stop watching. So my question is, what will you really do if hey recast or replace the Big Avengers?

People will never stop watching Marvel movies. I think the main reason why Marvel went for three movie a year, is so that they could eventually replace at least some characters. With phase 3, there are enough movies for Marvel to make sequels for their beloved characters and introduce new ones. With Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Spider-Man, and Black Panther, Marvel will be able to answer the question "which heroes will have to be recast?" It's more of a "let's see how the newbies do with their own movies" kind of thing. Without three movies a year, it would be very difficult to replace the original Avengers lineup.

I could definitely see the movie-less heroes being replaced or given backseat roles to new players with their own movies such as Black Panther and Captain Marvel. I think they'll end up recasting Stark, but I hope he's an older version that what we started out with, because that would mess with continuity, unless they have some in-universe explanation like he was de-aged by an infinity stone, or something.

The original six are great characters, but after ten years, I'd rather see an all new team. There's an entire universe of characters to explore.

 

[4thWallBreaker]

Recasts bother me. Though I will say Don Cheadle won me over as Rhodey and Mark Ruffalo as Banner/Hulk. So, wasn't too painful. Hulk was early on and so it survived the transition during the hiatus to Avengers. Though what it would be like if Edward Norton was in this MCU as long contracted character. Would've brought a different vibe, imo. With Cheadle, I think he's a better actor than Terrance Howard, so that one just worked out for me.

 

[Mike5575]

Recasts bother me. Though I will say Don Cheadle won me over as Rhodey and Mark Ruffalo as Banner/Hulk. So, wasn't too painful. Hulk was early on and so it survived the transition during the hiatus to Avengers. Though what it would be like if Edward Norton was in this MCU as long contracted character. Would've brought a different vibe, imo. With Cheadle, I think he's a better actor than Terrance Howard, so that one just worked out for me.

I've always thought of Rhodey as one of the more disposable Avengers, but his strongest performance was in Iron Man 3. Don Cheadle was just far more believable as a competent, disciplined, military guy than Terrance Howard.

 

[Mike5575]

Younger actor. Definitely. The James Bond film series is the model they should be following. While there may be hiccups, it is proven that audiences will accept recasting iconic characters.

People want to see James Bond 007. Not Special Agent John Smith who takes over the same job. Just look at what happened with The Bourne Legacy when they tried doing that.

The same is true for Marvel. Look at the box office gross of the last three films with Iron Man. Now look at the grosses of the last three films without Iron Man. Even the best of them (GOTG) did half a billion dollars less than the lowest grossing one with Iron Man.

That's a pretty unfair comparison since the last two movies Iron Man was in were Avengers films. I doubt an Iron Man 4 would make as much as the last and Guardians was the first film of a new franchise. I'm excited to see how much the new hero films will make. I think some people will be surprised.

 

[Zarex]

Younger actor. Definitely. The James Bond film series is the model they should be following. While there may be hiccups, it is proven that audiences will accept recasting iconic characters.

People want to see James Bond 007. Not Special Agent John Smith who takes over the same job. Just look at what happened with The Bourne Legacy when they tried doing that.

The same is true for Marvel. Look at the box office gross of the last three films with Iron Man. Now look at the grosses of the last three films without Iron Man. Even the best of them (GOTG) did half a billion dollars less than the lowest grossing one with Iron Man.

Universal wouldn't have fared any better if they called Renner "Jason Bourne". Marvel is going to run into the same challenges if they put a new character into the Iron Man suit than if they start calling a guy twenty years younger than Downey "Tony Stark. I hope they choose the first option.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

That's a pretty unfair comparison since the last two movies Iron Man was in were Avengers films. I doubt an Iron Man 4 would make as much as the last and Guardians was the first film of a new franchise. I'm excited to see how much the new hero films will make. I think some people will be surprised.

No, they weren't. One of the last two was Iron Man 3, which did over $1.2 billion. Iron Man's last solo was much closer to the Avengers films in terms of gross than any non-Iron Man film was to it. And it isn't just because Guardians were new heroes. Captain America 2 and Thor 2 couldn't come close either.

I could definitely see the movie-less heroes being replaced or given backseat roles to new players with their own movies such as Black Panther and Captain Marvel. I think they'll end up recasting Stark, but I hope he's an older version that what we started out with, because that would mess with continuity, unless they have some in-universe explanation like he was de-aged by an infinity stone, or something.

The real problem isn't even Stark, it is Spider-Man. Neither Marvel or Sony will EVER allow a 40 year old Spider-Man. He will have to be kept perpetually young. And if he stays young, it limits how much other characters can age too. Stark at least could feasibly be active well into his 60s.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Universal wouldn't have fared any better if they called Renner "Jason Bourne". Marvel is going to run into the same challenges if they put a new character into the Iron Man suit than if they start calling a guy twenty years younger than Downey "Tony Stark. I hope they choose the first option.

Except Tony Stark IS Iron Man. Another character in the suit would just be viewed as a false or fake version. It is a much harder sell to audiences than a recast.

Imagine if in the third Harry Potter film, they simply mentioned that Albus Dumbledore died off-screen and they welcome a new replacement out of nowhere. It would have been disastrous.

These types of replacements almost never work. It is so common that TV Tropes even has a term for it (Replacement Scrappy).

The only time it works is if the real appeal of a property is in the larger universe as opposed to particular characters (like Star Wars). Even something like Star Trek only met with mixed success with new crews (TNG crew was popular for awhile, each successive crew progressively less so). The franchise was floundering for years. Then they rebooted and the general audiences came back for the first time in decades because they had Kirk and Spock back again.

 

[Drizzle]

I have a feeling that recasting Iron Man would be as controversial as when Affleck was first cast as Batman.

Brace yourselves Marvel fans.

It's going to be worse. Various actors had played Batman before Affleck was cast. RDJ is the only one who's played Tony in films. Although, the argument could be made that fanboys were so venomous to Affleck's casting because of Daredevil.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It's going to be worse. Various actors had played Batman before Affleck was cast. RDJ is the only one who's played Tony in films. Although, the argument could be made that fanboys were so venomous to Affleck's casting because of Daredevil.

The reason it was so venomous towards Affleck is because fanboys already disliked him, a lot of it because of Daredevil, but also Sum of All Fears, Gigli, etc. While he has had a great deal of success as a director, he's never really be able to revive his reputation as an actor after those early-to-mid 2000 bombs.

While there will always be some resistance to new casting choices, it generally isn't that severe. Basically Ben Affleck was the problem, not Batman. You don't see the same criticism towards say...Tom Holland as Spider-Man, as an example. You only get it for certain very polarizing actors, of which Affleck is one. So if Marvel casts Tom Cruise or Keanu Reeves as Tony Stark, yeah, the Internet will explode. But it wouldn't be as bad for every actor.

 

[Mike5575]

No, they weren't. One of the last two was Iron Man 3, which did over $1.2 billion. Iron Man's last solo was much closer to the Avengers films in terms of gross than any non-Iron Man film was to it. And it isn't just because Guardians were new heroes. Captain America 2 and Thor 2 couldn't come close either.

It's still an unfair comparison. The first films of a new franchise are always the less profitable(AOU the only exception). I am almost certain GOTG2 will make more than it's predecessor.

The real problem isn't even Stark, it is Spider-Man. Neither Marvel or Sony will EVER allow a 40 year old Spider-Man. He will have to be kept perpetually young. And if he stays young, it limits how much other characters can age too. Stark at least could feasibly be active well into his 60s.

Marvel could still use the same actor for 10 years. Garfield was 30, playing a teenager, and people still bought it. I have a hard time wrapping my head around Grandpa Stark suiting up in the Mark 697. A 60 year old Stark wouldn't work unless he's taking up a mentor/Nick Fury role. The only recast I think would work is if Tony Stark dies in Infinity War and is brought back to life with Infinity Stone magic, which had the unintended consequence of de-aging him ten or so years.

A 60 year old Iron Man would not work. The younger heroes would run circles around him.

 

[Zarex]

Except Tony Stark IS Iron Man. Another character in the suit would just be viewed as a false or fake version. It is a much harder sell to audiences than a recast.

Imagine if in the third Harry Potter film, they simply mentioned that Albus Dumbledore died off-screen and they welcome a new replacement out of nowhere. It would have been disastrous.

These types of replacements almost never work. It is so common that TV Tropes even has a term for it (Replacement Scrappy).

The only time it works is if the real appeal of a property is in the larger universe as opposed to particular characters (like Star Wars). Even something like Star Trek only met with mixed success with new crews (TNG crew was popular for awhile, each successive crew progressively less so). The franchise was floundering for years. Then they rebooted and the general audiences came back for the first time in decades because they had Kirk and Spock back again.

Though no franchise is quite like Star Wars, the MCU has built up enough fan support to move beyond its Phase 1 heroes while maintaining continuity. I'd much prefer the next Shell Head be Arno Stark, Amadeus Cho or some yet to be introduced Hong Kong based twenty something tech genius (who's mom may have spent a weekend with Tony a few decades ago) than bring in a young actor to do a RDJ impersonation. And destroying over a decades worth of continuity in the process.

And as we've seen with Star Wars, folks will say good bye to iconic characters and embrace new ones if done correctly. I think Feige and company have proven they can pull it off.

And if, like Star Trek, Marvel has to reboot after 40 years I would be fine with that. I won't be around to see it, so it's all good.

 

[meanmc]

First, they should use the actual actors as long as possible. Chris Hemsworth is young, Chris Evans too, RDJ can play Iron Man still for 10 years, and Ruffalo too.

So, it will be a question of money...

If they have to recast, i have no problem with it - as long, as they take the right choice.
But i think, there is no need to recast anybody. They should stay with the old crew as long as possible. I think just RDJ would be expensive - but he knows too, that Marvel is a win-win situation!

 

[SirStrangefolk]

Except Tony Stark IS Iron Man. Another character in the suit would just be viewed as a false or fake version. It is a much harder sell to audiences than a recast.

Imagine if in the third Harry Potter film, they simply mentioned that Albus Dumbledore died off-screen and they welcome a new replacement out of nowhere. It would have been disastrous.

These types of replacements almost never work. It is so common that TV Tropes even has a term for it (Replacement Scrappy).

The only time it works is if the real appeal of a property is in the larger universe as opposed to particular characters (like Star Wars). Even something like Star Trek only met with mixed success with new crews (TNG crew was popular for awhile, each successive crew progressively less so). The franchise was floundering for years. Then they rebooted and the general audiences came back for the first time in decades because they had Kirk and Spock back again.

I think it's like you said with Star Wars. We just need the Finn and Rey of the MCU, instead of recasting Luke, Leia and Han*. They don't need Tony Stark, nor do they need Iron Man. They can introduce new characters now, make popular movies with them, and before they are in danger of losing them, they'll have introduced new characters. Want a guy in a suit? We have Rhodey. Want a big flagship Marvel character? Spider-Man. Audience drawing actor with witty humour and some ego? Doctor Strange. Man with a tech company? Pym. Rich guy? t'Challa. [BLACKOUT]Alcoholism? Carol Danvers. (just kidding t[/BLACKOUT] And perhaps they could also get Reed Richards in their movies at some point.

I know that Iron Man is a popular franchise, but from what I hear, for a lot of people, especially the GA, it's RDJ who's getting them in and not the Iron Man suit. Many even say he saved IM 2 and/or IM 3 for them. I think it would be better to have the character on break and leave the possibility open for a glorious return, than to risk making new movies with a new guy.


*I haven't seen the Force Awakens yet, but from what I gather these characters are the new protagonists, right?