Recasting vs legacy characters?

[Comicbookguy339]

Firstly, I think that Marvel could easily continue the cinematic universe after Avengers 3 with new(er) characters like Captain Marvel, Wasp, Ant-Man, Strange, Vision, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver and Black Panther. However, I'm sure that at some point Marvel will want to do more Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and Cap.

So, would you rather Marvel recast the roles or set the story up so that after Avengers 3 new guys take up the mantles? Bucky/Falcon as Cap, Rhodey as Iron Man, new (possibly female) Thor and She-Hulk (either Betty or Jennifer).

On the one hand, if done correctly, using legacy characters would really be a novel idea as far as superhero films are concerned.

On the other hand, it would be a shame to lose some of these characters just because their actors have left. But then you run into a strange situation where you have some actors returning from a previous phase and others are brand new. I would personally have it so that we get a new cast for all the characters in one go instead of having some old and some new. And I know that some actors have already changed in the MCU but replacing Evans, Hemsworth, RDJ and even Ruffalo while other cast members remain the same might just feel weird.

Anyone else thinking about these things? Do you have any preferences as to how you would like them to move forward after Avengers 3?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

recasts!

also gradually changing the actors makes the transition way easier for me than introducing all of the new faces at the same time but I know mileages vary. I think it gives the new actor a little more legitimacy when he's surrounded by the veterans and accepted as the face this or that character always had

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

Firstly, I think that Marvel could easily continue the cinematic universe after Avengers 3 with new(er) characters like Captain Marvel, Wasp, Ant-Man, Strange, Vision, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver and Black Panther. However, I'm sure that at some point Marvel will want to do more Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and Cap.

So, would you rather Marvel recast the roles or set the story up so that after Avengers 3 new guys take up the mantles? Bucky/Falcon as Cap, Rhodey as Iron Man, new (possibly female) Thor and She-Hulk (either Betty or Jennifer).

On the one hand, if done correctly, using legacy characters would really be a novel idea as far as superhero films are concerned.

On the other hand, it would be a shame to lose some of these characters just because their actors have left. But then you run into a strange situation where you have some actors returning from a previous phase and others are brand new. I would personally have it so that we get a new cast for all the characters in one go instead of having some old and some new. And I know that some actors have already changed in the MCU but replacing Evans, Hemsworth, RDJ and even Ruffalo while other cast members remain the same might just feel weird.

Anyone else thinking about these things? Do you have any preferences as to how you would like them to move forward after Avengers 3?

I would like them to avoid recasting whenever possible, just let certain characters finish their story and move on to new characters.

I know this is completely antithetical to Marvel's business model, which is to just keep making these movies until eventually they aren't good anymore and stop making money, but I would like it if there was actually a planned end-point for certain characters, and they could let them retire with dignity (at least for now), instead of milking them totally dry.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Recast.

It wouldn't feel weird at all. Bond has been doing it for 50 years. Not once since Dr. No has a Bond film recast everyone at once.

 

[Kiltman]

It'll be interesting what happens when it comes up.

I think we are like a decade away from it happening because for the most part they'll be able to give actors long breaks without solo outings and just have them in the Avengers films.

I don't think there is a single answer to it. Some actors, like RDJ, own the role so much that it'll be really hard for someone to come in and do the same thing. Other actors could change and it would be ok.

In the end I guess the answer is recast. But there should be a couple different ways of approaching it. Obvious one is you just get a new actor and move on like they are the same version of the character. Other one is they die (or some other transformative event happens) for whatever amount of time and then come back as a different actor. During that time if there is a good story to tell, yea have legacy characters take the mantle.

 

[marcvader]

Recast. I'm into the characters and their stories first and foremost not who's playing them.

 

[Fincher]

Recast or phase out without a replacement, generally speaking.

 

[OnTheAir]

Recast. I'm perfectly fine with Feige's intention to use the Bond method. Yes, it will be hard to find someone to fill the shoes of RDJ, Evans, Hemsworth, etc, but the characters must be bigger than the actors playing them.

Also, I can't say that I'm a fan of the concepts of Bucky Cap, Falcon Cap, She-Thor or Iron Rhodey.

 

[Damage11]

A little bit of both would be my preference.

I hope they can pull off "passing the torch" for some characters, like Cap handing over the shield to Bucky or Falcon in Avengers 3.

One recast that would be cool is seeing Dominick Cooper replace RDJ as Tony Stark. Maybe change his look just a tad so he doesn't look exactly as he did playing Howard Stark.

 

[cherokeesam]

Recast. As others have said, there's not going to be anything remotely "weird" about it, with the Bond model being living proof of audience's willingness to accept recasts.

 

[Marvelocity]

No need to recast Cap. I say kill him off and have someone else take the mantle if Evans wants out. I wouldn't bother recasting Thor or Iron Man either. They basically killed off Iron Man in Iron Man 3 anyway, so what's the point of more Iron Man adventures? I think they should just do Ragnarok in the next Thor film and wrap everything up with him as well. So who exactly are we recasting?

I would rather see this thing end with Thanos if they can't keep everyone on board. Continue more Marvel adventures with Strange, Ant-Man, Black Panther, Ms. Marvel, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver if they want to do more. After Thanos, you don't really come back down and fight the Masters of Evil, know what I mean? So you pretty much start small again.

 

[cherokeesam]

No need to recast Cap. I say kill him off and have someone else take the mantle if Evans wants out. I wouldn't bother recasting Thor or Iron Man either. They basically killed off Iron Man in Iron Man 3 anyway, so what's the point of more Iron Man adventures? I think they should just do Ragnarok in the next Thor film and wrap everything up with him as well. So who exactly are we recasting?

I would rather see this thing end with Thanos if they can't keep everyone on board. Continue more Marvel adventures with Strange, Ant-Man, Black Panther, Ms. Marvel, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver if they want to do more. After Thanos, you don't really come back down and fight the Masters of Evil, know what I mean? So you pretty much start small again.

Why not? The comic-book Avengers have done just that for decades, and remained wildly successful and popular at it. All without having to "recast" any of their leads.

 

[Marvelocity]

Can you think of any movie franchise that came back and went smaller with its next installment? The stakes are always being raised. The only way to get around it is to reboot or recast and that's generally done a while after the previous entry - at least 5-10 years.

 

[marcvader]

So no more Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, or Thor in the MCU? Hell no

 

[Marvelocity]

Well, what's the point of keeping Stark around? He did nothing heroic in his last solo adventure. Not only that but he got rid of everything that made him Iron Man. That movie was an ending for a character. I don't even understand why he's in the next Avengers if he has rejected his suit. What's the point of him being in the Avengers without his suit? Nobody wants to see that but the same little kids and women who enjoyed Iron Man 3.

I agree that Steve should stick around until we've had Zemo, Crossbones, a Red Skull rematch and possibly even MODOK. But without Evans, I'd rather see Cap meet his end and have someone else take the mantle.

With Thor, we have to get Enchantress and Executioner, Surtur and finish the deal with Loki. After that, what more do you need from Thor?

I think finishing these stories on a high note is much better than bringing in different actors and pretending it's all the same just to squeeze out more mid-level adventures. Let's face it. Everything after Thanos is going to feel much smaller in scale.

The reason Banner didn't stand out like a sore thumb in Avengers is because Edward Norton was never seen alongside the other Avengers before that. It's not going to look right when Jim from the Office walks up pretending to be Cap and everyone else around him is the same as before.

 

[SlamAdams]

Recasting RDJ for instance would be a little silly if a brand new actor is playing opposite Evans and Hemsworth who have already been playing them. I know it happens, but its still silly. I would rather see legacy style conversions or at least heroic send-offs.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Recasting is going to be a bumpy process. The audience is invested in these specific actors.

I say use the legacy characters for phase 4 and phase 5. Then do a semi-reboot during phase 6 (or rather phase 1B).

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

BTW, where's the poll.

 

[SuperFerret]

I've been saying both. Use the legacy to make way for the recast.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Can you think of any movie franchise that came back and went smaller with its next installment? The stakes are always being raised. The only way to get around it is to reboot or recast and that's generally done a while after the previous entry - at least 5-10 years.

James Bond has done it many times.

Ex. Compare Moonraker (outerspace adventure against a genocidal madman who is trying to wipe out humanity) and For Your Eyes Only (a small scale cold war thriller over possession of a British coding machine).

Heck, the Bond franchise went smaller TWO straight films in the 80s with AVTAK (Nazi superman wants to destroy California with an Earthquake machine) to TLD (secret communist plot to smuggle arms into Afghanistan and control the drug trade) to LTK (Bond goes after a drug lord in revenge for maiming his best friend).

Heck, THIS franchise has done it. Iron Man 3 was a much smaller scale plot from Tony's previous adventure in The Avengers.

 

[3dman27]

use legacy character but recast when needed

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The reason Banner didn't stand out like a sore thumb in Avengers is because Edward Norton was never seen alongside the other Avengers before that. It's not going to look right when Jim from the Office walks up pretending to be Cap and everyone else around him is the same as before.

Marvel has already done it with War Machine. Nobody cared when Don Cheadle was brought in for Iron Man 2, despite everyone else being the same actor as the previous film.

 

[SlamAdams]

Marvel has already done it with War Machine. Nobody cared when Don Cheadle was brought it for Iron Man 2.

That's not entirely true. I saw a number of people bemoan that decision. Its just not the big of a deal so eventually people sucked it up. And if they recast any of the Avengers, people will most certainly suck it up.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

That's not entirely true. I saw a number of people bemoan that decision. Its just not the big of a deal so eventually people sucked it up. And if they recast any of the Avengers, people will most certainly suck it up.

Sorry, I was using hyperbole. What I really meant was 'not a significant amount of people.'

But yeah, people will deal with it. Better to recast than never use Tony Stark or Thor again.

 

[SlamAdams]

Sorry, I was using hyperbole. What I really meant was 'not a significant amount of people.'

But yeah, people will deal with it. Better to recast than never use Tony Stark or Thor again.

I disagree. Marvel is definitely approaching critical mass with the amount of franchises. I'd like to see them shift focus to other characters than just ignore them completely. Plus, I can't pass up the chance for a superhero to actually become a martyr and stay that way. For once.

And I still think you might be downplaying the amount of criticism that came with recasting the role. Maybe it was just the perceived "loudness" of the few negative voices (the ones that are always louder than any others) but either way it wasn't something that changed without a peep.