I mean, I'm sure there's a franchise that could get better and possibly last forever because the lead character is frequently recast.
Not that I can think of any notable examples off the top of my head.
But I'm sure there's one.
Anyway, recasting iconic roles is pretty much inevitable, unless we somehow discover unaging immortality, so, like, dislike it all you want, it's going to happen. Get used to it and learn to appreciate different takes on the same character.
You can just say it! We all know you mean James Bond!
Bond is a completely different thing as he's not a cinematic creation but a book creation.
the Solo movie that was teenage Solo and a teenage version of the character Solo or Indiana Jones is ok but i want the adult version to be of limits.
Do you think the man in the video i showed you all has a point?
Bond (He came from novels before he became a series of films), Joker, Wolverine, Dorothy Gale, Conan, Frankenstein, Tarzan, Dracula, Batman, Superman, Lara Croft, Shakespear's characters, The Punisher, He-Man, Snake (if they make a Metal Gear Solid movie), Spider-Man etc. are ALL entirely DIFFERENT as they are characters brought from the pages of print (books, comics, toys, video game and novels) which are DIFFERENT than PURE CINEMATIC CHARACTERS like Freddy Krueger, Ellen Ripley, Ash Williams from Evil Dead franchise, Rocky Balboa, Marty McFly, Peter Venkman with Ray/Winston/Egon, Indiana Jones, John McClane, John Rambo, Snake Plisskin, George Bailey, Rick Blaine (Casablanca), Han Solo, T-800 etc.
My friend on the video and my own point, a character like Dracula is fine. It started as a novel character. Dracula is not a cinematic creation that was only created for the screen and neither was Shakespeare. Dracula is fair game and so are Shakespeare's characters.
A character like Freddy Krueger though that was brought to life by an actor on screen, that's what the guy in the video is talking about here. It's not worth trying to do a different interpretation of that character, because that character wouldn't be as popular or as well known without Englund's unique performance.
Film is a completely different method of storytelling than a book or a play or a video game.
Remakes are a different thing all together. And he also liked the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead a lot more than the original and i enjoy both versions. And with the original NOTLD and its characters and performances they aren't nearly as iconic as Robert Englund's Freddy Krueger.
Him and i honestly do feel though that Robert's performance will continue to stand the test of time for decades to come. It already has for nearly 40 years. I do see the difference. Dracula was an established character long before it was brought to the screen in 1931 by Tod Browning and Bela Lugosi.
The same applies with Shakespeare and his characters. They are not characters they were brought to life by the actors who portrayed them on film. Screenplays are a completely different story telling medium than a novel or a play.
They rely upon an individual actor to really bring that role to life and make it resonate with an audience. Freddy doesn't say that many lines in A Nightmare On Elm Street. It is Englund's presence and unique take on the character that makes that character so iconic. It isn't the script or the character by itself. It is that unique combination of actor and script that makes a cinematic character iconic.
They already tried to recast Freddy even after the first ANOES and they realized that was a bad idea. And then with the 2010 remake it was once again proven that Freddy Krueger is one of those characters like many other cinematic icons that needs the actor that portrayed them to make it work on screen.
Jackie's freddy was neither funny, fun or scary as he was just laughable even with his skinless cat look, joyless attitude and southern hick accent to make the character seem like a Rob Zombie version of the character. I mean Jackie was great as Rorschach in Watchmen but poor as Freddy Krueger when it proves, you can't do it! Robert IS Freddy and will die with Freddy. Here is one of Ocpcommunication's hilarious rant reviews being Elm Street 2010 when he did his Elm Street marathon and his least favorite elm street with 5 which 2010, 5 and 2 are my least favorite! like him and i have similar favorites being 1 3 and 4 and we both like Freddy's Dead and enjoyed New Nightmare and liked some parts of Freddy vs Jason as in 5 Englund seemed bored because he was doing 2 other roles in 1989 and he felt energetic in 1 2 3 4 6 New Nightmare and Freddy vs Jason as he was having a ball, while i think Jackie was poor as he felt joyless and not charismatic.
It's better to let those characters the video guy and i mentioned retire or die when the actor who put their personal stamp on it quits or passes away. Otherwise you get half assed performances like whoever has tried to play Pinhead after Doug Bradley, and many other recent examples.
Plus him and i would rather an actor put time and effort into creating a new icon than trying to fill the shoes of an old one. Now for example, John Wick is a brand new fresh cinematic icon even to the action genre and i welcome that franchise and character.
John Wick is now with the likes of John McClane, Chow Yun Fat's Tequila Yuen, Neo, Snake Plisskin, John Rambo and others in terms of iconic pure cinematic action icon characters.
The casting wasn't bad for Freddy on the Elm Street remake. Him and i admit that. But the issue is that even with a talented actor like Jackie Earle Haley, Freddy just doesn't have the same gravitas as he does with Robert Englund. Plus the Jackie version was horrible as he felt soulless, void of charisma and personality. He is proof Robert Englund is the ONE AND ONLY Freddy Krueger, accept no substitutes. Novel characters like Jud Crandall and Pennywise for new adaptations of Pet Sematary and IT are safe to recast as they were brought to life in the pages of a book before they were movies and mini-series and aren't like original cinematic horror icons like Freddy.
Characters like Leatherface, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers are completely different! 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 and wear masks.
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, Ash from Evil Dead franchise, Tallman from Phantasm franchise or even Pinhead, the actor has to be both a physical and an emotional presence. Which is what makes those roles nearly impossible to recast. Because of how closely tied they are to the actor's performance.
The actor's performances in A Nightmare On Elm Street or Evil Dead or Phantasm or Hellraiser were the largest factor in the success and impact of those characters. Their unique personalities and charisma is what made those characters icons. Without them those characters are one and done and nothing but distant memories. Doug Bradley with Bruce Campbell and Angus Scrimm are THOSE characters they played and since Angus Scrimm kicked the bucket in 2016, The Tallman died with him.
And even respected people in the industry are against this concept of recasting cinematic original icons. Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale as long as they are around will not sign off on a remake of Back To The Future, and plan on having the rights as a part of their estates and even give a no remake policy to the family will of both. At least they should know better as Back to the Future trilogy was lightning in a bottle and you can't capture the same magic as the trilogy, so Universal comes up with different merchandise, appereal, comics and video games throughout the years even have them on streaming sites so generations can see this amazing trilogy for what it was.
For Solo and Jones, it's fine if it's a movie or TV show about them as teenagers and anyone who is young can play teenage Indy or teen Han Solo but the adult version should be off limits.
Frank of Naked Gun will always be Leslie Neilsen and they had talks a remake with Ed Helms *cringes at the idea even at today's comic "talents" which none of the charisma or wit of any older comedian/actor like John Candy or Neilsen* but good thing it was canned, Neilsen died with Frank.
Now there's also fantasy characters like Jareth the Goblin King from Labyirnth and Jack Burton, those are wholly entirely original cinematic fantasy characters different than Conan or Frodo Baggins or Gandalf or Harry Potter because Conan, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter etc. came to life on the pages of books before they were movies and TV shows. Labyrinth and Big Trouble in little China are entirely cinematic creations for the fantasy genre and there were talks of a Labyrinth remake back in 2010 and i find that insulting as you cannot replace David Bowie because Bowie is in the DNA of the character Jareth even brought to life by the performance of the character you know as he's proof you can't strike lightning in a bottle twice because of Bowie's charismatic performance as the character and they canned the remake, the character DIED with Bowie. They wanted The Rock to play Burton in a Big Trouble in little China remake, BAD IDEA! Russell IS Burton and Russell's DNA is in the character and IS the character. Now instead of a remake it's now a sequel they are doing with The Rock as a different character and not the same character as Jack Burton which is a good thing not to have the same character.
I am fine with that character of Frank from Naked Gun not being portrayed on film ever again or any of the purely cinematic characters i mentioned. In a book, comic, animated series, costumes, toys or video game to merchandise it's fair game to bring these characters back to life again with it's legacy to live on even streams of the old movies on amazon/hulu/netflix/crackle especially physical media re-issues. But on film, that character dies when the actor who portrayed him or her dies or stops playing the role It's only fair if you ask me. This is what leads to the creation of new and fresh icons like John Wick for example. Not the same ones over and over again.
Recasting iconic film characters with new faces and continually rebooting established cinematic franchises is pure laziness and Hollywood doesn't need to get even more lazy than it already is. Why do you think some of these icons existed in the first place? They had a place to be born into, a space that was not already occupied by popular film characters of the past.
Let those other actors take the time they would put into a new interpretation of the character and let them try to be a completely different new icon that can stand on their own two feet like John Wick who is a modern version of John McClane/and not try to fill the same shoes of the same character of John McClane.
If you want to make a new Indiana Jones style franchise, just make Uncharted into a movie then.