Jump to content


Toggle shoutbox Squawkbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

Please don't post Youtube videos in the chat box. The forums software auto embeds them. 

@  Maximus Ambus : (23 September 2020 - 01:20 PM)

@Bass X0 Shockwave did it.

@  TheMightyMol... : (23 September 2020 - 11:56 AM)

At least it's not Suntwerker.

@  wonko the sane? : (23 September 2020 - 11:19 AM)

I read that name as "suntweaker" the first time, and was terrified for a moment...

@  Bass X0 : (23 September 2020 - 03:41 AM)

Prowl did nothing wrong.

@  TheMightyMol... : (23 September 2020 - 01:50 AM)

Smashy, Stabby, Selfy, and Shieldy.

@  Xero Prime : (22 September 2020 - 08:52 PM)

RunFast, MuckyTrail, TrackBreaker and Sunstreaker

@  TheMightyMol... : (22 September 2020 - 06:16 AM)

Runamuck, Fasttrack, Sunstreaker, and Trailbreaker.

@  Nevermore : (22 September 2020 - 06:13 AM)

Cardboard and plastic.

@  Paladin : (22 September 2020 - 05:52 AM)

what's IN Wave 3, anyway?

@  Telly : (21 September 2020 - 06:35 PM)

i dont think theyre due for release until november. at least thats when target says ill get trailbreaker and sunstreaker. thought the wiki says theyre out in singapore

@  TheMightyMol... : (21 September 2020 - 06:01 PM)

Has wave 3 actually reached anywhere yet?

@  Maximus Ambus : (21 September 2020 - 04:40 PM)

A few more Bearimy's for Earthrise wave 3 to reach the UK

@  Spiritofeigh... : (20 September 2020 - 05:07 PM)

Cheers pal.

@  wonko the sane? : (20 September 2020 - 04:42 PM)

Welcome aboard!

@  Spiritofeigh... : (20 September 2020 - 04:38 PM)

Hey, new to the boards

@  RichardT1977 : (20 September 2020 - 02:29 PM)

I had an idea for a Spiral Zone/Go-Busters crossover fanfic...

@  wonko the sane? : (19 September 2020 - 06:35 PM)

I loved what was there, and think it's pretty ripe for "renegades" style reboot.

@  Rycochet : (19 September 2020 - 03:13 PM)

It's a shame as I loved Spiral Zone, and the design from the Japanese Toyline of the same name are fantastic, I adore the monowheel motorbike.

@  Rycochet : (19 September 2020 - 03:12 PM)

Hasbro doesn't seem to have any interest in doing anything with the TV show, haven't greenlit any attempt to rerelease it, and there have been approaches, so I think it may be aother one of Tonka's legal carcrashes where everyone involved owns a piece and it's not really worth anyone sticking their neck out to claim ownership.

@  Steevy Maximus : (19 September 2020 - 01:47 PM)

I feel that homages and references would be a fun way to expand the GI Joe brand, and give a little love to lines that are unlikely to be acknowledged beyond such capacity.

@  Steevy Maximus : (19 September 2020 - 01:47 PM)

I was under the impression that Bandai was more the character design aspects, not story or characters.

@  Rycochet : (19 September 2020 - 12:55 PM)

Also isn't it in rights limbo, given how it's loosely based on concepts from a BanDai series much like GoBots?

@  Rycochet : (19 September 2020 - 12:52 PM)

We don't need a Spiral Zone reboot, in a decade or so we'll be living it.

@  wonko the sane? : (19 September 2020 - 12:49 PM)

Yeah, but it would fundamentally change the base premise of both gijoe and spiral zone. It's either not the world spanning threat it was, or the zone riders are backed up by a competent force. Either way, you compromise the context of both.

@  Steevy Maximus : (19 September 2020 - 12:19 PM)

Akin to what was done with Matt Tracker in 2008.

@  Steevy Maximus : (19 September 2020 - 12:18 PM)

Again, not a PURE transplant, but an integration of ideas and concepts into the world of GI Joe.

@  Steevy Maximus : (19 September 2020 - 12:18 PM)

@Wonko The Cobra Overlord, with help from Dr. Mindbender and Cesspool, develops machines capable of generating a mind-controlling fog. GI Joe stalwarts Flint, Airtight, Lifeline, and Psyche-Out are joined by Colonal Courage to infiltrate these zones and disable the machines. Figures would sport hostile environment suits (Eco warriors cross with Spiral Zone) and make new versions of the mono-wheel vehicles.

@  Maximus Ambus : (19 September 2020 - 09:39 AM)

Hasbroverse.2 with bought properties: Bravestarr, Ulysses 31, Galaxy Rangers, Shadow Raiders, Manta Force, Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors, Mighty Orbots, Jem and Bigfoot and the Muscle Machines. Seamless.

@  wonko the sane? : (19 September 2020 - 08:32 AM)

While acknoledging spiral zone would be pretty boss, I doubt they could actively integrate it into anything else: given the scale of the villains deeds.

@  Steevy Maximus : (19 September 2020 - 08:03 AM)

COPS, Spiral Zone, Shadow Strikers, Action Man, Centurions, MegaForce. They wouldn’t replicate the old lines, but simply acknowledging their existence would be nifty.

@  Steevy Maximus : (19 September 2020 - 08:01 AM)

I would love to see GI Joe become something of a “celebration of action figures”. Hasbro has SO MANY old action figure properties, and many could slot into the GI Joe umbrella with relative ease.

@  Otaku : (19 September 2020 - 12:04 AM)

G.I. Joe, CyberCOPS, and M.A.S.K. all seem like something that would work from Animated or Prime, though CyberCOPS might have been a bit trickier from Prime.

@  Sabrblade : (18 September 2020 - 11:02 PM)

Rik Alvarez originally wanted the last episode of Prime to spinoff into a new MASK reboot.

@  Otaku : (18 September 2020 - 08:19 PM)

The failed Hasbroverse reminds me how so many things could have been spun off from Transformers: Animated and (after that) Transformers: Prime.

@  ▲ndrusi : (18 September 2020 - 12:43 PM)

Requiem of the Wreckers was post-Revolution, but it was also, you know, a single issue.

@  NotVeryKnightly : (18 September 2020 - 11:06 AM)

But Roche didn't have a series to keep out from the crossovers since Sins of the Wreckers was before Revolution.

@  NotVeryKnightly : (18 September 2020 - 11:01 AM)

Oh wait, that post said Roche, not Barber.

@  Rycochet : (18 September 2020 - 10:46 AM)

And then seemed surprised nobody particlarly wanted it.

@  NotVeryKnightly : (18 September 2020 - 10:25 AM)

Wasn't Barber among the editorial guys that pushed for Hasbroverse?

@  Maximus Ambus : (18 September 2020 - 10:19 AM)

He did it possibly due to 616 Spider-Mans marriage reset between Civil War and Secret Invasion.

@  ▲ndrusi : (18 September 2020 - 09:20 AM)

Bendis kept a tight leash on Ultimate Spider-Man because it was mostly set far away from Earth?

@  -LittleAutob... : (18 September 2020 - 08:49 AM)

I'm learning so much-

@  Maruten : (18 September 2020 - 04:21 AM)

At its worst it was better than MASK, sure.

@  Maximus Ambus : (18 September 2020 - 02:15 AM)

At it's worst it still stomped all over the failed Hasbroverse. Roberts and Roche kept their respective series well out of that one for the same reasons Bendis kept a tight leash on Ultimate Spider-Man when Loeb and Miller wanted greater control for Ultimatum.

@  Maruten : (17 September 2020 - 06:37 PM)

That's so accurate it's physically painful.

@  Rycochet : (17 September 2020 - 02:05 PM)

The Red Dwarf of Transformers? An interesting, innovative and genuinely funny series that descended into a self referential mess of cliches that continues long after it should have been put out to pasture and rendered nerly everyone thoroughly unlikeable? That seems about right.

@  Bass X0 : (17 September 2020 - 01:59 PM)

MTMTE and Lost Light are the Red Dwarf of Transformers stories, as opposed to the others which are more like Star Wars and Star Trek.

@  Kalidor : (17 September 2020 - 01:37 PM)

Anyone in CONUS want a Skylynx for $100 shipped?

@  Maximus Ambus : (17 September 2020 - 01:34 PM)

Maybe an acquired taste in that's in that it's from a fan raised on the UK run where Transformers wasn't taken so seriously in many stories, especially some Earthforce standalones.

@  Paladin : (17 September 2020 - 09:47 AM)

so, terrible?


Photo
- - - - -

How it's impossible to recast cinematic icons


54 replies to this topic

#1 Egon1982

Egon1982
  • Citizen
  • 344 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Faction::Maximal

Posted 02 September 2018 - 06:05 AM

http://www.youtube.c...nszrNtgHc&t=44s

 

Here is a video by one of the best youtube critics of movies/TV shows known as Ocpcommunications who is one of my friends on youtube and here is his thoughts on why it's impossible to recast purely cinematic made for cinema icons like Freddy Krueger, Indiana Jones, Han Solo, Rocky Balboa, Ellen Ripley, Robocop, John McClane, John Rambo, Sarah Conner etc. which are entirely different than casting live action versions of book/video game/comic characters like Batman, James Bond, Superman, Pennywise, Jud Crandall, Dracula, Shakespear's characters, Frankenstein, Dr Moreau, Lara Croft, Wonder Woman, Punisher and more.

 

And there was some talk about replacing Ford with a new actors on Indiana Jones a while ago like 3 years ago. And i have a friend named Mike Brown who is a very popular youtube movie/show critic named Ocpcommunications and here is an excellent rant on recasting established original cinematic characters and how it's impossible to do that compared to recasting novel/comic/animated to live-action/video game characters like Pennywise, Jud Crandall, Captain Abhem, Dracula, Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Joker, Jack Torrence, Frodo Baggins etc.

 

 

Some people are actually defending recasting iconic film characters with different actors. And even more so with the recent release of Solo. They actually think that all film characters are fair game for a new actor portraying them.

 

 

And it's fine that they feel that way. But him and i vehemently disagree and I just don't understand. Sure. We both do have exceptions, like Bond (he was a literature character) or characters from novels or comic books or movie versions of TV show characters. But for the most part, me and him want beloved film characters (original characters made for film and not from other sources) to remain pure and untouched by half-assed or horrible attempts to recapture lightning in a bottle.

 

 

 

 

Some roles have actors that were born to play them and there really are no substitutes. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Bill Murray as Peter Venkman, Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, Linda Hamilton as Sarah Conner, Bruce Willis as John McClane, Stallone as Rocky Balboa/John Rambo, Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly and Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger are all examples of this. And any actor that will attempt to play the character will pale in comparison. They have the charisma and personality that is unique only to them and that is what makes these characters so iconic and what brought them to life.

 

 

 

 

And don't give me the "They will make it their own" response. Make it their own means they will take the character and make it something completely alien to the character we all know and love in order to separate it from the original, potentially swap the genders, or just half-heartedly attempt to capture the same magic.

 

 

 

I have never seen a single remake, reboot or sequel with an original iconic character or film have a lead that is anywhere near as memorable or as effective as the original for these same reasons. The track record is abysmal like Freddy or Robocop (I agree with Ocpcommunications that Richard Eden from the TV show of Robocop is the closet thing to Weller for Robocop but none of them have the same charisma as Weller) and that is why him and I don't agree with the idea of every character in every film is fair game for a re-imagining.

 

 

What's the better option, continue to dig up popular original cinematic characters out of the grave every ten or twenty years and try to do the impossible and find the perfect actor to play the role again, or stop doing that and put that effort into finding new characters for a new generation?

 

 

There need to be limits. Otherwise, you get A wannabee John Cena as RoboCop, and a southern friend redneck Freddy who sounds like Sling blade. him and i would rather these iconic made-for-cinema (created by cinema) characters be retired on film and only brought back in books, comics, and video games then see lazy attempts by Hollywood to bring them back with new faces in "new" films just to piggyback off the success of the previous franchise.

 

 

Let these beloved made for cinema original characters that you love die and become legends, instead of live forever and become total jokes and nothing but hollow cash grabs".


Edited by Egon1982, 02 September 2018 - 06:07 AM.


#2 HellCat

HellCat

    Opinionated idiot

  • Citizen
  • 29289 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 September 2018 - 06:30 AM

I feel this problem is exacerbated by human perception utlimately being defined by our mortality and fear of it. Human beings lack the perception of pure fact as everything we feel is influenced by our emotions and our ultimate loneliness as single entities. Iconography and tradition is popular with humans as it grants us the illusion of cheating death, that we are somehow intimately connected to those who both came before and after us. Consistent iconography plays to the innate human desire for stability and our belief that our closest ideals (and by proxy ourselves) cannot be challenged and are correct.

 

Mankind's existence is the ever tragic struggle of the individual to cast their perception and thus themselves as eternal truth, that will endure long after the flesh has rotted.



#3 The Doctor Who

The Doctor Who

    Properly Cross

  • Supporter
  • 18817 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, United States
  • Faction::Free Agent

Posted 02 September 2018 - 10:13 AM

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.

 

Somewhere.

 

...

 

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.


nzo8WYb.png


#4 videomaster21XX

videomaster21XX

    I wanna sing a song!

  • Citizen
  • 5541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:That place, with that thing...
  • Faction::Equestrian

Posted 02 September 2018 - 10:42 AM

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.

 

Somewhere.

 

...

 

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!  :D


It's a secret to everybody

Spoiler


#5 Mako Crab

Mako Crab
  • Citizen
  • 3954 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon
  • Faction::Maximal

Posted 02 September 2018 - 11:47 AM

Theres a flaw in this argument, and thats in assuming that adapting books or video games doesnt count, because those characters were initially created in a different medium that allows the audience to use their imagination to either visualize the characters based on words on a page or flesh them out if theyre based on a game. An adaptation would thus be different every time, whereas a character that originated in film has already been realized on-screen for us.

But you cant tell me that people will accept just any action star as Solid Snake in the upcoming Metal Gear Movie. He may be just a game character, but he has a look, facial expressions, dialogue, his movements are motion captured, and hes got that distinctive voice. Stray too far from that, and fans wont accept him as a legitimate adaptation. Hes every bit as much a realized character as any live actor that has appeared on film.

By that same token, as much as I love Robert Englund as Freddy and as much as he defined the character, he also hammed it up as Freddy in his worst, cheesiest moments. Jackie Earle Haleys Freddy isnt remembered for being a bad Freddy. Hes remembered for being a decent Freddy in a bad Elm Street movie. People like to think that if only Robert had played Freddy in the 2010, that it wouldve been a good movie.
No.
It wouldve still sucked just like Elm Streets 2, 5, 6, and that god awful TV show.

And what about characters like Golem that are purely digital characters, motion captured like Solid Snake (and others)? Do they count or not?

Bottom line: as much as I like certain actors in certain roles, its inevitable that the boom of remakes will eventually see them recast. All I hope is that when those new takes on established, iconic characters does happen, that we get quality reinterpretations instead of garbage performances or garbage movies.
  • 000 likes this

#6 fourteenwings

fourteenwings
  • Citizen
  • 2378 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Faction::Free Agent

Posted 02 September 2018 - 11:51 AM

Actually by this logic I have a solution.

  1. Adapt popular film franchise into some other form of media with a wildly different version of character
  2. Hope this gets cult following
  3. Option to Hollywood
  4. Instead of 'rebooting' the film franchise, you're 'adapting' a new take that wasn't the original version at all!

Also Freddy Krueger might be an iconic role but Dream Warriors still happened so I'm not sure where the purity of that franchise lies. what Mako said.


Edited by fourteenwings, 02 September 2018 - 11:52 AM.

There is love everywhere, I already know

✰Japanimation Connoisseur✰


#7 Mako Crab

Mako Crab
  • Citizen
  • 3954 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon
  • Faction::Maximal

Posted 02 September 2018 - 12:16 PM

I thought Dream Warriors was pretty solid. Dream Child & Freddys Dead, though, my god were those bad. Best part of FD was the credits, which had a clip show of scenes from all the other movies playing. Kinda reminded me of why I liked the series after I just sat through one of the worst entries.

#8 abates

abates
  • Supporter
  • 4953 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Faction::Predacon

Posted 02 September 2018 - 03:11 PM

I was set to make a big argument that the rise of home video is to blame for this, and that if they'd remade Citizen Kane 10-20 years later with someone other than Orson Welles in the lead role, people wouldn't have cared because those who'd seen the original wouldn't have recalled his performance as well. There aren't huge legions of fans of the original Flash Gordon serial because it was played in cinemas once and then gone. It didn't have time to build up a cult following who saw Buster Crabbe as the definitive Flash Gordon and refused to accept Sam Jones in the role. Meanwhile Luke Hamill is everyone's picture of Luke Skywalker and any recasting is going to have a hard time being accepted.

But then I remembered that Star Wars already cast a new actor as Obi Wan Kenobi and ISTR everyone was pretty chill with it.

So why did that particular instance of recasting work? Was it because Ewan McGregor was pretty good at emulating Alec Guiness's performance, and the fact he was playing a younger version of the character meant that the visual difference was easier to accept?

#9 ZakuConvoy

ZakuConvoy
  • Citizen
  • 692 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 September 2018 - 03:31 PM

There's always CGI...

 

I mean, the franchises where these things are a problem are already 90% special effects anyway, we'll get around to getting rid of that 10% someday.



#10 ZacWilliam1

ZacWilliam1
  • Citizen
  • 18146 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ct. USA
  • Faction::RIRFIB

Posted 02 September 2018 - 03:58 PM


Recasting is fine. Solo movie was loads of fun. I'd rather more of that than Geriatric Jones and the Temple of Joint Pain.

-ZacWilliam, It'll be easier when the generation that first knew the first version of the Icon is dead. Later generations are likely to be much less unhealthily clingy to the first take.
Ever wonder about the speed of Turbofoxes?
Or the proverbial ailerons of Titanium Moosebots?

*Visit the one and only Cybertronic Bestiary.
For a mechazoologic tour of the mechanimals of Cybertron.


#11 Nutjob R/T

Nutjob R/T

    I love this thread.

  • Citizen
  • 25546 posts
  • Faction::Autobot

Posted 02 September 2018 - 05:43 PM

Jeff Goldblum as Obi-Wan
Trey Smith as Luke
Bob Odenkirk as Han
Mike Myers as Darth Vader
Earth is Kill because Santa.

#12 Egon1982

Egon1982
  • Citizen
  • 344 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Faction::Maximal

Posted 02 September 2018 - 06:55 PM

 

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.

 

Somewhere.

 

...

 

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!  :D

 

 

 

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.

http://www.youtube.c...RJ_aQPJk&t=768s

 

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. 



#13 NovaSaber

NovaSaber

    Soundwave is colorblind

  • Citizen
  • 6197 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Faction::RIBFIR

Posted 02 September 2018 - 07:37 PM

 

 

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.

 

Somewhere.

 

...

 

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!  :D

 

 

 

Bond is a completely different thing as he's not a cinematic creation but a book creation.

Technically, but he's much more famous from movies.

 

And of course the joke was that the character The Doctor Who actually meant was clearly the Doctor from Doctor Who. (Television obviously being in the same "actor can define the character" place as movies.)



#14 Fortress Ironhold

Fortress Ironhold

    Blasphemer

  • Banned
  • 20567 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copperas Cove, Texas

Posted 02 September 2018 - 07:43 PM

 

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.

 

Somewhere.

 

...

 

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!  :D

 

With Bond, there's a popular fan theory that the characters aren't re-cast. 

 

Rather, the operatives are replaced. 

 

Bond, Moneypenney, M, and Q are just titles by this theory, with each successive person assigned to that position inheriting the title. Same with Felix Leitner. 

 

Not only does it help justify how Bond's been around for decades, it also makes "James Bond Jr." and the original "Casino Royale" easier to fit into the overall canon. 



#15 Nutjob R/T

Nutjob R/T

    I love this thread.

  • Citizen
  • 25546 posts
  • Faction::Autobot

Posted 02 September 2018 - 09:39 PM

Well seeing as we've seen Q and M explicitly reassigned on-screen...
Earth is Kill because Santa.

#16 Nutjob R/T

Nutjob R/T

    I love this thread.

  • Citizen
  • 25546 posts
  • Faction::Autobot

Posted 02 September 2018 - 09:46 PM

And besides, we've already proven that replacements work fine when we replaced Harold Ramis with Kate McKinnon
Earth is Kill because Santa.

#17 The Doctor Who

The Doctor Who

    Properly Cross

  • Supporter
  • 18817 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana, United States
  • Faction::Free Agent

Posted 02 September 2018 - 10:25 PM

And of course the joke was that the character The Doctor Who actually meant was clearly the Doctor from Doctor Who. (Television obviously being in the same "actor can define the character" place as movies.)

Yeah, though I will admit that Doctor Who is kind of a unique case in television history.

 

Like, when William Hartnell was getting too old to keep acting, they were forced to deal with an impossible situation and took a gamble on something which, even today, is a huge risk. Recast the lead character!  And they did it in about the only way it could be done - make it a feature!

 

But it can't be denied that the longevity of Doctor Who is almost entirely due to the fact that the franchise regularly reinvents itself. New Doctor, new Companions, new TARDIS sets. Revisit old ideas with the new Doctor and see how it all plays out.

 

And that's why I don't worry too much about recasting.  Like, look at Captain Kirk, right?  William Shatner defined the character for decades in TV and movies, but he's really too old and out of shape to really return to the role, but there's a lot of potential for the character to keep having stories, so what do you do?  Just cap off an iconic character and pretend they don't exist anymore?  Or do you bring in a new actor, one who might bring something new to the character and open up even more options for the character's adventures? 

 

The old stories aren't going anywhere. TOS and the movies didn't disappear because they created a reboot (yes, yes, alternate timeline, whatever, same thing for all practical purposes), so why not try something new? Maybe it'll work (like the Fourth Doctor) and maybe it won't (like the Sixth Doctor), but it all adds to the options that storytellers have and keeps the potential alive for new awesome stories.

 

And, like I point out, it's going to happen, like it or not, so might as well get used to it.


nzo8WYb.png


#18 Egon1982

Egon1982
  • Citizen
  • 344 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Faction::Maximal

Posted 03 September 2018 - 09:38 AM

And besides, we've already proven that replacements work fine when we replaced Harold Ramis with Kate McKinnon

You mean in that Ballbusters film? that movie will be forgotten as it already has and the franchise DIED with Harold Ramis. If Ghostbusters franchise is not done by Harold Ramis then it's not Ghostbusters and have no desire to ever watch the new film as to me the franchise died with Harold and any other film attempt to me without him is just a shitty cashgrab, i even saw Ocpcommunications's rant on Ballbusters which i refuse to see and avoiding that money grab for i think it's time to leave GBs alone now that Ramis is dead and should just live on through merchandise, video games, toys, books, comics, animated shows and streams of the old movies.

 

I'd rather Hollywood make new fresh characters like John Wick like i mentioned which is a fresh new franchise and a new action icon! 

 

Even Robocop 2014 i thought sucked ass and was a poorly done/watered down version of a sci-fi classic action masterpiece and Joel was terrible as Robocop which the film is called Robocock (based on his misprouncation of the character's name in interviews) and an insult to the character. Robocop is one of my fave characters in sci-fi and action films but only in the first 2 films as 2 was the last film worth a damn for Robocop but 3 with the remake, TV shows etc. just keep watering down the character and the replaces for Weller were abysmal yet Richard Eden from one of the TV shows was the closet but still not on par with Peter Weller who owned the role.

 

Robert Englund recently said he's too old to play Freddy Krueger and has retired the character, see folks, the character dies with him even though he didn't die because Englund's DNA is in Freddy Krueger and is the heart/soul of the character. Just let Freddy go. Robert has so much DNA inside of that character that its just not possible to really recast him successfully. They already tried that and it was a total failure. Englund's DNA is in that character. He is what made it what it is. You can't replace that let alone replicate it.

 

It's like when Liam was replaced by Arnold Vosloo in the Darkman sequels. That didn't work out.

 

I say let the elm street franchise rest in peace on film and be retired from film with the character dead! let the character and it's legacy live on through books, merchandise, appreal, comics and video games which are fare games than staining the character's legacy on film when it's already dead. Come up with new horror  franchises and new horror characters! take for example WolfCop, Annabelle, The Nun, Captain Splauding, Jigsaw (despite the franchise of Saw is dead now), The Creeper, etc and they all gave it a shot and it's ok to let some older franchises like Elm Street just die from film and live on through other medias i mentioned and make new icons and new franchises


Edited by Egon1982, 03 September 2018 - 09:42 AM.


#19 ultra magnus13

ultra magnus13

    Razzaroo

  • Citizen
  • 6891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Faction::Free Agent

Posted 03 September 2018 - 02:08 PM

I casual NOES viewer probably has no idea who has played Freddie, or even that it was the same guy for so long. They also don't care.
I finally got rid of that big white box.

#20 DarkeklawGW

DarkeklawGW

    Slowly losing myself in a good way

  • Citizen
  • 6206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Pond Pennsylvania
  • Faction::Free Agent

Posted 03 September 2018 - 05:08 PM

Everytime someone says &N doesn't matter because the "Casuals" don't care... Seems to forget that the whole reason they don't care is because they aren't really interested in the franchise in the first place.  Forgetting the fan base is a good way to end up failing.   

I mean the first two TF movies had a good amount of Fan input from the Don Murphy message board.  But has fan input was given less and less agency the movies got worse and worse.   Taking characters and recasting them because "It seems like it will bring in new fans"  Doesn't always work.   With a series like Bond sure you can do that because the movies come out at such a pace that some of the former leads get too old to play the part, or the actor wants to do other things.  OR the actor wants too much money.   Making jarring changes just because it woulds seem cool or to fit an agenda... WITHOUT MAKING SURE THERE'S A QUALITY STORY or a good IN STORY reason (Like w/ Dr.Who)  can mean hurting a franchise.  

BTW your Dead Wrong about the younger generation not knowing about Freddy.  The man himself is amazed at how many "Third Generation" fans he has. 


For Bella Rose Fraizer-Grant Sept 8, 2011 to Nov 26th 2011... Pop-pop will always love you!!!!

 




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users