Post by egon1982 on Jun 30, 2018 2:19:20 GMT
And there's 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 he says
"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 I vehemently disagree and I just don't understand. Sure. I 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, I 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, 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 with an 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 and that is why I don't agree with the idea of every character in every film is fair game for a re-imagining.
The rare times I have seen a remake be successful is when the character was not played by an actor that was irreplaceable or the film featured different characters altogether. And I honestly prefer the second approach. In three of the most well-received remakes of all time The Fly and The Blob, they all have one thing in common. They don't have the same characters as the originals. They have their own. And because of this their films stand on their own two feet and have created new characters that audiences loved and still remember fondly to this day.
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 Freddy who sounds like Sling blade. 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".
Isn't Ocpcommunications right?