You're really hung up on this bit, aren't you? It doesn't need to be a fence that is straddled, as neither side needs to not play well with the other.Originally Posted by fett
Anyway: I wouldn't take too seriously the word of someone who saw a treatment twenty years ago. Whatever he saw was written back when the cast was still relatively young, and the years have only really proven that George never really had the over-arcing plan that he might have once claimed. And besides, ol' neckless no longer has the final say on any of this.
My guess, again, is Disney is savvy enough to recognize the following three universal truths from which all beauty and innocence spring: (1) a sequel trilogy should be somewhat tied to the first two trilogies, and should therefore feature some familiar characters, but (2) nobody wants to see old Luke and fat Leia wheezing and jiggling through action setpieces, and yet (3) recasting familiar roles would be difficult to pull off.
As such, I'm guessing (as I've said) that the new trilogy will feature the next generation of characters, and Luke and co. will return as peripheral elders.
I think you're right Stitch, bang on in fact, and that is the only way that they could realistically do it without it being really poor.
However, there will be light sabres which are dull as dish water now, and light sabre fights, which are so yawn inducing.
Doubtless there will be Sith, also a yawn. Makes me wonder; do the Jedi realise that the cycle will repeat ad nauseum?
Telepathy is not mind reading. It is the direct linking... ...of nervous systems... ...separated by space.
Whatever. How many people have played James Bond? Or Batman? Or Spiderman? Or The Hulk? Looper even has two people playing the same character in the same movie. I don't think the movie-going public in general gives a rats-arse about recasting. I think movie-makers actually care more - something about "artistic integrity" - but IMO that shouldn't get in the way of telling the right story.
Pretty much everything you typed is wrong, beginning with your dismissive "Whatever."
You appear to have some pretty major delusions.I've presented substantial evidence for my position. You've merely made a dismissive statement, ironically focusing solely on what you're calling a dismissive statement.
How many people have played Luke Skywalker?
All the characters you cited existed in written and illustrated fiction long before they were put on film, thus there is a built-in cultural expectation that the actors portraying them will be merely another element of the adaptation. Mark Hamill, on the other hand, is Luke Skywalker, just as Harrison Ford is Han Solo, Mel Gibson is Mad Max, Robert Englund is Freddy Krueger, Kurt Russell is Snake Plissken, and so on and so forth. Audiences, for whatever reason you care to put on it, seem profoundly more receptive to recasting a character from a book (Jack Ryan, Jason Bourne, Dr. Frankenstein, etc.), than recasting the actor who defined the character. It's certainly been attempted, but the success rate has been... not so great. They tried to replace William Shatner as James T. Kirk and we ended up with a whiny punching-bag douche. Norman Bates as not-Anthony Perkins-- that sank like a stone (yes, based on a book, but not a well-known one at the time). Anyone but Bruce Campbell as Ash... that remains to be seen. Even a character from a book, like Willy Wonka, can be so memorably portrayed by a particular actor that their performance becomes the benchmark for all successive actors to brave the role.
So, can anyone cite a film that recast a popular original character and is generally considered to have done a good job of it?
Sometimes ZB really pumps my nads.
That post was beautiful.
And I think Stitch just didn't bother because you were so wrong Pyrian. ZB has summed it up right there.
And the Looper thing didn't even make sense. Next you'll quote Brando and De Niro in Godfather 2.
Telepathy is not mind reading. It is the direct linking... ...of nervous systems... ...separated by space.
Yes, plus I really wanted ZylonBane to pump your nads.
I must admit that most of the recasting in Star Trek [sic] was pretty good, James T. Facepunch excepted. Too bad about the movie itself sucking.
You are right on the money here, though I'd go a step further and put him in the same category as the others as he is irreplaceable.
That's true, but I'm very dubious of the notion that the effect is significant. Recasting Hulk was not a problem, recasting Iron Man would be. Recasting Mark Hamil would not be a problem, recasting Han Solo would be. That has nothing to do with whether there's any pre-existing materials, and everything to do with the shoes being filled.
Maybe you can!
So, basically everything you just told me and got congratulated for telling me, you don't even agree with?
Niiice.
So, yeah, I totally agree with you, it'll be fine as long as they do a good job of casting and bad if they don't. Just like any other movie.
No cheating. Come up with your own example, douche.
Just a couple more point here: you actually have things reversed--I think filmmakers would be all too happy to swap actors or actresses between films depending on availability and popularity, but it's the movie-going general public that actually cares (to some degree) about actor/actress consistency. Filmmakers care, sure, but mostly (I'd guess) because they know that the public does. Films are ultimately made for the viewer (and their wallets), even if the filmmakers might also think that they have a better idea what the viewer wants or needs than the viewers themselves.
ZB handled the rest of why your post is wrong and your examples are shit--reboots, really?!--but you do make a point in a follow-up post that while still wrong is at least more peripherally connected to a reality that is shared by people besides yourself:
I'd agree that there are certain roles that become iconic because of the spark and personality granted by a specific actor's portrayal. This is why, for example, Katie Holmes was recast in the new Batman trilogy and Heath Ledger was not.
At the same time, though, you're completely wrong if you think that recasting Mark Hamill would be a trivial matter. Hamill is at the center of one of the most successful film trilogies of all time. As ZB pointed out, Mark Hamill is Luke Skywalker in the eyes of everyone, and breaking that for sequels would not be without consequence.
Actually, for me, Hamill is the voice of the Joker. (Ledger is all well and good but his brutal, anarchic interpretation of the character doesn't completely jibe with what's in the comics most of the time.)
Facepalm.
The question isn't "Who is Mark Hamill?" The question is "Who is Luke Skywalker?"
So okay, we've established that Luke Skywalker isn't Heath Ledger.
I was responding to Stitch's exact wording.
Which isn't a remotely like being an impossible pedant.
Jesus Christ guys
You know it's bad when even I think this is petty bickering.
Yep.
In news that is actually interesting: Star Wars 7 may have found its writer
It's Michael Arndt, who wrote Little Miss Sunshine and Toy Story 3. He's also a Star Wars nerd.
From the article: "Since winning the Oscar for Sunshine, Arndt has lectured extensively on the art of storytelling at numerous writers’ retreats, like the Hawaii Writers Conference in Maui and the Austin Film Festival, always featuring a lengthy and detailed explanation of why the original Star Wars’ ending is so creatively satisfying."
That'll do
It says they've spoken to both Hamill and Ford. NOW I'm interested, but I fear a Crystal Skull scenario. I will admit that a Crystal Skull minus Lucas scenario might be awesome.
YES to the last three posts.
I'd fett those bobbas or vice versa. Whichever works.
Meh, I'm over Star Wars anyway. The latest movies were so so. Definitaly not classics like the originals.
Gotta give Lucas props though, donating the entire 4.05 billion to education!
Entire 4 billion? The articles I've seen said it was the majority, not the full amount. Still a good move.
Yeah, only the majority. Screw that greedy bastard. What about the children?
Telepathy is not mind reading. It is the direct linking... ...of nervous systems... ...separated by space.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
