If a longstanding actor dies in a franchise, what should you do?

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Case by case.
Generally, I for recasting characters, if there is a "build-in" opportunity for it (like character rising a successor in universe) or if it is a reboot. When it comes to long-running series, I'd prefer, if character would be left alone, because, recasting wouldn't make any sense and out of respect for the actor.

Though, I personally think, that we are moving to the period, where Hollywood and other studios, would simply "deep fake" deceased actors or use entirely 3D generated ones, with probably generated voices as well, to avoid hassle with casting altogether.

In the case for Black Panther. They don't need to recast the character. They can go on without him by having Shuri becoming the new Black Panther. And they can do this because its canon to the comics.

[Leo656]

"Characters" are bigger than mere mortals, so recasting of fictional characters shouldn't be verboten. Although it should be treated delicately with respect to the individual circumstances. But there shouldn't be any sweeping "one-size-fits-all" sort of mandate or solution, things simply don't work that way.

I mean EVERY "Batman" is "The BEST Batman EVER!" to a certain group of fans - George Clooney being the notable exception; he's not even George Clooney's favorite Batman - so it goes to show you that as much as people whine about "You just CAN'T replace _____!", they get over it really quick.

I think absolutely anyone and everyone is replaceable, and we've seen that already countless times. I mean, as divisive as the Star Trek Abrams movies were, most fans seemed like they'd be perfectly fine if that specific cast had better material to work from. And that's a notoriously finicky and outspoken fanbase. But they went from "Nobody else can be Kirk and Spock!" to, "Okay, we like the new guys... the story and execution sucks, not them, they can stay!" VERY fast. So if they can do it, I fail to see how it would flop in any other setting or franchise. It's all in how the situation is handled.

Mark my words, it might take 50 or even 100 years, but if they're still making Star Wars movies, we WILL get a new Luke and Leia. It's inevitable. Sh*t, we already had a new Han Solo, and most people seemed perfectly fine with the guy himself even if they didn't like the movie, and that guy doesn't even resemble Harrison Ford, for f*ck's sake. Moreso than just a new Luke, Leia, or Vader... since there's now a Star Wars "Multiverse", it's ALSO inevitable that one day, they'll make a series of movies that overwrite the Original Trilogy and say those movies were just "Legends", and "Here's what REALLY happened..." And they'll have a shiny new cast to go along with it, and people will whine and piss and moan but in the end people will say "That's not so bad," and some will even like it better than what came before.

Because that's what always happens.

"You CAN'T replace _____! They're irreplaceable!" is absolute nonsense. BUT, I do agree that there's Good Ways and Bad Ways to handle it if someone dies or is otherwise unavailable to continue, and that each situation needs to be handled delicately. Or at least in a way that isn't baffling and/or insulting to either the actor's memory or the audience's intelligence.

This one's controversial, but I would have just had Leia get blown up with the ship in "The Last Jedi" and spared us all the "Mary Poppins" nonsense and the re-jiggered footage used in Ep. IX. I mean we all KNOW she's dead and they can't use her anymore in a direct sense, so keeping her character alive felt really weird. I mean, if they really wanted to, they could have just used a CGI Force Ghost of her with a sound-alike voice actor for Ep. IX and it might not have looked as ridiculous and out-of-place as what they ended up doing. Either way they were in a bad situation. And hey, maybe my idea isn't that great, and some might find it disrespectful, and that's okay. I just think, if nothing else, it wouldn't be AS insulting to the intelligence of the viewer.

Although generally, I'm not in favor of the "deepfake"/"Bring Them Back To Life With CGI" thing, I rather find it exploitative and there's a slippery slope where someone like Kurt Cobain might one day appear in a commercial selling sex jelly 50 years after he's dead, or something else unseemly or offsides, and I'm sure he (and many other entertainers) wouldn't want that for themselves, whether they're alive to care or not. Pretty sure I read that Robin Williams specifically had it put in his final wishes that nobody be allowed to manipulate his likeness for profit after he was dead, for example. So nobody's going to be CGI'ing his face onto a new Mrs. Doubtfire anytime soon, thanks to his foresight. I can see why SOME people might think it's fine, and I mean, if they get permission from an actor (or in some cases their family) then that's their business. I just think it's kind of morbid and cheap.

This isn't a new conversation, either. When George Reeves died, the studio wanted to do a Jimmy Olsen show using stuntmen filmed from behind and playback recordings of Reeves's voice, with occasional stock footage of Reeves himself. Jack Larson, however, called it "a sick case of necrophilia" and refused to have anything to do with it. If they had the technology to CGI Reeves's face onto another actor back then, you know they would have considered it. But I personally have to feel the same way Larson did. And Lord knows Reeves's ghost would have probably took a swing at whoever suggested the idea in the first place. He wasn't thrilled about playing Superman when he was alive; he would have been FURIOUS if they kept him in the role after he was f*cking dead.

But again, other performers may feel differently and I think if they're okay with that, that's their business. I only suggest they could have used a CGI "Force Ghost" Leia since they'd already "deepfaked" her in "Rogue One" so it already existed in that series as a workable option. It wouldn't have been the best or most graceful solution, and I can understand why they didn't do it. I just think that what they DID do for Ep. IX didn't work very well and they probably should have done something else.

No real easy answer to this one. Definitely no catch-all solution, to be sure. My gut says, "Just recast, f*ck it." But that isn't always the most graceful way out. Just the most pragmatic.

[Sumac]

Thing about Batman he was replaced before, so its not like Clooney was the first case of it.

I personally feel like there are some irreplaceable actors, in a sense, that no-one will be able to play this character, like them. But I am open to the idea other actors plating roles differently from their predecessors.

The best example of this is Sherlock Holmes so many incarnations and most of them are very different from each other.

[Mayhem]

As with everyone else, case by case basis. In terms of Black Panther franchise specifically, I'm on the Shuri takes the mantle side because that's canon to the comics as well.

Originally Posted by ssjup81

If it's an ongoing series where that character is absolutely needed, then there's no way around it. That person will have to be recast. That would be like in Lord of the Rings if Astin would have passed away after the second film. Sam was integral and support for Frodo's (Woods) character. That's a situation where a recasting of the character would make sense.

Jackson filmed all three books together and in piecemeal order, so if any of the main cast had died during filming, almost willing to bet it would have been a recast and then reshoot of everything done to that point featuring that person. Filming took 4 years or thereabouts to complete, and another 3 years for the CGI.

[frank_one]

Originally Posted by Sumac

I am open to the idea other actors plating roles differently from their predecessors.

This is a key point to take into consideration. A character is only an idea, a concept. Different actors can offer different interpretations while they try to bring that concept to life, that's the magic of cinema. We all love Ford's Indiana Jones but his is not the only possible Indiana Jones, we have only seen one of the infinite possible interpretations of that character.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Sumac

But I am open to the idea other actors plating roles differently from their predecessors.

Exactly. And that was what I was getting at with the Harrison Ford Indiana Jones thing. I can't see anyone else playing the part. And then I thought about Chris Pratt doing it and thought "maybe". And then I realized this has been going on for years in franchises and then actors at working jobs where they are replaceable.

Originally Posted by Mayhem

As with everyone else, case by case basis. In terms of Black Panther franchise specifically, I'm on the Shuri takes the mantle side because that's canon to the comics as well..

I think in that regard the MCU got lucky there. The truth is that almost every comic book hero has been replaced by another character for some time at this point. It's a story trope and has been for.... I don't maybe even 50 years.

They have a solid franchise with Black Panther though. I hope they can pull it off. But I've got to say, Boseman was likeable as hell in that role, man.

[ssjup81]

Originally Posted by Mayhem

As with everyone else, case by case basis. In terms of Black Panther franchise specifically, I'm on the Shuri takes the mantle side because that's canon to the comics as well.


Jackson filmed all three books together and in piecemeal order, so if any of the main cast had died during filming, almost willing to bet it would have been a recast and then reshoot of everything done to that point featuring that person. Filming took 4 years or thereabouts to complete, and another 3 years for the CGI.

Yeah, they were all filmed back to back, that's why I used it as an example of a recast being needed for this instance.

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by IMJ

Exactly. And that was what I was getting at with the Harrison Ford Indiana Jones thing. I can't see anyone else playing the part. And then I thought about Chris Pratt doing it and thought "maybe". And then I realized this has been going on for years in franchises and then actors at working jobs where they are replaceable.



I think in that regard the MCU got lucky there. The truth is that almost every comic book hero has been replaced by another character for some time at this point. It's a story trope and has been for.... I don't maybe even 50 years.

They have a solid franchise with Black Panther though. I hope they can pull it off. But I've got to say, Boseman was likeable as hell in that role, man.

Absolutely! Even Hawkeye will get replaced because of Kate Bishop. She eventually becomes the new Hawkeye and its canon to the comics too.