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

[Andrew NDB]

I'm talking about Carrie Fisher as Leia in Star Wars (specifically the choices they faced moving forward with her character after VIII) and, like, Chadwick Boseman as T'Challa in the MCU (specifically the choice they NOW face moving forward with what to do with the character), as examples. There's others. There seem to be different answers depending on the instance... but as a general policy, what would or should be the most fitting?

But also consider, if YOU were the actor who died, part of a long-running franchise... would you really just want your character buried in the casket with you (or replaced with another character entirely, ala, "Why can't they just replace T'Challa with Shuri, and just have T'Challa vanish forever?"), or would you want it to live on? Should "oh, we need to kill such and such character simply because their actor/actress died IRL" even be considered a good idea?

[Roseangelo]

I think it totally depends on the role and the circumstances.

Richard Harris died after the second Harry Potter movie. Not only was Dumbledore recast, but they crafted a completely different Dumbledore. For the better? In general, I would say yes, although Harris's gentleness seemed more true to the book Dumbledore.

For Leia, I agree with not recasting her. As much as I would have liked to see a better Leia story realized for Ep9, I don't think that's a character you can recast after 40 years. Especially not when you've got Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford playing their roles in the same movie. *Maybe* if she had died prior to Ep7 and both Hamill and Ford were also recast (but why would you recast them if their characters were the same age as the actors?).

Back Panther is a hard one. Chadwick played that role with such perfection, and people have so much respect for him that I think there will be resistance to recasting. But I also think it's going to be the case where Marvel is going to have to recast some of their front and center superheroes eventually, so maybe this is an opportunity to see how that goes.

[Coola Yagami]

I think it kinda depends. Some characters like James Bond are timeless and known to be played by a variety of actors. I don't know what they're gonna do with him or her now but you know someone is gonna bring back the debonair ladies man after the woke wave subsides and the next director says enough is enough.

I honestly would not want to be in the director of the Black Panther's shoes cause they painted themselves in quite a pickle. I guess it wouldn't have been so bad if Black Panther didn't nearly die in his movie and then die again to The Snap and was just brought back in the end of End Game. It seems like such a dark twist of fate he just died anyway. It would have been as if (and god forbid of course), Holland passed right after we also just got Spider-Man back. Like I know what happened in real life, but in the fictional universe it's just odd to go through all that only for the hero to just die right away anyway. Almost like TMNT 2012 where Shredder killed Splinter, they go back in time to undo it only for Super Shredder to kill him for real and permanently anyway. We complain that it was bad writing, and we will also complain that killing him off in BP2 is also bad writing, despite knowing the real reason why in the real world.

It also sucks that with CoVid, plans were delayed where they haven't even STARTED filming BP2 yet. I mean if they had, we could have at least have done like the Crow, keep the most scenes with him in it as possible, stunt double in the outfit to do the rest. Or if there wasn't enough footage, use what they could for the beginning, have him die or whatever midway and have Shuri avenge him as the new Black Panther going forward... it just would seem too much of a retread of the first movie except he stays dead this time.

Honestly I don't know what I would have done. Maybe scrap the sequel and just make Shuri appear in other movies as cameos and they can mention T'Challa passed after some offscreen battle but IDK. I mean they have the advantage that Black Panther and his crew are in Wakanda and not just New York. Just don't make stories take place there or don't create situations that lead the heroes there for a while.


Now obviously years later after we're all dead and gone and the MCU is a memory and someone else decides to revisit these characters in a whole new reboot, naturally there would not problem getting someone else to be Black Panther, but the whole problem is now.

[DarkFell]

That's a toughie to answer: character succession should be a thing to look forward towards if the previous / original character's torch has dimmed throughout the later years.

Yet, the previous actor or actress can make a fictional character his / her own by delving into a character and fleshing out a personality for that particular character, that finding another successor can be a challenge when the original actor lets go or passes away.

[neatoman]

F*ck me, this is a hard question to answer...

Depends on how important the character is, I guess? If the character is absolutely crucial to the plot, I mean the movie just would not work without them, then I would say recast. It might be a little awkward and make-up only gets you so far, but I think most people can accept it if they can accept a million Bond actors.

If the character can be excluded, then exclude them. Maybe you'll have to write that they died off-screen or something, which isn't the best writing ever and might confuse audience members who aren't aware of what happend in real life, but it gets the job done. The third JJ Trek movie is a bit awkward because it explains the death of original Spock while alternate Spock is around but in general this sort of thing can work if the character isn't needed.

Then there is the matter of using existing footage and deep fakes... The Leia thing in Episode IX is just about the worst thing ever. It looks out of place, the delivery doesn't work and the actors in the same scene are obviously not interacting with her. Now that is obviously because it was recycled from an entirely different movie, she just happened to be playing the same character. I am however aware of that Fast and the Furious movie where the actor who died had already filmed most of his scenes and they only needed a little bit more to finish it, so I guess that's better than reshooting the whole thing for a recast?

In general: Pick option 1 if you really need the character, option 2 if you don't and avoid option 3 unless the actor is actually going to be in most of it anyway.

Edit: As for replacing them with another character, not a very good move. It's essentially a badly written version of option 1 with elements of option 2. Having the characters already have the same relationship with a previously unseen character as they did with the dead actor's character... It doens't work, it's too jarring.

[Shark_Blade]

Easy. Recast, duh. Fictional character doesn’t belong to one person.

Hollywood gonna do it eventually.

[ssjup81]

This probably depends on the role of the character. For Carrie Fischer, they should have just written her off and had her die after VIII after her heroic Force junk or whatever. Shoehorning her into IX felt awkward and would've worked better if they'd used her for flashbacks and have the characters remember good times with her or something. Recasting her, would not have worked.

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.

For a television show, if the person was maybe a supporting character, I could see that person not being recast and writing the death of said character into the series. With main characters or starring characters, it's a bit trickier as the reception can go either way. Roseanne comes to mind. They killed her out of the reboot show and renamed it the Conners, but it seems like it's working for them and I think they're even tackling Goodman's character falling in love again.

I guess it's just a case by case thing to me. Too many factors and scenarios.

[frank_one]

Humans are mortal, characters are not. Carrie has been OUR Leia, future generations will have theirs. The same goes with Harrison Ford as Indy or every other beloved character/actor pairs. If a character is good enough on paper it deserves to survive and be recasted... or to die trying. There's nothing wrong about it, it's not the industry being greedy, that's just how it is supposed to work. Characters are nothing more than assets, properties or patents, they have no soul and only exist to make their owner rich until someone else wants to buy them.
The ones with a soul are the actors and we should care about them more than we care about the characters they portray.

[CyberCubed]

Recasts only work in reboots. Like we have new Batman movies, Spiderman reboots...they use a new actor and it makes sense since it's a new continuity. We've had what...around 7-8 different live-action Bruce Waynes/Batman and people accept them each time.

However if it's in the same series or continuity, then it's a bit harder.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Recasts only work in reboots. Like we have new Batman movies, Spiderman reboots...they use a new actor and it makes sense since it's a new continuity. We've had what...around 7-8 different live-action Bruce Waynes/Batman and people accept them each time.

However if it's in the same series or continuity, then it's a bit harder.

So maybe the problem isn't the people themselves, but the fact that movies have become such long-running series that outlive the actors (as well as people suddenly deciding to make sequels a good 10-20 years after the original).

Movies should start going back to being trilogies or just a handful, but not almost never-ending. Or just develop a James Bond approach where it doesn't matter who the plays the main character and everyone is 'fine' with it being someone different every other movie. I mean this also worked with 90's Batman where we had 3 people fill the role.

[IMJ]

I think we have a tendency to look at this through our own lens of significance. It's a critical thinking error.

For example, "no one can play Indiana Jones but Harrison Ford. It's his character". I tend to feel this way. But that's my generation. The fact is that 15 years from now, or even in 2021 they could recast it and there will be an entire generation who will be on board.
For perspective, there where other generations who walked on the Earth and said the same thing before us. "Sean Connery is the best and only James Bond". But there's a whole generation that would say the same about Daniel Craig and not know the difference.
For comparison, Robert Downey Jr. is the only guy who could play Iron Man. Bull$#!(. He's the only guy who could play his wise-ass Tony and make it likeable. There are a lot of people who could play Iron Man well. Christopher Reeve plays Superman for a generation and that's it, he's Superman. Along comes Henry Cavill.

Too many people nowadays view the world through their own lens as if they are the first people to walk the Earth "correctly". That's part of the problems we are having in American society right now. But that comparison aside, some actors have given definitive characters in their roles, but there is no actor above their role. It's only a matter of time. Although I think a soft-hand off is best. Don't just throw a guy in there. Do something clever with the continuity or reboot from ground zero. I don't envy Don Cheadle at first, but he pulled it off with Rhodey and played a great character now for years. But that's rare. Recasting is fine, but do it in a new gear.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by IMJ

I think we have a tendency to look at this through our own lens of significance. It's a critical thinking error.

For example, "no one can play Indiana Jones but Harrison Ford. It's his character". I tend to feel this way. But that's my generation. The fact is that 15 years from now, or even in 2021 they could recast it and there will be an entire generation who will be on board.
For perspective, there where other generations who walked on the Earth and said the same thing before us. "Sean Connery is the best and only James Bond". But there's a whole generation that would say the same about Daniel Craig and not know the difference.
For comparison, Robert Downey Jr. is the only guy who could play Iron Man. Bull$#!(. He's the only guy who could play his wise-ass Tony and make it likeable. There are a lot of people who could play Iron Man well. Christopher Reeve plays Superman for a generation and that's it, he's Superman. Along comes Henry Cavill.

Too many people nowadays view the world through their own lens as if they are the first people to walk the Earth "correctly". That's part of the problems we are having in American society right now. But that comparison aside, some actors have given definitive characters in their roles, but there is no actor above their role. It's only a matter of time. Although I think a soft-hand off is best. Don't just throw a guy in there. Do something clever with the continuity or reboot from ground zero. I don't envy Don Cheadle at first, but he pulled it off with Rhodey and played a great character now for years. But that's rare. Recasting is fine, but do it in a new gear.

Yeah but at the same time, do we NEED more Indiana Jones? No. Just let the series exist as it did, let Terminator end with 2 and other such examples.

One part of the problem is super long lasting movie series that rely on a lot of actors. It's not the same as say, Friday the 13th where the cast is interchangeable and anyone can be Jason.

Second problem is sequels 10 or so years after the last. No, just let it die. Look at Ghosbusters, even with this new one coming out, it's still not the same without Egon cause they waited too ****in' long.

Final part is..... just don't. Don't make an Indiana Jones sequel. Don't make a Terminator sequel. Make something NEW. IDK.... a time traveling talking dog or something, just something.

[sdp]

It definitely depends on a case by case basis. In general if it's a show or movie that is a new original story then yeah I'd say you can kill off the character. If it's a character based off a book/comic/previous show/movie then no, they have the right to re-cast.

Princess Leia was handled very well IMO, maybe she didn't get the best role as if she had been alive or recasted but I didn't want anyone else, it's not like Mark Hammil got a great send off in Ep 9 either. But how about young Leia in Rogue One? She was still alive but she was old, I think I do prefer a CG Leia for her short cameo than a recast like for the Solo movie which I have no interest in seeing because that's not Harrison Ford.

Existing footage and deep fakes is totally fine for me in any type of movie, I'm a big fan of this alternative. The Crow and Game of Death handled it very well, hell they even made Game of Death II and it kinda works and that was how many decades ago? We can do much better.

For superheroes they can definitely recast and the sooner they start doing this the better. I don't want a new reboot every 10 years. They should take the James Bond route and get a new face, the 90s did it perfectly with the different live action Batman's on the same continuity. That's why I hated the ending of The Dark Knight, don't give Bruce a happy ending, finish the "nolan" trilogy but leave that continuity open. Sure another director can change things up and perhaps the Joker after TDK would've been different (just like in the comics!) and that's fine but it's boring to have to see the same stories being told because they can't move forward or in another case retire superheroes because the actor is now old or dead. Here is more on that same idea I just posted with the problem with the MCU.


But it really is a case by case basis, Indiana Jones at this point should only continue with old Harrison Ford and/or Mutt as his successor. Unless it's a reboot, in this case sure you can cast a new actor to have a new take, but it'd just be weird to have a movie set in that same timeline that only Harrison has played during the same years. Obviously a young Indiana Jones like the show was fine but anything from the same era that Harrison played would feel weird in that timeline unless rebooted.

If it's a cartoon? Definitely replace them unless the character had already fulfilled their role and wasn't important anymore. Don't retire characters for cartoons. It's always awful to hear the new voices but if the character is important then it must be done.

Enough time has passed that we should see Lionel Hutz and Troy Mcclure in the Simpsons. They shouldn't have killed Edna Krabapple either. I mean in these cases who cares about the Simpsons in 2020 so I don't care if they never come back but if they're replacing the actors of the minority characters why kill off the other characters? Had the show ended in season 15 or even 20 then yeah I understand not recasting but at this point who cares.

[CyberCubed]

Wasn't there controversy back in the day with Sean Connery being replaced by Roger Moore? Back then people saw James Bond as ONLY Sean Connery, and I recall form the archives (obviously none of us were alive back then), fans at the time were apprehensive about Roger Moore at first but then accepted him.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Case by case basis.

But in general, I'm in favor of recasting IF the viability for future productions is good.

Carrie Fisher? No recast. There is no other Leia, and at that point, the film franchise had already killed Han and Luke... what's the point in controversially recasting Leia, IF it's probably only going to be for one movie to wrap up a failing sequel trilogy?

Heath Ledger should have been recast.

T'challa should be recast.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Case by case basis.

But in general, I'm in favor of recasting IF the viability for future productions is good.

Carrie Fisher? No recast. There is no other Leia, and at that point, the film franchise had already killed Han and Luke... what's the point in controversially recasting Leia, IF it's probably only going to be for one movie to wrap up a failing sequel trilogy?

Heath Ledger should have been recast.

T'challa should be recast.

TBH the series (if we even needed SW sequels, which to be honest, no, no we didn't) should have just moved forward with new characters. Nostalgia aside there is 0 reason to even bring back Luke, Han and Leia. Maybe 20 or so years ago, but now? Just drop it. Move forward or just stop but doesn't try to look back.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Wasn't there controversy back in the day with Sean Connery being replaced by Roger Moore? Back then people saw James Bond as ONLY Sean Connery, and I recall form the archives (obviously none of us were alive back then), fans at the time were apprehensive about Roger Moore at first but then accepted him.

Do you even read the threads?

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Case by case basis.

But in general, I'm in favor of recasting IF the viability for future productions is good.

Carrie Fisher? No recast. There is no other Leia, and at that point, the film franchise had already killed Han and Luke... what's the point in controversially recasting Leia, IF it's probably only going to be for one movie to wrap up a failing sequel trilogy?

Heath Ledger should have been recast.

T'challa should be recast.

This is the exact mentality I was talking about.... man mark my words someday they will reboot even Star Wars completely with an all new cast playing the original IP's.

[TigerClaw]

One way to go about this is to sunset the character. When Paul Walker died. They had to change the ending to the last movie he did to give his character a proper sendoff. His character was never killed off. But rather he just end up being with his family. and then the Fast and Furious franchise went off without him.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

One way to go about this is to sunset the character. When Paul Walker died. They had to change the ending to the last movie he did to give his character a proper sendoff. His character was never killed off. But rather he just end up being with his family. and then the Fast and Furious franchise went off without him.

Killing him off would have been much, much worse. "Paul Walker died... let's MURDER his character in the middle of the movie and middle of the franchise!"

[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.