Greg Cox wrote:
Englund was great, but no actor has monopoly on any role. Look at the history of horror movies. Bela Lugosi was Dracula for a generation, but then came Christopher Lee . . . .
Different kettle of fish. Lugosi and Lee played the part, but they didn't create the character. Craven came up with the idea, but it was Englund who made
It's the same reason why I wouldn't want to see an Evil Dead with an Ash that isn't played by Bruce Campbell, or a Star Wars with a Han Solo that isn't Harrison Ford.
But you've seen James Bond movies without Sean Connery, right? Or Sherlock Holmes movies without Basil Rathbone? Granted, those were adaptations, too, but just because a character is original to film doesn't mean the part is locked up forever.
To me, that flies in the face of the entire history of theater and drama. Hamlet and Oedipus have been played by countless actors over the course of centuries. Where would be if somebody in ancient Greece insisted that "only Iphicles can play Oedipus!"
Classic roles get reinterpreted all the time. Why is Freddy Krueger more sacred than Hamlet?