Greg Cox wrote:
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?
For the most part, I agree with you. I really do, but there are exceptions, at least in my mind.
You're right, I have seen Bond films, Dracula films, Batman films, Superman films...etc, all with various actors playing the central role, and that's fine. However, there are certain roles that I feel can not be improved upon, and that the actor who played them made the role their own - roles such as Ash from the Evil Dead films, Han Solo, the Ghostbusters, the three leads from Jaws... to name but a few. I can't imagine anyone but the original actors playing these roles, because the actors themselves are the one's that made
the characters what they are. I feel the same way about the character of Freddy.
I'm sorry if that comes accross as being closed-minded, or dismissive of any other interpretations, but it's just the way I feel about a certain number of cinematic characters.