Except they wouldn't be, they would just be changing out the actors every once in a while.
You make it sound like MCU films show clips of everything and are constantly referencing everything that happened in previous movies.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Except they wouldn't be, they would just be changing out the actors every once in a while.
You make it sound like MCU films show clips of everything and are constantly referencing everything that happened in previous movies.
And like I said, that'd be jarring. So far they got away with it since TIH wasn't all that successful and Norton's performance was so bland as to not leave much of a lasting impression and Cheadle played Rhodes as a much more interesting person, with seemingly better chemistry with Downey. Nobody noticed that Princess Diaries cosplayer in the Thor movies change actors because he was a one-note tertiary comic relief character and the second guy did a pretty good enough job imitating the other's actor's performance.
Plus that was all mostly early days for the MCU. Things are a lot different now and to just up and recast the likes Stark, or Romanov or Odinson and try to act like nothing happened would be neigh impossible without some serious backlash. Downey in particular owns the role of Stark to such a degree that they really can't recast the role. All they can do if he wants out is to find some way to retire the character and maybe find some legacy character to wear the armor.
The closest comparison I can think of is Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Can you imagine them recasting *him* without a full reboot and it not being a total disaster? Hell, back when they weren't sure First Class was even connected to the old movies they still kept him in the role.
So basically the concern is all based on your opinion.
Isn't that what all this is, our speculations?
I'd much rather see them explore their roster of available characters than churn out Iron Man 17 starring RDJ replacement actor #5.
The one strength that Marvel Studios has with the MCU is that, unlike the Marvel-616 Universe, they are not trapped in an eternal middle. They can have for their cinematic superheroes a complete story -- with a beginning, middle, and an end. I for one think it would be a profound mistake not to take advantage of this opportunity and keep churning Iron Man or Thor movies out long after the original actors have grown too old for the parts. The last thing Marvel Studios needs is for it to turn into the superhero equivalent of the Terminator series.
Yes, but mine actually acknowledges that the general audience and the movie studios aren't likely to treat continuity as a sacred cow or treat actors as irreplaceable.
Especially since again it's moot because last I checked Marvel has already said they are going with recasting and I have yet to hear anything saying otherwise.
They've said they will recast where and when necessary (and don't think it wasn't aimed at the actors renegotiating their contracts), not that their policy is for the characters to all be recast rather than retired. Planning to replace Steve with Bucky is the only conceivable reason they would sign Sebastian Stan to a 9 picture deal, for example, whatever may have changed in that plan since.
One side is "I don't like it", the other side is "The Iron man films alone grossed over a billion dollars" - I think one side's vision is more likely to come true than the other given commercial realities.
You're stuck on believing they can't recast Downey but they totally can, regardless on how you felt about Norton's acting, which I for one liked. They also didn't sweep the movie under the rug, they acknowledge it's the same universe, even though the star of the film was replaced. Iron Man 2 did it perfectly. Stark called Cheadle Rhodes (who looks nothing like his predecessor) and he said "deal with it."
The closest comparison I can think of is Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Can you imagine them recasting *him* without a full reboot and it not being a total disaster? Hell, back when they weren't sure First Class was even connected to the old movies they still kept him in the role.
I can imagine that sooner than imagining they'd continue doing X-Men films without Wolverine.
Oh I liked Norton's performance just fine and of all the phase one movies, I enjoyed the Hulk movie more than either Thor or IM2. That said his portrayal of Banner was unmemorable and somewhat bland. Not *bad* but he clearly didn't leave a lasting impression with audiences as Ruffalo was very quickly embraced as a notable improvement.
Also, I never said they swept the events of TIH under the rug. That's putting words in my mouth. I just said it wasn't all that successful. Though in fairness I think the real reason they haven't done another Hulk probably has more to do with their distribution deal with Universal than anything else.
The closest comparison I can think of is Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Can you imagine them recasting *him* without a full reboot and it not being a total disaster? Hell, back when they weren't sure First Class was even connected to the old movies they still kept him in the role.
I can imagine that sooner than imagining they'd continue doing X-Men films without Wolverine.
Indeed. Just as they can continue to do MCU movies without Stark. There's a difference between a character being unrecastable (did I just invent a word?) and indispensable.
Which is *your* opinion. See how this works?
As for that last part, IIRC Marvel said they *could* recast if necessary, not that they would use that as a first recourse.
Honestly, unless something very drastic happens I can't see why they would go to those lengths when there are so many other avenues open to them. The foremost being introduce *new* characters, which they are already well on their way to doing. My opinion on the matter isn't pure speculation, it's what they're actually doing *right now*.
Last edited:
Marvel wants Ava DuVernay, director of Selma to direct one of their upcoming films. Could be Black Panther or Captain Marvel.
http://www.thewrap.com/marvel-courting-ava-duvernay-to-direct-diverse-superhero-movie-exclusive/
http://www.thewrap.com/marvel-courting-ava-duvernay-to-direct-diverse-superhero-movie-exclusive/
Speaking of which they just blew the entire Universe open for potential characters on Agents of SHIELD. Instead of just creating a mutant if you need a power set for a character you bring in an Inhuman and the only origin you might want to show or need is how others reacted to his transformation
You were saying it "would be jarring" and I'm saying Marvel embraced the recasts like nothing changed.
I was saying I'd sooner believe they'll recast than leave a character out.
And if, years after 'retiring' Iron Man they want to cameo the character ?
As said earlier, I.M.'s a suit. Anyone could wear the suit for live shooting and the CGI will be unaffected. If Downey's up for it, he could do voiceovers and they can certainly use old footage for an open helmet shot or two.
I'd rather that than a recast.
As said earlier, I.M.'s a suit. Anyone could wear the suit for live shooting and the CGI will be unaffected. If Downey's up for it, he could do voiceovers and they can certainly use old footage for an open helmet shot or two.
I'd rather that than a recast.
Except yours is based on fanboyism, and mine is based on the fact that to date studios haven't given that much of a crap about fanboyism.
Besides using the its not the same as the Bond film arguments might run into problems since after Daniel Craig eventually leaves the role I doubt they're going to retire James Bond or reboot when they can just go back to recasting and the current films are big on continuity.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a soft reboot with the recasting of Bond. Craig's movies have thus far all been somewhat linked both in plot and themes, the best way to avoid negative comparisons to them is to wrap up that particular arc with his last movie and move forward with another with appropriately different.
It isn't an exact equivalency though, since IRON MAN as a brand is not Tony Stark any more than it is Robert Downey Jr. Iron Man the in-universe hero can be any number of characters and still serve the audience's desires in an Iron Man movie. James Bond is 007 is James Bond. The brand and the character are inseparable.
It isn't an exact equivalency though, since IRON MAN as a brand is not Tony Stark any more than it is Robert Downey Jr. Iron Man the in-universe hero can be any number of characters and still serve the audience's desires in an Iron Man movie. James Bond is 007 is James Bond. The brand and the character are inseparable.
And yet the legacy version tends to last a short time before Stark is back in the armor.
