Especially once you factor in all the other Loki's we saw including Richard E Grant! (and a crocodile!)
Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Especially once you factor in all the other Loki's we saw including Richard E Grant! (and a crocodile!)
Recasting never poses continuity challenges. Recasting James Rhodes, Bruce Banner, and Fandral (from Thor) didn't affect the continuity in any way, nor will the upcoming recasting of Thunderbolt Ross, because continuity is about who characters are and what they do, not what they look or sound like.
Fair enough. But what I meant in this case was that the hypothetical line of dialog, "These are Kang's variants," would carry with it an in-universe explanation for why the actor's appearance has changed. Sci-fi fans are well known for their hyperliteralism. See for example the whinging about Chris Pine's eye color, or there being a perceived need to explain smooth-forehead Klingons in-universe.
^I don't think there was a need to explain the Klingons' change in-universe. These things are rarely about "need" -- it's just a question of whether a writer thinks there's a worthwhile story to tell about something. Sometimes it's worth telling a story to explain a recasting, sometimes it isn't. My go-to example is the second-season premiere of the 1988 Superboy TV series, which did a whole 2-part story explaining Lex Luthor's recasting by saying he got plastic surgery to impersonate an older man, but did nothing to address their simultaneous recasting of Superboy himself. Because there was a story to tell about Lex Luthor getting a new face (although it was necessary to justify why he was suddenly decades older), but no story to tell about Superboy and Clark Kent simultaneously getting a new face without anyone noticing. At least, no story that it would've been a good idea to tell, since that's just getting too deep into the weeds.
And writers should never let their creative choices be dictated by fear of fan complaints. Some members of the audience will always complain about anything, and overreacting to that tends to warp the story in bad directions. Sports coaches don't change their game strategies based on how much the audience boos, they stick with what their training and experience tell them will work best at winning the game. Heck, if nobody hates what you're doing, you're probably not doing anything noteworthy at all.
So yes, the Kang story provides an easy way to give a throwaway explanation for a recast and then move on. But my point is that recasting is just as easy to do whether there's an in-story excuse or not. It's an option when and if it serves the story, not a requirement.
And writers should never let their creative choices be dictated by fear of fan complaints. Some members of the audience will always complain about anything, and overreacting to that tends to warp the story in bad directions. Sports coaches don't change their game strategies based on how much the audience boos, they stick with what their training and experience tell them will work best at winning the game. Heck, if nobody hates what you're doing, you're probably not doing anything noteworthy at all.
So yes, the Kang story provides an easy way to give a throwaway explanation for a recast and then move on. But my point is that recasting is just as easy to do whether there's an in-story excuse or not. It's an option when and if it serves the story, not a requirement.
https://collider.com/tom-holland-spider-man-future/
This is a man who knows that they will be backing up trucks of money to get to sign not only for Spider-man 4 but also to appear in a couple of future MCU films in an attempt to prop it up.
Because they have to write articles.
He's also a man who knows that Sony has made eight live-action Spider-flicks on their own so far, and only two (SM2 and ASM1) have been good. Also, remember when Sony almost declined to meet Disney's financial demands to keep Holland's third movie in the MCU? So, if I were Holland, not only would I demand beaucoup cash and profits, I'd get it in writing that the MCU collaboration would continue, and/or that he'd get shooting script and editing approval.
(I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Mark Hamill had demanded script approval on the Sequel Trilogy - would Disney have balked, and written him out? Would he have rejected the TFA script, or would he have gone along with it despite his misgivings? If he'd had such rights, would he have rejected Johnson's script?)
People will still complain, sadly
Each his own, but while I enjoyed the Raimi movies when they were released, I struggle to rewatch them. Calling them 'good' as if it's fact seems a little OTT.
It's Burton's Batman. I still consider it a highlight of my childhood and have a lot of fond memories of it. But looking back at it now, it's not as great a movie as I remember.
If anything, wouldn't that be considered politically incorrect as opposed to pandering?
Yes, but you know what I'm trying to say here...
Spider-Man is Sony's ace with the control they have over the character (almost a situation similar to the Hulk with Universal), so I doubt Holland is so valuable to them, that Sony would capitulate to that level of theoretical demands.
Yes. If one considers the shitty handling of the character in the ST, one can assume Luke--and Hamill--were expendable, since he was little more than half-hearted fanservice (that did not work).
I would think so. He did more to shape his Star Wars character than anyone else in the series, so why would accept a script that shoehorned his character into a ridiculously wrongheaded, so-called plot?
^ Sony had never made a billion-dollar Spidey movie until FFH and NWH, so I don't see why the above demands would necessarily be deal-breakers. Unless they were ready for a live-action Miles Morales, recasting Peter Parker again, with no MCU support, and then releasing another mediocre movie (along their average live-action Spidey quality level) sounds like a great way to squander hundreds of millions in potential profits, even after Disney takes their share.
It's an interesting counter-factual; too bad we'll never know.
A thin argument considering that when the Raimi trilogy was released there was precisely 1 billion dollar movie ever. Adjusting for inflation, the Raimi trilogy passes the $1B mark compared to each year an MCU Spidey movie was released.
Spider-Man took $825M in 2002, which is:
$1.1B in 2017 money
$1.2B in 2019 money
$1.3B in 2022 money
Spider-Man 2 took $789M in 2002, which is:
$1.01B in 2017 money
$1.06B in 2019 money
$1.2B in 2022 money
Spider-Man 3 took $895M in 2007, which is:
$1.06B in 2017 money
$1.1B in 2019 money
$1.3B in 2022 money
You say that, but in Doctor Who terms, we’ve just had the equivalent of The Three Doctors. It could equally just be possible that whoever is cast next gets to be Spidey’s equivalent of Tom Baker.