I dislike jumping into the middle of an argument, but I am in agreement with Christopher and JD here. The actor is a part of the creative process of shaping the character s/he plays. S/he should have a say, since it is s/he who is presenting themselves onscreen. If there are certain aspects that an actor does not like about the portrayal of not only the character but also of themselves, certainly they have a right to refuse or change it.
I thought I would mention that there are some instances, fewer though they maybe than the norm, where actors (or indeed anyone else) cannot really shape the future of a character. Movie adaptations of books such as Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings come to mind. The book is the bible, so to speak. The actors in these cases probably provide inputs on how the character is portrayed and perhaps may refuse to do certain scenes or ask for certain portrayals not mentioned in the books.
In the end, a motion picture production is a creative work that requires the assent and inputs of all the major players involved: and an actor is certainly a major player when it comes to the portrayal and evolution of the character onscreen.
I thought I would mention that there are some instances, fewer though they maybe than the norm, where actors (or indeed anyone else) cannot really shape the future of a character. Movie adaptations of books such as Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings come to mind. The book is the bible, so to speak. The actors in these cases probably provide inputs on how the character is portrayed and perhaps may refuse to do certain scenes or ask for certain portrayals not mentioned in the books.
In the end, a motion picture production is a creative work that requires the assent and inputs of all the major players involved: and an actor is certainly a major player when it comes to the portrayal and evolution of the character onscreen.