Thor: Ragnarok
- Thread starter Skywalker
- Start date
For the record: Your Highness is totally awesome, and at least she didn't star in Pride/Zombies as it initially seemed like she would, though in fairness against her, she'd pretty well aged out of the part by the time the flop finally got made (to flop).Yes, since her Oscar win, she's starred in masterpieces such as "Your Highness" and produced "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies."
But I'm still holding on to my theory that the reason she isn't in Ragnarok is so they can put her in one/both of the Infinity Wars without counting on her to renew her contract, as I assume she signed for three movies. Or maybe they figure they can only get a cameo more out of her, and would rather that cameo be in said movie(s). Six of one, half-dozen of the other...
Anything is possible. I would have thought that Anthony Hopkins would be a harder get after comments post- The Dark World, and yet he will be returning
Oh, that's awesome. I was so afraid that he wasn't going to be in it and they'd just say that Loki killed Odin offscreen.
Sometimes an interviewer just catches a tired actor on a bad day.
I recall another incident, several years ago, when Hopkins had just done several demanding movies in a row and was feeling worn out. He said something about being tired of doing movies to an interviewer and suddenly there were all these headlines about how he was retiring from movies forever. Or, who knows, maybe he even meant it at the time.
But clearly he did not actually retire . . .
I forgot to comment on Hopkins return in my other post. It is a big surprise since pretty much everything I'd seen before this said he would be returning. I'm glad since he was awesome as Odin.
I have to admit, when I made my other post I hadn't really though about recasting. I wouldn't be totally against that, after all we already got recast Rhodey and Hulk, and I think Rhodey at least worked out better in the long run. I just don't know if there's many actors out there who could replace Anthony Hopkins.
I have to admit, when I made my other post I hadn't really though about recasting. I wouldn't be totally against that, after all we already got recast Rhodey and Hulk, and I think Rhodey at least worked out better in the long run. I just don't know if there's many actors out there who could replace Anthony Hopkins.
I sometimes wonder if the modern aversion to recasting is a generational thing. Back in the day, it wasn't uncommon to recast characters in mid-series or, conversely, to cast the same actors in multiple roles over the course of the same series. Just look at any number of old black-and-white movie series. Moriarity (like Blofeld) was never played by the same actor twice in the Basil Rathbone SHERLOCK HOLMES movies. The original FLASH GORDON serials went through at least two Dale Ardens. And the old Universal Monsters movies practically had a repertory company of actors trading roles back and forth, so that, for instance, the Frankenstein monster ended up being played by Karloff, Chaney Jr., Lugosi, AND Glenn Strange over the course of two decades. And Chaney Jr. ended up playing the Wolf Man, Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Mummy at various points.
At the risk of channeling my inner curmudgeon, do modern audiences have a harder time suspending their disbelief when it comes to recasting? Not sure why that would be so, but it does seem that way sometimes.
At the risk of channeling my inner curmudgeon, do modern audiences have a harder time suspending their disbelief when it comes to recasting? Not sure why that would be so, but it does seem that way sometimes.
I think the lack of exposure to plays has something to do with it, along with the tendency to rewatch shows/movies much more often than in pre-1980 days.
The easy access to home video is probably a factor, I suspect. The earlier movies still fill "new" because you can watch them whenever you feel like doing so, instead of having a buffer zone of years between sequels.
"Wait, that's not the same actor who was in that movie I rewatched on Blu-Ray last night!"
She just wants a more substantial career. Its probably getting hard for her to differentiate herself in a superhero movie. She also probably does not wan to be typecast. I can understand her reasoning.
I don't have a definitive answer but I'll explain my position. I take my favorite movies and TV shows a little more seriously than most. Often times, they're works that I immerse myself into. They're real worlds for me, more or less, not just entertainment that I watch, thinking that it's just entertainment, so I expect some level of integrity. I also put more weight on the visual aspect of film-making than most, so that adds to how I feel. So basically, it's not so much about an inability to suspend disbelief, it's more about wanting to see a created world that's a little more solid and consistent.
I also take things on a case by case basis and don't mind recasting in certain instances. Remakes over several decades are one example. I also saw a sitcom where an actor was replaced and they made a joke about how he had plastic surgery over the summer and I thought that was well done and fit the tone of the show. As for plays, I put those in the category of remakes. If you see a play again sometime later and it has different actors, I'd say it's just a remake with different actors not a recasting.
I'm the opposite of you two, Greg and Ovation. I'm often not sure why so many people are so casual about seeing faces replaced. I feel so strongly about the matter that Saavik still bugs me.
I have no idea why you're so cavalier about the idea of recasting a part originated by one of the greatest/most legendary actors alive, and then citing a decades-old cheap-ass pulp serial like it's any kind of meaningful precedent. Yes, recastings happen sometimes. But when you hire Anthony freaking Hopkins to play a role, you should absolutely do your damndest to keep him, especially when your studio (and parent studio) is positively drowning in money. And no, the change of the husband on Bewitched does not affect that calculus one iota!
^ I remember when they got Anthony Quinn to play Zeus in the Hercules TV movies. Then when it went to series, they had another guy.
Another thing Greg, you did mention before that you wouldn't have wanted to see Shatner in the 2009 Trek movie because he didn't come off like an older Pine and it would have been too much of a disconnect. I don't know if that's a good example but that might be akin to how I see recasting. Too much of a disconnect.
Interesting answer. Maybe it's just that my expectations were shaped in an era when we possibly didn't take sci-fi and superhero movies quite so seriously, or maybe it's just that some of us are simply, by nature, more comfortable with that the idea that, well, these are simply theatrical productions after all. They're smoke and mirrors, creating illusions for our entertainment.
Not saying that attitude is better, just different.
It's fascinating, really. All of us watch movies and theater in two different ways, simultaneously. On one hand, we trick our brains into thinking what we're seeing is real ("No! Don't go in the basement!"), but at the same time we're also viewing the film as an artifact, a work of art. ("Wow, look at gorgeous cinematography. And the acting . . . Tom Hiddleston is really knocking it out of the park in this scene!")
Like I said, all of us do this every time we're in a theater, but I have a pet theory that there's a spectrum among moviegoers where some people lean more to experiencing a movie on an immersive level while others lean toward a more aesthetic approach--with every gradation in-between.
I suspect that viewers on the immersive end of the spectrum have a harder time with recasting than those who never really forget that they're watching a piece of theater, performed by actors on sets.
Why today's audiences seem to fall more on the immersive end of things is an intriguing question. Maybe less exposure to live theater, as Ovation suggested?
Not saying that attitude is better, just different.
It's fascinating, really. All of us watch movies and theater in two different ways, simultaneously. On one hand, we trick our brains into thinking what we're seeing is real ("No! Don't go in the basement!"), but at the same time we're also viewing the film as an artifact, a work of art. ("Wow, look at gorgeous cinematography. And the acting . . . Tom Hiddleston is really knocking it out of the park in this scene!")
Like I said, all of us do this every time we're in a theater, but I have a pet theory that there's a spectrum among moviegoers where some people lean more to experiencing a movie on an immersive level while others lean toward a more aesthetic approach--with every gradation in-between.
I suspect that viewers on the immersive end of the spectrum have a harder time with recasting than those who never really forget that they're watching a piece of theater, performed by actors on sets.
Why today's audiences seem to fall more on the immersive end of things is an intriguing question. Maybe less exposure to live theater, as Ovation suggested?
Last edited:
Because comparing a THOR movie to a FLASH GORDON movie is completely apples and oranges . . .
No disrespect to Sir Anthony Hopkins, but we're not talking THE REMAINS OF THE DAY here. Any venerable actor with sufficient gravitas can play Odin. (That being said, I'm glad he's back, although I'm still going to miss Kat Dennings.)
Indeed, as Commander Richard points out, HERCULES and XENA went through a couple of Zeus's over the course of their runs, with no real harm done. And are we really going to argue that THOR is a whole different kettle of myth than HERCULES or XENA . . . or FLASH GORDON?
Just trying to provide a bit of historical perspective here.
You're basing this assumption on, what, TrekBBS chatter? That hardly seems a scientific conclusion. Isn't it equally plausible that those who become emotionally invested enough in these properties to spend large amounts of time discussing them online are more likely to be emotionally invested in continuity of actor appearances?
But you're picking and choosing your historical perspective, not to mention the vast differences in scale. You're arguing that because the larger products are both about myth, the specific actors don't really matter, and in so doing, you're implicitly putting the Anthony Hopkins, from a major motion picture franchise, on equal ground with some nobody from a cheap, mostly-forgetten niche TV show.
I'm not saying you're wrong to be indifferent to said potential recasting; that's a matter of personal taste. I am saying you're wrong to believe and assert that your historical perspective-fudging is vastly less significant than the one you're accusing my side of, and that that seems to make you more sophisticated than us. You may be or you may not be, but not for this particular reason.
Last edited:
You guys are overthinking this. People don't like characters to be recast when they're used to and enjoy the current actor's performance. No one gave a shit when Daario Naharis was recast, but if one were to recast Tyrion for season 7 there would be riots on the streets.
