Do people have a hard time separating the character from the actor?

The Star Wars/Rogue One/Solo thread brought this to mind. Solo was an excellent movie, but I've heard people say it was difficult to see anyone other than Harrison Ford. Solo wasn't a blockbuster.

Likewise, Alex Cross was an excellent movie. But it had Tyler Perry in the title role rather than Morgan Freeman. It also flopped.

I don't know how well Netflix's The Lincoln Lawyer did, but I thought it was really well done. I was even apprehensive after seeing the first episode, and felt it difficult to get used to Manuel Garcia-Rulfo's accent. I have read the first two books in the series and had pictured McConaughey as Haller.

Are there roles that buck this trend? Roles that confirm it?

It was hard for me to see anyone but John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn in True Grit.

And for me, Sean Connery will always be 007

Solo didn't achieve blockbuster status because it lacked Harrison Ford, it didn't do well because it was a crappy movie that shouldn't have been made.

This conversation is approaching something I've noticed, but from the other side of the process. I have certain expectations, just from the lst of Cast members, before I even watch the movie.

Most good actors, or maybe sucessful actors would be a better term, arent really acting. They are merely being themselves, while pretending to live someone elses life. Tommy Lee Jones, Harrison Ford, Jack Nicholson for the guys. Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Jodie Foster. Whether intentional or not, they bring a set character type to every role. Actors claim to hate being typecast, but they sure cash those big checks anyway.

There are exceptions of course. Dustin Hoffman in Rainman. Billy Bob Thornton in Sling Blade. But, overall, Harrison Ford plays Harrison Ford, even in chick flics like Sabrina. Not an action sequence anywhere, but Harrison does Harrison.

Any change in casting, when reprising a long standing character from a sucessful movie, is going to risk striking out.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:
It was hard for me to see anyone but John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn in True Grit.

But Bridges was better. Much better. I always found Wayne to be a kind of wooden actor

That is a good question. Some characters can get a swap in actors in a series and no one really notices. Or when there is a re-boot/remake of a series, there is always a comparison of the original to the replacement actors. There has been 6 official James Bonds on film, and each had their own strengths and weaknesses coupled film trends of the period. Roger Moore was a clown compared to the others, but in the 70s film goers wanted camp over gritty realism. And Dalton IMHO was great. But his second outing and final was hurt by a weak script and studio issues.

Babylon5 is getting a remake. And I am nervous because some of the actors really did well in their roles, like Molari and G'Kar. The actors that played them were good friends off screen, and that played well on screen.

As for Solo, I liked it. The first half was meh, checking boxes for fan service, but it started to get interesting towards the end. The thing I feel hurt it the most was shoving the release date up to try to make Star Wars fans forget the train wreck of the The Last Jedi. SW fans had a bad taste in their mouth, and releasing a less than stellar origin story (which I know was burned out of them thanks to the MCU/DCU series) was a bad decision.

Harrison Ford...

“He called me into his office and said, ‘I want to tell you a story, kid.’ Kid, he always called me kid. He was about 15 minutes older that I was,” Ford began. “He said, ‘First time Tony Curtis was ever in a movie … he delivered a bag of groceries, a bag of groceries, kid. And you took one look at that guy, and you knew that was a movie star.'”

Ford fired back: “Well I thought that was supposed to be a delivery boy!”

I always separate the actor from the character providing they can actually act. Many actors, I do not care for their political bullshit but it’s easy to separate for me. I just the work and really don’t care what they have to say about x, y, or z, at all. All I care about is what I see on screen via their work, nothing to do with their personal life.

Solo, Aldren just didn’t pull it off to me. Had nothing to do with Harrison Ford, at all. It just didn’t work. Another actor perhaps. And I thought the movie was pretty sorry. I mean it was obvious as it was directed by someone else, they fired that person and brought in Ron Howard so try and salvage it. That didn’t work.

Cross, much the same with Tyler Perry. Just not the role for him. He looked rather odd in that too with the haircut, makeup, it was just laughably bad to me. Another actor and I think it could have been a decent film but not him.

A solid film starts with producers, then the director is the most important thing. Then the actors being case correctly. The story has to be good, the writing excellent. Any number of things can be off and just ruin the entire thing. This is why they have casting directors for shows, films, etc. It’s also why the original SW trilogy was so good. Lucas cast the actors has an ensemble and not stand alone. Put them in a room together to see how they bantered back and forth. Another example would be Snatch by Guy Ritchie. Casted the thing to the perfection, every role. I know people hate him but Tarantino also excels at this. And Christopher Nolan is pretty damn good at it as well.

Sometimes, I have trouble separating the character/actor; sometimes, not.

I despise whoopie goldberg, yet enjoy her character "Guinan" on Star Trek. I also enjoy val kilmer's characters in Tombstone, Batman, and Top Gun(s), among others, though I've read he's a world-class putz in real life.

Heck, I can even stomach watching A League of Their Own in spite of rosie o'donnell, and I would argue many of us enjoy The Hunt For Red October, even though aric barrwin was in it. . .


Now, Solo is a bad example of a 'remake/recast,' IMO. The movie sucked, no matter who they would have cast for it. I think a better example would be the live-action Aladin movie. I mean, many thought Robin Williams could never be 'replaced,' yet Will Smith did a really good job. It's an interesting movie, in that the casting was really good, thought I didn't like the 'girl power' thing with Jasmine.

It has to be intimidating for a new (or even established) actor to take over a role previously held by a good or great actor. Michael Gambone had to replace Richard Harris as Dumbledore in the Harry Potter movies. I like Gambone better than Harris, but many fans feel differently. Conversely, I thought the guy who replaced Johnny Depp as Grindelwald in the new Fantastic Beasts movie was a HORRIBLE casting decision. The guy can act (he was Jin Erso's father in Rogue One), but his portrayal in this last movie was boring and wooden. Of course, I also found the rest of the movie boring, but I have to think Depp would have done a MUCH better job as 'the new guy' did.

A good actor with good writing can (again, IMO) 'replace' even a legendary actor. I loved Timothy Dalton in The Living Daylights, but his only other Bond movie, License to Kill, just sucked, and I doubt even Sean Connery could have saved that movie.

Brandon Frasier will always be George of the Jungle to me.

The mark of a good actor, in my opinion, is that he can become the character that he is portraying vs. Joe Blow acting like he is the character.

Very few have that gift and are good at it. DeCaprio is one. Natalie Portman another. I don't see them, I see the character.

With John Wayne, you saw John Wayne being whoever he was portraying. Clint Eastwood would be another. They did what they did well, but they were what they were.

These movies and TV shows with Spock played by someone other than Leonard Nimoy are one for me.

All I see is someone TRYING to be Leonard Nimoy.

Robert De Niro is about the only person who I hate with a passion, but love to watch act. Casino is a top 5 movie for me and I watch it pretty regularly, but I like pretty much every character he has played.

I honestly try to not pay attention to the politics of most actors or singers because I have a hard time separating their characters from their real life.

I agree. I think Deniro is probably THE greatest living actor. But I despise his left wing politics and particularly his hatred of President Trump and as a result I cannot and will not spend one single cent enriching him with my dollars. I just cannot separate the actor from the role. Or perhaps it would be better to say I cannot separate the actor from his anti-American stance.

A lot of people think of Anthony Hopkins only as Hannibal Lecter. Watch The World's Fastest Indian. Two seconds into his first line you forget that Hopkins was Lecter.

Peter Sellers was another. A lot of people see him only as Cloiseau. He pulled it off in a single movie as both Mandrake and Strangelove.

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:

...Peter Sellers was another. A lot of people see him only as Cloiseau. He pulled it off in a single movie as both Mandrake and Strangelove.

And President Merkin Muffley.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:

...Peter Sellers was another. A lot of people see him only as Cloiseau. He pulled it off in a single movie as both Mandrake and Strangelove.

And President Merkin Muffley.

Indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
With John Wayne, you saw John Wayne being whoever he was portraying. Clint Eastwood would be another. They did what they did well, but they were what they were.

Jack Nicholson

Nicholson's best performance was channeling the OCD in As Good As It Gets.

Yul Brenner as the King in "The King and I". He really became the "King" for several generations of viewers. Everyone doing that role after him seems to be trying to be him, and it just doesn't work.