Welcome to another week of Question of the Day and I hope you all had great weekends. Today's question comes from Urinal Turd, who asks.
"What do you think about replacing actors on a show?"
"Right now there are a lot of rumours going around that Charlie Sheen could be replaced by John Stamos on Two And A Half Men. Last year Starz recast the lead role for Spartacus due to Andy Whitfield's cancer. What are your thoughts on this topic?"
Personally as a rule, I hate it when it happens on a TV show. I tend to relate to both a Character as well as the actor and I can't think of any examples where I've liked it.
The only example that seems to work is that of the film franchise, James Bond where we regularly get a new James Bond every 3-4 years and I find it does not diminish my enjoyment.
So what about you? Do you like it when a character is re-cast? What examples can you think of where a re-cast has happened and you've either a) Enjoyed it or b) Hated it?
Sound off in the comments below.
And please keep submitting your Questions of the Day Below using the form.
You can see previous Questions of the Day here.
I hated New!Laurie on That '70s Show after Lisa Robin Kelly was replaced because of drug problems. Luckily, she didn't stick around that long.
ReplyDeleteAnd they've replaced one of Roxy's sons with a new actor on Army Wives since he and his family moved away. I'm giving the new TJ a chance, but it's not the same.
I think it can happen and everything will be just fine afterwards, but that's very rare.
If it's TV, something constant where a character is far too connected to an actor, I would rather never see the character again, or never watch the show again if my other option is to see a new face playing a beloved role. Only Soap Operas can do that.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I've ever watched a TV show where an actor was replaced, but it just seems so awkward. I agree about the Bond movies though. For some reason that doesn't bother me in the least. I usually have more invested emotionally in TV shows though, so I don't think I would enjoy a replacement.
ReplyDeleteThere are two that stick out in my mind, one that worked okay and one that didn't. I thought the casting of the two different Darren Stephens on "Bewitched" worked out okay. There seemed to be enough of a resemblance between the two actors to keep the switch from being too difficult to roll with. The casting of the two different Beckys on "Roseanne" was horrible. Did they even try to find an actress that resembled the original Becky?
ReplyDeleteI'd prefer they never do this, but I suppose there are sometimes circumstances that force it to happen. I'd be okay with them replacing Charlie Sheen with a pet rock at this point. There is nothing worth putting up with guy's B.S.
Ha, I'd tune in to watch a pet rock :)
ReplyDeleteSee, I preferred Sarah Chalke's Becky to the original Becky. I loved Becky #2!
ReplyDeleteGenerally, I don't go for it. I'd rather see the character in question die off or something, and have a completely different character step up.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Spartacus gets a "free pass" with me as it was really nobody's fault. Andy gave his blessing for them to recast and they regrettably did. I'll miss Andy a lot, as he embodied Spartacus for me, but it makes it a little better knowing the recasting was a victim of circumstance, rather than a choice.
And obviously, Doctor Who does it all the time. Not just with the man himself but with his supporting cast.
Never seen Doctor Who?
ReplyDeleteDamn, how did I forget about Dr.Who!
ReplyDeleteThat's probably the greatest example of a TV Show doing it.
Agreed completely. I really don't like the idea, but it has to happen occasionally in rare circumstances.
ReplyDeleteWhen actors are replaced by the network for salary reasons (or whatever) or actors leave projects because they don't like them, I really can't deal.
Does anyone remember the last season of sliders? Jerry O'Connell and his brother left because, frankly, the show was getting terrible. The writer's fix was to have one character simply disappear (he became unstuck from the multiverse) and Jerry O'Connell's character fused with the only Quinn Mallory double who looked nothing like him. Just awful stuff.
Doctor Who, on the other hand, is a great example of a show that has a built in character renewal mechanism.
Finally, as you mentioned, I will still watch and enjoy Spartacus because no one is to blame; however, it saddens me that Andy didn't leave of his own volition and that it had to happen in such an unfortunate way.
I don't care about replacing a character on a show but I do care about replacing an actor. I would rather see them write out Charlie on "Two and a Half Men" than replace Charlie Sheen and go on with the character as if nothing happened. They did this with Valerie Harper on her show and went on with Sandy Duncan calling the show "The Hogan Family". The James Bond reference is fine when you only see the character every couple of years but when someone visits your home every week you get invested in them.
ReplyDeleteI HATE IT! thats it.
ReplyDeleteBaha. I didn't even think of it until the end... I think it's become so "normal" within that show that people don't even bat an eyelid when it happens.
ReplyDeleteDoc who isnt the same though.. it works he you know "change face" it's explain...
ReplyDeleteIf you want to see a little more of Andy, I recently watched a movie called The Clinic which he starts in. It's a moody Australian horror/thriller.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I try to forget the later seasons of Sliders ever happened. The quality of that show dropped dramatically.
It's still recasting the same character.
ReplyDeleteIf they replace Charlie Sheen, I'll start watching 2-1/2 Men again. I feel so sorry for Martin Sheen and his wife. As for replacements of actors, sometimes it is necessary, other times, it is planned (Dr. Who, anyone?). However, in some cases, the show just wouldn't be the same (i.e., The Big Bang Theory with Jim Parsons; Castle without Nathan Fillion and/or Stana Katic; and Fringe without the present Bishop family).
ReplyDeleteNot a huge horror fan, but I really loved Andy as Spartacus. I'll likely check it out, thanks!
ReplyDeleteSliders had so much potential, but too much behind the scenes drama. John-Rhys-Davies openly criticized the direction of the show (kromaggs vs. alternate histories) and was then fired. Wade/Maggie not getting along in real life. Maggie being hired because she had breasts.
I mean, seriously, that series finale was ridiculous. "Your world has been enslaved by the Kromaggs, huh? No worries, here's the super weapon for which you've been searching for the last couple of seasons. Also, it'll destroy your world's ecosystems. But, hey, no more Kromaggs :D, right!? "
Doctor Who wasn't planned in the very beginning.
ReplyDeleteThey had to come up with the "regeneration" (it was called "renewal" back then) because William Hartnell's health was failing.
Yeah but I meant that I dont feel the same about this situation... It's not weird cause its part of the show... Not like if they would replace charlie sheen and just carry on with the show that would be weird, its not like he had surgery or something (that would be a bad plot hahah)
ReplyDeletehhope i make sense...
Yeah, makes sense, and I agree.
ReplyDeleteThough, replacing Charley Sheen in anything gets a big thumbs up from me. He should be replaced before he's even cast.
Ahahah true. I saw the interview on tmz... that men is crazy
ReplyDeleteYeah but also whith Doctor Who it's not just recasting, the character changes as well. He's still the Doctor, but different. You know? It's more about which Doctor you love more, rather than the actor. At least that's how I feel.
ReplyDeleteI hate when they do that. I prefer they just go a different route all together. I remember they did it in Fresh Prince of Bel Air with Vivian's character. I never knew what happened but I remember being quite confused.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
ReplyDeleteBut the question was about recasting and, technically, that's what Doctor Who does. They've been successful with it because they made it apart of the mythology of the show.
Bond is probably a better example because there's no rational for it within the movies themselves.
Oh yeah! Fresh Prince! Being quite young when I watch that show, I wasn't following entertainment news and so I had no clue what was happening. Why were they calling this new woman Vivian?
ReplyDeleteI also remember a show my little sister used to love called "The Worst Witch". One of the character's had a "magical makeover" (i.e. changed actors). It was fun.
I was quite young too so I had no idea what it was to follow entertainment news lol. To this day I don't know what happened there.
ReplyDeleteNot a fan of it at all.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I can think of where it works is James Bond. Also I haven't minded it with Batman too much, but that's probably because now Bale is Batman and I forget about the rest :P
I don't like recasts... AT ALL!
ReplyDeleteGranted, with Campy little shows like Xena and Hercules I can maybe deal with it, and when the character is reeeeeeally minor (for example all the different Mindies in Friends) but overall, just no!
I can understand why they would go with the option sometimes, like with Andy and Spartacus (because that one is just life happening and nobody has any control over that) but when it's personality and unproffecialism and egos and money that result to it, I really cant handle it, especally because chances are the creative result will suck!!!!
I am very upset with the replacement of Brandon Routh as Superman and the Spider-Man reboot. I have absolutely no desire to see either of them.
ReplyDeleteI don't like recasts when the has been on for a long time, but if they do it in the first few episodes it's fine. Then I didn't get emotionally involved yet :)
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the show.
ReplyDeleteDoctor Who is a perfect example on how to do it right, it's built into the premise.
Spartacus is kind of a hard one to comment on because we havnt seen the result yet. But if the options were cancel the show, or recast the main character, right now i would say recast mainly because i like the show and want to see it continue.
As for 2&1/2 Men i would say cancel, but thats just becasue i despise the show!
I agree with those who prefer seeing the whole character ditched, rather than a different actor in the same role. Some shows lend themselves more easily to that, such as ER and NYPD Blue, because personnel in hospitals and police departments are always changing. And Lost had no problem, because people were dying all the time.
ReplyDeleteOn other shows, particularly if there's a family, it's more awkward. But if it has to be done, creativity helps. Archie's Place was a pretty good spinoff of All in the Family after Edith died.
@klutzy girl: Agreed. Sarah Chalke was a step up. I loved the episode where the little brother got all confused because his sister looked totally different. LOL! But then Dan "died" and Roseanne was a widow. Boo. But it was better than finding a new Dan.
@katieb: The two Darrens kind of annoyed me, but I got used to it.
Other times they should just give up and cancel the darn show. Why don't they just cancel 2 1/2 Men?
Normally it ends badly. I don't like it.
ReplyDeleteI always thought Tobey Maguire was seriously mis-cast as Peter Parker so I'm all giddy at the prospect of a new Peter.
ReplyDeleteNo, I haven't. I've been meaning to get it on DVD though! It seems right up my alley!
ReplyDeleteThere was also Carol in Friends. Ross's ex. But the actress change was pretty early on so it wasn't so annoying. There's also Victoria in the Twilight movies. Victoria in Eclipse is not the same one as in the other two movies.
ReplyDeleteI liked Bush on Hornblower BBC but I perfered Archie Kennedy.
ReplyDeleteDoctor Who? the Doctors after you learn to love one they have to replace him
Not to mention the entire "Roseanne" show ended up being a *story* written by Roseanne to cope with her life.
ReplyDeleteUgh. It was like that "Dallas" shower scene all over again.
So true!
ReplyDeleteThe only show I've seen make it work is Doctor Who, with the regenerating doctor. Generally, I hate it. I become attached to the characters that specific actors create, and obviously, different actors will have slightly different interpretations of the role, and I hate how that changes the dynamic of a show.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with it at all. It's completely normal on soap operas and has been done for decades, so why not do it on a regular show? It's not uncommon for the recast actor/actress to become just as or even more popular than the orginal.
ReplyDeleteIf there's enough of a gap from when we last saw the character then it's not so bad or if it's a continuation of movies (like James Bond) for example. But otherwise, no. I hate it. Sometimes it's just better to write the character out for good then to try and replace them.
ReplyDeleteSwapping actors is a crap shoot in every possible scenario. If an actor has been in a role for more than a few episodes, they develop a bond with the audience and severing that bond seems to piss people off to no end. It usually takes a lot for the newcomer to win the audience over.
ReplyDeleteGood luck to the new Spartacus on the Starz series.
Quite a few series have switched actors in the same role....
ReplyDeleteBewitched switching Dick's... Dick York for Dick.Sargent. Both had a similar look and the show continued on for another 3 or 4 years. (Looked similar to one another)
Partridge Family replaced the youngest son in the first season. (Looked nothing alike)
Roseanne replaced the oldest daughter Becky to Sarah Chalke. (Looked nothing alike)
The Munsters switched Marilyns mid-first season.
The Jeffersons switched actors who played their son Lionel after All in the Family when the show started. The original Lionel became a writer on The Jeffersons, he actually came back a few times when new Lionel needed time off.
Other series have done it too...
That 70s Show replaced Lori after season 5 and a trip to "beauty school".
Fresh Prince replaced Vivian a few seasons in.
Cagney and Lacey switched Lacey a couple times.
More I missed too I am sure.
Movies do it all the time. The Bond franchise has had 8 James Bonds now, The Jack Ryan movies have had 3 actors (Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck), the James Patterson films have had Morgan Freeman as Alex Cross and will have Idris Elba in the role now. All VERY successful franchises!
Soap operas have done it for decades including this site's much loved Jensen Ackles played Eric Brady #6.... five other actors before him. Mark Valley from Human Target also was one of those actors that portrayed an established character (Jack Devereaux) on Days of Our Lives...It happens frequently on soap operas.
More shows have replaced lead roles with new characters as time went by. Spin City to name one replaced Michael J Fox with Charlie Sheen... and now we have come full circle. Few do it successfully, but it can be done. Soap operas do it because of long running characters and actors that do not want to portray the same role 275 days a year for multiple decades. I can't blame them.
Overall I think it can be done, more easily to a supporting role, but also with leads. It has been done successfully replacing the actor that plays the role and keeping the role.... and it has been done successfully replacing one lead character for another. If the writing is good, the series is good and the actors are good.. it works.. period. Even if it works, the series or movie will still lose some fans, because mayn fans become emotionally attached to actors in certain roles. I personally do not, and have been ok with most changes on the few series I have watched that switched actors.
Me too. It took 4 or 5 tries to get Batman right, but I am now very happy with Bruce Wayne. Maybe Spiderman will get it right in attempt number two....
ReplyDeleteI liked the later Jack Ryan movies as much or more than The Hunt for Red October personally.
ReplyDeleteThere are only a few examples I can think of where this happened. The first is James bond, which was mentioned above. The second is in doctor who. Not sure if that counts though coz to my knowledge the changes are explained within the show I think
ReplyDeletePersonally I do not like actor changes
When I watch something, I associate with the character and actor and if/when that changes, it doesn't feel right
Like when the first dumbledore died in Harry potter, the new dumbledore just never felt the same, he never gave off the proper dumbledore vibe. But there was nothing they could have done, they needed a new dumbledore
In conclusion, actors shouldn't be changed
lol this is what we, Supernatural fans have to deal with everyday! ;P angels and demons switch bodies like suits on this show. Best example are the likes and dislikes of the blonde and brunette Ruby. And although I got used to it on this show, for me changing the actor/actress can completely destroy the character (as it was with Ruby).
ReplyDeleteAnd even though, on shows like SPN this kind of stuff may at least be understandable AND nobody pretends the character still looks the same. I hate when they do that. it is seriously better to kill off a character than to give it to another actor and pretend nothing's changed.
I have no problem with recasting a character if it works for the show. It just doesn't happen too often on prime time that's all.
ReplyDeleteI'm more interested in the characters than who is playing them.
Depends on show and actor. The chemistry can sometimes be enhanced with someone new. Just do not expect Person #2 to be a carbon copy.
ReplyDeleteIt's batshit insane. You'll love it. XD
ReplyDeleteDoctor Who counts because the question is about replacing actors. This is what the recasting of Doctor Who does, and it only came up with the Regeneration mythology because the actor playing the First Doctor was becoming ill.
ReplyDeletethat makes sense about the replacing
ReplyDeletei knew about the regenaration thingo but not that
i've only ever seen 3 episodes of dr who
i think sometimes it worked for supernatural (the second alastair was way creepier than the first) but sometimes it didn't
ReplyDeleteruby is a big one that for me never worked
i never liked ruby 2.0. i thought blonde ruby was much better
they just seemed to change personality after the body swap
another actor change (and rather dramatic one) was lillith
yeah, she changed around alot from different little girls but i thought they were all good (the best was the last one)
but i did not like lillith as an adult, it just didn't do it for me
she didn't seem as evil or creepy
I think if you are recasting a 'Miniscule' actor......Well, that can work...but if it's a 'lead' actor...It really is EPIC FAIL!!
ReplyDelete