Change Of Stars
By worldwise1
@worldwise1 (14885)
United States
December 5, 2007 2:16pm CST
As I was watching Superman Returns this morning it occurred to me that it seems odd that movie studios would choose different stars to play the lead in a series. I know this has been happening dating all the way back to the old Tarzan movies. There was also a change of lead star in each Batman movie, if I remember correctly. Does this detract from the continuity of the series to you? I would much rather see the same actor portray the lead character in each movie.
5 people like this
9 responses
@houndsgood (774)
• United States
5 Dec 07
I don't think Superman Returns was meant to be a "sequel" to the other superman films - more like a "remake" or a "new adventure" using the same characters. There have been many films and characters in movies remade or used over and over in different ways. I didn't know I would feel seeing someone else besides Christopher Reeve as superman - i thought it would sort of bury his memory but it made more people interested in going back and watching the series that he starred in too.
I think that with Batman movies - each was treated as a seperate adventure rather than a "trilogy" like the Star Wars series, for example where one directly built upon the other. So changing actors really wasn't as big as a deal then.
2 people like this
@worldwise1 (14885)
• United States
6 Dec 07
Not that I want to date myself, houndsgood, but I remember the Superman TV series starring George Reeves from the 50s, and there is a striking resemblance between all the actors that have played the role. I feel that any time you have a series of TV shows or movies based on the same character they are a series-whether intended or not. Same characters, same theme music, same series.
@houndsgood (774)
• United States
6 Dec 07
Maybe they cast the actors based on what the comic book concept of the character looked like as that is what people expected to see? If superman was blonde, or short, or red haired, or thin and wiry it just wouldn't seem right to people?
also - on the sequel/non sequel thing. What I mean is - sometimes a series is more episodic = that the movies can stand alone without a person having to see the prior efforts to fully understand and enjoy. Sometimes there is a new paramour or villain in the subsequent films and the supporting characters in the prior films don't get heavy mention - or at least there is just a short recap. I don't think people would enjoy Return of the Jedi as much unless they knew the backstory of what happened up until that point, and the Matrix sequels...really just forget it if you haven't seen the first one.
@worldwise1 (14885)
• United States
6 Dec 07
I only have watched the first Batman movie myself, carolbee. I don't know why I wasn't drawn to the others, but I do feel it had to do with changing the leads.
@sarahruthbeth22 (43143)
• United States
9 Dec 07
It is hard sometimes to lock a star into doing the sequel these days. Back in the day, the stars were signed to the studio so if they said you are doing a picture, you had to do that picture.But now the stars can make their own choices.I am very hard on sequels. I usually prefer to see the original than see the sequel. And I usually like the first actor in the first film. But with Batman, I liked Michael and Val.I didn't see George Clooney. I wouldn't see him in any film because of personal reasons.
Another good series is the James Bond films.My first Bond was Moore and I do like him the best but I do like Sean, Timothy and the Aussie. I couldn't get into Pierce or the new guy though.
@rx4life (1930)
• United States
6 Dec 07
Sometimes it an annoyance to me...but I understand the need for new actors...I was just going to say that I was on the set in Australia while my son was shooting DVD extras on the film you are talking about..Superman Returns...it was really awesome to watch how it all comes about...I got my photo taken in the Daily Planet..and Brandon Routh ( Superman) hugged me with his full cape and costume on...he is a really intelligent, kind individual...we spent quite a bit of time with him...but the whole experience was incredible!!! It's amazing how they create and destroy things on a movie set...the entire Daily Planet building that looked (even up close) like granite and marble was really styrofoam...we got to watch them making all kinds of buildings and things...what a great time...
@ChaJudLeoBit (1656)
• United States
6 Feb 08
I have always been very annoyed when they change the actor. Some movies I won't even bother seeing it if is played by someone else. It can't be the same person if it's a different person, so I am very bothered by that.
@wolfie34 (26771)
• United Kingdom
8 Dec 07
I suppose to have the same actor or actress portraying films over a lengthy period would be nigh on impossible, as they either die, have bigger casting parts or refuse to continue for fear of typecasting. Take James Bond for example, would it have been different if Sean Connery had played Bond for all the 25 films? Then we wouldn't have great Bonds like Pearce Brosnan and Timothy Dalton taking the role with gusto and enjoying their role. But if it was Harry Potter to change Harry Potter would certainly detract from the movie because they are continuation, seeing the actor as Harry Potter grow up to change him would ruin it totally, with Bond the stories are not continuations and they are totally different, so to me it would depend on the role and character.
@ctrymuziklvr (11057)
• United States
6 Dec 07
For me it does take away some from the movie. Especially the old superman movies.
