Smarmy Society: Term XXV, Activity 3: Character Replacements

[anbyrobanby.livejournal.com]

Activity name: Character Replacements
Points: 24hr debate: Participation 10pts, Additional comment: 5pts. 30pts limit.
End date: Monday 1st April @ 14:00 UTC
Details: Over the course of the films, some of the characters were written out, assimilated into others, or played by multiple actors. Do you feel this is the right approach? Does the change of face affect how you feel about that character? A 24 hour debate to end the month.



So I was considering my next activity for the Smarmy Society, when I read on the news that the actor Richard Griffiths, who played Vernon Dursley, passed away on Good Friday following surgery complications.

I was reading some of the assosciated articles related to this, and one thing that came up was how he was perceived as "perfect" for the role of Uncle Vernon. This got me thinking- without doubt he was excellent in the role, but had someone else played the part, would it have still been as good? The thought reminded me of when Richard Harris was replaced by Michael Gambon and the ensuing dissonance.

I would like to invite a quick discussion about the synergy between actor and character. If an actor or actress becomes unavailable, walks away from the project, etc, how would you think this impacts on the character role? Would it change? Does a strong actor or actress fit into the role smoothly, and would a transition be smooth? More importantly to the Smarmy Club, would your view change if it were a major role versus a minor one?

I'll give 10 points for a substantial, thought-out comment (let's say about 200 words, minimum). Further comments of at least 50 words will be awarded five house points.

As it's a topic with broad scope I shall not be assigning debate motions here. I would just like to see some free chatter. But of course, feel free to play devil's advocate with each other. I love to see a bit of that over a circle of people nodding among themselves. ;)


_{The Smarmy Society: Because loving the Trio is too mainstream.}

Comments

[bergeronprocess.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that this is coming up because another show I like, Up All Night on NBC, has undergone some rather radical changes (I think they want to make it a one-camera sitcom style or something?) and Christina Applegate, who plays the lead female role, has decided to move on--plus I think Will Arnett, the lead male role, is kind of floating away from it too. That's a shame because I really liked that show, but I feel like NBC will probably try to run it for at least another season in this weird new format with completely new people before finally giving it the axe/moving it to Friday nights and letting it die. I don't think it's going to work with any other actress in Applegate's role--it's just too weird--especially with the format changes. But the show's tone had also changed from season one to two in a way that was, at times, actually kind of depressing! Haha, I wonder if anyone else here had seen the show or if I'm alone in that respect.

But in the case of Dumbledore, the fact is that he was integral to the Harry Potter story. He had to be replaced. There is no way that the series could have continued with the movie directors and writers and all just writing him out on account of Harris' death. Fans would have rioted at Warner Brothers headquarters. However, some smaller characters in the series were replaced. See also Lavender Brown (http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Lavender_Brown), who was actually replaced two different times throughout the series, first being played by Kathleen Cauley, then Jennifer Smith and finally Jessie Cave. In this day and age of super-scrupulous Internet fans, people notice things like that, especially when they're inexplicable. Harris' death necessitated a replacement of an essential role. I'm not sure why Cauley was replaced with Smith or Smith replaced with Cave, but people noticed and questioned it and it kind of made people wonder what happened.

So I think that pretty much any replacement of an actor will get questions from fans, but sometimes it's understandable (death) and sometimes it just makes no sense (the case of Lavender Brown).

Emmapuff

[nearlyconscious.livejournal.com]

Hahahaha I can't imagine the fan wrath if they had killed off Dumby. Just, nope x)

And, well. It makes no sense if you don't know the actress that was replaced was black =/ Casting Jessie Cave instead was whitewashing. Racism in the cinema industry is appalling, it's systematic, and sadly, some fans encourage it (just look at some reactions when people realised that Blaise was a black dude and not an Italian white girl... personally I was surprised when seeing some girl!Blaise old fics because Blaise is, I think, a French masculine name and I never imagined them to be a girl for that reason). Whitewashing is so common. (Just look at the Hunger Games : an olive-skinned character? White person with a tan.)

Delphine/Claw

[flipflop-diva.livejournal.com]

I watched Up All Night for most of the first season, but to me, it was always one of those shows that I could take or leave, and I eventually just stopped watching it.

But I agree with most of what you've said here. First of all, TV is a little different than movies, too, and especially different than a movie based on a book. If HP was just a movie series in itself, I would probably think recasting Dumbles would be really weird without some explanation. But being that it's based on a series and Dumbles is super essential to the film, there is no way in heck they could have gone around without him. I remember thinking it was a little jarring, but then I also knew what happened, so it wasn't that big of a deal that it was someone new. And as we've both pretty much said, it's not like there was really any other option!

Kristine | Puff

[nearlyconscious.livejournal.com]

I have a lot of strong feelings about this. I remember that I was very unimpressed by the movie when I first saw it because I had already imagined the whole universe and I knew the book by heart and I could see flaws everywhere...! I got this impression watching every movie of the saga, but now I've come to appreciate them, and some more than others, because some things are really brilliant (the music, the special effects, some actors/actresses, etc). I'm still put out by some incoherencies, though... And the replacements go in that category. Obviously, there had to be a replacement for Dumbledore - the role is essential and they needed another actor. However nobody will convince me that Michael Gambon was a good choice. I liked Richard Harris, although I thought he wasn't malicious enough (Dumbledore is supposed to come off as calm yet powerful, and Richard Harris was maybe just a bit too grandfatherly in my opinion), but Gambon is completely off! Well it could be due to scenaristic choices, too, but some moments were just out of character for Dumbledore, and overall I never really recognised the character I knew as Dumbledore on screen, which is too bad.

Another replacement I can think of that I think was not quite a bad choice was the actress who played Pansy Parkinson. I think Scarlett Byrne was terrific - physically, she really corresponded to the description of Pansy, and I thought she played the part (although a minor one) really well.

As for Lavender Brown... UGH. Forever UGH. As soon as she got dialogue, they replaced the actress with someone white. Disgusting. I love Jessie Cave, she's a very good actress and she was a good Lavender, but whitewashing is NOT okay. There are few black characters in the saga as it is, no need for them to be turned white.
Angelina Johnson has also been replaced... which I can't help but interpret as a "black people are interchangeable" shitty move, but mmmh, maybe I'm being paranoid, let's hope so...

Side-note, the part of Bellatrix was originally offered to McCrory, who plays Narcissa. I think it's very interesting. I love Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix - I had a very precise idea of Bellatrix in my mind when reading the book (I think she was one of my faves instantly) and HBC is different, but she managed to make me LOVE that different Bellatrix, with curly wild hair and rotten teeth. In the book, Bellatrix and Narcissa are described to look alike despite being dark and fair respectively, which I don't really see in HBC and McCrory. I think my original idea of Bellatrix might have corresponded more to McCrory. I think the casting is perfect as it is, though, because if McCrory could have played Bella, I don't think HBC could have played Narcissa (do you?), and not having HBC in the movie would have been a loss - she's quite a gem to the saga, I think.

Some characters are, for me, impossible to picture without thinking of the actor/actress, because they are exactly what I had envisioned when reading the books. The most striking example is Maggie Smith as Minerva McGonagall!

Delphine/Claw

[caitieness.livejournal.com]

I feel like I'm one of the few people who really liked Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. I don't know if it's because I saw the first two movies before I read the books so the third movie was the first one I was invested in, but I thought he had a great like mysterious but kindly quality, which I saw in the book version of the characters. I mean he really sold me in the movies in the scene where he's eating jelly beans -- "alas, earwax" -- and it was dead on how i read the scene in the book.

I think it's really interesting that you see Maggie Smith as a perfect McGonagall. I love love love her as McGonagall, too because she's an amazing actress but in the book, the character was much younger (Tom Riddle's age!) and casting Maggie Smith makes her seem kind of ancient like Dumbledore. Now, it's hard for me to imagine anyone else in the role and if she had been recast (especially in the last few movies when she was ill), it would have definitely been jarring and disappointing.

caitie / hufflepuff

[bergeronprocess.livejournal.com]

I wasn't super impressed by the first two movies either and, in my view, here is why: they were TOO faithful to the books, they had a pacing problem, it just wasn't exciting or magical. I really started to dig the movies when Alfonso Cuaron directed PoA. (Views of further movies: GoF was too long and dragged in places; OotP was too short and that's a shame; HBP was sluggish; DH was excellent.) That may be in part due to differing directorial, production and writing choices between films and I know my adoration of PoA is not often popular.

That may also explain why, at times, Dumbledore looked out of character. Differences in the people putting pen to paper (or finger to laptop key) to write out how he should act and what he should say = things like the way he interrogated Harry about putting his name in the Goblet of Fire.

We've covered above how we are in cahoots about the sham of a double recasting of Lavender, so I won't be redundant here. But I didn't know--or notice??--that Pansy had also gone through a hat trick of recasts. I really wonder why all these minor characters got recasted so much! YES, I KNOW RECASTED ISN'T A WORD, FIREFOX. STAY WITH ME HERE.

Emmapuff

[anbyrobanby.livejournal.com]

Interesting you should name Bellatrix/Narcissa. Before the films became really established, I had a headcanon casting of who should play Bella (it was a minor-as-hell TV actress who had AMAZING psycho eyes). In appearance, said actress more closely resembles Narcissa than Bellatrix- so to me, for ages Narcissa looked more like Bella than what Bella did!

It's an interesting thing, too- HBC did ultimately own Bellatrix, but I did feel there were times where things were altered round to give her more screentime despite it not having narrative merit (I'm thinking about you, random HBP Burrow attack scene!) I'm fairly sure there were cases of this happening to others, too. I seem to recall how Hermione got a lot of Ron's wiser/more depthful lines, while he remained a goofballsidekick for longer.

rob/gryff

[flyingharmony.livejournal.com]

I HAD NO IDEA THE GIRL WHO INITIALLY PLAYED LAVENDER AND WAS THEN REPLACED WAS BLACK. (Not that I actually had an idea that Lavender was actually recast...) That... Okay, whoa, no. That just... No. (Totally not a relevant comment for points, but I NEEDED TO GET THAT OUT. Also, I love your thoughts about Bella/Cissy <3)

[interchanges.livejournal.com]

I honestly can't imagine anyone but Dame Maggie Smith playing McGonagall. She was just so perfect for the role. Thanks to the movies, there are now some people I see in my head when I reread the books as those actors- like Luna, McGonagall, Uncle Vernon, Hagrid (though he should have been a bit bigger!), and others. It's interesting how the movies can change your headcanon- I have no idea how I pictured those characters before the movies!

Chelsea/Ravenclaw

[caitieness.livejournal.com]

To be honest, super minor characters changing actors doesn't bother me. For example, from the novels we know that Hufflepuff Cedric Diggory was the only seeker to out-snatch Harry Potter but it was due to a Dementor attack in HP's third year. This is shown in the movies and some rando plays the puff seeker (his robe is labeled Diggory but I can't even tell you what he looks like). Diggory becomes an important character in the next movie so he has to be recast based on the level of importance. Maybe that rando was just some extra that was there that day. Maybe his ability to read lines was minimal. Maybe he was busy. Either way, his relevance in PoA is so little that a recast doesn't matter to me. I'm going to say the same thing for Lavender Brown. I didn't even know she was in any of the other movies until reading everyone else's comments.

I think for characters that are a little less than minor, it would be a problem. Like if they re-cast Cho Chang between Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix, it would be confusing for the audience. Is she super important? Not really. Should you remember who she is? Yes. So you would have to not only reintroduce her ("Oh hey it's Cho Chang") but also remind the audience why she is important ("Didn't you have a crush on her Harry but she was dating Cedric when she died?") and it gets a little clumsy, IMO. With more major characters like Dumbledore, that isn't necessary. Not only does the age and make-up help Harris and Gambon look really similar (old white guy with a long white bear and spectacles), the character importance to the film made it obvious who he was supposed to be. If that makes any sense!

caitie / puff

[anbyrobanby.livejournal.com]

Interesting comment about cedric. It reminded me a bit of the situation with Marcus Belby- the kid in HBP whose uncle's wolfbane potion got him invited to the Slug Club. The actor who played this kid was tragically murdered before production ended, yet they kept his role in the film, however minor. Despite being a character who really serves no purpose, it could have been recast, edited, whatever- but it was deemed right to keep it as so.

The point I wass trying to make with the above got marred when I realised I was confusing him with roger davies- I was going to comment on how the Ravenclaw quidditch team was non-existent in the films. But yeah. The kid on the puff broomstick may not have been RPattz- in fact, i assume it was a stunt actor or somesuch. There was simply no need to cast any given person for that role.

rob/gryff

[flipflop-diva.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with all this. Most of the minor character recastings I didn't even notice or realize. I suppose it helps that the movies came out so far apart, too. (Well, I mean, I know a lot of people rewatched them, but sometimes I was lazy and didn't go back and start at movie 1 and go all the way through, so by the time I went to see the new one, it had been awhile since I'd seen the earlier ones). Also, it probably helps that there are tons and tons and tons of characters in these movies, so it's really hard to keep track of everyone on-screen.

But I also agree that once they become even a little important, then it gets weird. If they have lines and/or a significant moment that I'm supposed to remember, then it would be weird for them to suddenly be played by someone else. A bit jarring, especially if they didn't look similar.


Kristine | Puff

[evening12]

I understand that sometimes characters need to replace for reason x or y. In Harry Potter usually it doesn’t bother me that much when it comes to obscure characters. I don’t know if many people count Tom Riddle Jr. as an obscure character but I’ll count him. Yes, he’s not that obscure but he doesn’t have many scenes in the book. Voldemort, on the other hand, does. I remember being kinda bummed out that Christian Coulson hadn’t reprised his role as Tom Riddle in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. For me the issue wasn’t that, Coulson looked like what I imagined Tom to look like. The issue is that I like consistency. The film presented me with one imagine for Tom and from that moment on I thought “okay, this is Tom Riddle”. Of course, later on I came to realize that Coulson couldn’t reprise his role because he looked much older than the 16 year old Tom in HBP. As a side note, I have big love for Hero Fiennes-Tiffin who played 11 year old Tom in HBP. He looks so innocent but the way he speaks is just so chilling.

Also, I don’t know if many people remembered or noticed but in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, Vincent Crabbe’s actions/role have been taken over by Goyle. And what Goyle did in the book was played by Blaise in the film. That’s because the actor who played Crabbe got arrested for cannabis possession and later tried and sentenced to community work.

Martine//Ravenclaw

[caitieness.livejournal.com]

I saw DH2 with my boyfriend and I hadn't read the book in a few years I guess. And he pointed out to me that Blaise was not supposed to be there ("Wait -- is that supposed to be Crabbe? I thought he was a chubby kid?") And he was like really annoyed by it but me not so much. I didn't know that he was arrested (!!) and so he couldn't do the movie but I always assume when a minor character gets recast that's the reason (not that they were arrested, just that they were unable to do it). But I definitely found it interesting that they chose to replace his character with Blaise rather than just use someone else and name him Crabbe.

caitie/puff

[flipflop-diva.livejournal.com]

Also, I don’t know if many people remembered or noticed but in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, Vincent Crabbe’s actions/role have been taken over by Goyle. And what Goyle did in the book was played by Blaise in the film. That’s because the actor who played Crabbe got arrested for cannabis possession and later tried and sentenced to community work.

I totally didn't know that at all! I swear, reading everyone's comments here, I feel like I did not watch these movies very closely and maybe I need to go back and do a better job. Or maybe re-read the book then watch the movie right after and do it all in a very quick succession. Or something!

(Actually, I will say I remember/notice plot things a lot more than characters for some reason. I can tell you what scenes were and were not cut out or were changed in the movies, but apparently I am not very observant when it comes to people!)


Kristine | Puff

[kaitydid33087.livejournal.com]

I remember reading something about him getting arrested, and then seeing the movie, and being really confused for a minute, and then I had remembered he got arrested. Which, didn't actually bother me that much, because Crabbe didn't have a huge role in DH anyways. Had he had a bigger role, I might've minded more.

KaityPuff

[interchanges.livejournal.com]

I did know about the actor for Crabbe getting arrested, so I wasn't surprised when they switched him with Blaise in the film. That does make me remember though- in the 3rd movie doesn't Draco get followed around by Crabbe, Goyle, and another guy who's black? Is that guy also supposed to be Blaise or is it someone else? Because it's a different actor than the Blaise in the 6th movie. I never figured out who that other guy was supposed to be o.o

Chelsea/Ravenclaw

[flyingharmony.livejournal.com]

Oh, dear... I think this is quite a difficult topic... It's kind of obvious that, when it comes to these kinds of replacements, everybody gets a lot of feelings; nobody likes them (at least I don't know anybody who does), and likely everybody makes a silent vow to never prefer the second actor to the first; but, looking at it in an un-biased way, there are some times where the second actor gives entirely new ideas about the character and we find ourselves actually starting to be glad about the replacement. Generally, it's pretty understandable that some characters simply need to be replaced - for whatever reason, but most of the time, the audience is not very happy about it.

Looking at the Harry Potter series - I have to admit, there were more replacements than I actually noticed - I honestly had no idea about Lavender! While, in my opinion (and I have to add that I was around eight or nine when the first Harry Potter movie was released, so my first impression was certainly a different one than an adult or teenager's first impression) Richard Harris is a perfect cast for Dumbledore - at least a Dumbledore for Harry's point of view as a child - I've learned to appreciate Michael Gambon's portrayal of him too. More or less. At first I was shocked and did not know what to think at all, but over time I got used of him, very well aware that it was simply impossible to just write his character out of the movies; there was no other chance than to find another actor for Dumbledore, and I am not quite sure if any of this makes sense anymore.

Then, there were silent replacements, that never actually affected the watcher - what I am talking about is the replacement of Helen McCrory with Helena Bonham Carter; she was initially supposed to play the part of Bellatrix, but then had to withdraw due to her pregnancy and returned one movie later as Narcissa; while I adore Bonham Carter as Bellatrix and am one of these few people who actually think McCrory's Narcissa was fantastic, I cannot help but think - how would she have portrayed Bellatrix? Both, Helena Bonham Carter and Helen McCrory are (not due to Harry Potter, but several other movies) my favourite actresses - Helen McCrory likely my most favorite - and I am more than happy that I got to see both of them (I don't think that HBC would have been cast as Narcissa), but I can spend hours thinking of how McCrory's Bella would have been; I am convinced that she would have been as amazing as HBC, yet completely different (more cruel, colder, more terrifying) - and I am still convinced that the part might have fit her a tad better than Narcissa did, even though, as already stated, I do have a very high opinion of her as Cissy.

Now, what even is my point after all these ramblings about Helen McCrory and Helena Bonham Carter - we always have a direct comparison when actors are being replaced by others to play the character; we might be biased, but we have the chance to decide whom we thought to be better and whom we prefer to see playing that certain part, but when it comes to replacements during or shortly before shooting, this opportunity is taken from has, which, on one hand, might be a good thing, because it spares us many nerves and likely quite a few feelings about replacement, but on the other hand, when it comes to a situation similar to the two Bellatrix's, we - or, some of us - will likely spend lots of time, thinking and contemplating how the other actor or actress could have portrayed that certain character, and we will (likely) never find an answer.

Avi/Puff

[slumber.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of it is whether or not we already have an idea in our heads of how these characters would look like, and how they would act-- for me, I only had wild & crazy in mind for Bellatrix, and calm & composed & blonde for Narcissa, so when I saw the actresses they'd cast it was easier for their faces to fill in all the rest of what was missing in my head. The stronger the idea I had of a character, I think, the harder it is to convince me that this or that actor would have fit them.

I also think that once we see a character on-screen, to a certain extent we get attached to how they play their character, so it is understandably upsetting when suddenly they're played by someone else.

there are some times where the second actor gives entirely new ideas about the character and we find ourselves actually starting to be glad about the replacement

Thissssss. I'm a little bit surprised, actually, that Doctor Who hasn't made its way to the conversation yet. On one hand yes, the regeneration thing does make for a nice, built-in excuse about why eleven different actors have played him so far. On the other hand, one can't help but notice that every time someone new plays him, he changes quite a bit. There's room for playing with personality and quirks, I guess, and again you can account for Time Lord regeneration rules for that, but at the same time I can't help wondering-- if you put Eleven and One side by side, would you ever get to a point where you thought, "Yes, this is the same character."?

Evyclaw

[evening12]

I have to admit, there were more replacements than I actually noticed I was the same way. A lot of the replacements I noticed after the fact. I’d do on wiki and they would let me know that “actually Lavender had been cast before...”. I’m even less likely to notice if the character isn’t given a line or a “hey that’s so and so”. I don’t even think that Lavender was identified (aside from in the credits) as being Lavender in the films before HBP. So I really don’t care that she was replaced, I just don’t like the the new actress wasn’t also a Black actress. But in the case of Pansy who never had a big role, I don’t care really.

Martine//claw

[mmailliw.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think I will disagree with nearly everyone else here. I think that the actor has absolutely no bearing on the character itself. While a good actor (like Helena Bonham Carter for Bellatrix Lestrange) can perform a character well, to me the character will always be the character written on the page and not the person who is playing the character for money.

The only way I will really notice a character is when they are a bad fit, either in appearance or in their acting. One example is Narcissa Malfoy's actress, Helen McCrory. She was, I believe, the third or fourth choice for the role (and was initially considered to play Bellatrix Lestrange which would have been a weirder fit) but her physical appearance was so far from what I would have considered Narcissa to be - and from the way she was portrayed in canon - that I did not view her even remotely as Narcissa. One should keep in mind that Narcissa was born in 1955 according to canon and therefore was, at most, a mere forty one years of age during the sixth movie (and only a year older for the final movie). While Helen was around that age, her makeup - including both face and hair - made her look closer to geriatric than that... to the point that I wondered whether the people doing casting had misread Narcissa as Draco's grandmother.

Even that, though, pales in comparison to the age mismatch of the casting of Severus Snape. While it is true that Alan Rickman was able to capture Snape's personality perfectly, his physical appearance was that of an old man who aged from his mid fifties to his mid sixties throughout the casting of the series. Sounds the right age for an irascible professor, right? Enough so that you would forget what was actually written in the page... that Severus was a mere thirty one years of age during Harry's first movie (and 37 at his death)! In other words, canon talks about a Snape who joined the Death Eaters as a teenager and was barely 21 when he started teaching at Hogwarts - which is an entirely different story from someone who had 25 years of adulthood before joining up with Voldemort and didn't become head of Slytherin until he was already middle aged. There, we see how casting - even by actors who can pull off the personality part - can completely change the role/story of a character.

William//Slytherin [414; 237 if you don't count discussion on Snape]

[slumber.livejournal.com]

I think this is an interesting POV because the dissonance for you stems from characters you seem to have paid closer attention to. I think I'd have agreed that these actors didn't fit their roles had I initially cared as much for the characters mentioned -- but my idea of who they were and how they should look like were fleeting compared to how I thought of other characters, so I was a bit more lenient toward how they were cast in the series. I don't know that I've ever felt such a strong opinion for any single person's casting except, perhaps, for Finnick Odair (from the Hunger Games).

Evyclaw

[flipflop-diva.livejournal.com]

I'm going to start out by saying that minor characters changing doesn't really bother me all that much — as long as that minor character is actually minor and has not yet had a significant role. If Luna was suddenly played by someone different, I would not be happy. But the different Pansys, Lavanders, etc., I mostly didn't notice. (Confession. I watched a lot of soap operas when I was in high school. And characters get recast in soaps all the time, for all kinds of reasons. And it's always a little weird at first, and a little jarring, and then you spend the next so many weeks complaining that you like the "first so-and-so" better than the new one, but time goes on, you get used to it, no biggie. So I think I'm just also accustomed to that happening and, to me, it's not that big of a deal, for the most part.)

I do think, though, that sometimes you do find that perfect person for a part and they just become that person, and then suddenly having them change would be totally odd and weird. Like with Luna and McGonagall and Snape. When I read the books now, I see them. They just are these characters, and I can't even remember how I pictured them before the movies.

Also, I mentioned this to Emma in a comment, but I also think it's slightly different (at least to me) with HP because these are movies based on a book. If I were just watching a movie series that was its own entity, it would be a lot weirder to have actors change without any acknowledgment, but with HP, I'm almost more accepting of it because I know who these characters are already and it would be more wrong to not have them there than to have them undergo little tweaks here and there.


Kristine | Puff

[slumber.livejournal.com]

Ahahaha I forgot about Pansy-- I was actually a bit annoyed about that actress change, but mostly because I thought Genevieve Gaunt (the first girl who played Pansy) was spot-on. At least with the bob that I somehow always imagined Pansy to have. The new one, Scarlet?, had the pug nose, I guess, but she looked a lot less aristocratic, I guess. And speaking of minor HP characters (or I guess just Slytherins, what can I say, I really cared more about those casting decisions) I liked that Astoria Greengrass was brunette, even if I knew the only reason was because it was Tom Felton's girlfriend and she just happened to be brunette as well.

Luna is another spot-on casting choice too. I think it helps with some of the casting decisions in HP because a lot of the child actors they picked didn't really come up in other films before HP, so they were able to grow into their characters too, over time?

Evyclaw

[kaitydid33087.livejournal.com]

Well...thinking about characters and their need to be replaced, kind of makes me think of Three's Company, and pretty much replacing Susan Summers, after she quit. It was just never the same, I think they tried, but they never captured that original gold that she had. And I'm glad that John Ritter never left, because honestly, he was irreplaceable as Jack. Sometimes, some shows just create characters that are so irreplaceable. And of course, people pass on, and it sucks and all. I guess sometimes they have no choice but to replace the actor. But I think my big problem, with Dumbles, was the actor choice.

Now don't get me wrong, I like Michael Gambon, and I respect him as an actor, but ugh...I HATE how he portrayed Dumbles. He was just way too angry. And part of this, is probably because I really hate what they did with PoA. It's my least favorite movie,right behind HBP, and it's my FAVORITE BOOK. They just changed too much, and well...this is a different tangent, that is somewhat related. But anyways, Michael Gambon was just way too angry for me. Dumbledore was never really all that angry of a character. Richard Harris played him just as I imagined Dumbledore in the books. Wise, old, and slightly crazy. I don't think that Michael Gambon ever got that down. I think that's what the biggest annoyance of the last 6 movies are, just too much of an angry Dumbledore. And it wasn't even til Kings Cross, did I like Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. That was one of the better scenes he had. I think he just changed too much from what Richard Harris had set up, and it was never the same again.

The thing is, if you're gonna replace actors, then you gotta make the performance just as good, if not better. And I don't think Michael Gambon ever did that.

Kaitypuff//321 words

[slumber.livejournal.com]

There was a lot going on from the transition between CoS and PoA, though-- the directorial change, the tone, the scene, etc. Cuaron had taken over the reigns and he did a LOT that was incredibly different from how Columbus had handled it. The movies switched hands a bit more, and while at the time it was really jarring, I like thinking it helped craft how the wizarding world must have felt to Harry as he went through all seven years of it.

Gambon, I agree, took a bit of time for me to get used to. He was definitely a lot more exuberant and sprightly, but Harry's view of Dumbledore changed as well, over time. While I agree that Harris was pretty great in the role, I don't think it's entirely bad that we had someone who seemed less all-knowing and not-as-wizened in Dumbledore to eventually play that shift in his character.

Evyclaw

[slumber.livejournal.com]

This is pretty interesting, and I have a couple of random thoughts that may not string together so bullet points!

Do actors become the characters, or is it just great typecasting?

I was actually talking to a friend about how the cast members of a series that we watch (Teen Wolf) seem to perfectly fit their characters, esp from what we see of them outside the show. Even one cast member who seems to be completely different from his character, we think, would have fit that character at a different point in his life. Would they have been able to play their roles as well had they had different personalities? Did they bring a piece of themselves to their characters or was it a case of great typecasting, where casting directors were looking for actors who just fit the mold their characters were made of?

When you think about it, how many actors can you really imagine playing roles other than the ones they have played? I've heard Johnny Depp referred to as versatile, or a method actor, but lately it seems even he's fallen into the "does weird roles" category. Cillian Murphy has done action, drama, suspense and even an indie romcom, but you will never see him opposite Anne Hathaway in a romantic comedy released for Valentine's. So even so-called method actors are limited in what they are able to do, but what's hard to pinpoint is where the dissonance stems from. They can probably act the part, but do they look the part we imagine the role to be? Is that because it just doesn't fit them, or have we been influenced by what we've seen in the last few years re: what a romcom leading actor should look like? Is the issue with the actor, the middlemen (studio, casting directors, etc), or the audience?

Are our opinions influenced by suspension of belief?

Another factor here that I touched on briefly in the section prior is where the audience comes in. There are times when a character is minor enough that I'd have had no preconceived notions about what they would look like (okay, that's actually a lie-- Seamus' hair has been described as sandy which I took to mean blond, and until I saw Tom Felton I was under the impression Draco Malfoy had sleek black hair DO NOT ASK ME HOW I MISSED ALL THE BLOND REFERENCES, I wasn't exactly paying much attention when I first started reading <.< >.>) so that when I actually see who they've cast, I'm more of the side to happily accept this decision. I think Katniss is a particularly explosive casting controversy because she was not only the main character, but there were serious racial implications to the casting decision (personally, however, I always thought she was... not white, but not black, just because her mother and sister were both blonde. IDK.).

I went a bit off-tangent there. I guess what I'm saying is if I come into a theatre or TV show expecting little, then the reality of the actor+role I see onscreen is all I really have going for me to shape my opinion of the character and how well the actor chosen was. I didn't have anyone else in mind for Vernon Dursley. If Colin Firth had put on a black wig and played Snape, I don't think I'd have really thought differently of it, unless I knew that Rickman had turned down the role, or something like that.

On character evolution through recasting

I think my point is actors become the characters through a confluence of factors, but primarily because they are the ones playing the role. They have their take on the character and because usually, it is the only take we get to see, it is easier to accept. The problem arose when Michael Gambon's version of Dumbledore is so oddly different from Richard Harris', but even then, at least Gambon had the next 6 movies to acclimate us to his role. He became Dumbledore in the end, but whether it was because of him adjusting how he played him or me adjusting how I viewed him, though, is hard to tell.

Evyclaw

[interchanges.livejournal.com]

I don't really mind the recasting they did for minor characters, since most of the time the characters were just in the background, so they were played by extras until they needed someone who could act. I do dislike the whitewashing of Lavender- her ethnicity wasn't stated in the book, but if you give the part to a black actress then to a white actress- that's not really okay.

I think what bothered me more than the recasting was the writing out/assimilating characters into others. My biggest problems was them giving Hermione Ron's awesome lines (If you're going to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too! etc). I know Steve Kloves was a big Harmony shipper and I think that KILLED the dynamic between the trio. Ron was just a sidekick for comic relief, whereas in the book he actually does shit and can be clever. I hate this about the movies.

Sometimes I compare the HP movies to the very well-adapted LOTR movies. The thing with LOTR is that all the books were out when the scripts were written, which made it easy to know what was important and what wasn't. Whereas with HP they didn't know that. Yes, JKR did prevent them from cutting out Kreacher and things like that, but they still didn't know what to focus on. I know that Dobby didn't have a major role in books 3-6, but having him come back in the 7th movie after not having been around just made it seem a bit random and didn't have the effect like the book had (I cried when he died when I read it). Also I know Peeves and the ghosts didn't add much to the plot either, but not having there (the ghosts disappeared after the 3rd movie, it seemed?) just took out some of the magic of Hogwarts castle. Also having Bill show up in the 7th movie was SO RANDOM and so awkward to explain his run-in with Fenrir (seriously can't believe there was no battle in HBP but we got that stupid Burrow scene instead, sigh) and marriage to Fleur. I know not every character can be in the movies, there just isn't enough time, but if the writers had known who would be important later, then I think the earlier movies would have been done a bit differently and characters wouldn't have been cut completely.

I could go on, but I think other people have already made the points I would make.

Chelsea/Ravenclaw