It always bothers me when TV shows or movie series recast important characters midway through their run. The latest example of this is the announcement that Rachelle Lefevre won't be playing Victoria in The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. She will instead be replaced by Bryce Dallas Howard. The reasoning for this is, supposedly, scheduling conflicts, but it seems to me that Summit Entertainment just wanted to save themselves some money by casting a different redhead.
I can understand why they'd want to do that, from a financial standpoint it makes all the sense in the world. But this kind of recasting can hurt fan loyalty. I'm not a big Twilight person, so I don't take this change to heart. But I'm sure, with this fandom in particular, I'm sure some fans will be upset by this change. What bothers me is that it insults the audience's intelligence that we wouldn't notice the physical changes. Also, the audience always has the other performance in mind so it distracts from the actual show; we're too busy comparing how the different actors treated the same role. At least, these are my problems with recasting mid-role.Are you guys bothered by this?
Here are a few more examples of recasting:
Terrance Howard vs. Don Cheadle in the Iron Man franchise:
Alica Goranson vs. Sarah Chalke in Roseanne:
Can you guys think of more that bothered you?
UPDATE via Perez Hilton:
Rachelle's words about the replacement
“I was fully committed to the ‘Twilight’ saga, and to the portrayal of Victoria. I turned down several other film opportunities and, in accordance with my contractual rights, accepted only roles that would involve very short shooting schedules. My commitment to ‘Barney’s Version’ is only ten days. Summit picked up my option for ‘Eclipse.’ Although the production schedule for ‘Eclipse’ is over three months long, Summit said they had a conflict during those ten days and would not accommodate me. Given the length of filming for ‘Eclipse,’ never did I fathom I would lose the role over a 10 day overlap. I was happy with my contract with Summit and was fully prepared to continue to honor it. Summit chose simply to recast the part. I am greatly saddened that I will not get to complete my portrayal of Victoria for the ‘Twilight’ audience. This is a story, a theatrical journey and a character that I truly love and about which I am very passionate. I will be forever grateful to the fan support and loyalty I’ve received since being cast for this role, and I am hurt deeply by Summit’s surprising decision to move on without me. I wish the cast and crew of ‘Eclipse’ only the very best."
For more, check out these articles on E! Online.
Hey Kristal!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it's a cost-cutting measure. Rachelle Lefevre had been in a few things, but was basically an unknown before Twilight, whereas Bryce Dallas Howard has had top billing in huge films like Terminator and Spiderman. Being Ron Howard's kid probably doesn't hurt either.
Two recasts off the top of my head: Dumbledore. Necessary, due to the death of Richard Harris. Jarring nonetheless. Michael Gambon's Dumbledore came off as kind of angry and mean at first, but he's become more sympathetic. I haven't seen the new movie yet.
I never noticed this as a kid, but Marty's girlfriend was recast in Back to the Future II. There's a video floating around Youtube comparing the ending of I to the beginning of II, which are ostensibly the same scene. It is neato!
I saw the video on College Humor! Pretty cool how exact they match up EXCEPT for the actress playing the girlfriend! haha. And Dumbledore was jarring, I still prefer the original's performance best, he just seemed to capture his magic better. Gambon just seems too....hippy? I don't know how to explain it, but Dumbledore's eccentricity is different than what Gambon portrays.
ReplyDeleteAs for Rachelle, I've been following the major theories at play, and I'm more apt to believe that Rachelle's recasting was used as example to the rest of the cast to not step out of line. Makes for a juicy story if that's the case!