I really enjoy most of Harrison Ford's movies, including the Jack Ryan ones.
But he’s just not Jack Ryan. I thought Alec Baldwin was much better cast as Jack Ryan. The point of the character, I think, is that he’s unassuming and gets into these situations. Not that he seeks them. Despite once being a Marine.
Harrison Ford is an Action Hero, and a good one. And I just don’t think of Ryan as the Action Hero character.
He’s more a Mary Sue for Clancy, if anything.
-------------------- A Lie can run around the world before the Truth can get its boots on. - Terry Pratchett
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Posts: 2495 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My two biggest have already been mentioned... I *hate* Micheal Gambon as Dumbledore for many of the same reasons cited (He just came off too nasty in GoF, and I felt like Richard Harris had the kindly grandfather bit down more while still having the idea there was something more to him). I am curious in the next films where they will take Gambon's view of the character with the more political storylines.
And, frankly, Jodie Foster is Clarice Starling. No matter how many times her accent was slammed etc she just seemed to bring across the country naivete with the sharp analytical mind. I'll admit my view of Hannibal was greatly colored by the fact that I didn't care for the book to begin with, though the insights into Lecter's past were interesting. I can't wait for the prequel to come out.
Christian Bale is the best Batman thus far with Micheal Keaton a close second based on the types of scripts (Micheal worked great in the more comic/ dark view, Christian in the modern). Val Kilmer is just... ick, and as much as I love George I think he was 1. Too pretty, I see Bruce Wayne as more the playboy for his money than his looks, and 2. for goddess' sake the script!
-------------------- "There is a race between mankind and the universe. Mankind is trying to build bigger, better, faster, and more foolproof machines. The universe is trying to build bigger, better, and faster fools. So far the universe is winning." -Albert Einstein Posts: 1058 | From: Yakima, WA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mosherette: I loathed Sam Rockwell's version of Zaphod Beeblebrox. Loathed it.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. OK, so he did manage to nail "self-centered and immediately, incessantly annoying" (basic summary of the character's "personality"), but still bad, IMO.
I also disagreed with Marvin's appearance. I'd always visualized him as a matte silver-tone C3PO, but they made him look like a TeleTubby!
Posts: 486 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I gotta agree with guruwan2b on this one. I preferred Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan. That's not to say that I disliked Alec Baldwin. I would have had no problem with him continuing in the role
But Ben Affleck!? No way. By this time in the series Jack Ryan was older and more sure of himself. After all, he had just been instrumental in ending a President's tiem in office. I spent most of the time looking at Affleck and shaking my head.
-------------------- You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons. -Blazing Saddles Posts: 1074 | From: High Level, Alberta, Canada | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a few years old now, but when National Lampoon was doing their "Vacation" films, I thought the original Audrey and Rusty were the best. Over the years the recast Audreys and Rustys would age, youthen, shrink and grow. But none of them had the presence that the originals had.
Another recast that the jury is still out for me is the role of Vivian Banks on The Fresh Prince of Belair. The original Vivian, Janet Hubert-Whitten, was more attractive, but the second Vivian, Daphne Maxwell Reid, was a better actress. All this is my opinion, of course.
This conundrum has led me to think about whether recasting into the same role is even valuable at all.
2 Pts. "They replaced the first Darren and no one even noticed!"Posts: 2064 | From: New Brunswick, Canada | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Spamamander: Christian Bale is the best Batman thus far with Micheal Keaton a close second based on the types of scripts (Micheal worked great in the more comic/ dark view, Christian in the modern). Val Kilmer is just... ick, and as much as I love George I think he was 1. Too pretty, I see Bruce Wayne as more the playboy for his money than his looks, and 2. for goddess' sake the script!
I'll guess I'm the only one who thinks Kevin Conroy was the best Batman, followed by Christian Bale and Michael Keaton in second. Val Kilmer was comatose throughout that entire movie (the only thing that made Batman Forever enjoyable was watching Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey ham it up) and the less said about George Clooney the better, though to be fair, not even Laurence Olivier could have saved that script.
Mouse the "Mark Hamil's Joker was way scarier than Jack Nicholson's Joker." Louse
-------------------- "You see? The mysteries of the Universe are revealed when you break stuff." Coop from MegasXLR
"I distrust who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony Posts: 2246 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm ashamed to admit I even watched the show, but I really disliked the recast of Jimmy Olson on Lois & Clark.
Also, going from Kristy Swanson to Sarah Michelle Gellar as Buffy the Vampire Slayer was not a good change.
As for Batman...I'm not sure that the Schumacher movies should even count as "recasting" from the Burton movies. They didn't just recast Batman, they recast the whole city. Only Commissioner Gordon and Alfred stayed the same (and both were miscast to begin with, IMO) Obviously Batman Begins is a different beast. It wouldn't be possible to cast Keaton, Kilmer or Clooney because of the timeline.
Of course, Hannibal Lecter SHOULD have been recast for Red Dragon, since it's a prequel. But that whole movie is a waste and a half, Manhunter is better. And Julianne Moore should never have been (re)cast as Clarice. Silence of the Lambs was the best of the four movies, but I feel Hannibal was the best of the three books. It didn't make the transition well.
-------------------- Too broke to pay attention Posts: 452 | From: Omaha, NE | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked Rockwell as Zaphod Beeblebrox (he had the sex appeal down, too, oh my!). I didn't like Mos Def as Ford. He didn't seem cool enough. Or rather, he was cool enough, he just mumbled too much. I liked the BBC Ford better.
--NewZer0
-------------------- I study medieval literature because that's where the money is. Posts: 1431 | From: Corvallis, OR | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anyte: I'm ashamed to admit I even watched the show, but I really disliked the recast of Jimmy Olson on Lois & Clark.
If you're saying that Michael Landes wasn't as good as the guy from the 1950's, I agree. If you're saying that Justin Whelan wasn't as good as Michael Landes, I couldn't disagree more. The story is that the producers thought Landes looked too much like Dean Cain. I just think Michael Landes' good looks made him a poor fit for the role. Jimmy Olsen needs to be a dork (like me), or else it's not as compelling when Superman saves him.
-------------------- "Well, it looks we're on our own ... again."--Rev. Lovejoy Posts: 3572 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phil'sGirl: Hands down, the worst recasting was Callum Keith Rennie as Detective Vecchio on Due South.
You go from an older, balding stereotypical Italian to a scrawny, near-sighted younger Canadian, with spiky hair.
No, of course we won't notice that you've replaced a good-looking actor with a meh looking one.
But...but...that wasn't really re-casting. They were two different characters. The scrawny Ray Vecchio wasn't really Ray Vecchio. The real Ray Vecchio had had to go into hiding or undercover or something, The scrawny "Ray" was accepted by everyone as Ray, and when Fraser expressed his doubts and confusion, everyone acted as though they didn't know what he meant. Eventually it came out that "Ray" was really named Stanley Raymond Kowalski, and once Fraser knew what the story was, he more or less went along with it.
Or something like that. Didn't the real Ray show up again in one of the last episodes? So they were truly two different characters. Or am I a ?
-------------------- "The Potato Festival will never be the same without Evelena." (from an obituary in the Charleston, WV, Gazette) Posts: 215 | From: living here in Allentown, PA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
First off, Sum of All Fears can be universally accepted as a HEINOUS adaptation, for all the reasons mentioned above and many more. That being said, if one completely forgets about Clancy's novel, and instead accepts Sum as its own stand alone movie with stand alone characters, it's actually quite an entertaining and gripping movie.
Now, about the casting... in the Baldwin vs Ford arena, cast me firmly with Baldwin. As noted by another snopester above, Baldwin captured perfectly the unassuming, generally "thrown into a situation" exhasperation of the Ryan I've always envisioned--essentially, an analyst who continually is thrust by circumstances way outside his lane, and isn't fully comfortable with it (despite eventual superb performance). Ford wasn't bad, per se, but his Ryan was a little TOO self-assured, too overtly capable.
Now... I know I'm going to catch a WORLD of shit for this... but on principle, I don't see Ben Afflect as a bad Ryan. Was Ryan, as portrayed and totally retconned in the film, completely botched? Absolutely. But that was a function of the film, not the actor. I think Affleck makes a perfect youngRyan, when he was still fiery, impatient, cocky, and full of reightous Irish temper. Affleck, even when older, could never capture the more contemplative and phlegmatic older Ryan from the later books in the series, but in the proper context I think he could portray a younger Ryan perfectly. (Let the flames begin.)
Now, the REAL question is, who makes the better Clark, Dafoe or Schreiber? To me, it is no question at all--Liev Schreiber WAS Clark. But I'd be curious to see other opinions.
-------------------- High on the wind, the Highland drums begin to roll, and something from the past just comes and stares into my soul... --Mark Knopfler Posts: 3402 | From: New Bern, NC | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phil'sGirl: Hands down, the worst recasting was Callum Keith Rennie as Detective Vecchio on Due South.
You go from an older, balding stereotypical Italian to a scrawny, near-sighted younger Canadian, with spiky hair.
No, of course we won't notice that you've replaced a good-looking actor with a meh looking one.
But...but...that wasn't really re-casting. They were two different characters. The scrawny Ray Vecchio wasn't really Ray Vecchio. The real Ray Vecchio had had to go into hiding or undercover or something, The scrawny "Ray" was accepted by everyone as Ray, and when Fraser expressed his doubts and confusion, everyone acted as though they didn't know what he meant. Eventually it came out that "Ray" was really named Stanley Raymond Kowalski, and once Fraser knew what the story was, he more or less went along with it.
Or something like that. Didn't the real Ray show up again in one of the last episodes? So they were truly two different characters. Or am I a ?
Yes, he did show up near the end.
But, most of the characters referred to Kowalski as 'Vecchio', including his boss.
It just seemed like they were trying to shoehorn Kowalski in to scripts pre-written for Vecchio.
I wouldn't have minded the switch so much if they had cared more, or at all, about more closely matching the actors.
Of course, the whole 3rd season sucked, and the final episode was a slap in the face to viewers.
-------------------- "Nobody ever looks like McCarthy, sir. That's how they get in the door in the first place" Toby on The West Wing Posts: 816 | From: Washington State | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it sad that the first thing that came to mind was switching from Janet Hubert-Whitten to Daphne Reid as Vivian Banks on "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air"? lol Janet came across as a bit naive - but sweet... where as Daphne was a bit witchy.
-------------------- "Invention, my dear friends, is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple." - Willy Wonka Posts: 388 | From: Michigan | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if this counts, but I thought the temporary recasting in Dukes of Hazzard was horrible. As for the movie, I shouldn't even have to say anything.
As for Batman, everything post-Burton was more or less horrible. Batman Begins is definately another beast, and I think is getting things back on track. I choose to refrain from saying much more until an inevitable second movie is released and I get a chance to see it.
-------------------- It can't rain all the time. Posts: 1102 | From: Iowa | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phil'sGirl: Hands down, the worst recasting was Callum Keith Rennie as Detective Vecchio on Due South.
You go from an older, balding stereotypical Italian to a scrawny, near-sighted younger Canadian, with spiky hair.
No, of course we won't notice that you've replaced a good-looking actor with a meh looking one.
But...but...that wasn't really re-casting. They were two different characters. The scrawny Ray Vecchio wasn't really Ray Vecchio. The real Ray Vecchio had had to go into hiding or undercover or something, The scrawny "Ray" was accepted by everyone as Ray, and when Fraser expressed his doubts and confusion, everyone acted as though they didn't know what he meant. Eventually it came out that "Ray" was really named Stanley Raymond Kowalski, and once Fraser knew what the story was, he more or less went along with it.
Or something like that. Didn't the real Ray show up again in one of the last episodes? So they were truly two different characters. Or am I a ?
Yes, he did show up near the end.
But, most of the characters referred to Kowalski as 'Vecchio', including his boss.
It just seemed like they were trying to shoehorn Kowalski in to scripts pre-written for Vecchio.
I wouldn't have minded the switch so much if they had cared more, or at all, about more closely matching the actors.
Of course, the whole 3rd season sucked, and the final episode was a slap in the face to viewers.
I'm so glad I'm not the only person who feels this way. I loved that show. And now that the actor is on "The Shield", we still call him "Ray Vecchio".
I agree with the Becky thing- although they in-joked it quite well (Where the hell have you been? every time someone sees the old Becky).
And Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan, definitely good.
I've got nothing else to add here.
-------------------- "Is it ME? Am I a MAGNET for these idiots?"~Pearl Forrester MST3K Die-Hard Engineers, Big Red One my Dad's website "Must be a 'snopes' thing..." ~my entire family when I try to explain something. Posts: 4524 | From: South of Madison, Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DesertRat: Weighing on the Jack Rayn debate...
First off, Sum of All Fears can be universally accepted as a HEINOUS adaptation, for all the reasons mentioned above and many more. That being said, if one completely forgets about Clancy's novel, and instead accepts Sum as its own stand alone movie with stand alone characters, it's actually quite an entertaining and gripping movie.
Now, about the casting... in the Baldwin vs Ford arena, cast me firmly with Baldwin. As noted by another snopester above, Baldwin captured perfectly the unassuming, generally "thrown into a situation" exhasperation of the Ryan I've always envisioned--essentially, an analyst who continually is thrust by circumstances way outside his lane, and isn't fully comfortable with it (despite eventual superb performance). Ford wasn't bad, per se, but his Ryan was a little TOO self-assured, too overtly capable.
Now... I know I'm going to catch a WORLD of shit for this... but on principle, I don't see Ben Afflect as a bad Ryan. Was Ryan, as portrayed and totally retconned in the film, completely botched? Absolutely. But that was a function of the film, not the actor. I think Affleck makes a perfect youngRyan, when he was still fiery, impatient, cocky, and full of reightous Irish temper. Affleck, even when older, could never capture the more contemplative and phlegmatic older Ryan from the later books in the series, but in the proper context I think he could portray a younger Ryan perfectly. (Let the flames begin.)
Now, the REAL question is, who makes the better Clark, Dafoe or Schreiber? To me, it is no question at all--Liev Schreiber WAS Clark. But I'd be curious to see other opinions.
No flames, here. I LOVED Baldwin in Hunt for Red October, and I am not a Baldwin fan. As much as I love Harrison Ford, Baldwin was just better, for reasons stated already. The scene when he's shaving, asking himself "How do you get a crew to want to get off a nuclear..." is priceless.
And Sum of All Fears is a terrific movie. I could't get into the book, although other Tom Clancy books keep me spellbound. But the movie itself is terrific.
-------------------- "No Biblical hell could ever be worse than the state of perpetual inconsequence." Beatrice in Dangerous Beauty Posts: 1816 | From: Cayuga County, NY | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Claire on "my wife and kids" anyone? or is everyone here too old for that?
I liked the second version better but she looked WAY older than the older brother in the family.
Posts: 282 | From: wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to watch a comedy on PBS called "May to December," and I loved the first Zoe. The second one was a good actress and all, but she wasn't really Zoe to me.
-------------------- "No Biblical hell could ever be worse than the state of perpetual inconsequence." Beatrice in Dangerous Beauty Posts: 1816 | From: Cayuga County, NY | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Spamamander: Christian Bale is the best Batman thus far with Micheal Keaton a close second based on the types of scripts (Micheal worked great in the more comic/ dark view, Christian in the modern). Val Kilmer is just... ick, and as much as I love George I think he was 1. Too pretty, I see Bruce Wayne as more the playboy for his money than his looks, and 2. for goddess' sake the script!
You thought George Clooney was too much of prettyboy to play Batman and liked Christian Bale? I think he's prettier than George Clooney.
Posts: 480 | From: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by quiltsbypam: I used to watch a comedy on PBS called "May to December," and I loved the first Zoe. The second one was a good actress and all, but she wasn't really Zoe to me.
I'm not even sure the second one was ALIVE, she was so dormant. Very bad change from the very animated actress who had the part first (I really liked her, too).
Posts: 486 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought George Clooney made a good public Bruce Wayne. He had the clueless playboy act down.
There's the mother of all bad recasting. Francis Ford Coppola was offered every brilliant young actress in Hollywood for The Godfather III. He decided to cast his own daughter Sofia, who was absolutely wretched.
-------------------- Meanwhile, at stately Wayne Manor... Posts: 1316 | From: Oregon | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Greg of Winter: There's the mother of all bad recasting. Francis Ford Coppola was offered every brilliant young actress in Hollywood for The Godfather III. He decided to cast his own daughter Sofia, who was absolutely wretched.
IIRC, Winona Ryder was originally cast in the part but left suddenly due to exhaustion. Sophia was there & available so she was thrown into the part. I think even she's said she wasn't the best person for the job.
-------------------- I cannot live without books-Thomas Jefferson *~* A child educated only at school is an uneducated child - George Santayana I'm going to pummel you with such zeal, Buddha will explode! *~* Never miss a good chance to shut up - Will Rogers Posts: 6585 | From: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember the recast in May To December being less than smooth.
I know there were a few possibles for Godfather III, Julia Roberts was one but was too busy with Flatliners or Hook to sign up.
Posts: 372 | From: Marple, UK | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Anthony Hopkins was THE Hannibal Lecter until I saw Brian Cox in Manhunter (a.k.a. Red Dragon, a title they didn't use b/c it sounded too much like a Kung Fu movie ). Cox made Lecter scary and intelligent without overdoing the "see how well I play a crazy person" mannerisms.
I'm in the minority here, but I actually liked Gambon's Dumbledore better than Harris's. Harris was just too sick to convey Dumbledore's energy and spirit. In PoA he overdid the old-hippie goofiness a bit, but he caught more of DD's gravitas in GoF. It didn't bother me that he seemed out of control at times--one of the ironies of the stories is that he's not in control of events as much as he thinks.
-------------------- Si hoc comprehendere potes, gratias age magistro Latinae. Posts: 1720 | From: Charlottesville, VA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Callum Rennie was attractive at all, I'd agree with you on the fan-fic.
But ewww.
-------------------- "Nobody ever looks like McCarthy, sir. That's how they get in the door in the first place" Toby on The West Wing Posts: 816 | From: Washington State | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[dunce]](graemlins/dunce.gif)
?![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
