Shop now Shop now</arg> Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Amazon Music Unlimited Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > action discussion forum

Movie franchise spoilt by same role different actor


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 45 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 1 Jul 2009 15:29:52 BDT
i was going to purchase the new Punisher movie but it has a different actor as Castle and thats just wrong! I thought Thomas Jane was great

anyone else feel the same about the use of different actors that spoil things!

Posted on 1 Jul 2009 16:26:35 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 29 Jul 2016 00:29:31 BDT]

Posted on 1 Jul 2009 17:57:27 BDT
Drachensturm says:
I also thought Thomas Jane was perfect as The Punisher.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jul 2009 20:37:57 BDT
The Punisher is a very highly underated movie and there could have been a great trilogy in the offing but instead they have gone the same sad route to get another actor in, if Thomas Jane wasnt up for it then should leave well enough alone! How long b4 someone mentions bond?

Posted on 1 Jul 2009 22:12:25 BDT
The Snake says:
Ha' You have to remember the first Punisher was Dolph Lundgren and he was good as the man to ,i think each of the Punisher films are cool and apart from some good action in the gun stakes have a lot of Hand To Hand combat .So i have decided to review at my site for July .

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jul 2009 23:30:03 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Jul 2009 23:35:48 BDT
yep i have the ORIGINAL Lundgren punisher in my collection and both movies are equally great tho there was never really a punisher 2 as in the case of this newer franchise
Another that did it for me was Hannibal why have Starling played by Julianne Moore and not just introduce another female FBI agent or have her explained as a relative of Fosters character if Foster wasnt intrested, or even better have it so she had to change her face to hide from Lecter, you could almost imagine Hopkins on phone " Same leopard just different spots Clarice "

Posted on 2 Jul 2009 00:30:33 BDT
The more recent |Punisher film actually edges a little closer to what the Punisher is about. Ray Stevenson can act, and whilst i have nothing against Thomas Jane The Punsiher film he was in is easily the worst film adaptation of a comic book I have ever seen (this is leaving out sequels such as the Batman Forever Batman and Robin) Garth Ennis dragged the Punisher out of obscurity and wrote excellent storylines which were passed over so some two bit screenwriter(s) could maul his work to appease the likes of John Travolta(who completely ruined the film) The Punisher is supposed to be super hard Thomas Jane at no point looks hard, Ray Stevenson does but the problem with the War Zone film is they cut the dialogue to a minimum and went for violence overload, which again is paced well in the comics but in the film it gets boring very quickly. All three films are ultimately Punisher Lite and if they should happen to make a fourth then hopefully they will take the positives from the three filoms and not make the same mistakes a fourth time. Thomas Jane was excellent in Stander. And Hannibal is also one of the worst films ive seen, but i do agree tere was no chance of Julianne Moore replacing Jodie Foster

Posted on 2 Jul 2009 12:27:46 BDT
i for one am dubious about the change of james rhodes from Terrance Howard in Iron Man, to Don Cheadle in Iron Man 2. especially since howard WANTED to do it, it seems insane, it is not even as if they are a different calibur of actor, as they are both oscar nominees, as far as i can tell the change is purely because Cheadle is more of a houshold name.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jul 2009 13:56:25 BDT
Andrew Kyle says:
whit?

They're not even alike; Howard is burly Cheadle is skinny, wiry. Both excellent actors, but it would be like replacing michael clarke duncan with denzel

Posted on 2 Jul 2009 16:25:13 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jul 2009 16:26:07 BDT
The worst for me in recent times was The Dark Knight. Why on earth did they change Katie holmes. Ok maybe she didn't want to do it thats fine but for god sake introduce another character. I know her character was a very important part of the Dark Knight but not having the same actress made this character a bit redundant for me they might as well have used a different name as the character had nothing in common with the one portrayed in Batman begins.

As for Bond, changing the actors has never bothered me for some reason. I think it has to do with the fact that, in my opinion, every actor who has played Bond has been first class and done a great job and each made the character their own. They are more like standalone films as opposed to true sequels (apart from recent times but it was the same actor) so I suppose it never really mattered.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jul 2009 18:34:08 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jul 2009 18:38:13 BDT
what i still dont understand is that WE the public can get so brassed off with these movies that have obvious differences but studios seem oblivious to the change , down to $ + £'s i think!

Another fine example of this is the Darkman trilogy that had Neeson replaced by Vosloo down to the extent of re-doing his scenes from the first movie with Vosloo playing the part- its almost an insult to Neeson
I know the two sequals are from different director but why not explain the use of different actor away - say for example Westlake lost picture of himself so had to use best match? or maybe his machine could only replicate the same face a certain amount of times? Dont forget we see Bruce Campbell in the original

Wayne - I understand what you say about the Bonds and you are right they stand as individual movies but it seems only untill Craig who carries a lot across, i think the only movie to hold its ground with respect is Robocop 3 which had almost body double of Weller all be it in an inferior movie!

Posted on 3 Jul 2009 06:51:48 BDT
Paul Tapner says:
katie holmes wasn't in the dark knight because she was scheduled to appear in another movie and the shooting dates clashed

Posted on 3 Jul 2009 13:20:51 BDT
I believe it was the amount she was offered to return was the reason she wasnt in the Dark Knight

Posted on 3 Jul 2009 13:32:29 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Jul 2009 13:39:08 BDT
"The more recent |Punisher film actually edges a little closer to what the Punisher is about"

agreed. i thought it was ok. the first one (i mean the second one.......the thomas jane one not the dolph lundgren) wasn't violent enough. That sounds like im being a tad shallow but violence is a massive part of what makes the punisher. I thought ray stevenson looked alot more like the punisher (the punisher max version).

Maybe its a bit of a stupid over the top action fest but id prefer that to what the other one was i.e. pretty dull. Neither of the films ive seen have done the garth ennis punisher justice tho but then again garth ennis is a god. super funny, super f*cked up.

Posted on 3 Jul 2009 19:17:12 BDT
M Smith have you read the Boys? If not get yourself a copy it is amazing. Pretty much revolves around what would happen if ars*holes got super powers and who wouyld they get to police the supes. Excellent.

Posted on 4 Jul 2009 19:05:10 BDT
yup read the boys currently waiting for the 4th graphic novel to be sent to me. yup its ace. love it. i love the tech-knight "if its got a hole i will f*ck it!" hahaha

Posted on 4 Jul 2009 22:23:49 BDT
its not always bad tho, not 2 films but film and tv series, O'neil for stargate, rubbish in the first film, other guy in tv series is awsome

Posted on 8 Jul 2009 12:38:03 BDT
syco says:
on the Terrance howard Iron Man issue.

Terrance Howard got paid twice what Gwyneth and robert downy jnr got paid because he was the first actor casted and straight after his contract was agreed they had the recession and the movie company set a cap for the film.

Terrance was offered his role for the second film but on the same pay as Robert and Paltrow he declined so they got in Cheadle. Terrance was informed of this by text message.

He thought he'd be clever and play hardball but it didn't work.

Don Cheadle is better than Terrance howard anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jul 2009 15:29:29 BDT
this is the very point of my initial posting topic, now i wonder how or if it will be explained away having another actor in the same role ( plastic surgery!) or do you think it needs to be? or will we be just expected to put up and shut up and accept it?
It realy gets on my goat - why not just leave the character out or at least have Downey talking to him on phone which would still keep the character as is but not seen on screen?

Posted on 10 Aug 2009 18:22:15 BDT
Natasha S says:
Katie Holmes looked to young for the role in Batman Begins.
I am glad she was replace with someone who looked more like the right age for the character.

As for Julianne Moore replacing Jodie Foster that was a really bad decision they shouldn't of made the movie without her.

Julianne Moore is no way as good a actor as Jodie Foster is.

Yes i am a fan of Jodie Foster and own almost every movie she has ever been in!

Posted on 11 Aug 2009 00:53:35 BDT
Personally not a fan of Jodie Foster. But Hannibal was a sham with Julianne Moore trying to do Jodie Foster acting the part of Clarice Starling.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Aug 2009 11:34:15 BDT
hey McShatner your right on that one and i dont have it in my collection, i have posted an idea earlier of how it could have been explained and would be good to hear if you have an idea also

Posted on 25 Jan 2014 00:38:57 GMT
The fast & furious franchise suffered when Paul walker and vin diesel's character's were replaced with another one but then when the former characters returned, the series hit box office gold again. Funny that:)

Posted on 25 Jan 2014 21:01:27 GMT
D. Climo says:
The original Batman movies (1989-1997) had three different actors playing the lead! lol. Now I like the originals as much as Nolan's trilogy but one advantage 'The Dark Knight' trilogy has is that at least Bruce Wayne didn't have constant surgery.

Andrew Garfield as Spider-man was crap. He came across as being more like a weedy version of Stiffler from American Pie in some scenes and Spidey is not meant to be like that.

George Lazonby as James Bond. Bond crying!??!! Enough said.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jan 2014 15:14:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 27 Jan 2014 15:16:23 GMT
Bauer says:
Funny I much preferred Ray Stevenson as the The Punisher, I thought Thomas Jayne was a bit of a girl.

"George Lazonby as James Bond. Bond crying!??!! Enough said."

His wife had just been murdered !

I was upset by the lack of Katie Holmes, mainly cause Maggie Gylenhall is a right munter !
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the action discussion forum (523 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  action discussion forum
Participants:  19
Total posts:  45
Initial post:  1 Jul 2009
Latest post:  20 Feb 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer