I have always agreed with the stipulation in contracts that if ever there is a sequel made that the actors are bound by contract to play the role again, unless they die of course which in that case you … well … have to recast. If that actor doesn’t agree with that stipulation then you find another actor. All movie contracts should have that clause in them. Why? Well you never know if your movie will be a hit. Let’s say it is & you wanna make a sequel, it would suck if you have to recast your main character, like the BATMAN movies!!!

So the bottom line is this … as long as Hollywood makes they money, you will always have the recasting problem!!!

-JD

This isn’t Shakespeare, people — it’s a comic book brought to the big screen.

You know, I don’t thinkw e’re arguing anything at all. We’re actually discussing two totally different things. You’re discussing money, and as I said in my previous comment, I agree that cast/crew changes on big franchises don’t make a difference in revenues. So we agree on this. I was talking about a different point, and you seem to agree with that too :) so this is no debate..

But you said I’m “talking about how you don’t like Gabon that much as Dumbledore” and my “own personal enjoyment”. Actually I’m not. I’m talking of a fact and that’s the general audiences consensus. Sometimes, a cast change is so bad that 90% of the audiences agree that it’s bad. That’s the case with Dumbledore. I’m not voicing my personal opinion here. So yes, “Everyone is replaceable. Someone else is very capable of doing your job.” But filmmakers have to choose that right ’someone’. It’s not “anyone could do your job”. The article was saying that there’s always an actor out there who can take on the role. There’s always someone who can always make an equally good film. But not anyone. And a good film means a good film, NOT a film that makes good amounts of money. I know Ms Dunst used the term ‘flop’ and that means money. But she’s just naive to think that people wouldn’t go see the movies anymore. They would, but they wouldn’t like them as much.

So you thought the article was discussing money. I thought it was discussing film quality. Now I read it again, and in the end, I think it was actually discussing both things. So none of us is wrong..

That being said, the actual point of the article was in bold: Everyone is replaceable. Someone else is very capable of doing your job.

So while I can agree with your own comments about your own personal enjoyment, the article was in response to Ms. Dunst’s comments to the press:

“Audiences aren’t stupid. It’d be a big flop without me, Tobey, or Sam,” Dunst told EW.

Now, to me, “big flop” means, nobody goes to pay $$$ to see a movie. That’s a flop.

You’re not talking about a flop, you’re talking about how you don’t like Gabon that much as Dumbledore. No offense, but to the theaters, that doesn’t matter as long as you go see the movie.

That’s all this is about. We’re not arguing taste. We’re arguing that a certain casting is necessary to bring in $$$. In some case, that’s probably true. But I would be willing to call Ms. Dunst on her claim on this one. ;)

I understand your point and the article’s point. But the thing with Spider-Man, Harry Potter and all these huge franchises is that they have huge followings no matter what. The budget and effort that goes into the making of these films is so big that the movies will never be totally crap. There will always be good aspects even if there are a lot of disappointments. Recasting Dumbledore didn’t impact the film’s revenues b/c people are not stupid to think that a single character will make the film completely unwatchable. So I don’t think that any cast/crew changes on such big films can make a big difference in “money spent on movie tickets”. People would still go to see these movies if only out of curiosity. No, what I was talking about was the change in “quality” that results from cast/crew replacements. Audiences do notice that, and they certainly did in Dumbledore’s case.

75% of the fans may have “despised” the change, but they went to see the other Harry Potter flicks — the worldwide gross on “Goblet of Fire” (with Gambon) was higher than the worldwide gross of “Chamber of Secrets” (with Harris). No offense against hardcore fan interest, but the point of the article is MONEY SPENT ON MOVIE TICETS, not your personal stated reaction.

They “replaced” Michael Keaton on Batman with God knows how many actors by now — and the Batman movies continue on strongly. Notice there was a new James Bond last year? And the movie made tons of money?