It’s a lesson that everyone learns when they enter the job world. They usually learn the lesson at their first retail job, like I did.
Everyone is replaceable. Someone else is very capable of doing your job.
People refuse to believe this is still true when you get up to the top. But look at what’s going on at Viacom recently. There is always someone waiting in the wing to be promoted. And yet it’s still a reality when you get up to the level of a Peter Jackson. Months ago everyone was up in arms over Robert Shaye’s decision to go ahead with The Hobbit without Jackson, due to a financial feud. Fans signed petitions, and everyone wanted blood. Jackson was the only guy to do it! He did the Lord of the Rings Films. He needed to do The Hobbit. It’s funny how time changes everything. A few months later Sam Raimi makes a comment about how he’d love to helm the project, and all the fanboys go nuts. I’m sure if Raimi were to make The Hobbit, it would make just as much money as it would under Jackson’s direction. Even Jackson is replaceable.
But Kirsten Dunst must think really highly of herself.
“Audiences aren’t stupid. It’d be a big flop without me, Tobey, or Sam,” Dunst told EW.
Is she insane? She above everyone else is very replaceable. Did you know that Jake Gyllenhaal was lined up to play Spider-Man in the second film. Tobey Maguire’s participation was in doubt at one point because he was suffering severe back pains, and the film had already begun preparation with Jake. Tobey is replaceable. I love Sam Raimi. I love his work, his style. I’m not saying that someone would be able to out do him. But I’m sure if for some reason he does not sign on for another three years of his life for a Spider-Man 4, someone else will. And that director will most likely be capible of turning out a good movie. Most audience members would not even notice the change.
I’m also not claiming that it would be an easy task. Audiences already relate the character of Mary Jane with Kirsten Dunst. But look at the case of Richard Harris, who played Dumbledore in the first Harry Potter films before he passed away. Harris will be missed indeed. But if there is money to be made in Hollywood, the production must go on. They hired Michael Gambon to take over the role, and I double much of the audience even noticed.
So the lesson of the day is:
Everyone is replaceable. Someone else is very capable of doing your job.
Kirsten, we love you, but please learn this. You obviously bypassed this important life lesson due to your acting career. You probably never had to work the typical teenage retail job that everyone else had to.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I don’t know if Peter Sciretta, the author of this story reads the comments, but if you do, Peter, I want to tell you’re mistaken saying that replacing Dumbledore in the Harry Potter movies didn’t make a difference. I’m a Harry Potter fan, and this is a fact: At least 75% of the fans if not more despised the change, and hate Michael Gambon’s different take on Dumbledore after Richard Harris died. Even now, 4 years after he was re-cast, if you go to any message board on Harry Potter, like IMDb or the Leaky Lounge, you’ll most likely find a thread at the top page about Michael Gambon’s portrayal of Dumbledore. I understand the point of your article, and I agree mostly with what you said about cast/crew changes, but this is certainly not the case with Dumbledore.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
We’re not talking about hardcore fan interest, we’re talking box-office interest.
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?
April 19th, 2007 at 6:24 am
No, I don’t think the point of the article was only “MONEY SPENT ON MOVIE TICETS”, it was mostly about what happens to the quality of the films when there is a change in the cast/crew. The first thing mentioned in the article is “Everyone is replaceable. Someone else is very capable of doing your job.” Capable doesn’t mean capable of making the same amount of money, but capable of maintaining the quality of the product. At least that’s how I saw it. I think that’s what Peter meant. He said “They hired Michael Gambon to take over the role, and I double much of the audience even noticed.” So my argument was based on that part. The truth is that everyone noticed the change and most people had very strong opinions on the matter. Maybe people who didn’t read the books didn’t notice, but the fanbase represents a huge part of the audiences going to see these films. That’s why they are so succesful.
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.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
I don’t disagree that certain casting choices I like better than others, and sure, Harry Potter fans may not like one actor’s Dumbledore as much as another’s. And we can argue personal taste until the cows come home and neither of us will win over anybody else to our point of view. ;-)
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. ;)
April 21st, 2007 at 6:43 am
[i]“That’s all this is about. We’re not arguing taste. We’re arguing that a certain casting is necessary to bring in $$$.”[/i]
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..
May 4th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
ittle be a wreck without the original cast… dumbledor isnt a main role in harry potter, SPIDER-MAN is.
May 6th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I agree with Kirsten. Adience aren’t that dumb. It will make a huge difference without the oringinal cast. Perhaps the profits will lower. Everone knows Tobey as SPIDERMAN, and everyone is used to it. sure Harris was replaced, but that doesn’t mean that Tobey, Kirsten, and Sam should be just because they can. I am a huge fan of all the SPIDEY movies, but I will be no more if these chsnges occur.!!
May 7th, 2007 at 5:01 am
I also agree with Kirsten. Kirsten characters MJ can’t be played be another actor because it would be no good. Mj can’t just change her face or Spiderman can’t never. It wouldn’t fit in the storyline. Peter Parkers face changes it be so stupid. This is a story. Tobey is Peter and his face can’t just change. Only make Spiderman 4 if Tobey and Kirsten returns for it. If not. Don’t bother making it. Batman face always changed and that was stupid. Hated that. Thats why Spiderman is great. Pete Parker has been played by the same actor. Don’t change the cast.
May 7th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
ok…i completely disagree with this article. ok i am a huge fan of spiderman and would be distraught if they got new actors. i would seriously rather there be no more movies than to do one with new characters and a new director. tober IS spiderman and kirsten IS mary jane. thats howit is and always should be. they definitely need to stay on for at least a 4th movie to finish up the whole love deal because they never finished with what was going to happen between mary jane and peter. will they get together, just be friends, get married, WHAT? we know what happens with the comic strip but…they didnt completely follow it with the 3rd movie SPOILER in case you havent seen movie three but in the comics harry never died. so you never know what could happen.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I see that the true fans have spoken! Well, I can certainly empathize with those who will be “distraught” at a Spiderman movie sans Ms. Dunst et al, but frankly, you guys don’t have to go to see Spiderman 4, 5, 19, whatever — and I’ll bet the franchise will survive. That is, they’ll keep making money (the movies, and the producers).
This isn’t Shakespeare, people — it’s a comic book brought to the big screen.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I’ll have you know that to some people comic books are a work of art..and a work of literary genius..and no I’m not 40 and living in my parents basement..I’m in my 20’s, married and I have a child and these are the things I want my child to look back on and go “gosh do you remember that?”..I do it all the time with the batman movies and really truly the only good ones were the first two..(up until now that is.) I mean hell does anyone even remember Van Kilmer or George clooney as batman..it just about sucked..and don’t use bond as an example..bond is on a whole different level..its not nearly the same as a super-hero that child and adults alike come to love..
-JD
August 27th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Andrew & Ozymango have two different views, but both are correct in their respective arguments. I too am a huge movie fan & if asked which films I can list that pissed me off with recasts for major roles, I’d have to say the Batman films. I can sit here & cry & whine about how they took one of my favorite comics & shit all over it … truth of the matter is that the ONLY thing that matters to hollywood is MONEY, that’s what talks & if you want them to stop the recasting, then you must hit them where it hurts & that’s in the purse strings. If they recast for a major role in your favorite movie, then don’t watch it, take a stand. Problem is we as fans & as humans eventually give in … why? CURIOSITY, it will eventually drive us mad & we will pay the money to watch what we suspect is gonna suck anyway … in the end hollywood gets what they wanted, your money & the recasting dilemma continues.
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!!!