Top
980°

15 Recasts Better Than The Original

Chillopedia: The entire weight of a movie lies on the shoulders of the actors and hiring them for roles can be a difficult task. Whether it is because of hectic schedules, backstage politics or even drained performances, Hollywood has seen making considerable decisions of recasting actors.

Read Full Story >>
chillopedia.com
The story is too old to be commented.
-Foxtrot1121d ago

" Daniel Craig (James Bond) "

Urm...no

Craig is way too serious with his Bond. Makes the films feel more like Bourne films then James Bond

Pierce Brosnan was great as Bond, despite one or two films not being the best.

"Don Cheadle (James “Rhodey” Rhodes)"

I really don't think Don had the chemistry with RDJ that Howard did

madmonkey011120d ago

I think Craig plays Bond pretty close to how the character was portrayed in the books,

MrSugarholic1120d ago

Pierce Brosnan was probably one of the worst, and probably had some of the worst movies. Daniel Craig's Bond is so much better.

Tzuno1119d ago

It's about the charisma, not his fault the scenarios were bad, and the one that starts with him as a prisoner is a bad ass movie.

Tzuno1119d ago

I agree with you on bond 100% , not all people have the eye to see that so ignore the disagrees.

Porcelain_Chicken1121d ago

What an odd list lol. A few of these actors replaced people in an incredibly minor role. Almost cameo-like. Like Kitty Pride for one. She didn't even have lines in the first 2 movies! XD

I disagree with Mark Ruffalo. I like the guy. I enjoy his performances in mostly anything but I felt Edward Norton was the superior Banner. He had a certain frailty that was easier to buy. Not that Ruffalo is bad. Not at all. But not better in my opinion. I'd say the same thing about Rhodes. No natural Chemistry between Cheadle and Downey. The article doesn't even state reasons as to why he's better. Like, he just is.

Digital_Anomaly1120d ago

I wrestle back and forth all the time between Norton and Ruffalo. I think they both have their pros enough that they're nearly equal.

Def agree on Norton's portrayal of Banner's frailty. Great way of putting it. But Ruffalo has that mild-mannered likeable guy thing down and through that you can still see the 'I can explode at any minute' quality in his performance that you really need for a good Banner.

Porcelain_Chicken1120d ago

Yeah agreed completely! I'm perfectly fine with Ruffalo. He was a good choice! An inspired one too. Who would have thought huh?!

CobraKai1120d ago

Burton's Batman was criticized for being too dark? I thought that's what reignited the character's popularity. As for Kilmer being a better Bruce Wayne? I felt he was far too wooden as Bruce. He was great as Batman, but his Bruce Wayne bored me.

Porcelain_Chicken1120d ago

Nah the darkness was reignited by Nolan. Although most fans would agree that Burton's Batmans were great many casuals at the time still had the Adam West series fresh in their head. Apparently anything darker than that was a big no no for families.

Soldierone1120d ago

Andrew Garfield was a better Spider-Man, based on source material, than Tobey. People can argue all they want, Spider-Man is more outgoing in costume and Andrew Garfield accomplished that well.

The only argument is probably who plays a better Peter Parker.

acemonkey1120d ago

Thats the thing you have to be Peter Parker to be Spiderman and he wasnt not Parker. Spiderman is a cocky joking character ( kinda like Nightwing). Andrew did have that attitude when he put on the suit.

on topic Val (batman sucked)

-Foxtrot1120d ago (Edited 1120d ago )

Andrew looked like one of those guys who would have most likely beat the shit out of Peter in high school.

The whole witty, sarcastic Spiderman was because of the script which is why Toby's wasn't like that.

Toby is a better Peter Parker

Andrew is a better Spiderman

Toby was let down with the script with Spiderman

Andrews looks let him down with being Peter

Soldierone1119d ago

I don't know if it was the script. I agree that could be somewhat of the case, but his attitude and movement was better too.

I've read the scripts for all of them, and Tobey's had smart remarks and such too. He did make some smart remarks, but he was never outgoing in the costume and never energetic. His mellow tone was still apparent, especially since they made him take off his mask every two seconds. So if anything it was more due to the directors than it was the script.

Porcelain_Chicken1120d ago

Tobey Maguire just seemed real to me. As a package. A believed that the man he was while in the costume was the same good hearted-dork that put up with JJ's crap or struggled with his bills. Or loved his aunt or loved a girl that was way out of his league. The character he played had a sense of humanity to it that Garfield's didn't. And it isn't Garfield's fault. I could see the great Spider-man Andrew could have played had he been given better material. Sure Spider-man is supposed to be funny but if that means losing his human side then it's a loss that'll never go down to well. Spider-Man is relatable. He's inspirational. Very few comic book heroes are both. VERY VERY few. I think those traits are more well known and loved by the masses than his funny side and I saw a lot more of that in Raimi's Spider-man!

I pray to God that Marvel can capture that part of their character in their movies. Certain characters have been diluted to comic relief. Characters like Tony and Star Lord. I hope the same doesn't happen to Spidey. He deserves better. :(

acemonkey1120d ago

whats wrong with Tony and Star Lord?

mushroomwig1119d ago

Christian Bale didn't really sell me as John Conner for some reason, he's a great actor but he seemed a little generic in the role.

Half the time it felt like they just hired him just because they needed a famous actor to fill the Arnold void since he wasn't in it.