Comics and Movies

[VaqueroTD]

Sounds to me like she’s trying to will it into existence.

I think they should have just recast him. I understand why they didn’t but give us someone other than little sis. Someone get Tchalla Jr. grown up quickly.

 

[DallasEast]

I think they should have just recast him. I understand why they didn’t but give us someone other than little sis. Someone get Tchalla Jr. grown up quickly.

Leticia Wright did not measure up to Chadwick Boseman's performance, both in the original movie and his appearances in the other MCU films--especially Captain America: Civil War. Not even close. Wright is not the caliber of actor as Boseman, whose acting skill was critically acclaimed for performances in roles excluding T'Challa's.

However, recasting the main character, whose role is the entirety of the movie existing within the framework of the original movie, would have been an atypical move on any studios' part. The transition seen with Alec Baldwin in The Hunt for Red October to Harrison Ford in Patriot Games is closest counter-argument comparison I can immediately think of where the studio's recasting:

• swapped actors
• within the franchise (PG was a sequel)

...but does not meet the third requirement though in my opinion but ended up working well. Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan is the main character of those stories made into film but he was not THE story. THFRO, PG and Clear and Present Danger were all spy thrillers identified with multiple strong roles in addition to Ryan. It was especially true for Red October, where Captain Marko Ramius, played beautifully by Sean Connery, was arguably more the movie's fabric than Ryan was.

Main character transitions occur often from franchise-to-franchise. Brandon Routh (ugh) in Superman Returns to Henry Cavill in Man of Steel. This actor change took place within two separate presentations of the same character. The audience did not expect Cavill being Routh's Superman and vice versa.

Of course, Warner Bros' replacement of Michael Keaton for Val Kilmer in Batman Forever is an example that counters my opinion--and a superhero movie example at that. The swap happens within the same franchise. Plus, the main character embodies the overall texture of the movie.

So, I can concede replacing the lead actor can 'work out' in a similar circumstance. That said, my personal opinion of Kilmer as Batman is less than Keaton's. Heck. I consider George Clooney's try in Batman and Robin to be less than Vilmer's. For me, it is about any replacement measuring up to their acting predecessor in order for the movie to win me over. That is a selfish condition but also true in my case.

I believe not replacing Boseman was the wise decision. Perhaps recasting Wright would have been another option instead, lol.

 

[Runwildboys]

Leticia Wright did not measure up to Chadwick Boseman's performance, both in the original movie and his appearances in the other MCU films--especially Captain America: Civil War. Not even close. Wright is not the caliber of actor as Boseman, whose acting skill was critically acclaimed for performances in roles excluding T'Challa's.

However, recasting the main character, whose role is the entirety of the movie existing within the framework of the original movie, would have been an atypical move on any studios' part. The transition seen with Alec Baldwin in The Hunt for Red October to Harrison Ford in Patriot Games is closest counter-argument comparison I can immediately think of where the studio's recasting:

• swapped actors
• within the franchise (PG was a sequel)

...but does not meet the third requirement though in my opinion but ended up working well. Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan is the main character of those stories made into film but he was not THE story. THFRO, PG and Clear and Present Danger were all spy thrillers identified with multiple strong roles in addition to Ryan. It was especially true for Red October, where Captain Marko Ramius, played beautifully by Sean Connery, was arguably more the movie's fabric than Ryan was.

Main character transitions occur often from franchise-to-franchise. Brandon Routh (ugh) in Superman Returns to Henry Cavill in Man of Steel. This actor change took place within two separate presentations of the same character. The audience did not expect Cavill being Routh's Superman and vice versa.

Of course, Warner Bros' replacement of Michael Keaton for Val Kilmer in Batman Forever is an example that counters my opinion--and a superhero movie example at that. The swap happens within the same franchise. Plus, the main character embodies the overall texture of the movie.

So, I can concede replacing the lead actor can 'work out' in a similar circumstance. That said, my personal opinion of Kilmer as Batman is less than Keaton's. Heck. I consider George Clooney's try in Batman and Robin to be less than Vilmer's. For me, it is about any replacement measuring up to their acting predecessor in order for the movie to win me over. That is a selfish condition but also true in my case.

I believe not replacing Boseman was the wise decision. Perhaps recasting Wright would have been another option instead, lol.

I think they should have dropped the second movie until after a new actor playing T'Challa had a small part in one of the other Marvel movies. That way, they could replace him without shocking the audience.

 

[DallasEast]

I think they should have dropped the second movie until after a new actor playing T'Challa had a small part in one of the other Marvel movies. That way, they could replace him without shocking the audience.

It could have been an option for the studio. I am not certain the audience would react as shocked about a replacement, although a segment of the audience might have been.

Instead, I believe the movies' core audience would not have been satisfied with any actor replacing Chadwick Boseman. His performances as Black Panther was beloved by a significant number of moviegoers.

The segment's general sentiment was that no other actor was suited to reprise T'Challa's role. I agree with the sentiment. The greatest tragedy was Boseman's passing but his death was compounded by the enormous persona he poured into the role.

It is just my guess but I think the circumstances would be the same if something unfortunate had occurred with Rodney Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth. Samuel L. Jackson, etc. Heck. There is a vocal portion of Downey's audience still clamoring for him to reprise his role. Samuel L. Jackson was in his early 70's bringing back Nick Fury for Secret Invasion and he definitely LOOKED it. I do not know of any other actor, even a younger actor at that, who would have conveyed the same satisfaction to his core audience as him.

Sometimes, actors are graced with a role that they set the bar. I wish they were immortal so they could continue upholding it.

 

[Runwildboys]

It could have been an option for the studio. I am not certain the audience would react as shocked about a replacement, although a segment of the audience might have been.

Instead, I believe the movies' core audience would not have been satisfied with any actor replacing Chadwick Boseman. His performances as Black Panther was beloved by a significant number of moviegoers.

The segment's general sentiment was that no other actor was suited to reprise T'Challa's role. I agree with the sentiment. The greatest tragedy was Boseman's passing but his death was compounded by the enormous persona he poured into the role.

It is just my guess but I think the circumstances would be the same if something unfortunate had occurred with Rodney Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth. Samuel L. Jackson, etc. Heck. There is a vocal portion of Downey's audience still clamoring for him to reprise his role. Samuel L. Jackson was in his early 70's bringing back Nick Fury for Secret Invasion and he definitely LOOKED it. I do not know of any other actor, even a younger actor at that, who would have conveyed the same satisfaction to his core audience as him.

Sometimes, actors are graced with a role that they set the bar. I wish they were immortal so they could continue upholding it.

It's too bad they killed off Michael B. Jordan's character. They could have written a storyline in which he turns it around and becomes the Black Panther. He could have been a very good replacement, IMO.

 

[DallasEast]

It's too bad they killed off Michael B. Jordan's character. They could have written a storyline in which he turns it around and becomes the Black Panther. He could have been a very good replacement, IMO.

Killmonger? Doing a 180? That would be outstanding to comic book nerds like me. Maybe Kathleen Kennedy can sell that pitch also.

 

[Runwildboys]

Killmonger? Doing a 180? That would be outstanding to comic book nerds like me. Maybe Kathleen Kennedy can sell that pitch also.

I went that route because, that would give a good reason why he's a completely different Black Panther, rather than trying to have someone impersonate Boseman.

 

[DallasEast]

I went that route because, that would give a good reason why he's a completely different Black Panther, rather than trying to have someone impersonate Boseman.

You would be 100% correct if that happened. I hope nothing like that comes about though. It grinds my gears me whenever comic book-to-movie/television adaptations change a major part of a character or title.

For instance, I grew up reading The Uncanny X-Men. Rogue was portrayed in a particular way. Years later, the 90's cartoon added a bit of sass to her character but did not deviate much from what was seen on paper.

Then 2000's X-Men debuted. Then Anna Paquin was given the role. Then Bryan Singer corrupted a GREAT character with... whatever the <expletive> that was.

Long story short, these folks should stop messing with my blood pressure.

 

[Runwildboys]

You would be 100% correct if that happened. I hope nothing like that comes about though. It grinds my gears me whenever comic book-to-movie/television adaptations change a major part of a character or title.

For instance, I grew up reading The Uncanny X-Men. Rogue was portrayed in a particular way. Years later, the 90's cartoon added a bit of sass to her character but did not deviate much from what was seen on paper.

Then 2000's X-Men debuted. Then Anna Paquin was given the role. Then Bryan Singer corrupted a GREAT character with... whatever the <expletive> that was.

Long story short, these folks should stop messing with my blood pressure.

I agree, I hated Paquin's wishy washy, underpowered Rogue.

 

[Stash]

It's too bad they killed off Michael B. Jordan's character. They could have written a storyline in which he turns it around and becomes the Black Panther. He could have been a very good replacement, IMO.

I thought about that very same thing. I thought that might be the route they took in part 2.

It would have been an amazing redemption story.

 

[Stash]

You would be 100% correct if that happened. I hope nothing like that comes about though. It grinds my gears me whenever comic book-to-movie/television adaptations change a major part of a character or title.

For instance, I grew up reading The Uncanny X-Men. Rogue was portrayed in a particular way. Years later, the 90's cartoon added a bit of sass to her character but did not deviate much from what was seen on paper.

Then 2000's X-Men debuted. Then Anna Paquin was given the role. Then Bryan Singer corrupted a GREAT character with... whatever the <expletive> that was.

Long story short, these folks should stop messing with my blood pressure.

 

[Roadtrip635]

It could have been an option for the studio. I am not certain the audience would react as shocked about a replacement, although a segment of the audience might have been.

Instead, I believe the movies' core audience would not have been satisfied with any actor replacing Chadwick Boseman. His performances as Black Panther was beloved by a significant number of moviegoers.

The segment's general sentiment was that no other actor was suited to reprise T'Challa's role. I agree with the sentiment. The greatest tragedy was Boseman's passing but his death was compounded by the enormous persona he poured into the role.

It is just my guess but I think the circumstances would be the same if something unfortunate had occurred with Rodney Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth. Samuel L. Jackson, etc. Heck. There is a vocal portion of Downey's audience still clamoring for him to reprise his role. Samuel L. Jackson was in his early 70's bringing back Nick Fury for Secret Invasion and he definitely LOOKED it. I do not know of any other actor, even a younger actor at that, who would have conveyed the same satisfaction to his core audience as him.

Sometimes, actors are graced with a role that they set the bar. I wish they were immortal so they could continue upholding it.

Those were mighty big shoes to fill and you're right it wouldn't have mattered who the replacement would have been, some actors just define that role. Sometimes, unfortunately, a role has to be recast like the Spartacus series or the Darrens on "Bewithced". At least there was precedence in the comics for what they did since Black Panther is a title/mantle that was passed down through generations. Many roles get recast, Batmans, Supermans, Bonds, Spidermans, etc., but the MCU concept of setting all the titles within the same world can complicate things.

 

[Roadtrip635]

I agree, I hated Paquin's wishy washy, underpowered Rogue.

Say what you want about Paquin, but I would much rather her doing the voice for Rogue in "X-Men '97". I always wince when Rogue speaks in the animated series, that accent sounds so unnatural and over the top.

 

[DallasEast]

Those were mighty big shoes to fill and you're right it wouldn't have mattered who the replacement would have been, some actors just define that role. Sometimes, unfortunately, a role has to be recast like the Spartacus series or the Darrens on "Bewithced". At least there was precedence in the comics for what they did since Black Panther is a title/mantle that was passed down through generations. Many roles get recast, Batmans, Supermans, Bonds, Spidermans, etc., but the MCU concept of setting all the titles within the same world can complicate things.

Sometimes, another actor must refill a role. Bewitched 's entire concept was a witch married to a mortal--in the 1960's. Television executives were not going to widowed or divorced witch be the solo lead. However, anything is possible--even back then. Samantha the Witch was the fabric of the show, not the husband. My question is, "Would they have replaced Elizabeth Montgomery with another actor if she left the show?"

I had already mentioned the Michael Keaton-to-Val Kilmer-to-George Clooney. Admittedly, recasts happen when actors no longer wish to play the part. Most assuredly, Warner Bros kept that Batman franchise gravy train going as long as it could (right down into a gulley). Again, that is an internal franchise recast example. In my opinion, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever would have been worse with another actor playing T'Challa than Leticia Wright actually headlining the film--just like the downhill recasting progression from Keaton onward.

Except for Agent 007, the other recasting examples were not within the same franchise. It was:

Christopher Reeve-to-Brandon Routh because of Reeve's paralysis and age​

Brandon Routh-to-Henry Cavill because (and I apologize to any member reading this in disagreement) Routh's acting sucked hard​

Henry Cavill-to-David Corenswet because it is no longer both Zack Snyder's storytelling and James Gunn wanted to freshly reboot the character and actor playing him​

Spider-Man's recasting is similar to Kal-El's. Neither Toby Maguire, Andrew Garfield nor Tom Hollard's acting did not suck remotely as bad as Routh though.

Now, the Bonds are a very interesting situation. It is one franchise (I selfishly include Never Say Never Again in the franchise too/please forgive me Mr. Connery, lol) basically unbroken for 62 freaking years. It has been like Dr. Who in its longevity.

Like Dr. Who, time has been the culprit behind recasting necessity, along with actor fatigue mainly. It is kinda funny. I remember how some fans reacted with distain for Moore's leaving the role at 57 (58?) after A View to a Kill. The character has never been given an official age, which is smart, but he has been generally characterized as a spy in his late thirties. Some fans would have kept Moore as Bond into his sixties given the choice. He looked the part at 45 in Live and Let Die but there was no denying James Bond was the same guy a dozen years later.

Apologies. I am rambling. For me, a movie's primary role recasting must meet certain criteria in order to hope for equal or better success that the original actor helped achieve. My opinion is a little less restrict with television. That may have something to do watching soap operas when I was a kid, bored out of my mind during the summer. Recasting is a normal occurrence in soap operas. One day you see one person and the next day the announcer says, "The role of so-and-so will now be played by so-and-so." That stuff always cracked me up.

​

 

[DallasEast]

Say what you want about Paquin, but I would much rather her doing the voice for Rogue in "X-Men '97". I always wince when Rogue speaks in the animated series, that accent sounds so unnatural and over the top.

Completely agree with Lenora Zann's voice acting for Rogue in the current series. I spoke about it not too long ago. You can really 'feel' her actual age (64) when Rogue talks. She is the same voice actor for the character in the 90s and sounded more natural in my opinion back then.

I am a huge True Blood fan but Anna Paquin's southern drawl (which I think is a Rogue necessity) never quite sold me. It is good but I think it is influenced by her New Zealand/Canadian accent. Here is a short clip for those who have never heard her speak 'like' Rogue:

 

[nobody]

You would be 100% correct if that happened. I hope nothing like that comes about though. It grinds my gears me whenever comic book-to-movie/television adaptations change a major part of a character or title.

For instance, I grew up reading The Uncanny X-Men. Rogue was portrayed in a particular way. Years later, the 90's cartoon added a bit of sass to her character but did not deviate much from what was seen on paper.

Then 2000's X-Men debuted. Then Anna Paquin was given the role. Then Bryan Singer corrupted a GREAT character with... whatever the <expletive> that was.

Long story short, these folks should stop messing with my blood pressure.

I never loved the X-Men movies. I liked them, but they bothered me greatly. The biggest problem I had with the first X-men (other than the garbage they pulled with Rogue) was that it wasn't the X-Men. It was The Wolverine, guest starring the X-Men.

 

[DallasEast]

I never loved the X-Men movies. I liked them, but they bothered me greatly. The biggest problem I had with the first X-men (other than the garbage they pulled with Rogue) was that it wasn't the X-Men. It was The Wolverine, guest starring the X-Men.

Thank Bryan Singer for it being presented that way. I thought X-Men Origins: Wolverine was the low point (well equal to X-Men: The Last Stand) when it was decided Logan's origin would be the only one. The title should have been Origin, singular. Love Hugh Jackman but Marvel mutants do not start and end with his character.

I was beyond elated when Matthew Vaughn got ahold of X-Men: First Class. Sure, it had a Wolverine cameo but it did not last over one or two minutes if memory serves. Vaughn showcased all of the mutants, not equally of course, but emphasized none of them needed to hide behind the headliners.

Then Singer got his hands on X-Men: Days of Future Past. I really do not like that guy.

 

[Runwildboys]

Thank Bryan Singer for it being presented that way. I thought X-Men Origins: Wolverine was the low point (well equal to X-Men: The Last Stand) when it was decided Logan's origin would be the only one. The title should have been Origin, singular. Love Hugh Jackman but Marvel mutants do not start and end with his character.

I was beyond elated when Matthew Vaughn got ahold of X-Men: First Class. Sure, it had a Wolverine cameo but it did not last over one or two minutes if memory serves. Vaughn showcased all of the mutants, not equally of course, but emphasized none of them needed to hide behind the headliners.

Then Singer got his hands on X-Men: Days of Future Past. I really do not like that guy.

IIRC, Wolverine's scene was sitting on a barstool, saying two words to Charles and Erik, the second one being "off".

 

[DallasEast]

Kevin Feige talks Fantastic Four, Marvel vs Capcom returns, and more!

Marvel Entertainment podcast. It is over 32 minutes but Feige's FF talk is between the 4:33 and 6:20 mark. The video starts there:

 

[Stash]

Kevin Feige talks Fantastic Four, Marvel vs Capcom returns, and more!

Marvel Entertainment podcast. It is over 32 minutes but Feige's FF talk is between the 4:33 and 6:20 mark. The video starts there:

I expect that the Fantastic Four will be one of several characters or groups that will be ‘brought over’ from other universes until things get closed up in Secret Wars. After that, we’ll have our new MCU going forward into the next phase.

It sounds like they’ll blend the 60’s aesthetic with some otherwise futuristic elements. Ahead of our universe in some ways, behind it in others. I think it allows them to have it both ways regarding the characters.