When it comes to recasting or reboots do you really care...

[Doctor Amadeus]

When it comes to recasting or reboots do you really care if the writers or studios go with the traditional background of a character?

For me I am going to say absolutely not, in fact, I find it refreshing to do something different UNLESS and there is 1 exception if the movie is based or inspired by real life, then it bothers me, otherwise I don't care.

I care more that a movie recast and rebooted is written well.

For example Anne with an E is a particular series, I am enjoying that kind of strays from the original I loved a little, but I still enjoy it.

[horbindr]

they have to find the sweet spot where its different enough so it feels new, but not so different that it's not recognizable anymore.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Recasting and rebooting have been a thing since humans started putting on plays and the like. Nothing about doing that erases what came before. If you don't like the new direction, then go watch the old version.

Honestly I have to admit I am 100% in agreement. I think a perfect example was Psycho when they remade it perfect in every way except it was shot for shot the same fucking movie, I really didn't understand the point.

[derpkitteh]

everything exactly the same.

if you want to make a movie, don't change an existing movie. add to its world by making a sequel, or maybe do a prequel. never alter the world.

if you want to change an existing movie, just make a new movie. because that's effectively what you're doing anyway. if you've changed even the most minor of details, you have now altered it and it might as well not even be the same movie anymore. it's a terrible and stupid thing to do.

only those who lack souls, the philosophical zombie, live in the daze required to not care about the internal consistency of a fictional world.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Unless Character race/background is important to the story or world I really don’t care.

[TrollHunter3000]

everything exactly the same.

if you want to make a movie, don't change an existing movie. add to its world by making a sequel, or maybe do a prequel. never alter the world.

if you want to change an existing movie, just make a new movie. because that's effectively what you're doing anyway. if you've changed even the most minor of details, you have now altered it and it might as well not even be the same movie anymore. it's a terrible and stupid thing to do.

only those who lack souls, the philosophical zombie, live in the daze required to not care about the internal consistency of a fictional world.

The problem with that is IP laws. If you're only changing minor details, it's likely too close to infringing on someone's IP. So, the only way to change minor details and then untimely the direction of a movie or series is for it to be a reboot. Sequels that retcon stuff are trash so a poor option.

[Temp1on2]

Unless Character race/background is important to the story or world I really don’t care.

A well balanced and reasonable person wouldn't.

[Kyphael]

I went with No. Just as long as it is written well and makes sense. Like @Daemos daemonium said, unless race or background is integral, like trying to re-cast The Godfather as let's say, Greeks, doesn't matter. This does bring up a good argument for Michael B. Jordan to be Superman, though. As an alien raised in Kansas in today's America, does Kal'el from Krypton HAVE to be Caucasian? I ask because there's some resistance on that front for a black Superman, from myself included, but typing this I just realized, is Superman's skin color integral to the story in any way but tradition?

Also, spearmint is the best gum. Gives you a good chew and helps your breath at work. =P

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I went with No. Just as long as it is written well and makes sense. Like @Daemos daemonium said, unless race or background is integral, like trying to re-cast The Godfather as let's say, Greeks, doesn't matter. This does bring up a good argument for Michael B. Jordan to be Superman, though. As an alien raised in Kansas in today's America, does Kal'el from Krypton HAVE to be Caucasian? I ask because there's some resistance on that front for a black Superman, from myself included, but typing this I just realized, is Superman's skin color integral to the story in any way but tradition?

Also, spearmint is the best gum. Gives you a good chew and helps your breath at work. =P

I do believe Jordan was gonna be earth 2 superman Val Zod.
https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Val-Zod_(Earth_2)

[CrawlFromThePit]

When it comes to recasting or reboots do you really care if the writers or studios go with the traditional background of a character?

For me I am going to say absolutely not, in fact, I find it refreshing to do something different UNLESS and there is 1 exception if the movie is based or inspired by real life, then it bothers me, otherwise I don't care.

I care more that a movie recast and rebooted is written well.

For example Anne with an E is a particular series, I am enjoying that kind of strays from the original I loved a little, but I still enjoy it.

For me, the key elements need to still be there, the fluff around it can change all they want.

[Kyphael]

I do believe Jordan was gonna be earth 2 superman Val Zod.
https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Val-Zod_(Earth_2)

Oh, I hadn't seen that in any of the stories I read. That's fine, I mean, it's like Miles Morales, who has become pretty popular himself. That way DC has its cake and eats it, too.

...funny his last name is Zod. Got to read up on that.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Oh, I hadn't seen that in any of the stories I read. That's fine, I mean, it's like Miles Morales, who has become pretty popular himself. That way DC has its cake and eats it, too.

...funny his last name is Zod. Got to read up on that.

Things like it being a different superman tend to get drowned out by the internet hate mob.

I do also believe he’s related to Mabye the son of general zod of earth 2 but I don’t really keep up with multiverse superman stuff so I’m not so sure on that.

[Itori]

I dont mind a reboot so long as it sticks close to source material, i think a good example is the spiderman movies. Imo the best ones were The Amazing Spiderman movies, they were funny, the actor did a good job and it kept you entertained, then they rebooted again to this new kid who to me just seems cringy to watch aside from his part in infinity war.

[derpkitteh]

The problem with that is IP laws. If you're only changing minor details, it's likely too close to infringing on someone's IP. So, the only way to change minor details and then untimely the direction of a movie or series is for it to be a reboot. Sequels that retcon stuff are trash so a poor option.

then do the due diligence to get the rights to use the IP.

it's not hard. do things the correct way, or do not do them at all.

[Endus]

Unless a character's ethnicity or even gender has an effect on the narrative or how that character develops or became who they are at the start, then it's not a relevant detail.

For instance, if Tony Stark had been cast as Tonya Stark, that changes effectively nothing about the character that's meaningful (although RDJ was nigh-perfect for the role, and I'm not challenging that).

On the other hand, Steve Rogers you couldn't really have cast as African-American or a woman, but solely because of the WWII framing of society in the USA; women weren't frontline combat soldiers, African-Americans were often segregated and certainly not held up as paragons. Plus, he's subtly meant to be the paragon of the Aryan supremacy, who rejects all that bullshit and punches Hitler in the face for thinking it. You can do the African-American spin on that, but that's Isaiah Bradley, not Steve Rogers.


All that said, stop rebooting classic and beloved movies. You're gonna make a version that's worse, or maybe just barely as good. It's not worth the effort, and you'll piss people off. Instead, reboot movies that had a good idea but fucked it up, or whose effects don't hold up at all. Don't think about remaking The Princess Bride or The Fugitive. Reboot things like Highlander or The Last Starfighter (both projects being made, IIRC). Movies that could've been great but only got cult followings at best, and particularly with something like Highlander, so much "argh" in the catalog that a full-on reboot could help fix it. That said, if you're gonna do this, make them great. Don't half-ass it. We don't need a repeat, we need a fix.

And if you're doing a prequel, Step 1 is "does this tell us anything useful about the characters that carry over", and Step 2 is "can we cast someone who's basically a young version of <insert star of later film here>". Solo failed both, and while the movie's fine, it would've been better just removing Han entirely. Focus it on Lando. Include Han as an easter egg at the end. All the bad parts of Solo basically revolve around Han Solo's casting, or the stupid-ass attempts to "explain Han Solo", like "here's why his last name is Solo, which retroactively makes the character WAY more stupid".

[Jotaux]

I think it depends. Does it make sense? Is it done purely for points? Let's say they made Storm from the X-men white, they would have to redo her entire back story and it would make no sense.

[Kyphael]

I think it depends. Does it make sense? Is it done purely for points? Let's say they made Storm from the X-men white, they would have to redo her entire back story and it would make no sense.

You could have a South African Storm. =P

Where's Charlize Theron at?

[exochaft]

The fine line probably comes down to the story that trying to be told or the message therein, and how it meshes with a retelling.

It's a little hard to explain in an abstract manner, so I'll give a very simple example. Suppose they wanted to do another Superman movie, except now he's black. Alright... why? If he's some alternate universe Superman telling his unique story, I'd be down for that. If it's a recasting of the standard Superman your average person knows just to be "woke" or for identity politics, that'd probably be a hard pass. What's the difference? The huge difference is the interjection of ideal or redefining the character based upon said ideals, especially when they are so counter to the defining characteristics. In the case of Superman, he's supposed to be inspirational and above petty crap like that, which is why redefining characteristics of Superman for petty reasons just leaves a foul taste in people's mouths.

Now, I said it was a fine line, and sometimes it can be hard to tell when the line was crossed... but we can usually thank the creators and actors for helping clear those up (especially when remakes/reboots fail). If the movies start tanking, and all you hear from those creators/actors is how racist people are and how not "woke" people are as an explanation to why the movies fail, it's pretty obvious the line was crossed and people responded. In some rare cases, there are complete reimagining of characters/movies in remakes/reboots that are completely different from the original yet are very good and entertaining, and it's almost universally because there isn't some preaching agenda driving the movie. People don't go to the movies to be immersed in political/social BS, they can turn on any cable news network for that.

[jellmoo]

On the other hand, Steve Rogers you couldn't really have cast as African-American or a woman, but solely because of the WWII framing of society in the USA; women weren't frontline combat soldiers, African-Americans were often segregated and certainly not held up as paragons. Plus, he's subtly meant to be the paragon of the Aryan supremacy, who rejects all that bullshit and punches Hitler in the face for thinking it. You can do the African-American spin on that, but that's Isaiah Bradley, not Steve Rogers.

I'd also add that growing up as a poor white New Yorker who's the son of Irish immigrants is actually an important part of the American dream that he epitomizes.

By contrast if you take a character like Daredevil, it makes no difference if he's white, black or asian. Or if you make him into a woman. Or gay. But it would be difficult to make him Jewish, for example, since being Catholic is an important part of his character.

[Lodreh]

Recasting sometimes is necessary but try to pay respects to the role you are now filling. I feel the reason the MCU was as good as it was/is heavily due to the return of the cast members in each movie. If Iron Man or Captain America changed actors each time it would not have felt as cohesive or impactful.

DCU has suffered from failure to launch... in part from constant casting changes... but mainly due to rebooting the universe every few movies. Reboots suck... just stop. You can not keep retelling the same old Superman story or Batman origin and expect it to please comic readers or movie fans.

Ironically, DC does have a pretty good TV stable in the Arrowverse. It's a shame they could not graduate that universe to movie status.

...For instance, if Tony Stark had been cast as Tonya Stark, that changes effectively nothing about the character that's meaningful (although RDJ was nigh-perfect for the role, and I'm not challenging that)...

I would argue that Tony's upbringing and specifically him being a white male with every advantage... taking responsibility of the power afforded by that wealth is character defining. Changing that would only water down the impact of his choices, trials, and outcomes.