r/FilmTalk • u/StructureWatcher • 19d ago
Discussion Why can Batman and Spider-Man survive recasting, while Iron Man or Wolverine feel tied to one actor?
I’ve been wondering why recasting works so differently depending on the character.
Batman and Spider-Man have both had several actors, and people seem able to accept a new version pretty quickly.
But with some characters, the actor and the role almost become the same thing. RDJ as Iron Man is the obvious example for me, and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine feels pretty similar.
I’m not sure it’s just about how good the actor was, though.
Maybe it matters how long they played the role, how successful that version became, whether the character was already famous before them, or how much the actor actually shaped the character people know.
So why do you think some characters survive recasting easily while others feel almost attached to one actor?
And which characters do you think would be hardest to recast?
3
u/TheCapybara9 19d ago
The character overshadows the actor in Batman's and Spider-Man's cases. People will turn up for the characters themselves no matter who might be playing them. There's a magnetic force to the role itself. It's an element that appears to be lacking in characters like Wolverine and Ironman, where the version portrayed by the actors have gained equal force to the original character themselves.
RDJ's version of Ironman is a stronger draw than someone else doing the same character while some characters are just so big they can give them different actors and those versions will coexist underneath the popularity of the original.
At least that's how I see it.
→ More replies (1)1
u/StructureWatcher 18d ago
Yeah, this is pretty close to what I was getting at. With Batman or Spider-Man the character itself feels bigger than any one actor, while RDJ’s Iron Man almost became its own version of the character.
2
u/CrosbyBird 17d ago
I think there's a magic they captured with RDJ in that his personal life has analogous elements of Tony Stark: former "bad boy" on a redemption arc, complicated paternal relationship, addiction and recovery, etc... but also, comic-book Iron Man was (before bleed from RDJ's portrayal) a lot less witty and funny and really more stoic and dry.
1
1
u/StructureWatcher 16d ago
That’s a really interesting point. RDJ may be a special case because parts of his own public story line up with Tony’s in a way that makes the actor and character feel even harder to separate.
1
2
u/ArcherOld7796 19d ago
They never survived recasting. Each new Spider-Man and Batman is a new universe
1
1
u/Prestigious_Plum9276 19d ago
At the time, Burton's and Schumacher's Batman films were considered as part of the same universe. That's generally no longer considered to be the case but it is still fair to say that the franchise survived recasting without a reboot in the 90s.
1
u/ArcherOld7796 19d ago
I didn't consider anything from back them. I don't have anything of value to add there.
1
u/exorcissy72 18d ago
Yeah, the 90’s Batman films were basically treated like the James Bond franchise.
1
u/Remarkable-Jelly-596 18d ago
I would say it very much didnt survive that recasting though. There was a downgrade from Michael Keaton's batman to Val Kilmer (not completely the actor's fault) and then from that to George Clooney... Clooney's film basically killed that timeline of Batman and we didnt get anything else until Nolan rebooted it.
1
u/Prestigious_Plum9276 18d ago
Batman Forever very clearly did not kill the franchise seeing as it was a major box office success for the time. Batman and Robin is a different story but there's a lot to unpack with that movie.
1
u/Remarkable-Jelly-596 18d ago
I didn't say it did, I said it was a downgrade. And I'd say at least a portion of its numbers were due to the good faith Burton and Keaton had built up. Clooney is what killed it.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Little_Neddie 18d ago
Survived is generous. They made money I suppose but after the recasts they were ridiculed and not fondly remembered overall.
2
u/AncientAssociation9 19d ago
Each Batman, Spiderman, and Superman have been in different continuity for different generations. So far, the only Wolverine and Ironman still operate in the same continuity and continuing story line. It's harder to recast main characters for that then it is for smaller ones like Rhodey, who is also in the same continuity.
1
u/StructureWatcher 18d ago
Yeah, I think the continuity point is probably bigger than I gave it credit for. A new Batman or Spider-Man usually comes with a new version of the world too, while Iron Man and Wolverine have mostly stayed inside one long-running continuity. That probably makes the actor feel more “locked in.”
1
u/HalfEatenSnickers 18d ago
We may eventually get a new wolverine and ironman but that'll be after the MCU dies
Which we have awhile before disney lets go of their cash cow
1
u/WearyTranslator3338 18d ago
Most likely after Secret Wars.
They’ll make Tom Holland the new RDJ and have him be the thread that connects everything, reset everything else that needs it
2
u/Green_and_black 19d ago
Iron man and wolverine likely could survive recasting, they’ve just never done it.
1
u/StructureWatcher 18d ago
Fair point. Maybe I’m treating “they haven’t been recast yet” as evidence that they can’t be, when really it’s just untested.
1
u/-Ancalagon- 18d ago
I agree, the MCU has taken the safe path so far. Once they can't convince Hugh and RDJ to come back we will see how "irreplaceable" they are.
Also look at how many 1 and done Batmans there were. Val and George were huge when they were cast and look what happened. A bad script is a huge mountain to overcome.
1
2
u/VincentMagius 19d ago
I think it's just that we've gotten a lot of Batman and Spider-man portrayals in TV, movies, and cartoons. Wolverine and Ironman have been kind of limited.
Wolverine got X-Men (95), X-Men Evolution, Wolverine and the X-Men, Pryde of the X-Men, and Fox movies. That's four people across all that.
Ironman has Ironman (95), Ironman Adventures, Earth's Mightiest Heroes, Avengers, then the movies. That's also four actors. With the bonus that everything from Earth's Mightiest Heroes to now is just imitating Downey. Wingert does a good job, but he's still basically playing Downey's version.
1
u/StructureWatcher 18d ago
Yeah, I think being used to lots of different versions probably matters a lot. A new Batman or Spider-Man already feels normal in a way a new Iron Man or Wolverine doesn’t.
2
u/Napalmeon 18d ago
One of the main reasons that it is so hard to do another Blade film is that fans won't accept anything that isn't Wesley Snipes. And ultimately, live action versions of the character have suffered because of the popularity of the first film franchise.
1
u/StructureWatcher 18d ago
Blade is a good example. That makes me think the first really successful screen version can set expectations so strongly that the next actor has a much harder job.
1
1
u/Top_Star_3897 18d ago
Except for Blade they got the perfect recast and still did nothing to the point where it got cancelled.
1
u/thehighlotus 18d ago
Yeah I think people would have welcomed Ali for it. I know I was hype about it.
1
u/Top_Star_3897 18d ago
Same. And he technically exists in the MCU already because of Eternals. So he just showed up once and I guess he's not reappearing since Ali got fired.
1
u/Napalmeon 18d ago
I'm talking about way before that.
One of the biggest problems with Blade in cinema is that many people who are fans of the movie version only want to reinvent the wheel.
1
u/Top_Star_3897 18d ago
Well he's a comic character first and foremost. The movie did influence his character in other depictions but he shouldn't be tied to the original movies.
1
u/OkOutlandishness1710 18d ago
Has nothing to do with no accepting anyone but snipes and everything to do with them not even being able to write a script they found serviceable. People woulda accepted Ali no questions asked if the movies were good.
2
u/RealKevinOG 18d ago
Short Answer: Masks.
Yes, Iron Man has a mask too, but he is Tony Stark first, while Peter/Bruce are Spider-Man/Batman first.
Wolverine notoriously didn’t used his mask on the big screen until 2 years ago.
1
u/StructureWatcher 18d ago
I hadn’t thought about the mask angle. Tony and Logan probably do feel more visually tied to the actor than Batman or Spider-Man.
2
u/RealKevinOG 18d ago
Yeah and tbf it’s not like Andrew/Tom didn’t had difficulties because people associated Tobey with Peter Parker. It’s a big reason why TASM failed imo and Tom only got the benefit of MCU hype, but still had to fight the “iron boy” image for years
2
u/Omega-Toad-7017 18d ago edited 18d ago
And still you get the "Tobey was the best Peter" crowd when that just isn't really true
1
u/bubblesaurus 17d ago
Yeah, he isn’t, but they are my favorite Spider man live action movies.
Mostly because of the memories associated with them.
And I think the actors who played the villains were awesome.
1
u/StructureWatcher 18d ago
Yeah, that actually fits the pattern pretty well. Even when a recast eventually works, there can still be a pretty rough transition period before people accept the new actor.
1
u/exorcissy72 18d ago
This is also why Superman can’t seem to get out of Christopher Reeve’s shadow in live action.
2
u/Remarkable_Bid9608 18d ago
Batman is the explanation. Going from Keaton to Kilmer to Clooney felt like entirely different Batmen, even though some elements carried over (Alfred, Gordon, Robin). There really wasn't a concern about maintaining continuity or consistent tone. And, the audience noticed.
Most comic book movies tried to keep the same cast after that. If there was a significant change, the franchise usually reset, with an entirely new cast and new continuity.
1
u/StructureWatcher 18d ago
That’s a good distinction. The 90s Batman films are almost a bridge between simple recasting and the later “new actor = new continuity” approach. That probably shaped what audiences now expect from a major recast.
2
u/L3W15_7 18d ago
.RDJ has done 10 movies as iron man including a cameo and Hugh has done 11 as wolverine including 2 cameos.
The most movies done by a batman is 3 for Christian bale.
For Spiderman it's 3 from Toby McGuire. We technically have 7 from Tom Holland, but he's not been recast yet so who knows how that will go.
1
u/StructureWatcher 18d ago
Yeah, the number of appearances probably matters more than I realized. Ten or eleven movies with the same actor gives audiences a very different kind of attachment than three movies before a reset.
1
u/RainMakerJMR 18d ago
Don’t forget that also when they recast Spider-Man as Andrew Garfield it wasn’t nearly as successful. Tom holland was a recast after a less successful recast, which can go either way and the original reception for Tom Holland wasn’t amazing until civil war came out and he nailed it.
2
u/rkrismcneely 18d ago
In the case of Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man, general audiences were familiar with the characters before their films. With Iron Man and Wolverine, the average person was not nearly as familiar with the character, so they are much more associated with the actor that made them famous.
1
u/StructureWatcher 18d ago
Yeah, I think pre-existing familiarity matters a lot. If audiences already know the character independently of any one actor, the actor probably feels more replaceable from the start.
2
u/JDW1ck 18d ago
Honestly, it’s because we are used to Batman and Spider-Man recasting already.
There was a time when recasting Bond was a big deal. It was Sean Connery’s character and they were letting someone else play him. Now, getting a new Bond is an event that fans look forward to.
Batman has had at least 7 big name live action actors. Spider-Man has had 3 big name live action actors. Different generations grew up with different versions of the character. So even if you wanted to, nobody can truly make a case for the definitive interpretation.
Disregarding the extended media, cartoons, and comics, Wolverine and Iron Man have only been played in the mainstream live action by 1 actor each. To many people, they are synonymous with the character.
I’m sure the day we get a new live action Wolverine or Iron Man that people love, the mindset will change. But as of now, audiences aren’t used to that
1
u/StructureWatcher 18d ago
Bond is a really good comparison. Maybe the first recast is the hardest part, and once a franchise proves the role can survive it, audiences start seeing the character as bigger than any one actor.
2
u/Remarkable-Jelly-596 18d ago
Are we just ignoring voice actors in animation then? Video games? Wolverine has had a few actors and all did a great job. He's been popular for a long time though. Iron Man went from C list to S list with RDJ though. Eventually he will be recast though and someone will do something different with the character and we'll all get used to that, or thr next generation will
1
u/StructureWatcher 18d ago
That’s fair. I was thinking mostly about live-action recasting, but animation and games are a good counterexample. Maybe the real question is whether audiences accept a different live-action face, not whether the character can have different performers at all.
1
u/Remarkable-Jelly-596 18d ago
There's been a good few people whining about wolverine new face in the game which is kind of understandable. They gave him puffy hamster cheeks which gives him more of a baby face rather than a gruff rugged face we're used to. 90s animated xmen and more recently Midnight Suns game did him justice though (apart from making him tall... they almost got it right..).
As far as recasting a live version, Hugh Jackman will be around for a while. Chances are the actor who will eventually replace him hasn't even been born yet so no point speculating with the current crop of A list actors.
Or they'll just give to 50 year old Tom Holland cause he's in literally everything... at least he's got the height for the role 😆
1
u/LegoBatman88 18d ago
People are used to faces changing from project to project when it comes to animation, even when voice actors are kept the same. And the majority of the public doesn't care or think about it when the voice actors change. Kevin Conroy as Batman is the only voice actor I can recall fans as a whole really caring about when he would reprise the role. The only time I can recall people saying they shouldn't replace someone for a movie was Matthew Lillard as Shaggy.
The voice actor is important to the character but most fans just dont care as much as when a live action star is replaced.
2
u/welliedude 17d ago
It comes down to simply good casting that resonated with the fans. Also theres been like 6 batman's and 3 spidermans in recent memory when theres only been 1 of wolverine and iron man. Hell in 5 years there were 3 batman's alone. That is enough for people to lat h onto the character not the actor. Iron man is rdj. Wolverine is hugh jackman. Im not saying someone else wouldn't do a good job just that those actors are ingrained in the character now.
1
u/StructureWatcher 16d ago
Yeah, casting quality is probably a big part of it too. A recast only starts to feel normal if the replacement actually lands with audiences.
2
u/IncredibleEdible321 17d ago
You're basing your assumption on a falsehood. Batman and Spider-Man have been played by more than one actor over the years. Iron Man and wolverine have only ever been played by one actor respectively. Until the studios decide to replace Robert Downey Jr as Iron Man and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, it is unknown whether either character can survive recasting and be just as popular in the theaters and with fans.
1
u/StructureWatcher 16d ago
Fair point. I probably phrased the title a bit too strongly. I meant that Iron Man and Wolverine feel more tied to one actor right now, not that they definitely couldn’t survive a recast.
2
u/CuckBucket44 17d ago
My hot take is because Batman and Spider man are MASSIVE with kids so they need to keep changing and cranking out shit for the profits and adults weren't entirely invested until recent years. Iron Man and Wolverine were catered more toward adult audiences and most adults don't like change and don't want new faces.
1
u/StructureWatcher 16d ago
That’s an interesting angle. The need to keep Batman and Spider-Man going for new generations probably matters too. If an IP is built to constantly bring in younger audiences, recasting eventually becomes part of keeping the character alive.
2
u/SignificanceThese356 17d ago
Because it hasn't happened yet. Nobody wanted Batman or Spiderman recast either. They just forced it on us.
2
u/Short_Programmer7307 17d ago
The Spider-Man costume can only be worn by young men. We've had dozens of live action Batmen since the 1940s
There's only one Blade
1
u/StructureWatcher 16d ago
That’s a good point. The character’s age probably creates a practical difference too. Spider-Man almost has to be recast eventually if studios want to keep telling stories about a young Peter Parker.
2
u/BaronArgelicious 16d ago
Lol remember when people thought Black Panther/Chadwick shouldn’t be replaced?
1
u/StructureWatcher 16d ago
Yeah, Black Panther is a really interesting comparison. Chadwick became so closely associated with the role that the question of replacing the actor became much bigger than normal recasting.
1
u/TheUrzulan 19d ago
How do you know Iron Man and Wolverine can't survive recasting? Let's wait and see...
1
1
1
u/virtualpig 19d ago
Because other actors have portrayed Batman anf Spiderman: if you asked if another actor could play Batman back in 1991 or Spiderman back in 2003 the answers you'd get would be a resounding no. But the world turns and decades later we see that that these characters can survive. If they announced a new Iron Man it would seem weird at first but by the second movie it'd just be a fact of life.
1
u/gsopp79 19d ago
Except they put another actor in the Batman costume in 1995 and the audience showed up in even bigger numbers. So I would say your theory doesn't hold water.
1
u/Jemima_puddledook678 19d ago
But that hasn’t been tested for iron man or wolverine. Putting a new actor in those costumes could still get a massive audience.
1
u/M0ebius_1 19d ago
Iron Man and Wolverine were huge, but nowhere near as huge as Spider-Man and Batman.
The first two fan be more easily defined by one actor, the ones who popularized them.
I bet if they actually were played by someone else people would get used to it.
1
u/Constant-Pianist6747 19d ago
As others have suggested, I think the reason is simply that nobody else has really played those characters in a big movie yet. The IP was a proven success before those actors came around. While their performances are great, they’re not the only takes that might work.
1
1
u/bethepositivity 19d ago
They've just never done it. We've gotten multiple great batmen and spidermen. They will recast them someday
1
1
u/Moon_Beans1 19d ago
I think it's literally just that they haven't tried yet. That's not to say recasting will be an instant hit, I don't expect it to be. A lot of people weren't sold on Andrew Garfield as replacement Spidey at the time. I assume when the time comes there will be people who say new Logan or Tony Stark isn't as good. But after that people will just accept it and move on.
1
u/Manticore416 19d ago
The actual answer is they can, we just haven't seen it yet. Those other guys we've seen. We haven't seen these two yet.
1
1
u/perkalicous 18d ago
Because both started out as fairly silly live action TV shows.
When the first to do it is generational and amazing, it tends to set a bar that's usually too high to pass. Think The Crow.
1
u/SnooFoxes1831 18d ago
I think it's purely down to the fact that Batman and Spider-Man have proven they can be recast, whereas Iron Man and Wolverine have yet to go through that trial by fire. Remember, a lot of people crapped all over the casting of Keaton, Bale, Affleck AND Pattinson, and a good portion of Tobey fans were convinced Andrew would never match up. They were all proven wrong.
Even Hulk was recast twice, the Fantastic Four has had 3 iterations and half of the X-Men have had multiple castings, including Jean Grey, Storm, Nightcrawler, Cyclops, Beast and Mystique. They even managed to find very high calibre actors in McAvoy and Fassbender to play younger versions of Xavier and Magneto.
So I have no doubt they'll find good replacements for Iron Man and Wolverine, as well as all the other characters they decide they eventually need a younger face for. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean another actor isn't out there who can perfectly embody the character. They're actors, it's their job to be able to find their way into the character and bring it to life. We just need to trust them; others have proven they can do it.
1
1
u/blinkyretard 18d ago
It’s very obvious. Because they haven’t been recast yet. Lets see what happens when they do
1
u/Bear792 18d ago
In the past 30 years, how many Spiderman films have there been? In the past 40, how many Batman films? Now look at Wolverine and Iron man. Despite all the films with those characters, who’s been playing them.
Over 40 years, we’ve had 5 batmen in live action, three Spiderman in live action, meanwhile we’ve had 1 Wolverine and 1 Iron man.
People are used to other actors playing Batman and Spider-Man, arguably the top two, definitely top 3, heroes of all time. Wolverine is at least top five but Iron Man wasn’t as popular until RDJ became him.
That’s why people are ok with multiple actors, they’re used to it. Have someone else take over the role and we’ll see what happens.
1
u/ThatEntrepreneur1450 18d ago
Simply because they haven't tried recasting them yet due to the popularity of Downey Jr and Jackman along with their own desire to continue playing the character.
If Jackman had said no to continue on as Logan back after X3, we definitley would have had another actor playing him by now.
1
u/Difficult_Maybe_18 18d ago
Batman, Superman and Spider-Man are the most popular superheroes. Each time there’s a new actor, it can be seen as a new take on the character. Iron Man and Wolverine feel tied to RDJ & Hugh because thats been the only live action versions of the characters for almost 20 years (or 26 years in Hugh’s case)
1
1
u/Kris86dk 18d ago
They don't really... The difference is RDJ and Hugh both played the same character for 10-20 years non-stop basically...whereas you have 3 different Batman actors within 4 years, you got 3 different Spider-Man actors within 7-8 years... Its just a matter of "will said actor continue to play this character"
There have been 6 different Batman actors within the past 30ish years... 3 of them are usually brought up as good... One is often proclaimed the best due to the movies more so than the performance... Same happens w Spider-man... Raimi's movies are usually proclaimed the best, Garfield gets praise for his portrayal+chemistry w Emma Stone, Holland is on the uptick w his recent movies etc.
Wolverine and Iron man are definitely recastable, they just havent done it yet+Hugh seems to love the role so he kept doing it
1
1
u/numbersthen0987431 18d ago
Some actors just perfectly fit the roles that it's nearly impossible to replace them. A lot of it is acting ability, a lot of it is physical resemblance, but most of it is audience appreciation for the accuracy.
Hugh Jackman and RDJ fit those roles perfectly. Same as Thor, Professor X, Magneto, Deadpool, Daredevil. They just fit the persona so well, that it's hard to see other people in the role.
All of the other actors, or the roles for them, don't fit that.
Hell, Mark Hamil will always be Joker to me. But thats because it's who I grew up with
1
1
1
u/ChazzLamborghini 18d ago
It’s tenure. Both Batman and Spider-Man were recast relatively quickly between their first films and their third or fourth films. Both Downey and Jackman have played the characters for years and many, many entries. Think of it like Bond and Indiana Jones. If they had made another Indy a few years after Last Crusade with a different actor, we’d probably accept it.
Personally, I think if Fox had recast Wolverine when they did the First Class recasting it would’ve been no big deal. Instead, they used Jackman to make the two versions feel connected.
1
u/YuckyYetYummy 18d ago
With Batman and Spiderman they don't just get new stories they get new universes, all the other characters are new. (Except the old old Batman from the 90s) I think the rebooting makes it easy. They just start over fresh.
To me the issue with iron man is it's still the same story going on. Marvel tied in all the movies, the character died so all the others know he did. If you reboot iron man his new series would be a stand alone. Which is fine but I think marvel would be worried we would complain.
Wolverine is the oddball. The X-Men series has rebooted or jumped timelines but wolverine went alone for the ride.
1
u/Technical_Housing_58 18d ago
Spider man abd Batman are more iconic and the characters are more famous than the actors. Tom Holland’s career became great bc of spider man. Not saying he isn’t a great actor but Hugh Jackamn would still be famous and known without it.
The actors made their run generational while if we had a bad Batman film we could still want more. While if we get a really bad movie like madam web no one really cares for another one
1
u/tangodeep 18d ago
only because they haven’t been recast. people are stuck on the idea that it can only be them. but the reality is they’d pivot smoothly and embrace whoever takes the role, provided they’re well cast, a quality actor and supported for multiple appearances and performances.
1
u/Loose_Translator8981 18d ago
Because they already ripped the bandaid off and recast the roles. We're assuming nobody would accept a new Iron Man or Wolverine, but we don't actually know if they will because they just haven't done it yet.
1
1
1
u/CODMAN627 18d ago
I think the thing here that their stories can exist in isolation. Batman and Spider-Man have had different recasting because each of those films are set in their own continuities Batman has so many standalone films it’s insane Spider-Man has had his share of stand alone films and it’s only tom holland’s portrayal that’s tied to a whole other universe.
Wolverine and Iron-man by contrast their actors are part of one larger continuity this even applies to Ryan Reynolds who’s going to be playing Deadpool until he’s 90. These are also main characters which are harder to recast than side characters.
1
u/proXy_HazaRD 18d ago
Iron Man has 3 solo movies and Wolverine has Logan
1
u/CODMAN627 18d ago
Ironman sets up the MCU and technically anything involving the fox characters now falls under the umbrella of the MCU.
I hesitated to put those in there because of their relationship to the MCU/fox continuity
1
u/ovulationchamber 18d ago
Iron Man and Wolverine would survive recasting no problem.
There will be a couple of angry nerds online just like there was for Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland.
That's... pretty much it.
Also, for Wolverine and Iron man, these movies are the "General audience's" only exposure to these characters whereas Spider-Man has had 4000000000000 tv shows, video games, comics, etc etc etc.
But mostly, no one will really give a shit. Andrew and Tom had the exact same thing happen with them and one of them just headlined one of the biggest movies of all time.
1
u/Accomplished-Basil25 18d ago
Because Batman and Spider-Man have been part of their own self-contained universes with self-containedstories. RDJ is tied to the MCU, so that’s his universe. The Fox universe has made its way into the MCU, so Wolverine is tied to it as well. I feel like it’s harder to recast a character in-universe. Now that Wolverine is in the MCU, it’s harder to recast him without it feeling cheap. I feel that if Wolverine had been recast pre-Contact, it wouldn’t have been a hard pill to swallow, regardless of what people might have initially thought
1
u/InterviewEarly6675 18d ago
It’s in part because Marvel is terrified to do it and waited too long. Batman and Spider-Man seemed to have short cycles and the audience are used to Spider-Man’s face changing or Batman’s. Hugh Jackman has been Wolverine nearly 30 years, he started in the role before Tobey ever put on the Spider-Man suit. A day will come when Marvel will finally need to recast and if they do it right and find the right people for the parts I think Wolverine and Ironman will join Batman, Spider-Man, James Bond, and all the other rotating actor roles I think both could be recast with care. Whoever does it next just needs to take care to make it their own.
1
u/kubrickie 18d ago
Just need to recast and see. I remember the concerns around Garfield taking on Spiderman and even Kilmer playing Batman. It goes back to Bond too. Some people get stuck on a great performance and it is hard to imagine another one until it happens, but these characters can survive recasting.
That said, until Jackman is 90 works for me.
1
u/DilfTannen 18d ago
Until two years ago, Wolverine didn't wear a mask in his movies. So, yeah, definitively tied to Jackman.
1
u/PeeWeeCasanovaMC 18d ago
Because they have never been recast. It will happen, people will adjust .
1
u/DJWGibson 18d ago
Part of it is the shared franchise/ universe. That actor is that character in the movie. And the few times there have been recasting (Hulk, Rodney, Ross) it's felt odd because there has been so much continuity. People even talk about actors being reused and wonder why no one questions why X looks like Y.
I think when the bring Wolverine and the X-Men fully into the MCU they'll recast him. Likely after an X-Men movie or two to let them stand alone and not just be Wolverine films.
Some characters are just tied to certain actors. RDJ just fit Iron Man so well it'd be hard to imagine someone else taking that role and not just doing a RDJ impression. To the extent they changed how Iron Man acts in the comics and cartoons to better match RDJ.
It's like how many actors can play James Bond and focus on different parts of the character but only one actor can play Indiana Jones or John McClane. Yeah, you could totally do a WW2 Indiana Jones story with a recast Doctor Henry Jones junior.
1
u/froot_loop_dingus_ 18d ago
Batman and Spiderman have been household names for most people’s whole lives. Nobody but comic book nerds cared about Wolverine or Iron Man before their respective movies came out
1
u/Magykstorm19 18d ago
Because people are used to the character being played by one person and people don’t like change. There was a lot of controversy when Andrew was casted, Christian Bale during press tours for Batman Begins spoke with his American accent instead of his natural British accent to not alarm fans and doubt the movie before its release. People are used to seeing Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine for 20 years that they can’t see him be played by anyone else. Iron Man has been the same actor for 10 years. Change is a difficult thing to accept
1
u/CycloneJ0ker 18d ago
They aren't, it's just that no one has bothered to try yet instead of banking on a known face, especially with the latter.
1
u/IvoryWoman 18d ago
Spider-Man and Batman will always be somewhat recastable because their costume/mask is such an integral part of their characters’ vibes. Tobey McGuire, Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland will never be mistaken for one another, but that red and blue suit pattern is iconic in a way that transcends actors.
Does Wolverine technically wear a mask, sometimes? Yeah, but he’s got a very specific look and a very specific personality that are hard to capture. He really does have to come across as a human wolverine. I think he is re-castable, but it’s harder.
Iron Man wasn’t a generally popular superhero outside of comics until RDJ took him on. (Wolverine wasn’t at Batman levels before the Fox movies, but he had gotten a high-profile animated run in the X-Men animated series.) He’s popular in great part due to RDJ’s abilities and investment in the role. You’d need to find someone who can act their ass off, is comfortable not being an outwardly noble hero, and looks like Tony Stark to re-cast the role.
1
u/TreatEven1837 18d ago
Batman has been recast almost 10 times over the last 90 years.
Spider Man has been recast at least five times across all media over the last 50 years.
People are used to it.
RDJ and Jackman are most people's first Iron Man and Wolverine and they've nailed those.
So people don't want to fuck around with recasting those roles until it's absolutely necessary. It's not that they're hard to cast; it's that people don't want to.
1
u/OkOutlandishness1710 18d ago
Because those character recast a lot. Where as Wolverine and Ironman were played by the same actor for decades. I think people will accept new actors in their role but it will need to be good cause it’s gonna get compared to RDJ and Jackman.
1
u/onthefence928 18d ago
If iron man was rebooted and reinterpreted successfully multiple times in new continuities then it would work. But iron man was introduced to movie audiences through the MCU which has never charged that continuity. Simple as that
1
u/XanderAcorn 18d ago
They’re not tied to one actor. Give it time. They already got Downey jr playing a villain lol. Nothing is sacred in the Marvel universe.
1
u/EntranceFeisty8373 18d ago
It's because they haven't done it yet. People were skeptical of Bale being Batman, and it turned out pretty great.
The continuity of the MCU films' timeline also doesn't help. Yes, they've recast characters, but if everyone is replaced, the illusion of this interconnected franchise universe falls apart.
1
u/Acceptable-Driver473 17d ago
Because all Iron Man and Wolverine appearances take place in the same franchise, unlike Spider-Man and Batman (if we exclude Kilmer and Clooney)
1
u/No6655321 17d ago
I think a lot of people are missing a key point. /u/TheCapybara9 makes a good case, and is close. but why do those characters work that way?
Batman and spiderman are different personas to their alter egos. Bruce wayne can be anyway you want. Batman is batman. Peterparker can change. Hell. Other characters than peter parker are spiderman even. But spiderman is always spiderman.
Wolverine however; logan. Is no different mask on or off. He is always himself. This means the actor playing him is more seen to be him.
The actor playing him without his mask, still acts the same way when his mask is on. To us we keep the conmection so it builds stronger. For spiderman the actor puts on a mask AND changes his persona. It creates a disconnect from assocuated actor and hero.
Same is true for ironman. Iron man does not hide who he is and so there is no disconnwct in persona and in or out of costume.
1
u/Matthius81 17d ago
Batman, Superman, Spiderman, even Hulk have been protrayed in Movies, TV and animation going back decades. The public could name the characters already, despite various actors coming and going. Iron Man and Wolverine were truly niche to the general public till that one iconic breakthrough that made them mainstream. Give it 20years and people will get used to new faces in the role.
1
u/qings1 17d ago
There are a few hardcore fans that are kinda nuts. They tend to make a lot of noise when something new comes along that isn’t the same as what they already like. So new actors getting these roles would not do well. I’m pretty sure there are a few examples of new actors getting into these roles and a huge undeserved hate came along with it. Causing it to not do well and not giving it a fair shot. Hugh Hackman has been wolverine for way to long. Granted, he still has the body for it, but it’s time for X-men to take a long break and come back with fresh faces like a lot of other characters. I think that’s the better way to do it. That way there’s enough time to separate the older actor and the newer one. Dark phoenix might have done well if it was actually about dark phoenix. Most of it was about Jennifer Lawrence and her character.
Probably going to get hate and downvotes for this
1
1
u/PrimeVector19 17d ago
Batman is the most popular superhero, has been around for 87 years, and has many different iterations and interpretations. Spider-Man has always been Marvel‘s most popular character, especially because just about anybody can relate to Peter Parker. Iron Man really wasn’t all that popular until RDJ was cast.
1
u/andthrewaway1 17d ago
bc theres only ever been one person to play the latter two thus far we've had batmans since adam west and also tons of cartoons. I know we had avengers cartoons but they werent popular like BATS and Spiderman the 90s series
1
u/SmittieSmitt 17d ago
It's just history, when someone replace RDJ, if it's great stuff then it'll be no problem overall...
1
u/Cannibal_House69 17d ago
Hulk has had a few actors as well. Lou Ferigno as hulk was great in the tv series when I was a kid, much better I think than cgi hulk and of course Banner was Bill Bixby.
Then a million years later we had Eric Bana, then Edward Norton which did the damn origin story all over. Both were fantastic but repeating the origin story was a bit of a let down but both were great for the role.
Then we went to Mark Ruffalo who has good movies, but to me, he surely isn't Bruce Banner and just horrible casting for the role.
The should have stayed with Norton imo or a better cast than Ruffalo.
Recasting wolverine or iron man can work, but they really need the right actor, and hopefully not a woke version with a different race or gay/lesbian sideline arc.
1
u/Akiranar 17d ago
A lot of it has to do with the studios over the years.
WB was notorious about meddling with DC movies, they got on Burton's ass for Batman Returns for being too dark, wanted it more Campy, so Burton and Keaton left. They got Schumacher for the next two movies which got us Kilmer and Clooney.
Then when we got the reboots with Bail, Affleck, and Pattison.
That doesn't even touch the animated stuff. Or the people who pretty much say Conroy is Batman, full stop.
With Spider-Man it was also Sony trying to reboot again with Garfield after Raimi left. And then having to find a Spider-Man that fit the MCU.
Meanwhile, Iron Man has only been MCU in live action and with RDJ it was like perfect casting.
With Wolverine. That's all on Fox. They didn't want to play well with others and held out on doing things along with trying to bury the X-Men while keeping hold of the rights to the characters.
So Hugh has been the only Wolverine in live action. They didn't recast him in the First Class thing because Logan wouldn't need to be "young" in it due to his age.
Now that the MCU owns the X-Men, I am hoping for a decent recast for their version of the X-Men, or giving Daphne Keen the role as the MCU's Wolverine.
1
1
u/The_Dude145 17d ago
Iron Man and Wolverine can be recasted if they wanted to. We've already had several versions of both with video games and animated projects.
1
u/maven10k 16d ago
The people who claim to be fans are mor opinionated than smart. They recast James Bond several times and no one complains. I think they don't realize it's a movie, lol
1
u/TurbulentWeird755 16d ago
That's not true. People complained a lot. Somw have their favorite Bond. Same for Doctor Who.
1
u/Bretthart82 16d ago
Same universe same actor different universe different actor. Its easier for people to accept its batman but not the same batman.
Hulk got changed but his movie wasn't as tied to the overall arc of the MCU
Rhodes got swapped aswell but he was only in one movie as a side character.
1
u/jazxxl 15d ago
Ironman is easy. RDJ is more popular than Ironman is .. they got super lucky with that one.
Spiderman and Batman are bigger than any one actor. They are 2 of the most popular characters in pop culture / comics. Even a horrible project movie won't kill them .
Hugh Jack as wolverine is basically Harrison Ford as Han Solo . Huge shoes to fill for whoever steps in
1
u/kareljack 15d ago
Because Iron Man and Wolverine haven't been recasted yet.
As much as people love the respective performances of RDJ and Hugh Jackman, all it takes is one bit of inspired casting for either role.
I remember when folks thought that Jack Nicholson's take on the Joker couldn't be touched.
7
u/inide 19d ago
Batman and Spiderman have been popular for decades.
RDJ and Hugh Jackman are the reason why Iron Man and Wolverine are popular.