EDITORIAL: Marvel's Movie Magic: Is Everyone On The Same Page?

Marvel comics is easily the most successful company that ever went from making comic books, to then producing movies about them. In the past few years alone we have seen amazing movies such as Spiderman 1&2, Iron Man, X-men 1&2, Blade 1&2, and The Punisher (among others).

But like any film 'series' they have also had their less popular films, Ghostrider, Hulk, X3, Spiderman 3, Daredevil, and Fantastic Four (among others).

But that seems to be a good track record. Now, here is my problem.

Marvel does not seem to treat film as different art from the art of comic books. This is their downfall, because the two forms of expression are very different. Here are the two comic book tenants, that I think should not apply to their film counterparts.

1. When an artist leaves... get a new artist! The character will change a bit, but everyone knows that it is the same guy.

When a characters artist changes in a comic book, people either like or dislike the new designs, but eventually they get over it and keep reading. The art may have changed, but the character is the same and it is good enough for the readers.

In a film though, if an actor leaves and is recast after making one popular film already as the character, people will have a lot more trouble accepting the new actor in the sequel.

In Iron Man, Terrance Howard played Jim Rhodes, Tony Starks best friend, with many hints that he will return as another hero in the sequel. Ironically, he won't. Well, Rhodes will, but Howard has been recast with Don Cheadle.

Edward Norton already said he will not be reprising his role as Bruce Banner in the upcoming avengers movie, making one wonder how they will recast a lead character with out everyone complaining about continuity.

Back in 2004, The Punisher was played by Thomas Jane, and now in the sequel, he is being played by Ray Stevenson. Once again, the lead actor quit and someone new came on.

Now, sure, if it was animated, nobody would care. Lots of people can do the same character voices, and pull of the character convincingly, but when it is a full actor who must bring his character to life, every actor will do it differently. I can guarantee that each of these new actors will not play the character in the same way as the first actor originated the role.

Bringing me to...

2. Don't make a film with a sequel in mind.

Why? Because unexpected stuff may happen! If any of these films were made to be standalone films, then there would not be an issue. If they just planned on making a Hulk movie, and then later the producer said "let's make a sequel", and the lead actor said 'I don't want to...' then they could just drop the film and move on to the next one... because face it... Marvel has tons of characters, and would probably love to make a film for each and every one.

But... if you really want to make a sequel... then you need to GUARANTEE that all the original actors (unless they are incapacitated) will be in it. How? By outlining how long you want the franchise to run and then getting all the actors to sign 'multiple film agreements' before starting the first film.

I like Marvel films, but I wish each one didn't have to be it's own trilogy. The first (and usually the second) ones are usually great, but by the third they just push the stuff way to far in a bad direction. I don't want Spiderman 4 after seeing Spiderman 3, as much as I loved the first two, and I don't want to see an avengers movie with half a cast from the prequel, and half 'all new replacements'.

What do you think?

Is Replacing Actors for Sequels a Good Idea?

It was reported last week that Terrence Howard would be replaced by Don Cheadle in the highly anticipated sequel to the summer blockbuster Iron Man. Reportedly, it was due to Howard's demand for higher pay for the role. Knowing how War Machine was teased in the film made it seem like there was going to be some more development in the Jim Rhodes character. It is unfortunate for a franchise that is destined to make a lot of money to not want to put out for a little bit of continuity in a film.

This goes for all sequels that get recast, and not just Iron Man. Several that come to mind immediately are Marvel, so that's convenient. As you may have heard, Thomas Jane is not returning for The Punisher: War Zone and Ed Norton doesn't want to reprise his role as the Incredible Hulk for a possible sequel or The Avengers. Jane didn't like waiting for the project to start shooting and Ed Norton hasn't given a reason, but it is most likely due to the changes he made to the script of The Incredible Hulk being edited out of the theatrical cut.

People making choices to compromise the quality/success of a film takes it away from the consumer and makes the imaginary world that a film creates a lot more realistic. When Iron Man II comes out and you see Tony Stark talking to Jim Rhodes, won't it be weird seeing him talk to a physically different person than the one he was talking to a day/week/month/year ago? Recasting makes the audience aware of the fourth wall and consequently, makes it easier for an audience to be taken out of a movie.

Also, don't get me wrong, the actors used to replace the leaving ones usually do a good enough job, but it's not the character from the previous films. A few months ago, Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor was released without Rachel Weiss. They did something kind of smart in the film to address it. At the beginning of the film, one of Maria Bello's first lines, referencing a character based on her the she wrote in books titled "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns", was, "Honestly I can say that she's a completely different person." Now that seemed to be the studio telling the audience about the change, but that didn't change that the new Mummy film was bad.

To any Hollywood types reading this blog, please listen to my plea. If you go the extra mile in keeping the original talent used, not only will the profits grow, but it will be more likely to maintain a franchise.

-Mark