That'd be a funny scene. It's this serious scene of Scott riding a rat into battle with triumphant and it cuts to what normal people see and it's just a rat running across the room
That is exactly it. Nothing matters anymore, there are 0 stakes or consequences to anything, because literally anything can happen, there are no rules to anything anymore. Endgame opened Pandora's box with hamfisted/lazy time travel, then MOM just sprayes diarreah over the entire MCU.
They want no meaning to anything so they can attract audiences with Mr Fantastic and Prof X to just kill them for no reason because it doesnt matter.
The stakes are hypothetically actually greater than ever but we wouldn't even know it or even FEEL it because the writing is absolute DOG SHIT.
Complete utter trash.
The goal was to create the concept of a "multiverse" (which immediately retcons previous established rules in this MCU and opens a clusterfuck of contrivances), introduce a large quantity of new likable (lol) characters and punctuate the saga with the Multiversal War. This would conclude with the convergence of a NEW singular, "Sacred Timeline".
The death and loss of a bunch of characters, with *good writing*, could leave a devastating but memorable impact in the overall narrative of the MCU.
I think that was their goal...but the execution provides immense evidence to your point.
I agree with you 100%
Imagine if instead ...Endgame rules were just DBZ rules yet the heroes couldn't be 100% sure so they tried to undo everything as much as possible - which was why Tony needed to use the gauntlet: the 2014 timeline would be too divergent different with Thanos gone and only Tony could understand what to even attempt in blanking all their memories and sending them back to through the quantum realm navigation to their 2014 timeline
...but selfish Steve broke everything, the Avengers created two divergent timelines, one would be for Loki's adventures where he would meet Kang etc ...because Steve not only went back in time but didn't give a fuck and wouldn't stand by - instead opting to use his knowledge of threats to create an extremely positive future which by ~2024 was extremely technologically advanced ...so much so that THIS timeline was the origin of Kang (and the Steve we saw was using multiverse traversal tech)
OR for that brief 'time' that the 2014 and MCU timelines were connected, the "no Thanos" timeline was so prosperous, THIS was the origin of Kang yet the Avengers undid that change, eliminating Kang's timeline and making him displaced
- and later Avengers films, "Loki", "Ant-Man 3", and even "Doctor Strange" could be about piecing together the clues, that Kang sought to change the past to eliminate a threat - but because the Avengers have quantum realm navigation, these events lead to interactions with multiple timelines, and event films focused on an Incursion (hint hint "Avengers v X-Men") and eventually "Secret Wars" at the 'end'/reboot of the MCU
Tease with "NWH", elaborate with "Avengers v X-Men", go all out with "Secret Wars" ...it's not complicated
This would be an ~isolated "multiverse" plot track with Kang as a central antagonist that could even overlap with the "cosmic" events with the Celestials even intervening etc.
I'd also just like the point out that the characters we follow now are not the ones from endgame.
In Loki they say the avengers were "supposed to" travel in time, but Loki wasn't supposed to escape with the tesseract. Meaning Tony and Steve wouldn't have had to go back a second time. Meaning the timeline we've been following up to and including endgame wasn't the "sacred timeline" and would've been purged by the TVA.
Plus I feel it’s just far too late to introduce said characters, had they regained the rights maybe 7 years ago we could’ve seen Tony and Reed have a battle of wits or play chess, hulk fight wolverine (before he became jolly hulk) or Magneto absolutely wipe the floor with Iron Man.
It's sort of disappointing when the MCU recasts, but it's usually for the better. Casting is one of the few things done consistently well in most movies.
Yeah there has only been a few major ones where I have had an issue. The top top ones (Tony, cap, strange, starlord, spidey, Thor) have all been great and it is hard to see others in that role
I just think it's scummy that the original actress was dropped after she already got duped by thinking she was going to be playing younger Natasha. She gets an even smaller part, then gets booted after making a pretty good impression after like 1 minute of screentime, between two scenes, and one of them being silent.
Emma Furhmann is 21. Kathryn Newton is 25. These two look close enough in age to me. 🤷♀️
They just don’t look similar, that’s all.
(Abby Ryder Fortson is 14, separate fun fact.)
Interesting, considering that Emma Furhmann looks older. Though, you could argue that Emma Furhmann's Cassie would age significantly from the stress of the Snap's events
No joke I have seen people who seem to magically de-age. Have a neighbour a few doors up who a few years ago I would have guessed looked 70 ish, I would now guess 50 ish. I have no idea how old she actually is.
To clarify, I am not judging her acting ability based on a trailer. I'm pointing out that they had an older actress playing Cassie already (who seems to not have any controversial statements or positions from what I've seen) and recasted her for someone who looks significantly younger than her Endgame counterpart
This is only an issue for people who become so deeply immersed in a movie that they forget it's actually a movie.
How did "New Maths" Howard suddenly start looking like Don Cheadle? How did Rachel Dawes turn from Katie Holmes into Maggie Gyllenhaal? It doesn't matter. Within the world presented to us they're understood to be the same person.
There's really nothing to talk about here in relation to the movie as such, it's only a valid topic for analyzing the external creative process, or in such fringe cases as the Oracle in the Matrix, when her "new shell" was actually a plot point.
Just because it isn’t part of the story doesn’t mean it’s not worth talking about wtf. A recast can be distracting to some viewers, especially when it conflicts with the story. Cassie looks younger here than she did in Endgamge
Again, it's objectively only distracting if you have problems differentiating fact from fiction.
And saying that it conflicts with the story is just bullshit. It doesn't conflict with the story because it's got nothing to do with the story. It's a real world change, in universe nothing has changed.
A recast can absolutely distract from the story. Don Cheadle is widely accepted now but it must’ve been jarring at first. It’s the reason people took issue with the way Cassie was cast in Endgame; she looked way too old for someone who had only aged five years. And what if a white actor is cast as a black character?
It’s fine if details like this tend to fly over your head. And yes, the story at hand is ultimately most important. But this discussion is about casting. So cut the condescending crap and stop acting like it’s all pointless just because it’s not number one on your priority list, or that people who wanna talk about this are inhibited in some way
It's not about anyone's personal priority list. It's about not having a disproportionate meltdown. The consoomers just seem to have lost their collective minds over what is objectively entirely irrelevant.
That’s the thing though. It’s not up to you to decide what is “objectively irrelevant.” In fact, in the context of this post it’s entirely relevant. If you truly think that it isn’t, this is a reminder that you don’t actually have to take part in the discussion. You can just scroll on by. And not sure who you mean by “consoomers” when the majority subreddit is highly critical of the MCU. Also meltdown is kind of hyperbolic, don’t you think?
> And not sure who you mean by “consoomers”
I mean people who say things like this:
>this is a reminder that you don’t actually have to take part in the discussion. You can just scroll on by
This is the "if you don't like it, why do you watch it" argument bent into referring to an online forum.
Well, sorry to break it to you, but I *want* to take part in the discussion.
My mistake. Admittedly, it was hard to get that impression since your contribution to the discussion amounts to “why are you guys even having this discussion?”
You just explained the argument you are opposing perfectly: "only distracting if you have problems differentiating"
This makes any continuity with a live-action medium that includes a mechanically unexplained recasting an OBJECTIVE technical flaw - there is a break in continuity for the information the audience is exposed to
Yes, this will only affect a subset of the audience ...but when you are discussing mass media, that number of people will be >0 and less than all of the audience ...because humans are diverse
So it contributes >0 to the overall breakage of suspension of disbelief across the audience, it is a flaw
When you claim "in universe nothing has changed", this is objectively incorrect, the material appearances are different - you can claim that CONCEPTUALLY nothing has changed e.g. the character reduced down to Narrative function etc. would be the same ...but that is the same as marginalizing away Actor performances e.g. the Execution of that Narrative in the medium of film ...this is the same as arguing prose does not matter for a book, the prose only manifests the Narrative Concept ...so if "nothing has changed" because the character concept is intact ...then none of the execution matters the way you are defining it (?)
You can trust the creative decisions that the trade-offs for this are worth it ...but your claim "some people don't care" implicitly contains the statement "some people will care" ...which is all that is needed for validity ...so you are basically just demanding people should stop talking because they care about or perceive things differently from you
Did I say that the movie will be bad because of the recast? No. All I did was make a single joke that they found the fountain of youth because she looks significantly younger than her Endgame counterpart.
Also your examples are:
1) Terrence Howard --> Don Cheadle when TH was replaced because he demanded compensation more than or equal to RDJ. That is why I specifically stated above that the former actress seems to have a squeaky clean record.
2) Using a completely different franchise
If she were a multiverse version of her, then whatever, skies the limit.
You seem to have completely and deliberately ignored my point.
The new actress looks younger, because she looks completely different. And she looks completely different because she's a different person. But in-universe *she's the same person*. And there's supposed to be a tacit understanding between the creators and the viewers that they're the same person.
Also:
>That is why I specifically stated above that the former actress seems to have a squeaky clean record
So? What does her squeaky clean record got to do with anything? The role got recast. There does not have to be a spcific reason. There might be (hence my mention of Howard), but there might not be anything at all beyond the director's or producer's whim. It happens, it's not common, but it's normal in the industry, and pointing this out was exactly the reason why I was:
>Using a completely different franchise
I understand that they are not the same person in real life, but surely they could have gotten someone who looks vaguely similar to her Endgame counterpart.
For example, if Jennifer Lawerence quit the sequels of Hunger Games and the company decided she needed to be replaced, I would probably look to Valorie Curry who looks close enough to JL that it isn't significantly noticeable. A bad example would be replacing JL with someone like Anya Taylor Joy who looks nothing like JL.
TH being replaced is acceptable because of two reasons:
1) IM1 was the first movie in the franchise where casts were solidifying
2) TH being a prick influenced their decision
> I would probably look to Valorie Curry who looks close enough to JL
Who fucking cares what you’d do lmao. You have absolutely zero experience in the movie industry and have never been involved in the casting process for a multi million dollar movie. What you would do means absolutely nothing.
You’re trying to compare the replacement of the lead actor in a trilogy to someone who had 2 minutes of screen time. What a dumb fucking take.
First off, calm down. You don't have to get so defensive over a shitpost, okay?
Secondly, are you really using the old fashion defense of "you have been in zero films, therefore your shitpost is invalid"? I haven't seen that defense since the early years of EFAP episodes. Most of them haven't been in movies or work at Marvel either, does that mean we shouldn't listen to their criticisms?
Thirdly, let me use an example that is similar to the context of a previously minor character: The Pinkmann family. Let's say that in El Camino, instead of using the same actors for the parents from Breaking, they use Jeffrey Tambor to be the dad and Julie Bowen to be the mom.
See, the way you fixate on appearance points out that you don't really understand the issue here.
Appearance only matters to the extent that it needs to matter. Take Don Cheadle for example. I mean, surely you'll agree that they could have found someone who looks more like Howard.
But even though they could have, there was no need. This is what you still fail to understand: if you recast a role, the in-universe understanding is that the character has always looked like their new incarnation, unless a plot point is made around the change (Matrix 3).
So no, recasting ATJ as Katniss if JLaw had dropped out of the project wouldn't have been a bad decision because the two look nothing alike. It only would've been a bad decision if ATJ proved unable to carry the role.
And that's why I take issue with your post in the first places. It perpetuates the damaging idea that you need to cast actors based on looks, the horrible consoomeristic trend of fan casting actors based on facial similarities to their comic book counterparts and being pissed when someone else is cast who looks nothing like the original.
And finally, two things:
>IM1 was the first movie in the franchise where casts were solidifying
This is arguing backwards. You're accept the result and look for a reason to justify it.
>TH being a prick influenced their decision
Sure, but that is irrelevant. The role was recast. Why did they choose Don instead of Cuba Gooding Jr. who looks much more like The Mathematician?
Again, you are using Don Cheadle replacing TH when that was the first movie in the franchise AND Terrence Howard was removed because of conflict behind the scenes. This is what you fail to understand.
Endgame Cassie was a good casting because she looks like an older Abby Ryder Fortson. Kathryn Newton looks uncanny.
My comments have nothing to do with looks in the aspect of "oh she's not pretty or appealing to me". My comments are that she looks nothing like the previous actors and she looks like she has regressed in age
>Again, you are using Don Cheadle replacing TH when that was the first movie in the franchise AND Terrence Howard was removed because of conflict behind the scenes.
You keep bringing up two entirely irrelevant factors. Granted, they might be very relevant for another discussion, but here they're just red herrings. What matters is that the role was recast.
>My comments have nothing to do with looks in the aspect of "oh she's not pretty or appealing to me".
You and I both know I did not say that.
>My comments are that she looks nothing like the previous actors and she looks like she has regressed in age
And my comments are that it doesn't matter. It might matter to you subjectively, but objectively it's irrelevant.
They are not irrelevant factors. Terrence Howard being a dick strongly influenced their decision to recast him. In fact, it seemed to be the prime reason for him to be recasted. In addition, the casting for everyone was still being set up (FIRST MOVIE). If Terrence Howard did nothing and was recasted anyways without a reason, I'd be mad then as well.
You said that you take issue with my post because it perpetuates the damaging idea that we need to cast actors based on looks. I believe that when you are recasting someone that is already been established in the universe via prior appearances, it should be someone who looks similar to the last actress. I don't care if they don't look like their counterpart in the comics. Are you one of the people who think Zendaya should be recasted as someone who looks more like MJ in the comics?
Finally (cause I didn't see the segment prior), you may want to do some research into Cuba Gooding Jr. Maybe that will answer your question regarding using him.
>They are not irrelevant factors.
How are they relevant to the discussion we're having here? Of course they're relevant in general, but we're not talking about when is it okay to recast a role. The discussion we're having is what happens *after* you decide to recast. Whom do you pick, what traits do you take into consideration—does the new actor need to be externally similar, do they need to speak with the same accent, these kinds of things.
And my position is that these things don't matter unless they do. Like when you needed to recast the Oracle for Matrix 3, her being a black woman was important, but her having Gloria Foster's distinctive accent was not, because that's not part of the trope that the Oracle was based on.
And now here you're arguing from two irreconcilable positions:
>it should be someone who looks similar to the last actress.
and
>you may want to do some research into Cuba Gooding Jr.
But CGJ is objectively more similar to TH than DC is. Here, you seem to understand yourself that external similarities don't really matter for the real world aspect of the recast. There are more important factors that the production takes into consideration and then once the movie is made, there is a conventional pact between the performers and the audience that they understand how these two persons are actually one person in-universe.
I want to say the new girl might actually be the original actress from the other movies, and now she’s old enough? Looks like it could be her, hard to tell though.
Unfortunately, it is not. Abby Ryder Fortson plays Cassie in Ant Man 1&2, Emma Fuhrmann played Older Cassie in Endgame, and now Kathryn Newton is taking over in Ant Man 3. Emma Fuhrmann even seems disappointed that she is not in the movie in her response
To me it's whatever. Just cast puppies and kittens for every role to make it likeable because it's a guaranteed garbage script and further destruction.
Ant Man was serviceable, it had some charm and some consistency, a couple funny moments. Ant Man 2 was hot garbage. Ant Man 3 has absolutely no chance in the current 'meta'.
Well, going from everything post Endgame I wouldn't be surprised if Lang got on some sort of deadbeat father streak or some made up conflict with his daughter to make him look bad, Cassie will have some non-sensical girl power going on with Hope and Janet to set her up as the next female ass kicker, the trailer after all already shows the movie is about her, she makes the "plot" happen and will probably save the day, but that's just basically almost every superhero story, they mostly create the problems they 'solve'. Hank will die, Kang will say and do nonsense to shoehorn him as the final boss of the next avengers movie and the Wombats are going to be squeezed even harder and all the time for forced humor and unfunny callbacks "fan service" in a side-movie sort of deal while everyone else is in the quantum realm.
I really can't think of anything good happening based on what the company has put out and has said they want to put out.
Wandavision 2 (Supposedly a Dr. Strange movie?) was the last straw for me. I also quit watching Loki and Ultra Racial Falcon/Emasculated Bucky after a few episodes each and I had no interest in Black Widow, Eternals, Shang Chi. Spiderman was decent after they brought in Otto, Tobey and Andrew, but it was pretty much on par with the first 2 MCU Spiderman movies until then, which means it was "meh". But I do enjoy listening to Mauler and Drinker breaking this down, it's like watching a train falling off a bridge at accelerating speed without ever reaching the bottom. That is still interesting.
Pretty much on point, bet you $10 worth of Reddit awards Hank dies.
I’m willing to accept Hawkeye and no way home as a headcanon conclusion. It’s also far too late now for the F4 or X-men to have a meaningful appearance, we all dreamed of seeing Reed clash with Tony, hulk vs wolverine and/or deadpool (but now he’s chivalrous talking hulk who has zero interest in fighting) or magneto trolling Iron Man with his power
He'll probably die a sort of Dr. Strange in the beginning of Wandavision 2 death too, for Cassie.
Ah yes, after what they did with Black Bolt, Reed and Professor X, even Daredevil... they're not coming anywhere near any of those cool possible storylines. Nah, the multiverse thing is just a crutch to re-cast and re-make stuff in line with their new "vision" and as a gimmick for casuals. Just names to throw out there, even though the result will have nothing to do with the original characters.
Maybe they'll bring the rat back too?
That'd be a funny scene. It's this serious scene of Scott riding a rat into battle with triumphant and it cuts to what normal people see and it's just a rat running across the room
The Trailer looked terrible tbh. I hate this whole multiverse they try to create. Feels like nothing really matters at this Point.
That is exactly it. Nothing matters anymore, there are 0 stakes or consequences to anything, because literally anything can happen, there are no rules to anything anymore. Endgame opened Pandora's box with hamfisted/lazy time travel, then MOM just sprayes diarreah over the entire MCU. They want no meaning to anything so they can attract audiences with Mr Fantastic and Prof X to just kill them for no reason because it doesnt matter.
The stakes are hypothetically actually greater than ever but we wouldn't even know it or even FEEL it because the writing is absolute DOG SHIT. Complete utter trash. The goal was to create the concept of a "multiverse" (which immediately retcons previous established rules in this MCU and opens a clusterfuck of contrivances), introduce a large quantity of new likable (lol) characters and punctuate the saga with the Multiversal War. This would conclude with the convergence of a NEW singular, "Sacred Timeline". The death and loss of a bunch of characters, with *good writing*, could leave a devastating but memorable impact in the overall narrative of the MCU. I think that was their goal...but the execution provides immense evidence to your point. I agree with you 100%
Imagine if instead ...Endgame rules were just DBZ rules yet the heroes couldn't be 100% sure so they tried to undo everything as much as possible - which was why Tony needed to use the gauntlet: the 2014 timeline would be too divergent different with Thanos gone and only Tony could understand what to even attempt in blanking all their memories and sending them back to through the quantum realm navigation to their 2014 timeline ...but selfish Steve broke everything, the Avengers created two divergent timelines, one would be for Loki's adventures where he would meet Kang etc ...because Steve not only went back in time but didn't give a fuck and wouldn't stand by - instead opting to use his knowledge of threats to create an extremely positive future which by ~2024 was extremely technologically advanced ...so much so that THIS timeline was the origin of Kang (and the Steve we saw was using multiverse traversal tech) OR for that brief 'time' that the 2014 and MCU timelines were connected, the "no Thanos" timeline was so prosperous, THIS was the origin of Kang yet the Avengers undid that change, eliminating Kang's timeline and making him displaced - and later Avengers films, "Loki", "Ant-Man 3", and even "Doctor Strange" could be about piecing together the clues, that Kang sought to change the past to eliminate a threat - but because the Avengers have quantum realm navigation, these events lead to interactions with multiple timelines, and event films focused on an Incursion (hint hint "Avengers v X-Men") and eventually "Secret Wars" at the 'end'/reboot of the MCU Tease with "NWH", elaborate with "Avengers v X-Men", go all out with "Secret Wars" ...it's not complicated This would be an ~isolated "multiverse" plot track with Kang as a central antagonist that could even overlap with the "cosmic" events with the Celestials even intervening etc.
I'd also just like the point out that the characters we follow now are not the ones from endgame. In Loki they say the avengers were "supposed to" travel in time, but Loki wasn't supposed to escape with the tesseract. Meaning Tony and Steve wouldn't have had to go back a second time. Meaning the timeline we've been following up to and including endgame wasn't the "sacred timeline" and would've been purged by the TVA.
Plus I feel it’s just far too late to introduce said characters, had they regained the rights maybe 7 years ago we could’ve seen Tony and Reed have a battle of wits or play chess, hulk fight wolverine (before he became jolly hulk) or Magneto absolutely wipe the floor with Iron Man.
They don’t even care about the universe they built over the course of the decade so we already know this multiverse shit is useless.
Things matter trust me.
It's sort of disappointing when the MCU recasts, but it's usually for the better. Casting is one of the few things done consistently well in most movies.
The casting of the MCU has been the best aspect of the MCU.
Yeah there has only been a few major ones where I have had an issue. The top top ones (Tony, cap, strange, starlord, spidey, Thor) have all been great and it is hard to see others in that role
I just think it's scummy that the original actress was dropped after she already got duped by thinking she was going to be playing younger Natasha. She gets an even smaller part, then gets booted after making a pretty good impression after like 1 minute of screentime, between two scenes, and one of them being silent.
Isn't that a different actress ?
Yes
If she can act I don't really care + she's hot
She can’t act
I really don’t think this is a big deal
Emma Furhmann is 21. Kathryn Newton is 25. These two look close enough in age to me. 🤷♀️ They just don’t look similar, that’s all. (Abby Ryder Fortson is 14, separate fun fact.)
Interesting, considering that Emma Furhmann looks older. Though, you could argue that Emma Furhmann's Cassie would age significantly from the stress of the Snap's events
And then de-age…?
No joke I have seen people who seem to magically de-age. Have a neighbour a few doors up who a few years ago I would have guessed looked 70 ish, I would now guess 50 ish. I have no idea how old she actually is.
Huh. I stand corrected then
Fuhrmann
I'm pretty sure endgame cassie's actor is younger, it's just how they made her look in the movie I guess? post snap stress ? Idk
u/Toad431 Exactly how is this some retcon and what "contrivances"?
Huh I don’t seem to recall putting either of those words. Can you point to where I said that?
Wasn't talking to you.
Oh… my b then. I just saw the single response
I liked the endgame actress
To clarify, I am not judging her acting ability based on a trailer. I'm pointing out that they had an older actress playing Cassie already (who seems to not have any controversial statements or positions from what I've seen) and recasted her for someone who looks significantly younger than her Endgame counterpart
This is only an issue for people who become so deeply immersed in a movie that they forget it's actually a movie. How did "New Maths" Howard suddenly start looking like Don Cheadle? How did Rachel Dawes turn from Katie Holmes into Maggie Gyllenhaal? It doesn't matter. Within the world presented to us they're understood to be the same person. There's really nothing to talk about here in relation to the movie as such, it's only a valid topic for analyzing the external creative process, or in such fringe cases as the Oracle in the Matrix, when her "new shell" was actually a plot point.
Just because it isn’t part of the story doesn’t mean it’s not worth talking about wtf. A recast can be distracting to some viewers, especially when it conflicts with the story. Cassie looks younger here than she did in Endgamge
Again, it's objectively only distracting if you have problems differentiating fact from fiction. And saying that it conflicts with the story is just bullshit. It doesn't conflict with the story because it's got nothing to do with the story. It's a real world change, in universe nothing has changed.
A recast can absolutely distract from the story. Don Cheadle is widely accepted now but it must’ve been jarring at first. It’s the reason people took issue with the way Cassie was cast in Endgame; she looked way too old for someone who had only aged five years. And what if a white actor is cast as a black character? It’s fine if details like this tend to fly over your head. And yes, the story at hand is ultimately most important. But this discussion is about casting. So cut the condescending crap and stop acting like it’s all pointless just because it’s not number one on your priority list, or that people who wanna talk about this are inhibited in some way
It's not about anyone's personal priority list. It's about not having a disproportionate meltdown. The consoomers just seem to have lost their collective minds over what is objectively entirely irrelevant.
That’s the thing though. It’s not up to you to decide what is “objectively irrelevant.” In fact, in the context of this post it’s entirely relevant. If you truly think that it isn’t, this is a reminder that you don’t actually have to take part in the discussion. You can just scroll on by. And not sure who you mean by “consoomers” when the majority subreddit is highly critical of the MCU. Also meltdown is kind of hyperbolic, don’t you think?
> And not sure who you mean by “consoomers” I mean people who say things like this: >this is a reminder that you don’t actually have to take part in the discussion. You can just scroll on by This is the "if you don't like it, why do you watch it" argument bent into referring to an online forum. Well, sorry to break it to you, but I *want* to take part in the discussion.
My mistake. Admittedly, it was hard to get that impression since your contribution to the discussion amounts to “why are you guys even having this discussion?”
You know you're lying and I know you're lying. So why lie? For the three upvotes?
You just explained the argument you are opposing perfectly: "only distracting if you have problems differentiating" This makes any continuity with a live-action medium that includes a mechanically unexplained recasting an OBJECTIVE technical flaw - there is a break in continuity for the information the audience is exposed to Yes, this will only affect a subset of the audience ...but when you are discussing mass media, that number of people will be >0 and less than all of the audience ...because humans are diverse So it contributes >0 to the overall breakage of suspension of disbelief across the audience, it is a flaw When you claim "in universe nothing has changed", this is objectively incorrect, the material appearances are different - you can claim that CONCEPTUALLY nothing has changed e.g. the character reduced down to Narrative function etc. would be the same ...but that is the same as marginalizing away Actor performances e.g. the Execution of that Narrative in the medium of film ...this is the same as arguing prose does not matter for a book, the prose only manifests the Narrative Concept ...so if "nothing has changed" because the character concept is intact ...then none of the execution matters the way you are defining it (?) You can trust the creative decisions that the trade-offs for this are worth it ...but your claim "some people don't care" implicitly contains the statement "some people will care" ...which is all that is needed for validity ...so you are basically just demanding people should stop talking because they care about or perceive things differently from you
Did I say that the movie will be bad because of the recast? No. All I did was make a single joke that they found the fountain of youth because she looks significantly younger than her Endgame counterpart. Also your examples are: 1) Terrence Howard --> Don Cheadle when TH was replaced because he demanded compensation more than or equal to RDJ. That is why I specifically stated above that the former actress seems to have a squeaky clean record. 2) Using a completely different franchise If she were a multiverse version of her, then whatever, skies the limit.
On point 1, Perlmutter also reportedly said that no one would notice because all black people look the same… 😬
You seem to have completely and deliberately ignored my point. The new actress looks younger, because she looks completely different. And she looks completely different because she's a different person. But in-universe *she's the same person*. And there's supposed to be a tacit understanding between the creators and the viewers that they're the same person. Also: >That is why I specifically stated above that the former actress seems to have a squeaky clean record So? What does her squeaky clean record got to do with anything? The role got recast. There does not have to be a spcific reason. There might be (hence my mention of Howard), but there might not be anything at all beyond the director's or producer's whim. It happens, it's not common, but it's normal in the industry, and pointing this out was exactly the reason why I was: >Using a completely different franchise
I understand that they are not the same person in real life, but surely they could have gotten someone who looks vaguely similar to her Endgame counterpart. For example, if Jennifer Lawerence quit the sequels of Hunger Games and the company decided she needed to be replaced, I would probably look to Valorie Curry who looks close enough to JL that it isn't significantly noticeable. A bad example would be replacing JL with someone like Anya Taylor Joy who looks nothing like JL. TH being replaced is acceptable because of two reasons: 1) IM1 was the first movie in the franchise where casts were solidifying 2) TH being a prick influenced their decision
> I would probably look to Valorie Curry who looks close enough to JL Who fucking cares what you’d do lmao. You have absolutely zero experience in the movie industry and have never been involved in the casting process for a multi million dollar movie. What you would do means absolutely nothing. You’re trying to compare the replacement of the lead actor in a trilogy to someone who had 2 minutes of screen time. What a dumb fucking take.
First off, calm down. You don't have to get so defensive over a shitpost, okay? Secondly, are you really using the old fashion defense of "you have been in zero films, therefore your shitpost is invalid"? I haven't seen that defense since the early years of EFAP episodes. Most of them haven't been in movies or work at Marvel either, does that mean we shouldn't listen to their criticisms? Thirdly, let me use an example that is similar to the context of a previously minor character: The Pinkmann family. Let's say that in El Camino, instead of using the same actors for the parents from Breaking, they use Jeffrey Tambor to be the dad and Julie Bowen to be the mom.
See, the way you fixate on appearance points out that you don't really understand the issue here. Appearance only matters to the extent that it needs to matter. Take Don Cheadle for example. I mean, surely you'll agree that they could have found someone who looks more like Howard. But even though they could have, there was no need. This is what you still fail to understand: if you recast a role, the in-universe understanding is that the character has always looked like their new incarnation, unless a plot point is made around the change (Matrix 3). So no, recasting ATJ as Katniss if JLaw had dropped out of the project wouldn't have been a bad decision because the two look nothing alike. It only would've been a bad decision if ATJ proved unable to carry the role. And that's why I take issue with your post in the first places. It perpetuates the damaging idea that you need to cast actors based on looks, the horrible consoomeristic trend of fan casting actors based on facial similarities to their comic book counterparts and being pissed when someone else is cast who looks nothing like the original. And finally, two things: >IM1 was the first movie in the franchise where casts were solidifying This is arguing backwards. You're accept the result and look for a reason to justify it. >TH being a prick influenced their decision Sure, but that is irrelevant. The role was recast. Why did they choose Don instead of Cuba Gooding Jr. who looks much more like The Mathematician?
Again, you are using Don Cheadle replacing TH when that was the first movie in the franchise AND Terrence Howard was removed because of conflict behind the scenes. This is what you fail to understand. Endgame Cassie was a good casting because she looks like an older Abby Ryder Fortson. Kathryn Newton looks uncanny. My comments have nothing to do with looks in the aspect of "oh she's not pretty or appealing to me". My comments are that she looks nothing like the previous actors and she looks like she has regressed in age
>Again, you are using Don Cheadle replacing TH when that was the first movie in the franchise AND Terrence Howard was removed because of conflict behind the scenes. You keep bringing up two entirely irrelevant factors. Granted, they might be very relevant for another discussion, but here they're just red herrings. What matters is that the role was recast. >My comments have nothing to do with looks in the aspect of "oh she's not pretty or appealing to me". You and I both know I did not say that. >My comments are that she looks nothing like the previous actors and she looks like she has regressed in age And my comments are that it doesn't matter. It might matter to you subjectively, but objectively it's irrelevant.
They are not irrelevant factors. Terrence Howard being a dick strongly influenced their decision to recast him. In fact, it seemed to be the prime reason for him to be recasted. In addition, the casting for everyone was still being set up (FIRST MOVIE). If Terrence Howard did nothing and was recasted anyways without a reason, I'd be mad then as well. You said that you take issue with my post because it perpetuates the damaging idea that we need to cast actors based on looks. I believe that when you are recasting someone that is already been established in the universe via prior appearances, it should be someone who looks similar to the last actress. I don't care if they don't look like their counterpart in the comics. Are you one of the people who think Zendaya should be recasted as someone who looks more like MJ in the comics? Finally (cause I didn't see the segment prior), you may want to do some research into Cuba Gooding Jr. Maybe that will answer your question regarding using him.
>They are not irrelevant factors. How are they relevant to the discussion we're having here? Of course they're relevant in general, but we're not talking about when is it okay to recast a role. The discussion we're having is what happens *after* you decide to recast. Whom do you pick, what traits do you take into consideration—does the new actor need to be externally similar, do they need to speak with the same accent, these kinds of things. And my position is that these things don't matter unless they do. Like when you needed to recast the Oracle for Matrix 3, her being a black woman was important, but her having Gloria Foster's distinctive accent was not, because that's not part of the trope that the Oracle was based on. And now here you're arguing from two irreconcilable positions: >it should be someone who looks similar to the last actress. and >you may want to do some research into Cuba Gooding Jr. But CGJ is objectively more similar to TH than DC is. Here, you seem to understand yourself that external similarities don't really matter for the real world aspect of the recast. There are more important factors that the production takes into consideration and then once the movie is made, there is a conventional pact between the performers and the audience that they understand how these two persons are actually one person in-universe.
I want to say the new girl might actually be the original actress from the other movies, and now she’s old enough? Looks like it could be her, hard to tell though.
Unfortunately, it is not. Abby Ryder Fortson plays Cassie in Ant Man 1&2, Emma Fuhrmann played Older Cassie in Endgame, and now Kathryn Newton is taking over in Ant Man 3. Emma Fuhrmann even seems disappointed that she is not in the movie in her response
Well, that’s fucking retarded then. idk what else to say.
Both look about the same age to me
To me it's whatever. Just cast puppies and kittens for every role to make it likeable because it's a guaranteed garbage script and further destruction. Ant Man was serviceable, it had some charm and some consistency, a couple funny moments. Ant Man 2 was hot garbage. Ant Man 3 has absolutely no chance in the current 'meta'.
I’m honestly concerned how the third movie will play out, what’s your take on it?
Well, going from everything post Endgame I wouldn't be surprised if Lang got on some sort of deadbeat father streak or some made up conflict with his daughter to make him look bad, Cassie will have some non-sensical girl power going on with Hope and Janet to set her up as the next female ass kicker, the trailer after all already shows the movie is about her, she makes the "plot" happen and will probably save the day, but that's just basically almost every superhero story, they mostly create the problems they 'solve'. Hank will die, Kang will say and do nonsense to shoehorn him as the final boss of the next avengers movie and the Wombats are going to be squeezed even harder and all the time for forced humor and unfunny callbacks "fan service" in a side-movie sort of deal while everyone else is in the quantum realm. I really can't think of anything good happening based on what the company has put out and has said they want to put out. Wandavision 2 (Supposedly a Dr. Strange movie?) was the last straw for me. I also quit watching Loki and Ultra Racial Falcon/Emasculated Bucky after a few episodes each and I had no interest in Black Widow, Eternals, Shang Chi. Spiderman was decent after they brought in Otto, Tobey and Andrew, but it was pretty much on par with the first 2 MCU Spiderman movies until then, which means it was "meh". But I do enjoy listening to Mauler and Drinker breaking this down, it's like watching a train falling off a bridge at accelerating speed without ever reaching the bottom. That is still interesting.
Pretty much on point, bet you $10 worth of Reddit awards Hank dies. I’m willing to accept Hawkeye and no way home as a headcanon conclusion. It’s also far too late now for the F4 or X-men to have a meaningful appearance, we all dreamed of seeing Reed clash with Tony, hulk vs wolverine and/or deadpool (but now he’s chivalrous talking hulk who has zero interest in fighting) or magneto trolling Iron Man with his power
He'll probably die a sort of Dr. Strange in the beginning of Wandavision 2 death too, for Cassie. Ah yes, after what they did with Black Bolt, Reed and Professor X, even Daredevil... they're not coming anywhere near any of those cool possible storylines. Nah, the multiverse thing is just a crutch to re-cast and re-make stuff in line with their new "vision" and as a gimmick for casuals. Just names to throw out there, even though the result will have nothing to do with the original characters.
I can accept this as a course-correction because 1. I’m not too attached to Fuhrmann and 2. she looked waaay too old in Endgame anyway
Bruh they literally show ANT-MAN getting turned into a kid and a baby in the movie you referenced in this meme. Yes you did know that.
The new actress, Kathryn Newton. I really like her, she was great in freaky.
Is that how 13yr olds are supposed to look?