Paul Walker v. Glenn Quinn

B

Buffyverse Fan

* The 28th *
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
1,710
Location
United States
Sineya
Is it dishonorable to carry on a character after the originating actor has passed away?

Brian, the star of the Fast & Furious franchise was actor Paul Walker's masterpiece before death, and his brothers are carrying on the role for at least the rest of the film in current production.

Some have criticized the move, while others have compared it to an architect dying while his skyscraper was under construction. Saying, continuing the work in his memory would be the best memorial, and getting rid of the character would be like demolishing the skyscraper following its originator's death.

How would you carry that dilemma out with Glenn Quinn's Doyle, and Andy Hallett's Lorne? In the case of Quinn, Whedon had planned on resurrecting Doyle prior to his real death, in the case of Lorne, still technically alive in the 'verse.
 
I think it depends. With Paul Walker, he was almost done a movie and died suddenly before completion, same as Philip Seymour Hoffman. In that case, they are not reprising the role completely with new actors, they are merely completing work that was unfinished. The new casting is not permanent, its just a tribute to the character and to the fans that enables the person's last movie to still be published. I think it'd be a worst mistake to let the whole movie, which the actor devoted a big part of his life too, die with the person. So in that case completion of the project is more so a memorial to the character (even better when Walker's brothers are taking the role, so you know it's something dear to them).

As for an actor dying after the character died, like Doyle, I do think it'd be weird and disrespectful to recast. Mainly because the recast is not necessary, and is not done to commemorate the person but only to (maybe) benefit the story. I don't think anyone could accept a new actor returning as Doyle (a character that is already gone) years later, and in my mind that would be wrong. AtS, or any other series, is there for our entertainment, and in the end it is simply a TV show.

As for a character that is alive like Lorne, I think it could go either way. I would never want a new actor playing the role on screen, to me Andy Hallett is Lorne and will always be. As for using the character in a comic, I think it could go both ways. It could be a nice tribute.

Buffy and Angel are also approaching that line when the characters are becoming iconic almost like superheroes are. If the show ever gets rebooted, then of course a change in actors would be normal.
 
It wouldn't be the first time that something like that was done. There was an old western TV series called "Alias Smith & Jones," where one of the stars, Pete Duel, committed suicide before the end of the first season of the way through the first season, and was replaced by Roger Davis for the rest of that season and all of the next.

In "Superman Returns" replaced actor Christopher Reeve, who had suffered a crippling horseback riding injury with lookalike actor Brandon Routh.

Bruce Lee's final film, "The Game Of Death," incomplete at the time of Lee's death, was eventually finished using, if memory serves, not one, but three separate stand ins, one for his face, one for his back, and a third for his frontal physique, plus several stunt men to duplicate his martial arts moves. It was said at the time that Lee had been played by a committee of actors.

If there's money to be made,or an investment to be lost, the old adage, "The show must go on," takes on a whole new meaning.
 
Blaze said:
I would never want a new actor playing the role on screen, to me Andy Hallett is Lorne and will always be. As for using the character in a comic, I think it could go both ways. It could be a nice tribute.

Buffy and Angel are also approaching that line when the characters are becoming iconic almost like superheroes are. If the show ever gets rebooted, then of course a change in actors would be normal.
Click to expand...

Comic is obviously the relevant question. I agree about Lorne, I thought it was funny that even though Joss Whedon based "Lorne" on Andy Hallett's real personality, he still had to audition 😀
 
I'm glad Paul's brothers accepted to reprise his role. It is the greatest way they could honor his memory and it will let us - the fans - really enjoy his last movie.

It would have felt weird to recast Doyle. To know that his character died in a heroic way was the perfect ending and Joss didn't need to recast him. I'm glad he didn't. It wold have tarnished the character in my opinion.

As for Lorne well, we'll never have to worry about it. It kinda feels more like part of his spirit is still alive because of the comics.
 
In Supernatural they replaced the actress who played Ruby, not because the actress died but (apparently) the original actress was too expensive!
I thought it was clumsily done. I really don't like it when characters are re-cast when death isn't a factor. For me, if the character can't be written out when the actor has died then they should re-cast. But otherwise, I don't like it at all.
Game of Thrones did a re-cast this season for a minor character. Not sure why (but the new guy is way hotter!)
 
TotallySpiked
TotallySpiked
I think Jared is happy Ruby was re-cast.
Blaze said:
VisionGirl said:
I'm sorry to say this if you don't realize it, but Lorne is NOT alive in the comics.

http://buffy.wikia.com/wiki/Lorne:_The_Music_of_the_Spheres
Click to expand...
I thought this story wasn't cannon? I'm probably wrong, still it was nice that they did a comic as a tribute to Andy Hallett.
Click to expand...

Whether it's canon or not doesn't matter regarding Lorne's death. Lorne didn't "die" in the comic.

Chris Ryall, the editor-in-chief who published this book said Lorne's sendoff wasn't permanent (http://ryalltime.blogspot.com/2009/12/lornes-final-song.html).

It was a lovely tribute!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom