Controversial casting in movies

I never bought Hepburn before her transformation, but Andrews was both a perfect Poppins AND a believable street scallywag in Lady.

 

Oof. Still cringing...

 

And she was great.

The big problem was the work she did with Garcia - oil & water.

 

I did not know that.

I thought he was kind of perfect, though not really what Rice wrote.

He's incredibly underrated in general & should have won the Oscar for Rain Man instead of Hoffman.

 

Definitely the movie's weak spot, though he was perfect as the old bankster.

 

^Spectacularly excellent assessment.

 

I did not know that!

Watson was PERFECT; Rossum would have been a train wreck.

 

Strangely, he was great.

The Flintstones live action film?

 

Craig WOULD have been good, but Damon is perfect as a new read on the character.

Like Connery as Bond; Moore was the character as written, but Sean made him FUN!

 

I thought Watson was magnificent, and the score easily able to rise above the issues you mention.

 

Sean Bean as Richard Sharpe caused quite a dust up. But eventually audiences and the author (Bernard Cornwell), thought differently.

 

I don’t know why it never occurred to anyone to have Brad Pitt play Lestat. He was right there!

 

Charlton Heston being cast as the Mexican detective Ramon Vargas in Touch Of Evil. The rub is that the movie wouldn't have been made if Heston didn't sign on, and Orson Welles would not have directed had it not been for Heston specifically requesting him.

 

John Wayne as the Centurian in[The Greatest Story Ever Told]I thought that he would be carrying a rifle instead of a spear, hehehehe!!

 

Both Aloha and Descendants (2011) are ridiculous for having all the principal roles played by Caucasians. AAPI residents outnumber whites by about two to one in Hawaii.

 

As much as I love seeing Scarlet in thight outfits, I’m with you on this one

 

Yeah, that would've solved the problem. But the character in the novella is Japanese.

 

Many of the examples cited in this thread concern casting actors who are mismatches in some way for the character in the source material. Thus, they're only likely to be controversial to those who are familiar with the source material.

Someone mentioned Matt Damon being wrong for the Bourne series. As I have never read any of the Jason Bourne books, Damon was just fine by me.

 

To me a film adaptation is a separate creation to the source material. Unless the height of a lead character is relevant to the plot it’s just nitpicking.

 

It's a tough issue.

I empathize with quadriplegic actors who wish they could've had the role, but casting choices don't exist in a pure "who's best for the role" vacuum.

Cranston brings some star power that an unknown or little known actor wouldn't.

I get that we could then stretch this point to an extreme and use that as an excuse for A-list stars to play anyone... which is why it's a tricky topic.

I mean, it is acting. We can't have only actors who match the characters in real life play those roles - how many genius psychiatrists turned cannibals are out there to play Lecter?

 

Disagree on Audrey. From my review:

"Some have also objected to Hepburn's casting because they feel she doesn't look common and unappealing enough during the early parts of the film. I disagree, as I was rather surprised to note how drab and grimy they were able to make the lovely Hepburn look. To my eyes, at least, the Eliza of the film's first 30 minutes or so in no ways resembles the beautiful creature she becomes.

On the positive side, Hepburn's beauty is an asset simply because she "cleans up" better than Andrews. While Julie was attractive, she never looked really gorgeous, and I think the impact of Eliza's improvements feels greater through Hepburn.

I also think Hepburn adds a surprising toughness and grit to the role that I can't imagine from a prim and proper type like Andrews. Granted, before I saw the film, I couldn't imagine Hepburn doing this well either, so I shouldn't judge. Now that I've seen the movie, though, I can't think of anyone in the part but Audrey; perhaps this is because I don't care about the songs, which are the parts that would most benefit from the presence of Andrews, but I think Hepburn does very well in the part."

 

I would agree.

Does "Jack Reacher" work as a movie with Cruise as the lead? I think so - it's a good film, and the lead's height seems irrelevant in the scheme of things.

Granted, you can argue "why adapt a book if you plan to make big changes?" but as you note, Reacher's height doesn't seem to be important for the movie's plot or the character's impact - at least not as depicted in the movie.

Should they cast Cruise as a 7-foot-tall basketball player? No - then it'd be ridiculous to fit the role to his height.

But if you never read the Reacher books and only saw the films, you'd never know there was any reason to care about the character's height!

 

Hepburn's great in other things, but she makes MFL unwatchable for me.

Andrews wouldn't have worked in BAT.

 

Did not know these things!

Poor Orson...

 

Of course Heston defended Welles for “Citizen Kane” when people like Pauline Kael were questioning just how much he actually had to do with it. He also noted that Welles brought “Touch of Evil” in budget and on time; which was a problem with much of his career. Not that Welles found that getting funding any easier from people professing to admire him.
And Heston was perfect in the role.