You may have noticed that Terrence Howard never got to suit up in the War Machine regalia. Katie Holmes looked surprisingly a lot like Maggie Gyllenhaal in The Dark Knight. And did you know that if Ryan Reynolds isn't Hal Jordan in another Green Lantern movie, there are some angry commenters who won't go see the movie?
Let me put a waiver on this article, very quickly. You are within every right to not go see a film for whatever you desire. If you have no interest in the character, the story, the filmmakers, the actors; quite frankly, you have whatever right and reason you want to skip out on the film. But also realize that I'm someone who thinks that one should stand by what they say when they "skip out" of a movie for superfluous reasons like the re-casting of a small role. Simply put; if you announced to the world that you weren't going to see The Dark Knight in 2008 when you heard Maggie Gyllenhaal was playing Dawes, then you miss out on a terrific movie and should only blame your arrogant stubbornness.
My question here is, "Are you really going to?"
Really? You're going to skip Flash's big screen debut because of the specific character they're going with? Why do you feel so unjustified? If you're a fan of the Flash, does it really matter which one gets brought to light? There's nothing wrong with having a preference; I'd personally like to see Allen on screen. But I'm going to go see a
Flash with whatever Flash they give me, because I'm not yet a professional filmmaker and this could be the only Flash movie they make (especially if no one goes to see it).
An unpopular character is no excuse for a bad movie, and filmmakers know that. There are plenty of directors who go through the motions and direct without any passion or interest in the subject. If the trailer comes out and it looks as if the filmmakers make the Flash a bumbling, drunken heathen, or the footage looks like it was shot on a NOKIA cell phone, or if it looks unstable and unbearable, then, no. I won't go check it out, despite my strongest curiosities. But a specific character or villain does not sway me to stay away.
They re-cast? Now the whole movie is going to look stupid.
It's fairly petty to think that an actor or actress (who is good, mind you) detracts the entire film merely because you don't like them. Bear in mind, I'm not talking about if you find them to be prejudice or stand for something intolerable (ex. Plenty of people hate Mel Gibson for his outbursts), I'm talking about merely if you just have a personal disdain for their presence. Do I think Jack Black belongs in
Wonder Woman? No. But I also know the filmmakers aren't going to make him the love interest. Jack Black, in a small role, will not keep me away from
Wonder Woman.
Back to the point, I understand that it makes things stand out. You do have to get used to it and it briefly takes you out of the movie. But the actor hasn't done their job properly if they show up on screen and
try to take you out of the movie by acting completely out of the character already established. And quite frankly, you don't know they'll do that unless you go see the movie (or read a review for a movie you had no interest in seeing). In the cases of
Iron Man 2,
The Dark Knight, and
The Avengers, the actors took a minute to adjust to, and then I'd say they were welcome adjustments. A re-cast is not always negative.
And sometimes, they're just out of the filmmakers' control. Actors can sometimes become very stubborn with demands or budge out of contracts. It happens. Studios deal. Shouldn't you?
Another Batman movie is such a cash-grab. No, thank you.
So is "another Batman comic book." I feel like some people forget that movies have to make money in order for them to continue being an art and entertainment. Are you expecting Warner Brothers to come out and say, "We made this new Batman movie. It's really good, we put a lot of thought and time into it, and it's more like the comic version of Batman you grew up with. Here, it's free."
There's a difference between a "cash-grab" and restarting a franchise. Studios expect and want
all their movies to make a profit. They're not selective to the point where they say, "This movie won't do well, but let's make it anyway. Anything goes wrong, we'll reboot Twilight." Restarting a franchise is a way to take old ideas, make them fresh and new, and make a profit...while telling a specific, arcing story.
To me, the
Alvin and the Chipmunks sequels were a cash-grab. They provided nothing new as they continued, except how these characters would deal with specific locations and other characters. There is no over-arcing development to anything (in contrast to the
Toy Story movies). They made those films for the sole sake of making money, and, boy, did they.
In conclusion, I think one should have very valid reasons for skipping out on a movie they were previously waiting a long time for. Everyone is entitled to skip for whatever reason they feel like, but it's difficult for me to take criticisms from those people seriously when they jump ship because of some of the mentions above. I want to know in the comments; what's enough to make YOU skip a movie?