Many characters are killed off in TV series, even when they’re very popular, because the actor or actress is about to be unavailable. On soaps, these characters are more frequently just recast. (And of course, being killed off on a soap opera doesn’t mean the character’s actually dead.)
If there’s a character you really like in this situation, would you prefer recasting or killing them off? (Or the less frequent “transfer” to another job.) I’d prefer recasting.
sometimes they are gone due to contract demands. A famous example is Susanne Somers on Threes Company.
I think killing them off is better.
The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show had four (:eek:) actors in eight seasons play Harry Morton, the next door neighbor. I can understand recasting the part, because Harry and his wife Blanche were important characters, but it got so ridiculous that when Harry #3 gave way to Harry #4, Burns stopped the show in mid-scene, introduced the new Harry to the audience and had both Harrys shake hands.
OTOH, on How I Met Your Mother, the character of Victoria (and the actress) was brought back not once but twice after being written out.
In general I’d prefer just getting rid of the character and starting over with a new one.
I think that killing them off is too final. You can just have them go off to college, or take a job in Kuwait, or disappear mysteriously.
Killing characters off is (often) a sign of laziness in writing. Look at all those lovely women who fell in love with one of the Cartwrights (Bonanza) and died. It turned into a hoary cliché.
But, that aside, my vote is for writing the character out, rather than re-casting. If William Shatner had died, someone else could have been Captain of the Enterprise, but he shouldn’t have pretended to be Jim Kirk.
Patrick Macnee was a good choice for the new director of U.N.C.L.E., but they should not have called him “Mr. Waverly.” (Hm… Googling this, I’m getting conflicting information. Some sources say he was “Sir John Raleigh,” and not “Mr. Waverly.” If so, then, good: they listened to my advice! 
)
It was enjoyable seeing Chris Eliot getting repeatedly ran over by a car in a “Get a Life” episode.
Kenny unavailable for comment.
Personally, just as a viewer, I generally prefer that real life dictate the plot as little as possible. Abrupt plot swerves or borderline out-of-character character actions taken strictly because an actor left annoy me. Especially if there was an established plot or character arc being built up.
But, from the artistic angle, I think the success of the kill/recast choice depends on how much of the character’s presence was based upon the actor.
Say, a character that went big because they’re played by a very distinctive character actor, or an actor who delivered a uniquely brilliant performance. Recasting them might just look like a bad copy of the original, or a depthless substitution.
On the other hand, if the character itself is well-established enough, or is one that easily lends itself to new interpretations, or even is just bland enough or in the right ways that many actors could step into the role without it being jarring, recasting could be the best route.
James Bond, for example, can generally be recast without too much trouble. Replacing Desmond Llewelyn’s “Q,” on the other hand, seems to have been harder.
I prefer recasting, on the condition that the replacement actor gels with the rest of the cast.
Recasting is definitely not nearly as easily done as it used to be. Back in the day they just, well, did it. Dick York suddenly and inexplicably turned into Dick Sargent and nobody really cared. Of course that was the days of goofy, high-concept, escapist sitcoms. By say the 90s audiences were less keen to merely accept this, at least for a main character. Even a goofy 80s sitcom like Night Court had two supporting actors die in quick succession and they recast both times, never pretending it was the same character. Off the top of my head I can’t think of the last hit TV show that actually pulled-off recasting a main character rather than killing them off or writing them out. A quality show won’t even consider recasting as it’s insulting to their audience’s intelligence.
If a show is primarily a comedy (not a dramedy) I really hate it when they suddenly kill off a character instead of just saying they left. It’s ham-fisted melodrama, and it totally takes you out of the fictional setting. Everyone knows the actor just quit or was fired. Nowadays its not considered bad taste for sitcoms to kill them off and continue to joke about it (i.e. Charlie Sheen).
I don’t mind killing off a character if it is done well and it serves the plot. Killing a character in a way that is cheap and meaningless can just make fans bitter. (Cite: Tasha Yar)
I agree that putting the character on a bus for a while can be a better middle ground than killing or recasting. I think the writers would get more mileage out of the possibility that the actor might be willing to return at some point in the future. (Cite: Also Tasha Yar)
I think recasting is always a poor choice. It is somewhat more forgivable in movies, where there might be a delay of several years between installments. In a TV show it breaks the suspension of disbelief. The best example that comes to mind is Sarah Chalke and Lecy Goranson on Roseanne, which was very distracting.
It depends a lot on the TV series. If it’s a direct adaptation of a book (like earlier GOT), or an interpretation of a book or play, changing the story that dramatically doesn’t sit well with me. If you’re adapting Dune and your Paul Muad’ib dies halfway through filming, you can’t just have another character take his spot and still call what you’re doing an adaptation. OTOH if it’s a sitcom or episodic show, having a character die or leave and another take his place doesn’t disrupt anything, while having someone else come in with the same name just looks jumbled. IMO Law and Order did a really good job with swapping out major characters when the actors were ready to leave, the deaths, career changes, and lost elections all felt like part of the world.
And if you’re filming Doctor Who, you can recast the actor but have the change in appearance, outfit, mannerisms, and tone be part of the story 
Killing off and/or recasting of characters is done all the time on daytime soap operas, and I say “and/or” because often a character is killed off then brought back to life, only to be played by another actor. Sometimes an explanation is given(facial surgery), but usually the audience is just supposed to go with the flow. Somewhat recently, however, one soap(*General Hospital *)tried to kill off a beloved character, Robin Scorpio, who had been played by the same actress since she was 7 years old. They had a dead body, an autopsy, a funeral…and a shitload of pissed off fans who demanded a return of their “Robin”. Boycotts of products were threatened, and the studio quickly capitulated, finding the “real” Robin being held captive in a villain’s lair.
The two Dicks were almost seamless. Becky from Roseanne obviously was not. If I had my druthers, I’d pick a write out. Otherwise it’s just two jarring and I’m always wondering about the former actor instead of appreciating the current one.
So many jokes… Must… Bite… Tongue…
Anyway, likewise Andy Whitfield and Liam McIntyre. Maybe it was because there was a two-year break in between, but I hardly noticed the difference.
Well, if you try to take on two seem less dicks as one, you may indeed bite your tongue.
Macnee played Sir John Raleigh, who took over UNCLE following the death of Alexander Waverly (who got name-checked several times as having recently passed away) in The Return of The Man from UNCLE: The Fifteen Years Later Affair. Decent TV movie.
Didn’t the Roseanne show make a gag out of it, where Rosanne and Dan are watching Bewitched and commenting “How come nobody noticed Darren suddenly looking different? How stupid do they think we are?” and then the new actress comes in… “Hi Becky!” :rolleyes:
Thanks! I was confused, having found at least one reference that claimed Macnee’s character was Mr. Waverly.
Anyway, this: I prefer a new actor to play a new character, even if he fills very much the same dramatic purpose. The new husband on Bewitched should have been another man entirely, not “Darrin.” People are not interchangeable!
ETA; Call me hypocritical, but I don’t apply this to reboots and re-tools. It’s okay for the new guys to play Superman and Batman.
They had a few gags relating to that change over the years.
The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air?
Well all I can say is they better not kill off Anthony DiNozzo! We’ve already had too many characters killed off. Please send Tony to Israel with Ziva.
“They say she’s the same but she isn’t the same… They say she’s the same but she isn’t the same…”