Batman, Spiderman, James Bond - some stories have been told and retold so many times that the character could be played by anyone*.
But sometimes there is a character who is created for the screen or portrayed by an actor so specifically that nobody else seems to fit. That actor’s portrayal is that character.
I realize in this world of ever growing remakes and re-envisionings that all it takes is a skilled remake to make a new version iconic for a new generation. But are there any that seem to stand the test of time?
For me, Herman Munster is Fred Gwynn. So much so that when I went to Universal Studios in LA (30 years ago), I did not recognize the character that greeted us at the entrance. It just seemed like some Frankenstein dude. Even after I was told, and could see the sloppy grin, it wasn’t Herman Munster to me.
Another may be Adrian Monk - Tony Shaloub created a particular combination of mannerisms and expressions to couple with the visual feel of the character, would anyone else be Monk?
What about Dirty Harry?
Sometimes the remake highlights why the original is right and the copy not. I’m thinking of the Brady Bunch movie, but that could be due to the nature as more parody than reboot.
Or am I wrong, and all it takes is a talented reimagination, a new interpretation of the character, to make a new acceptable version as good as the original?
Thoughts?
By “anyone”, I don’t mean literally. It would be weird to see Peter Dinklage or Emma Watson as James Bond. Or as Batman, for that matter.
I’m honestly not sure what you’re looking for, or what criteria you’re trying to use.
For “iconic characters who could be played by anyone”, you list characters that originated in print media, and have been portrayed by a half-dozen or more different actors. For “iconic characters linked to a specific portrayal by a specific actor”, you list characters that were created for TV/movies and have only been portrayed by one actor.
I mean, yeah, no one other than Tony Shalhoub would have Tony Shalhoub’s particular combination of mannerisms and expressions, and, yeah, that’s the definitive Adrian Monk, but that’s because Tony Shalhoub created the role. By definition, he’s the definitive (and literally only) Adrian Monk.
So…I dunno. Do you have examples of an iconic character that has been played by numerous actors, but which you think is definitively linked to only one specific actor? And/or examples of an iconic character that, so far, has only been portrayed by one actor, but which you think could be equally well portrayed but any number of actors?
Robert Downey Jr. as Ironman? Or Chris Hemsworth as Thor? Tom Hiddleston as Loki?
In fact, I think it would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) for other actors to play many roles of the Avengers. I mean the current actors are those characters in a way.
Humphrey Bogart as Rick Blaine, Ingrid Bergman as Elsa Lund, Claude Rains as Louis Renault, Paul Henreid as Victor Laszlo, Peter Lorre as Ugarte, and Leonid Kinskey as Sasha.
This may seem like an odd choice for discussion but as a wrestling fan since the early 80s I would hard pressed to think of another wrestler that could have “played” The Undertaker as long and as effectively as Mark Calaway has.
Sometimes an actor defines a role simply by getting there first. It’s well-known that Tom Selleck almost played Indiana Jones. Of course Harrison Ford made the role so iconic that it’s tough to picture anybody else in it. But I maintain that Selleck would have been terrific, and perhaps just as iconic… just different.
I can’t picture any of the movie Batmans from the last 30 years as iconic. That means that the iconic Batman in my book is Adam West. For the Joker, however, I’ll go with Jack Nicholson over Cesar Romero as well as the more recent versions. I haven’t heard Mark Hamill’s version. Maybe he could change my mind.
Yes, and then I asked if that is the singular distinction, the cause of the effect that I feel. It’s a fair answer to say you think so.
I’ve been trying to. Maybe the cast of Star Trek comes to mind - Kirk and Spock in particular. Sure, Chris Pine resembles a young Shatner and Zachary Quinto is no slouch, but their portrayals are different enough to not feel right. Is that simply because they came second? Is it because the director went a different direction with the characters, focusing on some elements of their personalities and ignoring others?
In my mind, Superman is iconically Christopher Reeve. One of Brandon Routh’s selling points was how much he resembled Reeve. And Henry Cavill is great, but he’s not who comes to my mind.
And I see others have hit my examples.
I don’t know, I can see how Downey does such a good Tony Stark, it’s hard to imagine someone else. But while the current incarnations of the Avengers are strongly identified with the actors portraying them, I think that’s largely more due to current expectations that within one incarnation of a franchise we should see the same actor in the role. I mean, see how Hulk is appreciated (or not) for Eric Bana, Edward Norton, and Mark Ruffalo.