cboath
Master Member
Massively massive difference between recasting someone like Luke in the mandalorian for 2 minutes of screen time vs recasting Harris for SIX different movies.CGI can be good, but why not just recast? Dumbledore was recast after Richard Harris's death and no one batted an eyelash. If it's necessary to have a legacy character come back to Star Wars, what's the big deal if they have someone new play the role? Hell they recast Han freaking Solo. Or better yet..... tell new stories instead of relying on the past. I thought this universe was supposed to be so "vast."
People complaining should look back on the history of movies. Efx all started out poor and had to work their way up. For all those people who say the bad effect took them out of it, just as many will say the change in actor did the same thing. Every time i watched a HP movie 3-8 (the last book was 2 flicks!), i stop and think harris' vesion was so much better an inline with the books. I just never wrote anywhere knowing there wasn't anything more they could have done. If you have to recast like that, better to let the new guy do it a bit different so there isn't a direct comparison I guess. But it was what it was in that case.
If they recast for that, odds they get Shaw are very slim, so you get just as many people bitching they could have done a better job in casting the guy. It's a no win situation. I mean, look at Solo. There were pages and pages of they cast the wrong guy and it should have been this guy. I don't think they'd have gotten more complaints if they cgi'd or deep faked Fords head over his for 2 hours.