Recasting big franchise characters, for better or worse, is the new norm in Hollywood. With the powerful men in the suits wanting to keep these IPs going, as Deadpool and Wolverine put it, ‘til they’re ninety’ or in the ground, recasting is kind of the only option forward left. They tried bringing back people from the dead as CGI animated corpse monstrosities, and we’ve seen them trotting retired actors out in their zimmer frames… but both of which yielded distinctly off-putting reactions from audiences. So, it seems recasting is the prevailing method forward.
But that would suggest that the recasting trend has been a roaring success thus far, and that, well, that’s just not true, Ellen. Time and time again, we’ve seen the same mistakes made by greedier, money-hungry studio heads thinking that swapping in a younger, newer, shinier ‘star of the moment’ will be the Hail Mary fix to keep these franchises from Titanic’ing. In doing so, they’ve not realized that iconic characters are often made so by an even more iconic pairing of actor and material, and they sink faster than the ship of dreams.
The prime example of a new ‘star of the moment’ being shoe-horned into a character she does not naturally fit is no better exemplified than through the casting of Anya Taylor-Joy in 2024’s Furiosa. For today’s purposes, I’ve so creatively named this side of the recasting pendulum swing: The Furiosa Farce.
On the other side of the pendulum, frankly what prompted this piece, is a more recent and presumptuous take. I’m talking, of course, about Kathryn Hahn’s casting as the campy, quirky villain, Mother Gothel, in the Tangled live action. I nicknamed this side of the pendulum: The Gothel Glass Ceiling.
So… from Anya Taylor-Joy to Kathryn Hahn, a galaxy far, far away to the Cave of Wonders and beyond, Hollywood’s desperate attempts to keep franchises alive through recasting has been a perilous tightrope of controversy, box office bombs… and the occasional (and I do mean occasional) knock out of the ballpark.
The Furiosa Farce
Other notable offenders: Alden Ehrenreich (Han Solo), Tom Holland (Nathan Drake)
Charlize Theron was a complete badass in Mad Max: Fury Road. You know it, your mom knows it… the whole world unquestionably set their eyes on the bald-headed, metal-armed warrior of the wasteland and whispered, “she’s so cool.” From her physical prowess, to the quiet fury, and the sheer exhaustion, there was a level of aggression and power we simply don’t get to see women portrayed as on screen. She was stripped of all femininity to be just a true mean, bald-headed killing machine.
So, duh, making a sequel or prequel to Mad Max: Fury Road seemed undeniable. She’s too cool a character to only be seen once.
But from the moment that Anya Taylor-Joy was cast in October of 2020, there never seemed like less of a fit with Charlize Theron’s original Furiosa. Do not get me wrong, Anya Taylor-Joy is one of the brightest shining newcomers of the modern era, with her big Disney-princess eyes, genuine talent, and ability to slink into any accent; she is a true chameleon. Yet, in all her chameleonic abilities, she is so defined as an actress by her dainty femininity, qualities that not only did Charlize Theron not bring to the table, but she was also too busy having her metal arm ripped off to attend the table.
So… when you take Furiosa’s bulky, androgynous physicality and aged world-weariness out of the character, what is actually left? Well, a wispy young woman in a bald cap desperately trying to reclaim the glory of a more iconic performance and movie.
This is by no means a condemnation of Anya Taylor-Joy; she absolutely did her best to emulate what Theron achieved. But I fear with her Disney princess eyes and slender frame, believably becoming Furiosa was… well, as impossible as surviving in the Wasteland.
So to summarize; recasting characters with actors who are ‘popular’ rather than inherently possessing the same natural qualities of the original performance breaks the illusion and ultimately the purpose of a prequel in general. When you cannot conceivably buy that the younger version of the character will transform into the older established one we love, why go and see it at all?
The Gothel Glass Ceiling
Other notable offenders: Donald Glover as Lando Calrissian, Gerard Butler as Stoic in How to Train Your Dragon
Yes, Kathryn Hahn as Mother Gothel is perfect. She looks like the animated character; she has the trans-Atlantic accent down to a tee. We’ve all seen her strut her way down the line between menace and warmth as Agatha, and not to mention she has a perfect singing voice (a real hurdle for these modern movie musicals). It’s like a little drop of heaven fell from the sky and created, well… Kathryn Hahn as Mother Gothel.
So what’s the issue?
The problem is that not only do we have the fabulous original performance of Donna Murphy in the animated Tangled, but we have just seen Kathryn Hahn give this very performance… TWICE. Once as the villain in the iconic WandaVision, an Emmy-nominated performance, thank you very much, and then reprised in her own well-received spin-off, Agatha All Along. Basically… this is too obvious, too safe… too boring?
We have seen Kathryn Hahn belting out Broadway bangers in long medieval tunics for the past five years now… so what will be all that special about her doing it once again? It’s not exciting, it’s not innovative… it’s a shoulder shrug and a ‘well, duh.’
But more than that, it boxes Hahn in. She is a one-trick pony at this point (but my God what a trick it is). So people will not expect anything new, and she can’t even try anything new; she will simply show up and be a pale imitation of Donna Murphy’s 2011 vocal performance. In that case… why even bother with a live action remake at all if it’s even from conception going to be inferior?
The Diagnosis
In both cases, the result is similar: fear. For Tangled it is fear of alienating audiences by doing something too far from the original, and in counterbalance, Furiosa prioritized a big flashy headline name rather than someone who could recapture the essence of Furiosa.
The Furiosa Farce is too far afield, too averse from the original to be successful, and the Gothel Glass Ceiling is too imitative to be exciting or popular. Neither is interesting, neither is fresh… just a big stale bag of laziness.
Lazy in that Hollywood thinks that audiences fall in love with a character, and that slapping any face on that character will retain the specialness that made them iconic in the first place. You can’t slap a Hershey’s logo on a bag of Doritos and expect happy customers. We know how the original tastes, and we like the taste better…
Bond, Batman and The Joker (Oh My!)
So, then you may wonder: when has recasting worked, and why has it?
Recasting works at its best when both the actor and the material itself act like there never even was an original actor. Isn’t that what Anya Taylor-Joy did as Furiosa, you ask?… No. The difference is that the actor maintains the very same essence as the original but is different enough and original enough that they aren’t seen as a lesser version, but rather an alternative.
Iconic performances like Heath Ledger as the Joker, Robert Pattinson as Batman, or Daniel Craig as James Bond all had the innate qualities and physical attributes we associate with those characters but were so different performance-wise that they stand solitarily. Sure, they may be driving round a second-hand car, but it’s got enough new shiny paint on it that nobody really cares anyway.
Therefore, recasting is less about recreating and more about reintroduction. If Hollywood is to continue this new trend (instead of just creating new IP), they would be wise to follow the Bond, Batman and Joker model instead of being driven off the cliff Furiosa crashed off of, or the impending fall from the tower that the Tangled live action is headed towards.
— Darragh Evans