When actors leave

There's likely already been a discussion of this, but, if not:

Given variations in quality and situation, what works better?

1. Replacing a character with a totally new character when an actor elects to leave, i.e. Coupling, Richard Mylan (Oliver) replacing Richard Coyle (Jeff).

2. Just adding a new actor without changing the character, i.e. Elizabeth Carling and Emma Amos for Dervla Kirwan and Michelle Holmes as Phoebe and Yvonne in Goodnight, Sweetheart?

I just watched Coupling -- most of it for the first time -- and was less than thrilled about replacing Jef with Oliver but keeping the function of the character exactly the same -- the source of much of the sexual silliness.

On the other hand, I never really got used to Elizabeth Carling - though I thought she was pitch perfect in Barbara -- while, in the end, I preferred Emma Amos.

There's an article here -- occasioned by the replacement of Charlie Sheen on 2 1/2 men -- about changes in American sitcoms. http://www.aoltv.com/2011/03/09/when-shows-recast-history-disappeared-replacement-sitcom-characters/

I must say I like it when diferent actors interpret the same part. I always think of 'Spooner's Patch'. In the pilot Spooner was played by Ian Bannen, then in the first series by Ronald Fraser, then Donald Churchill. There is something fascinating about the subtleties of performance and new interpretations I like. However I suppose if you want some sense of reality you need to replace the character. I think in comedy it easier to reinterprit the part, like Arthur Lowe in 'Potter' who after his death was replaced by Robin Bailey, because it's not drama you can suspend disbelief and simply enjoy the performance.

In general I would say if a main actor leaves, then always change the character, don't bring in a new actor and pretend nothing's happened.

But it has worked a few times, so I guess having a hard and fast rule against it doesn't work.

The current series of the Flynns has done one of each, a different actress plays the daughter, but one uncle has been replaced with another.

Option 2 would look so wrong now, I can't see many (edit) good shows doing that. Used to happen a fair bit though didn't it. I don't know if Sullivan had a say in it but they did it with two main characters in Citizen Smith and in OFAH they thankfully chose the better option. For me it killed Citizen Smith stone dead.

Option 3 though not for main characters, is just don't replace. Still far better than option 2. And option 4 is end the show, what they were set to do in OFAH before Jason changed his mind. Drastic but still far better than option 2. Imagine the response, 'The BBC has announced they are to replace David Jason with ... as Delboy.' I don't think so.

Some roles are just to iconic to replace. Mind James Bond seems to survive.

I remember when the actor playing Matthew in Game On left, wasn't the same. They actually even commented on it, saying how they hate it when series just change the actor playing a role.

Now that I finished watching all three series of the original "Reginald Perrin" I can freshly report my experience with such a case. In the third series they replaced the actor who played Reggie's son in law and it was irritating at first. After a little while I got used to it...and the new actor was more likeable than the first imo. But this is only possible if the character (or actor) wasn't strong or important in the first place. If it was then that happens what A.J. Kipper wrote: A replacement can kill the whole show.

Quote: Pingl @ September 8 2012, 9:24 PM BST

Some roles are just to iconic to replace. Mind James Bond seems to survive.

View original

I have thought that cast changes -- whichever type -- are somehow less disruptive in dramas. Not sure anyone else would agree, but they strike me that way.

Back in the days before I paid any attention to credits, it actually took me quite a while to work out that the Goodnight Sweetheart actresses changed. I still struggle to tell the difference between the Phoebes at times. Definitely prefer the second Yvonne, but I'm not sure if that's because she's who I first saw in the role or not.

That's just about the only occasion I can think of where an actor replacement hasn't ruined a series for me. I like continuity.

Quote: Rose2010 @ September 8 2012, 8:23 PM BST

There's likely already been a discussion of this

View original

Here it is, complete with mentions of Goodnight Sweetheart, Game On, Potter, etc:

https://www.comedy.co.uk/forums/thread/15034

I think either can work, but at the same time both can potentially not work.

Generally, I'd go for number 2. The reason being that with number 1 you lose both the character and the actor, whereas with number 2 you just lose the actor. Also, usually the initial character has been specifically designed to work in with everything else - the plot, the tone, the style of comedy. If you lose that you might lose a lot. Number 1 has the potential to work in some cases.

Sometimes it takes a while to adjust to a new actor playing the same character. But that while usually passes, as long as the actor is as good or near as good as the original. I didn't use to think they should change actors, but I've seen it done well so many times now that it isn't such a big deal.

There is a third option where the character and actor goes and nothing seems to replace them. Sometimes this doesn't matter but other times it leaves a hole.

Here are some cases where actor has changed and character stays, and I think it worked:

- On the Buses (Mum changed and worked well)
- Bread (at least two main characters changed. They were just as good I thought.)
- Goodnight Sweetheart (worked well for me)
- Citizen Smith (There were 3 Dads - including the pilot. I missed the 2nd Dad. But still worked okay.)
- May To December. (worked well)
- Executive Stress (Lead man changed. A little difficult to get used to at first, but then worked well. If Bowles had shaved his moustache it might have made it easier.)

Where the character was replaced and didn't work so well:

- Jonathan Creek. No disprespect to the later actors - as they did great. However, I just thought it was silly to have another character come in and play almost the exact same role and relationship. I know Creek isn't meant to be taken seriously. But at the same time, you want some of it to be believable. That said, it still worked okay - mainly because the rest of the show pulls it through. Creek's boss changed actors but kept character, also - and that worked fine.
- Are You Being Served?. No disrepect to the follow up actors, but I think no character really made up for Mr Granger. I think they should have brought in another old man character or kept Mr Granger and changed the actor.

Where the character was replace by another character and it DID work well

- Hi-De-Hi!. Mr Fairbrother was replaced by Clive, Barry was replaced by Julian, and Mr Partridge was replaced by Sammy. All worked well and the transition was done very nicely with each change.

Where the character left and left a hole:
- Kiss Me Kate. The guy in the cafe. A woman replaced him and she was good, but I think his character was better.
- Citizen Smith. Was it Shirl? The show was still good, but left a bit of a hole at the same time I thought.

Quote: Steve Charlie @ September 15 2012, 5:46 AM BST

Where the character was replace by another character and it DID work well

- Hi-De-Hi!. Mr Fairbrother was replaced by Clive, Barry was replaced by Julian, and Mr Partridge was replaced by Sammy. All worked well and the transition was done very nicely with each change.

View original

I haven't seen some of the examples you cite but I agree about Hi-De-Hi. It all seemed very natural, with people coming and going as they do in everyday life.

May to December never really worked for me but I later realized that it's because I had only seen the post-change episodes. When I happened to see the earlier episodes, I believed the chemistry and the characters. That said, as Steve Charlie says, the character was designed to be there for reason -- why lose both?

The only total disaster in my viewing experience so far was the replacement of the actor playing Harry in the As Time Goes By reunion specials. The replacement was rather po-faced compared to the original .... it just didn't work for me.

Quote: Rose2010 @ September 15 2012, 3:22 PM BST

May to December never really worked for me but I later realized that it's because I had only seen the post-change episodes. When I happened to see the earlier episodes, I believed the chemistry and the characters.

View original

Yes, with May to December the original lead actress played the part in quite a different style to the replacement. The original seemed to play a more sensitive potentially complex character, and her character seemed to me to be very much the lead character. The replacement seemed to me to play the part in a more down-to-earth manner, with a a more straight forward personality, and the show seemed to become about all the characters equally. The difference was a bit of an awkward transition for me initially, but that soon settled down. I think both were equally good - just different. I remember now that the dumb office girl (forget her name) wasn't in the final series. I missed her - the new character who replaced her was okay, and they explained the original's absence well (which is better than having them disappear without explanation).

Quote: Rose2010 @ September 15 2012, 3:22 PM BST

The only total disaster in my viewing experience so far was the replacement of the actor playing Harry in the As Time Goes By reunion specials. The replacement was rather po-faced compared to the original .... it just didn't work for me.

View original

I've seen all of this show, but I think I saw the reunion specials quite a long time later so I hadn't noticed the actor had changed.

Rose - have you seen Executive Stress? Like me, you seem to have a taste for the more conventional sitcom. It's a very good show. As I mentioned the lead man changes - but both Palmer and Bowles are excellent.

I think that Last of the Summer Wine (during its peak years) is one of the best examples of using similar characters to replace a departing actor. Brian Wilde obviously replaced Michael Bates and made the 'third man' role his own but Michael Aldridge and Frank Thornton also did a good job.

Obviously when they had to try to replace a dozen or so characters is when the problems appeared.