People are giving Cooglar credit for making a movie that was not that bad in the cicrumstances. But HE was the one who was against recasting. He is responsible totally for how bad the movie is.
shareThe movie isn't bad at all----it's pretty damn good, imo----and it's worldwide box office smash. Obviously you haven't seen it, or you wouldn't have said that.
shareI personally don't think you can recast. Boseman made the character iconic and it made sense to me to not replace T'Challa and actually have the characters sister take on the role.
shareBut TChalla is an important character in a lot of Marvel events. Not just Black Panther, so they should have recast. They recast Thunderbolt Ross recently.
shareOf course they can recast. They’ve recast other characters including Rhodey and Ross, and Rhodey has been in more films than T’Chala.
shareThere's a massive difference in my opinion.
Rhodey was not a main character in the first film just a side character and the actor didn't die just was a pay dispute if I remember correctly.
T'Chala was the main character of black panther and a lot of people felt it was an iconic character, performance and film. I don't think anyone could have made it the same again by redoing it. It's like Iron Man you've got iron heart but it's a different character. I think that makes sense as no one could replace Robert Downey junior.
I honestly think it would have flopped if they had recast the character as it was too big shoes to fill. I feel it was the right thing to do
It would not have flopped. Look how awful this one is and yet it still made money. Having T’Challa would have made more money. Sequels normally make more than the previous films but this one isn’t coming close.
If Daniel Radcliffe had passed away after making the first Harry Potter, there’s no way in hell they’d have not recast. They also wouldn’t have dumped his character (which the entire story is built on) and drastically rewritten the story to make Hermione Granger the main character.
Well that's your belief.
It may have worked it may not have. I personally think it would have needed a longer gap if they had done this but who knows
I know they would have recast Potter because when Richard Harris passed away after the second film, they immediately recast Dumbledore and moved ahead. That’s because he was an integral part of the story. They didn’t rewrite the entire story to make McGonagall headmaster. If they’d done that, Potter fans would have rioted.
shareI can see you reasonings but Harry potter is very close to the books while as MCU borrows stuff from the comics but also does their own thing so there is no set plot they have to follow
shareIt's my personal belief that T'Challa should have been recast. It seems pointless to watch the first film which sets up T'Challa deciding what kind of king he wants to be, and after the Blip, it barely matters anymore because he dies.
shareChadwick isn’t bigger than T’Challa. They should’ve recast
shareHe made the character popular, at least to the general audience so it makes sense personaly.
shareThey gave into public demand. I think it was a mistake not to recast.
shareAbsolutely, it was a mistake. The film will wither on the vine after the curious see it, or the obsessed fans get their fill. No one else even cares. I don't like the character of Shuri, in comics or on film. Hell, I've been a Marvel fan since the 1960's, and I no longer care about the MCU, and especially do not care about the gawd-awful Disney+ shows. Since Endgame, Marvel has simply SUCKED, and I am through. I'm selling off a collection that has taken 55 years to obtain.
shareTotally agree.
shareI 100% agree. Big mistake, and a major wasted opportunity.
shareYou are so right
share