Actor Replacements That Ruined The Movie

When Ridley Scott signed on to direct the sequel to "The Silence of the Lambs," titled "Hannibal," he did so without his Clarice Starling in place. Anthony Hopkins had already negotiated a cool $11 million to return to the role of Hannibal Lecter, though Jodie Foster evidently didn't share his enthusiasm for a return to the franchise. "The official reason I didn't do 'Hannibal' is I was doing another movie, 'Flora Plum,'" Foster later told Total Film. "So I get to say, in a nice, dignified way, that I wasn't available when that movie was being shot. But Clarice meant so much to ['Lambs' director Jonathan Demme] and I, she really did, and I know it sounds kind of strange to say but there was no way that either of us could really trample on her."

Several big name actresses were considered, with Cate Blanchett and Angelina Jolie both in the frame at one stage, though in the end the part went to Julianne Moore. While both Scott and Hopkins were happy with the choice, audiences were not as convinced. Moore was inevitably compared to Foster and was found wanting, unable to mimic either her predecessor's accent and mannerisms or the strange chemistry that Clarice and Dr. Lecter shared in the previous film. As for Foster? "I saw 'Hannibal,'" she whispered during her Total Film interview. "I won't comment."

The 1990s was a decade of resurgence and renaissance for Disney. A big part of the Mouse House's surge in popularity was 1992's "Aladdin," its Oscar-winning take on an Arabic folk tale about a "street rat" shedding his rags and winning the heart of a princess. "Aladdin" was packed full of great musical numbers, though the main reason it became such a smash was the input of the late Robin Williams as the Genie. When the actor confirmed that he wouldn't be lending his voice to 1994 sequel "The Return of Jafar" after a battle over Disney's marketing tactics, the search for a new Genie began.

A great voice actor in Dan Castellaneta was ultimately chosen, though for all his talents the "Simpsons" star just couldn't measure up to Williams' frenetic performance. The quality of the animation didn't help matters (it was actually made for TV then got bumped up to a feature to capitalize on the success of the original) but in truth, even if Disney's A-team animators had been on the job, Castellaneta lacked the unpredictability that Williams brought to the Genie, essentially doing a watered-down impression of his predecessor.

Five films based on Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan exist, yet Harrison Ford is the only actor to play the CIA analyst more than once on the big screen. Eyebrows were raised when Alec Baldwin was given the boot after he successfully debuted as Ryan in 1990's "The Hunt for the Red October," with the actor himself calling the legality of Paramount's behavior into question (via Collider). Baldwin implied that the studio went behind his back and entered into negotiations with Ford, who ended up portraying Ryan in his next two cinematic outings, 1992's "Patriot Games" and 1994's "Clear and Present Danger." Underhanded studio tactics aside, Ford made the role his own, and "Clear and Present Danger" remains the most successful Jack Ryan movie to date.

Eight years would pass before Ryan appeared on screens again, this time portrayed by Ben Affleck. Ford later admitted to the Hollywood Reporter that Clancy was "never terribly happy" with the direction he took the character in, but Clancy was decidedly in the minority, and Affleck's take on the character suffered in comparison. His debut in the role, 2002's "The Sum of All Fears," was met with disdain, with many critics calling his casting into question. Rolling Stone said, "Affleck merely creates an outline for a role he still needs to grow into, a role that Ford effortlessly filled with authority."

1981's "Clash of the Titans" attempted to give Greek mythology the "Star Wars" treatment, taking the story of Perseus and turning it into a sprawling epic using stop-motion animation and the kind of traditional practical effects that would soon be supplanted by CGI. Director Desmond Davis went with Harry Hamlin in the role of Perseus, a son of Zeus who in legend beheads the Gorgon Medusa in order to save his beloved Princess Andromeda from a giant Kraken. Hamlin remains active in the industry, recently appearing in "Mayfair Witches," though he's still arguably best remembered for his five seasons as the lead on "L.A. Law" and his turn as Perseus.

The same cannot be said for Sam Worthington, best known as the star of James Cameron's massive "Avatar" franchise. Director Louis Leterrier entrusted the Australian with the lead role in his 2010 "Titans" remake, though his choice was called into question when the negative reviews started to pour in. Worthington's earned his share of acclaim over the years, but the "Titans" remake is one release he most likely wouldn't mind leaving off his résumé.

Another error of judgment from the "Batman" universe, this time involving the Dark Knight himself. Michael Keaton handed over the keys for Wayne Manor having portrayed its owner in 1989's "Batman" and its 1992 sequel "Batman Returns," refusing to reprise the role in a third film after reading the screenplay. When pressed for details, Keaton said that he was immensely displeased with the script, pointing the blame for his departure squarely at the writers.

Val Kilmer clearly didn't share Keaton's opinion. The "Tombstone" star accepted the role as-is and went into the film knowing he'd have to contend with a famous cast of villains and a new director. Joel Schumacher shouldered a lot of the blame for 1995's "Batman Forever," though his leading man didn't escape criticism. Kilmer's performance was described as "utterly lethargic" and "god-awful," with Film4 bashing the filmmakers for dispensing with "Michael Keaton's excellent Batman in favor of Val Kilmer, who frankly is not quite up to the job."

Despite its name, 1984's "Friday the 13th Part IV: The Final Chapter" was far from the last installment in this long-running horror franchise. In fact, eight more films featuring drowned camper turned serial slasher Jason Voorhees have been made since his so-called final chapter, though the one that directly followed it marked a major dropoff in quality. "Part IV" was acclaimed among certain horror critics for taking time to develop the characters, with Corey Feldman in particular singled out for his fine work as potential killer-in-waiting Tommy Jarvis.

Feldman went on to make a name for himself in "The Goonies," "Stand by Me," and "The Lost Boys," though before he did he reprised his "Friday the 13th" role in 1985's "Part V: A New Beginning." Unfortunately, he only appeared in the prologue, and a time jump meant he was replaced by the painfully dull John Shepherd. Teenage Tommy was static compared to his younger self, though Shepherd shouldn't shoulder the blame entirely. Some blamed the "hamfisted directing" of David Steinmann while others argued that the "Part V" felt like "it was edited with one of Jason's bloody-rusty weapons."

"National Lampoon's Van Wilder" isn't going to be preserved in the Library of Congress National Film Registry anytime soon, yet for all its failings, film fans of a certain age remember this movie fondly. This was a time when frat humor was king and sitting down to watch a comedy usually meant turning your brain off for 90 minutes. "Van Wilder" fell squarely into that category, though critics seemed to agree that leading man Ryan Reynolds wasn't the issue here.

After the Kal Penn-led sequel was crucified by critics, the producers decided their next move would be a prequel featuring a younger version of Van, left with little choice after Reynolds refused to return to the role. They brought in Jonathan Bennett for "Van Wilder: Freshman Year," a move described as "a terrible mistake" by DVD Talk. Their review argued that "Reynolds could never be replaced and Bennett is trapped doing an abysmal impression rather than building his own take on the character."

Veteran film critic Mark Kermode summed up 2015's "The Transporter Refueled" with a single question: "What exactly is the point of a 'Transporter' movie without Jason Statham?" When it was revealed that Ed Skrein was to replace Statham as Special Forces op-turned-private driver Frank Martin in the fourth "Transporter" film, questions were raised about the former's ability to carry the franchise forward. "There are these ongoing themes," Skrein said of the scrutiny (via USA Today), adding that it "goes with the territory" when you take on a character originated by another actor.

While the "Transporter" films didn't exactly change the action movie landscape, they benefitted from Statham's presence, athletic prowess and combat skills — he's been training in both kickboxing and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu for years. His replacement lacked that experience, and it showed. Skrein began taking classes in various martial arts disciplines as he prepared for "The Transporter Refueled" and "Deadpool" (he played the villain Ajax in the Ryan Reynolds hit), but even he acknowledged that he was way behind many of his peers in that department. "I'm very respectful and realize I'm not going to be able to do things meant for 10 or 20 years of training," he told the BBC.

The action in "The Transporter Refueled" was ultimately limited by the new star's fledgling abilities. Ed Skrein's one and only outing as Frank Martin was a commercial and critical flop that left the Luc Besson-produced franchise dead in the water.

Conceived by writer Edward Neumeier on the set of "Blade Runner," Paul Verhoeven's "RoboCop" would ultimately earn its own place in cyberpunk history alongside Ridley Scott's seminal classic. The first "RoboCop" film stars Peter Weller as the titular cyborg. He roams a dystopian, crime-ridden version of Detroit mercilessly dealing with lawbreakers. Weller reprised the role in "RoboCop 2," but he fell out of love with being RoboCop during the making of the sequel and subsequently turned down the chance to play him again in a third film. Producers needed a replacement, and their hearts were apparently set on a little-known actor called Robert John Burke.

"In God's great earth they thought I was the only actor who could do it, I don't know why," Burke said in a 2015 interview. "I think physically I [looked] like Peter Weller, and I had also had extensive karate training, pantomime training, and body training, and I fit the suit." Unsurprisingly, handing the relatively inexperienced Burke the lead role just because he kind of resembled Weller didn't work out very well. He may have looked like him in the suit, but he's "lacking his forerunner's tongue-in-cheek glint of authoritarian machismo" said the New York Times in its review of "RoboCop 3," which inevitably bombed at the box office. Burke just wasn't as convincing as RoboCop, from his delivery to the way he moved — he appeared to be "a lot less comfortable with the hardware," Empire noted.

Few actors perfectly embody their comic book counterparts quite like the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Phase One cast. Robert Downey, Jr. as Iron Man, Chris Evans as Captain America, and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury were certainly inspired, as was Edward Norton as Bruce Banner, aka the Incredible Hulk. Appearing as the angry green giant only in 2008's "The Incredible Hulk," kickstarting the MCU alongside the first "Iron Man," Norton's portrayal of the runaway scientist felt ripped from the original Marvel Comics themselves.

Not only was the actor able to balance Bruce's struggles with mental health and his desire for impossible intimacy, but his Hulk was fierce, powerful, and best embodied the character's own rage. But then Norton exited the MCU, never to return. "My feeling was that I experimented and experienced what I wanted to," Norton told The Hollywood Reporter in 2014. "I really, really enjoyed it. And yet, I looked at the balance of time in life that one spends not only making those sorts of films but then especially putting them out, and the obligations that rightly come with that."

So for 2012's grand team-up feature "The Avengers," Marvel recast with Mark Ruffalo (who looks nothing like Edward Norton). Ruffalo's played the reluctant hero ever since, but unfortunately, his one-note brand of comedy feels too far removed from Norton's intricately complex dive into Bruce Banner's psyche. It seems like the MCU opted for its trademark style over substance.

Live-action Batmen have a "007"-like history of finding a new love interest in each installment. From Kim Basinger's Vicki Vale in "Batman" to Nicole Kidman's Dr. Chase Meridian in "Batman Forever," the Dark Knight certainly gets around. But in Christopher Nolan's visionary take on the character's origins, a new bat-love was born. In 2005's "Batman Begins," Katie Holmes played Bruce Wayne's (Christian Bale) childhood friend turned love interest Rachel Dawes, who is just as important to the plot as any other supporting character. 

Rachel discovers Ra's al Ghul's plot to destroy Gotham, while Bruce dons the mask despite her disapproval of going outside the justice system. Ending the film by saying that they can only be together when Gotham City no longer needs Batman, Holmes exited the sequel in favor of her buddy comedy "Mad Money." Replacing her in "The Dark Knight" was Maggie Gyllenhaal, who felt like a different character entirely. No doubt, her performance is excellent, and she certainly fits Nolan's tone for the sequel, but it's hard to believe that Gyllenhaal's Rachel is the same character as Holmes' version.

Not only is Gyllenhaal's Rachel a bit more cavalier than her "Begins" counterpart, but she doesn't seem as personally invested in Bruce as she did before. Sure, some of that is because of her romance with Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), but it also may be that the actress didn't have the same chemistry with Christian Bale as her predecessor.

There was plenty of controversy surrounding the making of the animated "Scoob!," a reboot feature meant to kickstart a new theatrical "Scooby-Doo" franchise. Between unceremoniously canceled sequels and the film's failed attempts to launch a Hanna-Barbera-inspired cinematic universe (because apparently, everything needs one these days), the biggest problem with "Scoob!" was its casting. Despite retaining Frank Welker as the iconic voice of Scooby-Doo, the rest of the Mystery Inc. gang was scrapped for this tale, including Matthew Lillard's Shaggy Rogers.

Lillard gained international acclaim when he played Shaggy in the two live-action "Scooby-Doo" movies in the early 2000s and went on to take over vocal duties from Casey Kasem for subsequent animated movies and television productions. To this day, Lillard still plays Shaggy as faithfully as ever, but he missed out on the 2020 return to the big screen. "Well this sucks," Lillard posted on Twitter after the film's cast was revealed, with Will Forte replacing him as Shaggy. "What a crappy way to find out ... thanks Hollywood."

Of course, Lillard wasn't the only one replaced, nor was he the only one disappointed by the news, but given his 20+ years with the brand, it was tough news to get. Especially when Will Forte's Shaggy just sounded like, well, a higher-pitched Will Forte rather than our favorite ever-snacking cartoon character. Thankfully, after any further "Scoob!" projects were scrapped, Lillard has resumed voicing Shaggy in all other "Scooby-Doo" projects.

Can you believe that there's been six "Home Alone" movies? No doubt, the best are the first two Chris Columbus-directed features that starred Macaulay Culkin as Kevin McCallister, an inventive younger sibling often forgotten by his family. Over the years, the first two have become Christmas classics with the other less-inventive sequels riding the brand's coattails. But though most of the sequels feature a new protagonist in place of young Kevin, the direct-to-video "Home Alone 4" opted to resurrect the original lead, albeit without Culkin's involvement.

The fourth film takes place seemingly a few years after "Lost in New York," with the McCallister family (who have also been recast) in complete disarray. Here, Kevin is played by Mike Weinberg, who isn't nearly as charismatic or lovable as Culkin, though he does look younger. In fact, if the character's name had been changed, you'd have no clue that this was supposed to be the same kid. No doubt, Culkin wasn't brought back because of his age ("Home Alone 4" was released 12 years after the original), but that's no excuse.

"You have to wonder why they bothered," wrote Sue Robinson of RadioTimes, and we have to agree. Not only was "Home Alone 4" destined to be a train wreck after a poor third installment, but trying to capitalize on the McCallister family without any returning faces was nothing short of a nightmare. More than likely, it was all just Kevin's bad dream.

Some actors are just born to play exceptional villains, and Kevin Spacey is one of them. Aside from his work on "House of Cards," Spacey is known for being the bad guy in movies like "Seven," "Fred Claus," and "Baby Driver." But possibly his most inspired antagonistic role came in Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns," where he played the greatest criminal mind of our time. Inheriting the role of Lex Luthor from a retired Gene Hackman, Spacey made the would-be land developer his own, emphasizing Luthor's need for revenge on the Man of Steel.

Aside from Michael Rosenbaum on "Smallville," no one has played the role of Lex on screen quite like Spacey. He shines here as a real threat to Superman, despite not having a single superpower. So when Jesse Eisenberg of "Zombieland" fame was cast as Luthor a decade later for Zack Snyder's "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice," let's just say it came as a shock. Acting more like an eccentric Batman or Bond villain than Superman's greatest nemesis, many considered Eisenberg's performance to have ruined the film.

Though Eisenberg's Lex was heavily criticized, and arguably a step down from Spacey's, the character returned briefly in both cuts of "Justice League," teasing a larger future in the DC Extended Universe that was never meant to be.

Long before AMC's recent television series, Tom Cruise brought the vampire Lestat de Lioncourt to life in the iconic film adaptation of Anne Rice's novel "Interview with the Vampire." Cruise's memorable performance opposite Brad Pitt and a young Kirsten Dunst is certainly a highlight of the film, and he masterfully brings the undead creature to life. But did you know there was a sequel? Cruise sadly didn't reprise his vampiric role, which is probably why most haven't heard of it. Instead, Stuart Townsend took over in 2002's "Queen of the Damned."

Also based on an Anne Rice novel, "Queen of the Damned" was a complete and utter failure. Not only did the movie tank at the box office, but Rice wasn't particularly thrilled with it either, and no other movies based on "The Vampire Chronicles" have been released since. While Townsend may have better resembled the character from the novel in terms of physicality, he didn't have the same sort of gravitas that Cruise brought to the role. 

"Tom Cruise had the good sense to stay away from reprising his role of Lestat in this film," wrote Gareth Von Kallenbach of Film Threat. "And audiences should demand this film be buried never to see the light of day again." Harsh words, but hey, if you don't make sure a vampire is dead, they'll come back to bite you.

Compared to the first two James Cameron films, it's understandable why most folks dislike "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines." The movie tries a bit too hard with the jokes and, aside from possibly the hero's journey of John Connor (Nick Stahl), doesn't really break any new ground. Still, one of the strongest parts of "T3" is the budding romance between John and a young Kate Brewster (Claire Danes), who learns all about Skynet, Terminators, and Judgment Day just a day or so before it occurs. So when the movie ends and John and Kate are trapped underground, we're left to wonder, what's next?

Half a decade later, the McG-helmed "Terminator Salvation" was released, replacing Stahl's John Connor with Christian Bale and Danes' Kate Brewster (now Kate Connor) with Bryce Dallas Howard. Compared to Danes, Howard's portrayal is a bit one-note, though to be fair the actress isn't given as much to work with as her predecessor. "Salvation" hardly centers around John Connor, let alone has any time to further develop Kate, so it's no surprise that the future "Jurassic World" star had little to do.

"The way that my character best serviced the film was being kind of an emotional sounding board for John Connor," Howard revealed to CinemaBlend in 2009. "If there are other films, and if I'm a part of them, I would love to be able to do some intense action stuff." Sadly, there wouldn't be.

It's no secret that the "Mortal Kombat" series has struggled on the big screen. While video games and animated movies have done particularly well over the years, translating such a stylistic world into live-action can prove difficult. So when director Paul W.S. Anderson released his vision in 1995, fans were relatively happy with the results. The film starred Christopher Lambert of "Highlander" fame as Raiden, along with an ensemble cast that did a decent job at bringing these characters to life. Unfortunately, he didn't return in the sequel.

Years later, Lambert revealed that he didn't like the script for "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation," and we can't exactly blame him. Taking over as Raiden was James Remar, who wasn't exactly notable in the role. Although R.L. Shaffer at IGN later admitted that Remar played the part well, he couldn't get past how bad the rest of the movie was: "Hilariously awful matte shots, cheap costumes, obvious sets and some of the worst CG ever put in a mainstream release fill nearly every scene of this movie."

No doubt, "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation" is a train wreck, and though James Remar did his best to make his part memorable, it only reminds us of how terrible the rest of the movie is. Not only that, but it makes us miss Christopher Lambert all the more.

There's no doubt that the transition from Michael Keaton's Batman to Val Kilmer's version was a downgrade (although that may have been more an issue with director Joel Schumacher than Kilmer himself), but everything about "Batman and Robin" was a trainwreck. For starters, Kilmer decided that "Batman Forever" had been more than enough, so when Schumacher and company went on with the sequel, they had to find a new Batman to take his place. 

And that's where George Clooney came in. Nobody would ever argue that Clooney was a bad actor, especially not after "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" or "Syriana," but his work in "Batman and Robin" wasn't exactly his best. Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote, "George Clooney is the big zero of the film, and should go down in history as the George Lazenby of the series." He later added that his Dark Knight was one-dimensional and smug. Hard to argue with that.

"The truth of the matter is, I was bad in it," Clooney admitted to Vanity Fair 24 years later. "I'm terrible in it, I'll tell you. Joel Schumacher, who just passed away, directed it, and he'd say, 'Yeah, it didn't work.'" Unfortunately, this revelation didn't stop him from appearing again as Bruce Wayne via a cameo in 2023's "The Flash," a ridiculous gag referencing an even more ridiculous film.

Movies sometimes make clever nods to the reason a character might look different after being recast. It could have been a dream, plastic surgery, or some other strange off-screen development. Other times they just admit they couldn't afford the real deal. That was the case with "George of the Jungle 2." In the first movie, George was played by the ever-talented Brendan Fraser, who rocked the role in the 1997 comedy. But come Disney's direct-to-video sequel, Christopher Showerman took over the titular role.

"Me new George," Showerman's George tells the audience in the opening. "Studio too cheap to pay Brendan Fraser." Of course, George isn't the only character recast in the sequel: Julie Benz replaced Leslie Mann as Ursula Stanhope as well. Strangely Thomas Haden Church reprised his role as Lyle Van de Groot from the first film, though even his presence couldn't save this one. If the direct-to-video budget didn't give it away, "George of the Jungle 2" is full of bad CGI, a retread of the first film's plot, and absolutely no Brendan Fraser, which is a pretty big letdown.

In a review from DVDVerdict, Showerman was described as a "non-entity" who only serves as an "imitation of Brendan Fraser's interpretation of George." Unsurprisingly, that's how most of us felt about the movie as a whole.

After the commercial success of the 1994 live-action adaptation of "The Flintstones" — which starred John Goodman as Fred, Rick Moranis as Barney, Elizabeth Perkins as Wilma, and Rosie O'Donnell as Betty — a sequel was certainly on the minds of those at Universal Pictures. So when another live-action "Flintstones," titled "The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas," showed up in theaters six years later, nobody was particularly surprised. The first film had been panned by critics, but the second, well, the second was something of a disaster.

For starters, "Viva Rock Vegas" is a prequel rather than a sequel, which recasts its comedic leads with Mark Addy as Fred, Stephen Baldwin as Barney, Kristen Johnson as Wilma, and Jane Krakowski as Betty. To say that any of these actors are untalented on their own would be untrue, but that doesn't mean they were the right folks for the job. "Minute by weary minute the movie wends its weary way toward its joyless conclusion," wrote Roger Ebert when reviewing "Viva Rock Vegas." 

While "The Flintstones" was no masterpiece itself, the lack of comedic timing, uninspired jokes, and lackluster cast (at least when compared to the first film) in "Viva Rock Vegas" don't set it up for success. No wonder another live-action "Flintstones" has never been attempted. Maybe they should try again one day with "The Jetsons."