Recast or replacement on TV?

[roadman65]

Over the years we have had actors and actresses leave a popular TV show in hopes of pursuing other venues.  Always leaving a void in the show where writers are challenged to write in how the character is to be released from the story lines.  However, if the character is not that popular, then the old Chuck Cunnigham syndrome is used where the just do not include the character anymore in future story lines and act as if that person never existed.

Over the years in many instances either a new character filling the bill is written in such as BJ Hunnicut on MASH for departing Trapper John, or a new actor playing the same exact character such as having Dick York's character of Darrin on Bewiched live on through Dick Sargent after York left the series during its 8 year tenor.

Which do you prefer?  if a long time regular appears on a program, do you like it when the show's producers replace the character with another actor playing it, or another actor playing a brand new character?

[mrsman]

It really depends on the show and the character.  In most instances, I prefer the actor and the character to be the same.  So if Actor A leaves the show, Role A is written out and Actor B / Role B comes in its place.  (As in your Trapper John/BJ Hunnicut example or more recently Charlie Harper/Walden Schmidt on 2 and a half Men.)

The only exception would be if the character is so integral to the role that a simple replacement just couldn't work.  In Bewitched, Darrin was the husband and was integral to the relationship, unless they decided to kill him off or divorce or something. 

[PHLBOS]

If the character is either very unique or well established; then it's usually better to have a replacement character.

The reasons why Darrin in Bewitched was a recast was likely due to:

1.  The writers did not want to have a storyline involving Samantha being widowed or divorced (had the show lingered later into the 70s and Dick York left the series later) and then re-married. (mrsman beat me to the punch)

2.  In appearance, Dick Sargent didn't look that much different from Dick York.

In the case of BJ Hunnicut (Mike Farrell) replacing Trapper John McIntyre (Wayne Rogers); Farrell made it known that he was not interested in replacing Wayne as Trapper (the writers may have initially planned otherwise).  Given that the show lasted for 11 years (while covering a 3-year Korean War); replacement characters worked better on M*A*S*H than recasts.  The only known recasts on that series was Father Mulcahy (George Morgan on the Pilot episode, William Christopher for the series' episodes) and Rosie of Rosie's Bar (recasted 3 to 4 times between Seasons 3 and 6 before settling on Eileen Saki in Season 7).

One scenario you forgot was no replacement at all.  When John Amos left Good Times in 1977, then writers just killed his character off with no real successor.  When Gary Burghoff left MASH (early in Season 8); no new character was added/created and Klinger (Jamie Farr) took over Radar's company clerk duties.

[kkt]

As far as Bewitched, yes, you did not have couples divorcing on American television in the 1960s.  Death could have been shown, but would have been wrong for a comedy series.

MASH was easy because in the military people were transferred, ordered home, promoted to a different job, or killed pretty routinely.  Pierce and Houlihan were the only characters that stayed from pilot to finale.

[lordsutch]

To my mind, replacing the character entirely is almost always the way to go. It sometimes leads to clunky script issues (the "new" character sometimes ends up sounding a lot like the "old" one, particularly if the character replacement doesn't have a lot of lead time), but I think that's easier for audiences than maintaining suspension of disbelief with recasting.

I think recasting really only works if there's some inherent plot reason why the character's voice and appearance changed, which is hard to pull off outside of science fiction (the Doctor being the prototypical example, Dax for Star Trek: DS9 being another; notably, their personalities do change too, so they're not exactly playing the same character in the traditional sense) unless it's just a peripheral character - in which case, the character in question probably doesn't have enough characterization to make recasting more valuable than a replacement.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Should we talk about Harry Shearer, since I'm guessing he was why this thread got going? 

[cjk374]

On the original DALLAS TV series, Donna Reed replaced the lady who had played JR & Bobby Wing's mother for a season or 2. But then the original actress came back. Donna Reed was introduced when Momma Ewing was coming back home from a flight at the airport. She appeared from behind a large group of people coming off the plane.

[triplemultiplex]

Should we talk about Harry Shearer, since I'm guessing he was why this thread got going? 

Yes.

Animation is different than live action shows, naturally. But when one guy is a third of the population of Springfield...
It's going to be jarring for me.  I have a sharp ear for voice-over due to my many years of consumption of animated shows.

South Park has had some of its female characters voiced by up to four different women and I notice it very easily.  But those are all ancillary characters and the time for each actress is small relative to the duration of the show.  With The Simpsons, though, we will have had more than a quarter century with the same familiar voice so whatever change occurs is going to be drastic to my ears.  It makes me very uneasy about the show moving forward and I have to wonder if the latest renewal by FOX will be the last?  (29 total season btw)

[cjk374]

Should we talk about Harry Shearer, since I'm guessing he was why this thread got going? 

Yes.

Animation is different than live action shows, naturally. But when one guy is a third of the population of Springfield...
It's going to be jarring for me.  I have a sharp ear for voice-over due to my many years of consumption of animated shows.

South Park has had some of its female characters voiced by up to four different women and I notice it very easily.  But those are all ancillary characters and the time for each actress is small relative to the duration of the show.  With The Simpsons, though, we will have had more than a quarter century with the same familiar voice so whatever change occurs is going to be drastic to my ears.  It makes me very uneasy about the show moving forward and I have to wonder if the latest renewal by FOX will be the last?  (29 total season btw)

It's time for Homer to cause a meltdown in his nuclear reactor & kill everyone in Springfield...NOW!!    

[jeffandnicole]

Harry's gonna be a tough one to replace.  The show has survived as long as it has because of the lack of contract disputes and such.  Not sure what he wanted versus what they were offering, but it's a shame they couldn't agree upon a figure.

It was said many years ago that they've been recycling ideas, because it's hard to come up with absolutely new original ideas when you've already broadcasted what will be 574 episodes when the May 17th season finale is aired. 

[Roadrunner75]

Who else here remembers Coy and Vance as the temporary replacements for Bo and Luke on Dukes of Hazzard, during a contract dispute?  This had to be one of the more ridiculous and implausible replacements in TV (...even if this sort of thing was par for the course on this show).

[roadman65]

Who else here remembers Coy and Vance as the temporary replacements for Bo and Luke on Dukes of Hazzard, during a contract dispute?  This had to be one of the more ridiculous and implausible replacements in TV (...even if this sort of thing was par for the course on this show).

I actually thought that if replacements were needed, those two did well for last minuet casting.  Yes, we all want and fell in love with the originals, but if they were the two original Dukes instead of Bo and Luke, people might of looked at the show differently as there would be no Bo and Luke to compare against.

[thenetwork]

"Cheers" also followed in the footsteps of M*A*S*H, replacing characters with new characters.  The only person who was "killed off" was Coach who passed on in real life at the end of the 2nd season.  Nicholas Colasanto had to be replaced -- enter Woody Harrelson .  Kirstie Alley replaced Shelley Long (who had the McLean Stevenson syndrome), but Diane never got killed off.

I believe "CHiPs" came before the "Dukes Of Hazard" when it came to replacing contract holdouts with others.  Bruce Jenner was Erik Estrada's "replacement" for a handful of episodes before Ponch returned.

[roadman65]

Then Larry Wilcox left in the final season getting replaced.  In addition, some of the other cast members like Bonnie and tall black man left as well. 

They all got replaced and more actors were credited in the opening theme sequence as before it was only Estrada, Wilcox, and Robert Pine.  Some of the replacements got full star billings instead of as recurring status like the ones they replaced did.

[PHLBOS]

"Cheers" also followed in the footsteps of M*A*S*H, replacing characters with new characters.  The only person who was "killed off" was Coach who passed on in real life at the end of the 2nd season.  Nicholas Colasanto had to be replaced -- enter Woody Harrelson .

Such happened during the show's 3rd season.  Like Cheers, MASH experienced its first character changes/replacements at the end of its 3rd season as well. 

Kirstie Alley replaced Shelley Long (who had the McLean Stevenson syndrome), but Diane never got killed off.

Unlike the MASH characters that left; the Diane character actually returned for Cheers' finale episode.

Phil Hartman's death (who also voiced a couple characters on The Simpsons) pretty much killed the Newsradio show he starred in.  Jon Lovitz' replacement character did nothing to save that show.

[mrsman]

Phil Hartman's death (who also voiced a couple characters on The Simpsons) pretty much killed the Newsradio show he starred in.  Jon Lovitz' replacement character did nothing to save that show.

When the star leaves, it is usually pretty hard for a series to recover or to be written around, especially if the star dies.

John Ritter's death affected the show "8 Simple Rules"

Jerry Ohrbach's death meant that "Law & Order: Trial by Jury" never really got off the ground.

Valerie Harper's contract dispute affected her show "Valerie".  They killed her off in the script and then renamed the show "Valerie's Family" and then "The Hogan Family".  The show actually did pretty well without her, even though they had to change the name.

[jwolfer]

Chrissy on Threes Company was replaced by her cousin Cindy and then Terri moved in. Jack and Janet were always there.

Same time era, Charlie's Angels had numerous replacements.

Sometimes they did spinoffs and the new show didn't work, remember the Ropers TV show, no one does. Same with Flo on Alice.  Jolene took her place. The characters were good as part of an ensemble cast but not enough to carry show alone, or the writing sucked

[davewiecking]

Rosanne: Sarah Chalke replaced Lecy Goranson as Becky Connor, who then returned, then left and was replaced by Sarah again. There was at least one episode in which they both appeared. Sarah tried to adopt some of Lecy's mannerisms, but not very successfully.

[briantroutman]

On the original question, I'd probably say "neither" .

The peril of directly replacing a character with a similar one was demonstrated on The Andy Griffith Show when Don Knotts left. Right away, the producers added Jack Burns–who was a talented comedian–as replacement deputy Warren Ferguson. And while Warren wasn't exactly a clone of Barney Fife, he was supposed to fill the same kind of role (inept, but very serious and eager to prove himself). The unfavorable comparisons to Barney were inevitable, and the new character just didn't work out. Eventually the producers realized that they didn't need to replace Don Knotts. Yes, the show would be different and perhaps worse off without him, but trying to "replace"  him would be worse.

I can't think of a single like-for-like replacement that worked out well.

But I don't think that recasting has ever worked well either–except where the first casting decision was a major blunder and the replacement righted the situation. For the perfect example of this, look up "Head of the Family" , the pilot for what became The Dick Van Dyke Show. It's painful to watch; every role was so horribly mis-cast. And yet the recast version is widely considered one of the greatest sitcoms of all time.

As to Bewitched, I don't think it's been mentioned, but Dick Sargent was actually who the producers wanted to play Darrin when the series began in 1964. He was (thankfully) unavailable due to contract issues, and Dick York was their second choice. I can't believe they preferred Sargent, because York's very animated, almost cartoon-like expressions were terrific reactions to Samantha and Endura's tricks. Dick Sargent always struck me as stoic–almost wooden. It seems like he was born to play the "wrong guy" ...the uptight dud that the leading lady is about to marry at the beginning of a movie.

Then Larry Wilcox left in the final season getting replaced...

They all got replaced and more actors were credited in the opening theme sequence as before it was only Estrada, Wilcox, and Robert Pine.

I could never bring myself to watch a 6th season episode with that other guy. By the way, it was Paul Linke (Grossman) and Lou Wagner (Harlan) whose names were added to the opening credits.

[Stephane Dumas]

Does pilot episodes count? There's some pilot episodes where the pilot episode is pick for the series but got some cast changes, case in point with "All in the Family" where Mike and Gloria are performed by different actors http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8xv4y_unaired-all-in-the-family-pilot-fro_shortfilms
As well as Star Trek http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x64a11_the-cage-star-trek-original-pilot_shortfilms
And Gilligan's Island
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpimVRP3EW4

And for best recast/replacement, we could talk of the technic of "regeneration" used in Doctor Who where the actor who play the doctor is replaced like the 4rd Doctor (Tom Baker) regenerated as the 5th Doctor (Peter Davison).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UaNX7-cBqc

[PHLBOS]

Sometimes they did spinoffs and the new show didn't work, remember the Ropers TV show, no one does.

Believe it or not, reruns of that show now get shown (along with the sequel/spin-off Three's A Crowd) on the Antenna TV channel when it goes through its Three's Company episodes.

Same with Flo on Alice.  Jolene *ultimately took her place. The characters were good as part of an ensemble cast but not enough to carry show alone, or the writing sucked.

* You forgot about the short-lived replacement Belle, played by Diane Ladd (who played Flo in the original movie Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore).  Ladd/Belle was only on the series one year (midway through Seasons 4 and 5) but Linda Lavin supposedly had her fired from the series (Lavin felt that she was being upstaged by Ladd).

After Ladd got fired and the Flo series got cancelled (the fact that both events occurred within a short period of time is purely coincidental); producers had asked Polly Holliday was asked if she was interested in returning to Alice (as Flo), but she turned down the offer.  Celia Weston was then casted for Jolene and the rest is history.

Does pilot episodes count?

See my earlier comment regarding William Christopher replacing George Morgan as Father Mulcahy once M*A*S*H became a series following its pilot episode.  I would think such would count.