Does it bother you when the original actors/actresses aren't used in a movie sequel?

I mean, I know that they aren't always available when the directors want to shoot the next film. However, I feel somewhat robbed when they aren't used in a sequel because I became so attached to their character in the first film, it's hard for me to see anyone else playing their part. What are your thoughts?

Yes - definitely - I hate it! The only time it's ever worked ok, is with the James Bond films - even then they use the same guy for several movies - some are better fits than other, but with Bond films you're going for the genre (it's practically it's own), so the genre is bigger than the characters really. But with all other sequels, if it's not the same actor/actress it just bothers me.

I agree. It's definitely weird. Although, some upcoming movies that have new actors I'm pretty excited about. Edward Norton-The Incredible Hulk
Maggie Gyllenhaal-The Dark Knight. (Not a big fan of her, but she's better than Katie Holmes)

But yeah, it's just not the same when they cast a new person.

Yes,in The Mummy 3 they're replacing the wife, Rachel Weiz. She was in the other two though, but she's working on another movie. Have a happy and safe holiday season!

Absolutely - it means they cant afford the same guy/girl so we get some schmuck instead.
Look at Grease 2? enough said huh? lol

Very much so! If the original actors/actresses can't commit to doing the sequel, why should I bother?

I know what you mean! I dislike trying to get my head around a new person as a character. I think they should be required to do sequels as part of their contract for the original/beginning role! LOL
Like, in Jeepers Creepers 2, they brought Dairy back as part of a dream/warning, and it gave authenticity, sort of, to the second one. Although I HATED the way the 2nd one ended.
And in "Final Destination 2" they brought Clear in, from the first one, and made it seem more real by doing so.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on it!

Yep, it's a real break in the momentum of the movie. Sometimes, it's no one's fault. Richard Harris dying after the first two Harry Potter movies comes to mind, but I still don't buy Gambon as Dumbledore even after all this time. Strangely, after reading all the books, Gambon's performance may be closer to the book's intention, but I still think "fill-in Dumbledore" everytime I see him on screen.

Also, Julianne Moore was okay as Clarice Starling, but if you're used to Jodie Foster, the relationship with Lecter just doesn't work as well. Hopkins "feels" like he's even more of a veteran than Moore. However, I don't blame Foster for being leery of playing the second movie after reading how the source book ended.

Oh well, that's the way things go...

Its disconcerting. But sometimes they ask for too much money, like Marlon Brando asking for 20 million to do Superman 2.

The only one I was worried about was the Harry Potter kids, and they are coming back. And I was even a little disappointed cause Richard Harris didn't come back. I mean, I know he died and all, but he coulda made an exception. It's Harry Potter after all!

I know. the only experience I have with that is the next Batman movie, the Dark Night won't have Katie Holmes in it. It is just kind of stupid to me.

I haven't watched enough sequels to worry about it; not a big movie person.

i agree totally,it bothers me because i can timagine the character as anyone else..

Yep, that kind of cheapens it. It's just hard to buy into the story when one or more of the main characters have been replaced.

NOT MUCH, DON'T FORGET YOU KNOW AND COME TO LIKE THOSE POPULAR ACTORS/ACTRESSES, WHEN YOU SEE THEM ACTED OVER AND OVER. SO I BELIEVE YOU WILL COME TO LOVE THOSE NEW ONCE EVEN MORE. IT ONLY DEPEND ON THER MANNER AND THE TALENT OF THE ONCTORS OR ACTRESSES CONCERNED.

YES!!