When does an actor become bigger than the character?

Ok so obviously this thread is in light of the new Star Trek and the classic character of Captain James Tiberius Kirk, iconically portrayed by William Shatner being taken on by a new, younger actor. Personally, i think they're pretty big shoes to fill but other major characters have been swapped for new actors- Batman, James Bond, Philip Marlowe, Superman and many others. But are there any performances that another actor can't touch thus rendering the character solidified in history with just the one name to them. There some examples of actors nailing characters that are unlikely to be in films again, so we'll exclude them. Suppose obvious starting point is Heath Ledger as the Joker. I for one expect to see another actor fill his shoes in coming years

__________________

Interesting concept here Pyro. You hit the nail on the head with the main characters I was thinking of.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

I'm confused of what your asking, name characters you think actors did such a good job in they can't be replaced or characters which can be replaced with different actors?

__________________
"Travis Bickle: Loneliness has followed me my whole life, everywhere. In bars, in cars, sidewalks, stores, everywhere. There's no escape. I'm God's lonely man."

Dill-man - pretty sure it's the former.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Was more when does an actor make a role that no other actor could replace. Like if they made a Godfather 4 would they be able ro recast Brando or have to write him out the story (hyperthetically). Another is can anyone replace Bruce Campbell as Ash if they do go through with this Evil Dead remake?

About Ash, sure. Evil Dead IV in the ICU will be Pixar's first R-rated flick.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

They already wrote Brando's Godfather out after the first film, though.

Do agree about not really being able to recast Bruce Campbell as Ash, even if it is just the original (where Ash was still just a stereotypical horror movie victim, not the cocky demon-slayer he's remembered as nowadays).

In the world of horror movies I think Robert Englund and Freddy Kreuger have become synonymous. Another actor could not capture the feel of the character

__________________
"A good film is when the price of the dinner, the theater admission and the babysitter were worth it."
- Alfred Hitchcock

Now this is one of the strangest things about movie fans, I think. Some actor makes a big hit in a certain role, and right away fans become convinced that nobody else can play that role. Worst, Hollywood thinks that's the only kind of role the actor can play, so he gets typecast and maybe never gets to try his wings in anything else. In the theater, on the other hand, actors are constantly changing roles and playing different characters while fans debate who was the best Hamlet, the best Stanley, the best Dolly.

I think things were at least more interesting under the old studio system when the major studios had the filmrights to several stories and lots of good actors under contract. As a result, we can argue whether Frederick March or Spencer Tracy was better in the roles of Jekyl and Hyde. That also gave us Bogart in the first version of High Serria, Jack Palance in the same role some years later, and then it was made into a Western with Joel McRae as the star, all three enjoyable in their own way. It may be hard to imagine anyone by Clark Gable as Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind, yet he, Marlon Brando, and Mel Gibson have all played Fletcher Christian. Most of the younger folks in the forum probably think Pachino owns the title role in Scarface, but I and many others still prefer Paul Muni. I'm sure DiNiro chewed up the screen as the heavy in Cape Fear, but I still think Bob Mitchum was tougher and more frightening with less make-up in the original; Mitchum looked like he really could hurt someone.

I kinda agree with George C. Scott--if you're going to give an Oscar for best actor, you should first see all of the nominees play the same role.

But I draw the line on movie "remakes" of old TV series and cartoons. To me that's not an apples-to-apples or even apples-to-oranges transition. More like apples to onions. Or maybe to horse-apples.

Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones came to my mind first.

__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.

Pyro, regarding the 'recasting' of J.T. Kirk in the new Trek film, I don't know if you've been reading any of the reviews, but apparently Chris Pine (the actor who plays him) is supposedly really good and one of the highlights of the movie. Along with the Zachary Quinto's (sp?) Spock

I've read somewhere that the character who played Rorschach in Watchmen might be playing Freddy in a new Nightmare on Elmstreet. I remember reading this somewhere, so I will see if I can find the source tomorrow morning or something. I think if someone can "capture the feel of the character" it would be Jackie Earle Haley

__________________
One day you will ask me, what's more important...me or your life. I will answer my life and you will walk away not knowing that you are my life

I can see Tom Selleck in that role, their original choice.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Then you are in luck, because that's who's playing Freddy.

Selleck would have been an interesting choice for Indiana Jones. I can believe Ford as the college prof, but he just doesn't seem rugged enough for all of those adventures in the field.

When I heard (years ago) they were doing a remake of Monte Walsh, I thought no one could stand up to Lee Marvin as the original title character. But Selleck brought his own, very good interpretation to the role, and was every bit believeable. And that, after all, is what acting is all about.

I think one of the best examples of an actor becoming bigger than the character/becoming the character is Jason Bourne (Matt Damon). But that's just right off the top of my head.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes. In my opinion nobody is ever likely to surpass him in that role, because the main advantage Brett had is being from that social class and close enough to the Victorian era to assimilate it.

Nobody can surpass Anthony Hopkins Lecter. Mads Mikelson (mispelt) did the second best job, and Hopkins is head and shoulders above him. Kind of unfair since he was Oliviers protege.

Christopher Reeve as Superman. Poor guy, he was a great actor that got typecast, and such an awful card to be dealt in life with his accident. He actually accomplished more after his accident in a different area from Hollywood by being a fundraiser. RIP Superman

Alot of folks would say Mel Gibsons Mad Max, but I think Hardy may pull it off. Give him a couple more movies to see.

What did you think of Brian Cox and Gaspard Ulliel?

Good, but the difference betweeen Anthony Hopkins and the others is one thing - he's the scariest. Ive never been terrified by the character compared to when Hopkins played him.

__________________