Annoying Actor Replacements

Movie sequels are never that surprising anymore. Many studios plan for multiple movies with the same characters in order to continue to draw interest from audiences. Sometimes a studio or an actor will decide that they don’t want to continue their role beyond one movie, forcing the studio to replace them. Take a look at some of the most annoying actor replacements in this week’s gallery. ~Greg Chisholm

Browse Gallery

Comments & Discussion

  1. Bob • October 29, 2015 @ 2:36 PM

    Horrible article. You just listed a bunch of actors who took over movie roles and said they were annoying. No attempt to say why. Way to keep churning out that content though, I guess.

  2. Dan • October 29, 2015 @ 10:57 PM

    Agree with Bob. You even say some of the actors were better in the role.

  3. Mark • October 30, 2015 @ 11:07 AM

    Liked Edward Norton better.

  4. Nick • October 31, 2015 @ 9:14 AM

    Are we not gonna talk about the Aunt Viv debacle

  5. Mad Hobbit • December 4, 2015 @ 7:38 PM

    well while I can see changing actors due to conflict and such, you really can not blame them if the actor DIES

  6. angela • January 26, 2016 @ 9:52 PM

    Re: Nick
    This is for movies not television shows.

  7. Mari -Jean • January 28, 2016 @ 3:56 PM

    Definitely did not like Bryce Dallas Howard in Twilight .Rachel Lefevre was much better.

  8. Kevin • January 29, 2016 @ 7:17 PM

    The Terrence Howard Don Cheadle one is wrong. It was Marvel who wanted to renegotiate the contract and give him less, as he was being paid more than RDJ due to his oscar winner status. Howard felt Marvel should stick to the contract so they hired someone cheaper.

  9. Catherine • February 4, 2016 @ 5:12 PM

    These werent really annoying, you just had to remember they are actors and focus on the character, not who is playing them. Most of these replacements were just as good, if not better, than their predecessors. A few were worse, like Batman over time, like Bryce for Rachel (not that Bryce is bad, just that Rachel was better in the role)

  10. Michael • March 20, 2016 @ 6:41 PM

    Don Cheadle made a better Rhodey than Terrence Howard.

  11. James • March 29, 2016 @ 10:40 PM

    Who cares who replaces anyone in Independence Day? I’m I the only person who thought that movie was a load of garbage?

  12. Eliza • April 28, 2016 @ 5:33 PM

    I for one hated Michael Gambon’s performance as Dumbledore. I loved the Harry Potter series but after 3 it just went downhill for me movie wise. 1 & 2 were awesome then 3 came.

  13. CWE • June 6, 2016 @ 1:53 PM

    Hollywood doesn’t consider Mae Whitman hot enough for a summer blockbuster. She’s a normal girl. They want thin,blonde, and big tits.

  14. Carrie • July 15, 2016 @ 10:51 AM

    Maggie Gyllenhaal is very hard to look at. I will NEVER understand how she got put into the movie. Everytime she came on screen, I found myself staring, head slightly tilted, with an expression that was part confused and part disgusted. Everytime I see a screenshot of her from the movie, it makes me shudder. What the HECK were they thinking? Ick.

  15. Laima • September 23, 2016 @ 10:09 AM

    I think, Michael Gambon’s Dumbledore is better because he is more humanlike. Dumbledore of Michael Gambon acts as a man with controversial past and it conforms to the book.
    1-2 films were similar to fairytales and Dumbledore of Richard Harris (RIP)looked like a picture of goodness. Other films look like real-life stories and make us believe. And it is the best what we can say about the film.

  16. Markly37 • October 22, 2016 @ 10:00 AM

    The problem with Michael Gambon is that his performance was inconsistent. In 3 he was a pitch-perfect Dumbledore, but then in 4-5 he screwed the pooch by making him irritable and shouty.

  17. maarvarq • November 3, 2016 @ 11:10 PM

    “Liev Schreiber was cast as Sabretooth and ended up being one of the best parts of the film.” So annoying! Don’t you hate it when that happens?

  18. JK • December 2, 2016 @ 9:20 AM

    Annoying to whom, exactly? Some of these list things are interesting but a lot of them are just lamebrained and arbitrary opinions, not shared by almost everyone who read them. Stick to more factual (if I may misuse the word as it applies here) material.

  19. FO • January 3, 2017 @ 11:53 PM

    The entire point of 95% of these articles are just to get clicks. They don’t give a crap if the article is factual or makes any kind of sense. They don’t care about these comments or even read them. It’s all click bait BS. When I see the old gallery or slideshow style article I know it’s gonna be garbage. So I just read the comments of you good people and get more than I could from these pieces a crap.

  20. danny • January 4, 2017 @ 10:49 PM

    Seriously? BullSh*t Clickbait… half of these, they don’t bother to make sense. The rest… THEY CLEARLY SAY “the actor was replaced, and it was BETTER.” How is that annoying? Replacing a horrible actor (sabertooth) with a better one, for “greater range,” how is that annoying? Answer? They don’t give a s-it, you clicked and got 18 pop ups.

  21. Grindal • January 5, 2017 @ 9:03 AM

    Maybe it’s because it’s incredibly annoying when there’s a replacement, because it forces you to suspend your disbelief and then sometimes it turns out the new actor is better. Personally, I don’t care if they’re better. Keep the old one. Once you’ve cast someone, unless it’s a soap opera, don’t recast. I can never get used to someone new in a role that someone else played.

  22. Cil • January 8, 2017 @ 10:16 AM

    No. Nolan’s Batman trilogy is not the best trilogy ever made. Begins was soooooooooo good and then came crap TDK and TDKR. Star Wars 4-6? Captain America 1-3? Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3?

  23. Martin • May 12, 2017 @ 5:27 PM

    Yeah, it’s soooo annoying and inconvinient when someone dies and has to be re-cast.
    How dare he die! :p

Join The Conversation:

 Change Location