Is it easier to recast "bad" characters?

[DRW50]

Two of my biggest "ride or die" characters (Delia Reid Ryan Ryan Coleridge et al, and Robert Sugden) are also characters where I love both first and second actors easily (Ilene Kristen/Randall Edwards, Karl Davies/Ryan Hawley). Although I lost interest in Carly after Sarah Brown left, she has has also been recast successfully multiple times.

Do you think it's easier to recast vixen or villain or "bad boy" or "bad girl" characters? Is a "good" character more difficult to recast (with some exceptions like Bo Brady, Frannie Hughes, various Bauers)? Or do you think it's just based on the casting and the writing?

[Soapsuds]

You forgot Lily Walsh….I thought Heather did an outstanding job as Lily.

I think its harder no matter what kind of character is if the person that had played the role is so defined as the character a la Susan Lucci….Don Hastings….Elizabeth Hubbard….I would have said Martha but not after Heather took over...

I am not making any sense so leaving topic…just wanted to add the Lily comment…LOL

[DRW50]

I was a fan of Heather's too - of course they recast with Heather planning for the character to become "bad."

There's also Tina on OLTL...loved Andrea/Karen (almost) equally. And Dorian (Robin/Elaine, Nancy Pinkerton).

[Cheap21]

No. I honestly dont see the difference

and in between that, there was a string of bad Tinas. It all comes down to the writing and the actor, not the nature of the character

[Soapsuds]

Bad characters...

Roger Thorpe could not be recast but Alan Spaulding could….but only Ron Raines pulled it off but that was at the beginning after a while he just became a big cartoon of a bad villain.

[titan1978]

in the last 25 years or so, most soaps and their writing teams give those types of characters more to sink their teeth into. Good material can help an okay actor, bad material can sink a fantastic one. That plays a huge part into a recast's success.

Characters that become the moral center or heart of their respectives shows do seem harder to come by.

[GMac]

Absolutely.

[olive branch]? I agree with this for the most part. But could anyone replace Charita Bauer? They did recast Beverlee McKinsey, but poorly IMO. Susan Lucci? It's a good question to ask if even the best writing and casting could replace the icons? I'm not sure.

[Dave_01]

With recast characters, I think success or failure is less about "good" vs. "bad" characters and more about the writing and, to a certain extent, casting.

Since you brought up Ryan's Hope in your original post, I'll use examples from it. I think the reason both Ilene's and Randall's Delias work is that Claire and Paul were still the primary writers for the character. Even as the character evolved with the recasting, the writing remained consistent. Combine that with Randall proving to be a good casting choice, doing such a good job at bringing the scripts to life, and you have a successful recast. (Full disclosure: Randall has always been my favorite Delia, though I do enjoy Ilene's take on the character as well.)

Similarly, Frank and Faith, considered (for all their faults) to be "good" characters, both had successful recasts. Andrew Robinson, I felt was an improvement over Michael Hawkins, as was Daniel Hugh Kelly after him. Cathering Hicks was a successful recast, and Karen Morris Gowdy after her proved succssful enough to stay with the role until everyone started getting fired in late-'83/early-'84. Again, I think with both characters it was both the quality of the recast actors plus the strong, consistent writing of Claire and Paul during that time.

Now, with regard to Mary, opinions vary on the quality of the various post-Mulgrew recasts. However good they may have been, I think the recasting would have to be considered a failure overall, since she was ultimately killed off. However, I don't think that's because Mary was a "good" character.* Instead, I think the failure comes because Claire (and I assume Paul) never wanted to recast after Kate left. It was one of the early signs that ABC was going to be calling the shots more and more, and I'm sure they resented it. As a result, I think Mary became a lesser priority to them with others in the role. She was no longer a lead character really, and I recall an interview where Nicolette Goulet said they were still trying to write for Kate until towards the end of her run, which made it difficult for NG to find her voice within the character. So that comes down to writing over good vs. bad.

I also think some of the later recasts were spotty because by then ABC was making the decisions and not Claire/Paul, as well as the fact that they were getting fired from the show every other year for awhile, so the writing became more inconsistent as some later writers didn't always seem to understand the characters or the show.

*(I know Mary was designed and considered by Claire to be a "good" character, so I'm treating her as such here. Personally, I always considered Mary a judgmental shrewish control freak - but when your sister-in-law is Delia, I guess Mary gets counted as the good one by comparison.)

[edgeofnik]

I hate to use the 'situation' specific, but it's tied to the immediate storyline and the writers and directors being able to capitalize on the new actor's strengths. For some reason certain recast that I never imagined could work did:

1. Emily ATWT - Melanie Smith gave such heat to the role, but KMH continue for almost 20 years

2. Jill Y&R - When I heard the JW was cast, I howled. After all, this was the dowdy hooker with a heart of gold from Capitol. Are you kidding me?

3. Ashley Y&R - Loved ED, but BE did such a beautiful job with the role - she embodied the essence of Ashley in her own style. When ED was fired from Y&R, I would've been perfectly happy to see BE back.

4. Adam Y&R - Loved CE, MM took it to a new level and now JH is posed to exceed that.

5. Lily ATWT - Martha is love, but Heather did a fine job and, I thought Noelle Beck was great - the grown up Lily I imagined as Lucinda's daughter.

6. Opal AMC - Never imagined anyone could replace what Dorthy Lyman did, but Jill Larsen made the character so much more. Again, she kept the character's essence but she had a style and heart of her own.

[Soapsuds]

The only time KMH was good as Emily was when she was paired with Royce(Terry Lester). Besides that her Emily was a complete mess. No one can compare to MS the true Emily IMO.

[edgeofnik]

Oh, I FLOVED Melanie Smith, but I do have to give props to KMH because the writing for Emily was so crazy (literally), inconsistent and character-shredding during most of her run. I mean she had no less than a dozen horrible stories - Diego, kidnapping Dusty, a high-priced hooker among them. The hooker thing was revolting and a Stewart who also was a savvy and accomplished business woman taking money for sex. NEVER. (I believe KMH said in an interview, "It's disgusting.") KMH was able to hold that role together despite that. KMH did handle the business stories well, especially some great scenes with EH. In fact, her best screen partners were EH & MM, who was woefully underutilized. During the last decade, the only decent story was the Hunter reveal and they cut that short.

[DramatistDreamer]

I agree with this. I think it matters little whether the character was 'good' or 'bad'. It has more to do with the imprint that the actor left. I don't think that ATWT would have ever considered recasting James Stenbeck, for instance. Nor have I ever seen them try to recast Dr. John Dixon. I really think it has to do with the imprint that the actor left on the role-- to a certain extent, having good writing and powerful storylines can help or hinder those prospects but for the most part, I really do think it is the impact the the actor had on a particular role.