Stoltz is the new Marty McFly! (and other recasts)

I always find it interesting when I hear about films being recast. It helps you look on the film in a different light and imagine what could have been. One of the biggest recasts of all time has to be Eric Stoltz as Marty McFly in "Back to the Future". They had in fact filmed a whopping five weeks with Stoltz in the lead role which I would assume at the time would mean they had most of the film in the can. When looking back at the footage they had, Robert Zemeckis ( the director of the film) and Stephen Spielberg (the producer) both found themselves in a panic; something wasn't quite right. They realised that they had either miscast, or misdirected Stoltz in the lead role. The film had a much more serious tone than they had intended and they decided to scrap what they had done, recast Michael J. Fox in the lead role, and re-shoot the entire film.  

For a long time fans wanted to see the Stoltz footage and finally, with the anniverssary edition of "Back to the Future" being released we will. Well parts of it anyway. Here is a taster:

I feel sorry for Stoltz as he is a very good actor and it must have been heart breaking to be essentially fired and then for the film to become iconic.  You cannot argue with Michael J. Fox in the lead role though, he was amazing. I don't know how much footage they have, but if they had enough it would be awesome to see them do what Richard Donner did with "Superman II" and make an alternative cut of the movie with Stoltz. I doubt this will ever happen though.

Another recast that always interested me was for "Raiders of the Lost Ark". We all know Harrison Ford as the whip wielding adventurer, but Tom Selleck was in fact offered the role first. His screen test actually looks promising and while I'd never replace Harrison, I think we would still have had an iconic character with Selleck in the role.

Unfortunately for Selleck he had a successful television at the show called Magnum P.I. and he was unable to shoot "Raiders" because of a scheduling conflict, and the rest as they say is history.

Interestingly in that video we also see Sean Young ( Blade Runner, Dune, Ace Ventura etc.) playing Marion, a role later filled by Karen Allen. Young was recast because Karen Allen was a better fit with Harrison Ford; however, this was not the only time Young would miss out on an iconic role. Young had been cast in Time Burton's wonderful 1989 adaptation of Bob Cane's "Batman". Young was to play Bruce Wayne's love interest, Vicky Vale. Only a week before shooting tragedy struck as Young was injured in a horse riding accident and thus had to be recast. Kim Basinger stepped in at the last minute and became a world wide star. As they say "some girls have all the luck". Sean Young has still had an admirable career but she has mentioned frequently that "Batman" could have made her a star. Alas for Young, it wasn't to be.

Back to George Lucas and we can see an interesting casting choice in this audition clip:

Kurt Russell no doubt would have made a brilliant Han Solo ( Just watch him as a Snake Plisken) but again, Ford was wonderful in the role and was given the nod over him. 

One last casting issue I think many of us would love to see. Viggo Mortensen made the role of Aragon in Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" adaptation, but there was footage filmed with Stuart Townsend in the role. Apparently after the first week Jackson realised he had cast the role far too young and had to replace Townsend, which must have been a bitter pill to swallow. I think Jackson was completely right, but I'd love to see the footage regardless, although Jackson says we never will. 

So, any one out there with some interesting recasts from the past?

Kevin McCarthy R.I.P.

Kevin McCarthy the actor has sadly passed away at the ripe old age of 96. He was an actor of great ability and of course starred in one the most iconic Sci-Fi and horror films of all time, 'The Invasion of the Body Snatches'. While he was great as the leading man earlier in his career with an oscar nomination for his role in 'Death of a Salesman', I always enjoyed the more comedic roles that he played. He was fantastic as the comical villain in 'Innerspace' (a grossly underrated movie) and in a massive 192 roles he collaborated with the likes of Robert Altman and John Huston. 

In a career that spanned over 50 years, McCarthy was more widely seen in television roles. Among them includes appearances in 'Batman: The animated series', 'The Alfred Hitchcock Half Hour', 'Columbo', 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E' to name but a few. One of his most notable roles was of course in the original Twilight Zone run which he nicely returned to in Twilight Zone: The Movie', albeit as a different character.

A great actor and an ever present face on television, one that will be sadly missed. 

Oh and remember, they're still out there:

Brought to you in super awesome 3D!!!

3D film technology has been around since the early 20th century. Every 20 years or so the technique has a resurgence which has normally resulted in three things; a belief in Hollywood that '3D is the future of cinema', a plethora of in your face 3D films within a few years, and then an inevitable collapse of 3D filmmaking resulting in the concept being largely shelved for another 20 years.

3D often flourishes momentarily within genre films such as horror and science fiction. Enjoyment has been had at a red ball being repeatedly smashed at the audience's faces in Vincent Price's 'House of Wax' but it has then quickly been dismissed as 'a gimmick'. While it has largely been used as a commercial marketing scam for many low budget films, it has also been used by great filmmakers such as Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock used the 3D technique in his adaptation of the play 'Dial M for Murder' where he attempted to create a layered world which the audience could be immersed in.



That being said, by the time Dial M for Murder was released, the 3D craze had died out and the film was largely seen in a standard 2D format. Recently there has been another resurgence in the use of 3D largely championed by Jame Cameron through the making of his film 'Avatar'. Once again it is being championed by many as 'the future', but we are already seeing signs of the audience tiring of the concept. So is it different this time around? Well the biggest difference is the amount of money that has been invested in cinema screens capable of displaying two images at once in order to create the effect. There is also the difference that the 3D images are displayed in using a 'normal' palette.

Despite this there are several problems I have with 3D films. First of all there are technical issues. There is a 30% colour reduction when using the current glasses to view 3D. While I am sure this will be overcome with new projectors capable of displaying much brighter images, at the moment this is a major issue. What is the point of creating a vibrant colourful world such as Pandora in 3D if you lose 30% of it?

Another technical issue is that it doesn't work for everyone. Ayone with even slight visual impairment may find it difficult to see the 3D image, not to mention that many complain of headaches and an uncomfortable sensation after about an hour of use. This is a major issue that alienates a substantial part of the audience.

Technical issues aside, there is another reason I have my reservations and it is one that doesn't get mentioned enough. The fact is, we already see films in 3D, and furthermore the way we normally view 3D films is a far more accurate representation of how we really see the world. The fact is that our brains interpret the 2D image of the cinema screen and allows us to experience depth and texture. Now you may think 'well it's not really a 3D experience', but think about it a little more. Do you ever go into see a film and say to yourself 'this doesn't work, it doesn't look like a three dimensional world as we normally experience'? The answer is no, and the reason is that the 3D experience is completely believable. The way '3D' films present the world is layers of 2D images layered in front of one another. So it resembles card board cut outs floating in front of the screen. Is this how we see 3D objects?

The main point with regards to 3D cinema is whether it increases enjoyment, or whether it immerses the viewer to a greater degree or not. For me it just doesn't. I am always aware that I am wearing 3D glasses and I am always aware that the 3D image just isn't representative of something in the natural world. For this reason, 3D fails at what it sets out to do; it pushes the audience away from an image rather than bringing them further into it.

I'm not saying 3D doesn't have its place. Of course it does! It has its place as a novelty, a technique that a filmmaker can use under certain circumstance, but doesn't have to. It always seems to me that the 3D technique works much better for animation. The reason for this is that animation (normally) does not appear realistic and therefore 3D does not necessarily take you out of the experience because of this.

So what do you think, 3D films, yay or nay?

Top Ten Films That Fucked Me Up

Mike's latest top ten list involving those films that gave you sleepless nights as a kid.



A little news update. We won't be updating the links on the site for a day or two as we prepare to launch Area Shifty Bun 4.0, new and improved with included awesomesauce.


Mike - Area Shifty Bun Admin -

Film Fanatic: Mel Gibson's rants

Mike takes a break from movie reviews to discuss the latest Mel Gibson controversy and some of his work.

New Buncast: Is the action movie dead?

Alan hosts this week's Buncast where we tackle the issue of the action movie...dead or alive you're coming with me...