Should a Star sign on for a "Franchise film" if they only want to do One movie?
 

Question of ethics I guess. Have at it. I wanted to think yes, but then remembered really all roles have been played in time by many people, very few actor's "own" the roles. And I suppose not all single films (Say Batman Begins) are guranteed to move on to more films. What do you think?

No, if their mind is made up that they are only going to do one film then the studio should try to get someone that is more open to the idea of sequels.

Very rarely these days does an actor sign to a franchise role without signing for 3.

...oh and to pull the reference in, I was just watching Batman Begins and cringed at seeing Katie Holmes knowing that next month I have to see Maggie G. Its so lame and nitpicky, but come on!

Katie Holmes wasn't great in Batman Begins, and I'm sure Maggie G will do a better job, acting wise, but it kills me that they are having two completely different looking actresses portraying the same character.

As to the OP's question. No. I don't think they should. It is very selfish, and it ruins sequels (at least for me) when main stars are replaced.

Any major franchise where the lead didn't come back for the 2nd movie?

Hulk?

I'm not sure if it was considered for a franchise when made but Alec Baldwin played Jack Ryan in The Hunt For Red October and didn't return for any of the other films made with that character.

Predator 2 was made sans Arnie.

For Final Destination 2..

Does El Mariachi count as a major franchise?

Oh, and Jodie Foster refused to do Hannibal.

I thought about Hulk but figured that was a different beast since they went back to the drawing board for the entire movie and pretty much ignore the last. Punisher would be on the same boat I suppose.

Sam Neill and Laura Dern didn't return for Jurassic Park.

Although Sam Neill did return for the 3rd film.

And if rumor is correct, Laura Dern might be back for 4!

Laura Dern made a small appearance in Jurassic Park III.

Sweet ass, this is actually cementing my point. The obviously were thinking of more than one "new Batman" when they did 'Begins', Bale and Nolan were signed for more then one from the start correct? And I am all for Maggie, she IS a better actress, I am actually happy with the change other than it nails my point.

El Mariachi was an independent/or at least only Foreign film that went well and they added to it correct?

As for Jurassic Park I really feel that was also (but have no proof or verification) and "well we put a ton of money into this, let's see how this goes) type film.

I think so. I like the continuity that is kept when all the main players are signed on for future films. When someone is replaced, like Jodie Foster in Hannibal or Moira Kelly in Twin Peaks:FWWM, it tends to take me out of the picture a bit. I don't have an easy time thinking of that person as the character I liked from the first film.

Keep in mind that a lot of these so called 'Franchise films' that have replaced any stars are movies that no one expected would spawn a franchise... usually they were intended to be one offs that somehow struck a chord and thus the idea of "FRANCHISE!!" was born... because most movies that are expected to be the first of a franchise has a star sign a multi-picture deal right off the bat... so it wouldn't be the star's fault if they didn't want to come back when they THOUGHT they were just making a one off movie...not the start of a franchise...

I don't think Punisher counts the same way. They're using the same script Tom Jane wasn't happy with. They can call it a reboot, but the script was clearly written as a sequel.

Does Speed 2 count?

How about XXX? Sony clearly intended it as a franchise before Vin Diesel passed on the sequel.

They didn't return, they weren't replaced. It wasn't like they got another actor to be Alan Grant. Alan Grant just wasn't in the 2nd movie.

I kinda like that they did that, and then brought him back for the 3rd movie.

Sequels which change the focus on the main character to a secondary character always fucking blow. :thmbsdwn:

Exception: Final Destination 2

Sequels which throw all of the main cast to secondary character roles and introduce a "new" cast always fucking blow too. :thmbsdwn:

Like The 2nd Singles Ward.

Yes, that might be the first review of a Mormon movie you read that includes the words "fucking" and "blow." ;)

If the studio knows (or even suspects) it's going to be a franchise, don't they try to lock in the major actors with contracts?

This is a weird aside, but I read in Entertainment Weekly that they pretty much forced all four main actresses to do the sequel to Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (I think one of them didn't want to, not sure if it was Ferrera or the Gossip Girl actress). That way,they lock them in even if their careers take off in the meantime, right?