THE "BIG SIX"

i know i'm asking for trouble but i just can't resist.

recent talk of recasts made me think.were there characters on the show that simply could not have been effectively recast?ever?
characters that had become so defined by the actors that played them that there just wasn't anyone else who could have captured the character again in the same way?

in my opinion there were six such characters:

VICTORIA.ELIZABETH.BARNABAS.JULIA.ANGELIQUE.QUENTIN.

to me too much of the actors' persona actually shaped these characters and no one could effectively replicate that.any attempt would have been futile.

as much as i love(adore!)nancy barrett i find it conceivable that another actress,well chosen,could have been a possiblity.it would have made for a different carolyn stoddard but under the right circumstances it could have worked.the same for kathryn leigh scott.
but could anyone else play julia other than grayson hall?or liz other than joan bennett?and try and imagine a recast for barnabas.they might as well cancel the show on the spot.

early on i think that there were a few good recasts(sam evans,matthew morgan,willie loomis).later not so good(vicki).but the actors i mentioned brought too much of themselves to the roles and it defined them.in some cases turning minor characters into stars.

so what do you guys think?could any of these actors be replaced?what characters not mentioned do you think could be added to the list?

The only one I can would have been better casted is Harry Johnson.
Maybe the girl who played Hally too. She was a bit too old for the part.
Julianka

I do think that one thing that contributes heavily to Victoria, Barnabas, Angelique, and Quentin to being "un-recast-able" is that more or less, from story arc to story arc, these characters remained constant. They are almost always the same character. Even in...say 1970PT, Angelique and Quentin still retain many of the same qualities that they had in other storylines.

I'm sad that "Big Lou" didn't make your list. You can't get a better hardened, brandy-swallowing argumentative man than Roger. Gotta love him. XD

Interesting topic...

If Barnabas had been recasted.....oh, the horror. He's not recast-able. It would never have worked. And Julia, Quentin, and Angelique were so popular that I don't see any recast working, because the audience wouldn't accept it (as in the case with Barnabas). The Victoria recast was pretty much a disaster...but sometimes I wonder if they had casted, say, Kate Jackson in the role of Victoria, if it would've worked and the character would've been kept on the show. Joan Bennett is Elizabeth for me, but in the later years of the show, I wonder if recasting her character would've been as big of a deal as it would've been in the first year or so.

My personal favorite actresses are Nancy Barrett and Kathryn Leigh Scott, so it's hard for me to imagine them being recasted. It would be so hard for me to watch anyone but John Karlen as Willie.

I just can't imagine most of the characters being recasted...I like too many of the actors and actresses.

I love Louis Edmonds as Roger, and all of the other characters he played. He played the arrogant snob to perfection. Nobody could have done as good a job, definitely could not be recast. 

Misa

Well luckily for us Willie was recast. John Karlen, is the ultimate! The first actor just wouldn't have been able to play Willie the way Karlen did.

barnabas' bride,

i love nancy barrett and kathryn leigh scott too.personally i wouldn't ever want to recast any of our players either.

but i was just thinking that at the time of the show's production if any of the actors had decided to leave if a recast would have been a possibilty or if the character would simply have to be written out.the six i mentioned seemed to me to be the most unrecast-able for the reason you mention.audiences wouldn't except it.

.the six i mentioned seemed to me to be the most unrecast-able for the reason you mention.audiences wouldn't except it.

The issue of replacing a cast member is almost always about the character, not the actor.  How on earth could they have continued the story if, say, Jonathan Frid had become unavailable, and they didn't replace him?  Having a NEW Barnabas would have been difficult, but at a certain point in the history of the show, having NO Barnabas would have been utterly impossible.  What replacement character could possibly have filled that void?

I have to disagree that it's almost always about the character and not the actor, at least in the sense that I'll try and explain. They could've tried  replacing Frid as Barnabas if Frid had become unavailable. I'm almost 100% positive that after a very short time, the audience backlash would result in them letting the replacement go.

It would've become a lose-lose situation. There would be no way for them to win. They might've felt that they had to keep the Barnabas character on the show without JF, but once they tried to replace him, the whole thing would've crashed and burned anyway, because the audience would never have accepted Barnabas played by someone other than Frid, IMHO. They would've ended up forced to continue without the character. With not much of a choice, Quentin would've become the lead character or they would've had to create a new one and hope everything worked out.

mscbryk - I understand your line of thinking completely. I can't imagine some of the characters being recasted, but I do agree with you mostly on the big six and the possiblity that a few characters would have to be written out.

d.s. is anomalous in daytime soaps in that it became so reliant on a single character and the actor that played him.
it had a large cast and numerous sub-plots but everything always came back to barnabas collins and as a result jonathan frid as well.

as barnabas' bride pointed out any attempt to replace him would have crashed and burned.the audience simply wouldn't have been accepting of anyone other than frid in that part.
of all of the actors under discusion here he is unique because while i think the other actors would have been difficult to recast the show likely could have continued should thier character be written out(and indeed it did in the case of vicki).it would have been difficult to come up with a foil like angelique but it's possible.

i suppose quentin could have been groomed to become the show's lead but even that is questionable.it's impossible for us to know today what would really have happened should frid have decided to exit the show but i think that abc would have really had no choice but to cancel it.

If the ratings for DS had been high enough to make the suits at ABC feel they had a "must keep" program on their hands, you can be absolutely certain that they would have worked their way around the loss of one actor to save the show.  Television programming is a business and the continued success of the program would have been the single object of everyones efforts.

The attempt might not have been successful..... (tho personally I think it would have been self-defeating to walk away from a show one loves rather than give a new actor a chance)..... but it certainly would have been made.

I love Louis Edmonds as Roger, and all of the other characters he played. He played the arrogant snob to perfection. Nobody could have done as good a job, definitely could not be recast. 

Hear, hear!  Which is why, IMHO, Roy Thinnes was horrible as Roger in the NBC show.  Don't get me wrong, I love Roy Thinnes, just not as Roger Collins!  Louis had that wonderful SNEER that no one can reproduce. 

as barnabas' bride pointed out any attempt to replace him would have crashed and burned.the audience simply wouldn't have been accepting of anyone other than frid in that part.

I agree w/this.  It was Frid's poignant portrayel of the tortured soul that was Barnabas that not only kept DS on the air, but Frid employed on the show as well.

it's impossible for us to know today what would really have happened should frid have decided to exit the show but i think that abc would have really had no choice but to cancel it.

Actually that's not true, we DO know.  Frid's contract ran out sometime during the 1840 plotline and he only agreed to stay with the show if another, non-vampiric character was created for him, hence Bramwell Collins in Parallel Time.  Well, we all know what happened after this plotline.  

Actually that's not true, we DO know.  Frid's contract ran out sometime during the 1840 plotline and he only agreed to stay with the show if another, non-vampiric character was created for him, hence Bramwell Collins in Parallel Time.  Well, we all know what happened after this plotline.

ABC made the decision to cancel DS near the outset of 1841PT, before that storyline really got going. And as we know, the ratings actually went up during 1841PT, so I don't think 1841PT had much if any impact on the decision one way or another. As we've discussed many times, so many different factors figured into DS' cancellation - Frid's growing boredom with "the fanging thing" and his desire to be allowed to play other characters (which I think was only right, considering that all the other actors were allowed to) was but one factor.

And as we know, the ratings actually went up during 1841PT

Really??!  I didn't know the ratings actually went up!  Well, that's a day booster for me as I love that plotline.