I'll put up with anybody in the role at this point. Even Kevin James who doesn't seem appropriate. But I can picture, and don't laugh, John Larroquette from Night Court and Boston Legal in the role. Or hey, let's try Shatner. Shatner would be the bomb!

@Thebridge said:

I'll put up with anybody in the role at this point. Even Kevin James who doesn't seem appropriate. But I can picture, and don't laugh, John Larroquette from Night Court and Boston Legal in the role. Or hey, let's try Shatner. Shatner would be the bomb!

I'm wondering if Larroquette would be too tall...?

Shatner would be fun :-)

I was thinking Alec Baldwin - he has that smarminess, and the menace (remember him as The Teacher?) but he may be too big, physically, for the kind of character Frank Underwood is, how he'd frame in a shot with Claire. Underwood is unassuming, "under", with that deceiving look of someone you might overlook, that's part of his edge, and from which the menace of his resolve looms large. It can't be bodily.

Richard Schiff, maybe...?

Michael Keaton could pull it off. His Carter Hayes still freaks me out!

Richard Dreyfuss, maybe...?

Keaton or Dreyfuss, I'll take either one. Two great choices. All I see is Trump when I look at Baldwin now.

@Thebridge said:

Keaton or Dreyfuss, I'll take either one. Two great choices. All I see is Trump when I look at Baldwin now.

I know, right?!

Kelsey Grammer - I thought he was great in Boss (a show they did not give a proper chance). I can see him as replacement for Frank or Frank's long lost brother coming to help/support Clare while Frank is in prison.

@Chalee said:

Kelsey Grammer - I thought he was great in Boss (a show they did not give a proper chance). I can see him as replacement for Frank or Frank's long lost brother coming to help/support Clare while Frank is in prison.

Great choice, but to replace Kevin and be Frank.

Kelsey Grammer was great in Boss and The Last Tycoon as Pat Brady the hard-edged studio boss. He can pull off both, the smarmy and charming politician and the knife in your back guy at the same time. I'd love to see Kelsey. I hope somebody is looking at these.

I think recasting isn't an option. Kathy brought up in another thread how Ridley Scott re-cast Spacey's role as J. Paul Getty is his film he's doing now. But that's different from recasting the MAIN character in a TV show. The problem is, unlike what Scott did by refilming Spacey's scenes, - we have FIVE SEASONS of Spacey as Frank Underwood. And those can't be re-shot. Spacey was the face of the show for half a decade. And anyone new coming to the series who might binge watch it would see 5 seasons of Spacey, then with a blink someone new? It destroys the continuity of the show and the experience.

Personally, I wish they'd (Netflix) would have been honest about this. The producers had previously stated Season 7 was to be the final season, but the day after the Spacey bombshell, Netflix announced Season Six is the final season, and they've known that for months (complete BS if you ask me). I'd have liked to have seen them say Spacey will film his scenes quickly and under fierce supervision - and then we are cutting ties with him. Unfortunately, it appears they are now re-writing the entire Season 6, and will have Frank Underwood killed off. Which I think stinks. It's not HOUSE OF CARDS without Frank Underwood.

Any way you slice it, Spacey's issues have destroyed this show.

@censorshipsucks06 said:

I think recasting isn't an option...It destroys the continuity of the show and the experience.

Ah, but soap operas change actors and somehow manage to retain continuity. People have followed literal generations of families over real-life decades in The Young and the Restless with different actors playing Jack Abbott and Ashley Abbott, to name but a few. Cast changes happen, characters live on.

Shucks, I've even seen Jerry act like Kramer and Kramer act like Jerry (the Seinfeld episode called Kenny's Roasters ). They both nailed it and it was hilarious. That's acting. That's the magic. Make the audience believe the character, not push the actor's identity.

Unfortunately, it appears they are now re-writing the entire Season 6, and will have Frank Underwood killed off. Which I think stinks. It's not HOUSE OF CARDS without Frank Underwood.

I agree. I don't think they should be re-writing. Frank Underwood is House of Cards. But, we've got to be clear - Frank Underwood is a fictitious character. Kevin Spacey is an actor. And they are not the same person. Actors get paid a lot of money to act. Surely there's another actor somewhere in Hollywood who can take the script and the direction and act the role of Frank Underwood.

Any way you slice it, Spacey's issues have destroyed this show.

Two and A Half Men fired Charlie Sheen and managed several seasons post-Charlie. Yes, Kutcher did not play the Charlie Harper character, so it's not the perfect application. But, for those who followed the show, Charlie Harper made the show go, yet they continued after him and still got ratings.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@censorshipsucks06 said:

I think recasting isn't an option...It destroys the continuity of the show and the experience.

Ah, but soap operas change actors and somehow manage to retain continuity. People have followed literal generations of families over real-life decades in The Young and the Restless with different actors playing Jack Abbott and Ashley Abbott, to name but a few. Cast changes happen, characters live on.

Shucks, I've even seen Jerry act like Kramer and Kramer act like Jerry (the Seinfeld episode called Kenny's Roasters ). They both nailed it and it was hilarious. That's acting. That's the magic. Make the audience believe the character, not push the actor's identity.

Unfortunately, it appears they are now re-writing the entire Season 6, and will have Frank Underwood killed off. Which I think stinks. It's not HOUSE OF CARDS without Frank Underwood.

I agree. I don't think they should be re-writing. Frank Underwood is House of Cards. But, we've got to be clear - Frank Underwood is a fictitious character. Kevin Spacey is an actor. And they are not the same person. Actors get paid a lot of money to act. Surely there's another actor somewhere in Hollywood who can take the script and the direction and act the role of Frank Underwood.

Any way you slice it, Spacey's issues have destroyed this show.

Two and A Half Men fired Charlie Sheen and managed several seasons post-Charlie. Yes, Kutcher did not play the Charlie Harper character, so it's not the perfect application. But, for those who followed the show, Charlie Harper made the show go, yet they continued after him and still got ratings.

If you can't see the difference between low budget day time cheezy Soaps and House of Cards, there's nothing more I can say. But I'll try. Soaps by their very nature are RARELY about 1 person. Cast changes are the norm there. House of Cards isn't a Soap, or Bewitched, where we simply see a new "Darren" swapped in. This isn't a silly situation comedy like 2.5 Men. And your example there isn't even 'oranges to oranges' as you admitted. They didn't recast Sheen's character in 2.5 Men. They killed him off and introduced a new character.

Sometimes the character and actor IS the show. IMO, that's the case with HOC. You want to maintain that any and every character can be replaced. I disagree. Re-casting doesn't always work. I highly doubt the audience accepts someone else playing Frank Underwood. It would be like recasting J.R. Ewing or Archie Bunker. Or Fonzie on Happy Days. In some situations, it just doesn't work. I believe this is one of those situations. You disagree and that's fine. At the end of the day, it's all speculation, because the producers don't agree with recasting and are killing the character off. So we'll never really know for sure if it would or wouldn't have worked. But the producers clearly think it wouldn't as they've gone in another direction.

@censorshipsucks06 said:

If you can't see the difference between low budget day time cheezy Soaps and House of Cards, there's nothing more I can say. But I'll try.

Thanks for trying! Yeah, there are differences between HoC, soap operas and sitcoms. But there are similarities, too, right? They're all tv shows with actors acting out characters and scripts written by writers.

You want to maintain that any and every character can be replaced.

No, I've never said any and every character can be replaced. I'm talking about an actor, not a character.

I disagree. Re-casting doesn't always work.

I agree. I've never argued it "always" works. Just that it has worked and could possibly work here.

I highly doubt the audience accepts someone else playing Frank Underwood.

Fans on social media have been talking a lot about this, and "replace the actor" conversations have been happening because they like the show and want to see how it was going to play out.

And we live in a day and age when asking the audience is very easy. Let the audience tell the producers whether they'd prefer to see the original script with a new actor, a changed script with the character just being killed off off-camera (people are also talking about it just moving forward with Claire as the main character); or just cancelled outright.

It would be like recasting J.R. Ewing or Archie Bunker. Or Fonzie on Happy Days.

Not sure. I think Frank Underwood is even more central to HoC than Fonzie was on Happy Days.

In some situations, it just doesn't work. I believe this is one of those situations.

As stated lots, I agree with you.

You disagree and that's fine.

Not necessarily. I just would have liked to see them consider it.

At the end of the day, it's all speculation, because the producers don't agree with recasting and are killing the character off. So we'll never really know for sure if it would or wouldn't have worked.

Yes. Unfortunately.

But the producers clearly think it wouldn't as they've gone in another direction.

And we both have disagreed with how they've handled it thus far, so maybe this is yet one more mistake on their part.

Chin up!

I stuck with the show when they did the absurd "Underwood/Underwood" ticket. I stuck through when the Underwood's continued to murder people themselves. I stuck with it when the President attempts to murder his own Secretary of State by pushing her down the stairs (great plan by the way), so I'd probably stick through with a cast change - but I'd hate it.

I can't recall a recent successful recasting of a main character in a popular show that already had a long run. In this case, 5 seasons. Soap Opera's not included.

I completely agree, recasting is a terrible idea. If only one season had been completed, then maybe. But five? Just not acceptable. It's like recasting Andrew Lincoln as Rick Grimes in TWD or Kit Harington as Jon Snow in GoT. The actor is the character, especially after being him for long.

I don't think there's ever been a recast of a main character in a show after being established. The closest is Charlie Sheen in Two and Half men but Ashton Kutchner played a different character (albeit very similar, but different nonetheless and even then it didn't go down well)

@cpheonix said:

I completely agree, recasting is a terrible idea.

You're not alone in that opinion, that's for certain.

But, here's my problem. Up until this Spacey issue exploded, the show had a plan for the next season. I'd prefer they stuck with that.

Now that Spacey is out, they are re-writing. Aren't you curious where they were originally going when, the last we heard from Frank, he'd kill Claire if she did not pardon him? How on earth would he "get" to the President of the United States and get away with such an assassination, husband notwithstanding? Would she pardon him? And, if she did, then what? Would she continue to "save his seat" or would she settle in and be president. And what would Frank do? Would Doug be loyal to Frank, or to the President? Would Claire trust Doug or presume his loyalty to Frank would undermine her? And what about her secrets? She's a murderer, too - the killing of Yates isn't just going to go away. House of Cards with a Frank Underwood - regardless the actor - still seems infinitely better, to me, than some hasty rewrite to eliminate the character with the actor.

Re-casting does a few things:

A) it presents a new challenge. Most of those who feel recasting doesn't work mention that you haven't seen it work. Ok, fine, but remember, before House of Cards, the idea of dropping an entire season at the same time had never been tried. House of Cards has always been a trailblazing enterprise, why should they shrink back from accepting another challenge?

B) it allows the show to retain some kind of continuity, which is, the plot they were already working on. To reverse engineer removing the character of Frank Underwood, who has been central to the entire show, is more problematic for me, than allowing another actor to assume the role and act.

C) it also gives Hollywood a chance to demonstrate some acting chops. Again, writers write characters, directors direct characters, and actors act characters. It's mindboggling to me to suggest, out of all the actors hustling to make a living, paying their union dues and showing up, there is not a single other actor who could do justice to this role. I simply do not believe it.

So, we're going to let the actor take down the character with him, what then becomes of the show? Do we trust the writers will have the moxie to re-write for the complete removal of the central character, and do so hastily to stay on schedule?

I don't. Recasting presents one problem; rewriting presents multiple problemsw. Their odds of getting one thing right is much higher than their odds of tackling multiple problems successfully.

Thanks for the detailed response. I've never thought of it like that but I still stand by the fact that a show cannot continue a story without the same lead actor if, for the last 5 years, he's been that character.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Now that Spacey is out, they are re-writing. Aren't you curious where they were originally going when, the last we heard from Frank, he'd kill Claire if she did not pardon him? How on earth would he "get" to the President of the United States and get away with such an assassination, husband notwithstanding?

I imagine the writers would have had no such problem finding a way for Frank to kill Claire. They found a way for him to comatose the secretary of state in the White House! As for being curious about the original plan; I had no idea how they would have ended the show with Spacey, so this doesn't change anything. Let's be fair, we all know he was going to get his comeuppance sooner or later, so him dying, whether at the end or beginning of the season, didn't matter to me.

Re-casting does a few things:

A) it presents a new challenge. Most of those who feel recasting doesn't work mention that you haven't seen it work. Ok, fine, but remember, before House of Cards, the idea of dropping an entire season at the same time had never been tried. House of Cards has always been a trailblazing enterprise, why should they shrink back from accepting another challenge?

Trailblazing in what way? That you could stream the whole season in one go? I really have to disagree that HoC has been a pioneer of doing things differently.

B) it allows the show to retain some kind of continuity, which is, the plot they were already working on. To reverse engineer removing the character of Frank Underwood, who has been central to the entire show, is more problematic for me, than allowing another actor to assume the role and act.

The show will retain continuity with or without frank. Claire Underwood. Every season she's gradually becoming more integral to the storyline. Some might say just as central as Frank.

C) it also gives Hollywood a chance to demonstrate some acting chops. Again, writers write characters, directors direct characters, and actors act characters. It's mindboggling to me to suggest, out of all the actors hustling to make a living, paying their union dues and showing up, there is not a single other actor who could do justice to this role. I simply do not believe it.

If that was the case why didn't they recast all those actors who died while filming e.g. Brandon Lee in the Crow, Paul Walker in F&F? I'll tell you why, it's because the actors MADE the role. And if someone does come in as a replacement he will just be compared to Spacey in every scene. That's not healthy for the actor, and no established one would want that comparison. Plus he would not have enough time to establish the character as "his". Spacey had 5 years.

So, we're going to let the actor take down the character with him, what then becomes of the show? Do we trust the writers will have the moxie to re-write for the complete removal of the central character, and do so hastily to stay on schedule?

At the end of the day the writers and remaining cast is what will become of the show. Yes, Frank Underwood is HoC but as said previously, the last few series it definitely felt like a 50/50 with Claire.

Fans of the show will watch HoC S6 knowing what happened to Spacey in real life. They won't accept knowing that there's another actor trying to be Frank Underwood.

I appreciate the points you make but the thought of someone like Kevin James (ugh) being Underwood...well, they may as well not make a season 6...