Abby Ryder Fortson, the original Cassie Lang, has now (pretty much) caught up with Cassie's age in MCU (18 in Quantumania). Should the role be given back to her?
Commentaires
drntl2025-10-19 01:17
This girl has basically never acted.
Snufflebox2025-10-19 01:19
Except in the two movies she was in before? And she was a pretty good child actor.
bappischungo2025-10-19 01:21
She did good on The Pitt
bchec2025-10-19 01:33
The last commenter is right, Kathryn Newton has too much starpower to recast to the original now.
SubhasTheJanitor2025-10-19 01:22
Huh? She’s really good in Are You There God? It’s Me Margaret.
maybe_a_frog2025-10-19 01:26
Conversely, Kathryn Newton has been in a ton of stuff and is a pretty popular actress. Which is why there’s zero chance they’ll recast the character again.
XingXiaoRen2025-10-19 02:06
She sucks.
maybe_a_frog2025-10-19 02:08
Nah. She was pretty fucking great in Freaky.
cee-ell-bee2025-10-19 01:33
She has like 38 acting credits. Why lie?
DUNG_INSPECTOR2025-10-19 02:42
Weird thing to lie about.
Hyxenflay7737_45652025-10-19 01:19
I don't see a reason for Cassie to show up again, thing is. Quantumania was awful, I'm just gonna say it, so I doubt there'll be a fourth Ant-Man film.
And Kathryn Newton was fine in the role; not amazing, but she did fine. No reason to give the role back to Abby when she's already been replaced twice.
Snufflebox2025-10-19 01:21
Kathryn should've never been given the role in the first place. Not only that, but I very much disliked her in the movie.
And as per The Marvels, we should be getting a Young Avengers movie at some point in the future.
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 01:45
As per The Marvels there’s as much chance you’ll never see any of those characters again.
It’s the biggest box office bomb in history. Every new character that’s been introduced for the YA has either failed or had minimal success. And there’s only 3 movies left before the MCU reboots. Chances of getting a YA movie are incredibly low.
DefVanJoviAero2025-10-19 04:09
In history??? That's just plain incorrect
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 10:23
Typo. I meant to type ‘one of’. Because you’re right. It’s not the biggest. It’s third.
maybe_a_frog2025-10-19 01:24
> I don't see a reason for Cassie to show up again
They were very clearly setting up a Young Avengers team, of which Cassie is a founding member in the comics. She absolutely has a reason to return. Not to mention Kathryn Newton is a pretty popular actress.
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 01:38
The next movie is Spider-Man. Then Doomsday. Then Secret Wars.
Marvel have had disappointment after disappointment. Doomsday *will* be starring RDJ, Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Evans to recoup profits they haven’t been making.
All of the YA characters have had mediocre success at best. Most have done poorly. Ms Marvel starred in the biggest box office flop of all time. It doesn’t matter that everyone that watched her likes her. The problem is most people don’t want to watch her. Or Ironheart, or Wiccan.
There’s no chance we’ll get a YA team in SM or DD. There’s pretty much zero chance we’ll get one between DD and SW. and then SW is rebooting the MCU.
SW is also scheduled for 2027. It could be pushed to 2028 or later. That puts a YA movie at 2029-2030 at the absolute earliest. That’s 7 years after Quantumania, 8 after Wakanda Forever, 8 after Ms Marvel, and 9 after Hawkey and WandaVision. They’ll all be verging on being the middle aged Avengers by then. It’s not happening.
In 2030, the following will be:
Kathryn Newton - 33
Iman Vellani - 28
Dominique Thorne - 32
Hailee Steinfeld - 32
Joe Locke - 27
Apprehensive-Quit3532025-10-19 01:53
Do you think 33 is middle aged?
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 01:57
“Verging on”.
Aka getting close to.
So no, I don’t. But it’s closer to middle aged than it is to young. The middle aged comment was also clearly tongue in cheek hyperbole to emphasise the point that there will be no *young* avengers. They’ll *all* be older than Scar-Jo was in the Avengers, 3 will be older than Hemsworth was (with the remaining 2 being the same age) and 2 will be about Evans age.
Apprehensive-Quit3532025-10-19 01:58
Even if they were younger they're more likely to use the Champions branding to avoid brand dilution for the Avengers name.
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 02:00
Probably. Yeah.
But I think the problem is that every single one of them is either box office poison, or basically an unknown to the general audience.
Hawkeye [HS] is the only one that’s a proven draw. And we don’t know if she can lift the others up. Pugh wasn’t able to lift the Thunderbolts for example, and she’s was acting beside the Winter Soldier, and she’s the biggest star of all the new characters.
Apprehensive-Quit3532025-10-19 02:03
I don't think any of the actors are proven to be poison, but modern stars just don't sell films. We don't have movie stars anymore, the IP is the star.
That said none of those IPs have proven to be a box draw. If they do a Champions thing it'd be more likely to be a series which they're winding back on anyway.
Audiences didn't respond to the new characters introduced during the last two phases so we'll see a lot less of them in general.
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 02:06
Your last paragraph there is exactly the point I’m making. The audience don’t care about the new characters. So we won’t get a YA movie or show (or Defenders if that’s what it would be called).
Big_Epsilon2025-10-19 02:24
All of these feel like reasonable ages to play characters in their early 20s. Tom Holland is 29 (and will be 34 by then), and Spider-Man is probably around the age these characters will be.
indeedy712025-10-19 03:49
Do you think these things are filmed when they come out?
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 10:17
Did you miss “At the earliest”
Any-Transition952025-10-19 03:51
Everyone knows Young Avengers/Champion is 100% not gonna be a movie, but what's stopping them from a D+ show. Most of the characters have far more popularity on D+, the target audience of YA coincides with D+ viewers more than the big screen. They've already done most of the legwork setting them up, plenty of source material as inspiration for them, it's a show begging to be made. Like Antman probably isn't making past Doomsday, Cassie is totally getting her comic book storyline.
lidlessinflame2025-10-19 05:51
Also having them in a tv series allows the characters and their dynamics as an ensemble to be developed more. (It was one of the many problems with Eternals which should have been a series rather than a movie)
Tbh as a comic Young Avengers fan (primarily Heinberg’s run being my favorite) I’m hating them mashing up the three teams (Heinberg YA, Gillen YA, and Champions) into this Frankenstein team.
Just sucks as I’ve been waiting for the OG team since the rumors of Wanda and Pietro being cast (even went to Avengers 2012’s release in a homemade Wiccan costume) only for them to be OOC and mixed with other heroes for arbitrary reasons.
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 10:20
> most of the characters have far more popularity on Disney+
By what metric!?
The viewing figures for most of them are god awful.
It costs a fortune to make a D+ show. None of them have the audience to justify getting a season 2, let alone the amount it would cost to make an ensemble show.
Unhappy-Database-2732025-10-19 07:53
Biggest box office flop of all time?
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 10:42
I googled. I was wrong. It’s 3rd after Lone Ranger (2) and John Carter (1).
filmyfanatic2025-10-19 07:29
Honestly, and I could be wrong, but I think the ship for the Young Avengers has sailed. Kathryn Newton is 28, Hailee Steinfeld is 29, Dominique Thorne is 28, Ruaridh Mollica is 26. Even Iman Vellani is 23 and Joe Locke is 22.
Compare this to The Avengers, Scarlet Johansson was 28, Chris Hemsworth was 29, Chris Evans and Tom Hiddleston were 31. In Age of Ultron, Elizabeth Olsen was 26 and Aaron Taylor Johnson was 25. In Endgame, Brie Larson was 30. Even Florence Pugh is 29.
The Young Avengers only make sense when they’re kids, but at this point they’re all well into adulthood. At this point, they’re all basically just The Avengers.
maybe_a_frog2025-10-19 07:43
> The Young Avengers only make sense when they’re kids
The Young Avengers were never “kids”. They were at their youngest late teens, but otherwise mostly depicted as early 20’s. All of those actors and actresses you mentioned can still pass as early 20’s, and very likely will still be able to do that over the next 5 years.
XingXiaoRen2025-10-19 02:07
It's ok to say she's terrible.
Girizzly_Adams_Beard2025-10-19 01:21
They never should’ve recast her.
Snufflebox2025-10-19 01:22
I get the initial recast, cause of the timejump.
I do not get the recast for Quantumania.
HappyTurtleOwl2025-10-19 01:39
Yea the funny thing is that now grown-up Abby can pass as Endgame Cassie if someone hadn't recently see the movies, they look somewhat similar, but quantumania cassie just looks like a completely different person.
DonquixoteDFlamingo2025-10-19 05:37
I already hated that Quantumania actress in her other stuff but when she replaced Endgame Cassie I was crushed
tulipbunnys2025-10-19 08:17
same, i didn’t think she had cassie’s vibe from the first two ant-man films.
Chaoticgood7902025-10-19 01:48
This was always baffling to me. They did the recast for endgame and then dropped her…for reasons?
eagc72025-10-19 01:54
I won't be surprised if this was more Peyton Reed going i didn't cast her, i want to pick whoever gets to play older Cassie
Chaoticgood7902025-10-19 02:37
So dumb. She looked completely different. And they didn’t even tell the actress she was recast either
justafanboy10102025-10-19 05:17
Such a shit move
XComThrowawayAcct2025-10-19 03:36
Kathryn Newton has been marketed as the next hot star and she needed a big role to make the next step in her career.
Emma Fuhrmann has… not been developed in that way.
Now, maybe this is a choice. Maybe Newton wants to pursue her ambitions and Fuhrmann is happy to focus on her family life and doesn’t want to be a star. But I also think sometimes Hollywood decides in advance who’s going to be the next big thing and they’ll push out any “accidental stars” that get in the way.
Or maybe Payton Reed just really, really like Kathryn Newton’s performance as Cassie so much he never even thought to call Emma Fuhrmann and give her a shot.
TheJoshider102025-10-19 08:43
Yeah there was definitely some marketing around casting new Cassie, the shiny new Hollywood star and all that vs a no name from Endgame. Although the funny thing is no one knows/cares who Kathryn Newton is anyway so it's not like it did anything for the film either way. Just Hollywood being Hollywood.
Personally my biggest issue with her is that I didn't believe it was the same character, I just saw Newton. Quantumania really fucked up with the daughter dynamic which I think is one of its biggest faults.
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 11:01
I think it’s the same as casting Katherine Langford as Morgan Stark.
Hollywood saw 13 reasons success and assumed casting her would be news. In reality there’s pretty much zero crossover in the fan bases and nobody gave a fuck. Though to be fair to them, they probably knew that and were trying to capture some of that fanbase. Problem being nobody was particularly overly fawning over Langfords performance in 13 reasons.
XComThrowawayAcct2025-10-19 18:27
The father/daughter dynamic is arguably **the sole purpose** of *Quantumania* as a film and they fumbled it.
Heavensrun2025-10-19 04:08
The actress in Endgame was a bit part, presumably they didn't think she was right for the larger role they had for Cassie in Quantumania.
Honestly, MCU fans are way too obsessed with forever casting considering one of the best characters in the franchise came out of a recast. ("Look, it's me, I'm here, just deal with it.")
It's part of why the franchise is in such disarray now. I can kind of understand not wanting to recast T'Challa, though I personally think it would've been better long-term if they had, but dumping Kang entirely just because the actor was troublesome is just incredibly short-sighted, and honestly it's going to sit like a cloud over everything they do from now on.
They're movies. Parts get recast.
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 11:03
I agree with everything you’ve said and would add Ruffalo in as a recast.
But… hard disagree with Kang.
Kang should’ve never been involved. It should have been Doom all along.
Heavensrun2025-10-19 12:09
Eh, Kang is interesting enough as a villain, IMPO, but the point is that they had already committed to him as a big bad, and dumping that whole story in mid-stride is just a huge mess. Trying to cover that up by introducing a popular villain is like jangling keys to distract somebody from a gunshot wound.
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 12:14
To be fair, he was a one and done villain in a single movie, and that movie had half the viewers of Dr Strange 2.
So as far as the vast majority of audiences are concerned, they really hadn’t committed to anything.
Since D+ shows have an even tinier viewership, a lot of people won’t have even known Loki was a thing, let alone that he was in it.
linkman05962025-10-19 07:56
The reason being that she revealed her role before the movie came out, violating her NDA. It was pretty minor since it's not like she announced it publicly, just told people she knew but considering how minor the role was at that point and how strict they were trying to be with spoilers on endgame, it's not that surprising.
Eastern_Hornet_64322025-10-19 09:33
Source? I've never heard that one before.
linkman05962025-10-19 10:22
I don't remember, but it was widely discussed on here when it happened
FoxyMiira2025-10-19 10:35
There's a report saying that she posted an Instagram photo with an Atlanta location tag and got a warning by Marvel. Marvel never said she violated NDA.
FightTheDead1182025-10-19 01:56
I only kinda get it because the actress they got looked too old for the age the character was supposed to be. What was Cassie supposed to he after the time jump? Like 14/15, the actress in Endgame looked like early 20s
New-Instance-16902025-10-19 02:49
i think the actress herself was around 14-16 but just looked older for her age
Optimal_Lifeguard5752025-10-19 03:29
Honestly, most folks wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference, the recasting should have never happened…they just made the decision to cast the new lady because she had some buzz and the studio overestimated the buzz
NeoZ33D2025-10-19 01:34
I do hope (no offense to the new actress) that they bring her back. That would be awesome, now that the age matches up. Understand why they needed to recast.
jerslan2025-10-19 06:14
They could also do the "funny" thing and just start recasting Cassie in every movie and have nobody in-universe notice except the 4th Wall breakers like She-Hulk and Deadpool.
retrospects2025-10-19 01:24
No
walkinmermaid2025-10-19 01:25
Yesss! I love her. She’s a great actress.
ExampleGlum86232025-10-19 01:30
YES. The actress for her in Quantumania had the charisma of a rock. It was very disappointing after seeing the relationship they had in the previous two movies.
blobfish-arent-ugly2025-10-19 01:31
I think she should get it back i don’t even like that it got taken away from her Im not saying the new person is bad shes fine but i just think she should have kept it
Zmrdizhor2025-10-19 01:31
I wish she would still play Cassie, its not the same without her, but I doubt they'll gave it back to her. They want a big name in the role.
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 01:45
No.
The quality of Quanumania is irrelevant. They have an adult Cassie. Recasting her again would be bad.
Snufflebox2025-10-19 01:50
They already had an adult Cassie, and they still recasted her. That point is kinda moot.
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 01:52
They had a teenage Cassie. Not adult.
But agreed that they didn’t need a third version. Which means I think they definitely don’t need a fourth. Even if the fourth is the first.
Heavensrun2025-10-19 03:59
She wouldn't *be* a fourth version. She'd be returning to the role. She'd be the *first* version. I don't have a strong opinion that they do or don't need to recast her, but let's call a spade a spade shall we?
OShaunesssy2025-10-19 07:14
>She wouldn't *be* a fourth version. She'd be returning to the role. She'd be the *first* version.
Lol semantics
If you didnt think the role needed to be recast a third time then you should at least be open to the idea that it shouldnt be cast a 4th time either.
MajorNoodles2025-10-19 05:54
Emma Fuhrman was 22 when Quantumania came out. Kathryn Newton was 26. And the character of Cassie was 18.
TheDungeonCrawler2025-10-19 08:23
This. Cassie Lang was 10 when her dad was trapped in the Quantum Realm. She was 15 when we next saw her. Emma Fuhrman was 17 or 18 in that scene. Quantumania didn't release until 4 years after that. Emma Fuhrman had no reason to be recast from that role beyond wanting a bigger star to play the role. I like Kathryn Newton, but she didn't need to be Cassie Lang and Marvel needs to remember its roots in casting smaller actors and actresses. It saw great success with Hidelston and Hemsworth and they routinely go over budget on everything anyway. Why bother getting a bigger star for something everyone's already going to see anyway? Why not further propel a young woman's career?
Plus, Furhman looks more like Abby Fortson than Kathryn Newton does.
geek_of_nature2025-10-19 04:04
First off, recast, not recasted.
Secondly, they had what was essentially just a stand in for the role. The actress in Endgame had just one line and less than a minute of screen time, and yet everyone was acting like she was set for the next ten years in the role.
usagicassidy2025-10-19 08:14
People that go on about how she shouldn’t have been “recast” with Kathryn Newton are quite frankly, absurd and clearly have no clue how the industry really works.
We all saw her for 17 seconds in Endgame and only because it’s an MCU movie people were so passionately up in arms (lol) about the casting for Quantumania. It’s ridiculous.
Itchy_Mulberry73902025-10-19 06:17
[removed]
Crunchy-Leaf2025-10-19 08:32
“Confuse everything”? Who will be confused? Either you’re an MCU nerd and you’ll know it’s Cassie and that’ll be it, or you’re a casual fan who couldn’t pick the character of Cassie Lang - or any of her actresses - out of a line up.
Literally just introduce her as Scott Langs daughter and that’s all anyone needs to know.
Eastern_Hornet_64322025-10-19 09:27
Yep, I agree with James Gunn who says that casual fans aren't confused by stuff like this. It's not Tony Stark, who casuals would notice if he got recast. Cassie's had three actresses so far and casuals have expressed no confusion. But Fortson is the one we all thought was adorable in the first two movies, and is therefore the one the audience has the strongest connection to.
Terrible-Group-96022025-10-19 09:55
Kathryn Newton is 30 yet supposed to be part of the 'young avengers'. They need to be a similar age to Iman Veilani
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 10:45
Kathryn Newton is 28, not 30.
But yeah, she’s still 5 years older than Iman (at 23). I wouldn’t say that means they should recast again just to drop her age though.
If anything Newtown is the bigger star, why not recast Iman with an older actor to align their ages? (I don’t think they should do this, this is a joke).
LittleCupcake24782025-10-19 01:49
They could bring her and Emma Fuhrmann back as Cassie variants. Having them interact with Kathryn Newton's Cassie like sisters would be fun to see, with Scott and Hope struggling to juggle a whole family unit.
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 11:11
Yeah, because what Marvel needs now is more multiverse and more bloat. That’s what audiences are really craving.
Apprehensive-Quit3532025-10-19 01:52
Kathryn Newton is absolutely atrocious in the role so I wouldn't be opposed to this.
eagc72025-10-19 01:55
I doubt they will get rid of Kathryn
ShadowMikeX2025-10-19 03:06
I think so.
FUCK1NGFABULOUS2025-10-19 03:55
With the soft reboot incoming, it could happen.
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 11:09
I think you’re more likely to get a new Scott or Hank than a new Cassie.
The soft reboot will almost certainly go back to popular characters, not next gen or legacy characters.
You’ll have the X-Men and then probably recasts of characters audiences actually want.
mr_oberts2025-10-19 04:01
Did your alert go off a year early?
Samurai56M2025-10-19 04:02
The new actress is much better
FoxyMiira2025-10-19 04:12
Stop dying on this hill. They recast to the new girl because she has more star power and appeal. That's all there was to it.
Silent_Anxiety48282025-10-19 05:23
Who tf cares
DumbWhore42025-10-19 06:56
I care.
usagicassidy2025-10-19 08:19
Genuinely, maybe get over it. It’s pretty embarrassing to still care about something like this.
Cmackdee2025-10-19 05:33
Why is this even worth having a discussion over?
DJfunkyPuddle2025-10-19 05:57
Does she want the role?
Majestic-Marcus2025-10-19 11:12
Yes. Every actor in Hollywood who isn’t an established star wants a high profile Marvel role.
Doesn’t matter that Marvels popularity is waning. Original Cassie isn’t famous. This could make her that.
Crimkam2025-10-19 06:03
Multiverse Cassie
Stillwindows952025-10-19 06:40
I mean, idk, can she act on a level marvel expects? Not all child actors grow up to be good actors.
I figured that's why they replaced Emma Fuhrman who was a super fan and played teenage Cassie, because Kathryn Newton is more bankable as an actor for marvel and already a well known face in Hollywood.
avengestar2025-10-19 07:32
Not for the main timeline, but as a varient of cassie in future projects, sure!
g4n0esp4r4n2025-10-19 07:58
I don't know who she is so no.
BenSolo_Cup2025-10-19 09:35
Yes!!! We will pretend Quantumania didn’t happen.
LostEsco2025-10-19 10:19
Isn’t cassie already the most recast character in the mcu
Shmung_lord2025-10-19 11:56
Yes. I hated the actress who played her in Quantumania.
marvelstudios-ModTeam2025-10-19 12:12
... your post lacked enough effort to promote new or productive discussion to the subreddit. If you're attempting to start a discussion with a low effort screenshot or video, try making a text post where you analyse the topic of the discussion and offer your own opinion.
If you're asking an open-ended question, try to add your own personal answer and the reasoning.
Commentaires
And Kathryn Newton was fine in the role; not amazing, but she did fine. No reason to give the role back to Abby when she's already been replaced twice.
And as per The Marvels, we should be getting a Young Avengers movie at some point in the future.
It’s the biggest box office bomb in history. Every new character that’s been introduced for the YA has either failed or had minimal success. And there’s only 3 movies left before the MCU reboots. Chances of getting a YA movie are incredibly low.
They were very clearly setting up a Young Avengers team, of which Cassie is a founding member in the comics. She absolutely has a reason to return. Not to mention Kathryn Newton is a pretty popular actress.
Marvel have had disappointment after disappointment. Doomsday *will* be starring RDJ, Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Evans to recoup profits they haven’t been making.
All of the YA characters have had mediocre success at best. Most have done poorly. Ms Marvel starred in the biggest box office flop of all time. It doesn’t matter that everyone that watched her likes her. The problem is most people don’t want to watch her. Or Ironheart, or Wiccan.
There’s no chance we’ll get a YA team in SM or DD. There’s pretty much zero chance we’ll get one between DD and SW. and then SW is rebooting the MCU.
SW is also scheduled for 2027. It could be pushed to 2028 or later. That puts a YA movie at 2029-2030 at the absolute earliest. That’s 7 years after Quantumania, 8 after Wakanda Forever, 8 after Ms Marvel, and 9 after Hawkey and WandaVision. They’ll all be verging on being the middle aged Avengers by then. It’s not happening.
In 2030, the following will be:
Kathryn Newton - 33
Iman Vellani - 28
Dominique Thorne - 32
Hailee Steinfeld - 32
Joe Locke - 27
Aka getting close to.
So no, I don’t. But it’s closer to middle aged than it is to young. The middle aged comment was also clearly tongue in cheek hyperbole to emphasise the point that there will be no *young* avengers. They’ll *all* be older than Scar-Jo was in the Avengers, 3 will be older than Hemsworth was (with the remaining 2 being the same age) and 2 will be about Evans age.
But I think the problem is that every single one of them is either box office poison, or basically an unknown to the general audience.
Hawkeye [HS] is the only one that’s a proven draw. And we don’t know if she can lift the others up. Pugh wasn’t able to lift the Thunderbolts for example, and she’s was acting beside the Winter Soldier, and she’s the biggest star of all the new characters.
That said none of those IPs have proven to be a box draw. If they do a Champions thing it'd be more likely to be a series which they're winding back on anyway.
Audiences didn't respond to the new characters introduced during the last two phases so we'll see a lot less of them in general.
Tbh as a comic Young Avengers fan (primarily Heinberg’s run being my favorite) I’m hating them mashing up the three teams (Heinberg YA, Gillen YA, and Champions) into this Frankenstein team.
Just sucks as I’ve been waiting for the OG team since the rumors of Wanda and Pietro being cast (even went to Avengers 2012’s release in a homemade Wiccan costume) only for them to be OOC and mixed with other heroes for arbitrary reasons.
By what metric!?
The viewing figures for most of them are god awful.
It costs a fortune to make a D+ show. None of them have the audience to justify getting a season 2, let alone the amount it would cost to make an ensemble show.
Compare this to The Avengers, Scarlet Johansson was 28, Chris Hemsworth was 29, Chris Evans and Tom Hiddleston were 31. In Age of Ultron, Elizabeth Olsen was 26 and Aaron Taylor Johnson was 25. In Endgame, Brie Larson was 30. Even Florence Pugh is 29.
The Young Avengers only make sense when they’re kids, but at this point they’re all well into adulthood. At this point, they’re all basically just The Avengers.
The Young Avengers were never “kids”. They were at their youngest late teens, but otherwise mostly depicted as early 20’s. All of those actors and actresses you mentioned can still pass as early 20’s, and very likely will still be able to do that over the next 5 years.
I do not get the recast for Quantumania.
Emma Fuhrmann has… not been developed in that way.
Now, maybe this is a choice. Maybe Newton wants to pursue her ambitions and Fuhrmann is happy to focus on her family life and doesn’t want to be a star. But I also think sometimes Hollywood decides in advance who’s going to be the next big thing and they’ll push out any “accidental stars” that get in the way.
Or maybe Payton Reed just really, really like Kathryn Newton’s performance as Cassie so much he never even thought to call Emma Fuhrmann and give her a shot.
Personally my biggest issue with her is that I didn't believe it was the same character, I just saw Newton. Quantumania really fucked up with the daughter dynamic which I think is one of its biggest faults.
Hollywood saw 13 reasons success and assumed casting her would be news. In reality there’s pretty much zero crossover in the fan bases and nobody gave a fuck. Though to be fair to them, they probably knew that and were trying to capture some of that fanbase. Problem being nobody was particularly overly fawning over Langfords performance in 13 reasons.
Honestly, MCU fans are way too obsessed with forever casting considering one of the best characters in the franchise came out of a recast. ("Look, it's me, I'm here, just deal with it.")
It's part of why the franchise is in such disarray now. I can kind of understand not wanting to recast T'Challa, though I personally think it would've been better long-term if they had, but dumping Kang entirely just because the actor was troublesome is just incredibly short-sighted, and honestly it's going to sit like a cloud over everything they do from now on.
They're movies. Parts get recast.
But… hard disagree with Kang.
Kang should’ve never been involved. It should have been Doom all along.
So as far as the vast majority of audiences are concerned, they really hadn’t committed to anything.
Since D+ shows have an even tinier viewership, a lot of people won’t have even known Loki was a thing, let alone that he was in it.
The quality of Quanumania is irrelevant. They have an adult Cassie. Recasting her again would be bad.
But agreed that they didn’t need a third version. Which means I think they definitely don’t need a fourth. Even if the fourth is the first.
Lol semantics
If you didnt think the role needed to be recast a third time then you should at least be open to the idea that it shouldnt be cast a 4th time either.
Plus, Furhman looks more like Abby Fortson than Kathryn Newton does.
Secondly, they had what was essentially just a stand in for the role. The actress in Endgame had just one line and less than a minute of screen time, and yet everyone was acting like she was set for the next ten years in the role.
We all saw her for 17 seconds in Endgame and only because it’s an MCU movie people were so passionately up in arms (lol) about the casting for Quantumania. It’s ridiculous.
Literally just introduce her as Scott Langs daughter and that’s all anyone needs to know.
But yeah, she’s still 5 years older than Iman (at 23). I wouldn’t say that means they should recast again just to drop her age though.
If anything Newtown is the bigger star, why not recast Iman with an older actor to align their ages? (I don’t think they should do this, this is a joke).
The soft reboot will almost certainly go back to popular characters, not next gen or legacy characters.
You’ll have the X-Men and then probably recasts of characters audiences actually want.
Doesn’t matter that Marvels popularity is waning. Original Cassie isn’t famous. This could make her that.
I figured that's why they replaced Emma Fuhrman who was a super fan and played teenage Cassie, because Kathryn Newton is more bankable as an actor for marvel and already a well known face in Hollywood.
If you're asking an open-ended question, try to add your own personal answer and the reasoning.