Sometimes a movie adaptation of a novel I’ve read is popular, and when people refer to the actions of the characters they would say the name of the actors instead. Recently it was with Dangerous Liaisons, and the imagery was somewhat strange.
Sometimes a movie adaptation of a novel I’ve read is popular, and when people refer to the actions of the characters they would say the name of the actors instead. Recently it was with Dangerous Liaisons, and the imagery was somewhat strange.
The exception seems to be movies that are part of big franchises. I’ve never heard anyone refer to Harry Potter as “Dan Ratcliffe”. But then when a franchise has a lot of remakes and reboots, it reverts back again. People call Batman and James Bond by the actor names to distinguish which version of Batman or James Bond they mean
And those franchises are made up of “episodes”, like TV, where we become more familiar with the character with each exposure.
I wonder if the identity shifts from the actor to the character with the first sequel.
You mention Harry Potter-- and I’m thinking of another parallel, Star Wars-- in each, the principals were relative unknowns. So there were no huge personalities to supercede the characters at the outset. So yes, you didn’t hear people referring to “Daniel Radcliffe” until he started doing other movies (is my guess when it happened). Han Solo was just Han Solo. I don’t remember him becoming “HARRISON FORD” until after Raiders of the Lost Ark (and even then Indiana Jones is a tough character to grow beyond, though he did it).