I thought about this after hearing about two of ABC's sitcoms recasting roles: American Housewife recasting (https://deadline.com/2020/09/american-housewife-anna-kat-role-recast-giselle-eisenberg-replaces-julia-butters-exits-abc-comedy-series-season-5-1234575693/) the role of Anna Kat and The Goldbergs recasting (https://deadline.com/2020/09/the-goldbergs-carrie-wampler-abc-comedy-series-recasting-1234573015/) the role of Ren.

I don't want to say that we should always be upset when a role is recast (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TheOtherDarrin/LiveActionTV), because it's inevitable by the sheer nature of the business. Daytime soap operas of course, do it all of the time. I do wish that in there are clear cut reasons for why certain recastings have to take place.

For example, on Tim Allen's show Last Man Standing, we never got a proper and honest explanation for why his eldest daughter was recast in-between the first and second season. On Bewitched, which had probably the most infamous recasting in television history, at least we know that Dick York (the original Darrin Stephens) couldn't physically do the show anymore.

I suppose that the most offending occurrence of recasting, if it involves an actor who had originated the role for a minimum of three seasons. It's a lot different if the recasting would come after a singular appearance from the original actor. I say this because by the third season, we've grown to accept the original actor in the role. So all of a sudden recasting is likely going to completely offset the dynamic, if the new actor's acting approach is much different.

It would be a lot worst if the replacement actor doesn't remotely look anything like their predecessor physically. What would also to me be annoying is if the writers don't at the very least, try to lampshade (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/LampshadeHanging/LiveActionTV) the situation rather than acting like we don't know the difference.

Other than the episode with the Cheers guest cast, I haven't watched the Goldbergs since the end of season 4. I don't remember a character named Ren at all, doesn't seem like whoever that is would be major. not like if they recast one of the main six Goldbergs family

If has a serious detriment to the show.

I suppose that the most offending occurrence of recasting, if it involves an actor who had originated the role for a minimum of three seasons. It's a lot different if the recasting would come after a singular appearance from the original actor. I say this because by the third season, we've grown to accept the original actor in the role. So all of a sudden recasting is likely going to completely offset the dynamic, if the new actor's acting approach is much different.

It would be a lot worst if the replacement actor doesn't remotely look anything like their predecessor physically. What would also to me be annoying is if the writers don't at the very least, try to lampshade (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/LampshadeHanging/LiveActionTV) the situation rather than acting like we don't know the difference.

I guess it depends a lot on how central the character is to the main plot.

Personally I don't enjoy the cast changes, but you cant empower each character to hold the show hostage, which I think many actors would do, if given the chance.

Altering the plot to accommodate the character change is, IMO, a better solution

When Steve Rhodes left Married with Children and was replaced by Jefferson Darcy, I thought they did a good job breaking the continuity. When they brought in Seven, I expected one of the two older kids to exit.

If they would have tried to replace Al or Peggy, I likely would have lost interest in the show.

Even with plot changes, there still are risks, Thinking about the failed attempt to replace Barney on TAGS.

Then, if you look at a show like Night Court, the show actually got better with Christine Sullivan taking over the defense attorney role. While I have mixed feelings about the different women to play the second bailiff's role.

It would be a lot worst if the replacement actor doesn't remotely look anything like their predecessor physically. What would also to me be annoying is if the writers don't at the very least, try to lampshade (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/LampshadeHanging/LiveActionTV) the situation rather than acting like we don't know the difference.

This happened on One Life to Live. The Blair character was originally portrayed by a half-Japanese actress (though her ethnicity was never addressed IIRC), and was later brought back with an actress who ... wasn't. It always felt odd to me, but the replacement Blair became even more of a mainstay on the show, so the recast didn't hurt OLTL.

This happened on One Life to Live. The Blair character was originally portrayed by a half-Japanese actress (though her ethnicity was never addressed IIRC), and was later brought back with an actress who ... wasn't. It always felt odd to me, but the replacement Blair became even more of a mainstay on the show, so the recast didn't hurt OLTL.You mean Blair wasn't originally played by Lsa Whelchel? Oh wait, that's a different show. ;)

^^^Lisa Whelchel should've sued One Life to Live for plagiarism. :)