-
[QUOTE=Rincewind;5739523]I think Harrison Ford is too iconic for an audience to accept a recast of the character. It's one thing to cast River Phoenix as teen Indy, but Indy in his prime is too irreplaceable.[/QUOTE]
Should happen really ...on the DVD extras of trilogy box set we saw Tom Selleck nearly become Indy. Its like the belief we will never have another Tony Stark or Steve Rogers. Its gonna happen at some stage. We will see those characters re-cast and return in a way.
-
[QUOTE=SUPERECWFAN1;5739598]Should happen really ...on the DVD extras of trilogy box set we saw Tom Selleck nearly become Indy. Its like the belief we will never have another Tony Stark or Steve Rogers. Its gonna happen at some stage. We will see those characters re-cast and return in a way.[/QUOTE]
It won’t happen until Disney forgets how much money they lost on Solo.
-
The role was pretty much a lock for Selleck, but like Pierce Brosnan almost being Bond in the 80s, TV contracts interfered. Ford was pretty much second choice because Lucas didn't want him to become his "Jimmy stewart". Funny thing is that Ford is somewhat compared to Stewart as an "everyman" actor (although Stewart certainly had a somewhat more 'nervous energy' than Ford's somewhat more masculine roles)
-
[QUOTE=Rincewind;5739633]It won’t happen until Disney forgets how much money they lost on Solo.[/QUOTE]
Disney will let Feig decide on the course and when the recasting happens. The goodwill Marvel Films have is way more than Star Wars right now. Feig can tell fans to tell the stories needed the recasting needs to happen. It won't be sudden...we may see where Captain America is de-aged and a new actor appears. Or an alternate universe Tony appears. etc.
-
[QUOTE=Rincewind;5739363]Here's the thing. Harrison Ford is doing a new Indiana Jones movie and he is 79 years old. He is not going to be doing the huge action pieces like he did 40 years ago. Even Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had Shia Labeouf taking some of the load. The idea of a swan song where he "passes the torch" to a younger character is the most likely thing to happen.
That is a HUGE difference from a person just deciding they're going to be the next Indiana Jones and do exactly what he did.[/QUOTE]
I'd be okay with him passing the torch - if that's the end of it and there's no sequel. I have no interest in following someone else who took over from Indy. After Harrison Ford has his last turn as Indy the next film should recast and reboot rather than try and follow with some new character.
-
[QUOTE=Rincewind;5739523]I think Harrison Ford is too iconic for an audience to accept a recast of the character. It's one thing to cast River Phoenix as teen Indy, but Indy in his prime is too irreplaceable.[/QUOTE]
That same argument for why not to recast works for why not to pass the torch too - and that's on top of the other arguments not to pass the torch. That makes recasting the more palatable decision, unless one wants to argue to just end the franchise and do no more after, and we all know that's not happening.
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5739754]That same argument for why not to recast works for why not to pass the torch too - and that's on top of the other arguments not to pass the torch. That makes recasting the more palatable decision, unless one wants to argue to just end the franchise and do no more after, and we all know that's not happening.[/QUOTE]
Recasting is only really the more palatable decision for people that want a recast, as those "other arguments" aren't issues to the other side of the coin.
I'd rather watch an actor play a character than watch an actor mimic another actor playing a character. That's mostly why Solo failed for me. Glover is a fantastic actor, but he wasn't playing Lando. He was playing Williams playing Lando.
-
[QUOTE=Noodle;5739783]Recasting is only really the more palatable decision for people that want a recast, as those "other arguments" aren't issues to the other side of the coin.
I'd rather watch an actor play a character than watch an actor mimic another actor playing a character. That's mostly why Solo failed for me. Glover is a fantastic actor, but he wasn't playing Lando. He was playing Williams playing Lando.[/QUOTE]
And I'd rather watch a recast Indy than a movie about his successor. Legacy, passing on the torch, it's just not satisfying for a lot of us. We like the original character, sure the original actor plays into it, but it's an actor's job to nail the character.
And I liked Solo. That movie gets more hate than it deserves.
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5739815]And I'd rather watch a recast Indy than a movie about his successor. Legacy, passing on the torch, it's just not satisfying for a lot of us. We like the original character, sure the original actor plays into it, but it's an actor's job to nail the character.
And I liked Solo. That movie gets more hate than it deserves.[/QUOTE]
That may be your preference, but there are also many (including me) that hate recasting. Indiana Jones is not James Bond, Batman, or Spider-Man where a new actor is chosen quickly after the last actor leaves. Those were all based on pre existing properties and there are already several versions of each of those characters with soft/hard reboots. Harrison Ford has been Indiana Jones for 40 years, since 1981. The role originated with Ford and has stuck with him for decades.
While you personally prefer to see more Indy adventures by recasting, that does not mean the overall audience will embrace it. An entire TV series about a younger Indiana Jones was made using different actors, and no one watched it.
Solo, while you personally enjoyed it, took a lot of time and money to make and turned into the biggest flop in Star Wars history. Going forward, do you think Disney will keep trying to do recast characters like Solo or follow new characters like the Mandalorian? Which one of these has the audience embraced? Which one of these brings in the merchandising $$$$?
-
[QUOTE=ChrisIII;5739684]The role was pretty much a lock for Selleck, but like Pierce Brosnan almost being Bond in the 80s, TV contracts interfered. Ford was pretty much second choice because Lucas didn't want him to become his "Jimmy stewart". Funny thing is that Ford is somewhat compared to Stewart as an "everyman" actor (although Stewart certainly had a somewhat more 'nervous energy' than Ford's somewhat more masculine roles)[/QUOTE]
Which is ironic when you consider that, in real life, Stewart was an incredible bad ass WWII combat pilot: He twice received the Distinguished Flying Cross; three times received the Air Medal; and once received the Croix de Guerre from France. He ended up a brigadier general by the time he retired from the service. That's not a guy whose energy should be characterized as "nervous".
-
I agree with the no recasting. Ford is Indy. Ford passing the baton to a successor would work better to me.
Solo was a fun movie that was well done, it just wasn't Han Solo.
-
[QUOTE=Mark Trail;5740109]Which is ironic when you consider that, in real life, Stewart was an incredible bad ass WWII combat pilot: He twice received the Distinguished Flying Cross; three times received the Air Medal; and once received the Croix de Guerre from France. He ended up a brigadier general by the time he retired from the service. That's not a guy whose energy should be characterized as "nervous".[/QUOTE]
There was a big disconnect between the Hollywood macho guys like John Wayne and the actors who actually served in WWII.
-
I don't think I'm down with either, unless it's more Young Indiana Jones where it makes sense that there is another actor I don't think I'd like a replacement and although I like legacy characters in my superheroes Ford is just too much of the draw in Indy for me to get behind some protege carrying on the fedora. I'd say let it just end with old man Indy riding off into the sunset one last time.
-
[QUOTE=Rincewind;5740098]That may be your preference, but there are also many (including me) that hate recasting. Indiana Jones is not James Bond, Batman, or Spider-Man where a new actor is chosen quickly after the last actor leaves. Those were all based on pre existing properties and there are already several versions of each of those characters with soft/hard reboots. Harrison Ford has been Indiana Jones for 40 years, since 1981. The role originated with Ford and has stuck with him for decades.
While you personally prefer to see more Indy adventures by recasting, that does not mean the overall audience will embrace it. An entire TV series about a younger Indiana Jones was made using different actors, and no one watched it.
Solo, while you personally enjoyed it, took a lot of time and money to make and turned into the biggest flop in Star Wars history. Going forward, do you think Disney will keep trying to do recast characters like Solo or follow new characters like the Mandalorian? Which one of these has the audience embraced? Which one of these brings in the merchandising $$$$?[/QUOTE]
The overall audience isn't likely to embrace some new character replacing Indy either. You have the same argument I do - your preference. So we're at an impasse - if Indiana is replaced, I won't watch it. If they recast, you won't watch it. And they won't let it die. So guess the way forward is screwed no matter what they do.
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5740123]The overall audience isn't likely to embrace some new character replacing Indy either. You have the same argument I do - your preference. So we're at an impasse - if Indiana is replaced, I won't watch it. If they recast, you won't watch it. And they won't let it die. So guess the way forward is screwed no matter what they do.[/QUOTE]
How do we know they won't let it die?