RE: A question

Posted by Thuggee Bear from host-209-214-180-175.cae.bellsouth.net on August 23, 1999 at 10:11:51:

In Reply to: A question for everyone...Please respond. posted by ROB T. on August 23, 1999 at 03:22:10:

If they did get another actor, I think it would be 10 or 20 years down the road, as that seems to be the time frame with replacements nowadays, (Shaft, Superman, etc.). Honestly though, I think it's rarer when a replacement works out, (as with the Bond films), than when it doesn't. In fact, even the Bond transition was shaky- George Lazenby didn't exactly "Wow" audiences, and they had to get Connery back again before Moore came along. I don't think they would spend as much time and money with Indy. (Look at how well the Batman franchise was doing until they miscast, and now they avoid it like the plague).

Another major difference between Bond and Indy is that Bond is always able to be set in the present day. Indy is set in a specific time period and has specific years with which to have adventures in. His 30's and most of his earlier years have already been used in film, tv, and books. This would make it harder to have a lot of adventures and keep the continuity. (Something George Lucas is famous for wanting to do, as recently witnessed as the Raiders' name change.)

I think most studios would rather copy the style of the films instead of shelling out for the rights to Indy, (and having to deal with Lucas). This is what they've always done, and many of the inferior films have been mentioned here before. Also, with the recent success of The Mummy, I think they see that a decent film in the style of Indy can be profitable on its own.

Follow Ups:

Re:Lazenby clarification Nick Kismet 10:35:57 8/23/99 (5)
- Re:Have you heard the one that Diana Rigg (the OHMSS Bond girl) ate garlic before the "love" sequence? Ulla 14:20:35 8/23/99 (0)
- "I've heard this bedtime story as well..." Thuggee Bear 11:01:51 8/23/99 (3)
  - Re:Grins Nick Kismet 11:06:22 8/23/99 (2)
    - Grins and such Michaelson 17:42:22 8/24/99 (1)
      - Re: Grins and such Goodsport 20:50:41 8/24/99 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: If they did get another actor, I think it would be 10 or 20 years down the road, as that seems to be the time frame with replacements nowadays, (Shaft, Superman, etc.).  Honestly though, I think it's rarer when a replacement works out, (as with the Bond films), than when it doesn't.  In fact, even the Bond transition was shaky- George Lazenby didn't exactly "Wow" audiences, and they had to get Connery back again before Moore came along.  I don't think they would spend as much time and money with Indy.  (Look at how well the Batman franchise was doing until they miscast, and now they avoid it like the plague).

: Another major difference between Bond and Indy is that Bond is always able to be set in the present day.  Indy is set in a specific time period and has specific years with which to have adventures in.  His 30's and most of his earlier years have already been used in film, tv, and books.  This would make it harder to have a lot of adventures and keep the continuity.  (Something George Lucas is famous for wanting to do, as recently witnessed as the Raiders' name change.)

: I think most studios would rather copy the style of the films instead of shelling out for the rights to Indy, (and having to deal with Lucas).  This is what they've always done, and many of the inferior films have been mentioned here before.  Also, with the recent success of The Mummy, I think they see that a decent film in the style of Indy can be profitable on its own.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]