monkey said:
I'm thinking hard here, but I can't come up with any other fictional character ever who was so bound and tied to an actual living actor whose human frailties and age restrictions so limited the character. This "Ford IS Indiana Jones" dogma truly is unique.
Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry is one that immediately springs to mind. Both Indy and Harry are signature roles that represent everything audiences love about the respective actor. Ironically, both also overshadow what had previously been a defining role for each: The Man With No Name and Han Solo.
Eastwood will turn 80 in May, yet there is still a very real demand to see him reprise his most famous role. Warner has wanted him to do it for two decades. Even younger audiences are open to the idea, as witnessed by the rampant speculation last year that
Gran Torino would be Harry's swansong. (Obviously, it was not, yet it did find Eastwood veering closer to his Dirty Harry persona than he had in a long time. The end result was his highest-grossing film in both the US and UK.)
Why are audiences so committed to these particular portrayals? One reason is that both Eastwood and Ford played a large role in actually creating the characters. They took what was essentially a stock archetype and breathed life into it. You can always take James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, or Batman back to their roots. Or even back to one of many incarnations of the character. But if you hire an actor to play Dirty Harry or Indiana Jones, they're essentially going to be, first and foremost, imitating another actor in the role. (To a lesser extent, we see this with a lot of other cult film characters, such as Snake Plissken or Mad Max.)
Shatner as Captain Kirk is a good example, in that Shatner was solely identified with the role for over 40 years. However, there are two important distinctions with that comparison. The first is that Star Trek is an ensemble piece with, literally, galaxies full of storytelling potential. As hard as it was to imagine anyone else taking over the role of Kirk, the overall concept was still a pretty easy sell to audiences. The second major difference is that, over the course of those four decades, the character of Kirk managed to take on a life of his own. When Chris Pine stepped into the role, it was one that had also been represented by hundreds of books, games, short stories, etc.
By comparison, the various attempts to spin off Indiana Jones have just never met with the same level of commercial success. The character's mainstream appeal has always been driven almost entirely by Harrison Ford's portrayal. Yes, the character itself enjoys a loyal following, but even that support is inconsistent. Fans are divided on which films represent the "real" character or world of Indiana Jones. Many can't stand the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, while others prefer it to the three sequels. They're split on the handful of books. It's even getting to the point where ROTLA is no longer a given to be ranked first, as many fans now have fonder memories of growing up with TOD or LC.
So even if someone were to reboot the character- setting aside the obvious rights issues for a moment- which direction would they go in? Do they continue the tradition of Indy as pulpy, family-oriented fare? Try to placate grown men in their twenties and thirties that need their childhood heroes to be taken very seriously? Completely change the tone of the series by giving it a modern update? Risk being considered just another rip-off, by attempting to recycle the formula established in ROTLA? After all, other filmmakers have already been making Dirty Harry and Indiana Jones films for decades. They've simply used different names for their main characters.
Montana Smith said:
I think it is pretty unique for the same actor to remain involved with a movie character for what will be over 30 years.
Not to mention, the (essentially) same creative team behind the camera as well. So yes, it's extremely unique.
