Tom Selleck would have been a better Indy

Raiders90

Well-known member
Stoo said:
If Selleck had been cast in the role, there wouldn't be any differences to compare because HE would be Indy.

Which 'classic serial heroes' are you talking about?
"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Balls" (excerpt):

George Lucas: Steven, I'm not so sure about Denny playing the Marcus character. We should get John Hillerman from "Magnum P.I."
Steven Spielberg: Because we lost Tom? I don't understand.
George Lucas: I gazed into my crystal ball last night and Denny is going to pop off too early for when we get around to doing the 4th story.
Steven Spielberg: We're making four?
Why?:confused:

I'm saying between their acting styles judging from how they act in other films--both play basically the same sort of character in almost every role/film they play--You can see the differences in how one would approach the same character based on their acting style.

For example the Zorro of the Classical Serials (one of which greatly inspired Raiders) is a rather formidable and tough character. Selleck's appearance also happened to be a near exact match to the original concept art which created Indy's appearance--They were going for an all American strong guy look. Harrison you have to remember was a last minute casting decision and Lucas only casted him because they had run out of options and were running out of time--Only two weeks before filming was set to begin if I remember correctly. Lucas didn't want Harrison in Raiders, he was set from the beginning to have an unknown actor play Indy; He's re-stated this over the years. George and Steven have also re-iterated they thought Selleck's screen test was really good and that's why they cast him in the part. He was chosen and given the part, the only reason he wasn't Indy was because of his pre-existing obligation to Magnum, PI.

There are some casting ideas on the part of Steven & George which were pure ''what the hell?'' moments, such as the idea of Danny DeVito playing Sallah. That would never have fit and even with Harrison as Indy would've made for a much lesser film; We're lucky DeVito asked for more money than they were willing to pay or we would've had a Sallah DeVito. But unlike DeVito, it's my opinion Selleck was a good choice, in different ways just as good as Harrison. As you said, Indy would've been a different Indy, but based on both his and Harrison's acting styles it would've been a great movie and character either way.

And I said John Hillerman would've been good alongside Harrison. I never said they had a crystal ball, I'm saying in retrospect, with the benefit of hindsight, Hillerman might've done just as good a job as Marcus if not better. With Hillerman in the role, if they brought him back for LC--Say everything goes as it did otherwise--They might not have watered Marcus down into a goon perhaps.

And to me Sean Young, when done up properly etc, portrayed a very true to form 1930s-1940s heroine--for example look at Blade Runner. She's got the looks of one of the 1930s bombshells. She'd have made a better Femme fatale, as well. She also had a proven on screen chemistry with Harrison in Blade Runner and their personal tension outside of film might've bled over to LC and made for a more 'real' sort of love/hate tension which existed between Indy and Elsa. She was considered for the role of Marion, but it didn't really suit her--I think Elsa might've been a good for her and might've made her just as memorable (albeit as part Indy girl, part Villain) as Marion was as a pure Indy girl.
 
Last edited:
Raiders112390 said:
I'm saying between their acting styles judging from how they act in other films--both play basically the same sort of character in almost every role/film they play--You can see the differences in how one would approach the same character based on their acting style.
Based on Selleck's screeen test and his approach to other roles, his Indy would lack the edge that's part and parcel with Harrison Ford.

No: "It's not the years..." among other things. I doubt very much if we would all be here talking about Raiders if Selleck had taken the role. He had his chance over multiple projects to create an icon, and Magnum PI was the closest he got.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Based on Selleck's screeen test and his approach to other roles, his Indy would lack the edge that's part and parcel with Harrison Ford.

No: "It's not the years..." among other things. I doubt very much if we would all be here talking about Raiders if Selleck had taken the role. He had his chance over multiple projects to create an icon, and Magnum PI was the closest he got.

Totally agreed. Selleck lacks a certain big screen quality. Harrison brought so much to the character, that I couldn't imagine Selleck accomplishing.
 

ronthereviewer

New member
One Advantage

No doubt Harrison was the right choice.

The only thing that would of happened if Tom was Indy is that we would have gotten more movies. He did make some movies in the 80's but nothing huge, he probally would have begged Lucas every 3 yrs to do another one.

Ford has the look, Selleck seems to have a big frame that just would not look right flying through the air holding his whip, but I must say he really does not look like he aged a lot so that is an advantage. Again this is playing Devil's advocate.

Long Live Harrison
 

mister64

New member
Selleck would have been perfect as Fedora in TLC. Maybe he could fit into Indy 5 as a rival or fellow archaeologist for the opening sequence?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
mister64 said:
Selleck would have been perfect as Fedora in TLC. Maybe he could fit into Indy 5 as a rival or fellow archaeologist for the opening sequence?

He could appear as a moutache-wearing private eye, driving a red 1960 Ferrari 250. ;)
 

Dr Bones

New member
I can't see Selleck as anything more than a TV actor. I know he did a few movies but they were pretty lightweight roles IMO.

I also still find hs voice annoying.

Ford is not the greatest actor ever but he physically threw himself into it makinmg Indy believable. It is often recounted what a good stunt actor, driver Ford was where permitted.

I could be wrong but doubt Selleck had the chops to do it convincingly.

I think Selleck may have been a poor choice had he been cast, leaving Raiders as a one off Indy movie. Were there any Quigley sequels?

BTW is it me or does the title Quigley Down Under conjour a totally diffrent film genere...?


EDIT..

Sorry...I tried not to call it but ....

How the heck can any bone fide Indiana Jones fan think the role was given to the wrong guy?
 
Last edited:

WilliamBoyd8

Active member
Harrison Ford was the right guy for Indiana Jones and Tom Selleck
was the right guy for Magnum.

When Ronald Reagan was running for various political offices, comedians
would speculate how he would appear in famous film roles, such as
Rick in Casablanca and Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind.

:)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Dr Bones said:
EDIT..

Sorry...I tried not to call it but ....

How the heck can any bone fide Indiana Jones fan think the role was given to the wrong guy?

Indeed. Unless you read the novel before the film came out, Indy would be immediately associated with Harrison.

The other alternative is that someone might have grown up with the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, without having seen ROTLA or TLC.

For me, Indy is still inseparable from Harrison.
 

Dr Bones

New member
Montana Smith said:
Indeed. Unless you read the novel before the film came out, Indy would be immediately associated with Harrison.

The other alternative is that someone might have grown up with the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, without having seen ROTLA or TLC.

For me, Indy is still inseparable from Harrison.

I see your point, but then as a fan, someone would then go on to view the other Indiana Jones stuff and would eventually come accross the movies.

That would kock eveything else into a cocked fedora.

If they could thinkd someone else was a better Indy than Harrison after that, they're either not a fan or they are mentally deficient in some way. ;)

I don't think I could cope if someone thought SPF was a better Indy!
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Dr Bones said:
I see your point, but then as a fan, someone would then go on to view the other Indiana Jones stuff and would eventually come accross the movies.

That would kock eveything else into a cocked fedora.

If they could thinkd someone else was a better Indy than Harrison after that, they're either not a fan or they are mentally deficient in some way. ;)

I don't think I could cope if someone thought SPF was a better Indy!

I still agree with you on all counts! :hat:
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
For example the Zorro of the Classical Serials (one of which greatly inspired Raiders) is a rather formidable and tough character.
Well, you wrote "serial heroes" (plural). Zorro is one example. Can you name any more?
Raiders112390 said:
Harrison you have to remember was a last minute casting decision him in the part...(edit)...the only reason he wasn't Indy was because of his pre-existing obligation to Magnum, PI.
No need to give the history of how the role was cast as I (+ most fans) am very familiar with the history.
Raiders112390 said:
There are some casting ideas on the part of Steven & George which were pure ''what the hell?'' moments, such as the idea of Danny DeVito playing Sallah. That would never have fit and even with Harrison as Indy would've made for a much lesser film; We're lucky DeVito asked for more money than they were willing to pay or we would've had a Sallah DeVito.
...
As you said, Indy would've been a different Indy, but based on both his and Harrison's acting styles it would've been a great movie and character either way.
This is exactly my point. If Tom had been cast, Indy fans everywhere would be fawning over him instead of Harry-baby.

Had DeVito had been cast as Sallah, HE would have been the character. Why wouldn't he have fit? No one would have known any different and Rhys-Davies would not even be part of the equation.
Raiders112390 said:
And I said John Hillerman would've been good alongside Harrison. I never said they had a crystal ball, I'm saying in retrospect, with the benefit of hindsight, Hillerman might've done just as good a job as Marcus if not better. With Hillerman in the role, if they brought him back for LC--Say everything goes as it did otherwise--They might not have watered Marcus down into a goon perhaps.
I'm pretty sure they wanted Denholm for Marcus from the very beginning. Why you suggest that his character might not have been watered down if Hillerman got the part is beyond me.:confused:
Raiders112390 said:
And to me Sean Young, when done up properly etc, portrayed a very true to form 1930s-1940s heroine--for example look at Blade Runner. She's got the looks of one of the 1930s bombshells. She'd have made a better Femme fatale, as well. She also had a proven on screen chemistry with Harrison in Blade Runner and their personal tension outside of film might've bled over to LC and made for a more 'real' sort of love/hate tension which existed between Indy and Elsa....
Any other actor/actress replacements on your wish-list?:rolleyes: Do you think Jacques Dutronc would have made a better Belloq?
ronthereviewer said:
The only thing that would of happened if Tom was Indy is that we would have gotten more movies.
How in the world would you know, Ron? Do you have a crystal ball, too?:confused:
Dr Bones said:
How the heck can any bone fide Indiana Jones fan think the role was given to the wrong guy?
Just to provide a bit of Raven history: The one who started this thread (Colonel Vogel) was an instigator for conflict and has long since been banned.
Montana Smith said:
The other alternative is that someone might have grown up with the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, without having seen ROTLA or TLC.
Believe it or not, there are a few members here who fit that description.:eek:
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Stoo said:
Well, you wrote "serial heroes" (plural). Zorro is one example. Can you name any more?
No need to give the history of how the role was cast as I (+ most fans) am very familiar with the history.
This is exactly my point. If Tom had been cast, Indy fans everywhere would be fawning over him instead of Harry-baby.

Had DeVito had been cast as Sallah, HE would have been the character. Why wouldn't he have fit? No one would have known any different and Rhys-Davies would not even be part of the equation.
I'm pretty sure they wanted Denholm for Marcus from the very beginning. Why you suggest that his character might not have been watered down if Hillerman got the part is beyond me.:confused:
Any other actor/actress replacements on your wish-list?:rolleyes: Do you think Jacques Dutronc would have made a better Belloq?
How in the world would you know, Ron? Do you have a crystal ball, too?:confused:
Just to provide a bit of Raven history: The one who started this thread (Colonel Vogel) was an instigator for conflict and has long since been banned.
Believe it or not, there are a few members here who fit that description.:eek:

I just think DeVito's thick New York accent might've come through when playing an Egyptian digger. I don't know. I've seen him so often as this almost Brooklyn-esque New York type guy that it's hard time to picture him as Sallah.

And no, no other cast changes.

And I don't think someone could say they felt there might've been better choices than Harrison and not be an Indy fan. It's just interesting to imagine other actors in the part, and seeing how next to Harrison, Selleck is the closest who came to the part it's even more interesting than most.
 

ronthereviewer

New member
I watched it also, the way he delivered the lines were not commanding enough for me. He would of brought a more softer Jones to the screen versus the great hard edge Harrison brings out.







theinfiniteweird said:
Not this again. OK, ok, sorry if that was rude. This is one of those topics that's brought around a couple times a year and all.

Technically, as you would agree I'm guessing, we'll never be able to know- we'd have to get a first impression from both, and since you've already scene Harrison do it one way, that would creep into your judgement if you saw Selleck do it. So realistically, we'll never know.

But as far as personal opinions, I saw got a chance to watch the bonus footage (Yay!), and when they showed Selleck delivering some of the lines, it didn't seem like it was working. Of course, that was the audition and all, but that's all I have to go by really. It just seemed really bad. I think Harrison pretty much blows anyone out of the water.
 

A2Steve

New member
Colonel Vogel said:
I know Harrison Ford was a great Indy, but I believe that had Tom Selleck not been tied to Magnum PI he would have been a better Indy. As many already know Tom was first choice for the role but had to pull out. If he could have done it, I think he would have been better and bought more to the role. I know everybody loves Harrison, and so do I, but watch films like Quigley Down Under and imagine Selleck as Indy and you have the ultimate Mr Jones.

Selleck was also a lot better looking, but that's besides the point.


yeah, 'cuz HIGH ROAD TO CHINA was the feel good blockbuster of the 80s, we all knew he could deliver.... :rolleyes:

and what a waste, too... think of how many Asian actresses coulda been used here.... and nary a one in the cast.... Spielberg cast more for the opening of TOD.... :whip:
 
This is like pondering that Cary Grant would have been a better James Bond originally than Sean Connery, the character is already defined by the first actor. Actually with Indiana Jones it is even more pondersome because unlike Bond there has only been one adult Indy in Harrison Ford and also unlike Bond the Indiana Jones movies were straight to screen and were not novels before hand so literally Harrison Ford was the first impression anyone outside of those imagining and casting ROTLA have of Indiana Jones. There is no basis for comparison.
 
Top