lairdo said:
I would say that the Jack Ryan movies handled a change in actor with no issue in going from Alec Baldwin to Harrison Ford. However, I don't think it did going to Ben Affleck although that overall movie didn't help the cause.
I'm afraid I don't agree with you there. To me these movies have been alltogether about different people. Only the two Harrison Ford ones feel like they are about the same character. I always felt that Jack Ryan was obviously a very common name, and there just happened to be several agents with a similar name. I never once felt that I was looking at movies about the same character.
lairdo said:
It does appear that Star Trek will pull off the feat. At least, so far so good in my opinion.
Still haven't seen the new Star trek, so I can'form an opinion on that...
lairdo said:
James Bond is interesting in that it has survived the changes despite itself. The first change from Sean Connery to George Lazenby was a media circus, and the resulting film was considered a mess. (Actually, I think OHMSS aged rather well because the story is one of the most powerful in the series. But still Lazenby's Bond is not what we expect.)
Perhaps not, but amongst Bond fans, OHMSS remains one of the most loved Bond films. In my opinion it certainly has the best soundtrack. So even though it might not have done as well as they expected at the box office at the time, it has since then more than made up for it's expectations.
lairdo said:
After Connery's one movie return, Roger Moore took 3 films to settle in (The Spy Who Loved Me). He was sort of accepted as he had been TV's The Saint, so he made logical sense as Bond.
Oh, I've seen Roger Moore play the Saint, wich he does very well. He also plays the Saint in a few James Bond movies. I've never seen him play james Bond though...
lairdo said:
But then after For Your Eyes Only, his performances are considered more parody of Bond than Bond. Timothy Dalton had the unfortunate spot of being the Bond they could get instead of the Bond they wanted - Pierce Brosnan.
Wich is a bit of a shame if you put it like that. I still think Dalton's portrayal of Bond was very good and very close to the character that Fleming had written. It is just a shame that the general public wasn't ready for a Bond that was dark and gritty.
lairdo said:
Of course, after 6 years, they got Brosnan and everyone was happy for a movie or two. Then the writing got bad as they ran completely out of Fleming material.
I never took to Brosnan. But that is indeed partially due to the writing. But let's not forget that Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, who wrote The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day, were also the same people who wrote the script for Daniel Craig in Casino Royale.
Brosnan was alltogether too smooth for a world that was becoming harder.
lairdo said:
Daniel Craig seems to have taken over nicely helped by a healthy update and Craig's powerful performance in Casino Royale. Again, like On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the character angle on Bond really helps balance the action so we get a solid well rounded movie. I think the later actors on the series were all helped by the fact that we now expect changes to the Bond actors every decade or so.
I think Daniel Craig is playing the perfect Bond for our time. But the fact that people are accustomed to the changing face of Bond does perhaps help.
But let's not forget that there were a LOT of negative reactions when it was announced that Daniel Craig would be taking on the part. To his credit he ignored those reactions and silenced them by putting in a fantastic performance.
lairdo said:
Perhaps this is the same for Dr. Who? I cannot remember the magazine, but I recently saw an article with a nice history on all the Doctors. I've never watched the show but our CTO who is British loved the article when I gave it to him.
Actualy the character of 'The Doctor' had already been established as being originally alien. So this being science fiction, they simply wrote in that his race has the ability to 'regenerate' when it is needed. And as part of this process he not only gains a new body, but also a completely different personality.
Brilliant! Best production trick to keep a show going, ever.
And they even got away with it....
lairdo said:
Bringing this back to Indy (besides two of the Bonds appearing in Indy stories), I think the universe can accept an actor change if the conditions are right.
I agree that the universe might, but I do not think that the fans will.
lairdo said:
Certainly, the actor has to be excellent at all the traits of the role. In this case that would be physical action, scholarly seriousness and on the feet resourcefulness.
Perhaps it might be time for a character 'like' Indy to inhabit a similar world. Rick O'Connel from the Mummy movies was a pretty good attempt at that, and a lot of fun to watch, I thought.
But bringing in somebody else and also calling them Indiana Jones just won't work.
lairdo said:
But as in Bond and Star Trek, the story has to be super engaging and built around character. If Daniel Craig had appeared in one of the weaker Bonds (say The Man With the Golden Gun or License To Kill), he might not have been so readily accepted.
TMWTGG is certainly one of the weakest Bond movies, but this is also partly due to Roger Moore's worst performance in the entire series. He just doesn't 'work' in that one. It might have been interesting to see Craig take that one on. Especially as he was about six years old at the time....
LTK is in my opinion not a bad movie at all, but again the problem here was that the audience wasn't ready for a dark and gritty Bond. Even though some of the nastier scenes (Like Felix having been half eaten by a shark) were directly from Fleming (The novel Live and let die), people were just not swallowing it.
Because of the way Moore had performed the role, the audience expected to see a mellow Bond. When they didn't get that, they turned away.
Oh by the way, I have nothing against Roger Moore. I think he is a very charming man and has his heart in the right place. I've just never been keen on the way he portrayed Bond, that's all.
lairdo said:
By the way, I'm still against Indy dying on screen!
I agree with that.
Lay off killing Indy!
monkey said:
Indiana Jones can NEVER die!!
Amen to that!
