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?
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: