Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny | June 30 2023 | Very mixed reviews out of Cannes

[dudalb]

2 hours ago, TerwillikerInst said:

I think people are forgetting though that recasting Connery did not go smoothly at all. 

 

Lazenby's first movie made roughly a third less than any of Connery's previous three movies and it spooked them so much they hired (an obviously greying and out of shape) Connery back for Diamonds.

 

And even after that when they realized they would still have to bite the bullet and recast, their eventual choice was Roger Moore who had made a career starring in internationally successful tv shows playing James Bond-ish type characters. 

 

I guess what I'm saying is, recasting a role like that is totally possible but it's a massive risk and has to be done with a great deal of care and thought because you need to prime the public to accept even just the possibility.

 

And even then the initial replacement is going to be subject to so much backlash.

 

real problem was that Lazenby was a less then ideal choice given his lack of acting expereince.

Also OHMSS was the wrong Bond Story for introducing a new Bond, it the most complex of the Fleming novels, and gets into the mind of 007 and shows his vulnerbilties much more then the other novels. It would have been better to introduce Lazenby in a more straightforward thriller like Live Or Let Die, and then go for OHMSS after he got some expriecne as Bond.

I am one of those who thinks highly of OHMSS despite the problems with Lazanby, and think if Connory had done it it could have been the best 007 film.

[ZattMurdock]

12 minutes ago, dudalb said:

You got me! Always though that Nicholas Hammond was. It is amazing how many people answer Tobey Mcguire

But then the Spidey TV show is not well remembered; Hammon is actually better known for his role as one fo the Von Trapp kids in 'The Sound Of Music" then the Spidey sereis.

Resident Spider-Man nerd in the absence of our former moderator Arachnid representing hah. 
 

 

[scytheavatar]

7 hours ago, dudalb said:

I agree that urling out a new Indy fim beind sucessful because of IV is stupid...Crystal Skull  was a badly flawed film.

 

Crystal Skull  was a badly flawed film because Ford was already too old for the role by then. Also because the idea of an archaeologist fighting Nazis was already silly and replacing it was easier said than done. You think Indy V will solve any of those issues? 

[Darth Lehnsherr]

Recasting is alot easier if the character came from pre-existing material. 

Really hard to recast an iconic character especially when the same actor has portrayed them for so long.

 

Haven't really followed the tracking for this one but if it is in the $60M-$80M range for OW that's pretty abysmal IMO.

[scytheavatar]

Recasting Indy equals making Uncharted. If a shitty low effort movie like that can make 400M I am not sure why a well done one cannot make way more. Making something like 1B would be difficult but there's no reason why the budget has to be so big that a recasted Indy must make 1B.

Edited June 10, 2023 by scytheavatar

[Elessar]

They can always recast Indy later on but there's only one Harisson Ford.

[von Kenni]

9 hours ago, dudalb said:

real problem was that Lazenby was a less then ideal choice given his lack of acting expereince.

Also OHMSS was the wrong Bond Story for introducing a new Bond, it the most complex of the Fleming novels, and gets into the mind of 007 and shows his vulnerbilties much more then the other novels. It would have been better to introduce Lazenby in a more straightforward thriller like Live Or Let Die, and then go for OHMSS after he got some expriecne as Bond.

I am one of those who thinks highly of OHMSS despite the problems with Lazanby, and think if Connory had done it it could have been the best 007 film.

 

An analysis of Emmanuelle actor George Lazenby's Bond wasn't on the list of things to expect when opening this thread today. That said, I share the sentiment about Lazenby and OHMSS.

[scytheavatar]

Complaining about how difficult it was to recast Bond is quite ridiculous anyway, so would we be better off if the role ended with Connery and there's no Bond movie after the 70's? If you don't want to take risks you shouldn't be in the Hollywood business in the first place.

[Jake Gittes]

6 hours ago, scytheavatar said:

Complaining about how difficult it was to recast Bond is quite ridiculous anyway, so would we be better off if the role ended with Connery and there's no Bond movie after the 70's? If you don't want to take risks you shouldn't be in the Hollywood business in the first place.

 

Because nothing says risk-taking like desperate brand extension. If you want to take risks you do what Spielberg and Lucas did in 1980 and create your own iconic character.

[von Kenni]

10 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

Because nothing says risk-taking like desperate brand extension. If you want to take risks you do what Spielberg and Lucas did in 1980 and create your own iconic character.

 

Yeah, reboots, remakes, prequels, and sequels - the true hallmarks of visionary risk-taking.

[reddevil19]

13 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

Because nothing says risk-taking like desperate brand extension. If you want to take risks you do what Spielberg and Lucas did in 1980 and create your own iconic character.

I genuinely can't think of any single iconic original character created since the 80's. There's arguments for iconic worlds (think Avatar), memorable one-off movies (Inception, Independence Day the first), but any characters on the level of Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, Han Solo, John McClane? And that's obviously going hand-in-hand with the fading drawing power of movie stars and the increase in terms of volume of the IP-based uberblockbusters. Is there a chance this changes? I think we'll only see once superhero movies finally die down. Will Hollywood adapt with new IPs, will it be originals, or will its current form die altogether?

[UKBoxOffice]

8 minutes ago, reddevil19 said:

I genuinely can't think of any single iconic original character created since the 80's. There's arguments for iconic worlds (think Avatar), memorable one-off movies (Inception, Independence Day the first), but any characters on the level of Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, Han Solo, John McClane? And that's obviously going hand-in-hand with the fading drawing power of movie stars and the increase in terms of volume of the IP-based uberblockbusters. Is there a chance this changes? I think we'll only see once superhero movies finally die down. Will Hollywood adapt with new IPs, will it be originals, or will its current form die altogether?

 

Shrek

 

(I know it was based on a book, but for 99.9% of people, the film was their first introduction to that character)

[WorkingonaName]

11 minutes ago, reddevil19 said:

I genuinely can't think of any single iconic original character created since the 80's. There's arguments for iconic worlds (think Avatar), memorable one-off movies (Inception, Independence Day the first), but any characters on the level of Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, Han Solo, John McClane? And that's obviously going hand-in-hand with the fading drawing power of movie stars and the increase in terms of volume of the IP-based uberblockbusters. Is there a chance this changes? I think we'll only see once superhero movies finally die down. Will Hollywood adapt with new IPs, will it be originals, or will its current form die altogether?

Jack Sparrow.

[reddevil19]

Good couple of choices... though still telling that they're not technically original franchises. Still, good shout. Any others? I'm genuinely sitting here at the barbers, waiting for my turn, and I can't think of many, but its an interesting exercise for me. Even worse with female characters. Any Ripleys? I suppose Sarah Connor became iconic with T2, but she originated in the 80's as well. The gals in Frozen maybe? 

[Saul Goodman]

Last official promo/clip was uploaded a good two weeks ago. At least the marketing isn't in your face all the time like star war.

[FilmFincher]

28 minutes ago, reddevil19 said:

Good couple of choices... though still telling that they're not technically original franchises. Still, good shout. Any others? I'm genuinely sitting here at the barbers, waiting for my turn, and I can't think of many, but its an interesting exercise for me. Even worse with female characters. Any Ripleys? I suppose Sarah Connor became iconic with T2, but she originated in the 80's as well. The gals in Frozen maybe? 

John Wick might be the most recent notable one in terms of iconography and box office pull.

But yeah not much in terms of female representation, a lot are tied to IP's and adaptations or didn't take off unfortunately. 

Edited June 11, 2023 by FilmFincher

[Jake Gittes]

Lydia Tár

[WittyUsername]

3 hours ago, reddevil19 said:

I genuinely can't think of any single iconic original character created since the 80's. There's arguments for iconic worlds (think Avatar), memorable one-off movies (Inception, Independence Day the first), but any characters on the level of Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, Han Solo, John McClane? And that's obviously going hand-in-hand with the fading drawing power of movie stars and the increase in terms of volume of the IP-based uberblockbusters. Is there a chance this changes? I think we'll only see once superhero movies finally die down. Will Hollywood adapt with new IPs, will it be originals, or will its current form die altogether?

Neo?

[JohnnyGossamer]

3 hours ago, WorkingonaName said:

Jack Sparrow.

Dom Toretto I'd assume would count given how big some of the Fast movies were...

[MightyDargon]

"No iconic character since the 80s" apparently somebody never heard of Harry Potter or about 70% of videogame development.