Post by politicidal on May 31, 2018 21:32:10 GMT
Or a full fledged reboot later down the line? They need to make part 5 a special send off for the character and just let it rest in peace. Unless they go the Tintin route and make the next feature film a mo-cap animated film. Not endorsing that necessarily, but I'm not leaving anything to chance atm.
TEXT:
Considering that Lucasfilm’s Star Wars universe already involves an expansive galaxy and a current present-tense trilogy coming to a seemingly-anticipated end, it’s not the worst problem in the world to have what amounted to a character-centric prequel stiffing here and (especially abroad). Yes, it’s embarrassing, but you don’t scrap or revamp the MCU because Incredible Hulk stumbled out of the gate. Sure, had it been successful, Solo might have started its own trilogy within the Star Wars universe. Heck, that’s still possible if the planned Boba Fett movie and the alleged Obi-Wan Kenobi flick happen to take place in the same general “from Revenge of the Sith to Rogue One” timeline.
Those two Star Wars Story flicks won’t require recasting a beloved character made iconic by the actor who played him in the first place. Fans won’t cry foul if Daniel Logan or Temuera Morrison end up getting replaced as adult Boba Fett. An Obi-Wan movie presumably depends on Ewan McGregor reprising the role. Solo stumbled at least partially due to the audience’s indifference or outright hostility to the character of Han Solo being played by Alden Ehrenreich (who is fine in the film and excellent in Beautiful Creatures and Hail, Caesar!) instead of Harrison Ford. That’s bad news for Star Wars, but it’s far worse news for the idea of rebooting Indiana Jones after the upcoming fifth film or that in-development Die Hard prequel.
Maintaining or rebooting a franchise with a new actor taking over for the guy who made that character a big deal is fraught with peril. Yes, there are exceptions here and there, but if a cinematic character is made famous by the actor who plays him, even if that character is based on a book or TV show, the odds are against a successful replacement. If folks are hostile to someone other than Harrison Ford as Han Solo, you may argue that they may be about as hostile, give-or-take other variables, at someone other than Ford eventually playing Indiana Jones, or someone other than Bruce Willis playing John McClane.
It even took three tries for audiences to really warm up to Roger Moore as 007. George Lazenby’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service earned $22.7 million domestic in 1969, about half the domestic gross of You Only Live Twice ($43m in 1967) and then Diamonds Are Forever ($43m in 1971) earned after Sean Connery was lured back for one last rodeo. Roger Moore then took over, and Live and Let Die earned a meh $35m in 1973. The Man with the Golden Gun earned a series-low $20m in 1974. It wasn’t until The Spy Who Loved Me (one of the best 007 films) that audiences embraced Sean Connery’s replacement to the tune of $46m in 1977.
Heck, you can argue that Timothy Dalton’s two outings, the $51 million-grossing The Living Daylights in 1987 and the $34m-grossing License to Kill in 1989, were further examples of audiences wanting the prior 007, in this case, Roger Moore. It wasn’t until 1995, when Pierce Brosnan took over the role in the revamped GoldenEye, with a turn that blended Connery’s cruelty with Moore’s gee-whiz charm, that 007 returned near the top of the action movie pile. Yes, Roger Moore eventually became James Bond in the eyes of moviegoers, but it took a couple of tries. And when you’re dealing with $200-$250m movies, you don’t get multiple shots for audiences to adjust to a new Han Solo.
Going way back into cinema history offers examples (Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, etc.) of popular characters being played by multiple actors to relative success, but in those cases, the characters were far more popular than the actors. Harrison Ford replaced Alec Baldwin as Jack Ryan in the early 1990’s and scored since Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger were sold as kick-ass action movies starring Han Solo/Indiana Jones. It helped that The Hunt for Red October was sold as a Sean Connery vehicle as opposed to an Alec Baldwin-as-Jack Ryan flick. Like Steven Martin’s Pink Panther, it was a pure star vehicle that wasn’t entirely relying on the prior IP.
The closest example to a recent character replacement that worked is Val Kilmer taking over for Michael Keaton in Batman Forever. But that film had the support of Jim Carrey’s Riddler, Tommy Lee Jones’ Two-Face and the debut of Robin in a mega-budget neon-nightmare adventure in a time when movies on that scale were still indisputable events. But, at least in recent history, Kilmer’s success as the Caped Crusader is the exception as opposed to the rule. Even Christian Bale’s Batman movies needed an introductory (and underperforming) chapter to wash away the aftertaste of George Clooney’s Batman & Robin. Otherwise, while I may be forgetting one or two, there aren’t a lot of recent examples of iconic actors being replaced to overall success.
Jeremy Renner’s The Bourne Legacy fizzled (with Renner playing a different character no less) and led to Damon coming back for Jason Bourne. Ditto Ice Cube taking over for Vin Diesel in xXx: State of the Union before Xander Cage returned in 2017. Andrew Garfield’s Amazing Spider-Man struggled for two movies before Sony rebooted again inside the MCU with Tom Holland’s Spider-Man: Homecoming. Henry Cavill’s Man of Steel grossed more than Brandon Routh’s Superman Returns, but the DC Films franchise isn’t exactly floating on air now. Even Paramount/Viacom Inc.’s rebooted Star Trek, a critical and crowd-pleasing reboot/recasting triumph, has yet to produce an entry earning more than $470m worldwide.
You can make the case that the James Bond franchise has been successful at replacing its leading actor, and that’s only because, after some trial and error, multiple generations have grown to accept it for this specific franchise. Alicia Vikander couldn’t quite (commercially) fill Angelina Jolie’s shoes in Tomb Raider while Ed Skein couldn’t keep The Transporter alive without Jason Statham. Even the revamped X-Men series has struggled commercially save for the entry (X-Men: Days of Future Past) which was both a sequel to X-Men: First Class and X-Men: The Last Stand. Thus, just because folks liked Harrison Ford as Han Solo doesn’t mean they liked Han Solo.
The solution is either A) don't recast a role that was defined by a specific actor or B) use an actual movie star. Either cast someone representing a demographic not used to seeing themselves in that kind of role (this is where race-swapping and gender-swapping come in) to make it a demographically-specific event or cast someone famous enough and well-liked enough that audiences will A) be curious to see them take over an iconic role and B) want to see them in a big-budget action-adventure regardless of the IP. Yes, Leonardo DiCaprio as Indiana Jones would be an event, as will Will Smith as Aladdin's Genie.
Lucasfilm and Star Wars will be fine over the long haul, especially if they don’t overreact to what is a specific financial disappointment of a specific movie for specific reasons. It should make the industry take pause and take stock in the notion of rebooted and recasting popular cinematic heroes with lesser (or otherwise unknown) movie stars. In the eyes of the audience, Bruce Willis is John McClane, Harrison Ford is both Han Solo and Indiana Jones, while Matt Damon is Jason Bourne. When it comes to big bits and iconic character-specific franchises, sometimes nobody does it better than the guy who did it first.
Those two Star Wars Story flicks won’t require recasting a beloved character made iconic by the actor who played him in the first place. Fans won’t cry foul if Daniel Logan or Temuera Morrison end up getting replaced as adult Boba Fett. An Obi-Wan movie presumably depends on Ewan McGregor reprising the role. Solo stumbled at least partially due to the audience’s indifference or outright hostility to the character of Han Solo being played by Alden Ehrenreich (who is fine in the film and excellent in Beautiful Creatures and Hail, Caesar!) instead of Harrison Ford. That’s bad news for Star Wars, but it’s far worse news for the idea of rebooting Indiana Jones after the upcoming fifth film or that in-development Die Hard prequel.
Maintaining or rebooting a franchise with a new actor taking over for the guy who made that character a big deal is fraught with peril. Yes, there are exceptions here and there, but if a cinematic character is made famous by the actor who plays him, even if that character is based on a book or TV show, the odds are against a successful replacement. If folks are hostile to someone other than Harrison Ford as Han Solo, you may argue that they may be about as hostile, give-or-take other variables, at someone other than Ford eventually playing Indiana Jones, or someone other than Bruce Willis playing John McClane.
It even took three tries for audiences to really warm up to Roger Moore as 007. George Lazenby’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service earned $22.7 million domestic in 1969, about half the domestic gross of You Only Live Twice ($43m in 1967) and then Diamonds Are Forever ($43m in 1971) earned after Sean Connery was lured back for one last rodeo. Roger Moore then took over, and Live and Let Die earned a meh $35m in 1973. The Man with the Golden Gun earned a series-low $20m in 1974. It wasn’t until The Spy Who Loved Me (one of the best 007 films) that audiences embraced Sean Connery’s replacement to the tune of $46m in 1977.
Heck, you can argue that Timothy Dalton’s two outings, the $51 million-grossing The Living Daylights in 1987 and the $34m-grossing License to Kill in 1989, were further examples of audiences wanting the prior 007, in this case, Roger Moore. It wasn’t until 1995, when Pierce Brosnan took over the role in the revamped GoldenEye, with a turn that blended Connery’s cruelty with Moore’s gee-whiz charm, that 007 returned near the top of the action movie pile. Yes, Roger Moore eventually became James Bond in the eyes of moviegoers, but it took a couple of tries. And when you’re dealing with $200-$250m movies, you don’t get multiple shots for audiences to adjust to a new Han Solo.
Going way back into cinema history offers examples (Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, etc.) of popular characters being played by multiple actors to relative success, but in those cases, the characters were far more popular than the actors. Harrison Ford replaced Alec Baldwin as Jack Ryan in the early 1990’s and scored since Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger were sold as kick-ass action movies starring Han Solo/Indiana Jones. It helped that The Hunt for Red October was sold as a Sean Connery vehicle as opposed to an Alec Baldwin-as-Jack Ryan flick. Like Steven Martin’s Pink Panther, it was a pure star vehicle that wasn’t entirely relying on the prior IP.
The closest example to a recent character replacement that worked is Val Kilmer taking over for Michael Keaton in Batman Forever. But that film had the support of Jim Carrey’s Riddler, Tommy Lee Jones’ Two-Face and the debut of Robin in a mega-budget neon-nightmare adventure in a time when movies on that scale were still indisputable events. But, at least in recent history, Kilmer’s success as the Caped Crusader is the exception as opposed to the rule. Even Christian Bale’s Batman movies needed an introductory (and underperforming) chapter to wash away the aftertaste of George Clooney’s Batman & Robin. Otherwise, while I may be forgetting one or two, there aren’t a lot of recent examples of iconic actors being replaced to overall success.
Jeremy Renner’s The Bourne Legacy fizzled (with Renner playing a different character no less) and led to Damon coming back for Jason Bourne. Ditto Ice Cube taking over for Vin Diesel in xXx: State of the Union before Xander Cage returned in 2017. Andrew Garfield’s Amazing Spider-Man struggled for two movies before Sony rebooted again inside the MCU with Tom Holland’s Spider-Man: Homecoming. Henry Cavill’s Man of Steel grossed more than Brandon Routh’s Superman Returns, but the DC Films franchise isn’t exactly floating on air now. Even Paramount/Viacom Inc.’s rebooted Star Trek, a critical and crowd-pleasing reboot/recasting triumph, has yet to produce an entry earning more than $470m worldwide.
You can make the case that the James Bond franchise has been successful at replacing its leading actor, and that’s only because, after some trial and error, multiple generations have grown to accept it for this specific franchise. Alicia Vikander couldn’t quite (commercially) fill Angelina Jolie’s shoes in Tomb Raider while Ed Skein couldn’t keep The Transporter alive without Jason Statham. Even the revamped X-Men series has struggled commercially save for the entry (X-Men: Days of Future Past) which was both a sequel to X-Men: First Class and X-Men: The Last Stand. Thus, just because folks liked Harrison Ford as Han Solo doesn’t mean they liked Han Solo.
The solution is either A) don't recast a role that was defined by a specific actor or B) use an actual movie star. Either cast someone representing a demographic not used to seeing themselves in that kind of role (this is where race-swapping and gender-swapping come in) to make it a demographically-specific event or cast someone famous enough and well-liked enough that audiences will A) be curious to see them take over an iconic role and B) want to see them in a big-budget action-adventure regardless of the IP. Yes, Leonardo DiCaprio as Indiana Jones would be an event, as will Will Smith as Aladdin's Genie.
Lucasfilm and Star Wars will be fine over the long haul, especially if they don’t overreact to what is a specific financial disappointment of a specific movie for specific reasons. It should make the industry take pause and take stock in the notion of rebooted and recasting popular cinematic heroes with lesser (or otherwise unknown) movie stars. In the eyes of the audience, Bruce Willis is John McClane, Harrison Ford is both Han Solo and Indiana Jones, while Matt Damon is Jason Bourne. When it comes to big bits and iconic character-specific franchises, sometimes nobody does it better than the guy who did it first.
