Recasting a franchise - Bond leads, others could follow

Comments

• darenhat The Old PuebloPosts: 2,029Quartermasters

  April 2007

  I suppose it's hard to see some characters who are, for all intents and purposes, regarded as strictly cinematic icons be re-cast as their original cinematic incarnation tends to be the definition of the character. Harrison Ford as the [adult] Indiana Jones being a prime example. Anything else would become a 'lesser' incarnation.
  
  I suppose James Bond can be recasted since he was primarily a literary character and the original conceptions of the character were based on several readers interpretations, so recasting the film version may not result in a character that may not match one person's idea of Bond, but does with another. We see this happening with today's Bond, in fact. No one has issues with recasting the character of Sherlock Holmes, Batman, or other literary characters (I'm lumping comics and graphic novels into the term literary...won't RogueAgent be proud) since the casting is an interpretation of the character, not the original performer.
  
  Admittedly, some of the characters which seem as strictly cinematic characters (Rambo, and I believe John Mclane) began as literary characters, but the novels were so obscure that in truth the popular conception will mainly be that of the film.
  
  Since Peter Sellers passed, three attempts have been made to revitalize the Pink Panther series with no real sucess. That Dumb and Dumber sequel which didn't star Jim Carrey or Jeff Daniels never went anywhere.
  
  Are there, or could there be, exceptions? Sure, but I am of the opinion that re-casting a primarily cinematic and popular character poses a severe challenge for the filmmakers.
• Lady Rose London,UKPosts: 2,667MI6 Agent

  April 2007

  TOOTS wrote:

  Food for thought on characters I think could be recast .....
  
  Snake Plissken
  
  

  
  We are about to find out how that one pans out. Escape from New York is going to be remade and Gerard Butler is taking on the role of Snake. Apparently Kurt Russell isn't very happy about the casting, primarily because Snake is American.
• Willie Garvin Posts: 1,412MI6 Agent

  April 2007 edited April 2007

  Okay TOOTS--I'll play along but in all honesty,I can't imagine any other actors successfully replacing the individuals who originated the roles on your list.I won't offer any ideas for screenplays or directors or anything like that,but I will offer a few explanations for the actors I'm suggesting.
  
  Here goes nothing:
  
  1)"Dirty" Harry Callahan--David Boreanaz(of "Angel" and "Bones") .Yes,he's a wild card and not exactly like Clint Eastwood,but I think both of them have comparable onscreen personas.And the character is as much the star of these films as the actor who plays it,Only the first Dirty Harry film is truly original and outstanding--the remainder are weak by comparison,in large part because they were afterthoughts.Given the right screenplay and director I think Boreanaz would be fine in an updated franchise.And he's young enough for a few sequels should his initial film prove successful.
  
  2)Harry Palmer-Hugh Laurie.This one is fairly easy to cast since-I think anyway-that Palmer is an intentionally nondescript character(Deighton doesn't even name him in the novels he appears in).Just give Laurie a pair of glasses and you've got your man.Then again,no rule says that a newer version of Palmer would even need glasses.
  
  3)Indiana Jones-Nathan Fillion(of "Firefly","Serenity" and "Drive").Similar physically and in general style to Harrison Ford, but not an exact lookalike.Thirty years younger,Fillion could play Indy in movies set before and between those that Ford has already appeared in.If successful,this'd probably be overexposure for Indy, but then Indy survived "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" so who knows what's possible?Plus,Lucas has always had a thing for prequels.
  
  4)John McClane-Edward Norton.I briefly considered suggesting Paul Giamatti or Jeremy Piven for this part.Each of these actors plays the average man pretty well,and it'd be fun to see either of them headline a really big action franchise;unbelievable perhaps,but fun nontheless.Still, IMO,they're probably too "average" to play McClane, and I don't like casting against type.With that said,I think Norton plays the average guy very well,would be more suitable in this role, and could probably sell tickets to a future "Die Hard" movie,so I've named him.
  
  5)Murtaugh and Riggs- Samuel L.Jackson and Colin Farrell.Jackson's a terrific actor and is the right age to play Murtaugh(Danny Glover had to play older),and Farrell's definitely got the same type of wildman image Mel Gibson once brought to the part.
  
  6)Derek Flint-Matthew McCounaghey.Flint's flamboyant,he's self-possessed,he's happy with the world, and he's absolutely the best at what he does.James Coburn brought these qualities to the role brilliantly,and I'm thinking McConaughey(based upon his turn as Dirk Pitt in "Sahara"),could do likewise--in his own fashion.
  
  7)Hannibal Lector-Ralph Fiennes.Brian Cox was eerie, and Anthony Hopkins was a gentleman.Fiennes is in that line and could even be frightening.Maybe a true animal--given the proper screenplay...
• TOOTS Posts: 114MI6 Agent

  April 2007 edited April 2007

  Great stuff, Willie Garvin.
  That's the spirit.
  I know, I know, I know - recasting iconic parts is slightly devisive and EVERYBODY so far says you can't recast Dirty Harry, John McLane etc...
  My theory is that if you could recast Connery near the apex of his popularity, you could recast anyone, provided the movie is good and the character well established.
  I know some would not be pleased but then again, for my dad, there is no other Bond than Connery!
  Laurie as Harry Palmer = a trifle posh, no? Dare I say it but Jude Law in glasses.
  Matthew McCounaghey as Derek Flint is great - love it.
  I love your rationale. Jeremy Piven as John McClane is wonderful but I get why he can't do it. Norton is genius!
  I had a range of Ben Affleck, Jason Bateman, Sean Patrick Flannery, Jake Gyllenhall, Leonardo DiCaprio as Indy but Fillon is good.
  Not convinced about David Boreanaz as Harry but there you go!
  Murtaugh and Riggs - like Sam L and Colin. It would work, potentially.
  Hannibal Lecter - do you know? I could really imagine Timothy Dalton, with dyed hair scaped back doing this!
  
  
  HUGH GRANT IS DIRTY HARRY
  
  I say, look here, I, er, think I know what you're sort, hmmm, thinking. "Did he fire six of those blasted shots or only five of the buggers?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this wretched excitement I kind of lost track myself, as one does. But being as I suppose this is a .44 Magnum, reputedly the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head rather cleanly, if somewhat messily, off you really must consider asking yourself precisely one, er, question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do you, you little punk?
• delon64 RiyadhPosts: 176MI6 Agent

  April 2007

  in a convuluted way frank sinatra was the first john mclane character in the detective...which is a prequel to the roderick thorp novel on which die hard is based and was a huge bestseller of its day...great film by the way very un pc in its treatment of gay stereotypes but holds up well otherwise...sinatra was also the first choice for dirty harry before a hand injury pulled him from shooting...talk about six degrees of separation
• Willie Garvin Posts: 1,412MI6 Agent

  April 2007 edited May 2007

  delon64 wrote:

  in a convuluted way frank sinatra was the first john mclane character in the detective...which is a prequel to the roderick thorp novel on which die hard is based and was a huge bestseller of its day...great film by the way very un pc in its treatment of gay stereotypes but holds up well otherwise...sinatra was also the first choice for dirty harry before a hand injury pulled him from shooting...talk about six degrees of separation

  
  
  Fascinating.I remember that Dirty Harry was a response to the real life Zodiac killer who was on the prowl in the S.F.Bay area at the time Dirty Harry was made(I saw this film during its first week in release)."Scorpio" was Zodiac's cinematic representative, and when Harry caught with him and dispensed his particular brand of rough justice,the audience I was with cheered.
  
  Delon,wasn't the novel Die Hard is based on a very different story?I seem to recall that the screenwriters on Die Hard retained only the novel's hostage situation and not much else.
  
  And I vaguely remember hearing that John Wayne was another candidate to play Harry Callahan before it went to Eastwood-who,at that time-was a former TV actor,who'd returned to the USA with an enormous cult following from his Sergio Leone Westerns.Of course,Wayne(like many other actors)occasionally claimed that he'd turned down a few roles in movies that then turned out to become quite successful,like Sheriff Will Kane in High Noon,for example--a part that later records show was never offered to him.And then there's Peter Lawford, who(in his last days) sometimes said that he was the first actor Eon offered James Bond to.Possible perhaps--but highly unlikely.
  
  Quick departure--more casting suggestions:If money was no object, then I think that there are four actors who could conceivably play Dirty Harry-- but I suspect that only one of them would accept the part if it was offered to him.And those actors are:
  
  1)Russell Crowe--probably too involved in making personal films to play Harry, but just imagine him as Harry interrogating a criminal, and having plenty of unplugged telephones within reach...Seriously,I can visualize Crowe as Harry but I doubt he'd be interested--especially after L.A.Confidential.
  
  2)Brad Pitt--Maybe once, but he seems to be steering away from general audience films(with exceptions like the Ocean's series) to more artistic projects.Still,who knows.
  
  3)George Clooney--He can do action(The Peacemaker) and drama and maybe he'd like to take a break from playing charming rogues.Probably too busy.
  
  4)Hugh Jackman--I think he'd really do it if Harry was offered to him, since Jackman seems to be interested in playing as wide a range of parts as possible.I have no trouble seeing him in the part.But his dance card looks full right now(Wolverine,Australia)--but of this lot,I wouldn't discount him.Does a very convincing American accent and is around the same physical size as Eastwood.
  
  Then again,there's Paul Giamatti...:)
  
  Hannibal Lector:Dalton would be a great Lector--probably superior to my first choice, Crispin "I'm weird" Glover.
• TOOTS Posts: 114MI6 Agent

  May 2007

  SAMUEL L JACKSON IS DIRTY HARRY
  
  Normally, your [censored] would be dead as [censored]ing fried chicken, but you happen to pull this [censored] while I'm in a transitional period so I don't wanna kill you, I wanna help you. But I know what you thinking, "Did the mofo fire six shots or only five?" Now, I've already been through too much [censored] this morning over to give the answer to your dumb [censored]. I'm in some mofo need of a Big Kahuna Quarter Pounder With Cheese, a 12oz Sprite and some Red Apple cigarettes. And, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. It's like some [censored] from some badass 70's cop movie with Charles Bronson or someone. But seeing as this right here is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your mofo head all around this here comic store, splattering your brains all over that there Jack Kirby Silver Surfer comic book, you've got to ask yourself just one bitty question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? Coz the mood you got me in, I'm gonna lay my mofo vengeance on thee.
• Willie Garvin Posts: 1,412MI6 Agent

  May 2007 edited May 2007

  Laurence Olivier is Dirty Harry
  
  Halt, you blackguard!Stop,I say!Raise your hands, you vile miscreant!There...now keep your hands where I can see them.At any other time varlet, you would be as dead as the ghost of Hamlet's father--so you dare not force me to use this most excellent firearm,the epitome of the finest of all revolvers,this gun known in popular parlance as the .44 Magnum,on you.
  
  A scoundrel such as yourself deserves the most minimal respect,therefore,I accordingly mark you down as a "punk".Let the news ring down from the highest mountaintops that you,you surly knave,are but a..."punk".A "punk" you were,a "punk" you are, and a "punk" you shall forevermore remain.
  
  And now,you "punk"...perhaps during the course of this evening's grand excitement you've asked yourself how many shots did I fire in your direction.Alas,the answer to that query is currently shrouded in mystery--and a mystery it may yet remain,for in the course of my reverie, I must acknowledge that I have lost count of the bullets fired by the wonderous pistol I brandish before you.
  
  But surely the grand question arises nonetheless--in thoughts written in fire that flash fever-pitched across your brow:do I consider myself fortunate enough to risk all for but a single chance at freedom?Or,do I instead accept my fate?Thus duly informed,"punk", I now command you to drop your gun--otherwise you'll learn to your dismay that he who sheds his blood for me today will make my day!
• TOOTS Posts: 114MI6 Agent

  May 2007

  LOL!
  Brilliant Willie Garvin
• 7289 Beau DesertPosts: 1,691MI6 Agent

  May 2007

  I was fortunate enough to meet and speak with Director John Milius at which time I asked him about the casting of "Dirty Harry". Frank Sinatra had expressed interest in the role and read an early version of the script. He schueduled a lunch meeting with Milius, primarlily to look at "the gat" (slang for a gun). They met and Milius showed him a .44 magnum. He noticed that Sinatra had scars on his right hand from recent surgery, though nothing was said about it. The meeting ended and Milius headed home. He had no sooner walked in the door when the phone rang, the caller told him Sinatra had declined the role.
  
  The role was then offered to Eastwood who accepted as long as Don Siegel directed.
  
  Sinatra would have made a wonderful "Dirty Harry". Since the original was made at the end of the 1960's, alot more could have been done with the "generation gap" and other issues prominent at the time.
  
  If rebooted .....I would propose Tom Selleck.I would play up generational difference in the new film.
  
  Regards Lazenby. From a 1969 prespective - reasting Bond was a big deal because Connery had really put his stamp on the part. OHMSS failed because I think the producers intentionally sabotaged GL. They dubbed over his voice, put him in silly looking clothes -that frilled tux is awful, not to mention ascots, and turtlenecks! They evidently didn't trust his acting because he falls in love with Tracy in a "music video". The worst part was showing scenes from the previous films on the credits and the bit at his desk with the props from earlier films. In spite of all that GL was able to pull off a decent performance.
  
  Thank goodness, they don't do reboots that way these days!

  Bond’s Walther PPK
  Bond’s Beretta
  The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
• Willie Garvin Posts: 1,412MI6 Agent

  May 2007 edited May 2007

  7289 wrote:

  I was fortunate enough to meet and speak with Director John Milius at which time I asked him about the casting of "Dirty Harry". Frank Sinatra had expressed interest in the role and read an early version of the script. He schueduled a lunch meeting with Milius, primarlily to look at "the gat" (slang for a gun). They met and Milius showed him a .44 magnum. He noticed that Sinatra had scars on his right hand from recent surgery, though nothing was said about it. The meeting ended and Milius headed home. He had no sooner walked in the door when the phone rang, the caller told him Sinatra had declined the role.
  
  The role was then offered to Eastwood who accepted as long as Don Siegel directed.
  
  Sinatra would have made a wonderful "Dirty Harry". Since the original was made at the end of the 1960's, alot more could have been done with the "generation gap" and other issues prominent at the time.
  
  If rebooted .....I would propose Tom Selleck.I would play up generational difference in the new film.
  
  Regards Lazenby. From a 1969 prespective - reasting Bond was a big deal because Connery had really put his stamp on the part. OHMSS failed because I think the producers intentionally sabotaged GL. They dubbed over his voice, put him in silly looking clothes -that frilled tux is awful, not to mention ascots, and turtlenecks! They evidently didn't trust his acting because he falls in love with Tracy in a "music video". The worst part was showing scenes from the previous films on the credits and the bit at his desk with the props from earlier films. In spite of all that GL was able to pull off a decent performance.
  
  Thank goodness, they don't do reboots that way these days!

  
  
  
  Amen to that.At the time OHMSS was made Cubby was trying to create his own Connery out of Lazenby,and it might've worked, because he gives a good performance considering his lack of acting experience.Following Connery--who--in the mid and late 1960s was the only face of James Bond and who had consequently become one of the most popular and sought after actors in the world--presented an enormous challenge for any actor.
  
  When he was signed, Lazenby was only 29,and the future for him as 007 seemed bright--provided the audiences accepted him.Lazenby's said more than once that all he really needed were a few acting lessons and better advisers before and during the period when he was acting in OHMSS.Lazenby's quitting the role halfway through OHMSS soured the situation and marked him as unprofessional.
  
  The sequence with the Lazenby 007 looking through the souvenirs of the Connery 007, was of course, intended to suggest a sense of continuity from the previous films.Like you,I don't think this moment works, because in retrospect it's unnecessary and it immediately brings Connery to back to mind--making Big Tam overshadow Lazenby while absent from the scene.However,at the time
  OHMSS was being made,we know that Eon was understandably concerned about the success of the movie and the series' potential future.So in this instance,the brief visual references to 007's illustrious cinematic past are certainly understandable--but presented in a hamhanded fashion.There's a similar sequence in Die Another Day,where the Brosnan 007 is looking through more souvenirs of the series' past.Rather than ridiculously say to Q, "I remember this",as he picks up the Bell rocketbelt from Thunderball, all Brosnan's 007 says is,"Does this still work?"It's a more graceful and (for what it is)subtle difference, and the sequence is better for that.The essential message is still delivered.
  
  About Dirty Harry:
  That's a fascinating story-thanks for sharing!Although I think Eastwood was outstanding as Dirty Harry Callahan,I agree that Sinatra would've been equally impressive in the role.He'd certainly played his fair share of cops, PIs, and killers by then,and he'd have immediately imparted his unique world-weary edge to the character.His presence alone would probably have made this film a little darker and I suspect audiences would've accepted him with ease.The cold glare radiating from Sinatra's famous eyes as he resolutely hunts Scorpio down,is easy to imagine.And of course,the larger generation gap between Sinatra's Harry and his younger partner--as opposed the still youthful looking Eastwood and his sidekick--would've given an extra subtext to the story.
  
  I recall John Wayne once claimed that Dirty Harry was once offered to him, and that he said he'd turned it down because he'd disagreed with Harry's approach to crimefighting.Of course,Duke only said this when he was advertising McQ--his own Dirty Harryesque tough cop movie.I don't think McQ's a disappointing film for what it is.The 60-something Duke Wayne is believable enough, since almost everyone else in the cast is equally mature,nevertheless,it's still a lesser film when compared to the original DH.
  
  At any rate, back to the Dirty Harry fantasy casting:
  
  Agreed that Tom Selleck would definitely be great casting if someone was to make a new Harry film today.I also think that Mark Harmon would be interesting, as would Dennis Farina.TOOTS has already mentioned Kurt Russell,Ving Rhames and Samuel L.Jackson,and I can see them succeeding.In my opinion,so too would Michael Biehn,Dennis Quaid or Alec Baldwin--either of whom could handle this role with panache to spare.
  
  (If only Sam Elliott was still in his late 40s to early 50s again...Of the lot,I think he'd have had the best voice and the most commanding presence.)
• ohmss1969 EuropePosts: 141MI6 Agent

  May 2007

  Didn't McQueen turn down both Dirty Harry and Rambo?
  
  I read an article in a mag , some guy didn't care too much for sop called remakes...funny thing is that that mag was printed in '67 lol
  
  It also had a story with Sir Roger betting on a horse called Saint...needless to say he lost and swore never to gamble again lol
• emtiem SurreyPosts: 5,948MI6 Agent

  June 2007

  Willie Garvin wrote:

  Delon,wasn't the novel Die Hard is based on a very different story?I seem to recall that the screenwriters on Die Hard retained only the novel's hostage situation and not much else.

  
  And interestingly Die Hard 2 is an adaptation of a completely different novel by a different writer. A bit like the sequel to Dr No being The Ipcress File starring Connery as James Bond!
• Klaus Hergescheimer Posts: 332MI6 Agent

  June 2007

  One thing I will say is that I really don't like the idea of casting already big superstars in legendary roles, especially if the roles have been portrayed on screen (film or television) before. Big superstars already have an established identity have the one or two roles with which they will forever be associated. This presents problems as far as translating their image into the image of the legendary character is concerned, and also, big superstars tend to be less motivated for these roles than are up-and-comers, who still desire their big break and their one "big" role with which they're associated.
  
  This is why all of the actors who have played Bond have worked: because they weren't huge superstars before they became Bond. Moore and Brosnan were famous for television roles, certainly, but neither were huge movie stars. This is true, whereas there probably would have been issues if guys like Cary Grant, Michael Caine, Russell Crowe, or Ewan McGregor had taken the role over the years. (Grant may have been different, since he would have been the very first James Bond, but I think we can all say that we wouldn't trade Connery for anyone.)