How different would 1980's cinema been had...

[Goodsport]

• An actor not been pulled out of a movie project at the last minute by his TV network to star on a new TV show he had just commited to, like what CBS did to Tom Selleck for Magnum P.I. just as Selleck was chosen to play Indiana Jones for Raiders of the Lost Ark?
  
  &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp
  
  
  
  
• An actor not been replaced after the director had already shot many scenes of a movie with him, such as the case of Eric Stoltz and Back to the Future?
  
  &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp
  
  
  
  
• An actor who was just about to become the new lead in a movie franchise after his TV show finally got cancelled did not have the deal kiboshed by his former TV network, stating that the actor had commited to three TV-movies of his TV character - even if only one was eventually made?
  
  (In a delicious bit of irony, the actor ended up taking the lead in that movie franchise anyway... albeit almost a decade later.)
  
  Such was the bizarre story of Pierce Brosnan, NBC, Remington Steele, and the James Bond franchise. Brosnan was all set to become the new James Bond in 1987's The Living Daylights, but finally did become the new James Bond in 1995's Goldeneye.

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp How different would have 1980's cinema been? Would those movies have been as successful as they had actually become in those circumstances? Would we have even noticed a difference?


-G

 

[Alzrius]

I love trivia like this.

My guess is that Indiana Jones would have gotten a second movie under Selleck, but not a third. Harrison Ford is just that much better, hands down.

I don't even know who Eric Stoltz is. There would almost certainly still have been three Back to the Future movies, since thats obviously how they were set up, but having Michael J. Fox (who's real middle initial is A.) gave the movies an intangible but very obvious "oomph" that made them true classics.

As for not having Pierce Brosnan until 1995, this one is probably the only real loss, since IMO he's the best actor to play James Bond since Sean Connery originally took up the role. However, it might be for the best in the long run. With the complexities of what can be shown now with computers, and script and character work evolving, I feel we're now getting some of the best Bond movies ever, and had he been working on those movies for fifteen years now, instead of just seven or so, Brosnan might have since decided to move on, so maybe its better this way.

What do other people think?

 

[John Crichton]

My guess is that Indiana Jones would have gotten a second movie under Selleck, but not a third. Harrison Ford is just that much better, hands down.

I don't even know who Eric Stoltz is. There would almost certainly still have been three Back to the Future movies, since thats obviously how they were set up, but having Michael J. Fox (who's real middle initial is A.) gave the movies an intangible but very obvious "oomph" that made them true classics.

As for not having Pierce Brosnan until 1995, this one is probably the only real loss, since IMO he's the best actor to play James Bond since Sean Connery originally took up the role. However, it might be for the best in the long run. With the complexities of what can be shown now with computers, and script and character work evolving, I feel we're now getting some of the best Bond movies ever, and had he been working on those movies for fifteen years now, instead of just seven or so, Brosnan might have since decided to move on, so maybe its better this way.

What do other people think?

Gonna have to agree on the Indy thing in general. Hard to say if any sequels would have been made had Harrison Ford not been on board. I like to think no. He IS Indy.

Eric Stoltz is cool, I like just about everything I've seen him in. However, Michael J. Fox is the man. Tons of charisma and as already said he brings something extra to the roles he plays. Back to the Future would still have been cool, but may not have been as successful.

And as for Bond, I am not a big Bond fan so I am not a qualified judge. The Bond movies I have seen haven't set my world on fire. I'd rather watch an episode of Alias that sit thru another Brosnan installment. But that's just me. But I haven't seen many Bond flick in general so take that into account.

 

[Welverin]

An actor not been pulled out of a movie project at the last minute by his TV network to star on a new TV show he had just commited to, like what CBS did to Tom Selleck for Magnum P.I. just as Selleck was chosen to play Indiana Jones for Raiders of the Lost Ark?

Well I know one person who would have actually seen them. You see, I know someone who refuses to see the Indy movies because he doesn't want to think of Harrison Ford as anyone but Han Solo.

 

[Orius]

As for not having Pierce Brosnan until 1995, this one is probably the only real loss, since IMO he's the best actor to play James Bond since Sean Connery originally took up the role. However, it might be for the best in the long run. With the complexities of what can be shown now with computers, and script and character work evolving, I feel we're now getting some of the best Bond movies ever, and had he been working on those movies for fifteen years now, instead of just seven or so, Brosnan might have since decided to move on, so maybe its better this way.

I'd have to agree. Brosnan is one of the best Bonds in the history of the franchise. He's certainly better than Timothy Dalton was, and it might have been cool to see him as Bond even back in the 80s.

 

[John Crichton]

Re: Re: How different would 1980's cinema been had...

Well I know one person who would have actually seen them. You see, I know someone who refuses to see the Indy movies because he doesn't want to think of Harrison Ford as anyone but Han Solo.

That's too bad. This person is missing out on a great film experience.

 

[Goodsport]

• Lucas and Spielberg apparently had nothing against casting Harrison Ford from the beginning as Indiana Jones, but Lucas wanted someone pretty unknown at the time; Ford was already very well known to the world as Han Solo by that point, and Lucas was afraid that people wouldn't accept Ford in any other major role (judging by the box office and the critical acclaim for Raiders of the Lost Ark, it seems that Lucas had nothing to worry about).
  
  It seems that Harrison Ford was high on the filmmakers' list anyway: when Lucas and Spielberg spoke to each other on the phone after finding out that CBS would not release Selleck to shoot the film, there was a half-minute of silence, followed by Lucas suddenly asking Spielberg "You're thinking of Harrison, aren't you?".
  
  Incidentally, a later episode of Magnum P.I. had Selleck play in an Indiana Jones-like episode (undoubtedly in homage to Selleck's missed opportunity to cinematically don the brown fedora).
  
  
• Michael J. Fox apparently was always Robert Zemeckis' (director) and Bob Gale's (writer/producer) first choice to play Marty McFly for Back to the Future, but Fox was initially unavailable since he was already commited to NBC's Family Ties. So after some screentests by Zemeckis and Gale, it came down to two choices: C. Thomas Howell and Eric Stoltz. Between the two, Zemeckis and Gale preferred Howell, but Universal's studio chief preferred Stoltz (guess which choice prevailed?).
  
  After filming many scenes with Stoltz, Zemeckis and Gale decided that it wasn't really working out with Stoltz. They then contacted Michael J. Fox again and worked out a deal where Fox would film Family Ties for most of the day, then immediately head out to the Back to the Future set and film there... Fox averaged about 1-2 hours of sleep a day during that time.
  
  You can view several pages of stillshots with Eric Stoltz as Marty McFly here.
  
  
• Pierce Brosnan was so ticked off by NBC's refusal to release him to play James Bond that he immediately went on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson to voice his displeasure (it's amazing that NBC let him do that, considering that The Tonight Show was an NBC show).
  
  Perhaps in a bit of revenge, Brosnan starred in the similarly-themed movie The Fourth Protocol the same year that The Living Daylights hit theaters, and at the very least the movie did no worse (financially and critically) than the James Bond movie did.

-G

 

[John Crichton]

You can view several pages of stillshots with Eric Stoltz as Marty McFly here.

Sweet. I was looking for this.

I have to say that Stoltz definitely looks the part with no problems. He may have been too low-key for the role but I have always liked his work. Solid actor.

However, Fox is Marty McFly. No contest.

 

[Olive]

i like stoltz, and would like to see him got more work personally...

 

[Assenpfeffer]

I'd have to agree. Brosnan is one of the best Bonds in the history of the franchise. He's certainly better than Timothy Dalton was, and it might have been cool to see him as Bond even back in the 80s.

Call me a crackpot, but I liked Timothy Dalton. Nothing against Brosnan (who I think is certainly a good choice for the role,) but the recent films have a much more comic-book preposterous action feel. The two Dalton films felt much more like spy movies - more like From Russia With Love.