And there was some talk about replacing Ford with a new actors on Indiana Jones a while ago like 3 years ago. And i have a friend named Mike Brown who is a very popular youtube movie/show critic named Ocpcommunications and here is an excellent rant on recasting established original cinematic characters and how it's impossible to do that compared to recasting novel/comic/animated to live-action/video game characters like Pennywise, Jud Crandall, Captain Abhem, Dracula, Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Joker, Jack Torrence, Frodo Baggins etc.
Some people are actually defending recasting iconic film characters with different actors. And even more so with the recent release of Solo. They actually think that all film characters are fair game for a new actor portraying them.
And it's fine that they feel that way. But him and i vehemently disagree and I just don't understand. Sure. We both do have exceptions, like Bond (he was a literature character) or characters from novels or comic books or movie versions of TV show characters. But for the most part, me and him want beloved film characters (original characters made for film and not from other sources) to remain pure and untouched by half-assed or horrible attempts to recapture lightning in a bottle.
Some roles have actors that were born to play them and there really are no substitutes. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Bill Murray as Peter Venkman, Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, Linda Hamilton as Sarah Conner, Bruce Willis as John McClane, Stallone as Rocky Balboa/John Rambo, Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly and Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger are all examples of this. And any actor that will attempt to play the character will pale in comparison. They have the charisma and personality that is unique only to them and that is what makes these characters so iconic and what brought them to life.
And don't give me the "They will make it their own" response. Make it their own means they will take the character and make it something completely alien to the character we all know and love in order to separate it from the original, potentially swap the genders, or just half-heartedly attempt to capture the same magic.
I have never seen a single remake, reboot or sequel with an original iconic character or film have a lead that is anywhere near as memorable or as effective as the original for these same reasons. The track record is abysmal like Freddy or Robocop (I agree with Ocpcommunications that Richard Eden from the TV show of Robocop is the closet thing to Weller for Robocop but none of them have the same charisma as Weller) and that is why him and I don't agree with the idea of every character in every film is fair game for a re-imagining.
What's the better option, continue to dig up popular original cinematic characters out of the grave every ten or twenty years and try to do the impossible and find the perfect actor to play the role again, or stop doing that and put that effort into finding new characters for a new generation?
There need to be limits. Otherwise, you get A wannabee John Cena as RoboCop, and a southern friend redneck Freddy who sounds like Sling blade. him and i would rather these iconic made-for-cinema (created by cinema) characters be retired on film and only brought back in books, comics, and video games then see lazy attempts by Hollywood to bring them back with new faces in "new" films just to piggyback off the success of the previous franchise.
Let these beloved made for cinema original characters that you love die and become legends, instead of live forever and become total jokes and nothing but hollow cash grabs".
"Nobody wants to see vampire killers or vampires either! apparently all they want are demented madmen running around in ski-masks hacking up young virgins"-Peter Vincent from Fright Night.