DrCrowTStarwars said:
So you have not watched any thing James Bond related except the 1954 CBS broadcast of Casino Royal for Climax?
This lack of consistency has certainly reduced any desire to view any of them, yes.
Oh and the new actor doesn't have to pretend to be Ford, he can play the part his own way. Connery did not pretend to be the guy fro Casino Royal. Brett did not pretend to be Cushing when playing Sherlock Holmes. Laurie did not pretend to be Nevin when playing Bertie Wooster. Troughton did not pretend to be Hartnell. Why would the new actor pretend to be Ford? Why wouldn't he just play the part.
Under this logic Shakespear's plays should never be preformed today because none of the actors are playing the role, they are just pretending to be the actors who played the roles in Shakespeare's day.
I am most certain many feel as you do and are able to embrace the character in whichever manifestation it is offered.
I will readily admit that I have done so with David Suchet's Poirot and Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes, being well aware that the portrayal has been done by many others before.
That being said, however, now that I have a preferred Poirot or Sherlock, I no longer feel the desire to entertain any others.
What might be argued in such examples, however, is that many of these were born first in the imagination of the audience through a well known written or performed work. Such characters were known prior to the actor who might later play the role and so the actor itself was not synonymous with the character.
With the advent of cinematic history, characters were for the first time immortalized in the form both of the character and the actor doing the portrayal.
When a role is developed by an actor to such a degree that theirs is universally assumed to be the definitive version it seems meaningless to reprise the role ad nauseam because the story-line has become secondary to the character itself.
In the constant recycling of such roles we confuse and erase portions of the definitive character--as it cannot (and likely should not) be duplicated properly without a great deal of cringe-inducing moments. Yet the paradox is that without such recognizable traits and obvious fan service how might this new version still represent the character that we have grown to know and appreciate?
With reboots we now have a Kirk and Spock who are irreconcilable with their former selves. If we are to discuss such characters we must now append a timeline to each so as to understand which version of what used to be iconic we wish to refer. It detracts from any identification with these characters and creates a secondary level of disbelief-suspension necessary to involve oneself properly in the film assuming one is well acquainted with the original.
Is Indiana Jones the only archaeologist who might be considered to have adventures? Certainly not. So why must all future such plots be that character's exclusive domain? Is not a cynical suspicion that such a decision might revolve largely around the logistics of simpler marketing rather than for any important structural significance to be understood?
Further, the potential to miss out on new possibilities that are seemingly never considered in favor of the more easily exploited tried and true is a great loss. How many versions of Batman are now at play and yet mutually incompatible? Is not the character more likely diminished by such schizophreniazation than improved? Why could not new material have been presented, and new stories considered, rather than a re-jumbling of the old? Having witnessed no fewer than 3 origin stories for a given character is it any wonder that such a one may no longer be of any great importance? Which is now the definitive timeline? The definitive story? The definitive character. Does not none of them seem a more likely response than all of them?
