amanaplan1 wrote:
As you can see in my unedited posts above, I specifically wrote:

"a wildly popular leading character be replaced by a different actor in a sustained film franchise"
"I'm not talking about stuff like Tarzan movies, which were made by different producers and studios throughout the years, or low-budgeters like the Charlie Chan serials."
"...the Bond films really were the Star Wars or Indiana Jones series of their day"

In other words, this is another way of saying what I wrote in my later post, "1) None of the Tarzan or Chan or whoever movies became an international phenomenon like the Bond series did, and 2) over a sustained period of time."
Sorry, Joseph, but here's the original point, and the Tarzan films were simply not able to sustain the franchise as long as Bond has.

It's cool that you like the pulp stuff, I do to, but it's not in the same league as these modern franchises.