ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
May 3 15 3:08 PM
Wich2 wrote:Both are bad situations. And respectful disagreement about the plugging in of new leads, amana. I think the public saw the run of TARZAN flicks as all Tarzan movies, not really caring what studio's logo was at the head. Ditto, the CHANS. Also, by the time of OHMSS, there had been several Holmes since Rathbone. Throw a few different Zorros, Robin Hoods, Batmen, and Supermen into the mix, and the change from Connery was not really breaking new ground in the public's eyes. -Craig
Weismuller = Tarzan = Weismuller. Johnny had a 16 year run in 12 Tarzan films, better than any Bond actor. After that he went into the Jungle Jim series. The other attempts at Tarzan during his reign were either flops or financial disappointments. One is tempted to think that if Weismuller had aged differently he would have gone on playing the character longer.
So it looks like one actor, typecast, was so closely identified with a character that when he stopped making those films it was difficult for audiences to make an adjustment. On the other hand, audiences like the character of Bond. They don't really care who plays him. Even with the hiccup of OHMSS, which, based on its budget flopped in the U.S. but made money world wide, audiences continue to return to the films through all the incarnations.
But so much has changed in the industry since those days that some of these comparisons seem strained. Bond arrived at the right time to exploit the many changes. Bond wasn't a studio film in the same sense of the Tarzan films or any series prior to the 1960s. United Artists, with no sound stages or backlot, wasn't even really a studio. It was a distributor.
Share This