Anyone think that the Indiana Jones series would have failed with him?

First of all, he didn't "give it up", he had to turn it down because he was in a contract with CBS for Magnum. Breaking that would have meant penalties and fees that Selleck would have to deal with and he would rather not have to. He no doubt would have loved to have done both but unfortunately he couldn't.

To answer your question,I don't think it would have been as successful, since Harrison Ford added a depth and conviction that would have been hard to top, but I think it would have been a big hit and even spawned a few sequels. Maybe not the runaway smash that Raiders ended up being but a hit nonetheless. Remember this was the 80's and Selleck was hot from Magnum so that show being a hit would help the appeal of the films, even if the films weren't up to par with the Ford ones.

When you're hired for something and you turn it down, you "give it up".

Sensitive much?

Yes. Sensitive much. In English "to turn it down" and "to give it up" have very different meanings. I'm sure your own language has its subtleties, please allow that the language of Shakespeare and Shaw, Chaucer and Churchill can also be subtle.

The way I heard the story of Tom Selleck and The Raiders of the Lost Ark, Spielberg and Lucas offered him the role of Indiana Jones some time between filming the pilot for "Magnum, p.i." and the network buying that pilot. He chose to film "Magnum" as that had been a prior commitment that he felt he needed to honor. (Ironically, filming on "Magnum" was delayed for six months months and he'd have been able to do both, had he known.)

As to the original question: I don't think "Raiders" would have failed. It would have been different with a different actor as Indy — but it still would have succeeded. But we'd never have known the difference since, in that alternate time-line, Harrison Ford would have made other films — but not the Indiana Jones movies.

---
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things;"
Of atoms, stars, and nebulæ, of entropy and genes;
And whether one can bend space, and why the spaceship shrinks.
---

Yes. Sensitive much. In English "to turn it down" and "to give it up" have very different meanings. I'm sure your own language has its subtleties, please allow that the language of Shakespeare and Shaw, Chaucer and Churchill can also be subtle.

Pseudo-intellecutal for $200, Alex.

They dont have their own language. They conjured it up from Persian, Sanskrit and Arabic.

Pseudo-intellecutal for $200, Alex I must yield! I am skewered by your rapier wit, your American quiz show reference — and your misspelling.

mmm... Maybe it was Sumo-Intellectual? Or Sudo-Intellectual (Sp. Sudar: to sweat) doink!

?

Enrique Sanchez

Giving it up would imply that he had begun shooting and left. Giving it up is rather derogatory as well, while turning it down, implies that he either didnt like it or in this case that he couldnt cause he was contracted elsewhere.