Indiana Jones, the Bond treatment

What do you think of doing more Indiana Jones movies but with out Ford? Maybe have it take place before DOOM and a new younger Jones. Or just do a new Jones every few years like James Bond

I really don't want Indy to go the Bond route. I want it to end when Ford hangs up his fedora(still hoping for at least one more)

I think Paramount still owns distribution rights to the Indy franchise, so I don't think Disney will be able to churn them out like that.

Well, they can always bring on Sean Patrick Flannery, who is now 47 years old.

If they were going to consider anyone for a recast, you'd have to consider Nathan Fillion.

I don't think he has the chops, frankly.

I wouldn't mind a steady stream of Indy movies, if they're well made. Ford's replacement would have to be dynamite, though.

ew!

no!

Let's just leave well enough alone.

From Blue Sky Disney:
The Next Holy Grail...

From Blue Sky Disney:
Animated Jones And The Quest For Dini...

From io9:
What if Indiana Jones continued his adventures in an animated series?

Indy belongs to a different century.

YES! I've been saying this for years! he totally has the chops! the charm, the action experience, even the awkward gravitas. plus he looks enough like indy...maybe not so much harrison ford...but indiana jones!

Agreed.

Yeah! He is so great in the show Castle! I'd like to see him in Star Wars too

For me, Indy will always be Ford. There can be no other.

I think an animated series [or movie(s)] that doesn't suck would be nice. No cartoony CGI crap. Something with well done Japanese-like animation like Batman Gotham Knight. Have Ford voice his character.

Anyway, the 'Bond' treatment for Indiana Jones would kind of suck in my opinion. Ford is the only Indy and I doubt many people would accept anyone else for the part.

I would say "impossible" and then they made a friggin Star Trek movie and recast Captain Kirk and it was great so now I have no idea. Probably still not, though.

I am totally for a Dini Indiana Jones. That would be a ton of fun.

The problem with doing Indiana Jones in the pattern of Bond is that Indy is so much harder to mine. The easy part is finding a new lead(it isn't). But Bond has been modernized over the years gradually. With Indiana Jone you are locked into a very specific time frame. That time frame being between the late 1920's-to about maybe the early 1960's(old indy)?

They are automatically period movies. I'm not sure how you can modernize Indiana Jones for present day. The fedora, whip, and leather jacked are very iconic and don't really work in a modern context.

With that said, I could be completely wrong and someone could have a neat idea for a contemporary Indy.

No, I can't imagine anybody other than HF as Indiana Jones in the films - he wasn't just playing the character of IJ, he was the character. I'm glad he was cast instead of some of the others Lflm. was considering back before ROTLA was released (i.e., Tom S.), since I can't imagine anyone else in that role.

And, I know KOTCS got slammed by critics and fans, but I truly enjoyed the film - I even liked it better than LC. The ending scene when Indy pulled the hat away from Mutt indicated that noone else was going to take over that role.

That all being said, I don't want to see an Indy 5 - HF is a great actor, but IMHO KOTCS was a great ending to these films.

I had this exact same thought, actually. I think it would work quite well. Some people are complaining that they would need to modernize/reboot the series. But 007 had to do this too... after 40 years and 20 movies. Even if we get half that number of movies set between the 1920s and 60s for Indy, that'd be plenty for a long while.

Personally Indiana Jones is Ford for me. I don't think i'd enjoy it with another actor. ESPECIALLY is Shia Lebuff is the new indiana. Sorry for the misspelling don't feel he is worth looking up.

I agree. The other day I was trying to think of who could play a younger Han Solo in the spin off movie. Nathan Fillion came to mind. Love him in Castle, but then I watched Castle that night and checked out youtube video cast interviews. He's not exactly the 'ruggedly handsome' guy they claim him to be in the opening blurb of Castle. He doesn't have the rough-around-edges scoundrel quality of Han Solo/Harrison Ford or Indy. Only Harrison can be Indy for me. While Nathan was great in Firefly, he's no Harrison Ford.

I would rather an iconic character fleshed out by Harrison Ford stay that way. Sometimes, it's best to let things be. Isn't that what we wished GL had done in the first place?

I have never understood why Lucas and company never moved on from Ford, and I do suspect now that Disney owns the character of Indiana Jones (Paramount only owns distribution rights of the previous films, not future ones), at some point they will take advantage of that license.

As a long time fan who also grew up with Bond... I've seen all six different Bonds in the theater, and while it can be a bit of a culture shock, as long as the actor is true to the essence of the character audiences will buy in. I simply look at the rage and angst as Bond fans howled when Daniel Craig was announced as Bond, and how that's turned out. Fans called him "James Blonde" and even more fringy fans started an online petition and website called craignotbond.com. It was all really silly, and now Craig is regarded as one of the best, if not the best Bond ever (especially after Skyfall).

I'd really like to see another actor take up the fedora and whip once again because it's pretty clear Ford's days are over. Some in the thread said "Indy belongs to a different century," I call bull. Tell that to all those smiling kids who come off the Indian Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden Eye ride at Disneyland. Indiana Jones belongs to everyone who enjoys rip roaring escapist adventure.

Yancy

This x10.

I can understand the reticence about recasting the role because we all love Harrison, but I think if you find an excellent young leading man who can capture the essence of the character, go for it! There's a serious lack of rip-roaring high adventure films out there. To those who say Indy belongs in a different century - well, that's a shame. I miss that type of movie. One could see the lack of modern films in that genre as an opportunity rather than a liability. Indy doesn't need "modernization." There's so much opportunity to tell fun new stories. It just needs a new leading man and new adventures.

I don't agree that it's just a franchise character. Of course, we love Harrison. Agreed! Yet, without his "Harrison Ford-ness", it's just not Indy and no amount of squinting is gonna change that.

We have seen the The Young Indiana Jones barely last through 2 seasons of TV and that had some heavy hitting producing (Speilberg, Lucas involvement). Frankly, I found it weak at the time and forced myself to sit through many episodes just because it was Indiana Jones. So, even though they may have been trying to 'capture the essence' of the character, it didn't work. The show was not successful in any real sense. The we see Shia being held out as some sort of successor in Crystal Skull which I think many agree was not acceptable.

I don't agree that the different Bonds over the years has worked either. I wasn't really around for the Sean Connery versions, but my parents consider him the only true Bond. I consider Roger Moore the true Bond, and I am sure others consider the later actors as the real Bond. Same thing with Batman, some are better than others, but it's easier to deal with since Batman wears a cowl.

It would be nice if it could go on, but not without Harrison. Would Die Hard movies be the same without Bruce Willis? No, they would just be another action film. Is Terminator the same without Arnold? No, just another action film. Some of these bigger names have the franchises built around not just he character, but the specific actors who embody them.