Discussion in 'Lucasfilm Ltd. In-Depth Discussion' started by Disciple-of-Tython, Jan 28, 2013.
Mutt Jones and the Invasion of the Decepticons
Yep. I think Indy 5 will be the last adventure with Ford as Indy.
The future will be a recasting of the Indy character with new adventures. I do not think they will go with the son route.
I really, really hope that they don't make any more Indy movies anytime soon. Let some time go by and then start it up again with a new character in the Indy role. This way we don't have to listen to "this will make up for the Shia infested movies" . There will be CGI in any new Indy movie they make whether it be Ford or a new actor so people will rant on about "too much CGI" as they usually do. The last one was set in 1957 I believe? So if it goes further, I can see it being set in 1969 or something with Vietnam protests and Indy's partner will probably be a hippie or a Beatnick. I feel let the series take a nice break and then start the series off fresh. With new actors and all that. Ford is the greatest person to ever don the Indy character, and even if a new one is cast he will always be the best. I think this series is at a point of a new fresh start.
Theres no doubt in my mind that Indiana Jones is a franchise that will be remade or rebooted at some point in the future, its too iconic a film role not to be.
But I think they will want to make one more with Harrison. My reasoning behind that is he is currently on a run of Star Wars followed by Blade Runner 2, big high profile releases leading up to another with Indy 5 maybe?
The interesting thing will be if Disney feel the need to involve Spielberg and Lucas. They don't have to. Arguably after KOTCS it may benefit some new ideas?
But the Star Wars schedule could get in the way, especially if Han Solo survives TFA and is due to appear in 7 & 8.
I don't think this will get made...especially by Spielberg
Maybe it would be a good thing for someone else to make one instead of Spielberg?
So the new rumor is that Chris Pratt will be the new Indy. Just a rumor for now though...
In the words of Vader,"Nooooooooooooooooooooo!"
Seriously if Disney does this I will hunt that stupid mouse down myself and stick his head on a pike! I have nothing against Chris Pratt but is nothing sacred any more? One day Hollywood is going to remake A New Hope starring Vin Diesel as Vader and Channing Tatum as Luke and Beyoncé as Leia...this is despicable if true...
I'm fine with Chris Pratt. I think of it kind of like James Bond; just because Sean Connery defined the role and nobody can ever truly replace him doesn't mean that we can't have fun trying.
Harrison owns Indy and always will, but new adventures with a new 30-something charisma machine like Pratt sounds a lot better than trying to force a 70-something Ford into a Crystal Skull follow up.
Would you rather see this:
Or this +10 years (which it would be by the time it comes out)?
I prefer the Bradley Cooper rumor personally. To me Bradley has more of the Indiana Jones vibe to his look than this other guy does. Cooper is also one of the best actors in the business right now too, which also helps.
Actually kind of stoked if it's not a reboot and instead has Pratt playing Indy's grandson, for example. I just don't think you can replace Harrison Ford as the original Indiana Jones but I'd love to see his grandson (with please only referencing goof ball Shia LaBeouf at best as his father) take on modern day adventures.
But I loved Guardians of the Galaxy and Chris Pratt seems he'd be able to pull this off pretty well.
I disagree with the whole James Bond thing....Indy is not just Harrison...it's not just the actor...it's Spielberg, it's Lucas...it's John Williams...it's all the elements coming together....Disney is doing this not to advance the story or the character but just because they see a Cash cow in Indy...I really believe that...
Pratt was good as Peter Quill. It could definitely work. It would be fun to see the Nazi's as goons again, too. I bet it's going to be difficult to crack new stories/MacGuffins, though.
Yeah. I too have heard this analogy before. Doesn't work, for a couple of reasons. Let's get down to business.
First, while Connery certainly made the role of James Bond iconic, and vice versa, he only played the character over the course of some eight years before departing. Harrison Ford has been the overwhelming embodiment of Indiana Jones for nearly thirty-five years. That's well over a quarter of century. And while technically true that four other actors have played the character as well, the simple fact is, no one remembers them or, concerning River Phoenix, is only remembered in relation to playing a younger version of Harrison Ford as Indy. Second, is the issue of character content. James Bond might have a defined lifestyle and signature one-liners yet, ultimately, he's always been far more of a cypher, which is why the role has been so malleable for storefronting the persona of different actors. Indiana Jones by comparison is a distinctly lived-in character as both continuously storied by team Lucasberg and inhabited characteristically by Ford himself—long since mannered to his unique personality.
It's why the Bond argument doesn't work, along with any parallels to the various live-action incarnations of Batman; Indiana Jones was not an already established hero of pop-culture prior to the casting of Ford. Even with Abrams' Star Trek reboots, the original series was not defined by any one star lead, but rested on at least three different characters, if not an entire cast. Also, those movies are crap, but I digress...
There's no two ways about it. Recasting Indiana Jones will garner nothing but negative comparisons. Sure, Disney can make it work, insofar that they can cram enough money into production to get the movie made and enough money into marketing to fill theater seats. And even if a recast version isn't a total, abysmal failure, it'll never be anything more than just...there, audiences walking out of theaters: "Well, that happened." Nothing against Pratt. He's likable. But for reasons mentioned, he'd unavoidably be subject to 2nd fiddle.
And for what? Why bother? It's not like this intent to recast is even remotely inspired. It's just autopilot, studio group-think. Look, you don’t get some next big "hot-topic" actor and just throw him into the role of Indiana Jones. You don’t recast or reboot Indiana Jones, period. The only viable solution for continuing the franchise is simple: go back, make an ALL NEW Raiders adventure set in the 1930s with ALL NEW globetrotting treasure hunters. Follow the same outline as the Indy movies, carry over the same tone and conceit in B-serial homages, even set it in the same storied world shared by Indiana Jones (without involving him), but just build new characters. Specifically, keep the whole thing flagged under the marquee title of 'Raiders', with the same classic font and all, not as a reboot or a remake, but simply a branching Raiders adventure separate from the Indy series. Audiences will click and, in the long run, be far more embracing of new original characters than a knock-off imitation of Indiana Jones.
In short, new heroes, and call it Raiders of the Lost this or that, Raiders of the Forbidden whatever etc.
The second one actually, yeah.
Well, I do agree that Spielberg and Williams absolutely have to return (though I'd be fine with Spielberg just being the producer, as is much more likely).
I'm going to reserve total judgement on Pratt until I see Jurrasic World. In Gaurdians he played much more of a Han Solo type, but Jurrasic Word looks a little more like a preview of what his Indy could look like.
I actually think this is a brilliant idea and much would prefer it over a reboot, but I think you're overestimating both the creativity of Disney and the ability of mass audiences to actually make that connection without the main draw of Indiana Jones himself.
Look at it this way, the original Raiders of the Lost Ark was not "Indiana Jones and", but simply it's own adventure movie that from there on made the character iconic. Just start anew from that same mindset, with the same aim to popularize originally scripted heroes. Hell, I'd even be fine with Pratt playing such a role, his own role (but not Cooper. Seriously, weasel-face? C'mon...) along with other fresh young, or at least unknown, actors/actresses. Even make it like a 'Raiders' team, further emphasizing the title. And especially in today's multimedia, fanbase-driven, ComiCon savvy movie culture, I don't think even the generalist of audiences would have a problem instantly recognizing:
Providing the marketing was both thorough and properly managed.
Right now Pratt is riding really high in the world of the film business...if I were him I would NOT take this role...like my comrades above stated..he should create his OWN characters...which he already has with Guardians of the Galaxy...he will always be remembered for that role...I would look for new roles to own and not go out of my way to be remembered as the "second Indy..." Because the fact remains he will NEVER NEVER be remembered simply as Indy if this were to go through....why would you want that as an actor? This news has seriously made me sad today...
I think the time aspect of it is a good point, because even though Indy is only a 4 film series Harrison Ford has had that 30+ years to seep into more than one generations consciousness with the role, with no opportunity for anyone to be compared to his portrayal of the character. However even though Connery only played Bond for a short time, he defined the role, he laid the foundations for the character on screen that everyone else has to aspire to. Which is exactly what a new Indy actor has to do stepping in to Harrisons shoes.
Which is what they originally intended to do with the sequels titles. I think Indy is too good and too popular a character to not be remade, rebooted or whatever at some point. Its too tempting. Maybe the studio do see it an equivalent to something like Bond, Batman or whatever, a hero that they can keep recycling.
Before KOTCS I would have agreed, but I thought that KOTCS was poor so I'd be all for new blood to come in with a new story to try and better that. If they could keep Harrison for one more then thats something I'd like to see, but equally I not averse to the idea of the Indy films continuing with someone else. Of course its a cash cow, just like Star Wars, James Bond, Marvel heros etc etc but if the new Indy stories they come up with are good then why not make them?
Kingdom of the crystal skull was awesome and movies should be made because there is a story to tell, not because they are "cash cows". Harrison ford is Indy, he created Indy! James Bond was a book, batman was a comic, etc etc. Indy is Harrison ford and him only...period.
Unfortunately with something like Indy I suspect that if there is no money to be made from it then they wouldn't make the films, irrespective of the story. They are not going to put out a film if they feel there is no market for it. I think there is a market for Indy, with Harrison and also with a new actor at some point in the future.
Oh, Indiana Jones is a great character, but not really for the same reasons as Bond and Batman. The latter two are more like masks, symbols, manifestations of the psyche or exclusively emblematic figures on which audiences (particularly male) can project fantasy lifestyles. Indiana Jones is a more singular character for his own sake, built up distinctly from a sole actor. It’d be like casting a different actor to play Rocky.
No, better yet, recasting someone else as Indiana Jones would not be like recasting someone else as James Bond, but recasting someone else to play Sean Connery as James Bond ...
Maybe this is what they want to achieve with Indiana Jones, turn it into a franchise that can be recast and recast if theres an audience for it?
Recasting Indiana Jones will polarize fans, but the character and the films are too popular for Hollywood not to be tempted to revisit it at some point. I think in light of the trend of rebooting and remaking that it was only a matter of time before the spotlight shined on Indiana Jones.
I like your earlier idea (at least I think it was you) of setting further films in that 1930's or 40's era.
These sort of rumors just make me sad.
Ford is right here, still able and very willing to do another Indy movie, why not do one with him instead while it's still possible?
It just feels respectless to push him aside for somebody else.
Ford played a huge part in defining and creating the character, it's him or nothing, at least to me.
Just create something new for Pratt.
I wish someone would debunk these rumors like they did when the Bradley cooper rumor was making the rounds.
Unfortunately, I think this is much more than just your run-of-the-mill rumor. Deadline had the initial scoop, and while they admit that they were "cautioned" about the progress of the talks, indications remain strong that this is going to be a done deal. Deadline is a reputable source, if not the best source out there, and their track record with these kind of things is very high.
I suppose it was inevitable that we would reach another day where a new actor was set to portray Indiana Jones (although he has technically been played by 4 other actors), but I'm just not all excited about this. I recognize the huge franchise potential (read: $$$$$$$$$$$), and admittedly, I would be keen on further Indy adventures, but you know, some things I wish we would just leave alone.
I still think, if properly made, Harrison Ford could still play Indy in another film, and I had high hopes that that was actually going to happen. Rumors circulated at the start of Episode VII production that Ford was able to negotiate another Indy film for his participation in SW. Whether or not such a negotiation was held, I imagine at the very least there were some sort of conversations.
Given the inevitable fact that a new actor would come along, I suppose I'm ok with Chris Pratt doing it. He's more on the goofy side of things, so that's something I hope they'll keep in check. My ideal scenario (apart from Ford doing the role again solo), would be for Ford to star along Pratt (make him an older Mutt or something). I'd be cool with that. In fact, look at the Rocky franchise. Rocky Balboa's kid has been in several films, and they're now just starting work on Rocky VII---the thing is, the film is actually called Creed, Rocky is a secondary character in the film who acts as trainer and mentor to Apollo Creed's son. I love that approach, and I wish they would do that with the Indiana Jones series (but I doubt they will).
All I ask for, just please DO NOT give us a stupid origin story. No origin story. Keep the Indy timeline intact. Just give us the character (the same Indy that was played by Ford) on an adventure set in the 1920s/1930s (or 1960s if Ford is still included).