Sallah Not In Indy 4?

From DarkHorizons.com

Sallah Not In "Indiana Jones IV"
By Garth Franklin
Monday April 16th 2007 7:15am

'deciph3r' had the chance to talk to Johnathan Rhys-Davies at the Armageddon Pulp Expo in Christchurch, New Zealand over the weekend and confirmed his "Indiana Jones IV" non-status:

"Seems he has not been asked to be in Indy 4 or even approached about it.

From the little information he had about the film he had been told through a third party that the character of Salah had been written out of Indy 4 in favour of a younger cast."

Damn, that just...well sucks. Davies, better known as Gimli from "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, played the lovable rascal Sallah in both the original "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and the second sequel "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade."

 

I'm going to be really unpopular and play devil's advocate, but maybe this could be a good thing. Sallah was a great character, one of my favourites from Raiders, but to me it felt like a stretch cramming him into Crusade. Wheeling him out (unnecessarily) once again would probably hurt the character more than it would gather a mainstream audience or please long-term fans. After all, Indy IV isn't really a sequel, just another story in the life of Henry "Indiana" Jones Jr.

 

If he doesn't serve the plot; then fine.

 

Yeah, Sallah's a great character, but at some point it might just become disrespectful and dishonest to the character to keep reusing him.

 

Temple of Doom was just fine without Sallah so not being in Indy 4 wouldn't disappoint me.

 

You go first.

Even though JRD won't be in it, and I know how great he is. I don't think the film will suffer from his absence. Unless they go to North Africa or the Holy Land there's no need for him like in TOD.

 

I doubt the reason is that the want a "younger" cast. Blanchett will be 39 by the time the movie comes out, Ray Winstone will be 51, etc etc. These people aren't going to percieved as "young" by a main stream audience. What we're probably looking at is a situation wherein Sallah's character was not necessary to the story the are trying to tell, and soehorning him may have been a detriment to said story.

As far as Temple goes, I think it is just fine the way it is, and is pretty good, especially with what they were going for in that movie. Anyways, it is definatly a coincidence that there is any corollation in percieved quality and appearances by Sallah.

 

Temple of Doom = Homage to Creepy Adventure/Horrow serials.

Personally I find it to be quite enjoyable. I would direct you to proof that my IQ isn't 12, but well, you tell me, would you believe it?

 

That's nice, considering you don't actually know me.

But whatever, to each their own. And hey, you're entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't necessarily mean you have to go around making statements about people's IQs if they disagree with you does it?

 

I love Temple of Doom if only for the shot of Indy in th shadows ready to kick some Thugee ass.

 

as much as I like the character and would love to see him in Indy 4 I could live without him being in it

 

I'll be a little disappointed if he's indeed not in it, but it's not a deal breaker... Who knows, it may not just be an age thing but a plot thing as well... Sallah is a very region specific character.

 

The Last Crusade was to Raiders asJedi was to ANH. Lucas was attempting to bring the "fun" back to his franchises after their darker second chapters, and to do this he re-introduced familiar characters and concepts, which doesn't necessarily work out to the third chapters' benefit at all times. I was glad to see Sallah in Crusade, but his character had sort of been reduced to a self-parody (to a lesser degree than Brody's character, though) to keep the laughs coming. An Indiana Jones movie shouldn't be crammed with familiar supporting characters just for the sake of having them there--Temple of Doom took a risk and featured entirely new characters, settings and situations, and I think that tack would serve Indy IV well, too.

 

I totally agree. I believe that Raiders and Doom both fully earned five stars because, while maintaining their sense of fun, they also established their own individual character. Crusade felt like it wanted to be Raiders and failed. Maybe it's just me.