Indy 5 Future of Indiana Jones franchise post-Harrison Ford

I would like an animated series about adventures in the 1920s.

 

I'm actually going to backtrack on my prior opinion: I don't actually think recasting the character is a great idea. What led me to this change in opinion? Surprisingly, the same thing that made me think it would be a good idea in the first place: James Bond. I marathoned all 25 films recently, and the innate differences between Bond and Jones are the reason why recasting would be so tricky.

James Bond is pretty static, not really changing much between films, let alone within the narrative of any of them, with Daniel Craig as the lone exception. But Craig's Bond is a self-contained reboot of the character, with a clear beginning, middle, and end. Everyone from Connery to Brosnan played the same ageless character, who existed on a sliding timescale in the same way comic book characters or The Simpsons do. In contrast, Indiana Jones is a dynamic character, with an actual arc in each of the four films, as well as an arc that tracks across them. He perceptibly ages from 1935 to 1958, and now to 1969 in the fifth movie; throughout that he loses friends and family, and set photos for Indy 5 indicate he's reached retirement age. Across Indiana's journey, Harrison Ford is integral in making him a living, breathing character, whereas the Bond actors from Connery onwards lent certain attributes and quirks to Bond as an unchanging caricature, which then could either be picked up by, built on, or discarded by subsequent actors without changing the core of who he is.

With Indy, you can't just de-age him and have him continue living, because that would completely change the nature of the series, so the idea of endless sequels a la Bond goes right out the window. So what do you do? Either cast younger, as has been discussed, or reboot. I don't think anyone really wants a full-on reboot that disregards the continuity of Raiders of the Lost Ark and the rest, and I'm not even sure what you'd do with that. Update the character's trapping and set his adventures in the present day, as they do with Bond? Sure, you could do that, but considering these films started out as period pieces, whereas Bond has always been contemporary, you lose something crucial to the series.

So a series of prequels becomes the only viable option... except, not really. Apart from the difficulty of finding an actor who could portray Indiana Jones from, say, 1925 (when he left Ravenwood) to 1935 (when Temple of Doom is set) and put his own spin on the character while believably being a younger version of Ford's incarnation, you'd probably have to lose the supernatural elements. I can buy the fact that Indy is skeptical of the Ark of the Covenant as a mystical weapon, despite what he saw in India only a year prior, or that he'd maintain that same skepticism regarding the Holy Grail... but the idea that he could have an entire lifetime of adventures involving the supernatural, and continue to be skeptical about every supernatural thing he encountered to the point of disbelieving, would make him a bit of an idiot. And sure, you could lose the supernatural elements, but then you lose something else that's pretty vital to the series. And if you're just going to water the whole thing down, then really, what's the point?

 

Little known Indiana Jones fact; his granddaughter is Dana Scully.

 

I think that they will recast Indy at some point in the future with a new actor, the popularity of the character is such that I think a studio will not be able to leave him on the shelf, especially if they believe it can make them money.

I do think they can make new stories set in the period of the 20's to the 40's and still keep continuity with the films. The only difference is that the audience have to accept someone else other than Harrison playing him.

 

Disney didn't buy the franchise to let it sit. You can bet they'll recast, and start churning out films within a couple of years time.

 

Disney didn't buy the franchise, it bought a company. A company which also happens to own the rights to Indiana Jones, alongside a whole bunch of other things. They don't need to make new movies for all of the material they own. Nor do they even need to make movies to keep something going. There are plenty of other things you can do instead, to keep a steady influx of money. Or you can even let a franchise rest, to pick it up again way later.

Who knows what will happen decades down the line, but so far it seems very unlikely that they will do anything in regard to movies beyond Indy V. Outside of maybe a spin-off if one of the new side characters happens to be extremely popular.

 

I'm of the opinion that ideally Indiana Jones should stay in the 1930s-40s and he should always be played by Harrison Ford. Much as I would love more Indiana Jones movies, I don't have much desire to see Indy recast or to see him get old - or even get beyond the era that produced the pulp novels and serials that inspired him in the first place. That doesn't leave a lot of options for Indiana Jones movies made past the 90s. And yes, I am very skeptical that this new movie is a good idea.

Just to play devil's advocate, though, if they were to recast, they could simply make stories in between The Last Crusade and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. That would avoid the dilemma you outline above.

 

Harrison Ford can't live forever, but I'm willing to bet that deep in the bowels of their corporate headquarters, Disney has preserved the genetic material of all of their high value talent, just waiting for the day when they'll have to clone them. You didn't REALLY think that was a CGI Peter Cushing in Rogue One, did you?

 

Thank you! I said exactly this a few years back. Indy is a character with a beginning, an end, a period of time that he's tied to, a parent and a child who play important roles in his on-screen life - he's a real person, insofar as any movie character can be. Bond is a character without any of that - no beginning, no end, just a floating "now" in which he's perpetually an MI6 agent somewhere in his thirties or forties living in whatever time period the movie happens to be set in. They're just different types of stories, which lend themselves to different kinds of storytellings, and have implications for things like recasting.

Of course, as you say, then there's the Craig era. They've gone very far towards making Bond a more Indy-like character rather than the static figure he used to be, and we don't know yet if that's going to be the new normal or if the next actor is going to go back in a more traditional direction. So I suppose there'd be a mirror-like logic if, Bond having become more like Indy, Indy now became more like Bond. Can't say it's what I'd want to see, though.

 

There's so much fertile territory to cover even if it's limited to the part of Indy's life we haven't seen (1921-1934).

This is the period where Indy goes to university, meets Abner and Marion Ravenwood, becomes a professor, goes on his first true artifact quests (the "Peacock's Eye" notwithstanding), and first clashes with Rene Belloq. Belloq would be such a great, slam-dunk, recurring villain in an Indy reboot. I also think it would be fun to see Indy as an apprentice/grad student to Dr. Ravenwood. Before he was calling the shots, we get to see him learn from a skilled mentor.

 

The guy in your avatar should direct some of the episodes. Neil Breen will direct the others.

 

I will have trouble accepting anyone but Ford in the role (not a Young Indy fan) but I think Disney will cast a younger Indy at some point, so hopefully they do a good job and it will enrich the franchise.

 

Yeah, I agree. This is the big missing part of his life. Presumably Young Indy would have gotten to it if they'd ever had a Season 4.

 

Iam all open for a recast or animated series featuring an Indy not played by Ford. I do love Ford in this role and it has become somekind of a trademark role for him but I have enjoyed Indy played by other actors and voice actors as well so I wouldnt have a problem with the character beeing played by different actors,

 

Honestly, the main thing I would want out of Indy sans Ford isn't even a film - I'd want a very vintage-styled comic book series. Ongoing, perhaps set in the 20s before the original three movies, but even more preferably in the 40s during the war. Really play up the style and mode of the pulp comic books of the era. The art, the writing, all of it.

But given the way Marvel has been handling their licensed Star Wars, Alien, et. al. comics, what with the traced/Photoshopped "art" and all, I can't even be bothered to really care for that.

 

I always did like the nineties/2000s approach to Star Wars - no new movies (at least not in the original era), just lots and lots of books and comics. You have a freedom with those that you don't have with movies and television, precisely because you don't have to care about the actors' age or whether to recast them. Or even whether to fit them into your schedule! Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford could never have starred in as many stories as there were in the expanded universe, but hey, thankfully they weren't needed!

All of which is to say that yes, continuing Indy in a vintage comic book series is something I'd like much better than more movies.

 

Oh dude, totally! With the right art style, you have so much pulpy fun adventure potential! I know we've had a couple of series here and there over the years (most notably the Dark Horse run in the 90s), but I think this is one area Lucasfilm never fully took advantage. Just loads of potential.

 

Doesnt matter Indiana Jones ended in 1989, its a trilogy ,now they will recast and reboot the character soon most likely but indy rode of into the sunset with his father Henry Jones Sr and friends Marcus Brody and Sallah , yes i know Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was made but ill never accept it lol

 

It's been almost fourteen years. Let it go.

 

I don't think the IDEA for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was really that bad. It was the stupid nonsense they built around that idea, that made it a bad film.

 

Of course they will recast and reboot .There is money in it.

 

Is there, though? They thought there was money in recasting and rebooting Han Solo, and that didn't work out so well.

 

I would have been totally fine if the franchise ended in 1989 with The Last Crusade, and left alone like Back to the Future.

 

It was years and years before Kingdom when I first watched the trilogy, and they were already talking about a fourth one, but already at the time I thought Crusade was a solid enough ending that it was going to be hard to follow. What artifact are you going to find that's more iconic than the Holy Grail? What are you going to do for Indy's character that's more meaningful than reuniting with the long-estranged father whose example made him what he is today? What actor are you going to find that's a better match for Harrison Ford than Sean Connery? And what better shot are you going to find than the main characters riding off into the sunset?

I manage to enjoy the fourth one warts and all, and I'm hopeful that the fifth one will be good. But it really works perfectly well as a trilogy.