Re-cast Indy, or Mutt as lead?
- Thread starter mrbender
- Start date
Violet
Moderator Emeritus
Re-cast Indy. However personally, I would like a re-boot, if a new actor was to play Indy. Especially with Indy being in the 1920s, going back to the beginning per se, with Abner finally making an appearance.
Of course, this thread will probably bombarded with posts saying:
"Harrison Ford= Indy
Indy= Harrison Ford"
Or something along the lines anyway, missing the point of the hypothesis of the opening post.
It's not like I don't agree, it's just kind of common knowledge that the majority feel that way.
Of course, this thread will probably bombarded with posts saying:
"Harrison Ford= Indy
Indy= Harrison Ford"
Or something along the lines anyway, missing the point of the hypothesis of the opening post.
It's not like I don't agree, it's just kind of common knowledge that the majority feel that way.
DocWhiskey
Well-known member
I vote Mutt.
But as long as they don't try to pass it off as Indiana Jones 5. That way it can't truly hurt Indy's legacy anymore. And with Ford not being in it, that shouldn't be hard.
But as long as they don't try to pass it off as Indiana Jones 5. That way it can't truly hurt Indy's legacy anymore. And with Ford not being in it, that shouldn't be hard.
I'd say recast, but along the same lines as Violet Indy suggests, with a reboot.
.
indyclone25
Well-known member
i voted mutt ---- he can start his own franchise .
cause in my opinion harrison is indiana jones , no one else can be him , thats how he made the character .
cause in my opinion harrison is indiana jones , no one else can be him , thats how he made the character .
Darth Vile
New member
Sooner or later, in this life or the next, I'm pretty sure there will be a new Indy movie and a new Indiana Jones. It's too good a concept to simply let die after a few movies (even if they never make one as good as Raiders).
tambourineman
New member
I dont see why recasting would have to be a reboot. They could easily set an Indy movie in the 20's or 30's with a younger actor but still be part of the same series. Same way Temple was set before Raiders. Only difference is the actor.
Though personally I think I would prefer a new character set in the same universe entirely rather than recasting Indy or using Mutt. Maybe it could be a fellow archaeologist or a Nathan Drake (Unchartered) type of adventurer/treasure hunter. Or maybe even the adventures of Fedora from the TLC opening segment. Or even the adventures of a younger Abner Ravenwood set during the late 1800's. That would be my pick, that era has so much great potential for these sorts of stories.
Though personally I think I would prefer a new character set in the same universe entirely rather than recasting Indy or using Mutt. Maybe it could be a fellow archaeologist or a Nathan Drake (Unchartered) type of adventurer/treasure hunter. Or maybe even the adventures of Fedora from the TLC opening segment. Or even the adventures of a younger Abner Ravenwood set during the late 1800's. That would be my pick, that era has so much great potential for these sorts of stories.
Montana Smith
Active member
Looking beyond Indy V (assuming Indy V will be Indy's last adventure):
Rebooting Indy with a new actor would mean losing that something which makes Indy special, as opposed to Bond. It would be just another action movie.
What makes Indy special is the unique nature of its making - actors and film makers who have stayed with the same project for approaching thirty years, and actors aging in real time. There's a special kind of atmosphere to a project like that.
By all means reboot the series, but a reboot will always be second best, it will always be judged against a classic. Those are big boots to fill.
By all means continue the story with Mutt in the lead, but these can't be considered 'Indiana Jones' adventures, but spin-offs.
A reboot can at least be ignored, and its chronology dismissed as non-canon, and the Adventures of Mutt need not interefere with the chronology so far.
What I would hate is for the series to be still called 'Indiana Jones' with a fedora wearing Mutt, as Mutt is not Indy. That would be a blatant rip-off of the Indiana Jones character.
Rebooting Indy with a new actor would mean losing that something which makes Indy special, as opposed to Bond. It would be just another action movie.
What makes Indy special is the unique nature of its making - actors and film makers who have stayed with the same project for approaching thirty years, and actors aging in real time. There's a special kind of atmosphere to a project like that.
By all means reboot the series, but a reboot will always be second best, it will always be judged against a classic. Those are big boots to fill.
By all means continue the story with Mutt in the lead, but these can't be considered 'Indiana Jones' adventures, but spin-offs.
A reboot can at least be ignored, and its chronology dismissed as non-canon, and the Adventures of Mutt need not interefere with the chronology so far.
What I would hate is for the series to be still called 'Indiana Jones' with a fedora wearing Mutt, as Mutt is not Indy. That would be a blatant rip-off of the Indiana Jones character.
Chewbacca Jones
New member
I have to go with the recast and reboot, probably picking up after the end of the Young Indy series. But I don't know if they'd find an actor for it.
Mutt doesn't bother me, but he's not lead-character material.
Mutt doesn't bother me, but he's not lead-character material.
Montana Smith
Active member
Joosse said:I have no problems with another actor playing Indy.
He has already been played by several other actors.
Sean Patrick Flanery did an excellent job in the Young Indiana Jones series. I don't see why he wouldn't do equally well in a movie?
Since I've been watching the Young Indy DVDs, it's an idea that I look upon more positively than before. It's still hard to see beyond Harrison playing the adult Indy, but it could be an interesting continuation of Young Indy into older Indy.
Flanery was born in 1965, so this year he'll be 45, which would be 1944 for Indy.
Lance Quazar
Well-known member
Chewbacca Jones said:
I didn't like KOTCS, but it had little to do with the Mutt character. I thought he was dull, but not terrible.
But not matter what you think of KOTCS, Mutt just isn't a remotely compelling enough character to hang a franchise on. He's only interesting tangentially, due to his relationship with Indy. What does he possibly bring to the table as a solo character?
Indiana Jones is an extremely unique and entertaining action movie character. If nothing else, he has specialized abilities, a specific skill set and esoteric knowledge that enable him to participate in a weird and imaginative universe.
Mutt, far from being "an expert on the occult" and "obtainer of rare antiquities" is...just a motorcycle enthusiast. There is nothing there to hang a movie on at all. What could he possible do that would compare with Indy? What could he possibly bring to the table?
Mutt knows nothing, can do very little...where's the movie? You'd have to take him outside of the Indy universe for him to be able to hold his own. And then, what would be the point?
You might as well make a movie about James Bond's dentist.
Lance Quazar
Well-known member
Joosse said:I have no problems with another actor playing Indy.
He has already been played by several other actors.
Sean Patrick Flanery did an excellent job in the Young Indiana Jones series. I don't see why he wouldn't do equally well in a movie?
Because Flannery is not a movie star. He is a virtual unknown to the public, which is a far greater liability now than it was when "Raiders" came out. And, back then, Harrison was riding high off of the "Star Wars" films anyway.
Oh, also Flannery has no screen presence and almost no charisma.
So, there's that...
Montana Smith
Active member
Lance Quazar said:
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Being the son of Indy does not make him Indy. Just as Indy wasn't much like his own father. Mere association isn't justification for him to continue a tradition.