I wanted to write this days ago, but my account wasn't working, so damn, now I'm late... well, for what's worth...
Finn said:
All series and IPs worth something go through the process at one time or another. There is really no viable reason for why this particular one should become a stale relic frozen in time when the original group of creators has disbanded, especially if the reasons to think so are deeply emotional and hardly rational.
Time and again, we've seen how changing the creative powers behind it all has actually brought some fresh air into it all. Sure, there have also been times when the product has not reached the bar set by the originals, but that is no problem either - it still does not affect quality of those originals, and can be freely ignored if one so chooses. Hell, some people already think they've seen a subpar addition to the series, yet KotCS does not in any way taint the awesomeness that is Raiders of the Lost Ark. If anything, it may make you appreciate it even more.
Yes, all the IPs that are worth something get rebooted and/or rebranded every now and then. Hollywood is just like that, and we all know too well.
But now, seriously, think of just one big movie saga that have successfully gone that way in recent history. Or even past history, for what that matters.
Star Trek?? Yes. The characters were created for a sloppy TV series of the 60s, so, basically, they were already a parody of themselves before the start. Kirk, Spock, Sulu and all the rest, no matter how much people could like 'em (I'm a fan too), but they have been firstly written as poor, corny sci-fi for kids and B-movie aficionados.
And in spite of this they had to wait more than 40 years before deciding to revamp the series according to the vision of J.J. Abrams. And Spock is
still played by Leonard Nimoy as of 2015, with William Shatner rumored to be in talks to reprise the role of Kirk for the future film.
James Bond?? The franchise was based on novels, so the character was completely faceless in its origins.
Then true, the movie series have been revamped multiple times, spawning more than 20 films over 50 years. But the first time they decided to recast the role, the movie was good yet the backlash from fans and critics was so enormous that MGM was forced to convince Connery to return for the sequel, and exponentially increase his salary. Not only that, the demand for him was so high that he played the character AGAIN twelve years later, and his movie still topped the one with Roger Moore.
(On a side note, George Lazenby refused to return in the sequels because he feared that his public image would be damaged by the comparison with Connery, and his career was both started and ruined by that film.)
Batman and other superheroes really do not matter, for a number of reasons so vast that it would be even pointless to list. Superheroes are based on comic books, not exactly quality works, and they are ALL characters that have already been rebooted, retconned or reimagined many times on paper, much before their on-screen counterparts. Also remind, most of the better known superheroes are characters with more than 50 or 60 years of story behind them. Batman and Superman have both been created almost one century ago.
So, any others?
I'm with Montana Smith on this thing. Indiana Jones is one of the most legendary characters in cinema history. It was creaded for the silver screen,
as a tribute to the silver screen, and have been played by Harrison Ford for more than 30 years. The first three movies were all top notch quality productions, under every possible aspect, acting, writing, storytelling, special effects, directing. They are still up among the best movies ever in spite of their age, while most other action/adventure/thriller films of that period just look like crap if you rewatch them now. Think of it.
So, basically, what I'm saying is that we can all agree the Indiana Jones IP may deserve a future reboot treatment, but I still strongly think that recasting the actor NOW would be just the most disastrous jackshi* in the entire history of moviemaking. As I've said before, and as we all know already, even the more "progressive" ones
, Harrison Ford is still perfectly capable of playing an mid-aged version of the role, while still dealing with action and stunts on his own, and by doing that being the only good thing of a film. He has given us proof of this with Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull.
If they really want to go for a recast, first, I don't think there are any actors that could fit the role as of now, let alone Chris Pratt, and second, it would be a very risky maneuver.
I think they'd better wait at least another decade. At least. Maybe even more.
Go write some other stories, with other characters. Go write a good Mummy 3 for Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz to return. Go write a new National Treasure. Go write a decent Uncharted film. Do something different. An animated series, a comic book run, or something entirely new. Do not touch the freaking Indiana Jones now, if you don't want Harrison to be involved. I say it would be a disaster. I may be wrong but honestly don't think so.
FordFan said:
While I think a lot of actors could bring something to the role, they can't bring everything. Ford's performances fire on every cylinder. Can you see Pratt playing the college professor? Can you see any other actor riding on a horse, leaning over the side, and picking up that rock off the ground like Ford did in TLC, without a stunt double? Can you see someone making a suggestion as brilliant as Ford's to shoot the Cairo swordsman?
You get it.