Indy1Jones2
New member
Darmok said:
Ok no problem
Disney eyeing Chris Pratt
- Thread starter Goonie
- Start date
Ok no problem
Curious video there. Pratt lacks the scoundrel quality Fore had (yes, it's gone, now). Maybe he'll get a bowflex, maybe he'll commit. But he's too boyish of late to pull a Heath Ledger and surprise us all.
Face_Melt
Well-known member
The fact that Lucasfilm is bringing back an 80 year old Harrison Ford AND digitally de-aging him for flashback sequences pretty much means Indy is Ford from age 36-onwards in canon. They might reboot the Young Indy show and tell the first 30 years of Indy’s life differently but they care more about the canon of their IP’s than most people think.
Whats next? Recasting Jack Sparrow? Not going to happen.
Whats next? Recasting Jack Sparrow? Not going to happen.
11YearsLater
Well-known member
I think the Chris Pratt ship has sailed. The very earliest he could star as Indy in a 6th Indy film is around 2025 and by that time he will be 46. If they wanted to reboot the franchise with a younger actor just 3 years after Indy 5, they won't go with a 46 year old actor.
It most certainly has. He was the name touted back in 2015 after it was reported that Disney's planning a new Indiana Jones movie. Given Ford's age, most thought it would start with a recast and that it wouldn't take as long for the film to enter production as it did. Here we are, six years later, and those parameters have certainly changed. The recast will happen eventually (money, dear boy), but they'll be eyeing someone who'll be in late 20s/early 30s and can carry the series for at least 15 years.
Indiana Jones and the Quest for a New Actor to carry a film legacy amidst a global pandemic that will never end.
I still think Pratt would be perfect. I think the best timeline for stories is between LC and KOTCS and that would put Indy in his 40's and 50's. Obviously, if they want to go back to the 20's and 30's they will need someone younger.
Z dweller
Well-known member
I certainly hope so.
Nerdpants
Well-known member
Recasting did not work for Solo. I think there are risks with recasting and still keeping the mainstream audience interested. They may dismiss it as something that is not a "must watch" at the cinema
Yeah, let's cherry-pick the instances a recast wasn't successful and ignore all the times it was. That makes a convincing argument.
The thing is, recasting Indiana Jones might succeed. Or it might not. But Solo not succeeding is not an argument for not trying. So stop navel-gazing. This is not about why you don't want a recast. It's also not about why I might or might not want one. I already told you what this is about: $$$. It's especially a low-risk venture for a company like Disney. They can throw a 100M and some at another Indiana Jones movie without Ford. If it succeeds, they'll rake in their investment tenfold. If it doesn't, they'll cover it up some other way.
Nerdpants
Well-known member
I guess the Solo comparison sprang into my head because it was the other role that Harrison Ford was famous for.
They will definitely want to make more $$$ out of the Indiana Jones franchise. I just get the feeling that they may not go the convention route of recasting the central character. I could be wrong and I make this suggestion without any evidence beyond some very minor comments made by Ford (whom will not be involved ultimately with the decision).
I think the guy that played Han in the Solo movie did a good job. Imo it came down to that the audience had no strong desire to see a young Han Solo film.. especially given the wide range of Star Wars content available to them.
Given how successful the original Indiana Jones trilogy was and continues to be with the public.. I doubt any iteration that comes next with a new lead (playing Indy or otherwise) will be able to match the long term success and place in culture of those films.
I think that they have dated pretty well except for some special effect sequences.
They will definitely want to make more $$$ out of the Indiana Jones franchise. I just get the feeling that they may not go the convention route of recasting the central character. I could be wrong and I make this suggestion without any evidence beyond some very minor comments made by Ford (whom will not be involved ultimately with the decision).
I think the guy that played Han in the Solo movie did a good job. Imo it came down to that the audience had no strong desire to see a young Han Solo film.. especially given the wide range of Star Wars content available to them.
Given how successful the original Indiana Jones trilogy was and continues to be with the public.. I doubt any iteration that comes next with a new lead (playing Indy or otherwise) will be able to match the long term success and place in culture of those films.
I think that they have dated pretty well except for some special effect sequences.
fedoraboy
Well-known member
Off topic but, even the dodgy effects sequences are few and far between - ironic that it's Skull and Crusade (the most recent and expensive entries) that are the biggest culprits for outdated (or just plain bad) special effects.
fedoraboy
Well-known member
This is great - is this the same deepfake guy Lucasfilm have hired?
I find this a bit of a navel-gazing statement as well. I don't doubt that there are a bunch of enthusiastic fans, even a sizable one, to whom it may matter whether it's Ford or someone else portraying Indy. But ultimately, these fans make up only a fraction of the movie's targeted audience, and it would be a folly to project those emotions on that wider audience. What ultimately would matter the most to casual viewers is not whether it's Ford portraying Indy or not, but simply whether it's a good film or not. Especially since Disney hasn't yet tried to milk the IP for everything it's worth, like they did with Star Wars.
I'd say you partially got it right with your assessment for why Solo flopped. The main reason for why the audience at large had no strong desire to see a young Han Solo film was because there was too much Star Wars content in the market already - with even more in the way. Solo in 2018 was the fourth annual Star Wars theatrical release in four years' time (after TFA in 2015, Rogue One in 2016 and TLJ in 2017), so even most of the casual audience figured they'll just skip this one and wait 'til they can catch it on Netflix or whatever. If it had been the first Star Wars film released since EPIII or released in 2016 in the slot of Rogue One, it would have had much better odds of making a profit.
Nerdpants
Well-known member
I guess time will tell. Disney has owned the property for the best part of 10 years and has yet to recast the role. This will have to be Fords last appearance given his advanced age and what the filmakers have indicated to this point.
Bob Iger once indicated that after Indy 5 they would do something.. can't remember his exact words but it sounded like some sort of reboot.
Will be interesting to see what they do and how successful it is. From a personal perspective... I believe less is more and I would not want to see Indiana Jones with a young actor. It would make be sad. I am sure everyone has there own feelings about this.
I think Indiana Jones is done after Indy 5. It was never really a franchise and it belongs for the most part in the 80s.
Any type of brand extension may or may not be successful depending on the quality of the production and the timing... I.e. if they release it in quick succession to Indy 5 they may oversaturate the market like Solo...
Bob Iger once indicated that after Indy 5 they would do something.. can't remember his exact words but it sounded like some sort of reboot.
Will be interesting to see what they do and how successful it is. From a personal perspective... I believe less is more and I would not want to see Indiana Jones with a young actor. It would make be sad. I am sure everyone has there own feelings about this.
I think Indiana Jones is done after Indy 5. It was never really a franchise and it belongs for the most part in the 80s.
Any type of brand extension may or may not be successful depending on the quality of the production and the timing... I.e. if they release it in quick succession to Indy 5 they may oversaturate the market like Solo...
Nerdpants
Well-known member
I think Skull has some bad effects, or at least issues that are different to the original trilogy given the advancement f technology.
Don't remember anything specific in Last Crusade that one better or worse than the other two entries in the original trilogy. I would say it was on par..
Nerdpants
Well-known member
Yeah.. for the most party there pretty good
fedoraboy
Well-known member
The greenscreen/back projection during the dogfight is dreadful, though this might strictly not be a 'special effect'. But it looks incredibly fake. The least convincing set piece of the original trilogy.
I take your point, I wouldn't say any of the effects are necessarily bad, per-se, but the film as a whole doesn't feel as real as the earlier 3, there are some pretty obvious CGI backgrounds (or CGI enhanced backgrounds) - the whole jungle sequence looks horribly plastic. To me Skull already looks dated (as do the prequels). Compare to Raiders which looks crisp and timeless because it was shot and lit realistically on location and on physical sets.