Sacrilege? Can there be Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford?

deckard24

New member
The more I think about it, I wish there was a way Hollywood could put a lock on certain films, eliminating any chance of a remake at all. Some films just never should be remade in my opinion, ie. Casablanca, To Kill A Mockingbird, Seven Samurai, Jaws, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Excorcist, North By Northwest, It's A Wonderful Life, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc..

Now, borrowing from those films and creating something new is one thing, but an out and out remake/reboot just seems wrong, especially when there's absolutely nothing wrong with them at all, and little to nothing about them could be improved. If they want to remake/reboot Raiders so bad, why not just borrow elements of the film and create something in the vein of Lara Croft or National Treasure.
 

michael

Well-known member
deckard24 said:
The more I think about it, I wish there was a way Hollywood could put a lock on certain films, eliminating any chance of a remake at all.
Would be amazing if something like that was done.

And please, no more National Treasure movies, those are awful.:sick:
 

Darth Vile

New member
deckard24 said:
The more I think about it, I wish there was a way Hollywood could put a lock on certain films, eliminating any chance of a remake at all. Some films just never should be remade in my opinion, ie. Casablanca, To Kill A Mockingbird, Seven Samurai, Jaws, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Excorcist, North By Northwest, It's A Wonderful Life, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc..

Now, borrowing from those films and creating something new is one thing, but an out and out remake/reboot just seems wrong, especially when there's absolutely nothing wrong with them at all, and little to nothing about them could be improved. If they want to remake/reboot Raiders so bad, why not just borrow elements of the film and create something in the vein of Lara Croft or National Treasure.

I don't think we have to worry so much about bad remakes. I mean, bad remakes will always quickly wither up and be forgotten (a la Psycho, The Omen, PJ's King Kong etc. etc.). It's the good remakes that we have to worry about... because it's those movies that sort of displace the originals. It's all a bit of a paradox. ;)
 

deckard24

New member
michael said:
Would be amazing if something like that was done.
Yeah it would, sort of like putting a patent on the film. For one thing, it would serve as the catalyst for both directors and producers, to start digging deep into their creative wells and start making new films! Also, maybe it would give some of the unknown up and comers a chance to show what they're made of?

Originally Posted by michael
And please, no more National Treasure movies, those are awful.:sick:
Agreed, but movies like National Treasure and Tomb Raider at least attempt to do something somewhat new. The overall quality is the big equalizer.

Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I don't think we have to worry so much about bad remakes. I mean, bad remakes will always quickly wither up and be forgotten (a la Psycho, The Omen, PJ's King Kong etc. etc.). It's the good remakes that we have to worry about... because it's those movies that sort of displace the originals. It's all a bit of a paradox.
I see what you mean, but what disturbs me the most about the remake trend, is that so many moviegoers forego seeing the original, and instead opt for the new flashier remake. It's just sad to see a beautiful piece of art get shoved aside and forgotten, as some dumbed down, pointless, retread gets the recognition. I mean take King Kong for example, how many young kids today and younger moviegoers in general, have even seen the original King Kong of 1933, but instead know only Jackson's version? The same can be said for a film like Halloween, in which I'd be willing to bet many have seen Zombie's take, and think that it is the definitive version, instead of spending the time to admire Carpenter's masterpiece. That to me is just a shame!
 

caats

New member
I'd be happy to see a reboot way down the road. just look at how great star trek was. just gotta cast right.
 

Darth Vile

New member
deckard24 said:
I see what you mean, but what disturbs me the most about the remake trend, is that so many moviegoers forego seeing the original, and instead opt for the new flashier remake. It's just sad to see a beautiful piece of art get shoved aside and forgotten, as some dumbed down, pointless, retread gets the recognition. I mean take King Kong for example, how many young kids today and younger moviegoers in general, have even seen the original King Kong of 1933, but instead know only Jackson's version? The same can be said for a film like Halloween, in which I'd be willing to bet many have seen Zombie's take, and think that it is the definitive version, instead of spending the time to admire Carpenter's masterpiece. That to me is just a shame!

That is a concern I'd agree... but me being ever the optimist... I'll wager that in 50 years time there is still only one version of King Kong that is regarded as definitive (if somewhat old), and it won't be PJ's version. ;)
 

Darth Vile

New member
caats said:
I'd be happy to see a reboot way down the road. just look at how great star trek was. just gotta cast right.

I think your example probably sums up mine and deckards point exactly. The new Star Trek movie, although well made (and clearly popular), is almost like a form of 'Star Trek Lite' i.e. Star Trek without all the genuine intelligence and wit that made the original so good. If the new Star Trek is turned into a franchise in its own right (which it probably will be), then there is a definite risk of it undermining the originals... and Star Trek will just become a form of Star Wars i.e. Sci/fantasy.
 

Grizzlor

Well-known member
I give Lucas and Spielberg credit, they have never rebooted or remade any of their classic films.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
On a tangentially related note, shame on Spielberg for remaking Harvey. You'd think he'd know better.

Indeed. You think he would have learned his lesson after "Always."
 

deckard24

New member
Udvarnoky said:
On a tangentially related note, shame on Spielberg for remaking Harvey. You'd think he'd know better.
Isn't that the truth.

What baffles me, is why a director of Spieberg's talent, nearing his golden years as a fillmaker, would opt to remake a classic film instead of creating something original. What about his Lincoln film? And I'd be willing to bet we'll see Hanks in the role as the replacement for Stewart, with Janusz Kaminski as the DP.
 

MaverickKing

New member
If I were going to recast - which I wouldn't want to - I'd go for either Jensen Ackles or Nathan Fillion, because they both have the perfect fit of humour, action and intelligence.
 

deckard24

New member
MaverickKing said:
If I were going to recast - which I wouldn't want to - I'd go for either Jensen Ackles or Nathan Fillion, because they both have the perfect fit of humour, action and intelligence.
I've been saying for quite a while now that Ackles would make a great 'young' Indy, in the 25-30 year old range. The only problem is, he looks absolutely nothing like Ford. It would be too much to ask the audience to believe in 10 years he'd morph into Ford. Phoenix was at least somewhat believable in that respect.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
On a tangentially related note, shame on Spielberg for remaking Harvey. You'd think he'd know better.

deckard24 said:
Isn't that the truth.

What baffles me, is why a director of Spieberg's talent, nearing his golden years as a fillmaker, would opt to remake a classic film instead of creating something original. What about his Lincoln film? And I'd be willing to bet we'll see Hanks in the role as the replacement for Stewart, with Janusz Kaminski as the DP.

Just to play devils advocate, can anybody think of any remakes (not re-boots of a franchise) made within the last 20/30 years that are classics in their own right, and that can be used as evidence to support the pro remake lobby? Off the top of my head... Scarface and The Thing.
 

deckard24

New member
Darth Vile said:
Just to play devils advocate, can anybody think of any remakes (not re-boots of a franchise) made within the last 20/30 years that are classics in their own right, and that can be used as evidence to support the pro remake lobby? Off the top of my head... Scarface and The Thing.
The Thing,The Fly, and Scarface immediately come to mind, other then that I'm not sure, there's gotta be a few more.

To continue playing devil's advocate, there are some characters who are only enhanced in remakes/alternate versions, ie. Dracula. As great as the original Bela Lugosi Dracula is, the Christopher Lee/Hammer Films versions are even better in some ways. Certain characters do benefit from reboots, but the criteria is, they need to border on mythology or urban legend. The Wolfman, Frankenstein, and The Mummy are perfect examples.

Since you mentioned a gangster flick, I'd include them in the urban legend/larger-then-life category. As bad as say Capone was, his legend and name alone has become almost an archetype. The character of Tony Montana borrows from that and takes it even further, to an almost cartoonish level.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Just to play devils advocate, can anybody think of any remakes (not re-boots of a franchise) made within the last 20/30 years that are classics in their own right, and that can be used as evidence to support the pro remake lobby? Off the top of my head... Scarface and The Thing.
Like deckard4 said, "The Fly". How about "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan" and the 1st "Mission Impossible"? If we included movies beyond the last 20/30 years there would be much more.

While not a supporter of a "remake", I do realize that it's most likely an eventuality in years to come.
deckard24 said:
Certain characters do benefit from reboots, but the criteria is, they need to border on mythology or urban legend. The Wolfman, Frankenstein, and The Mummy are perfect examples.
Definitely but it can work outside mythology. Just look at "The Saint":

Louis Hayward played S.Templar in the 1st movie (1938) and returned to play him for 2 more in the '50s. Inbetween, George Sanders starred 5 times, Hugh Sinclair 2x and there were 2 French movies in the 1960s but it was Roger Moore who breathed life into the character and is the most closely associated with the role. (Heck, my introduction with "The Saint" wasn't even the classic Moore series but the late '70s version w/Ian Ogilvie). There were 2 more brief revivals of "The Saint" in the '80s and the Val Kilmer movie in the '90s plus there are talks of a re-boot. You can't keep keep a good character down but Roger Moore IS Simon Templar in a similar (but not the same) way that Ford IS Indy even though he wasn't the 1st one to portray him. We really have no idea what could end up happening with Indy many years down the road...

It would be no surprise at all if "Raiders" was remade in some future generation. It's more of a PROBABILITY than a POSSIBILTY but only long after Spielberg & Lucas have passed on. We might all be dead by then, too (except for perhaps, IndyWolf) so we won't have to worry about it.:p Using the lapse of time for the 2 "King Kong" remakes as a model: Maybe we'll see a modern re-telling of "Raiders" in 2024 and a glossy remake in 2053? In 44 years, I'll be an old man. Will I care? The originals will always be available.:D
 

deckard24

New member
Stoo said:
Like deckard4 said, "The Fly". How about "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan" and the 1st "Mission Impossible"? If we included movies beyond the last 20/30 years there would be much more.

While not a supporter of a "remake", I do realize that it's most likely an eventuality in years to come.
Definitely but it can work outside mythology. Just look at "The Saint":

Louis Hayward played S.Templar in the 1st movie (1938) and returned to play him for 2 more in the '50s. Inbetween, George Sanders starred 5 times, Hugh Sinclair 2x and there were 2 French movies in the 1960s but it was Roger Moore who breathed life into the character and is the most closely associated with the role. (Heck, my introduction with "The Saint" wasn't even the classic Moore series but the late '70s version w/Ian Ogilvie). There were 2 more brief revivals of "The Saint" in the '80s and the Val Kilmer movie in the '90s plus there are talks of a re-boot. You can't keep keep a good character down but Roger Moore IS Simon Templar in a similar (but not the same) way that Ford IS Indy even though he wasn't the 1st one to portray him. We really have no idea what could end up happening with Indy many years down the road...

It would be no surprise at all if "Raiders" was remade in some future generation. It's more of a PROBABILITY than a POSSIBILTY but only long after Spielberg & Lucas have passed on. We might all be dead by then, too (except for perhaps, IndyWolf) so we won't have to worry about it.:p Using the lapse of time for the 2 "King Kong" remakes as a model: Maybe we'll see a modern re-telling of "Raiders" in 2024 and a glossy remake in 2053? In 44 years, I'll be an old man. Will I care? The originals will always be available.:D
You know it's been a long time since I've seen Greystoke, I'll have to check it out soon.

As for The Saint, that's a good example of a character outside of the mythology/urban legend realm.:hat: There's definitely a parallel with Bond, with the exception of the overall popularity. Also, the fact that different actors were brought in early in the character's film life, only served to aid the successful remake ability of Templar. Where Indy is concerned, it has been one main actor for 28 years straight that everyone identifies with him, Ford. Yeah, others have played the character in various incarnations/ages, but only one has played the 1930's/1950's version, and honestly if they brought someone new into the role in the next few years, it would feel like an impostor.

In 44 years when we're old men, yeah maybe we won't care? But that kind of a gap of time, or at least 20+ years, is needed to help separate the general public's vision of the character from Ford. I hope I don't see it happen, but you're right, we will at least have the originals!(y)
 

Crack that whip

New member
Darth Vile said:
Just to play devils advocate, can anybody think of any remakes (not re-boots of a franchise) made within the last 20/30 years that are classics in their own right, and that can be used as evidence to support the pro remake lobby? Off the top of my head... Scarface and The Thing.

This decade's remake of Ocean's Eleven is widely considered far superior to the original from the '60s, and a pretty fair number of people think the same of the 1999 version of The Thomas Crown Affair vs the '68 original.
 

jamiestarr

New member
Darth Vile said:
Just to play devils advocate, can anybody think of any remakes (not re-boots of a franchise) made within the last 20/30 years that are classics in their own right, and that can be used as evidence to support the pro remake lobby? Off the top of my head... Scarface and The Thing.


The Fugitive

The Dark Knight (not technically a remake, but close enough)
 

Dr.Sartorius

New member
Classics? Isn't that opinion?

Udvarnoky said:
On a tangentially related note, shame on Spielberg for remaking Harvey. You'd think he'd know better.

How do we know for sure he's doing that? :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top