Sacrilege? Can there be Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford?

Dewy9

New member
Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. I would rather see the series fade away than have someone else play him. It's a major reason why I couldn't get into Young Indy.
 

James

Well-known member
Stoo said:
With all due respect, William, the Indy films cannot be compared to Tarzan. Someone else brought up Tarzan movies in another thread, too.

The characters are similar in the sense that both are pulp heroes, and the original Tarzan films were obviously an influence on Lucas and Spielberg.

However, I don't think Indy could be recast multiple times ala Tarzan.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
James said:
The characters are similar in the sense that both are pulp heroes, and the original Tarzan films were obviously an influence on Lucas and Spielberg.

However, I don't think Indy could be recast multiple times ala Tarzan.

Tarzan existed independently of cinema in the 24-original stories penned by Edgar Rice Burroughs. With a general idea of what Tarzan is supposed to be, you can recast the role over and over again. This also works in Bond's favour; with the mold cast by Ian Fleming, you can continually recreate the character with the changing times.

Indy grew out of the thirties action-adventure serials -- a swashbuckling, two-fisted archetype. But until Harrison imbued the character with personality, Indy didn't exist.
 

jamiestarr

New member
James said:
Indiana Jones is closer to someone like Dirty Harry. Neither began as a particularly complex character, so a great deal of the personality was supplied by the actor himself. If you take that away, you're left with little more than a stock character. This means it's easier for filmmakers to just make an Indy or Dirty Harry clone- as opposed to trying to find the 'right' actor or securing any film rights.

I see what you are saying. However, I don't agree that Dirty Harry and Indiana Jones are any less complex than James Bond.

Nor do I agree that Indiana Jones is a stock character---he started out as an homage to the stock character adventurer, but now the fedora and whip are symbolic of Indiana Jones and not just "adventure guy".


Lastly, as tacky and commercial as this sounds, there is something to be said about brand recognition. You can make a shoe that is nearly the same design as Nike Air Jordans...but, the public won't buy it.

You can make a National Treasure, or Sahara, or Romancing the Stone. But, the public knows it is NOT Indiana Jones.
 
Last edited:

jamiestarr

New member
Jono11 said:
So you're saying you want Indy to become formulaic and predictable? Not that I think that's what Bond is, but you clearly do. And you want Indy to become like that?

You misunderstand me. I never said that I want Indy to become formulaic and predictable. Nor, did I say I viewed the Bond series as such.

What I am saying is that Indiana Jones, like James bond, has the ingredients to movie magic. Both series have enough of the goods to trancend and handle different actors and directors.
 

jamiestarr

New member

So for my money, a new Indy could never really better the premise of the originals… but a James Bond movie, a la Casino Royale, always has the potential to better the original conceit. And that's why Bond goes on... and that's why (IMHO), Raiders (and possibly the first 2 sequels) won't/can't be bettered.





Some would argue that Bond hasn't been improved upon since Connery's earlier 007 films...just refined for new eras. I don't necessarily agree with that.

The question is this: Is the lack of a modern setting enough to justify not making anymore Indy films? It seems to me that the early 20th Century is ripe with ideas that are different enough for new, and invigorating adventures. Yes, the adventures would essentially be retreads of Raiders, however aren't most of the Bond films retreads of Goldfinger? Many Bond fans say that, up until Daniel Craig, they have been.

Furthermore, one HUGE complaint (by causal movie goers) of Quantum of Solace is that it "wasn't Bond enough". Did the 007 film makers error in taking Bond too far from the original conceit?
 

James

Well-known member
jamiestarr said:
I see what you are saying. However, I don't agree that Dirty Harry and Indiana Jones are any less complex than James Bond.

Nor do I agree that Indiana Jones is a stock character---he started out as an homage to the stock character adventurer

When I say they were less complex, I'm referring to the original concept (or scripts). At the time, Bond already had a series of books and films which had fleshed out his character. He was also fairly dynamic, in that he changed over the course of the original books. The character in You Only Live Twice is quite different from the one going through the motions in Live and Let Die or Moonraker.

As you note, Indiana Jones "started out" as a homage to those stock characters. I'm merely saying that Eastwood and Ford added quite a bit to what was written on the page. If you strip away what they added, there's not very much for an actor to fall back upon. Batman or Bond can be taken back to the original source material, but Indy simply has the original concept.

Now, I do agree with you that Bond isn't really that much more complex than what Indiana Jones has ultimately become. The dynamic quality has largely been absent from the films, and unlike Ford, the actors haven't been allowed to address their physical aging.

I'm a big fan of all three characters in question, but today we do tend to exaggerate how important our cartoon heroes are. Just because you give a hero a few vulnerabilities, it doesn't automatically make them great literary figures. Even Fleming used to joke that Bond was rather shallow, and this becomes evident when compared to peers such as Le Carre's George Smiley or Deighton's Harry Palmer.

jamiestarr said:
Furthermore, one HUGE complaint (by causal movie goers) of Quantum of Solace is that it "wasn't Bond enough". Did the 007 film makers error in taking Bond too far from the original conceit?

I think the producers just got a little too carried away with trying to imitate Jason Bourne. When audiences went to see a Bond film during the 80s, they didn't expect the character to try and be Indiana Jones or John McClane. They were going to see 007. Cubby Broccoli did manage to incorporate elements of both those modern franchises into the films, but it wasn't at the expense of his own brand.

The other problem is that they approached the film just as they had Pierce Brosnan's sophomore outing, Tomorrow Never Dies. They began production without a finished script and simply tried to pad it out with action sequences. Roger Michell turned down the offer to direct because he was concerned they had a start date, but no script. When he expressed the concern to the producers, they simply shrugged it off and said, "Oh, we'll fix that later."
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Dewy9 said:
Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. I would rather see the series fade away than have someone else play him. It's a major reason why I couldn't get into Young Indy.
What about River? Fans who grew up watching the original 3 films in the theatre have already lived through the experience of of seeing someone else fill the shoes on TV. (Harrison wouldn't have pulled off a 16-21 year old very well.;)) Like I said, I re-cast would work for the years c.1921-1934.
Le Saboteur said:
Tarzan existed independently of cinema in the 24-original stories penned by Edgar Rice Burroughs. With a general idea of what Tarzan is supposed to be, you can recast the role over and over again. This also works in Bond's favour; with the mold cast by Ian Fleming, you can continually recreate the character with the changing times.
Not only that but (unlike Ford as Indy) the actors most associated with those 2 roles were the not the first to portray them. Johnny Weismuller wasn't the 1st Tarzan nor was Sean Connery the 1st James Bond!;)
 

jamiestarr

New member
James said:
When I say they were less complex, I'm referring to the original concept (or scripts). At the time, Bond already had a series of books and films which had fleshed out his character. He was also fairly dynamic, in that he changed over the course of the original books. The character in You Only Live Twice is quite different from the one going through the motions in Live and Let Die or Moonraker.

As you note, Indiana Jones "started out" as a homage to those stock characters. I'm merely saying that Eastwood and Ford added quite a bit to what was written on the page. If you strip away what they added, there's not very much for an actor to fall back upon. Batman or Bond can be taken back to the original source material, but Indy simply has the original concept.


I agree. However, at this point in time Indiana Jones is fleshed out and has a blueprint. If a new actor were to don the hat, he could choose to play varying degrees of what Harrison Ford did, or take it somewhere else entirely.

My point is that, Indiana Jones is now a fleshed out character and that a good actor could add to and build upon what Harrison Ford did. The bar has been set and Indiana Jones in not a stock character anymore. Harrison took him off the page and breathed life into him.

So, a new actor would not start from zero...they have a good foundation to start on/continue with...
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Le Saboteur said:
That has more to do, I believe, that the general consciousness has moved on from a sense of wonder and awe to a sense of irony. Movies can no longer be 'serious'; there needs to be an ironic sense of detachment, with a wink and a nod to the audience. Media saturation plays a part, too.

While partly true, I think audiences can still lose themselves in "straightforward" fantasy/adventure without modern "ironic" sensibilities or detachment.

Witness the Harry Potter phenomenon, both in print and in film. It's the biggest single pop cultural landmark of the last ten years.

Or even the on-going Star Wars franchise. Kids (not so much adults) are still gonzo over Star Wars, from the films to the toys to the animated series and it's still as hokey and earnest as it used to be. The Spider-Man films, despite some moments of self-doubt on the part of the hero and a fair amount of tongue in cheek humor, are also in this vein.

Even in the age of the brooding Dark Knight and the irreverent Iron Man, there's still plenty of room for these kinds of old-fashioned romances.
 

Crack that whip

New member
James said:
When I say they were less complex, I'm referring to the original concept (or scripts). At the time, Bond already had a series of books and films which had fleshed out his character. He was also fairly dynamic, in that he changed over the course of the original books. The character in You Only Live Twice is quite different from the one going through the motions in Live and Let Die or Moonraker.

As you note, Indiana Jones "started out" as a homage to those stock characters. I'm merely saying that Eastwood and Ford added quite a bit to what was written on the page. If you strip away what they added, there's not very much for an actor to fall back upon. Batman or Bond can be taken back to the original source material, but Indy simply has the original concept.

Now, I do agree with you that Bond isn't really that much more complex than what Indiana Jones has ultimately become.

I'd go farther and say that Bond isn't as complex as Indy has become, to say nothing of being "that much more complex" (I say this with the caveat that I'm speaking just about the Bond of the movies; I don't know the one from the books). Even leaving the TV series, the fourth movie and the "EU," I thought in 1989 we'd gotten to know Indiana Jones better as a person in just three movies than we had James Bond in well over a dozen.

James said:
The dynamic quality has largely been absent from the films, and unlike Ford, the actors haven't been allowed to address their physical aging.

I'm a big fan of all three characters in question, but today we do tend to exaggerate how important our cartoon heroes are. Just because you give a hero a few vulnerabilities, it doesn't automatically make them great literary figures. Even Fleming used to joke that Bond was rather shallow, and this becomes evident when compared to peers such as Le Carre's George Smiley or Deighton's Harry Palmer.

True, but I think once George Lucas decided to add The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, everything changed quite a bit as far as Indy was concerned. It made him a much more fully-developed character.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Crack that whip said:
True, but I think once George Lucas decided to add The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, everything changed quite a bit as far as Indy was concerned. It made him a much more fully-developed character.

The people on this board, by definition, represent an extremely small and passionate segment of the Indiana Jones fanbase.

The general public as a whole is only dimly aware at best of the existence of the Young Indiana Jones TV series. I think it is extremely charitable (and frankly inaccurate) to say that the series helped define and expand Indy's character in any meaningful way, or at least for the vast, vast, vast majority of the Indy film audience.

Heck, even I watched almost the entire series of YIJC and, though some episodes were interesting and entertaining, that series did nothing to illuminate my appreciation for the films in any way, nor my understanding of the character. They really are tonally and dramatically entirely different creations. The character in the series bares only the faintest resemblance to the Indiana Jones of the films.
 

James

Well-known member
Crack that whip said:
I'd go farther and say that Bond isn't as complex as Indy has become, to say nothing of being "that much more complex" (I say this with the caveat that I'm speaking just about the Bond of the movies; I don't know the one from the books.

True, but I think once George Lucas decided to add The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, everything changed quite a bit as far as Indy was concerned. It made him a much more fully-developed character.

I was mainly talking about Fleming's Bond, which tends to be taken far too seriously these days. I love those books and grew up reading them, but I'd never try to pass them off as great literature. Fleming certainly never did.

The nature of the Bond movies has reduced the character to an archetype, although that's likely the only reason they endure. The fact that Bond never changes is part of the appeal.

If you actually had to watch all 22 films to understand what was going on, audiences would quickly lose interest. (This is actually another reason why Quantum of Solace ran into trouble. Not everyone sat down and watched the previous film, prior to going to see it.)

You make a valid point about the Young Indy chronicles, which I admit I was completely omitting. But as Lance points out, the average moviegoer likely only knows the character via the films.
 

Crack that whip

New member
Lance Quazar said:
The people on this board, by definition, represent an extremely small and passionate segment of the Indiana Jones fanbase.

The general public as a whole is only dimly aware at best of the existence of the Young Indiana Jones TV series. I think it is extremely charitable (and frankly inaccurate) to say that the series helped define and expand Indy's character in any meaningful way, or at least for the vast, vast, vast majority of the Indy film audience.

I think it's entirely accurate. My statement concerns what's done with the character within the show itself; whether people actually watch it or not isn't the issue. I'm talking about the content of its narratives, so it's kind of implied that it's speaking to someone who actually is watching it.

Lance Quazar said:
Heck, even I watched almost the entire series of YIJC and, though some episodes were interesting and entertaining, that series did nothing to illuminate my appreciation for the films in any way, nor my understanding of the character. They really are tonally and dramatically entirely different creations. The character in the series bares only the faintest resemblance to the Indiana Jones of the films.

Now, this more addresses the point I was trying to make, though I do have to say I simply disagree, and in the strongest possible terms. Yes, it's absolutely true that it's a tonally and dramatically different entity from the movies, but that's part of the point. It shows us where the guy in the movies comes from, how he got to be the way he is. Simply showing the same guy with fewer lines on his face doing exactly the same things he does in the movies would add far less. Here, we see all sorts of things that expand upon and complement the character we see - we witness how, where, why and/or from whom he acquires so much of the knowledge and skill he puts to use (everything from his mastery of many languages to how to fire a gun), we garner greater insight into the rift between him and his father and why they spoke so little for so long, we gain clues as to the formation of his general worldview and why the man he'll become is this particular odd mix of mercenary cynicism and heroic idealism, and so on. Everything in the show leads to the movies. No, he's not exactly like the person we see in the movies yet; he's on the path that clearly will take him there, though. I think the show complements the films beautifully.

But beyond that, even putting the show aside completely and focusing solely upon the movies, I was saying that I think Indiana Jones was a better-defined individual than James Bond is (at least, the Bond in the movies).
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Lance Quazar said:
The general public as a whole is only dimly aware at best of the existence of the Young Indiana Jones TV series.
One could argue that, by and large, the general public is "dim".:D But I'm a biased Young Indy fan so I fully understand where you're coming from, Lance.:hat:

Over 70 years passed before "King Kong" was remade so maybe we'll see a "Raiders" remake in, oh...circa 2051 (when most of the creators/audience are all dead & gone)?

Anyway, add this "re-boot/re-cast" thread to the multitude of others on this board.
Lance Quazar said:
I think it is extremely charitable (and frankly inaccurate) to say that the series helped define and expand Indy's character in any meaningful way, or at least for the vast, vast, vast majority of the Indy film audience.

Heck, even I watched almost the entire series of YIJC and, though some episodes were interesting and entertaining, that series did nothing to illuminate my appreciation for the films in any way, nor my understanding of the character.
If anything, the series gives a large amount of insight towards the rift between Indy and his dad. Knowing the history makes the dialogue in "Crusade" much more poignant.

---
Re: James Bond. Indy's character is much more complex than the Bond of the movies. One of the most interesting, non-formula things that the film series has done was to show 007 in prison for several months/(years?) within the span of 1 movie. That was a complete departure from previous entries.)

P.S. Sean Connery was NOT the 1st James Bond!:p
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Crack that whip said:
Now, this more addresses the point I was trying to make, though I do have to say I simply disagree, and in the strongest possible terms. Yes, it's absolutely true that it's a tonally and dramatically different entity from the movies, but that's part of the point. It shows us where the guy in the movies comes from, how he got to be the way he is. Simply showing the same guy with fewer lines on his face doing exactly the same things he does in the movies would add far less. Here, we see all sorts of things that expand upon and complement the character we see - we witness how, where, why and/or from whom he acquires so much of the knowledge and skill he puts to use (everything from his mastery of many languages to how to fire a gun), we garner greater insight into the rift between him and his father and why they spoke so little for so long, we gain clues as to the formation of his general worldview and why the man he'll become is this particular odd mix of mercenary cynicism and heroic idealism, and so on. Everything in the show leads to the movies. No, he's not exactly like the person we see in the movies yet; he's on the path that clearly will take him there, though. I think the show complements the films beautifully.

My memories of the episodes and TV movies comprising the YIJ saga are admittedly quite dim at this point. I did watch "Masks of Evil" recently, as I had never heard of it and was intrigued by its supernatural content, the only such episode in the series.

I don't wish to derail this conversation too much, I'm sure there are plenty of threads where it's discussed, but one of my single biggest problems with the series was with Sean Patrick Flannery's performance.

I don't wish to bash him as an actor, but, to me, he portrayed Indy as a far too tentative, hesitant and almost nervous character at times.

Contrast that with the far superior perf by River Phoenix in "Last Crusade", who completely embodies Indy's brash, often reckless spirit.

For the vast majority of the saga, Flannery just didn't "feel" like Indiana Jones - even a younger version of him.

I don't believe that a shy, tentative person grows into someone like Indy. It isn't psychologically consistent.

There are only sporadic moments in the whole YIJC where he really felt like Indy, where he was daring, enterprising, heroic, etc. Most of the time, he just felt...flat.
 

Darth Vile

New member
jamiestarr said:

Some would argue that Bond hasn't been improved upon since Connery's earlier 007 films...just refined for new eras. I don't necessarily agree with that.


Agreed... But I was talking more around the potential for improvement. Seems to me that the more one moves away from the original concept of Indiana Jones, the more one is likely to make an inferior (or perceived inferior) Indy movie. One only has to see the debates around aliens, crystal skulls, UFO's Elvis Presley etc. to see where many draw the line. I believe James Bond's broader palette provides a wider scope for diversity/change.

jamiestarr said:

The question is this: Is the lack of a modern setting enough to justify not making anymore Indy films? It seems to me that the early 20th Century is ripe with ideas that are different enough for new, and invigorating adventures. Yes, the adventures would essentially be retreads of Raiders, however aren't most of the Bond films retreads of Goldfinger? Many Bond fans say that, up until Daniel Craig, they have been.


Ultimately, 99.9% of all movies are adaptations of previous works. James Bond movies are no exception. But I think it's the adaption of premise (or story) where they can be successful. As a series, I don't think James Bond is any better than Indiana Jones (and I much prefer Indy overall)... but playing the devils advocate, I would posit that there is probably more development of story/scope and movie making technique in the first 4 James Bond movies (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball) than there was in the 4 Indy movies. I think that's largely because the contemporary setting of James Bond allows for more successfully tonal shifts.

jamiestarr said:

Furthermore, one HUGE complaint (by causal movie goers) of Quantum of Solace is that it "wasn't Bond enough". Did the 007 film makers error in taking Bond too far from the original conceit?


I thought QOS was a good action movie myself. Was it too far removed from what the audience expects of James Bond? Possibly... but ultimately these movies have to stand on their own feet. The best Bond movies IMHO are those where it doesn't necessarily seem like a Bond movie e.g. Dr. No, From Russia With Love, OHMSS. Personally speaking, I relish the opportunity for new Bond movies without Miss Moneypenny, Q and gadgets galore. ;)
 

Dewy9

New member
Stoo said:
What about River? Fans who grew up watching the original 3 films in the theatre have already lived through the experience of of seeing someone else fill the shoes on TV. (Harrison wouldn't have pulled off a 16-21 year old very well.;)) Like I said, I re-cast would work for the years c.1921-1934.

River is Indy only because they said he was. I mean really, Indy had long hair as a kid? C'mon.

The weakest of the teasers in my opinion.
 

jamiestarr

New member
Darth Vile said:
Agreed... But I was talking more around the potential for improvement. Seems to me that the more one moves away from the original concept of Indiana Jones, the more one is likely to make an inferior (or perceived inferior) Indy movie. One only has to see the debates around aliens, crystal skulls, UFO's Elvis Presley etc. to see where many draw the line. I believe James Bond's broader palette provides a wider scope for diversity/change.



Ultimately, 99.9% of all movies are adaptations of previous works. James Bond movies are no exception. But I think it's the adaption of premise (or story) where they can be successful. As a series, I don't think James Bond is any better than Indiana Jones (and I much prefer Indy overall)... but playing the devils advocate, I would posit that there is probably more development of story/scope and movie making technique in the first 4 James Bond movies (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball) than there was in the 4 Indy movies. I think that's largely because the contemporary setting of James Bond allows for more successfully tonal shifts.



I thought QOS was a good action movie myself. Was it too far removed from what the audience expects of James Bond? Possibly... but ultimately these movies have to stand on their own feet. The best Bond movies IMHO are those where it doesn't necessarily seem like a Bond movie e.g. Dr. No, From Russia With Love, OHMSS. Personally speaking, I relish the opportunity for new Bond movies without Miss Moneypenny, Q and gadgets galore. ;)


Well said. :whip:
 
Top