Toht's Arm said:I just don't see him as the charismatic hero type. He always seems so dour...
That does seem to be the knock on him, but he has the everyman thing in spades.
Toht's Arm said:I just don't see him as the charismatic hero type. He always seems so dour...
Raiders112390 said:It's pretty stupid to let a franchise which has tons of potential die off with an actor. Indy can be more than Harrison. And when he's gone, or when he cannot play it anymore, it should be. With newer writers, newer directors. Just stick to the groundwork for the character that was developed between 1978 and 1981 and get an actor who is pretty much a Cary Grant/Clark Gable/Humphrey Bogart clone like Harrison was and it'd work. It's not a role where the actor was some amazing method actor. It's not like remaking The Godfather, where Brando created the character (the look, the way he spoke, etc). Indy isn't about an actor or even the character in terms of backstory or whatever. Indiana Jones has parameters but it's more about a vicarious existence than a character, actor based piece. It could work fine without Harrison.
I actually had rather seen him as a new Han Solo, if a new Star Wars episode had been planned. He's got that sarcastic but heroic side that remind me the acting of Harrison in SW. By the way, there were a lot of reference to SW in the Lost dialogues of Sawyer.mikieson said:Josh Holloway would KILL as a new Indy..he's awesome and very much about the only person I would even consider as a new Indy.
Raiders112390 said:It's pretty stupid to let a franchise which has tons of potential die off with an actor. Indy can be more than Harrison. And when he's gone, or when he cannot play it anymore, it should be. With newer writers, newer directors. Just stick to the groundwork for the character that was developed between 1978 and 1981 and get an actor who is pretty much a Cary Grant/Clark Gable/Humphrey Bogart clone like Harrison was and it'd work. It's not a role where the actor was some amazing method actor. It's not like remaking The Godfather, where Brando created the character (the look, the way he spoke, etc). Indy isn't about an actor or even the character in terms of backstory or whatever. Indiana Jones has parameters but it's more about a vicarious existence than a character, actor based piece. It could work fine without Harrison.
Montana Smith said:The way I see it is this: what gives Indiana Jones any more potential than a host of other action/adventure types?
Back in 1981 it was, for me, an excursion into 1930s pulp adventure. Then I saw the movie, and it was Harrison who made that character all the more interesting. It was him that gave the series real potential.
Anyone else in the role now will be little more than an Indiana Jones impersonator. And there have been plenty of them over the years in films, and they rarely come close to the original.
As a franchise, which is really the wrong term, but we all know what we mean when we say it, its success will be based largely on the history of the Indiana Jones name. It has a built-in pedigree, making it easier to get something into production and for people to go and see it. It's simpler to continue something than to begin something new from scratch.
But do we want the Indy name to be used simply to pass off sub-par movies like KOTCS?
The original trilogy sat well for almost two decades, until Lucas brought Indy out of retirement for another last adventure.
Indiana Jones wasn't like Bond. Lucas didn't simply hire a new actor because the original was no longer in the usually accepted age-range. He followed the story on the big screen with one man.
Bond was a different concept. With a number of the actors the character's birthdate was shifted, so that the stories were always contemporary. They rebooted over time in the same manner of comic-book characters.
If you put a new actor into Indiana Jones, covering the same period as Harrison, then it's a reboot. It loses pedigree, yet plays on the name. It might as well be a new character with a fresh world to explore. There's much less baggage and expectation involved.
heck yea...i'll take him as either or both.....i love josh, he's freakin awesome.davidgribouille said:I actually had rather seen him as a new Han Solo, if a new Star Wars episode had been planned. He's got that sarcastic but heroic side that remind me the acting of Harrison in SW. By the way, there were a lot of reference to SW in the Lost dialogues of Sawyer.
So, yes, I do also believe that he would make a great Indy.
But he may be too old when a new Indy will come!!!
mikieson said:heck yea...i'll take him as either or both.....i love josh, he's freakin awesome.
Smiffy said:Only if the gorgeous Evangeline Lilly becomes his Marion, in which case I won't even notice that Josh is Indy.
you guys have my full attention now.....im a huge LOSTIE..have a group on facebook if any of you wanna join? Its full of good people and its active..as much as I love Indy,Rocky,StarWars,Back To The Future,Goonies,ect...LOST for me is a whole other beast..its my favorite EVERYTHING..Montana Smith said:I could see Josh playing the cynical and roguish Han. The kind of guy who'd only help the Rebellion for a profit.
In another universe:
I can see him going all out for fortune and glory, and once in a while referring to Marion as "freckles".
mikieson said:you guys have my full attention now.....im a huge LOSTIE..have a group on facebook if any of you wanna join? Its full of good people and its active..as much as I love Indy,Rocky,StarWars,Back To The Future,Goonies,ect...LOST for me is a whole other beast..its my favorite EVERYTHING..
lol..since 2004 the word OTHERS has never been the same with me..LOL....and yes you are correct. People now days dont understand "lasting talent"...most actors and musicians are here today,gone tomorrow. They dont have what it takes to be where they are. HF IS INDY..no doubt..and it does mean something to us older people. very much agree..Montana Smith said:You mean that Lost's "your favourite other" !
I have lot's of favourite others, too!
Lost is a case much like Indiana Jones. Something special that comes along once in a while.
What makes IJ a cut above for me is largely due to the Harrison/Indy dynamic. So anything less will be an inferior imitation forever overshadowed by the classic.
Even though the last movie was 2008, Harrison is still technically Indy until he's replaced. So, for over thirty years that single actor has been associated with the mature version of the character.
To the younger generations maybe that doesn't seem so significant, because they haven't had 31 years of Harrison/Indy burned into their consciousness!
mikieson said:SO if you are like me and would rather NOBODY play Indy but HF..HOW would you feel about a PRE-INDY movie with say a young Henry Sr?
We've already been there and did that with the Young Indiana Jones show.mikieson said:SO if you are like me and would rather NOBODY play Indy but HF..HOW would you feel about a PRE-INDY movie with say a young Henry Sr?
it wasnt so much about Sr it was about young Indy. if im not mistaken??Marshall2288 said:We've already been there and did that with the Young Indiana Jones show.
EvilEmperorZoRG said:End With Harrison!!!
it was about Young Indy but the 1st season in particular has a lot of Henry Sr in it. Enough so to get a feel about his life that I think a movie about him would be really boring.mikieson said:it wasnt so much about Sr it was about young Indy. if im not mistaken??