For and Against a Reboot

Henry W Jones

New member
Raiders112390 said:
There's a big difference. Jimi Hendrix was a real human being. Indiana Jones is a fictional character. All he is a character with a leather jacket, fedora, bullwhip, gun and certain attitudes and attributes. He's a vehicle for us to experience surreal/supernatural adventures. A reboot wouldn't replace the original films, but would exist in it's own continuity, just like any and every other reboot of a any franchise. And just because it doesn't have Ford doesn't mean it would be subpar. Harrison Ford is not the greatest actor to ever grace the screen. He can be replaced.

I tend to think that it's funny that the ones who are most against any future Indiana Jones films and are afraid of the idea of a reboot are also Batman fanboys. Makes me wonder what their true motivation is. If one lesser film in a series can damn the whole series or any future of a series for you, perhaps you aren't really a fan of the series to begin with.

I'm not a huge Batman fan. He's alright but I'm not a collector of Batman stuff though I watch the movies when they come out. I have a general problem with reboots. I find them to be uncreative and I want to see something fresh and original done by Hollywood and these days that rarely happens. Actually my extreme fandom for Indiana Jones is the reason for my lack of encouragement towards a reboot. I'm a purist on most things. I have never liked SPF as young Indy and mainly like the episodes he's not in. (I really wish River had done those instead) I could never see him as Indiana Jones and that tells me I wouldn't like another actor in the role. I would still like to see Ford do another. And even if he is or isn't the greatest actor to ever grace the screen, (and you probably have to admit he is not the worst by a long shot either) it does not mean he is replaceable. As far as "If one lesser film in a series can damn the whole series or any future of a series for you, perhaps you aren't really a fan of the series to begin with" goes. I like KOTCS. It is a weaker film than the previous outings but it's not at all my reasoning for not wanting to see a reboot. I was just pointing out a fact in my earlier post when I mentioned Skull that if you thought it was weak or a lesser film, it could get worse. I thought LC was not as good as the first two and still went to see KOTCS. While I'm not a huge Trekkie and think the newer film was well done but I would have rather seen a new Enterprise crew in the same basic scenario. Kirk is Shatner and so on.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Stoo said:
Right. Can't the REBOOT TWITS understand this or are they living in a dream world?:confused: (Maybe in 20-50 years but not now!)
Indeed! Reboot/Schmeeboot. In itself, the term & idea SUCKS!:sick:(n)
Nah, I disagree. People who equate the Indy films with the James Bond series conveniently/unknowingly ignore the fact that Indiana Jones was created in film, with Harrison Ford defining the role...unlike Bond, who already existed in novels, BEFORE being portrayed on a screen. (Connery wasn't even the 1st actor to play James Bond!:rolleyes:)
NO. Absolutely not because the two series aren't the same thing. Bond film stories were drawn from pre-existing novels and directed by many, different people. (Re: Lucas/Spielberg being "up to the task"...Do you even understand what the term "franchise" means?)
EXACTLY! Thanks for reinforcing the point, Smiff!:hat: Indy is a different animal.

Then a reboot could be based on the Indiana Jones novels :rolleyes: I didn't know "being based on a novel" was the primary requirement for a film to be allowed to be rebooted or remade.

(And saying Sean Connery technically wasn't the first Bond is getting into minutia and technicalities, along the lines of "and Ringo wasn't even the first drummer to be in The Beatles!")

Up to the task--By this I mean, Indy could've, if Lucas/Spielberg had either worked harder, faster, or demanded less direct creative control, spawned numerous movies. Hell, had Lucas and Spielberg not sat arguing over one MacGuffin for 16 years we could've had at least 2-3 more films between 1989 and 2008. Indy could've become a long running franchise like Bond if they had decided to be in less direct control over the stories etc.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Henry W Jones said:
I have a general problem with reboots. I find them to be uncreative and I want to see something fresh and original done by Hollywood and these days that rarely happens.

The idea of a reboot is overplayed today in Hollywood, very much so. But that doesn't mean reboots themselves are necessarily bad, or that an Indy reboot might not add another dimension to the series. It could. As I've said previously, I wouldn't want a reboot until Harrison dies, out of respect for him, but afterward, I'd love to see a complete reboot of the franchise, keeping the character essentials (fedora, jacket, khakis, whip, gun, fear of snakes) and story essentials (rogue archaeologist who deals with supernatural artifacts, etc).

Actually my extreme fandom for Indiana Jones is the reason for my lack of encouragement towards a reboot. I'm a purist on most things. I have never liked SPF as young Indy and mainly like the episodes he's not in. (I really wish River had done those instead) I could never see him as Indiana Jones and that tells me I wouldn't like another actor in the role.

I personally like SPF as Indy so we'll disagree there. BUT, taking your point--Judging the possibility of another actor as Indy by SPF is like judging James Bond by Lazenby or Dalton. It's kind of unfair to think that any future actor will be as poor as a past actor. Also, George wanted a certain thing with SPF portraying young Indy, hence his casting, he wanted someone who'd reflect a certain naivete and innocence. If they're casting an adult, treasure hunter Indy I imagine the casting call would be different.

I would still like to see Ford do another. And even if he is or isn't the greatest actor to ever grace the screen, (and you probably have to admit he is not the worst by a long shot either) it does not mean he is replaceable. As far as "If one lesser film in a series can damn the whole series or any future of a series for you, perhaps you aren't really a fan of the series to begin with" goes. I like KOTCS. It is a weaker film than the previous outings but it's not at all my reasoning for not wanting to see a reboot. I was just pointing out a fact in my earlier post when I mentioned Skull that if you thought it was weak or a lesser film, it could get worse. I thought LC was not as good as the first two and still went to see KOTCS. While I'm not a huge Trekkie and think the newer film was well done but I would have rather seen a new Enterprise crew in the same basic scenario. Kirk is Shatner and so on.

I'd like to see Ford do another myself, but I doubt it will ever happen. Lucas & Spielberg can't be assed to do it, and are probably too afraid/hesistant to jump back into Indy after the mixed reaction of KOTCS. There's a lot of pressure there to make a GREAT Indy film that will please EVERYONE and that's a hell of amount of pressure and looking at it from their POV, is it worth it, for them? Is it worth the risk? And Spielberg probably doesn't want to do it anyway, he didn't even really want to do KOTCS. And Harrison is starting to get too old to be the leading man, and I would NEVER want Indy being a side character in any INDY movie, original series or reboot. It's either "Indiana Jones and the..." or no dice. I don't want any "Mutt Williams and Indiana Jones..." crap.

Well, if you thought the new ST film was well done, why isn't it possible that an Indy reboot could be well done, perhaps even more fresh than another sequel with Harrison? Remember, any sequel with Harrison has to contend with his age, which is a big elephant in the room (which would result in less of those classic action sequences and stunts and fights we all love), has to contend with Indy being married (which means no Indy girl) and having a son (which means more Mutt Williams), another constraint on the character, has to deal with the character's age, changing times, etc. You'd have to set a 5th film in the late 1950s or early 1960s. It could never be set in the '30s again and for some ultra purists, Indy should never go beyond 1945 (I personally disagree). So you'd have people upset there.

A reboot with a younger actor wouldn't have to take any of these factors into account and as such would have a lot more wriggle room and could be just as free, adventurous, action filled and exciting as the originals. It could be set in the 1910s, 1920s, early 1930s and be prequels, or be a total reboot. For those who don't like Indy's backstory as told in the YIJC, it's an opportunity to see a "Young Indy" more as they likely imagined him to be--No famous people or anything. It's also an opportunity to see Indy in the 1920s, a decade which outside of three episodes in the YIJC we never saw Indy in.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Raiders112390 said:
The idea of a reboot is overplayed today in Hollywood, very much so. But that doesn't mean reboots themselves are necessarily bad, or that an Indy reboot might not add another dimension to the series. It could. As I've said previously, I wouldn't want a reboot until Harrison dies, out of respect for him, but afterward, I'd love to see a complete reboot of the franchise, keeping the character essentials (fedora, jacket, khakis, whip, gun, fear of snakes) and story essentials (rogue archaeologist who deals with supernatural artifacts, etc).



I personally like SPF as Indy so we'll disagree there. BUT, taking your point--Judging the possibility of another actor as Indy by SPF is like judging James Bond by Lazenby or Dalton. It's kind of unfair to think that any future actor will be as poor as a past actor. Also, George wanted a certain thing with SPF portraying young Indy, hence his casting, he wanted someone who'd reflect a certain naivete and innocence. If they're casting an adult, treasure hunter Indy I imagine the casting call would be different.



I'd like to see Ford do another myself, but I doubt it will ever happen. Lucas & Spielberg can't be assed to do it, and are probably too afraid/hesistant to jump back into Indy after the mixed reaction of KOTCS. There's a lot of pressure there to make a GREAT Indy film that will please EVERYONE and that's a hell of amount of pressure and looking at it from their POV, is it worth it, for them? Is it worth the risk? And Spielberg probably doesn't want to do it anyway, he didn't even really want to do KOTCS. And Harrison is starting to get too old to be the leading man, and I would NEVER want Indy being a side character in any INDY movie, original series or reboot. It's either "Indiana Jones and the..." or no dice. I don't want any "Mutt Williams and Indiana Jones..." crap.

Well, if you thought the new ST film was well done, why isn't it possible that an Indy reboot could be well done, perhaps even more fresh than another sequel with Harrison? Remember, any sequel with Harrison has to contend with his age, which is a big elephant in the room (which would result in less of those classic action sequences and stunts and fights we all love), has to contend with Indy being married (which means no Indy girl) and having a son (which means more Mutt Williams), another constraint on the character, has to deal with the character's age, changing times, etc. You'd have to set a 5th film in the late 1950s or early 1960s. It could never be set in the '30s again and for some ultra purists, Indy should never go beyond 1945 (I personally disagree). So you'd have people upset there.

A reboot with a younger actor wouldn't have to take any of these factors into account and as such would have a lot more wriggle room and could be just as free, adventurous, action filled and exciting as the originals. It could be set in the 1910s, 1920s, early 1930s and be prequels, or be a total reboot. For those who don't like Indy's backstory as told in the YIJC, it's an opportunity to see a "Young Indy" more as they likely imagined him to be--No famous people or anything. It's also an opportunity to see Indy in the 1920s, a decade which outside of three episodes in the YIJC we never saw Indy in.

I liked ST okay but I don't see the characters as who they are supposed to be. I don't see Kirk and Spock, I see and human and a Vulcan in original style Federation outfits. Same with an Indy reboot. To me it would be some guy with a whip and a hat trying to act like Indiana Jones

I agree, No "Mutt Williams and Indiana Jones...."

I didn't say I did not like YIJC, I said I didn't like SPF portrayal of Indy.

Also Mutt and Marion do not have to be in the movie unless they call it "Indiana Jones And The Take Your Family To Work Day". They could easily start it like TOD where he is finishing his last adventure and immediately gets thrown into the next. I know I leave my family at home when I'm working. Do you take yours to work everyday?

While you make some good points and I respect your opinion I still say no for me. :hat:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
The difference between an Indy fanboy and a (Nolan) Batman fanboy is: Indy fanboys have good taste in films.

As if taste is a defining constant. By your argument KOTCS would be a flawless movie because Indy fanboys loved it.

The best argument against a reboot is you.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
As if taste is a defining constant. By your argument KOTCS would be a flawless movie because Indy fanboys loved it.

The best argument against a reboot is you.

KOTCS is FARRRRR from flawless. But at least it isn't pretentious, emo garbage revolving around a guy who dresses up in a bat costume. So dark, so gritty, so realistic and amazing...A guy in a bat costume:rolleyes:

Hit a nerve, did I? Even Heath "took one for the team" Ledger couldn't stop Nolan from directing an overwrought, utterly pretentious art house wanna be film based on a COMIC BOOK CHARACTER. So much preachy dialogue in that film. It's the "Bane" of fun, really.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
Hit a nerve, did I?

No. But I knew exactly which buttons to push to evoke more 90210 nerd rage!

It's fun to watch. :D

The term 'fanboy' is a message board's low point. It implies blind love, but is often spouted by those inflicted with blind hate.

Please, do continue. It's good to get these things off your chest.
 

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
Ok, guys, enough Bat-talk- there's already a perfect thread for that. It's enough to drive anyone batty.

Try to think of something more original in your arguments especially since "original" seems to be a key theme in this thread.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Violet said:
Try to think of something more original in your arguments especially since "original" seems to be a key theme in this thread.

What's the point?

Opinion based threads are a crock of ****e.

What's the point of an opinion? They don't lead anywhere but round in circles.

Whatever happens happens. If Lucas wills it, then it will. If he doesn't, then it won't.

After he's dead it might.

Or it might not.
 
Exactly.

Pros: a reboot is normally done when something breaks down so much it becomes useless. Since KOCS was utter arse dribble, then logically a reboot is in order.

Cons: Lucas and Spielberg have about as much chance of making a good Indiana Jones film together again as I have of getting my pitch for a Rachel McAdams sex robot onto Dragons Den.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
As already mentioned Harrison Ford is Indy. Its hard to see anyone else playing him.

However I think that Indy is an iconic enough character to warrant a reboot at some point in the future. The films have proved their popularity, with their box office recepits, and I think that alone is enough for the studio to consider making more Indy movies in the future. And I think we will see Indiana Jones back on the screen with another actor playing him.

I've often thought that Indy could be as popular on the screen as James Bond is, maybe the Bond series are a one off and it couldn;t be replicated with another franchise, but maybe its worth a go with Indiana Jone, providing the interest is there for new stories.

I posted on the Tintin thread that having seen that movie, theres no reason why Harrision Ford couldnt live forever as Indiana Jones in similarly animated movies, although I realise that may be restricting the people who would want to watch that style of Indy movie.
 

Randy_Flagg

Well-known member
Rather than rebooting the movies, how about rebooting Young Indy? The series, as it was, felt nothing like Indiana Jones. I'm not saying it wasn't a quality show in its own right, but it wasn't Indiana Jones, and I don't know who SPF was playing, but it was clearly NOT a young version of Harrison's Indy (it felt more like he could be related to Marty McFly than Indiana Jones.)

So how about a new YIJ series that doesn't try to be educational, but rather focuses on giving us some good action-adventure stories in the same vain as the movies? And no need to go as young as the series did. Set it in the mid 1920s, so we'd get a 25 year old Indy who's actually into, you know, archeaology instead of being a soldier (or film maker, or whatever else he was in the series.) Maybe it shouldn't be a weekly series. Maybe a series of TV movies that come out a couple of times a year. Or, heck, if they were good enough, put them on the big screen. The key to making it work, though, is to make it FEEL like Indiana Jones, and that means getting the right actors and the right scripts.
I think people would generally be more willing to accept a new actor if the films were called "Young Indiana Jones And THe....." rather than "Indiana Jones And The...." This way, it doesn't cancel out what Harrison did, it simply supplements it. And if it cancels out what SPF did, well, I don't think most people would be TOO upset about that (again, I'm not saying YIJ wasn't well done, but it never felt like part of the Indiana Jones saga to me, or to anyone I know.)
 

Watsits

New member
Personally, I wouldn't like a reboot. A reboot for Indy might go down well with the younger generation who are new to Indy.

I'm not even sure if I want any more Indy movies, if he stops now, he'll die (so to speak) as a remember - able character. People will remember him in a good way. :)
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
I tend to think that it's funny that the ones who are most against any future Indiana Jones films and are afraid of the idea of a reboot are also Batman fanboys. Makes me wonder what their true motivation is. If one lesser film in a series can damn the whole series or any future of a series for you, perhaps you aren't really a fan of the series to begin with.
I don't fit the type of person you're describing but, it must be said that, your statements are absolutely ridiculous.(n)
Raiders112390 said:
Then a reboot could be based on the Indiana Jones novels :rolleyes:
Knowing you, Raiders1123900383093475, you're most likely referring to the Bantam novels A "reboot" based on Indy novels would have to based on the German novels by Wolfgang Hohlbein or, "Army of the Dead", by Steve Perry because those stories take place during the '30s & '40s. (The Bantam novels are prequels of the films.)
Raiders112390 said:
I didn't know "being based on a novel" was the primary requirement for a film to be allowed to be rebooted or remade.
As usual, you're entirely missing the point. James Bond & Batman are not equivalent comparisons, due to their origins. Indy's first public appearance was on the BIG SCREEN with Harrison defining the role. Indiana Jones didn't previously exist in any other form, which makes for a different case. Before Lucas came along with "Star Wars", ORIGINAL film series (3 or MORE movies NOT based on pre-existing material) were not common like they are today. In the past, original film series were comedy movies!

Speaking of Lucas/Spielberg "being up to the task"...Here's a TASK for you:
Find an ORIGINAL film series that has been "rebooted" after the SAME ACTOR/ACTRESS CONSISTENLY portrayed the SAME CHARACTER for 27 years and compare it to THAT! Good luck, Raiders11239023948752!:whip:

The recent, "Star Trek", movie doesn't count because it's a prequel and (in case you weren't savvy enough to know), the "Pink Panther" series doesn't count either because of the Alan Arkin movie in 1968. (Annette Funicello's beach movies & Disney's Dexter O'Reilly trilogy with Kurt Russell have never been "rebooted" so you can forget those, as well).

Apart from all that, I truly believe that "Raiders" will indeed be remade in 30-50 years time. It's almost inevitable.
Raiders112390 said:
(And saying Sean Connery technically wasn't the first Bond is getting into minutia and technicalities, along the lines of "and Ringo wasn't even the first drummer to be in The Beatles!")
Well, Ringo WASN'T the 1st Beatles drummer so what's the problem? FACT: Sean Connery wasn't the 1st Bond and Adam West wasn't the 1st Batman. Guess how many actors played 007 before George Lazenby took over from Connery? 4!:gun:
Raiders112390 said:
Up to the task--By this I mean, Indy could've, if Lucas/Spielberg had either worked harder, faster, or demanded less direct creative control, spawned numerous movies. Hell, had Lucas and Spielberg not sat arguing over one MacGuffin for 16 years we could've had at least 2-3 more films between 1989 and 2008. Indy could've become a long running franchise like Bond if they had decided to be in less direct control over the stories etc.
This is an incredibly greedy & selfish point of view and has nothing to do with a "reboot" using a new actor.:rolleyes:
Raiders112390 said:
Judging the possibility of another actor as Indy by SPF is like judging James Bond by Lazenby or Dalton.
Another poor comparison.:rolleyes: Lazenby and Dalton didn't play a younger version of the character.

(Nice to see that you've finally become aware of Lazenby's ACTUAL name and aren't spelling it, Lazenberry, anymore!):p
 

teampunk

Member
i think instead of a reboot, they should pull a prometheus. indy couldn't be the only adventuring archaeologist around in that time period. have different up and coming directers make them on the cheap.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
teampunk said:
i think instead of a reboot, they should pull a prometheus. indy couldn't be the only adventuring archaeologist around in that time period. have different up and coming directers make them on the cheap.

But maybe not as cheap as this one...

posterlarge.jpg
 
Being fair then, let's let Batman on screen die with Christian Bale
Kind of sad that Indy fans want the series to die and just fade away all because KOTCS soured their feelings on the series as a whole. KOTCS was subpar, so that means ANY future Indiana Jones film, Harrison or not would be? No,it doesn't. Harrison can be replaced, the series can be rebooted, it can be the way it was meant to be in the beginning (IE, Indy as a sort of American James Bond, but as an archaeologist).

Didn't think so much blashpemy could be expressed in just one single post.
Since the very beginning, since the early pre-conceptual stages in the late seventies, Indiana Jones has always been the creation of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. The whole idea behind the franchise was to re-envision the classical adventure serials and movies Lucas and Spielberg were fond of when they were young.
As fate would have it, they chose Harrison Ford to play the lead character, which has since then become one of the most iconic, if not THE most iconic cinematic character of all times. It was Harrison Ford who gave birth to Indiana Jones and he shaped him exactly as HE wanted. Possibly one of the main reasons why millions of fans of all ages liked Indiana Jones back then, IS Harrison Ford. With HIS charm and HIS mannerism.
If you were to change the chemistry between Lucas / Spielberg and Ford, then there would be absolutely NO point in doing another Indiana Jones film.
Reboot does not make sense. Harrison has portrayed Indy for more than thirty years now. If you seriously want to change him, then just go watch another film with another character. The Mummy or whatever.
Sure pal, I'm with you when you say that possible future installments can be as good as the first three. I'm not pessimistic about it. But on Harrison I would never compromise.

The Indy series could've spawned a franchise of films as long as the Bond series if Lucas/Spielberg had been up to the task. But in the future, in a reboot, it can be. Ford is not the last actor on Earth who could play a rogueish adventurer.

No, it could NEVER have done it. And that's because (last one not included) every Indiana Jones film is like 200 times better than ANY of the Bond films, under ANY aspect. Every single moment in Raiders, Temple and Crusade, every single scene, exudes so much passion and so great dedication that it would be almost impossible for anyone else to replicate it.
Quality wise, the Indiana Jones film trilogy is magic. And it still is after more than twenty years. They could have never reached the same level if they had to write dozens of different stories and sequels. Everything would've been a banal, bland and plain unoriginal mess. As most of the Bond films are.

I tend to think that it's funny that the ones who are most against any future Indiana Jones films and are afraid of the idea of a reboot are also Batman fanboys. Makes me wonder what their true motivation is. If one lesser film in a series can damn the whole series or any future of a series for you, perhaps you aren't really a fan of the series to begin with.

Nah... who cares about that black horned buffoon...
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
The Stranger said:
Didn't think so much blashpemy could be expressed in just one single post.
Since the very beginning, since the early pre-conceptual stages in the late seventies, Indiana Jones has always been the creation of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. The whole idea behind the franchise was to re-envision the classical adventure serials and movies Lucas and Spielberg were fond of when they were young.
As fate would have it, they chose Harrison Ford to play the lead character, which has since then become one of the most iconic, if not THE most iconic cinematic character of all times. It was Harrison Ford who gave birth to Indiana Jones and he shaped him exactly as HE wanted. Possibly one of the main reasons why millions of fans of all ages liked Indiana Jones back then, IS Harrison Ford. With HIS charm and HIS mannerism.
If you were to change the chemistry between Lucas / Spielberg and Ford, then there would be absolutely NO point in doing another Indiana Jones film.
Reboot does not make sense. Harrison has portrayed Indy for more than thirty years now. If you seriously want to change him, then just go watch another film with another character. The Mummy or whatever.
Sure pal, I'm with you when you say that possible future installments can be as good as the first three. I'm not pessimistic about it. But on Harrison I would never compromise.



Wow, very passionate!
 

HJTHX1138

New member
Perhilion said:
Remaking the originals? **** no.
Some pre-Raiders/ToD ones? Hmm... I'd rather see an animated series that addresses that, than a movie with different actors. At least the animated Indy could look like Ford.

YES!

Where are the animated spin-offs? Why have they not been made.

To address the forum's question: I really don't think "continuing" the Indy stories using different actors would be that bad of an idea.

The point of Indy was that the adventures "never ended", so another actor, in that golden 30's time period is fine by me.
 
Top