Would you support a Bond-style re-cast of Indy after Kingdom?

KneelBeforeZod

New member
For Indy fans out there, Harrison Ford will always be the original, and best Indiana Jones ... but that isn't the question here. The question is, even if Ford is indisputably the greatest Indiana Jones, would you support a James Bond-style recast of the role in order to see the series continue perpetually?

Many major characters in the movies have been identified with a single actor ...

- Sean Connery was the one-and-only James Bond. But - Roger Moore, George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and now Daniel Craig have all reprised the role ... some with more success than others (I personally liked Brosnan's and Craig's Bond). Didn't care for Moore.

- Christopher Reeve was the one-and-only Superman ... but now Brandon Routh has taken over the role with some success. Additionally, Tom Welling plays Clark Kent in Smallville, and Dean Cain reprised the role in Lois and Clark. Not to mention the George Reeves TV show.

- William Shatner was the one-and-only Captain Kirk. Leonard Nimoy was the one-and-only Spock. But now Christpher Pine has been cast as Kirk in the new Star Trek Movie, and Zachary Quinto is the new Spock. [the whole crew of the Enterprise has been recast ... those are simply the most proiminent]. We'll see how well it works (though Quinto is a DEAD RINGER for Nimoy).

- Michael Keaton was Batman (I try to ignore Adam West). Val Kilmer, George Clooney and now Christain Bale have reprised the role. And, I would argue that Christain Bale is the best of the group.

Thus, if it meant the Indiana Jones series could continue into the future ... with possibly dozens more movies, would you support a recast to see the series continue, or would you rather the series end with Kingdom? Keep in mind, if a recast hadn't been done, James Bond would've ended decades ago, Superman would've ended with the atrocity of Superman IV, Star Trek would've ended with Trek VI (and no Next Gen, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, TNG movies, or new Trek movie), Batman would've ended win the 80's with Batman Returns. These stalwarts of American pop-culture would've simply been decades old characters ... I might actually argue that the recast and new movies thrust them into a new category of character that will likely survive for decades to come.

Just a thought. I've been wrong before ... but I think I'd like to see a recast in a few years, and a revitalization of the series.

Z
 

Michael24

New member
I'll say no.

For me, all those other cast changes were okay (even if I don't care at all for Bale or Craig) because the films were being made on a regular basis by a variety of different people, so it seemed like a standard for styles and faces to change every few years or so. If Indiana Jones had become a James Bond-type series where a new movie was made every few years and Harrison Ford got tired of it after the first, say, four or so, and the role was recast, along with Spielberg leaving after a couple, then that would have been different. But as it stands, Harrison Ford has "been" Indiana Jones for over a quarter of a century now, and I just don't think most people would like suddenly seeing a new face in the role, especially if it was a short time from now after Ford has just made his much-awaited return to the role.

Perhaps many years from now someone will remake the series (hey, it's bound to happen) and it'll still be a hit with someone new in the part and become a successful franchise again, but for the forseeable future, I don't want to see anybody but Ford playing Indiana. :)
 

KneelBeforeZod

New member
ResidentAlien said:
http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=12888


Only 5 posts beneath yours in the very same board.


...for shame.

Hey, slick. That's not even close to the same subject. Simply because the titles use the words "Bond-style" doesn't mean they discuss the same thing. One discusses whether Indiana Jones should be (or is) ageless like Bond (i.e. Bond is 30ish, regardless of the time-period of the movie), and one discusses whether Indy should be recast like Bond. In fact, I posted on the thread you referenced.

I read the thread you referenced, and, in fact, responded to the question asked in it. I, however, asked a different question.

This "thread police" nonsense drives me nuts. If you don't want to respond or participate, feel free to not respond or participate.

Z
 
KneelBeforeZod said:
Hey, slick. That's not even close to the same subject. Simply because the titles use the words "Bond-style" doesn't mean they discuss the same thing. One discusses whether Indiana Jones should be (or is) ageless like Bond (i.e. Bond is 30ish, regardless of the time-period of the movie), and one discusses whether Indy should be recast like Bond. In fact, I posted on the thread you referenced.

I read the thread you referenced, and, in fact, responded to the question asked in it. I, however, asked a different question.

This "thread police" nonsense drives me nuts. If you don't want to respond or participate, feel free to not respond or participate.

Z


Semantics. Bond remains ageless BECAUSE he is recast. It's the same question.
 

KneelBeforeZod

New member
Michael24 said:
I'll say no.

For me, all those other cast changes were okay (even if I don't care at all for Bale or Craig) because the films were being made on a regular basis by a variety of different people, so it seemed like a standard for styles and faces to change every few years or so. If Indiana Jones had become a James Bond-type series where a new movie was made every few years and Harrison Ford got tired of it after the first, say, four or so, and the role was recast, along with Spielberg leaving after a couple, then that would have been different. But as it stands, Harrison Ford has "been" Indiana Jones for over a quarter of a century now, and I just don't think most people would like suddenly seeing a new face in the role, especially if it was a short time from now after Ford has just made his much-awaited return to the role.

Perhaps many years from now someone will remake the series (hey, it's bound to happen) and it'll still be a hit with someone new in the part and become a successful franchise again, but for the forseeable future, I don't want to see anybody but Ford playing Indiana. :)

I certainly see your point. The thing is, until you actually change actors, the role will always be identified with the individual actor that held it ... all of those roles were held by a single actor for a lengthy period (some longer than others). You could say the same thing about Shatner's Kirk (which stood from the 60's to 2009, much longer than Indy). Though it is now commonplace for a new Bond to come around every few years, changing Bond after Connery encountered HUGE resistance -- because, just like Indy, Connery was Bond, and Bond was Connery.

Personally, I'd like to see the character eventually transcend Ford. Ford will always be the quintessential Jones, but I think Indy's a great character, and to get only 4 movies (and one TV series of questionable quality) out of so many possibilites would be a shame. A better-quality remake of the Young Indy Chronicles wouldn't be terrible either. Ultimately, I'd like to be living in 2040, and for the Indy series to be alive and kicking ... much like Bond 40-years after its creation, or Star Trek 50 years after its.

Z
 

KneelBeforeZod

New member
ResidentAlien said:
Semantics. Bond remains ageless BECAUSE he is recast. It's the same question.

No - Bond is ageless because he is 30ish in every movie, and each movie is set in modern times. Spiderman (also raised in that thread) doesn't age regardless of when the movie is set. That is an entirely separate question.

Again, feel free not to participate. Your approval is not required, nor is it even sought.

Z

Adamwankenobi said:
Either Sean Patrick Flanery or Nathan Fillion could play the part.

Had to look up who Fillion was ... he certainly looks the part. The only thing I've seen him in was Blast from the Past.

I'd have to think about WHO I would cast. Needs to be a virtual unknown ... like Routh as Superman, Bale as Batman or Pine as Captain Kirk. Fillion or Flannery might work.

Z

Adamwankenobi said:
Either Sean Patrick Flanery or Nathan Fillion could play the part.

Adrian Pasdar from Heroes, might work.

Z
 
Last edited by a moderator:

G-Man

New member
Personally I can't see beyond Harrison, to me he is intrinsic to the role. Most of the traits that are Indy come from him.

But then again I wasn't around when Lazenby took over Bond, and I guess at the time people were unable to see anyone other than Connery in the role.

Fillion is superb in Firefly/Serenity, I could just about see him in the role, but for me, it wouldn't be the same.
 

KneelBeforeZod

New member
Perhilion said:
Nonononononono never! If Ford can't do it after KotCS then that should be it for Indy.

If that is the case, the series will be dead. In 10 years time, it'll be an occasionally-watched DVD set in most collections, rarely meriting any further discussion. In 25-years time, it'll be almost forgotten. In 40-years time, it'll be entirely forgotten.

Personally, I'd rather see the series live on. I'd rather see my kids and grandkids have new Indy movies and TV shows to love as much as I've loved these 3 (and probably 4). If the series ends here, the next 20 years for Indy fans will be much like the last 15 have been ... kinda sparse.

There are very few characters that can transcend their original actors ... very few characters that can become a pop-culture icons in America. Bond, Superman, Captain Kirk, Batman, Darth Vader, etc. But, continual updating and writing are required to keep the character fresh and on people's minds. New movies, action figures, comics, books, video games, etc. are essential. I believe Indy can be one of those characters ... but not if the series dies after 2008.

Z
 

Travis85

New member
I don't think it would work with Indy. The Indiana Jones movies have always been more realistic than the Bond movies, and people can accept that the Bond in the 60's is still the same Bond played by Peirce Brosnan even though he looks no older, be cause James Bond is just like that...I don't think the same would fit within Indy's universe. I wouldn't mind seeing a new Indiana Jones type character take over the franchise though, but not as Indy himself. I don't think the adult Indy should be played by anyone but Ford, unless they do a remake in 80 years or something hopefully after i'm dead :).
 

Mr. Z

New member
Intruging points Zod (I feel like we have chatted on other boards). :) I am torn on this, because, to me (as I'm sure with a lot of other fans), Ford is Indiana Jones. However, in the interest of seeing many more Indy adventures, I suppose it is worth considering if done well. Talk about a slippery slope though.

The difference between Indy and Bond, Supes, Bats, etc. is that Indiana Jones started on the big screen with Harrison Ford. Bond was a literary character for a long time at first, and Supes and Bats were comic book icons long before they hit the big screen. This is a major reason why seeing anyone else as Indy would be a tricky sell.
 
KneelBeforeZod said:
No - Bond is ageless because he is 30ish in every movie, and each movie is set in modern times. Spiderman (also raised in that thread) doesn't age regardless of when the movie is set. That is an entirely separate question.

Then that's not true at all. Both Moore and Connery played an aging Bond. The average on-screen age of Bond is 42 years.
 

Travis85

New member
Another reason it wouldn't work is that Indy is into the mid 1950's now and part of the whole feel of the series was the era it was set it, can you really have an adventuring archaeologist in the age of the internet and high technology?
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Modern Indy?

That's an interesting point. I don't see why Indy couldn't do adventuring in the digital age. There would just be new opportunities and issues to build stories around. Remember in Jurrasic Park Dr Grant's response to the guys using the new equipment that captures images of the fossils underground and they say, "Soon we won't even have to dig anymore!"? Grant says, "Where's the fun in that?" Archaeology is partly about retrieving the material pieces of the past if we can. The greatest fascination is to be able to see the thing or even hold it. Imagine a museum with only ultrasound scans of fossils - not the same, is it? Every age has its level of technology, but the magic of discovery will always remain the same. And there will always be the bad guys to beat to the prize!

Cheers, Mickiana.
 

Dr.Tyree

New member
No.

:whip: I think part of the argument against a "perpetually-30ish" Indy lies within an oft-overlooked aspect of his character: that he is intimately tied to his time. Part of the meta-purpose of the Indiana Jones stories is to have Indy be a "history teacher" of sorts - not just for his fictional students, but for us as an audience. As KOTCS is proving, he has to age to be in the 50's. He had to be young in WWI, as he was in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. Now, even if one doesn't consider YIJC canon, the aging that has already occurred in the now-inaccurately-titled "trilogy" has made the window of recasting pass.

Additionally... Bond, Superman, Batman...these were pre-existing characters. They had incarnations before they were cast with actors - and over time, the evolution allowed for changes. New actors fill roles that fans already had had prior experiences.

...and, lastly... It's Harrison Ford, man. ;)
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Modern Indy

Well, it might not be Harrison Ford adventuring in the digital age but I'm sure the mantle, or hat, could pass or be passed on to someone else. Surely a viable story line could be thought up that would not only be acceptable but also exciting. What we have to do, as fans, is let go of Harrison as the only Indiana Jones. I know this raises a lot of questions and contentions, but I think it's better to work on what may be possible rather than just say "No". The new Indiana Jones may not even be called Indiana Jones, may not even have met the good Professor, but maybe somehow, somewhere, another roving archaeologist can embody the spirit of our beloved but mortal Indiana. Just a thought...

Cheers, Mickinana.
 

Michael24

New member
Dr.Tyree said:
Now, even if one doesn't consider YIJC canon, the aging that has already occurred in the now-inaccurately-titled "trilogy" has made the window of recasting pass.

Basically what I was trying to say. The only way it could really be done would be to just relaunch the franchise, but I don't see that happening for a very long time.
 
Top