Disney eyeing Chris Pratt

Glenville86

New member
I would like to see the setting move into present time or close. Maybe the new guy could be Indy's Grandson and namesake. Have him with a tour of duty in the Marines or SF before going off to school to get his doctorate degree. Would give the character a little more of an intellectual badass vibe needed to be doing adventures in the modern world.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Glenville86 said:
I would like to see the setting move into present time or close. Maybe the new guy could be Indy's Grandson and namesake. Have him with a tour of duty in the Marines or SF before going off to school to get his doctorate degree. Would give the character a little more of an intellectual badass vibe needed to be doing adventures in the modern world.

And then you lose almost everything that Indiana Jones was created to inspire. :(

It's Jack Hunter or Benjamin Franklin Gates territory, not Indiana Jones' world.

It's the world that Mutt looked ready to inflict upon us. Even 1957 was too late since it represents the period of decline in pulp serials.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
I'm in agreement with Montana, Indy is a franchise that belongs in the 30's and 40's not the present day. I don't mind if its nazis either that are the villains as long as it remains true to tone of Raiders.

Personally I hope with a reboot or whatever that they use Raiders as the temple. I'm not a fan of the forced slapstick that they introduced in to subsequent films after that.

Goonie said:
As far as adventure/treasure hunt movies go, I just hope with this reboot, that Disney doesn't sideline the 3rd National Treasure movie. I still want to find out what's on Page 47.(y)
Same here, for my sins I really like the NT movies.
 
kongisking said:
Every actor in history who's early career explodes with roles is 'flavor of the month'. Even Harrison was. How do you think stars are even made in Hollywood?

This logic is silly.

Gotta go with Idris Elba. Who else is hot right now....Peter Dinklage? Could go younger with Michael B. Jordan. OOO! How bout we reboot it in a new set of films that have no connection to the others and Indiana Jones is a woman?! :D

Sorry, guys. I like Chris Pratt, but he's just not the type. Face is too friendly? I liked Guardians of the Galaxy as much as the next guy, but that level of comedy...too goofy for me. And no amount of Marvel-minted abs can hide 7 years of Andy Dwyer:
anigif_enhanced-20245-1406772283-1.gif
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
So, the thing about actors, is they have this thing called range. It's a lovely bit of magic that enables them to be goofy or not goofy depending on the demands of the material (!).

harrison_ford.jpg


Apologies for blowing your mind.

tumblr_nels64g9mG1s48ibpo1_500.gif
 
Udvarnoky said:
So, the thing about actors, is they have this thing called range. It's a lovely bit of magic that enables them to be goofy or not goofy depending on the demands of the material (!).

harrison_ford.jpg


Apologies for blowing your mind.

tumblr_nels64g9mG1s48ibpo1_500.gif


Im sorry, Stanislavsky. I should have looked past the archaic "types," even though it's completely based in real human perception.
http://www.thepreparedperformer.com/5-ways-to-determine-your-type-as-an-actor/

Take an introductory acting class sometime, see what they peg you as and whether you're good enough to break it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KBCRPugdmA
Funny, but convincing? Is the element of truth the strongest it can be?
 
Last edited:

IndyForever

Active member
kongisking said:
Every actor in history who's early career explodes with roles is 'flavor of the month'. Even Harrison was. How do you think stars are even made in Hollywood?

This logic is silly.
Logic does not apply here & does not make good movies its been proved time & time again as most modern movies are made according to flawed spreadsheets & complex mathematical formula. The results are deepy flawed as the creation process is based on numbers not talent why do you think so many talented people both behind & infront of the cameras no longer work....because Hollywood number crunchers dictate they are too expensive. The spreadsheets cannot calculate the value of talent!

Film is a creative medium logic does not apply but its the way the majority of the Hollywood output has been based on for almost 10 years.

You cannot create memorable movies with logic all the Indy movies flaws and all were created by true artists & many many talented & creative actors.

Indiana Jones is a unique character which cannot be rebooted via a logic based approach. Harrison is Indy you cannot replace him with another actor it will not work Ford IS the true value of the franchise Disney need to realise this & get Lucas\Spielberg onboard if they want to get any commercial return on the IP!
 

Goonie

New member
Samuel L Jackson as Indy! Perfect shoo-in;

*Looking into the Well of the Souls* "I've had it with these mother f***in' snakes in this mother f***in' temple!"

*Yelling at Short Round to tell Willie* "Tell that b**** to be cool! Say 'b**** be cool'! Say b**** be cool! Tell that f*****' b**** to chill!"

*Facing the 13 crystal skeletons* "I recognize the council has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid-ass decision, I've elected to ignore it."
(y);)
 

kongisking

Active member
IndyForever said:
Logic does not apply here & does not make good movies its been proved time & time again as most modern movies are made according to flawed spreadsheets & complex mathematical formula. The results are deepy flawed as the creation process is based on numbers not talent why do you think so many talented people both behind & infront of the cameras no longer work....because Hollywood number crunchers dictate they are too expensive. The spreadsheets cannot calculate the value of talent!

Film is a creative medium logic does not apply but its the way the majority of the Hollywood output has been based on for almost 10 years.

You cannot create memorable movies with logic all the Indy movies flaws and all were created by true artists & many many talented & creative actors.

Indiana Jones is a unique character which cannot be rebooted via a logic based approach. Harrison is Indy you cannot replace him with another actor it will not work Ford IS the true value of the franchise Disney need to realise this & get Lucas\Spielberg onboard if they want to get any commercial return on the IP!

You kind of missed my point. I was saying the logic of the concept of 'flavor of the month' is silly to me, because again, EVERY popular actor starts out like this. Its if they can keep up the good work for a decent-length career that makes them truly iconic actors in the end. This happened to Harrison, I repeat.

So why do we use this moronic phrase 'flavor of the month' as if the great actors just wish themselves into existence, fully formed? You become a great actor by taking a lot of roles that prove your worth. It's early days for Pratt, so this is his time to really show us what he's got. If becoming the next Indy is a way to do it, then frick, sign him up. I wish him luck.

And no, I don't want an Indy movie written by computers, like you think I do. I just think a recasting for a reboot is not the end of the world, and is absolutely no different from any other famous movie series hero being recast inevitably to keep the property going. I personally think Indy, as far as movie series go, has been tremendously short-changed, and a reboot is its best hope right now.

Sorry for not being a 'true' Indy fan for having a progressive mentality. :(
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
kongisking said:
Sorry for not being a 'true' Indy fan for having a progressive mentality.
It's not really even progressive. It's simply accepting the norm.

All series and IPs worth something go through the process at one time or another. There is really no viable reason for why this particular one should become a stale relic frozen in time when the original group of creators has disbanded, especially if the reasons to think so are deeply emotional and hardly rational.

Time and again, we've seen how changing the creative powers behind it all has actually brought some fresh air into it all. Sure, there have also been times when the product has not reached the bar set by the originals, but that is no problem either - it still does not affect quality of those originals, and can be freely ignored if one so chooses. Hell, some people already think they've seen a subpar addition to the series, yet KotCS does not in any way taint the awesomeness that is Raiders of the Lost Ark. If anything, it may make you appreciate it even more.

Simply put, there is simply no reason to think "Indy should be Lucas, Spielberg and Ford, and that's it". Nothing is gained by doing so. If the new management delivers, you win by having yet another solid entry to the series. If they fail to deliver, you certainly haven't lost anything you already have.

This does not really even relate to my thoughts about Pratt in any manner. My response would be the same even if, say, Steven Seagal was set to play Indy. Well, I wouldn't give that hypothetical piece highly great marks of succeeding, but again, it wouldn't affect my thoughts about the originals. Unless somebody got the great idea of 'enhancing' them by digitally adding Seagull's face over Ford's. Which is actually a pretty good reason to be happy that George is no longer running the series.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
You have to ask what it is that makes Indiana Jones unique enough to be a viable enterprise.

What sets him apart from any number of screen adventurers past, present and future?

So far it's largely been the presence of Harrison Ford who breathed life into the character and established his position in popular culture. Lucas and Spielberg can easily be replaced, since there are plenty of good writers and directors.

To make Indiana Jones viable it's the actor that has to be the one who captures the imagination. He needn't be a carbon copy, but he has to bear the character and all his idiosyncrasies. Or else you lose what it is that gave him his original uniqueness.

I see him as different to the ever rebooted Bond, who might as well have been a series of agents sharing a similar life experience.

Harrison Ford has been with us as Indy for so long that he makes future planning tricky.

So, find an actor that can be the character, but don't remove him from the period in time that created him (the 1930s and 1940s). You start pushing him into more recent times and he becomes Buck Rogers or Captain America - both men out of their time having to learn to re-establish themselves. Just as Old Indy was out of his time in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, becoming a bumbling idiot in the process.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Finn said:
All series and IPs worth something go through the process at one time or another. There is really no viable reason for why this particular one should become a stale relic frozen in time when the original group of creators has disbanded, especially if the reasons to think so are deeply emotional and hardly rational.
Very well put.

Finn said:
Time and again, we've seen how changing the creative powers behind it all has actually brought some fresh air into it all.
Absolutely, and casting a younger actor for Indy's role would offer the new creative powers much more appealing options story-wise than sticking with Ford.

Set the next movie in the 1930s before Temple: that's the decade in which the Indy character really belongs, and was conceived in the first place.

Give him back his main action hero role, without the need for another Mutt-like character to make up the age gap.

I'd much rather watch this type of movie than another extended Jones family outing like KOTCS, presumably set in the 60s on account of Ford's age.
 
Last edited:

fixer79

New member
While we were watching Guardians of the Galaxy in the theater when it opened out here, my girlfriend (also a big Indy fan) suddenly whispered in my ear that Pratt would be a good choice for Indiana Jones.
I didn't know what to think of it at first (I never really envisioned anyone else taking over the role) but in the days that followed, the more I thought about it, the more I agreed with her. :)

Last week I was surprised to read my girlfriend wasn't the only one thinking Pratt could be a worthy successor to mr. Ford. Apparently Disney thought so too... :)

I wonder how it will all turn out... Hopefully we get some more tidbits of news soon... (y)
 

Grizzlor

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
Absolutely, and casting a younger actor for Indy's role would offer the new creative powers much more appealing options story-wise than sticking with Ford.

Set the next movie in the 1930s before Temple: that's the decade in which the Indy character really belongs, and was conceived in the first place.

Give him back his main action hero role, without the need for another Mutt-like character to make up the age gap.

I'd much rather watch this type of movie than another extended Jones family outing like KOTCS, presumably set in the 60s on account of Ford's age.

Sure that would be nice, but there's also the frightening possibility they will try to remake Raiders.
 

fixer79

New member
Grizzlor said:
Sure that would be nice, but there's also the frightening possibility they will try to remake Raiders.

I honestly think they're not planning to... Now THAT would be a mistake.
 

FordFan

Well-known member
"He was great, but...he was no Harrison Ford."

That is destined to be my appraisal of any actor who takes over the role, including Pratt, who I love.

It's not fair and I know the actor chosen will try his damnedest, but it will be like casting a 30s archetype, and not an actor who effortlessly plays off that archetype and brings a new dimension to it. That's what made his performance of Indiana Jones special.

I've been on these boards a lot of years. A lot of people have been suggested to take on the role. Dennis Quaid, Pratt. I remember when "Gladiator" came out in '00, people on here and Indyfan.com nominated Russell Crowe.

While I think a lot of actors could bring something to the role, they can't bring everything. Ford's performances fire on every cylinder. Can you see Pratt playing the college professor? Can you see any other actor riding on a horse, leaning over the side, and picking up that rock off the ground like Ford did in TLC, without a stunt double? Can you see someone making a suggestion as brilliant as Ford's to shoot the Cairo swordsman?

The part is so ingrained in his DNA, I have trouble accepting anyone else in the part. The scar on the chin, man...
 
Top