Sacrilege? Can there be Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford?

It is indeed, but Indy was also conceived as a character who might appear in a total of five movies over the course of perhaps a decade, or maybe a decade and a half, not four movies, a TV series, dozens of novels and comic books, numerous games, etc. over the course of three decades or more. The sort of "quintessential" Indy the character was created for has already been presented many, many times, and the longevity of the character has simply afforded greater opportunities to explore aspects of him that were never on the agenda when Lucas and Spielberg were whipping him up way back in the late '70s and early '80s.

Crack that whip said:

It is indeed, but Indy was also conceived as a character who might appear in a total of five movies over the course of perhaps a decade, or maybe a decade and a half, not four movies, a TV series, dozens of novels and comic books, numerous games, etc. over the course of three decades or more. The sort of "quintessential" Indy the character was created for has already been presented many, many times, and the longevity of the character has simply afforded greater opportunities to explore aspects of him that were never on the agenda when Lucas and Spielberg were whipping him up way back in the late '70s and early '80s.

Click to expand...

Yes, but other possible opportunities to explore new elements of Indy doesn't automatically mean they have relevance, or that they improve the character... It just becomes a cranking the handle exercise to produce more of the same. I'm not saying that they can't make another movie with Harrison Ford, nor am I suggesting they couldn't make a movie with an older Indy. But... playing the devils advocate, having a 67/70 year old character/actor does reduce your story options somewhat... even if it's simply making an audience believe that the movies hero (a pensioner) can run, jump, swing from a whip and bare knuckle fight with the best.

Indeed, if not careful, what happens is the core nature of the character is compromised? and instead of evolving the character, Indy moves inexorably away from the things that initially made his character work in the first place.

I think they could do another great Indy movie, but his age/mortality would have to be the major part of the narrative (think The Shootist, Unforgiven, or Gran Turino)... but after that one, and more importantly, if it's not about those key themes of age/death, it wouldn't really have any mileage... and would be by definition, an inferior Indy movie.

jamiestarr said:

Hmm. Would this James Bond can be played by anyone argument have held up in the 1960's when Connery was the actor who popularized Bond? It is easy to say anyone "smooth/confident" actor can play 007 now, because several have. I would argue that the reason so many people still stand by Connery as being "the best" Bond is because of his mannerisms and personality injected into Bond.

Click to expand...

I think its a different thing. The was never anything in the way of character exploration or growth with Connery's Bond, we never saw any of his family or anything like that. Makes it easier for someone else to fill the shoes with such a blank slate. Not to mention Bond is a literary character and those movies were book adaptations, unlike Indy where Harrison is the original and definitive Indiana Jones, in the 1960's the original and definitive James Bond was the one in Ian Flemings books. Its a bit different when the character is created for the movie (and the actor being an important part of that creation) than it is when a character already exists and you are just creating a version of it for a movie.

For me, Harrison Ford is inexorably tied to the character, as much as Pacino is to Michael Corleone, Clint Eastwood is to Dirty Harry, Bruce Willis is to John McClane and Sylvester Stallone is to Rocky and Rambo. It is possible to recast any of those roles. But Im not interested in seeing the results.

Darth Vile said:

Yes, but other possible opportunities to explore new elements of Indy doesn't automatically mean they have relevance, or that they improve the character... It just becomes a cranking the handle exercise to produce more of the same. I'm not saying that they can't make another movie with Harrison Ford, nor am I suggesting they couldn't make a movie with an older Indy. But... playing the devils advocate, having a 67/70 year old character/actor does reduce your story options somewhat... even if it's simply making an audience believe that the movies hero (a pensioner) can run, jump, swing from a whip and bare knuckle fight with the best.

Indeed, if not careful, what happens is the core nature of the character is compromised? and instead of evolving the character, Indy moves inexorably away from the things that initially made his character work in the first place.

Click to expand...

Sure, but possibly to other things that would make him work in different ways - it's not as though Indiana Jones is the only character in the entirety of film, television and literature that works, after all.

I do agree to a point, but I've also maintained for years that the Indy movie I'd really like to see wouldn't necessarily be in the mold of the others at all.

Crack that whip said:

Sure, but possibly to other things that would make him work in different ways - it's not as though Indiana Jones is the only character in the entirety of film, television and literature that works, after all.

I do agree to a point, but I've also maintained for years that the Indy movie I'd really like to see wouldn't necessarily be in the mold of the others at all.

Click to expand...

Oh I'd agree... there is always something different to be had. I'm talking more about the consensus of popular opinion re. the character. And what physical action you can achieve by using a much older man for the main lead. For most people, Indy without the action (or someone else taking over the action), wouldn't be much of an Indy movie (as evidenced by people's dislike of Mutt's input). Anything is possible though.

Dewy9 said:

Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. I would rather see the series fade away than have someone else play him.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with you. I didn't mind someone playing the Younger, youger Indy, but someone to replace Ford especially during the 30's,40's and 50's time frame is just not right. You could have everything in place but when the 'new' Indy steps on the screen, the whole movie will be totally different. It will be more of the Alan Quartermain movies than an Indiana Jones movie.

Indiana Jones is Harrison Ford. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. No reboot, no recasting. Just let it fade and live on in animation, novels and comics.

Maybe it has something to do with me being a huge comic book fan, where they've been telling stories about the same characters for 50-60 years - but I don't see the problem of having adventures ad infinium in the 30's - 40's. I KNOW it's not realistic - but that's not why I watch movies like this. What is the difference in having multiple adventures on films, then having them in the novels, or the comics, or the games?? (The latest limited series by Dark Horse was awesome, btw!!) Wouldn't we all willingly accept an animated series set in the 30s with ongoing adventures against the Nazi's? Then why not another live action film (or 3 )

I know over the course of time in comics and such they update the character, but we're talking about after hundreds of stories. I'm just looking for a few more good Indy movies!

I've said it before and I'll say it again... If Harrison isn't Indy, I don't want to see it! If anyone else had of gotten the job, (like Tom Selleck almost did) I would never have gotten into the series...

Most people didn't mind the young Indy series because it was a flashback into Indy's childhood, but replacing him in any time frame that Harrison should have been in is out of the question for me..

Saber79 said:

Totally agree with you. I didn't mind someone playing the Younger, youger Indy, but someone to replace Ford especially during the 30's,40's and 50's time frame is just not right. You could have everything in place but when the 'new' Indy steps on the screen, the whole movie will be totally different.

Indiana Jones is Harrison Ford. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. No reboot, no recasting.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree!!!

My suggestions of someone else eventually playing the part of Indiana Jones is not a reaction to a dislike of CS or to the fact that Harrison is getting older. I did not hate CS, in fact I enjoyed quite a bit of it, but I do have some criticisms of it (though I'm no expert). That Harrison is getting older doesn't worry me at all. In CS he looks perfectly capable of still playing Indy and I can imagine at least one more Indy flick that takes this into account like CS did. But within the next decade (or two) when Harrison is at least retired, unwilling or whatever, why couldn't someone suitable be cast for the role and allow for new adventures to be brought to life, especially in those times between the time settings of Raiders and CS or even before. I see an enormous scope for more Indiana Jones adventures to hit the silver screen in the future. Harrison will always be acknowledged as the original and probably defining Indiana, but it doesn't mean someone else cannot make a credible go of it.

I'm a heretic. I say, there can be Indy without HF. HF isn't the only actor to play Indiana Jones after all, I mean there's:

Sean Patrick Flanery (TV series, teens-20s)
Corey Carrier (TV, kid-pre-teen)
George Hall (TV, old)

Doug Lee (voice, IM, FoA, the greatest Indy voice actor)
The other two voice over dudes for ET and SoK


So realistically, Indy's already been played by six (and probably more voice overs) people. In fact, I don't see the Indy in the video games as HF, I just see and hear Indy the character. I just see Indy like Bond, an iconic character, that can be played by the right actor.

I would like to see an Indy in his 20s in 1920s adventures as that's an area yet to be explored. Also a 40's adventure in a film, would be great (get SPF to do it, he's old enough, and we never see HF play Indy in the 1940s, so it is not retreading an already walked path in terms of the films themselves).

The truth is, letting the series go and die with HF, the comics, toys, merchandise will all die coz it ain't SW and there isn't as many Indyfans as there are SW or Bond. Anyone who thinks otherwise, give me evidence that DH would continue the comic series regardless. It's obvious even at this point, there isn't going to be anymore like TotG. It'll be the Omnibuses and that's it.

Violet Indy said:

I'm a heretic. I say, there can be Indy without HF. HF isn't the only actor to play Indiana Jones after all, I mean there's:

Sean Patrick Flanery (TV series, teens-20s)
Corey Carrier (TV, kid-pre-teen)
George Hall (TV, old)

Doug Lee (voice, IM, FoA, the greatest Indy voice actor)
The other two voice over dudes for ET and SoK


So realistically, Indy's already been played by six (and probably more voice overs) people. In fact, I don't see the Indy in the video games as HF, I just see and hear Indy the character. I just see Indy like Bond, an iconic character, that can be played by the right actor.

I would like to see an Indy in his 20s in 1920s adventures as that's an area yet to be explored. Also a 40's adventure in a film, would be great (get SPF to do it, he's old enough, and we never see HF play Indy in the 1940s, so it is not retreading an already walked path in terms of the films themselves).

The truth is, letting the series go and die with HF, the comics, toys, merchandise will all die coz it ain't SW and there isn't as many Indyfans as there are SW or Bond. Anyone who thinks otherwise, give me evidence that DH would continue the comic series regardless. It's obvious even at this point, there isn't going to be anymore like TotG. It'll be the Omnibuses and that's it.

Click to expand...

Yes but all those actors you have mentioned that have played Indy were in time frames that Harrison hadn't been in, such as childhood. That's why it was tolerable.. Any other actor playing Indy in a time frame that we associate Harrison with will be unacceptable and "intolerable" to most fans (including me!!) Indy - Harrison = horrible

Jon Hamm should be cast as the new Indiana Jones.

I agree with Jamie Starr. I love Harrison Ford as much as anyone, but I think Indy's too good a character not to continue if possible. And, with the right actor as Indy, I think it could continue. Harrison Ford is getting older anyway. If they do make an Indy V, chances are it's the only one he's got left in him. And I also agree with Jamie Starr in that I'd much rather see a new actor cast as Indy than have a new series starring Mutt. Indiana Jones is the star, not Mutt. And with a new actor the series could be put back in the 30s and 40s where he works best. As for a new person to play Indy, does anybody have an actor in mind? I do. Does anybody watch Mad Men? They should cast Jon Hamm as the new Indiana Jones. Look at the pre-production art for Raiders. The Indiana Jones depicted looks a lot like Hamm. I can see Hamm pulling it off too. It wouldn't be Harrison Ford as Indy, it'd be Jon Hamm. Sort of like the Sean Connery Bond and the Roger Moore Bond -- both similar character, but both actors played him their own way. I think Indy could be a series like Bond -- maybe not as prolific, but close. Again, Indy's too good a character to waste. I'd love to see more of him onscreen and Harrison Ford can't play him forever. As for the new actor to play him, I vote for Jon Hamm.

Before I go I want to mention that I'm new to the forum and submit this post with respect to the other Indy fans out there. I know there's a lot of disagreement out there and I just wanted to offer my feeling that it could continue without Harrison, as good as he is. Thank you.

Solomon Black said:

I agree with Jamie Starr. I love Harrison Ford as much as anyone, but I think Indy's too good a character not to continue if possible. And, with the right actor as Indy, I think it could continue. Harrison Ford is getting older anyway. If they do make an Indy V, chances are it's the only one he's got left in him. And I also agree with Jamie Starr in that I'd much rather see a new actor cast as Indy than have a new series starring Mutt. Indiana Jones is the star, not Mutt. And with a new actor the series could be put back in the 30s and 40s where he works best. As for a new person to play Indy, does anybody have an actor in mind? I do. Does anybody watch Mad Men? They should cast Jon Hamm as the new Indiana Jones. .......

Click to expand...

Maybe ?!?

Professor Jones?: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3656157440/nm0358316

Saber79 said:

Totally agree with you. I didn't mind someone playing the Younger, youger Indy, but someone to replace Ford especially during the 30's,40's and 50's time frame is just not right. You could have everything in place but when the 'new' Indy steps on the screen, the whole movie will be totally different. It will be more of the Alan Quartermain movies than an Indiana Jones movie.

Indiana Jones is Harrison Ford. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. No reboot, no recasting. Just let it fade and live on in animation, novels and comics.

Click to expand...

Agreed!

Ford is the 1930's, 40's, 50's version of Indy, end of story.




Now, a younger Indy from say the 1920's, I'd be okay with. But, the biggest question would be who could pull it off? Not only would they have to look like Ford, but also replicate his Indy mannerisms. There's just too close of a gap in time, to have someone look and act completely different then the 1930's incarnation of Indy.

As for Jon Hamm, I think he should play Superman. Also, he'd be great for any number of noir roles, whether as a detective or an adventurer, but not as a replacement for 1930's Indy. Why not create a new character, or delve into the many stories from that era that are ripe for the picking?

Sacrilege? Can there be Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford?

Click to expand...

No, there cannot..

A lot of people said the same thing about Sean Connery as James Bond and now don't have much issue with Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan or Daniel Craig. Granted, the "transitional" films, like "On her Majesty's Secret Service" or "The Living Daylights/License to Kill" are lambasted, but the Moore and Brosnan entries are entertaining in their own right.

In the case of Indy, though, you didn't have a film series where a new chapter was made every 2-3 years (as in Bond's case). You had a 19-year gap between Crusade and Kingdom, and once again there's Ford. So that...reassertion, I guess is the best word, of him as playing Indy definitely makes it harder to envision someone else in the hat.

I think what will eventually happen is that a couple decades from now (after Lucas and Spielberg are gone), someone will continue the series, obviously with a new lead. It's almost guaranteed that it'll split the fanbase in two when the announcement's made, and will remain until we see the finished project, and then judge accordingly.

Ironclaw said:

A lot of people said the same thing about Sean Connery as James Bond and now don't have much issue with Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan or Daniel Craig. Granted, the "transitional" films, like "On her Majesty's Secret Service" or "The Living Daylights/License to Kill" are lambasted, but the Moore and Brosnan entries are entertaining in their own right.

Click to expand...

I'd disagree. I think the general consensus amongst Bond fans is that OHMS, TLD and LTK are amongst the best Bond movies (though not in the same league as early Connery). I think an issue that the general public have watching those movies is that they don't know who the actors are (as they never got a chance to do more than one or two Bond movies), and as a consequence, the movies feel somewhat out of place. The Brosnan movies are probably the worst set of James Bond movies to date (although most of that can't be leveled at Brosnan).

I agree though that Ford is irrevocably linked with Indiana Jones... but so was Connery with Bond. That of course doesn't mean that another actor can't play the part with some degree of commercial and critical success... because they probably can and will... someday...

James Bond is... I don't know, different. That character could be played by many actors - suave, ruthless, and all of that. But so much of Indiana Jones is Harrison Ford that seeing another actor donning the fedora would feel false.

Darth Vile said:

I'd disagree. I think the general consensus amongst Bond fans is that OHMS, TLD and LTK are amongst the best Bond movies (though not in the same league as early Connery). I think an issue that the general public have watching those movies is that they don't know who the actors are (as they never got a chance to do more than one or two Bond movies), and as a consequence, the movies feel somewhat out of place. The Brosnan movies are probably the worst set of James Bond movies to date (although most of that can't be leveled at Brosnan).

I agree though that Ford is irrevocably linked with Indiana Jones... but so was Connery with Bond. That of course doesn't mean that another actor can't play the part with some degree of commercial and critical success... because they probably can and will... someday...

Click to expand...

Indeed, though that would also undoubtedly mean not just another actor stepping in, but the creation of an entirely new version of the Indy mythos, a reboot.

And we will live to see it happen.