For and Against a Reboot

Centerfield

New member
THIS IS NOT A RUMOR OR INTERNET BUZZ... I am simply asking what people would think about re-booting the Indy franchise... different actors, stories, etc.

With the right talented people in the right places, it's possible.
If they wanted to keep an older, battle-tested Indy in place (but younger than Harrison Ford) Dennis Quaid is a thought...

To go younger, but not Young Indy age, you could take a look at Matt Damon or Jeffrey Dean Morgan or, whom I think would do a great job, Patrick Wilson.

Could also have different writers and maybe directors for each new entry.

Just brainstorming something that will probably never happen...
 

Montana Smith

Active member
This thread asked a similar question:

http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=19817

It asked what you'd rather do if Harrison didn't reprise the role: re-cast Indy or have Mutt take over.

Dennis Quaid always reminded me of Harrison, but unfortunately he isn't much younger.

It's hard to imagine someone else in the role, but when the time comes, and if there's a good enough story and a good enough actor, then going back to the 1930s would be my choice. Of course, then there's the option of doing the 39-45 war years which we missed out on.
 

the hammer42

New member
Don't re-make Indiana Jones.
It's like rewriting the bible.
The movies still hold up verry good.

btw. Most of the remakes suck. (Look at nightmare on elmstreet.)
Don't mess with a good thing.
 

Matt deMille

New member
It shouldn't be a reboot. That's just current Hollywood gimmickry, and Indy is timeless. If anything (and I know it's been said before) they should do as was done with James Bond, have someone else play Indy, but keep the films set in the 1930s or early 1940s. Problem with having Mutt carry on is that he'd have to adventure in the 1950s and beyond. Part of the magic of Indiana Jones is that his adventures take place as part of that "great generation", at the twilight of the British Empire when the world was still a mysterious place.
 

teampunk

Member
i think some pre-raiders movies set in the 20's and 30's would be awesome. get some new directors and writers for them. film them in the same style as the other movies but let the writers and directors take indy in new directions. indy searches for dracula, sure.
 

Perhilion

New member
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.
 

Kt Templar

New member
There is often the argument that all the Indy story is 'taken' ie all the time slots are filled. This is not really true, look at Bond, he goes on and on it doesn't matter what era he is in and what actor plays him. Indy was envisaged in exactly the same way. An eternal adventurer, always getting in scrapes always getting ready for the next adventure.

If they found the right actor and most importantly had a team behind the camera that were not as tired or as stuck in their ways as Spielberg and Lucas, they would have a chance. Real stunts, a bit of visceral action and a kick ass artifact.

I love Ford in the role, but there is nothing that can get away from the fact that he is pushing it s Indy. KotCS was an OK finale for his version of the character, if they had not done it we would still be saying, 'What If?'.

If they never make another that would be ok. Heck, Last Crusade was a fine send off.

What would I like to see?

Animated with Ford doing the voice would be a great start.

Then reboot with a really charismatic actor in his early 30's. NOT Shia.
 

Centerfield

New member
Good input so far... thanks

Perhaps "re-boot" was the wrong term -- I was actually thinking along the lines of brand new adventures, not remakes of the old ones

Keeping it pre-WWII has a certain nostalgia and otherworldly feel that is simply the perfect time period for this stuff -- comparison to Bond films is on point -- time is never linear -- it's the character that moves onto one adventure to the next

With a good lead, good script and top shelf direction, you won't forget Harrison Ford, you would just look forward to the next one...

I'm not feeling the animation idea -- too "star wars"-ish & it wouldn't do the series justice -- need real life people in real life peril, locations, fun and action - Star Wars is ultra-fiction and can survive in a computer game environment & its characters are lifeless anyway

Maybe that's another problem -- Indy always connected to Star Wars through Lucas and John Williams, and on and on -- Star Wars is tired, but the upcoming live-action TV show (if and when) should be interesting at least

Also not seeing the Nightmare on Elm St. analogy - we are all prefacing a new Indy on the assumption that talented & creative people will be behind it (e.g., Whedon, Mottola, Coen brothers (hmmm...)) - no Wes Craven, no good Nightmare

Let's see if there's an Indy 5 -- if not, a entirely new direction to keep the character going may be just the right thing - NO MUTT EVER!
 

StoneTriple

New member
I'll be glad when remakes go back to being called remakes - instead of re-boots (or whatever the next marketing term will be). When you make a film with the same characters and same basic storyline as a film that's come before - it's a remake. Coming up with a new term doesn't somehow lend it some automatic level of respect or artistic credibility.

Batman Begins is a Batman movie, Casino Royale is a James Bond movie, Planet Of The Apes was a remake - not a re-imagining :rolleyes:, Star Trek is a Star Trek film, etc.

Remake is a valid term.
[/rant]
 

Centerfield

New member
I rather say it's prolonging, continuing, extending the series - I see the point where if Indy films are made with a new actor, etc., but set back in 1930's, could be viewed as a remake (Ford's Indy been there, done that kind of thing).
 

Webley

New member
I would love to have more Indy movies and if Ford cant do it Im cool with that.
I would like to see movies staring other people from the world of Doc Jones.
Give me a Mutt move and a Henry Jones Sr move and a Marcus Brody move and a Sallah move and a Katanga move and a Remy move.


but most importantly we need a Short Round movie seeing how he is cooler than Indy.
 

inky_skin

Active member
No Indy cinematic outings without Ford - unless the time periods covered are sufficiently distinct from his 1930's - 1950's adventures (ie, the YIJC era).

As for a 'reboot' - why make it Indiana Jones ? Surely there is sufficient creativity left in Hollywood to create another adventurer-type character to carry an action series ?

Indy in his prime IS Harrison Ford. The Bond comparison is moot. Harrison has been synonymous with the character since it's inception, whereas Bond existed in print prior to his film debut and his portrayal is therefore - to me - more maleable.

Bond isn't rooted to a specific time period either - so it makes sense that each generation's 007 is updated both contextually and in appearance to reflect changing political climates and spying techniques. The fact that he's a serving Naval officer also dictates that his age be within a certain range - hence the accepted need to change actors. Indy is a fixed point in history and as such - in my mind - should be portrayed consistently by a single actor. Young Indy is fine (if you want a fourth actor to play him) - Old Indy is fine (but would you want to see Indy post 50s ? Surely everything that made the character exciting would have been lost ?) - but 'prime' Indy is Harrison Ford.

Face it, we're right on the edge of where Harry can take Indy and it's probably time to walk away. And besides - why flood the market with more Indiana Jones adventures anyway ? There's only so many times you can go back to the well before you poison it...

NO HARRY = NO 'PRIME' INDY (unless it's animated).
 

Montana Smith

Active member
inky_skin said:
No Indy cinematic outings without Ford - unless the time periods covered are sufficiently distinct from his 1930's - 1950's adventures (ie, the YIJC era).

As for a 'reboot' - why make it Indiana Jones ? Surely there is sufficient creativity left in Hollywood to create another adventurer-type character to carry an action series ?

Indy in his prime IS Harrison Ford. The Bond comparison is moot. Harrison has been synonymous with the character since it's inception, whereas Bond existed in print prior to his film debut and his portrayal is therefore - to me - more maleable.

Bond isn't rooted to a specific time period either - so it makes sense that each generation's 007 is updated both contextually and in appearance to reflect changing political climates and spying techniques. The fact that he's a serving Naval officer also dictates that his age be within a certain range - hence the accepted need to change actors. Indy is a fixed point in history and as such - in my mind - should be portrayed consistently by a single actor. Young Indy is fine (if you want a fourth actor to play him) - Old Indy is fine (but would you want to see Indy post 50s ? Surely everything that made the character exciting would have been lost ?) - but 'prime' Indy is Harrison Ford.

Face it, we're right on the edge of where Harry can take Indy and it's probably time to walk away. And besides - why flood the market with more Indiana Jones adventures anyway ? There's only so many times you can go back to the well before you poison it...

NO HARRY = NO 'PRIME' INDY (unless it's animated).

This is where reason says it should go. Though greed for more drives the will to see more. And the more we see the further away Indy will become from that which made him an icon in the first place.

At the moment the series occupies that virtually unique angle of running as though in real time for almost 30 years. Bond couldn't achieve that (http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=20399).

Months ago I suggested that maybe Indy should end, but there's a part of me that gets dragged down the road of wanting more after Harrison has left, despite the almost inevitable consequence, that after Harrison the link to Indy will be broken in all but name.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
michael said:
No, No, no no no no no no reboot!

Ask me in 15-20 years, maybe I will have a different answer, but my guess it will probably be:

Never a reboot. I mean, never re-do the stories that have already been told. Never write Harrison out of Indy history.

However, revisiting the 1930s or 1940s with a new actor is a possibility, as long as the actor had the same qualities that Harrison brought to the character. Yet there will always be the feeling that he isn't really Indy, as the shadow of Harrison will always looking be over his shoulder.

Continuing with Mutt would be pointless, and would be treading on Bond territory.

The other alternative is animation using the likeness of Harrison - but realistic animation, not Japanime or stylized. An atmospheric cartoon with the music of John Williams, shot like a movie with all the technology known to man. And we know Lucas has access to that sort of technology...
 

michael

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Never a reboot. I mean, never re-do the stories that have already been told. Never write Harrison out of Indy history.

However, revisiting the 1930s or 1940s with a new actor is a possibility, as long as the actor had the same qualities that Harrison brought to the character. Yet there will always be the feeling that he isn't really Indy, as the shadow of Harrison will always looking be over his shoulder.

Continuing with Mutt would be pointless, and would be treading on Bond territory.

The other alternative is animation using the likeness of Harrison - but realistic animation, not Japanime or stylized. An atmospheric cartoon with the music of John Williams, shot like a movie with all the technology known to man. And we know Lucas has access to that sort of technology...
No I understand you, man! :) Remakes are a definite no, I'm still not comfortable with a reboot though. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. If it were to happen, it would have to be long after Lucas, Spielberg and Ford are gone, and even then it would be a brutal proposition to fans. I doubt many would be comfortable with it. I dunno, though, ask me in like 25 years, maybe I will have a different view!
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
michael said:
Harrison Ford is as much Indiana Jones as Indiana Jones is Harrison Ford, if that makes any sense.

That has always made perfect sense to me. It took me many years before I took the time to watch the Young Indy TV series.

michael said:
If it were to happen, it would have to be long after Lucas, Spielberg and Ford are gone, and even then it would be a brutal proposition to fans. I doubt many would be comfortable with it. I dunno, though, ask me in like 25 years, maybe I will have a different view!

Yet there are still fans who can't bear to see Indy end.

If there was a revisit with a new actor, I would probably approach with it with the same reluctance that I had appoached Young Indy and KOTCS. I eventually accepted both, but the revisit thing will take a lot more convincing. It's one of those prospects that might be interesting to see, but then you'll wish they hadn't done it!
 
Top