Disney eyeing Chris Pratt
- Thread starter Goonie
- Start date
Túrin Turambar
Guest
Garbage...
I don't think Harrison Ford's name will be in small writing alongside the other actors, on the Star Wars The force awakens poster. No?
I don't think Harrison Ford's name will be in small writing alongside the other actors, on the Star Wars The force awakens poster. No?
Last edited by a moderator:
Túrin Turambar
Guest
Well he owned cowboys and aliens? And wasn't he the only lead main actor only remembered character in enders Game?
To split the argument, Ford wasn't the designated lead in Ender's Game or Cowboys and Aliens, them being Asa Butterfield and Daniel Craig, respectively (and in Star Wars VII it appears to be Daisy Ridley), but neither had he a role that one could call "supporting". (In Ep VII, however...)
As it has been stated in this thread a numerous times, a 72-year-old man placed front and center in a blockbuster action setpiece is a pipe dream - save for cases where the movie is specifically built around that idea. Which I doubt is the aim of people who ultimately pull the trigger on Indy 5. And that is not the guy who currently owns the role, or the director of previous installments, or the creator and producer. It's the folks who own the IP.
This flick won't have a single thing on it that's not approved by the House of the Mouse. And if they want Chris Pratt, Chris Pratt it is - unless Chris Pratt himself politely declines.
Ultimately, it all has very little to do with the argument of whether Harry could still do it or not, or even what we would personally prefer as fans. It's the harsh reality of business, and anyone arguing against it paints himself in the corner that contains other navel-gazers detached from reality. Guess one could understand why it's an enticing place to some, but I still prefer sticking to the more likely side of things. At the very least, it leaves a little room and hope to be positively surprised.
As it has been stated in this thread a numerous times, a 72-year-old man placed front and center in a blockbuster action setpiece is a pipe dream - save for cases where the movie is specifically built around that idea. Which I doubt is the aim of people who ultimately pull the trigger on Indy 5. And that is not the guy who currently owns the role, or the director of previous installments, or the creator and producer. It's the folks who own the IP.
This flick won't have a single thing on it that's not approved by the House of the Mouse. And if they want Chris Pratt, Chris Pratt it is - unless Chris Pratt himself politely declines.
Ultimately, it all has very little to do with the argument of whether Harry could still do it or not, or even what we would personally prefer as fans. It's the harsh reality of business, and anyone arguing against it paints himself in the corner that contains other navel-gazers detached from reality. Guess one could understand why it's an enticing place to some, but I still prefer sticking to the more likely side of things. At the very least, it leaves a little room and hope to be positively surprised.
indytim
Member
Finn said:
This. The 'House of the Mouse' will relaunch the film series with a younger man in the lead role. It's really the only option to move the franchise forward.
Chris Pratt reportedly turned down the role of Nathan Drake in the forthcoming Uncharted movie adaptation. I believe that may well have had everything to do with him (or more likely his agent) being aware of Chris being 'penciled in' by Disney to play Indy.
---
You can read Chris Pratt's thoughts on playing Indy in the latest Entertainment Weekly (halfway down the right-hand column below). He's not wrong!
---
Maybe Red Letter Media, ignoring all its vulgarity and absurdity, has it right ...
http://s18.postimg.org/lgjwj1kll/red_letter_media.png
Last edited by a moderator:
Z dweller
Well-known member
>
Those few Ford fundamentalists who really enjoy watching an older Indy can indulge their passion by running KOTCS in an enless loop for the rest of their days.
After all, why would any future movie starring Harry and whoever else replaced LaBeuf as Mutt or a Mutt-like younger sidekick be any better than Skulls?
Everyone else wants to watch new adventures with Indy in his prime, set in the 1920s and 30s.
Precisely.indytim said:
Those few Ford fundamentalists who really enjoy watching an older Indy can indulge their passion by running KOTCS in an enless loop for the rest of their days.
After all, why would any future movie starring Harry and whoever else replaced LaBeuf as Mutt or a Mutt-like younger sidekick be any better than Skulls?
Everyone else wants to watch new adventures with Indy in his prime, set in the 1920s and 30s.
Z dweller said:
Well, a future movie would almost certainly have a different script and supporting cast than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, so there are other variables to consider.
But in the broad strokes, I agree with you, particularly your count of Ford's starring roles. (One might quibble over the ensemble piece <I>Crossing Over</I>, which was filmed before Crystal Skull's release and released after it, albeit barely.) There's little chance, I should think, of Ford being first billed; he wasn't even that in the earlier Star Wars films, none of which have ever been treated as star vehicles in their marketing.
I'm usually close minded to change, but I'm thinking:
Chris Pratt could be a good Indy, if done this way:
Rather than a reboot that basically flips the bird to the existing canon and the Ford films, why not just set the movie in say, 1923? 1924? There's literally almost 20 years (1920 when the YIJC leaves off and 1935 when TOD picks up) where we don't know what Indy was up to.
A Pratt Indy series could dig into that time and show us how Indy grew up and became the guy Ford portrayed in Temple of Doom. It'd make sense for Pratt's "goofier" side here, since we'd be dealing with a younger version of the character. Would allow for an entire decade's worth of films in serial form, Indy meeting Marion say, could just seem like one adventure (Marion to a young Indy might've just seemed like the next 'girl of the week' at the time). Lots of potential here if they don't go do a reboot and **** off the fans.
Could bookend the film somehow with Ford as an old man telling the story if done right, to appease Ford fans and keep it in continuity.
Chris Pratt could be a good Indy, if done this way:
Rather than a reboot that basically flips the bird to the existing canon and the Ford films, why not just set the movie in say, 1923? 1924? There's literally almost 20 years (1920 when the YIJC leaves off and 1935 when TOD picks up) where we don't know what Indy was up to.
A Pratt Indy series could dig into that time and show us how Indy grew up and became the guy Ford portrayed in Temple of Doom. It'd make sense for Pratt's "goofier" side here, since we'd be dealing with a younger version of the character. Would allow for an entire decade's worth of films in serial form, Indy meeting Marion say, could just seem like one adventure (Marion to a young Indy might've just seemed like the next 'girl of the week' at the time). Lots of potential here if they don't go do a reboot and **** off the fans.
Could bookend the film somehow with Ford as an old man telling the story if done right, to appease Ford fans and keep it in continuity.
He sounds more like a man who already has the role. Could be it's just me, but that sure looks like more than simply subtly flirting with the idea.indytim said:
Who knows, maybe his name is on the contract already. They're just sitting on it, waiting for the proper time to make the announcement.
The Stranger
Member
I think this thread has somehow suddenly started to go down the route of plain ridiculouseness. Everything here is nothing but pure speculation and some seem to be taking it all waaay too seriously, but the more I read your comments the more I'm starting to doubt people have any idea of how things really work in the movie industry... 
I will start from the beginning...
When Lucas produced the first three Star Wars films, we know he already had plans to expand his universe with a second trilogy of movies that were to explore the years before the rise of the Galactic Empire. Both Harrison Ford and Mark Hamill stated in some interviews during the 80s that he also had plans for a third potential trilogy, set 20 or 30 years after the events of Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi. Then time went by, Lucas directed the prequels, the prequels became an enormous success, and so he decided to sell its properties and Lucasfilm to Disney in order to pass the torch to a new generation of filmmakers.
Then Disney started developing this new Star Wars trilogy. And we know, because it's been confirmed both by J.J. Abrams and The Beard himself, that the new storylines and the new screenplay for Episode VII have completely scrapped the original ideas written during the years by George Lucas. So, basically, Disney entirely re-wrote Star Wars 7 (and the outlines for 8 and 9) from scratch. They went for a completely new story.
Now, I wanted to make this premise just to remind you that regardless of these new Star Wars movies being completely original stories, Disney STILL opted for bringing back ALL of the actors of the original saga. Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, even Anthony Daniels and Peter Mayhew, Kenny Baker, and the others. This, in spite of them being all definitely too old for their parts, with most of them even in terrible physical shape, apart from Harrison.
They wrote an entirely new story. They could have done literally anything with it. Yet they decided to bring back Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher in co-lead or supporting roles that will most likely be the keys to the plot development of the trilogy of films. So, what I'm trying to say here is that ALL of Disney's efforts in this sense as of now had been aimed only to one single thing. That is, preserving a legacy. The legacy of Star Wars, which is possibly the most important movie saga ever.
Well then, now let me put here black on white something some of you guys really seem not to catch: the Indiana Jones film series is in no way different. By any means. It's not only a plus Disney bought with the acquiring of Lucasfilm. It's not just something else they'll start toying around with, 'cause it don't have to be taken so seriously. It is, simply put, one of the biggest and most recognizable names of all times. And they know it.
Indiana Jones is NOT a franchise. It has never been one. It is a trilogy of movies. Arguably THE BEST TRILOGY OF MOVIES IN CINEMA HISTORY. The trilogy of movies that sparkled what was to become THE MOST influential and iconic film character in modern cinema. Our good old pal, doctor Jones. This is really one of those thougths that they know they'll have to carefully take into accounts, when writing or starting to work on an eventual new Indy movie.
I still honestly can't buy the idea they would be sooo stupid to just go out there in the press now, make some announcements, greenlight a pointless reboot and who cares. Indiana Jones is no less then a cult icon, and has a legacy that is absolutely comparable to that of Star Wars. And very few others. Probably NO others.
With this being said... may be true that us "few Ford fundamentalists" are wrong about everything, but I can 100% assure you MUCH FEWER Ford detractors that if Disney can have even just the slightest chance of bringing back to the silver screen a REAL silver screen legend like Indiana Jones, with Harrison Ford in the title role, they will no doubt go for it.
NO. FREAKIN'. DOUBT.
The possibility IS there. Ford is in top shape for his age and he basically looks no different to when they started filming Kingdom seven years ago. And Disney is only interested in milking the machine. So they'll do it. Or at least they'll try.
They KNOW that most of the success of this movie saga lies on the shoulders of Harrison Ford, relies on the charisma and persona of Harrison Ford.
They KNOW that Harrison Ford had shaped the character, has been Indy for more than 30 years, and that he has become a solid part of the cultural imagery for millions of people and fans around the world.
They KNOW that excluding Vin Diesel and The Rock (both of whom are totally unsuitable for the part), no current action movie star have even one fifth of the starpower that Harrison Ford still has.
They KNOW that possibly no new face can be tough enough to properly handle a legacy and a fanbase such as the one that Indiana Jones has.
They KNOW that Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull made 800 million dollars of box office against all of the greatest odds possible (negative reviews, no 3D, no Chinese market promotion, a name that had been absent from the spotlight since the eighties, a 65 years old leading actor), and that it still ranks in the top 50 of the highest grossing films ever, where basically no other movie that is not based on superheroes, cartoons, or Harry Potter had taken a spot.
Folks at Disney damn KNOW all of these things, you can bet your as*.
They are too good at their business to just don't care about this.
Again, you all are REALLY underestimating the fanbase.
And going wild with senseless speculation just for the sake of it.
It's not as you say. Sure, yes, it may be that they just decide to ink an inevitable commercial failure and sign on Chris Pratt as a new iteration of this role, but I am pretty damn sure that while there is still a possibility for Ford, for how slight it can be, that will be the path they choose. 100% sure. As Finn wrote some posts ago (and Finn here seems to be one of the most fervent progressists), it would be nothing but "a gamble" to opt for Chris Pratt, or whoever else, and give them a responsibility like this one. Even Pratt himself said in one of his comments that it is "sacred territory" we are dealing with and that he would not want to be "the guy who f*cks that up". Every possible choice they can make would be a gazillion times more risky and commercially couterproductive if they really decided not to give Harrison another run at HIS titular, defining role.
It would be far too big of a stretch for them not to consider this. They are not fools. At all.
__________________________________________________
And believe me when I say. Age is definitely NOT the problem as of now.
Yes, it may not be by Harrison's side, true, but technology is. Jeff Bridges is 65 and they made him look 20 in Tron Legacy. Do you really think that if that was the case, they could not make Harrison look like a 50something year-old man?? He ALREADY looks like a 50something year-old man. Nah, guys. The possibility is still there. They know a fifth film with Ford could generate the biggest hype in recent memory, and they'll do whatever they can to capitalize on that. They will go for it, or at least try. Now, by the end of the year, if Star Wars and the new Blade Runner will prove to be crowd engaging and internet provoking enough, we will finally know for sure.
But most certainly this is what will happen: a new movie with Ford to be involved by 2016, or not any new Indy movies for the next 6 or 7 years at least. Damn. Sure. About this.
I will start from the beginning...
When Lucas produced the first three Star Wars films, we know he already had plans to expand his universe with a second trilogy of movies that were to explore the years before the rise of the Galactic Empire. Both Harrison Ford and Mark Hamill stated in some interviews during the 80s that he also had plans for a third potential trilogy, set 20 or 30 years after the events of Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi. Then time went by, Lucas directed the prequels, the prequels became an enormous success, and so he decided to sell its properties and Lucasfilm to Disney in order to pass the torch to a new generation of filmmakers.
Then Disney started developing this new Star Wars trilogy. And we know, because it's been confirmed both by J.J. Abrams and The Beard himself, that the new storylines and the new screenplay for Episode VII have completely scrapped the original ideas written during the years by George Lucas. So, basically, Disney entirely re-wrote Star Wars 7 (and the outlines for 8 and 9) from scratch. They went for a completely new story.
Now, I wanted to make this premise just to remind you that regardless of these new Star Wars movies being completely original stories, Disney STILL opted for bringing back ALL of the actors of the original saga. Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, even Anthony Daniels and Peter Mayhew, Kenny Baker, and the others. This, in spite of them being all definitely too old for their parts, with most of them even in terrible physical shape, apart from Harrison.
They wrote an entirely new story. They could have done literally anything with it. Yet they decided to bring back Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher in co-lead or supporting roles that will most likely be the keys to the plot development of the trilogy of films. So, what I'm trying to say here is that ALL of Disney's efforts in this sense as of now had been aimed only to one single thing. That is, preserving a legacy. The legacy of Star Wars, which is possibly the most important movie saga ever.
Well then, now let me put here black on white something some of you guys really seem not to catch: the Indiana Jones film series is in no way different. By any means. It's not only a plus Disney bought with the acquiring of Lucasfilm. It's not just something else they'll start toying around with, 'cause it don't have to be taken so seriously. It is, simply put, one of the biggest and most recognizable names of all times. And they know it.
Indiana Jones is NOT a franchise. It has never been one. It is a trilogy of movies. Arguably THE BEST TRILOGY OF MOVIES IN CINEMA HISTORY. The trilogy of movies that sparkled what was to become THE MOST influential and iconic film character in modern cinema. Our good old pal, doctor Jones. This is really one of those thougths that they know they'll have to carefully take into accounts, when writing or starting to work on an eventual new Indy movie.
I still honestly can't buy the idea they would be sooo stupid to just go out there in the press now, make some announcements, greenlight a pointless reboot and who cares. Indiana Jones is no less then a cult icon, and has a legacy that is absolutely comparable to that of Star Wars. And very few others. Probably NO others.
With this being said... may be true that us "few Ford fundamentalists" are wrong about everything, but I can 100% assure you MUCH FEWER Ford detractors that if Disney can have even just the slightest chance of bringing back to the silver screen a REAL silver screen legend like Indiana Jones, with Harrison Ford in the title role, they will no doubt go for it.
NO. FREAKIN'. DOUBT.
The possibility IS there. Ford is in top shape for his age and he basically looks no different to when they started filming Kingdom seven years ago. And Disney is only interested in milking the machine. So they'll do it. Or at least they'll try.
They KNOW that most of the success of this movie saga lies on the shoulders of Harrison Ford, relies on the charisma and persona of Harrison Ford.
They KNOW that Harrison Ford had shaped the character, has been Indy for more than 30 years, and that he has become a solid part of the cultural imagery for millions of people and fans around the world.
They KNOW that excluding Vin Diesel and The Rock (both of whom are totally unsuitable for the part), no current action movie star have even one fifth of the starpower that Harrison Ford still has.
They KNOW that possibly no new face can be tough enough to properly handle a legacy and a fanbase such as the one that Indiana Jones has.
They KNOW that Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull made 800 million dollars of box office against all of the greatest odds possible (negative reviews, no 3D, no Chinese market promotion, a name that had been absent from the spotlight since the eighties, a 65 years old leading actor), and that it still ranks in the top 50 of the highest grossing films ever, where basically no other movie that is not based on superheroes, cartoons, or Harry Potter had taken a spot.
Folks at Disney damn KNOW all of these things, you can bet your as*.
They are too good at their business to just don't care about this.
Again, you all are REALLY underestimating the fanbase.
And going wild with senseless speculation just for the sake of it.
It's not as you say. Sure, yes, it may be that they just decide to ink an inevitable commercial failure and sign on Chris Pratt as a new iteration of this role, but I am pretty damn sure that while there is still a possibility for Ford, for how slight it can be, that will be the path they choose. 100% sure. As Finn wrote some posts ago (and Finn here seems to be one of the most fervent progressists), it would be nothing but "a gamble" to opt for Chris Pratt, or whoever else, and give them a responsibility like this one. Even Pratt himself said in one of his comments that it is "sacred territory" we are dealing with and that he would not want to be "the guy who f*cks that up". Every possible choice they can make would be a gazillion times more risky and commercially couterproductive if they really decided not to give Harrison another run at HIS titular, defining role.
It would be far too big of a stretch for them not to consider this. They are not fools. At all.
__________________________________________________
And believe me when I say. Age is definitely NOT the problem as of now.
Yes, it may not be by Harrison's side, true, but technology is. Jeff Bridges is 65 and they made him look 20 in Tron Legacy. Do you really think that if that was the case, they could not make Harrison look like a 50something year-old man?? He ALREADY looks like a 50something year-old man. Nah, guys. The possibility is still there. They know a fifth film with Ford could generate the biggest hype in recent memory, and they'll do whatever they can to capitalize on that. They will go for it, or at least try. Now, by the end of the year, if Star Wars and the new Blade Runner will prove to be crowd engaging and internet provoking enough, we will finally know for sure.
But most certainly this is what will happen: a new movie with Ford to be involved by 2016, or not any new Indy movies for the next 6 or 7 years at least. Damn. Sure. About this.
Last edited:
Indy Jones
Active member
I used to be a firm believer that if another Indy flick was gonna get made, it would unquestionably be with Ford.
But the Pratt stuff has spread so thoroughly and made so much buzz that I can promise you if Ford reappears as Indy, it'll be only to set-up a flashback with a new actor playing it in the younger days.
There has been no outcry against the idea in mainstream culture. Had KOTCS not happened, I think there would have been. The idea of Ford in the role has become soured, and regular people react negatively to the idea of Ford starring again. The people who only want to accept Ford in the role is a minority.
Personally, I was never against a recast, if it was due to inevitability. Had Ford been able or bankable, I would have been bummed, but people need to face it: Ford will never star as Jones again. It's over. Hang up the bullwhip.
Even if he wasn't viewed as too old (which he is), even if he wasn't more fragile/less insurable (which he is), even if he was still a bankable lead actor (which he isn't)... modern audiences won't turn out in droves to see Indiana Jones with him at the helm anymore. Blockbuster movies are a young viewer's game. Movies of the Raiders ilk (action movies) are geared toward a 20s/30s crowd. A crowd that, today, barely knows who Harrison Ford is, to say nothing of Indiana Jones himself.
Why are there no real Indy video games to speak of? Why are the toys gone? Because it's a dead franchise. It's an iconic and culturally recognized one, but it's dead all the same. Ghostbusters is in the exact same boat. There's a vague awareness of both franchises in the back of young people's minds, but because they were such hits in days passed. People know the concept of a guy with a hat and whip who escapes under collapsing doors, or of a ghost-catching service with the tagline of "Who ya Gonna Call?" But that's as far as the knowledge and interest in those two franchises goes for the target audiences. They vaguely know the ideas, but they don't know where they come from, and they're not interested.
The only way to turn that around is to generate new and fresh interest in both series. Look at the 'Busters... they're getting rebooted with new blood. The old time fans are pissed, but I bet you good money that the film with make bank... and not from nostolgia, but the uninitiated who are going to be 'raised' on this take. Indiana Jones needs the same help. The concept of a guy in the 1930s going treasure-hunting is already not something that would appeal to today's youth... to overcome that middling presence you need a current, big star who will draw in the newcomers on his name/rep alone. Indiana Jones isn't the draw anymore. But if you get the series going again with a fresh actor, maybe he will be one again.
Now, will Pratt get the role? Who knows. But I think all the buzz around him is not meaningless. He probably is the #1 choice or already has it. People who are quick to dismiss have got to realize that LucasFilm will want to retain the basic DNA of what made Indy work in the first place. Thus, Pratt would be acting like the Indy we already know, and not like Peter Quill. Never sell an actor short, either. Nobody thought Michael Keaton could pull off a serious Batman. Nobody thought Heath Ledger could make a convincing Joker. Look what happened in both cases?
Our only hope is that the new film isn't a reboot and it keeps the same continuity. That's the only thing that would irk me. I want previously unseen adventures, not a new universe starting over again.
And as for Ford? Well, as I've said before here, he isn't even the guy to play Jones the most. That would be Sean Patrick Flanery... so Ford's replacement doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme of things, so much as they retain what he did that made the whole thing work.
But the Pratt stuff has spread so thoroughly and made so much buzz that I can promise you if Ford reappears as Indy, it'll be only to set-up a flashback with a new actor playing it in the younger days.
There has been no outcry against the idea in mainstream culture. Had KOTCS not happened, I think there would have been. The idea of Ford in the role has become soured, and regular people react negatively to the idea of Ford starring again. The people who only want to accept Ford in the role is a minority.
Personally, I was never against a recast, if it was due to inevitability. Had Ford been able or bankable, I would have been bummed, but people need to face it: Ford will never star as Jones again. It's over. Hang up the bullwhip.
Even if he wasn't viewed as too old (which he is), even if he wasn't more fragile/less insurable (which he is), even if he was still a bankable lead actor (which he isn't)... modern audiences won't turn out in droves to see Indiana Jones with him at the helm anymore. Blockbuster movies are a young viewer's game. Movies of the Raiders ilk (action movies) are geared toward a 20s/30s crowd. A crowd that, today, barely knows who Harrison Ford is, to say nothing of Indiana Jones himself.
Why are there no real Indy video games to speak of? Why are the toys gone? Because it's a dead franchise. It's an iconic and culturally recognized one, but it's dead all the same. Ghostbusters is in the exact same boat. There's a vague awareness of both franchises in the back of young people's minds, but because they were such hits in days passed. People know the concept of a guy with a hat and whip who escapes under collapsing doors, or of a ghost-catching service with the tagline of "Who ya Gonna Call?" But that's as far as the knowledge and interest in those two franchises goes for the target audiences. They vaguely know the ideas, but they don't know where they come from, and they're not interested.
The only way to turn that around is to generate new and fresh interest in both series. Look at the 'Busters... they're getting rebooted with new blood. The old time fans are pissed, but I bet you good money that the film with make bank... and not from nostolgia, but the uninitiated who are going to be 'raised' on this take. Indiana Jones needs the same help. The concept of a guy in the 1930s going treasure-hunting is already not something that would appeal to today's youth... to overcome that middling presence you need a current, big star who will draw in the newcomers on his name/rep alone. Indiana Jones isn't the draw anymore. But if you get the series going again with a fresh actor, maybe he will be one again.
Now, will Pratt get the role? Who knows. But I think all the buzz around him is not meaningless. He probably is the #1 choice or already has it. People who are quick to dismiss have got to realize that LucasFilm will want to retain the basic DNA of what made Indy work in the first place. Thus, Pratt would be acting like the Indy we already know, and not like Peter Quill. Never sell an actor short, either. Nobody thought Michael Keaton could pull off a serious Batman. Nobody thought Heath Ledger could make a convincing Joker. Look what happened in both cases?
Our only hope is that the new film isn't a reboot and it keeps the same continuity. That's the only thing that would irk me. I want previously unseen adventures, not a new universe starting over again.
And as for Ford? Well, as I've said before here, he isn't even the guy to play Jones the most. That would be Sean Patrick Flanery... so Ford's replacement doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme of things, so much as they retain what he did that made the whole thing work.
But there is a huge difference. And your reasoning falls flat on its face right there and then. Said point has even been mentioned here before, so recalling it would have saved you from writing that wall of text.The Stranger said:
Star Wars films are ensemble movies. They don't have a single designated lead, but a wide array of characters sharing the screentime - young, old, normal, alien. Even the very first film had technically three different male leads, all acting as focus points for different segments of the audience. Luke for the kids, Han for the grown-ups and Obi-Wan for the elderly. They didn't bring the original trio of Hamill, Ford and Fisher back for simple nostalgia's sake, but because the format of the series allowed them to have them in without having them fill the entire screen scene in, scene out. Had they depended on them to carry the entire piece, Ep VII as it is now would not have made it past the storyboards.
Indiana Jones movies are one-character vehicles. The lead man is front and center, in Every. Damn. Scene. It's wildly different from having an elderly Han Solo fill the Falcon's cockpit for a few select scenes. Sure, Indy's had sidekicks over his adventures but all they've done is add flavor. If you're really so ardent on comparing Indy and Star Wars, try the following: Ask people around who are R2-D2 and Chewbacca. I'm fairly certain most will know. Then ask who are Marcus Brody and Short Round. ... Tumbleweed.
Another aspect of Indy's character the Ford purists seem to miss is that Harry and the Hat are just two thirds of the character at its best. The final third is the era, the environment. Indy is a character who belongs to the first half of the 20th century - an Indiana Jones film taking place in the 60s is NOT going to fly in the same manner as one taking place in the 30s or 40s - even KotCS was pushing it a bit. Star Wars also stops being Star Wars, if you remove the galaxy surrounding the characters and set the movie in, say, Cleveland.
All right, Mr. Business Expert. Allow me to present a dissenting opinion that is based on more than my personal feelings. On the first two counts I agree, but last three? Let's see.The Stranger said:
Ford's star power? Sure, it's apparent to those of us who are fans of the man and peruse every news story they write about him out there. This board even makes it easy for us by having a thread dedicated to the very thing. But people outside this bubble? Just step out to the wider world for a second, and you'll notice how laughable it becomes to compare him to the Rock or Diesel (who aren't either the guys on top of the action movie game right now, btw). To us, the man still looks incredible and his recent endeavors like the plane crash have done nothing to dim that aura. But to the world at large, he really just is another veteran actor past his prime. If you need another litmus test, try asking random people on the street which Hollywood actor recently made a crash landing to a golf court in California and see how many get it right.
"They KNOW that possibly no new face can be tough enough to properly handle a legacy and a fanbase such as the one that Indiana Jones has." Now, this statement is plain wrong. It should begin with "I THINK that they know..." because that's all it's got riding on it - your personal feelings, and perhaps those of a handful of other hardcore Ford fans out there. The truth is, iconic characters get recasts and reboots all the time, and most of them get no worse because of it. Simply put, because YOU figure that no one else can pull it off like Ford can, don't assume the world agrees with you. Pardon my harsh words, but projecting ones personal feelings onto a wider audience is one of the most moronic leaps of logic in existence - it's a shunned practice no matter whether you get it right or wrong.
Then... yes, KotCS made pretty well at the BO. However, to imply that BO success stands for a good film is another logical infallacy. Let's keep in mind that most people who had their minds soured by the film experienced that after they'd paid for the tickets. KotCS made most of its money because it enjoyed a marketing vehicle most films can only dream of - the legacy created by three very good films that preceded it. However, for a possible Indy 5 with Ford, KotCS becomes the vehicle. I personally enjoy the movie despite its shortcomings, mostly because I've learnt to appreciate its finer points after repeat viewings, but again, if we step out of the bubble - what do we have? "A piece with an old guy Ford, who escaped a nuclear explosion in a fridge, then it had this kid swinging with monkeys... and wait, instead of some ancient relic, he was hunting down aliens?" Now, what do you think Disney will think of THAT as an argument as to why people should go and watch what could potentially be more of the same? And for the record, I actually take a moment to try and defend KotCS whenever somebody brings the film up, but it's more or less a battle against windmills.
The obvious logical conclusion is that Disney needs to forget about KotCS and go back to using those three previous films as the vehicle if they wish for people to flock into theaters. And here comes the question: How do you do that with an aged Ford? The answer: You don't. Recasting is a gamble, but it actually is less of a gamble than trusting that people will give it another go after KotCS.
Now, I don't actually oppose the idea of Indy 5 with Ford front and center. I'm a fan of him as Indy as much as the next man on this board, and if they end up making another piece with him, Disney can be assured that they'll have my money. But I've also studied the business well enough to figure yours and mine and then some is hardly going to be enough for them. And when you take a walk outside this little bubble of fandom we have going on, you need to be pretty ferment denialist to not figure that what's happening inside it does not apply to the world at large. A pretty simple rule of thumb is that if you're thinking along the lines, "well, it's a bit unorthodox, yes, but it still could work..." - stop right there. Just because you find it easy to sell the idea to yourself, you're making a huge fool of yourself if you think it'll be as easy to sell it to everybody.
Even if every rule has its exceptions, "unorthodox" doesn't really work unless you target it at limited audiences. With luck, it can start a trend that spreads into wider consciousness. However, when the aim is to get everybody and their grandma and her canary to see the film from get-go, you keep unorthodox things to a minimum. And it doesn't get much more unorthodox than a 70something leading man in a major action blockbuster. Whether he's physically fit enough or not is irrelevant.
Here's a very good point. Perhaps part of the reason that makes me such a progressionist is that despite recognizing all the merit Ford has in the role, I don't consider him sacrosanct. Matter of fact, in my personal favorite entry to the franchise as a whole Indy is not even played by Ford. Not Flanery, either.Indy Jones said:
Indiana Jones simply isn't "Ford in a fedora". He is an idea, and one that deserves to retain most of the trifecta - the clothes, the man, the setting - that made him so successful. Sadly, the part some people seem to cling onto the most is the one that is the least preservable.
Last edited:
^ Use for Film Studies Class, folks
There is so much to this post I find it hard to know where to begin, I think film students wanting to submit a thesis would be wise to consider the widsom above. There's much to it and much to be taken from it. So since I can't begin to comment, I'll go to the end...
...I would say Albert R. Broccoli knew this well, and that is why his one-character vehicle has been able to transcend generations. Granted his wasn't necessarily limited by the serial tone setting homaged in George Lucas' character, but a talented enough screenwriter could overcome that very simply. 25-30 years is more than enough time to create a body of work centered around one character that would never be flat. Joe Brody is right in his critique of LC in that regard. It ended the serial, too well. Perhaps that is the only reason why we as fans should hate it.
Unless we're to go the Dred Pirate Roberts route.
There is so much to this post I find it hard to know where to begin, I think film students wanting to submit a thesis would be wise to consider the widsom above. There's much to it and much to be taken from it. So since I can't begin to comment, I'll go to the end...
Finn said:
...I would say Albert R. Broccoli knew this well, and that is why his one-character vehicle has been able to transcend generations. Granted his wasn't necessarily limited by the serial tone setting homaged in George Lucas' character, but a talented enough screenwriter could overcome that very simply. 25-30 years is more than enough time to create a body of work centered around one character that would never be flat. Joe Brody is right in his critique of LC in that regard. It ended the serial, too well. Perhaps that is the only reason why we as fans should hate it.
Unless we're to go the Dred Pirate Roberts route.
Indy Jones
Active member
The idea of the franchise being refreshed makes me pretty cheery. Would I love another with Ford? Well yeah. I love Indy enough that I would very much love to see what Jones would be doing in his twilight years... but that's because I'm a weirdo. Non-weirdos, the people who make up 85-90% of the audience? You couldn't get them to be interested.
KOTCS made great money because of nostolgia (and because it was halfway decent, but I digress). A sudden, unexpected thrill to see Indiana Jones one more time. The feeling that made it work won't bouy more installments with an aging Ford. No regular folks who saw that gave thought to it being the first in a new series with an aged Ford. Had they, they would have responded less positively. It was viewed by regular folks as a one-time re-engagement before the character faded away.
Fanboys have to learn that the way they see their favorite franchises isn't the way non-fanboys see those franchises. That goes for everything from Transformers to Ghostbusters, Batman, the Star Wars prequels and yes, even Indiana Jones. Studios make films to please the masses, not the fans. Fans will accept odd things, the masses will show indifference.
KOTCS made great money because of nostolgia (and because it was halfway decent, but I digress). A sudden, unexpected thrill to see Indiana Jones one more time. The feeling that made it work won't bouy more installments with an aging Ford. No regular folks who saw that gave thought to it being the first in a new series with an aged Ford. Had they, they would have responded less positively. It was viewed by regular folks as a one-time re-engagement before the character faded away.
Fanboys have to learn that the way they see their favorite franchises isn't the way non-fanboys see those franchises. That goes for everything from Transformers to Ghostbusters, Batman, the Star Wars prequels and yes, even Indiana Jones. Studios make films to please the masses, not the fans. Fans will accept odd things, the masses will show indifference.