Sacrilege? Can there be Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford?

Crack that whip

New member
Lance Quazar said:
My memories of the episodes and TV movies comprising the YIJ saga are admittedly quite dim at this point. I did watch "Masks of Evil" recently, as I had never heard of it and was intrigued by its supernatural content, the only such episode in the series.

I don't wish to derail this conversation too much, I'm sure there are plenty of threads where it's discussed, but one of my single biggest problems with the series was with Sean Patrick Flannery's performance.

I don't wish to bash him as an actor, but, to me, he portrayed Indy as a far too tentative, hesitant and almost nervous character at times.

Contrast that with the far superior perf by River Phoenix in "Last Crusade", who completely embodies Indy's brash, often reckless spirit.

For the vast majority of the saga, Flannery just didn't "feel" like Indiana Jones - even a younger version of him.

I don't believe that a shy, tentative person grows into someone like Indy. It isn't psychologically consistent.

There are only sporadic moments in the whole YIJC where he really felt like Indy, where he was daring, enterprising, heroic, etc. Most of the time, he just felt...flat.

See, again, I just have to respectfully disagree (and I say this as someone who's watched the entire series quite recently). There's plenty of brashness in the character's portrayal in the show, and not much I'd say is shy or tentative. If anything, he's kind of reckless a lot of the time. There's also a lot of just... "boldness" in some of his movements and so on - little things here and there that actually really recall the way Harrison plays him.

If I absolutely did have to pick on something about Flanery's portrayal, it would have to be that he simply doesn't physically or vocally resemble Harrison Ford as much as one might like (as much as River Phoenix, say), but that's not a fault of his performance, and not something anyone could really do anything about, short of simply casting somebody else who looked more like Harrison. As it is, I think they made the right choice, clearly going with someone on the strength of his performance over his physical resemblance to the established principal actor for the character.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Crack that whip said:
See, again, I just have to respectfully disagree (and I say this as someone who's watched the entire series quite recently). There's plenty of brashness in the character's portrayal in the show, and not much I'd say is shy or tentative. If anything, he's kind of reckless a lot of the time. There's also a lot of just... "boldness" in some of his movements and so on - little things here and there that actually really recall the way Harrison plays him.

If I absolutely did have to pick on something about Flanery's portrayal, it would have to be that he simply doesn't physically or vocally resemble Harrison Ford as much as one might like (as much as River Phoenix, say), but that's not a fault of his performance, and not something anyone could really do anything about, short of simply casting somebody else who looked more like Harrison. As it is, I think they made the right choice, clearly going with someone on the strength of his performance over his physical resemblance to the established principal actor for the character.

I think TYIJC was conceived and made to specifically stand apart from the movies. It was a very ambitious project, and quite brave to make it it's own thing. I think it's actually testament to the series that it can be enjoyed in spite of the fact it feels/looks so different from the movies... although I do understand where Lance Q is coming from.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Indy4 was quite controversial, at least on this board. We are all wondering if Indy5 will be better, if it's made. What if Indy5 is not better? Will we want them (GL, SS, HF) to stop a ruination of Indy and not make any more, or will we want someone else to have a go and maybe create something more akin to (cringing here) Raiders, at least sometime in the future? Like all you others, I love Harrison as Indy, but my concern is not so much with who plays Harrison, but more so it is: Can they make a decent enough Indy flick again? In the Indy canon at least, there seems to be plenty of material to explore for making movies that are set before the time of Indy4. A great Indy flick without Harrison I would welcome.
 

Hanselation

New member
Boring Family Ties

Mickiana said:
Indy4 was quite controversial, at least on this board. We are all wondering if Indy5 will be better, if it's made. What if Indy5 is not better? Will we want them (GL, SS, HF) to stop a ruination of Indy and not make any more, or will we want someone else to have a go and maybe create something more akin to (cringing here) Raiders, at least sometime in the future? Like all you others, I love Harrison as Indy, but my concern is not so much with who plays Harrison, but more so it is: Can they make a decent enough Indy flick again? In the Indy canon at least, there seems to be plenty of material to explore for making movies that are set before the time of Indy4. A great Indy flick without Harrison I would welcome.

I like the adventurer Indiana Jones - not the family ties we saw extensive in the YIC, getting it's orgin with the appear of Henry Jones Sr. in LC. It was an interesting aspect for LC, but then it escalate, first in the YIC then also in KOTCS.
Indy suddenly had a Dad we know, a son we know and finally he married the girl from the first movie. It seems to be more a daily soap then an adventure series.
In ROTLA and TOD Indy seems to be much more independent, and that is what I like very much in this both Indiana Jones movies. I think, thats also the reason why LC is in my scale only on the 3rd position and KOTCs on the 4th.(It's not only the Aliens - beacuse the final of Raiders with the ghosts, is in my opinion nearly equal ;) )
So give Harrison a 5th Indiana Jones movie, telling a story without family ties. (But what should we do with Mutt then? :eek: :dead: )
 
Last edited:

Le Saboteur

Active member
Mickiana said:
Indy4 was quite controversial, at least on this board. We are all wondering if Indy5 will be better, if it's made. What if Indy5 is not better? Will we want them (GL, SS, HF) to stop a ruination of Indy and not make any more...

I may not even go see an Indy 5. I was happy with the original three, and didn't need to see another; while nice to see Indy again, I never thought The Beards and the Finger of Doom were honestly interested in the character anymore. Indy was shelved for 19-years and limped onto the big screen for some inexplicable reason.

They can't recreate Raiders. Harrison is too damn old to be crawling under trucks, leaping off horses, etc. But, again, that's what happens when you ignore a character that's so-o tied to one character.

I still swear that Lucas said that Indy's adventures were over after Crusade. They put the damn hat and whip in the Smithsonian.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
I think TYIJC was conceived and made to specifically stand apart from the movies. It was a very ambitious project, and quite brave to make it it's own thing. I think it's actually testament to the series that it can be enjoyed in spite of the fact it feels/looks so different from the movies... although I do understand where Lance Q is coming from.

My problem with the series is not that it was different from the films. I expected it to be, for the most part. I wasn't looking for a mini Indy film every week and the project definitely didn't suffer from a lack of ambition or imagination.

But, through a combination of lackluster writing, directing and acting, the series felt flat and dull to me more often than not.

There were some great stories there and some terrific ideas, but the execution only rarely lived up to its potential.
 

Hanselation

New member
Hurry up GL,SS HF!

Mickiana said:
Oh yeah, I forgot about Mutt. I don't know what to do with him. Can't we forget him?
Yes we can!:D - If they (GL, SS, HF) do Indy 5 like ToD, the will tell a story that happens before the prvious one.
So in 1957, Indy didn't know anything about his son and there was no Marion directly involved in his life. Indy's dad was already gone - the perfect situation for an independent Indiana Jones ADVENTURE. A storywriter would have much more variabilities to create a real interesting, twisting story.
But this could only be realized in the very near future.
When Temple of Doom was produced, Harrison gets 3 years older and plays Indy 1 year younger.
If they wrould do this with the next (pre-)installment, they have to hurry up....:rolleyes:
 

Crack that whip

New member
Lance Quazar said:
My problem with the series is not that it was different from the films. I expected it to be, for the most part. I wasn't looking for a mini Indy film every week and the project definitely didn't suffer from a lack of ambition or imagination.

But, through a combination of lackluster writing, directing and acting, the series felt flat and dull to me more often than not.

There were some great stories there and some terrific ideas, but the execution only rarely lived up to its potential.

If you say so. Personally I think it has brilliant writing, direction, etc.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Lance Quazar said:
My problem with the series is not that it was different from the films. I expected it to be, for the most part. I wasn't looking for a mini Indy film every week and the project definitely didn't suffer from a lack of ambition or imagination.

But, through a combination of lackluster writing, directing and acting, the series felt flat and dull to me more often than not.

There were some great stories there and some terrific ideas, but the execution only rarely lived up to its potential.

I thought the acting/direction and writing were mostly above average (especially when you compare it to other TV series of the day)... But for me, when you take a character from one of the most entertaining and action orientated movies of all time, and then (for the most part) put him in 30/60 minute episodes where he's not really doing anything that exciting, it seems somewhat strange and at odds (no matter how well it's written). TYIJC, IMHO, would have been a lot better if it was actually about a different character (Henry Jones Senior perhaps???).

The only other thing I can compare TYIJC to is Smallville. And as much as I've tried to get into that, I can't... Simply put, why would I want to watch a series about Superman, before he was Superman (if you know what I mean)? It just doesn't work for me.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Hanselation, that is a very good suggestion, but there's one person who won't like that idea... And Le Saboteur, I know he's getting older, but maybe they could wrangle up a few plausible stunts for him to do as an older fella?
 

tambourineman

New member
Theres too much of Harrison Ford in Indy. James Bond is a totally different type of animal, as long as an actor looks good in a tux and can act smooth and confident, he can be James Bond, but Indy is totally different. Its not just a hat and jacket, theres a quirkyness to the character, and Harrison's mannerisms and personality make the character. I would not see an Indy movie without him.

The only future for Indy without Harrison that I'd like to see is something I was thinking about a while ago. I'd like to see a sequel series to the Young Indy Chronicles with Sean Patrick Flannery returning to portray Indy during WW2, and thanks to KotCS we know what he was doing during some of that time. It could incorporate a young Mac too. SPF is in his 40's so is the ideal age for Indy during that period.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Re Tambourineman. Well, Harrison's own performance in KotCS undoes your argument in your first paragraph. What he brought to his role in Raiders definitely makes you right, but it got less so as the movies rolled on and reached it's anticlimax in Indy4. Can't blame Harrison solely of course. Scripting, disinterested formulaism and so on played a part. We love Harrison as Indy or at least did a while back, but what is it that makes him able to own that character? You are only as good as your last performance and this being so, maybe some fresh life has to be breathed into the role of Indy after Harrison falls away. His performance is not sacrosanct. Given the right actor and story elements and so on, it could be assumed by someone else quite easily I imagine. But then again, I am a positivist and an idealist.
 

tambourineman

New member
Of course its possible someone else could play the part, but I just couldnt see them as Indy, the same way that I cant watch the YIJC and accept the character in that as Indy.
 

jamiestarr

New member
tambourineman said:
Theres too much of Harrison Ford in Indy. James Bond is a totally different type of animal, as long as an actor looks good in a tux and can act smooth and confident, he can be James Bond, but Indy is totally different. Its not just a hat and jacket, theres a quirkyness to the character, and Harrison's mannerisms and personality make the character. I would not see an Indy movie without him.

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.
 

jamiestarr

New member
Mickiana said:
Re Tambourineman. Well, Harrison's own performance in KotCS undoes your argument in your first paragraph. What he brought to his role in Raiders definitely makes you right, but it got less so as the movies rolled on and reached it's anticlimax in Indy4. Can't blame Harrison solely of course. Scripting, disinterested formulaism and so on played a part. We love Harrison as Indy or at least did a while back, but what is it that makes him able to own that character? You are only as good as your last performance and this being so, maybe some fresh life has to be breathed into the role of Indy after Harrison falls away. His performance is not sacrosanct. Given the right actor and story elements and so on, it could be assumed by someone else quite easily I imagine. But then again, I am a positivist and an idealist.

Seems like you were less than thrilled by Crystal Skull. Which is too bad. However, I disagree than any blame can be placed on Harrison Ford. He was great as ever as Indy.
 

JP Jones

New member
There's no reason why people should be thinking about replacing harrison ford as Indiana Jones. The new movies could be just be another chapter in his life. a lot of people hate seeing old indy. he's fine for me
 

Darth Vile

New member
I think it?s great that we can see a different chapter in Indy's life e.g. as a husband, father, and as an older man - who is much closer to Henry Jones Senior than he may like to admit. However, Indiana Jones was conceived as a younger character because he works better as a younger character, both cinematically and in a marketing sense... Academic by day, dashing playboy and adventurer by night. That?s a young mans gig is it not?

Don't get me wrong, I think Harrison Ford is still great, I liked KOTCS... I have trouble envisioning anyone else playing the role? but I also recognize that there isn?t much mileage in a 70 year old Indy. As I put in another thread, Indiana Jones will always be a youngish to middle aged man fighting Nazi?s in the 1930?s/40?s. That persona is quintessentially ?Indy? IMHO.
 
Top