Disney eyeing Chris Pratt

Z dweller · Jun 18, 2015

Glenville86 said:
I can see where some folks are coming from. I liked James Bond when Sean Connery played the role. Did not like the other ones as much but the franchise moved forward and is still successful.

Eaxctly.
We need more Indy movies to keep the franchise alive and popular.

Will the new movies be as good as the first four?
Well, Raiders cannot be bettered, that's for sure - but I do believe Disney have the ability and the resources to come up with something that proves a darn sight better than KOTCS.

Bring it on! :gun:

mrman7 · Jun 18, 2015

Pratt could pull it off

I like Pratt. Enjoyed him on Parks and think he's turning into a solid action star. I believe he could pull this off and they could make a good flick with him. I worry about Pratt saturation (Praturation) though. Shia LaBeouf was in like every fricking thing for a while and by the time we reached Crystal Skull people were just sick of him. I think that accounted for a lot of people not liking that flick.

TheFedora · Jun 18, 2015

http://www.slashfilm.com/indiana-jones-5-development/

^This article by slashfilm indicates Frank Marshall denying:

a) that Indy 5 is in development
b) that pratt is involved in any way

Moedred · Jun 22, 2015

http://nerdist.com/nerdist-podcast-chris-pratt-and-colin-trevorrow
At 38:33 - could Pratt play Shia's dad?

Túrin Turambar · Jun 24, 2015

Yes they will refuse any evidence of Indy 5being made, till Disney give them permission to make a announcement, and they won't as it will be Disney Lucasfilm, milking the big announcement.

Thought this would be understood by most on here...

And I bet When Harry Walked into Steven's living room in March, Frank was Sat right there too.

Z dweller · Jun 24, 2015

Túrin Turambar said:
And I bet When Harry Walked into Steven's living room in March, Frank was Sat right there too.

I heard from a reliable source that Elvis was serving drinks.

Dr. Gonzo · Jun 24, 2015

Z dweller said:
I heard from a reliable source that Elvis was serving drinks.

Yet another nomination for post of the year.

indy4242 · Jun 24, 2015

After seeing Jurassic World, I'm thoroughly against Pratt as Indy. He seemed like an OK choice before, but honestly, I don't think he could pull off Indy. He has the opposite demeanor. Indy's a grumpy old man at heart, and Pratt's a little kid at heart. Even when playing the theoretically tough adventurer character, it didn't really work. Then again, very little about Jurassic World worked.

My vote is Timothy Olyphant.

Duaner · Jun 24, 2015

indy4242 said:
My vote is Timothy Olyphant.

Fine actor, but not a good choice for Indy. The main concern would be his age. Olyphant is pushing 50. That would mean that his Indy would have to take place between Last Crusade and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. That would seriously disrupt the continuity.

It obviously has not been officially announced, but we assume the new Indy films will take place in the late 1920s/early 1930s where an actor like Chris Pratt or one in that same age category would make sense.

indy4242 · Jun 24, 2015

Duaner said:
Fine actor, but not a good choice for Indy. The main concern would be his age. Olyphant is pushing 50. That would mean that his Indy would have to take place between Last Crusade and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. That would seriously disrupt the continuity.

Any movie's gonna disrupt the continuity. They could totally set a new movie during WWII and have Olyphant fit.

(Actually, what I've really wanted this whole time is a TV series that took place during WWII, but that's never gonna happen).

Z dweller · Jun 24, 2015

Dr. Gonzo said:
Yet another nomination for post of the year.

Too kind, good Doctor.

A bit like shooting fish in a barrell, really...

In fact IIRC someone once told Harry "not very sporting to fire on an unarmed opponent"

Duaner · Jun 24, 2015

indy4242 said:
Any movie's gonna disrupt the continuity.

Not if it's a prequel to the Harrison Ford films. And as many posts have already suggested, they could bookend it with Harrison Ford that helps the transition. Pratt (or whoever) would be bridging that 1921-1934 gap between Sean Patrick Flanery and Harrison Ford. It's much easier to accept a different actor if it's set in a different era. It would be rather foolish to have Harrison Ford as Indy in the 1930s and 1950s, but someone else as Indy in the 1940s.

indy4242 said:
They could totally set a new movie during WWII and have Olyphant fit.

If they really want to go that route, I would rather see Karl Urban play Indy and most other fans would probably call for Nathan Fillion. You could also consider Sean Patrick Flanery, since he's already been Indy. Again Olyphant is a great actor, he just doesn't give off the Indy vibe.

indy4242 said:
(Actually, what I've really wanted this whole time is a TV series that took place during WWII, but that's never gonna happen).

I actually love that idea, but like you said - it won't ever happen. There are countless possibilities for stories there. Maybe they will at least do a series of novels or something to cover that era of Indy's life.

Raiders90 · Jun 24, 2015

There is NO NEED for a new Indy film, even with an actor to be a goddamn reboot.

What would be so bad about setting a new film sometime between 1920 and 1934? Or having Harrison bookend the film?

indytim · Jun 25, 2015

indy4242 said:
Any movie's gonna disrupt the continuity.

True. But somehow they've managed to get away without addressing this very issue with different actors in the role of James Bond for years. If you don't draw attention to it then I think you can simply get away with it ...

"Here's Indy back on the screen everyone ... it's 1930 something ... He may look different but just go with it and have fun".

indytim · Jun 25, 2015

indy4242 said:
My vote is Timothy Olyphant.

Nice choice and 'Justified' has proved he looks good in a hat :hat:

The only things against him being considered by Disney are 1) his age as he's the wrong side of 40 and 2) he doesn't have a proven successful track record at the cinema as a leading man, just on TV.

I'm sure now 'Jurassic World' has made over $1 Billion at the worldwide box office in less than two weeks (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=jurassicpark4.htm) Disney can't get the fedora on Chris Pratt's head fast enough. Such is the way of the cinema industry. Money will always speak louder than artistry.

Duaner · Jun 25, 2015

indytim said:
True. But somehow they've managed to get away without addressing this very issue with different actors in the role of James Bond for years. If you don't draw attention to it then I think you can simply get away with it ...

"Here's Indy back on the screen everyone ... it's 1930 something ... He may look different but just go with it and have fun".

James Bond is something different. There's not supposed to be continuity. James Bond stays about the same age while the world around him changes (kind of like The Simpsons). The idea with Indy would be to not infringe on Harrison Ford's years (1935 - 1957). So Pratt or whoever would be playing the younger version of Harrison Ford's character.

DDW1 · Jun 25, 2015

Duaner said:
James Bond is something different. There's not supposed to be continuity. James Bond stays about the same age while the world around him changes (kind of like The Simpsons). The idea with Indy would be to not infringe on Harrison Ford's years (1935 - 1957). So Pratt or whoever would be playing the younger version of Harrison Ford's character.

I believe that would be the best route to take. Cast an actor that could play Indy in the late 1920's, early 30's. Then after about three films, the audience would be fully engaged and would believe in the actor enough to accept storylines within the original timeline (1935 - 1957).

indytim · Jun 25, 2015

Duaner said:
James Bond is something different. There's not supposed to be continuity. James Bond stays about the same age while the world around him changes (kind of like The Simpsons). The idea with Indy would be to not infringe on Harrison Ford's years (1935 - 1957). So Pratt or whoever would be playing the younger version of Harrison Ford's character.

That's very true but outside of this forum I think very few people care about the potential storylines adhering to an actual chronology. As long as they get to see a new swashbuckling Indy adventure I don't think the general cinema-going populus will be bothered if the timeline is ignored.

I say mid-thirties all the way. Actor in his mid-thirties. Taking place in the mid-thirties. Job's a good 'un

Lao_Che · Jun 25, 2015

I think audiences could handle the visual discontinuity if The New Guy's first story was set between Ford installments once you crack the problem of having to convince us he's playing the same character.

For me, while I'd like Ford to get a last hurrah if possible, recasting is preferable to an attempt at remaking Raiders (either sending Indy after the Ark again or doing a Jurassic World which repeats many elements from the original Jurassic Park).

Túrin Turambar · Jun 25, 2015

Wow fantastic suggestions once again, why don't we all through the gauntlet on the floor and ask Tom Cruise to do it?? He's game for anything.

Disney eyeing Chris Pratt

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Administrator

Guest

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Member

Member

New member

New member

Member

Active member

Guest