Indiana Jones 5: July 19, 2019

Despite Marshall's statement, I still find it exceedingly hard to believe that Disney wouldn't take the opportunity to introduce a new actor as pre-TOD Indy in flashback scenes in Indy 5.

My firm conviction is that Disney will attempt to go right back to the roots of the series, just like they did so successfully with TFA, so plenty of action scenes and set pieces will be integral.

I don't believe they will choose to make a reflective, more mature movie in which older Indy contemplates his mortality and uses his wits more than his fists, gun and whip to get out of tight spots.

Can Ford really be expected to carry the burden of all action scenes, for the entire duration of the movie?

A sidekick, you say? Well, that didn't turn out so well with Mutt, did it?
And again, even the best scripted sidekick is no substitute for Indy, in a series in which the main character dominates the narrative so completely.

Only by showing a younger Indy in the 1920s and 30s can Disney truly and credibly go back to the roots of the series, while giving Ford the epic, glorious and thoroughly deserved sendoff he has earned.

More Karen Allen:

?I?m very much hoping that Marion Ravenwood is a part of it,? Allen told the Track. ?I would love to do it.?

?When they first offered me the role in 1980, the screenplay was messengered to me," she said. ?The courier sat in the room while I read it, then took it back from me. So this one?s as secretive as it has always been, but I?m very excited that they?re going to do it.?

Click to expand...

Moedred said:

More Karen Allen:

Click to expand...

A cameo at best, if Disney have any sense.

Not another family outing, please.

Z dweller said:

Despite Marshall's statement, I still find it exceedingly hard to believe that Disney wouldn't take the opportunity to introduce a new actor as pre-TOD Indy in flashback scenes in Indy 5.

My firm conviction is that Disney will attempt to go right back to the roots of the series, just like they did so successfully with TFA, so plenty of action scenes and set pieces will be integral.

I don't believe they will choose to make a reflective, more mature movie in which older Indy contemplates his mortality and uses his wits more than his fists, gun and whip to get out of tight spots.

Can Ford really be expected to carry the burden of all action scenes, for the entire duration of the movie?

A sidekick, you say? Well, that didn't turn out so well with Mutt, did it?
And again, even the best scripted sidekick is no substitute for Indy, in a series in which the main character dominates the narrative so completely.

Only by showing a younger Indy in the 1920s and 30s can Disney truly and credibly go back to the roots of the series, while giving Ford the epic, glorious and thoroughly deserved sendoff he has earned.

Click to expand...

How much did Ford really do in Last Crusade? Had otherwise stationary fights in a moving boat and on a moving tank, had a psuedo dog fight in a special effects plane, had a chase on a motorcycle, swam in a crypt, swung twice (likely with a hidden harness), did one or two stunt rolls, hung from stuff (likely with a hidden harness).

The action movie business is about trickery and deception and moving things along at a brisk pace. It's about cutting 70 takes together to make it look like an actor has done a lot of exertion and fighting in a 5 minute span.

Suspension of disbelief might be an issue with a 70-something year old actor, but the reality of filming is relatively leisurely next to its illusion action.

curmudgeon said:

Suspension of disbelief might be an issue with a 70-something year old actor

Click to expand...

Yep, it just might, mightn't it?

Z dweller said:

Despite Marshall's statement, I still find it exceedingly hard to believe that Disney wouldn't take the opportunity to introduce a new actor as pre-TOD Indy in flashback scenes in Indy 5.

Click to expand...

Unless they're planning on starting production for a reboot soon after Indy 5, where would be the logic in recasting so early?

For that matter, what's the rush? I agree Disney will have long term plans for this franchise, but trying to shoehorn a reboot into a sequel is not the way to go about it. Let's say they were to relegate Ford to bookends in Indy 5 while a younger actor portrayed Indy in the bulk of the film. What would be the backup plan if it just didn't work? Try to bring an 80-something Ford back to headline Indy 6?

I think it's because Disney is thinking long term that they are choosing to build upon the original franchise. Theoretically, the approach opens up more possibilities than rebooting alone could. For example, they could keep Ford around for 2 or 3 more films, allowing him to take on more of a mentor role to potential spin-off characters each time out. (An idea Marshall has previously suggested for Indy and already implemented with Bourne.) This would establish and expand the character's world in the 1950-1970 era while still paving the way for a rebooted series set during the 1920-1940 era.

Of course, all of this is just a long-winded way of saying Disney will eventually want to make an Indiana Jones movie starring someone other than Harrison Ford...but not today.

James said:

Unless they're planning on starting production for a reboot soon after Indy 5, where would be the logic in recasting so early?

For that matter, what's the rush? I agree Disney will have long term plans for this franchise, but trying to shoehorn a reboot into a sequel is not the way to go about it. Let's say they were to relegate Ford to bookends in Indy 5 while a younger actor portrayed Indy in the bulk of the film. What would be the backup plan if it just didn't work? Try to bring an 80-something Ford back to headline Indy 6?

I think it's because Disney is thinking long term that they are choosing to build upon the original franchise. Theoretically, the approach opens up more possibilities than rebooting alone could. For example, they could keep Ford around for 2 or 3 more films, allowing him to take on more of a mentor role to potential spin-off characters each time out. (An idea Marshall has previously suggested for Indy and already implemented with Bourne.) This would establish and expand the character's world in the 1950-1970 era while still paving the way for a rebooted series set during the 1920-1940 era.

Of course, all of this is just a long-winded way of saying Disney will eventually want to make an Indiana Jones movie starring someone other than Harrison Ford...but not today.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have to disagree with everything you said.
I personally don't believe Disney will ever make Indiana Jones spinoff movies.

Instead, I bet they'll go right back to the roots of the movie series, which worked wonders for Star Wars.

The big difference is that while SW was always an ensemble piece, so you can go back to the roots even with new characters, Indiana Jones revolves entirely around the protagonist.

Hence, the only way to achieve that goal beyond Indy 5 is to make prequels set in the 1920s and 30s.

The only open question is: will the new actor be introduced through flashbacks in Indy 5 (possibly only an opening scene like LC), or only in subsequent movies?
We shall see.

Take it for what it's worth:

Chris Agar @ Screen Rant.com said:

...Marshall revealed in his interview that the latest installment will be a ?continuation? of the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull story....

Click to expand...

Oh man, the hits just keep on coming.

Read the 'rumor', HERE.

Pale Horse said:

Read the 'rumor', HERE.

Click to expand...

Reading the comment section on that piece pretty much confirms my thoughts on why suits at Disney would be out of their minds if they really were to agree with this vision. If you're a devoted fan (like most of us), any film bearing an Indiana Jones title is interesting and you're willing to give it a chance. I know I would, and will, if that's what Indy 5 is going to be.

But read the opinion of the random moviegoer, and stop thinking they'll agree with you. Instead, they pretty much say: "Forget about KotCS and no old Ford."

And if you want Indy 5 to make bread, you need their money too. No, you need their money above all else. Us diehards won't be enough for this movie to be a success.

Not worth it.

Z dweller said:

I personally don't believe Disney will ever make Indiana Jones spinoff movies. Instead, I bet they'll go right back to the roots of the movie series, which worked wonders for Star Wars.

The only open question is: will the new actor be introduced through flashbacks in Indy 5 (possibly only an opening scene like LC), or only in subsequent movies?

Click to expand...

Well a prequel is not the only way to return the franchise to its roots. You could also take the old "Raiders of the Fallen Empire" approach, pairing Indy with students and moving the titular focus back to the quest itself as well as the colorful cast of rogues it attracts.

Incidentally, this is what I mean by including spinoff characters- a popular supporting cast that could justify Ford serving in a mentor capacity in another "Raiders" film. (I'm not implying they would ever attempt "Mutt Williams and the Latest Publicity Stunt".) It's also not that far-fetched, given how much of a trend this approach has become in Hollywood. Of the big franchise revivals released last year, nearly all of them introduced new, younger characters that were popular enough with audiences and fans to warrant a return- or even their own spinoff film. The only one that failed was the lone attempt to combine a reboot with a sequel without introducing any original characters into the mix (Terminator: Genisys).

Not that any of this would be my preferred scenario- I'm just speculating as to why Disney appears to be going along with Marshall and Spielberg on the subject of recasting. By expanding the original franchise the studio not only buys time but opens up further possibilities. They can make Indy 5 or Indy 6 and still be well-positioned for a full reboot in another 5-10 years. And if they do their job well enough on Indy 5, they can potentially have Indy series set in two distinct time periods. There's simply no reason their long term strategy has to be limited to the creative or casting decisions they make for Indy 5.

The trouble with rebooting Indy is the same two-fold problem Warner had when they wanted to revive Dirty Harry. The role is heavily identified with one iconic actor and the concept itself has been endlessly copied and parodied. So if you're going to reboot it had better be awfully ****ing good in order to justify a single installment, let alone a whole new series. It's definitely not something you can half-ass by trying to piggyback off of a sequel.

James said:

Well a prequel is not the only way to return the franchise to its roots. You could also take the old "Raiders of the Fallen Empire" approach, pairing Indy with students and moving the titular focus back to the quest itself as well as the colorful cast of rogues it attracts.

Click to expand...

Seriously?
For you letting loose a bunch of students to solve mysteries in the 60s or 70s would mean going back to the roots of the series???

This is Indiana Jones we are talking about, not Scooby Doo.

Z dweller said:

For you letting loose a bunch of students to solve mysteries in the 60s or 70s would mean going back to the roots of the series???

This is Indiana Jones we are talking about, not Scooby Doo.

Click to expand...

Is that really what you took away from my post? If so, perhaps this explains the confusion over Marshall's comments. (Speaking of a similarity to "Scooby Doo", that was also a criticism some directed at the last James Bond film- another franchise centered around a single protagonist that is currently flirting with how to inject more of a team dynamic into its stories.)

I'm assuming no one here has met with Disney about Indy 5, whereas Spielberg and Marshall both have. And they keep saying the role of Indy won't be recast. Marshall even maintains this extends to an Indy 6 or 7 and that they are more likely to pass the torch to a new character than replace Ford. So the obvious question right now isn't "Will they recast Indy via flashback in Indy 5 or just wait until Indy 6?" We currently have nothing to support that theory beyond the limitations of what fans think this series should be. The real question to ask is "How are they planning to work around this unusual decision?"

The other thing to keep in mind is that we're talking about producing Indiana Jones movies in the year 2020 and beyond. These will not be movies catering to the sensibilities of the 80s and 90s, when it was more common for tv and film to be episodic in nature. The series and concept will need to adapt and evolve if it's going to have long-term appeal to audiences who crave continuity and world-building.

For example, what if they pair Ford with someone who steals the show the way Daisy Ridley did in TFA? (Which isn't out of the question, considering how even die hard Indy fans on this site are skeptical of him headlining the film.) Do you still limit that popular character to a one-off and push ahead with a reboot, even as everyone says the character should return for a sequel? Or do you expand your idea of what Indy could be, the same way Bond, Mad Max, and Mission: Impossible don't necessarily need to be 100% episodic any more? Is it also feasible that Disney could maintain both a rebooted series as well as one focused on the older characters the way they are already doing with Star Wars?

From the studio's point of view, these are the obvious questions they may have been asking themselves. A reboot may seem like a great idea to fans who want to see Indy back in the 20s or 30s, but reboots and remakes don't exactly have a great track record in modern cinema. They've become something of a dirty word among moviegoers, especially when Hollywood attempts to remake a property as iconic and beloved as Indiana Jones. So if the studio is reluctant to pull the trigger on a full reboot, those doubts would be understandable. It may also be as simple as Disney feeling the public isn't ready to let Ford go just yet and is therefore willing to wait a few more years before attempting to start over with a new actor.

James said:

...but reboots and remakes don't exactly have a great track record in modern cinema...

Click to expand...

My only nit. And it's a sidetrack anyway. Reboots and Remakes are ALL modern cinema does. Hell, even Cameron's Titanic was an almost scene for scene recreation of the 1953 version of the film. I would say that makes for a pretty good track record.

James said:

From the studio's point of view, these are the obvious questions they may have been asking themselves. A reboot may seem like a great idea to fans who want to see Indy back in the 20s or 30s, but reboots and remakes don't exactly have a great track record in modern cinema.

Click to expand...

I'm not even sure the fans want to see Indy back in the 30s with a new actor. Speaking for myself, I'm certainly content to leave the franchise alone after Spielberg and Ford craft a (fingers crossed) satisfying finale. But the fact is Disney didn't purchase this IP to not use it, and for the sake of discussion I'm trying to view this through their eyes. In doing so, I'm confronted with the inescapable question: What is the point of an IP called Indiana Jones if you won't feature Indiana Jones?

Star Wars might be comparable in certain ways but it differs in this major one: Indy is the property in his case. He's literally the trademark. It's a question of when rather than if Disney will attempt to further monetize said property after the Ford/Spielberg era is over, and given that reality I just don't see how that attempt will take the form of anything other than a new actor for Indy, back in the 30s. Whether that project will be good or advisable is a different question. But when Disney inevitably takes a stab at rebooting Indy, that will surely be what the knife looks like.

The 30s are part of the identity of the character. Unlike Bond, Indy is a throwback and irrevocably entwined with a specific era. Yes, you can shift up twenty years to accommodate Harrison Ford's age, but that's the only reason you'd to it, and in the context of those stories you have to thematically acknowledge that Indy is a man out of his time. It's doable, but not ideal. So why on earth would Disney not want to go back to the ideal decade when the only thing that made leaving it necessary in the first place is out the picture?

The idea of spinning off a new character introduced in Part 5 seems even more dubious, business-wise. Disney bought "Indiana Jones," the brand. What is the value of that brand if they can't use the eponymous character and the attendant iconography? If they want to launch an action adventure franchise with a new character, they can do that any day of the week, a la The Mummy. The name is the distinction.

As far as spinoffs go, sometimes creative/business types have the mistaken idea that tying a spin-off to an established, beloved label will mean that that spin-off would do better than if it was introduced as the start of a separate franchise. My favorite computer game series, King's Quest, did this with its 8th entry and the reception was not so good.

@ James
I was going to reply, but Udvarnoky beat me to it, and I pretty much agree with everything he said about the film series in general, and Disney's plans in particular.

Personally, I don't feel another movie with Ford is necessary or desirable at this stage, in fact I'd have been happier if Disney had recast the character in Indy 5.
But I'm still hoping we'll get some flashback scenes set before TOD in the timeline, with a younger actor wearing the fedora.

IMO, it would be the best way to introduce said younger actor, and achieve a smooth transition away from the Ford era.

Pale Horse said:

I would say that makes for a pretty good track record.

Click to expand...

It's true there have actually been some very good remakes throughout the history of cinema, but this is why I limited that remark to modern attempts.

Udvarnoky said:

I'm trying to view this through their eyes. In doing so, I'm confronted with the inescapable question: What is the point of an IP called Indiana Jones if you won't feature Indiana Jones?

Click to expand...

I don't think any of us are really in disagreement here, as I'm not arguing in favor of this approach so much as pointing out the possibility.

What is Chris Pratt doing at the start of Guardians of the Galaxy? He's a treasure hunter exploring ruins while listening to 70s pop music. What about Daisy Ridley's character in The Force Awakens? A scavenger exploring ruins that becomes a kindred spirit to Han Solo. It's not a stretch to assume someone in Hollywood has already thought about dropping both actors into an Indy film set in the late sixties. Ridley as Indy's feisty protegee and Pratt as a would-be explorer hoping to impress them both.

Does anyone believe such a dynamic would NOT be successful with modern audiences? Or that Disney WOULDN'T attempt a sequel even if it meant relegating Ford/Indy to a smaller role? I suspect they would and that audiences would go right along with it, especially if it was retitled to adopt the "Raiders of the ____" naming convention as opposed to "Indiana Jones".

You're also correct about the period setting further complicating the prospects of a rebooted series. Bond himself is fundamentally a Cold War character but the producers wisely removed that limitation by deciding to update him to the modern era with each new film. The Indy property is unlikely to yield the same degree of longevity without a similar willingness to set aside strict formula.

James said:

The Indy property is unlikely to yield the same degree of longevity without a similar willingness to set aside strict formula.

Click to expand...

The problem is that Indiana Jones isn't the "formula" of the franchise -- he is the franchise. Take him away, and you're not "innovating the formula," you are in fact making something altogether different. Which is great, but trying to coerce it into something people identify with a very specific character seems an odd prospect, creatively and commercially.