which actor looks like HF?

Another suggestion: Joe Flanigan

Throwing in another suggestion: Joe Flanigan. I Haven't seen how he acted in Stargate Atlantis so can't tell how he can handle indy's character but he does look a bit like HF in younger days:


Here's a pict that i think he looks quite like HF

http://www.thescifiworld.net/img/interviews/reece_thompson_03_big.jpg

Oh boy... I opened the SG floodgate.

Coming up next in suggestions: Michael Shanks and David Hewlett, am I right to assume?

Wrong

Finn said:

Oh boy... I opened the SG floodgate.

Coming up next in suggestions: Michael Shanks and David Hewlett, am I right to assume?

Click to expand...

never cross my mind, those 2 are far from looking like HF and as for their acting: well, can't tell coz never watch any of the SG episodes.

Both

ClintonHammond said:

"Would you want to see a Harrison Ford lookalike, or someone who captures the spirit of Indy?"

In The Movie Industry, you can't have one without the other...

Click to expand...

Can we get both or is that too much to ask?

I still think Seann William Scott. So do a few friends of mine at film school. But... I guess that's probably coz I got a crush on Seann... But, most of these guys suggested are not too bad either.... what no evil emoticon???

I don't know how to express all that chaos in my mind in one post that makes sense. I have clicked on the POST REPLY button a gazillion times now but always got lost halfway through my post before I could get to the SUBMIT REPLY button. It was just too confusing. Thus...excuse my chaos, folks.

Well, I do the "could he play Indy" game quite a lot. For example, I find myself doing it during LOST all the time. And basically I do it everytime I see an interesting looking younger actor.

This thread, though, is about more than that. Under the surface it is about wether or not Indiana Jones could or should be turned into a franchise just like James Bond.

I don't think you should rush forward to the Indy-Bond comparison without reflecting on what constituted both "series" in the first place.

There are certain things, that, for me, indicate big differences between both series:
Indiana Jones was created for the screen. It came out of the minds and hearts of a lot of people, including Kaufman and Kasdan.... But first and foremost it was a birth of Spielberg and Lucas...and later all the people working on the film.
Ok...I may rely on romantic concepts of authors here. But I don't think there's something comparable to the helming spirit of Indy on the Bond side. Certain people whose vision founded the series and stayed with it...oversaw the development. Terence Young was very important and created something new, yes. Others that remained steadily influental probably were the Broccolis, but what do I know....
Development.
While they of course rework a certain scheme every indy film so far is quite unique. And then there's that -for an adventure film- pretty far reaching exploration of our hero's character in Last Crusade. And yes, you could also hold the richness of Indy's character up as a support for the franchise concept.
Bond, though, never seemed to have the uniqueness Indy has now. Even though, the Bond films may have seemed unique in the 70s, now it is a big franchise with great heights but also huge holes.


In the end:
I can't imagine Indiana Jones being extended to death, becoming a somewhat irrelevant mass. It would be like some kind of betrayal for me. There'd always be the Spielberg/Lucas/Ford era opposed to the rest. In the case of the Bond flicks its eras are defined by the actors and certain social changes.
An indy franchise could only work as we would have films focused on certain stages of his life.
But again: I don't think that Spielberg/Lucas/Ford are replacable. And I know that the "is Ford replacable" debate alone could be very long and very interesting....

*sigh*
I gotta go to sleep. It's 2.40 in the morning. Sorry for the rather unstructered post but I had to let it out now...


And one more thing in the end concerning the initial question of this thread: Every performance by another actor would be an interpretation of what Ford did. And only because someone looks like Ford doesn't mean that he is able to have the same energy on screen. Of course you already mentioned it by throwing in the expression of the "indy spirit". Nevertheless it is Ford's ability to be very credible to be shockingly afraid on film and his unique physicality, that is one of the key things to his Indy performance. There's none who does that like Ford. Anyone else as indy would be an interpretation. In the case of Bond you always have the books to go back to ....next to Connery's performance. In the case of Indy it's only Harrison Ford.
There's some truth to the Ford=Indy, Indy=Ford thing, despite the fact that it sounds stupidly dogmatic when you say it....
good night.

Finn said:

Coming up next in suggestions: Michael Shanks and David Hewlett, am I right to assume?

Click to expand...

Hewlett couldn't pull it off, but Shanks could...perhaps a "son of Indy" role?

Another suggestion: Ralph Fiennes

Despite the fact Indy = HF, HF is the ultimate one we have to come to accept the fact that we love Indy for his character and I surely don't mind SS & GL produces more Indy prequels in the future for the future generations of audiences. Another actor that can really act : Ralph Fiennes



Here, he does have the rugged look in this picture. Sure hope he can deliver those quick-witted quip like HF

Aaron H said:

Hewlett couldn't pull it off, but Shanks could...perhaps a "son of Indy" role?

Click to expand...

Shanks could probably get the professor aspect right... I was pretty much joking anyway, simply because Flanigan's name was thrown onto the table so quickly after I mentioned Browder (and that half-jokingly as well).

torao said:

This thread, though, is about more than that. Under the surface it is about wether or not Indiana Jones could or should be turned into a franchise just like James Bond.

Click to expand...

The interesting little quip here is, that in the end of the 70's, Spielberg was interested in directing a Bond movie. So far, 'til Lucas told him "I've got something better" that was to become Raiders of the Lost Ark.

So perhaps, Indy was to become a franchise... at least that far 'til Ford gave him a face that iconized the character.

The most important question we should ask ourselves in my opinion is: do we adore the character... or the actor who plays him?

Finn said:

The interesting little quip here is, that in the end of the 70's, Spielberg was interested in directing a Bond movie. So far, 'til Lucas told him "I've got something better" that was to become Raiders of the Lost Ark.

So perhaps, Indy was to become a franchise... at least that far 'til Ford gave him a face that iconized the character.

The most important question we should ask ourselves in my opinion is: do we adore the character... or the actor who plays him?

Click to expand...

That's a very very interesting point. And while I know that it is kind of narrowminded both things are intermingled in my case. I know, that I mostly think so because Ford is the only Indy I've ever known. And I absolutely adore Harrison Ford. (This point is tough because...why do I like Ford so much? I bet that Indiana Jones is a big reason for that...)

Let's say I adore solely the character; just theoretically. Then I can only adore the character Harrison Ford performed. It's how a human brain works. It's all constructed by what we've seen so far. There's no book or something, as in the case of James Bond, that you could go back to and say: Let's completely reinvent that character starting from there. A new actor could never fully emancipate himself from the Ford Indy. Or ...maybe he could.


Well...I would guess or maybe rather hope that Indiana Jones has become something unfranchisable at least for Spielberg. For him it would mean to pass his brainchild on. Of course he's done that in the case of Jurassic Park and also in the case of Indiana Jones with Young Indy.

It's a question beyond Harrison Ford...it's a question of Spielberg too. But I'm sure that you wouldn't mind him passing on...

I think that those filmmakers that would continue the franchise should rather settle on something new. That's how Indiana Jones was born after all. One frustrated James Bond director, two men in love with old serials. They didn't only continue what was already there, they reinvented them and created something new.

To Torao

I can understand your admiration for HF and in fact HF fans are one of the most loyal fan. That is why back in the 80's & 90's any film with HF in is sure to be BO hit. In fact HF capture the adventurous spirit of Indy so well that we identify with it and love it.

However, it is another generation now with different cultural lingo which most of them grew up bombarbed with CG, high tech and highly sophisticated story line to churn out another formulaic Boxoffice hit. Which unfortunately no longer attracts me as it loses the sense of adventure.

However, hopefully Indy 4 is able to let the newer generations capture that sense of excitement in adventures (Sad to say, not too many youngster nowadays I encounter are adventurous, most just want their PS & sit in front of computer)

If Indy 4 is able to do that, why not let newer stories of Indy continue to let the future audience capture that fun and excitement?

If they did a new Indy franchise, I wouldn't mind seeing Ed Burns in the Fedora.

Old pictures of Ford look like Josh Hartnett. But Hartnett is kind of expressionless, like the new Superman. Like Torao, I'm not interested in replacement. Indy's character has an arc. Ford is still the man.

A slight bump, but now that we're talking recasts... not only Ford, but rest of those familiar faces are becoming more and more unable to reprise their roles by each year. Denholm Elliott's been six feet under for a decade, Connery's seemingly quit acting and graying JRD would look silly would we have a younger Indy.

So, who would you hand out roles like Marcus, Henry and Sallah?

I don't think Indy can be as easily replaced as Batman or Bond. As someone mentioned, he was not a literary creation, but one originated for the screen. And Harrison Ford almost single-handedly created Indy using his own personality.

Kids tend to think only of the character, but most adults identify certain roles with the actor. Only Eastwood could be Dirty Harry. Only John Wayne could be Rooster Cogburn, etc. Eastwood is nearly 80, yet people (and the studio!) still ask him if he's going to do another Dirty Harry film.

It's also worth noting that Indy as a character largely exists in the trilogy. The books, comics, and tv shows never found him taking on a life of his own in the mind of the public.

Spielberg himself has said, "Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones." So what we're really talking about is not just who could replace Ford- but who could take over for Lucas and Spielberg as well.

Which brings up another problem: Why bother trying to replace Indy (and limiting yourself to Lucas' creativity) when you can just as easily copy him? Just look at the countless imitators that have appeared since Raiders. You don't even have to blatantly copy him either. It's not uncommon to see a film (or its hero) compared to Indy or the type of spirit that he represented. The most recent example of this is Jack Sparrow and the Pirates films.

Now obviously, Lucas may decide to, eventually, revive the character with a different actor. But that's something that probably won't happen for another 10-20 years, or unless Ford makes it clear he wants nothing more to do with the character.

Indiana Jones IS Harrison Ford.It's not only because of the acting itself, I think HF put so much of himself in it that so far I think that IJ is his best work. So if there is to be an Indy 4 without HF then I absolutely don't want it.
Maybe I say so because these movies are too personally close to me,fore example if I think of Bond or Batman as you have said I don't care who portraits them as long as theyìre good actors.
SP Flanery did IJvery well, but the chronicles,which I love,I do consider them a different thing and they're "previous".I wouldn't want him even to be in a movie.
Oh well,I don't know if I explained myself decently!

harrison ford is the only one who should have the role, and i'd watch him play the role at age 90 before i'd want to see another indy...however.

alexis denisof (wesley wyndham-pryce from the buffy/angel seriei) seemingly morphed into the scruffy indy-type look around season 3 of angel: the series...unshaven and all. plus the guy can act, he's really good at playing both the dark depressed anti-hero role, the smart walking-encyclopedia nerd role, and even the goofy comedic role... and he is excellent with physical action.

his name was thrown about a bit for consideration for james bond (admittedly his fake british accent probably sounds more authentic than his real american accent due to him living in england/playing a british character for so long--6 years). of course his problem is that nobody knows him very well outside of the btvs/ats fanbase.

but i think the feel of the two is uncanny.

As much as i would love to see Indy continue, i don't want to see this turn into a Bond thing. HF is Indy and always will be for me as some people still think Sean is the only Bond.

HF created Indy, i think he shoudl die with him as well.

If they were going to recast Indy, it should be Sean Patrick Flannery. The guy who played a young Indy. You release the Young Indiana Jones series on DVD to get his face back out there and associate it with Indiana Jones again and BAM. You got yourself a franchise.

I don't know that you can replace Harrison Ford. If the character is written correctly then nobody will care that Ford is older. You'll just say, 'yeah. That's Indy alright.'