Sacrilege? Can there be Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford?

D

Darth Vile

New member
garzo said:
By insisting on this formula the franchise is destined to fade and die. The only way Indy can survive in a long franchise, in my humble opinion, is to free him from the chains of these conventions, which is what Lucas actually did with the Young Indiana Jones series.

I would love to see a reboot of a big-screen Young Indiana Jones franchise that takes him on global adventures and out of the tiresome mold of simply chasing after a McGuffin before the Nazis, Commies, Thuggees, MPAA or whatever, get their hands on it.

It'll be interesting to see whether Indiana Jones really does survive Lucas and Spielberg, but seeing the amount of passion, and the many, many fan films that are out there, I'm sure he will.
Click to expand...

Lambonius said:
I couldn't agree more--not necessarily about a big screen reboot in the form of a new Young Indiana Jones franchise, but about the way Lucas and Spielberg crippled the Indy movies (especially KOTCS) from the start. Never before have I felt like a character's creators misunderstood their own genius more than I have with Lucas/Spielberg and Indiana Jones. The stubborn reliance on the tired formula of the films is just one example--the insistence that the Indy movies succeed mostly based on action and "thrills" than on a plot with some substance is another (and is what ruined KOTCS--which was even more disappointing given how much great potential the film's concept had.)
Click to expand...

Sorry guys… I have to say that I disagree 100%. The reason that we are still discussing Indiana Jones today is because Lucas/Spielberg understand the character/genre so well. Sure, it’s somewhat passé now (one could argue that it became formulaic straight after Raiders), but what really is the alternative? Is the world ready for Indiana Jones in outer space fighting aliens a la Independence Day? Or having an Indy movie without any discernable set pieces/action and is all taking heads (as with many episodes of “Young Indy”)? Or even having a “gay” Indy? I think not.

How you take a character like Indiana Jones (or James Bond or Batman) into the 21st century is to not go against the premise of the character/concept, but instead, by using modern movie making techniques to make the premise relevant for new audiences. This doesn’t automatically make a new movie as good, or better than the originals… but one can make a movie that has relevance. And if relevance is achieved, the character/franchise has the legs to go on.

I agree with you that KOTCS is much closer to Raiders, TOD and TLC than it is to, for example, “New Bond”, “Batman” or Jason Bourne… but that’s a style/cosmetic thing (IMHO) and not a fundamental shift in premise. KOTCS could have been more “relevant” I agree. Spielberg/Lucas could have embraced modern techniques a lot more (what about a drum n bass score as opposed to the usual symphonic John Williams one?). But again… I think there would have been a lot more gnashing of teeth by the general public/fan community if KOTCS were stylistically closer to those aforementioned Nolan and Greengrass movies than they were to the originals.

Indiana Jones will always be (for me anyhow) a predominantly action/adventure period movie. Move away from that and you may as well just invent a new character for a new audience. Perhaps it's time for that....?
 
G

garzo

New member
Darth Vile said:
Sorry guys? I have to say that I disagree 100%. The reason that we are still discussing Indiana Jones today is because Lucas/Spielberg understand the character/genre so well. Sure, it?s somewhat passé now (one could argue that it became formulaic straight after Raiders), but what really is the alternative? Is the world ready for Indiana Jones in outer space fighting aliens a la Independence Day? Or having an Indy movie without any discernable set pieces/action and is all taking heads (as with many episodes of ?Young Indy?)? Or even having a ?gay? Indy? I think not.

How you take a character like Indiana Jones (or James Bond or Batman) into the 21st century is to not go against the premise of the character/concept, but instead, by using modern movie making techniques to make the premise relevant for new audiences. This doesn?t automatically make a new movie as good, or better than the originals? but one can make a movie that has relevance. And if relevance is achieved, the character/franchise has the legs to go on.

I agree with you that KOTCS is much closer to Raiders, TOD and TLC than it is to, for example, ?New Bond?, ?Batman? or Jason Bourne? but that?s a style/cosmetic thing (IMHO) and not a fundamental shift in premise. KOTCS could have been more ?relevant? I agree. Spielberg/Lucas could have embraced modern techniques a lot more (what about a drum n bass score as opposed to the usual symphonic John Williams one?). But again? I think there would have been a lot more gnashing of teeth by the general public/fan community if KOTCS were stylistically closer to those aforementioned Nolan and Greengrass movies than they were to the originals.

Indiana Jones will always be (for me anyhow) a predominantly action/adventure period movie. Move away from that and you may as well just invent a new character for a new audience. Perhaps it's time for that....?
Click to expand...

I'm not calling from a radical departure in Indy's character make-up or for a modern update. Of course Indy films should remain thrilling action-adventure movies.
All I'm saying is that Lucas and Spielberg have straitjacketed the franchise by insisting on the same tired formula picture after picture. Why do we need a MacGuffin in the first place? Because it worked well in "Raiders"? Why do the films always need a magical object? Why does it always have to be a race to find said object?
This is what the Bond films suffered from for many years before they were re-booted.
Obviously no one wants to see an Indy film where he just stands around talking for the whole film. What I'm saying is that it's possible to make a great action-adventure film that is not shoe-horned into Lucas' "race for a MacGuffin" formula. There are countless possibilities for period adventure stories. It's obvious Lucas and Spielberg loved paying tribute to classic Hollywood films like "Gunga Din" and "The Naked Jungle" and others so why not continue in that direction rather than simply doing a new "Raiders"? (They really could have called the previous films "Raiders of the Lost Sankara Stones," "Raiders of the Lost Holy Grail" and "Raiders of the Lost Crystal Skull").
I say move away from "raiding lost objects" and go exploring instead. Get involved in a cloak and dagger tale, a mad scientist yarn, a spooky ghost story or discover a lost civilization (like the great movie "She" based on the novel by H. Rider Haggard).
What I loved about the earlier movies was that they really took viewers on exotic globe-trotting adventures, something I missed from KOTCS, which just took me to a studio backlot decorated with lots of CGI.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
garzo said:
I'm not calling from a radical departure in Indy's character make-up or for a modern update. Of course Indy films should remain thrilling action-adventure movies.
All I'm saying is that Lucas and Spielberg have straitjacketed the franchise by insisting on the same tired formula picture after picture. Why do we need a MacGuffin in the first place? Because it worked well in "Raiders"? Why do the films always need a magical object? Why does it always have to be a race to find said object?
This is what the Bond films suffered from for many years before they were re-booted.
Obviously no one wants to see an Indy film where he just stands around talking for the whole film. What I'm saying is that it's possible to make a great action-adventure film that is not shoe-horned into Lucas' "race for a MacGuffin" formula. There are countless possibilities for period adventure stories. It's obvious Lucas and Spielberg loved paying tribute to classic Hollywood films like "Gunga Din" and "The Naked Jungle" and others so why not continue in that direction rather than simply doing a new "Raiders"? (They really could have called the previous films "Raiders of the Lost Sankara Stones," "Raiders of the Lost Holy Grail" and "Raiders of the Lost Crystal Skull").
I say move away from "raiding lost objects" and go exploring instead. Get involved in a cloak and dagger tale, a mad scientist yarn, a spooky ghost story or discover a lost civilization (like the great movie "She" based on the novel by H. Rider Haggard).
What I loved about the earlier movies was that they really took viewers on exotic globe-trotting adventures, something I missed from KOTCS, which just took me to a studio backlot decorated with lots of CGI.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying... it's just that I don't believe the use of a Macguffin is the thing that makes or breaks a good Indy movie. Neither is it the thing (IMHO) that makes it derivative/passé. For example, most I think would agree that TLC is not really about the Holy Grail, but instead about Indy's relationship with his father. The Grail is simply a vehicle for getting from A to B and moving the narrative along. And as Indy is a supposed expert on archaeology and "the occult", that's usually his draw into any given story (just as the pull for James Bond would be some form of espionage).

Saying that, I certainly see no reason why an Indy movie can't contain "cloak and dagger", "mad scientists" or even aliens (although some didn't like the cross genre hopping of KOTCS)... indeed, I would welcome more spies and espionage plots... but that also doesn't mean it couldn't/shouldn't involve a search for an ancient object or other. :)
 
jamesdude

jamesdude

Guest
The only actor i see that is worthy of replacing Harrison in future Indy films is Karl Urban. for some reason he reminds me of Harrison Ford.....

karl-urban-5.jpg
 
M

Millions

Member
I want the actor who plays Sawyer in Lost to be the next Indy after harrison dies. What do you reckon? Or could we cut and paste harrison's face onto another actor?
 
S

sarah navarro

New member
jamesdude said:
The only actor i see that is worthy of replacing Harrison in future Indy films is Karl Urban. for some reason he reminds me of Harrison Ford.....

karl-urban-5.jpg
Click to expand...
Nope not delicious enough ;D . dont we have another thread for this conversation?
 
W

Walton

New member
There's a lot of life to write about in the late 20s, 30s, 40s, and early 50s. Indiana Jones' adventures span, what, weeks at best? So in 4 films, we've covered maybe 8 weeks of his life...12 if you want to get real generous. (Certainly the time frame each film covers is far less than that.)

There'll have to be a re-cast eventually. Sean Patrick Flannery has already had time as Indiana Jones in the YIJCs. He'd do, I guess. But if there's a better choice, that'd be...well...better.

I'd like to see an Indy trilogy set in WWII. More Nazis? Sure, but they're good opponents. Why mess with that chemistry?

Also, you'd get to see Indy and Mac working together...put some perspective on that friendship.

Basically, what the films need is someone who will honor them as source material, not re-invent them. Don't go changing musical themes or redesigning Indy's look. Clarify, but don't retcon. (Like, every time someone shows Krypton in a Superman comic, it looks different than it did in the last one...that bugs the fire out of me...pick a look and stick with it. Otherwise it makes the past works look like shoddy rough drafts...which they aren't.)
 
D

DeepSixFix

New member
kaokan123 said:
If they changed who played indy i don't think i would see the movies anymore.
Click to expand...
OK, so you can keep watching "Raiders" over and over. Have fun, ba-bye.

It's time for an Indiana Jones reboot. Enough with the light-hearted "Indy," the character is Jones. The way it was originally written.

Make it a new trilogy like the latest Batman. Heath Ledger doesn't detract from Jack Nicholson, and Daniel Craig doesn't detract from Sean Connery. It's about a fresh, new take. I love Ford as much as the next guy, but I like the character more. Either update Indiana Jones or someone else will do it, like the Bourne series did to Bond.

Make the movies dark...with creepy, scary temples and tombs, and set it back in the 20's and 30's but with modern moviemaking techniques. Forget the people who post that "Temple of Doom" is too scary and edgy, they don't get it.

It's not about "replacing Ford" it's about introducing a new generation to the character. Don't worry about Harrison, he'll be OK. The Indiana Jones character is an archetype that existed long before Ford, and will exist long after.

I'm waiting to buy my ticket. :gun:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top