Forbidden Eye said:
Um, I wasn't staying of Pratt was castes as Indiana Jones for a future movie that he would be dancing on set, I merely singled out that one scene to point out that in Guardians his entire performance is comedic which isn't a tone I'd want for Indy.
Are you referring to the series as a whole or just the character? Because the tone of the series itself is certainly very far from serious - it's in fact very much screwball. Ford himself does use somewhat deadpan delivery, making Indy kind of a straight man in a rather wacky world. But as it's been stated numerous times, it would actually be a detriment towards the character if the new face was to simply copy Ford's mannerisms rather than bring something of his own to it.
I've no opinion really how Pratt could possibly handle it. Also it does appear that he's a popular option now thanks to way he looks, not how he acts. Then again, that is kind of an important point unless Indy is turned into a legacy character like James Bond. If there's no reboot or otherwise muddled continuity, one has to be able to believe it's simply the same guy at a different age. While the looks may be rather silly as the selling point, it still is less so than arguing that one would do good because he acts in a similar manner. I always found it groansome when people constantly brought up Nathan Fillion simply because there were some similar mannerisms in Mal Reynolds.
That being said, the bottom line with Pratt is that right now there aren't any real good arguments for having him - but the ones against him are equally weak.
curmudgeon said:
See, if I was in charge, I would go with the 1920's "college-Indy" option and let that actor grow into the Indy of the 30's.
Are there really any other options? If there's no reboot, the obvious point on the timeline is between where Flanery finished and Ford began.