Sacrilege? Can there be Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford?

jamiestarr

New member
Every now and again I will see someone on these boards mention "rebooting" or "recasting" Indiana Jones. Usually, this idea is met with a quick internet beat down and claims that Harrison is the the only person who can ever be Indy.

I don't agree with that.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Harrison Ford--he is my alltime favorite actor. However, I love the character of Indiana Jones more.

I would love to see him become like James Bond. The character is, in many ways, more fertile ground for continuing tales of adventure than 007.

Is it possible that we could reserve the title of original and always best Indiana Jones for Harrison Ford? We do this for Connery and 007. He is the measuring stick...and every few years we have the joy of a new Bond film. It should be the same for Indy...let other directors take a crack at Indy as well.

I don't know about you all, but I would much rather have 20 more Indy adventures (even with some missteps) than have a Mutt spin off, or worse yet, have the whole thing be over.

Anyone think that this is ever possible? In a decade or so? Or will Lucas and Spielberg never allow for this? Is it cinematic sacrilege?
 

The Drifter

New member
I can see where you're coming from. But, I'd rather see a few adventures made in the same vein as Beowolf. I would love to see an Indy movie made this way. They could use Harrison's likeness, and make Indy young. Imagine the possibilities, they could set it in any time period in Indy's life.
 

Darth Vile

New member
jamiestarr said:
Every now and again I will see someone on these boards mention "rebooting" or "recasting" Indiana Jones. Usually, this idea is met with a quick internet beat down and claims that Harrison is the the only person who can ever be Indy.

I don't agree with that.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Harrison Ford--he is my alltime favorite actor. However, I love the character of Indiana Jones more.

I would love to see him become like James Bond. The character is, in many ways, more fertile ground for continuing tales of adventure than 007.

Is it possible that we could reserve the title of original and always best Indiana Jones for Harrison Ford? We do this for Connery and 007. He is the measuring stick...and every few years we have the joy of a new Bond film. It should be the same for Indy...let other directors take a crack at Indy as well.

I don't know about you all, but I would much rather have 20 more Indy adventures (even with some missteps) than have a Mutt spin off, or worse yet, have the whole thing be over.

Anyone think that this is ever possible? In a decade or so? Or will Lucas and Spielberg never allow for this? Is it cinematic sacrilege?

To be honest, I think there is less potential in spinning Indiana Jones movies out ad infinitum than there is in a character like James Bond. Indiana Jones is by it's very nature, a period piece. The almost alternate reality of James Bond means that they can forever set movies in the recent past, present, or near future. Ergo, the only real future for Indiana Jones movies is a reboot/re-make of Raiders, otherwise he's just a character forever trapped in the 1930's/40's and 50's.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
To be honest, I think there is less potential in spinning Indiana Jones movies out ad infinitum than there is in a character like James Bond. Indiana Jones is by it's very nature, a period piece. The almost alternate reality of James Bond means that they can forever set movies in the recent past, present, or near future. Ergo, the only real future for Indiana Jones movies is a reboot/re-make of Raiders, otherwise he's just a character forever trapped in the 1930's/40's and 50's.

Dead on, my friend.

James Bond is a contemporary figure. Sure, he's been around for 40+ years, but he was always a character that existed in the present. As such, he can adapt and change himself to suit modern tastes and sensibilities.

By his very definition, Indiana Jones is a character of a romantic, exotic, mysterious past. The character is MUCH less versatile. And that's a GOOD thing. The more you try to change, alter, update or adapt Indiana Jones, the more you destroy his defining qualities, the things that make him special and unique.

Frankly, Indiana Jones really belongs in the 30's. The 50's was a bit of a stretch. Once you hit the 1960 mark, I think the character becomes an anachronism.
 

Crack that whip

New member
Certainly if the stories are all pulp adventures based on the same broad formula of the extant four movies, anyway. I do think the dramatically different TV series showed an alternate approach to telling stories with the character could be not only legitimate, but indeed, remarkably compelling.

Before we got the fourth movie that we did get, I said for years that while I'd love any Indy movie, I'd be particularly interested in one with a very different approach / style / tone / whatever - a straightforward drama, say. While I don't know that we'd ever get one (and if we did, I fear it would be savaged and rejected by many fans and viewers for not being what they want / expect), I'd still be very open to it, myself.

Ah, well. At least we have the four movies and the TV series we have, plus still-ongoing "EU" items like novels, comics and games.
 

WilliamBoyd8

Active member
Of course, I can not see anyone else but Sean Connery as James Bond.

How many have there been?

And what about Tarzan?

:)
 

jamiestarr

New member
To be honest, I think there is less potential in spinning Indiana Jones movies out ad infinitum than there is in a character like James Bond. Indiana Jones is by it's very nature, a period piece. The almost alternate reality of James Bond means that they can forever set movies in the recent past, present, or near future. Ergo, the only real future for Indiana Jones movies is a reboot/re-make of Raiders, otherwise he's just a character forever trapped in the 1930's/40's and 50's.

I see your point. James Bond has always been contemporary in his setting. However, Indiana Jones has always been a period piece (more or less) and that doesn't prevent any number of stories from occuring from 1930 to 1957.

I guess what I am saying is that, after 40+ years of Bond, despite his contemporary setting, the formula is the same and hasn't really changed much. Despite that, the character has proven popular for generation after generation. I mean, Casino Royale shook things up, but it wasn't a drastic shift. It was still Bond. Indiana Jones has the same potential and appeal.

I don't think Indy needs to be set in contemporary time to continue...in fact one of the reasons to find a new actor to play Indy is exactly so we can see stories that take place around WWII, etc.
 

James

Well-known member
I don't think Lucas has any real interest in seeing the franchise turned into a long-running series at this point.

Bond gets away with it solely because audiences became used to the concept decades ago. But it took three different actors to make the last seven films. In other words, there's no strong identification with any particular actor in the role, at least not the way there is for Ford as Indy.

Indiana Jones is closer to someone like Dirty Harry. Neither began as a particularly complex character, so a great deal of the personality was supplied by the actor himself. If you take that away, you're left with little more than a stock character. This means it's easier for filmmakers to just make an Indy or Dirty Harry clone- as opposed to trying to find the 'right' actor or securing any film rights.

The close-knit nature of the Indy franchise also means it has become more of a joint effort. Prior to Raiders, Lucas may have been open to bringing in other directors. However, at this point, he likely views it as something that is shared with Spielberg and Ford. Remember, he felt the only reason to even make an Indy 4 was for them to just have fun with it.

Eventually, we may see Lucas or his heirs attempt to revive the series with another actor. But such a film would likely be years- or even decades- away.
 

Jono11

New member
jamiestarr said:
I guess what I am saying is that, after 40+ years of Bond, despite his contemporary setting, the formula is the same and hasn't really changed much. Despite that, the character has proven popular for generation after generation. I mean, Casino Royale shook things up, but it wasn't a drastic shift. It was still Bond. Indiana Jones has the same potential and appeal.
So you're saying you want Indy to become formulaic and predictable? Not that I think that's what Bond is, but you clearly do. And you want Indy to become like that?
 

Darth Vile

New member
jamiestarr said:

I see your point. James Bond has always been contemporary in his setting. However, Indiana Jones has always been a period piece (more or less) and that doesn't prevent any number of stories from occuring from 1930 to 1957.

I guess what I am saying is that, after 40+ years of Bond, despite his contemporary setting; the formula is the same and hasn't really changed much. Despite that, the character has proven popular for generation after generation. I mean, Casino Royale shook things up, but it wasn't a drastic shift. It was still Bond. Indiana Jones has the same potential and appeal.

I don't think Indy needs to be set in contemporary time to continue...in fact one of the reasons to find a new actor to play Indy is exactly so we can see stories that take place around WWII, etc.


You are correct… The formula hasn’t changed much, but the movie makers have always taken the opportunity to make the movies current and connect with contemporary audiences (simply by reflecting the times). As both Lance Q and I have mentioned, the reason why James Bond movies can be made ad infinitum, is that he is a contemporary character i.e. he can reflect any given situation, both politically and culturally. The Connery movies definitely reflect the 60’s, Moore the 70’s and Craig the 00’s. That’s not to say James Bond is an empirically better character, nor the James Bond movies of a higher caliber… but it does present the opportunity to give any new 007 movie a modern spin.

A period bound character, such as Indiana Jones, will always present more constraints because the opportunities for doing something different is hampered by timelines, historic fact and the simple aesthetic one expects of a period movie. Therefore, any future Indy movie can only really re-hash what’s been done in Raiders, TOD, TLC, and to some extent, KOTCS. For example, what better backdrop to an Indy movie can you have than WWII and the Nazis? A few alternatives like Russians etc., but nothing as good (IMHO). Again, as Lance Q mentions, take Indy out of a jungle/desert/period setting... and he sort of becomes an anachronism (as evidenced in some elements of KOTCS).

So for my money, a new Indy could never really better the premise of the originals… but a James Bond movie, a la Casino Royale, always has the potential to better the original conceit. And that's why Bond goes on... and that's why (IMHO), Raiders (and possibly the first 2 sequels) won't/can't be bettered.
 
For your consideration:

Time: Present Day
Location: War torn Middle East
Who: Bookish, technophobe, tenacious, mid-western Archeology Adjunt Professor
Name: Indiana Jones

Despite Google Earth and the technology that deafens us...there still exist "lost" cultures. Scientific American published photos of just such a newly descovered tribe in South America. Archeologists in The History Channel's Indiana Jones special tell stories of working digs when a civil war breaks out and having to escape, driving over paths not intended for cars, etc... Not unlike what we've seen from Indy.

People still raise their children along similar values and ideals. So I believe it's not such a stretch to think a similiar character is possible in a current time.

As long as Indiana Jones remains an unwitting adventurer, (falling into adventures/dealing with the past cultures and as was intended: intent on debunking superstition)...it can be done.

Personally I think it would be really cool to see a throwback who shuns technology and can survey and excavate using traditional methods, (and succeeding) while peers and foes alike deal with the complications of crashing computers/batteries/power supplies. A great well for story inspired comedy and to showcase the resourcefulness of our hero. Let's not misconstrue this into creating a MacGyver, his "archaic" and "analog" approach could also cost him time/discoveries, fortune and glory as well as serving him.

Also, I don't think it's necessary to make any specific country the main villain of a modern Indy film. While we do have North Korea, among hundreds nay thousands of African dictators...Indy's villians don't necessarily have to wear a uniform. Privateers/mercenaries, Richard Branson, rival archeologists could suitably fit the bill.

Bottom line: a firtle imagination could work wonders.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
While you make some interesting points, I still think Indy, as Darth Vile insightfully pointed out, is best left belonging to a romantic and exotic past.

In the 30's, it's easier for us to buy into the mystery and exoticism of Indy's adventures.

Today, the world is too small, too connected. Sure, there are still digs to be discovered even in the modern day and there is certainly plenty of conflict to serve as a backdrop.

But in a time period like the 30's, it's much easier to accept that, of course you can stumble onto a Satanic death cult in the middle of India...or find a lost island which happens to be home to a gigantic gorilla. Or find out that the holy grail has been waiting for us all along, we just didn't know what cave to look into.

In the modern world, these ideas are a little harder to buy into.

We know there are no longer dragons lurking at the edge of the map.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Jono11 said:
So you're saying you want Indy to become formulaic and predictable? Not that I think that's what Bond is, but you clearly do. And you want Indy to become like that?
Hey, Jono. Unfortunately, there are multitudes of fans who want formula (Indy beatin' on Swastika-wearin'-Nazis, Christian ma-guffa-ma-gins, Marion in every story and the "iconic satchel".:p)
Crack that whip said:
As a matter of fact, there already are hours and hours of Indy without Harrison Ford...
;) :hat:
Whether people like it or not, it's true...:D :hat:

Saying that, the only way I could possibly enjoy a recast now is to have someone new portray Indy between the unseen (but not untold), younger years. 1913-1915 and 1921-1934. There's already been *7* people who've portrayed Indiana Jones so Ford is at the right age to continue until George Hall would've/could've taken over.:p To see Harrison as Indy c.1940-1956, we'll just have to wait until CGI of humans gets to the level of being indistiguishable from the real thing (and that *is* the way things are headed, like it or not...)

WilliamBoyd8 said:
And what about Tarzan?
With all due respect, William, the Indy films cannot be compared to Tarzan. (Someone else brought up Tarzan movies in another thread, too. Was it James?:confused:)
 
Last edited:

Le Saboteur

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Despite Google Earth and the technology that deafens us...there still exist "lost" cultures. Scientific American published photos of just such a newly descovered tribe in South America.

Weren't those photographs faked? I could have sworn that somebody in the Brazilian government admitted to fakery, because they were trying to bring attention to the plight of the Amazon Rain forest.

The point is legitimate, however, and a modern setting could be perfectly legitimate as Lara Croft has proven on several occasions. More research is required, but it's definitely doable; technology could even be used to assist the modern adventurer.

For example, our intrepid explorer is faced with a dead language he doesn't know. Or, is only passingly familiar with. In order to make sure the translation is correct, he snaps a short video/series of photos, and uses wireless tech to beam it back to his assistant who sets about researching it.

But to answer your original post, no, Indy should not be turned into a Bond-like progression of actors. It's The Beards' fault we're even having this discussion for ignoring the series, but it needs to come to an end. I was happy to have the original three, and can get my fix with several of the other action-adventure books/films/games out there.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Lance Quazar said:
In the 30's, it's easier for us to buy into the mystery and exoticism of Indy's adventures.

Today, the world is too small, too connected. Sure, there are still digs to be discovered even in the modern day and there is certainly plenty of conflict to serve as a backdrop.

That has more to do, I believe, that the general consciousness has moved on from a sense of wonder and awe to a sense of irony. Movies can no longer be 'serious'; there needs to be an ironic sense of detachment, with a wink and a nod to the audience. Media saturation plays a part, too.

The world is definitely connected and definitely small (how can one be exiled in a world of cheap airfare?), but step off the beaten bath for a moment and it's amazing at how "primitive" certain things seem. Driving down the 101 here in California at night, you'd be amazed at how dark things are around you; one's imagination starts to wonder.
 
Lance Quazar said:
While you make some interesting points, I still think Indy, as Darth Vile insightfully pointed out, is best left belonging to a romantic and exotic past.
...and to be sure the Indy I enjoy always will.

However, WHEN he's re-imagined/re-invented these times may be as archaic/romantic as the 30's 40's and 50's are to us. Hell, remember Windows 95? Remember Star Trek?

There's already the "Great Divide" between Raiders fans, everyone else, and then Crystal Skull fanatics. Give it a few years and new comers to the fold/flock and the clammor will be deafening!

Lance Quazar said:
In the 30's, it's easier for us to buy into the mystery and exoticism of Indy's adventures.Today, the world is too small, too connected.
There still exist people who live in a fashion unchanged for over 2000 years, who reject modernity. Indy's place is there...not the "small world". As I mentioned it's just that kind of mentality Indy should shun, (especially if he's a "throwback and classically trained/not dependant on laser transits, etc...) and becomes a source of humor and envy...

Lance Quazar said:
Sure, there are still digs to be discovered even in the modern day and there is certainly plenty of conflict to serve as a backdrop.
But in a time period like the 30's, it's much easier to accept that, of course you can stumble onto a Satanic death cult in the middle of India...or find a lost island which happens to be home to a gigantic gorilla. Or find out that the holy grail has been waiting for us all along, we just didn't know what cave to look into.
Hopefully they won't tread on the same path...that the cult they may encounter isn't one we've seen, (and there are still many cults out there). Some things must change, but that doesn't make the opportunity for discovery, romance and adventure any harder to accept. It can be done. Even here on these boards there's talk of the apocalypse and the Mayan calendar...the "400 lb Gorilla" if you will is only one facet of the superstitious nature of people.

Lance Quazar said:
In the modern world, these ideas are a little harder to buy into.We know there are no longer dragons lurking at the edge of the map.
Today’s dragons are of a different ilk...as expressed, a talented writer can work wonders.
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
An Indiana Jones movie without the period setting is simply a Laura Croft, National Treasure or Romancing the Stone flick for me. One of the fundamental principles of Indiana Jones (IMHO) is its nostalgia for a bygone age… its postmodernity if you will (both in a philosophical and visual/aesthetic approach). Remove that, and I believe you remove a large proportion of its heart. That's not to say that they couldn't do a re-boot to feature a modern/21st century Indiana Jones... but for me, having a contemporary Indy would be somewhat flawed and always inferior.

Rocket Surgeon said:
However, WHEN he's re-imagined/re-invented these times may be as archaic/romantic as the 30's 40's and 50's are to us. Hell, remember Windows 95? Remember Star Trek?
By Raiders timelines it would take another 25/30 years for society to have that same romanticism of the 1970's/1980's (but anything is possible I guess).

Rocket Surgeon said:
Today’s dragons are of a different ilk...as expressed, a talented writer can work wonders.
Agreed - But I'd sooner see talented movie makers/writers doing something new rather than the perpetual re-boots of long dead concepts. As it stands, similar to iconic characters like Batman and Superman, I think someone will remake Indiana Jones every 20 years or so (assuming they have the rights)... rather than it being a long running string of connected movies.
 
Last edited:
Top