- Time
- Post link
A cartoon Indy voiced by Ford could actually be VERY interesting
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
A new Indiana Jones? — Page 3
- Time
- Post link
Oh I just thought of another plot thread, the villain.
Make the villain an old Nazi general who bought into the whole idea that Germany only lost the war because of the Jews so he wants to destroy the dead sea scrolls as an act of pretty revenge against the Jewish people.
Now there is a villain I would love to see taken down and he could be played as really evil and fun to watch by a good character actor.
Sorry I keep going on about this but I just keep getting new story ideas and when I get those I have to share them with someone, sorry.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Many franchises have done very well with different actors in the same role. It would take a while to adjust to the new actor, but I suspect thirty minutes in or so, I'd be just fine. Ultimately it's the story that draws me in.
I think the article summed it up nicely;
There are so many stories to tell, so many points in history to visit, so many treasures to unearth that continuing the adventures of Dr. Henry Jones Junior isn’t just a choice; it’s an obligation. Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, Last Crusade and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are more than just films; they are, to borrow a line from a galaxy far, far away, a first step into a larger world.
An Indiana Jones 5 would inspire kids to learn more about history, archaeology, and morality, just as its predecessors did, just as cinema should. So dust off the old fedora, sling on the old leather jacket and let the Raiders March play. Let go of your own memories, and let some new ones for new people form, because the man in the hat needs to come back.
I also agree with Tobar and Crow on not making it some sort of reboot\origin. The trend of starting over needs to go away. The audience doesn't need to be treated like a child. Show another Indiana Jones adventure that happens to have someone else playing the part.
James Bond, Dr. Who, Batman, Rooster Cogburn, Darrin Stevens, etc. It's been done before without patronizing the audience with a lengthy and unnecessary explanation and it works well.
I've said it before, I'll say it again; If you can successfully recast 007, Kirk, and Spock (and they did) - you can recast anyone. Granted, the crew of the Enterprise started with an origin story, but it didn't have to. The recasting of the crew was so fantastic, they wouldn't have missed a beat.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I am of a different mindset: I watch Indiana Jones to see Harrison Ford playing a role to which he was well suited. I would watch an Indiana-type series with the understanding that we could be treated to similar plots, but not be forced to pretend to pretend to be watching a different actor pretending to be Harrison Ford pretending to be Indiana Jones. My suspension of disbelief is merely not sufficiently elastic.
The first time such an actor attempted to retrieve his hat from peril, voiced a fear of snakes, and attempted to deliver Harrison-type quips would be a type of death to the original. Let us embrace new idioms and enjoy a new series without such forcible distractions.
It would be as if a new muscle-bound type attempted to imitate Schwarzenegger, both in accent and in phraseology...it would be excruciating to watch...much as would be a new Black Adder, a new Han Solo, a new Colombo.
Though some might be capable of shrugging off a new Captain Kirk or James Bond, I lack such a nature: if the entertainment industry is advertising a deficit of new characters interesting enough in their own right to warrant a story of their own then why am I to care what is to befall them in any new development? Will they not have the potential to be infinitely replaced in this, our new, doppelganger universe?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
So you have not watched any thing James Bond related except the 1954 CBS broadcast of Casino Royal for Climax?
Oh and the new actor doesn't have to pretend to be Ford, he can play the part his own way. Connery did not pretend to be the guy fro Casino Royal. Brett did not pretend to be Cushing when playing Sherlock Holmes. Laurie did not pretend to be Nevin when playing Bertie Wooster. Troughton did not pretend to be Hartnell. Why would the new actor pretend to be Ford? Why wouldn't he just play the part.
Under this logic Shakespear's plays should never be preformed today because none of the actors are playing the role, they are just pretending to be the actors who played the roles in Shakespeare's day.
- Time
- Post link
DrCrowTStarwars said:
So you have not watched any thing James Bond related except the 1954 CBS broadcast of Casino Royal for Climax?
This lack of consistency has certainly reduced any desire to view any of them, yes.
Oh and the new actor doesn't have to pretend to be Ford, he can play the part his own way. Connery did not pretend to be the guy fro Casino Royal. Brett did not pretend to be Cushing when playing Sherlock Holmes. Laurie did not pretend to be Nevin when playing Bertie Wooster. Troughton did not pretend to be Hartnell. Why would the new actor pretend to be Ford? Why wouldn't he just play the part.
Under this logic Shakespear's plays should never be preformed today because none of the actors are playing the role, they are just pretending to be the actors who played the roles in Shakespeare's day.
I am most certain many feel as you do and are able to embrace the character in whichever manifestation it is offered.
I will readily admit that I have done so with David Suchet's Poirot and Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes, being well aware that the portrayal has been done by many others before.
That being said, however, now that I have a preferred Poirot or Sherlock, I no longer feel the desire to entertain any others.
What might be argued in such examples, however, is that many of these were born first in the imagination of the audience through a well known written or performed work. Such characters were known prior to the actor who might later play the role and so the actor itself was not synonymous with the character.
With the advent of cinematic history, characters were for the first time immortalized in the form both of the character and the actor doing the portrayal.
When a role is developed by an actor to such a degree that theirs is universally assumed to be the definitive version it seems meaningless to reprise the role ad nauseam because the story-line has become secondary to the character itself.
In the constant recycling of such roles we confuse and erase portions of the definitive character--as it cannot (and likely should not) be duplicated properly without a great deal of cringe-inducing moments. Yet the paradox is that without such recognizable traits and obvious fan service how might this new version still represent the character that we have grown to know and appreciate?
With reboots we now have a Kirk and Spock who are irreconcilable with their former selves. If we are to discuss such characters we must now append a timeline to each so as to understand which version of what used to be iconic we wish to refer. It detracts from any identification with these characters and creates a secondary level of disbelief-suspension necessary to involve oneself properly in the film assuming one is well acquainted with the original.
Is Indiana Jones the only archaeologist who might be considered to have adventures? Certainly not. So why must all future such plots be that character's exclusive domain? Is not a cynical suspicion that such a decision might revolve largely around the logistics of simpler marketing rather than for any important structural significance to be understood?
Further, the potential to miss out on new possibilities that are seemingly never considered in favor of the more easily exploited tried and true is a great loss. How many versions of Batman are now at play and yet mutually incompatible? Is not the character more likely diminished by such schizophreniazation than improved? Why could not new material have been presented, and new stories considered, rather than a re-jumbling of the old? Having witnessed no fewer than 3 origin stories for a given character is it any wonder that such a one may no longer be of any great importance? Which is now the definitive timeline? The definitive story? The definitive character. Does not none of them seem a more likely response than all of them?
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
- Time
- Post link
Batman is not reduced. If anything the character is made more complex because different aspects are brought to the fore by different actors.
The fact is that it is almost impossible for any one actor to capture the full complexity of a real human. The nearest film has ever gotten is Orson Welles playing Charles Foster Kane and even that was a thin shadow of the real William Randulf Hearst.
The best you can get is if a character is played by more then one actor if you look at all portrayals you get the full complexity of the character. When you are dealing with a written character who has existed for almost one hundred years this can be even more the case. Taking batman as an example Keaton captured the dangerous obssesed side of Batman that was always brooding, for all of the problems with the script Kilmer captured the Batman who was worried about Robin becoming like him and wanted to see him avoid the path he took, Clooney again despite problems with the script captured the father and son like bond Bruce Wayne has with Alfred, Bale captured Batman as the crusader who is working out larger plans and doesn't want to just scare people and doesn't want to do this for the rest of his life, he capture the Batman who wants to inspire people to stand up on their own.
None of these actors on their own capture the full Batman character but when taken together they come close and each one focuses on what that actor was good at showing us, the same with the Bonds.
I really don't think we need a timeline that links them all and I still enjoy the Bond and Batman films as stand alone films with only a few links between them. The Indy films so far have very few links between them as well and the only reason Temple was a prequel was because Marian wasn't in it, there was no real character or plot reason it had to be a prequel and a lot of people still don't know that it was because they missed the one little caption in the film informing them of this fact. Also there is the fact that if you make a film with all the Indiana Jones qualities everyone is just going to call it a knock off so if it is produced by the rights holders why not just call it Indiana Jones? I would prefer that instead of being asked to pretend it is not an Indy film. I am not saying you are wrong to feel the way you do but what happened with Star Trek was the result of bad writing, it didn't mean that the idea can't work and as long as they don't remake the old films or say they never happened then all they are really doing is giving us more adventures with the same character. So I don't have a problem with that.
I understand how you feel and I am not saying you are wrong but for me I think I would find it distracting if I was asked to pretend that a movie that is in every way an Indiana Jones movies is not an Indiana Jones movie just because the actor was recast. It would be as if Henry the forth part one and two were made into the films and then when it came time to make a Henry the fifth film there was flashback scene with Fullstaff but because the producers could not get the actor who played the character to come back they changed the character's name.
Also for me in the films Indy has already been played by another actor in The Last Crusade, and it was for the exact same reason we are talking about recasting here. Ford was too old to play the character taking part in an adventure taking place in the year it was set in. Ford is clearly too old to play Indy in any movie that would be set during or just after world war two so I have no problem with them recasting again.
- Time
- Post link
Though I remain cynical in general towards the retelling of such tales in the larger sense of what was previously described, your very well reasoned and balanced response does allow for an alternate view worthy of consideration. Certainly a potential solution to the problem of inconsistent actors might be found in the placing of future stories within a past epoch.
It will really have to depend upon how it is handled...
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
- Time
- Post link
As long as they don't do some shitty origins intro with Indy driving a mustang off of a cliff as a young kid.
"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas
<span> </span>
- Time
- Post link
Other people already have played Indiana Jones.
There is his prequel escapade in Last Crusade and of course the young Indiana Jones chronicles.
None of which were ever meant to replace Ford. Because they were origin stories.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I do think it would be wise to grab up a lesser-known. There's gotta be some rough around the edges character actors that don't get the leading man, pretty boy roles of today. I love it when unknowns get big roles. It's sort of a middle finger to the craft to keep handing these roles to the same handful of actors. Look at how many shitty comedies Jason Bateman keeps doing, because he's "That guy".
The way Hollywood has been doing things, they would give it to a Ryan Goseling or Bradley Cooper, because they are already big names and they make the girls giggle. Or they'll give it to Joseph Gordon Levitt or James Franco.
Hollywood is lacking new rugged actors. Sure, they'll have the muscles and the stubble, but none of them have that hard working look that the older actors had. Every leading guy looks like a damn Abercrombie and Fitch model.
"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas
<span> </span>
- Time
- Post link
EyeShotFirst said:
As long as they don't do some shitty origins intro with Indy driving a mustang off of a cliff as a young kid.
Exactly!
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
- Time
- Post link
EyeShotFirst said:
I do think it would be wise to grab up a lesser-known. There's gotta be some rough around the edges character actors that don't get the leading man, pretty boy roles of today. I love it when unknowns get big roles. It's sort of a middle finger to the craft to keep handing these roles to the same handful of actors. Look at how many shitty comedies Jason Bateman keeps doing, because he's "That guy".
The way Hollywood has been doing things, they would give it to a Ryan Goseling or Bradley Cooper, because they are already big names and they make the girls giggle. Or they'll give it to Joseph Gordon Levitt or James Franco.
Hollywood is lacking new rugged actors. Sure, they'll have the muscles and the stubble, but none of them have that hard working look that the older actors had. Every leading guy looks like a damn Abercrombie and Fitch model.
Yes exactly. They need to go with an unknown. A character actor who is not a pretty boy and they can't do an origin story. if they do that then I will have faith in the project.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I certainly hope they don't decide to do any more prequels set before ROTLA*. It was bad enough when they made TOD a prequel; any more encounters with supernatural/paranormal phenomena at a time when Indy's supposed to be a firm skeptic would be outright inane.
*Unless said prequels eschewed any overt, direct exposure to the supernatural/paranormal. In that case I wouldn't mind more pre-Raiders prequels.
- Time
- Post link
Yeah it would be crossing a line and make him look really stupid, and destroy his whole character arc in Raiders.
It would make him seem like those people in the X-Files or Doctor Who who no mater how much really weird stuff they see they still don't believe Mulder or The Doctor when they try to warn them that something strange is going on. How much weird crap do you have to see before you figure out that you exist in a universe where weird crap happens every day?
- Time
- Post link
DuracellEnergizer said:
I certainly hope they don't decide to do any more prequels set before ROTLA*. It was bad enough when they made TOD a prequel; any more encounters with supernatural/paranormal phenomena at a time when Indy's supposed to be a firm skeptic would be outright inane.
*Unless said prequels eschewed any overt, direct exposure to the supernatural/paranormal. In that case I wouldn't mind more pre-Raiders prequels.
The great thing about the Indiana Jones franchise is that I never had to contend with inconsistencies in plot. These are not meant to be viewed as a single threaded plot running thru the entire franchise like Marvel is currently trying to do or that Star Wars did.
Indy flicks are one-off adventures. You can bounce from one point in time to another. Let's not over complicate the thing. I think of these films as a re-telling of random stories from an adventurers life. Fans of more 'serious' franchises tend to want to view the series as a historical chain of events that must maintain logical consistency. I dont want to turn Indy into something for which we have to put our serious faces on.
- Time
- Post link
I don't understand why Lucas and Spielberg would not allow other writers and directors to get involved.
Its the same story as Star Wars pretty much the need to control every aspect of the production.
Its not like a failed tv series like Young Indy where you can allow collaboration.
I think there would have been a lot more indiana jones pictures and more star wars pictures if Lucas path had taken a different turn. No divorce no burnout.
If he stayed young forever, none of those were likely.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
- Time
- Post link
luckydube56 said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
I certainly hope they don't decide to do any more prequels set before ROTLA*. It was bad enough when they made TOD a prequel; any more encounters with supernatural/paranormal phenomena at a time when Indy's supposed to be a firm skeptic would be outright inane.
*Unless said prequels eschewed any overt, direct exposure to the supernatural/paranormal. In that case I wouldn't mind more pre-Raiders prequels.
The great thing about the Indiana Jones franchise is that I never had to contend with inconsistencies in plot. These are not meant to be viewed as a single threaded plot running thru the entire franchise like Marvel is currently trying to do or that Star Wars did.
Indy flicks are one-off adventures. You can bounce from one point in time to another. Let's not over complicate the thing. I think of these films as a re-telling of random stories from an adventurers life. Fans of more 'serious' franchises tend to want to view the series as a historical chain of events that must maintain logical consistency. I dont want to turn Indy into something for which we have to put our serious faces on.
Still, would it have been so bad to put "1937" at the beginning of TOD instead of "1935"?