If they reboot INDIANA JONES, who would you pick to play Indy?

I'm not saying only original ideas; what I am saying is that Hollywood is far too reliant on what has already been, and needs a great deal of fresh and new in the mix. They need to stop trying to remake the old and instead allow the old to inspire and influence rather than keep redesigning the old to make it new constantly. I don't mind a new version now and again, but where is the innovation for ideas that aren't simply a rehashed version of an old movie with the same title?

In any event, I'm not going to post again in this thread; not out of pique or being upset (which I'm not), but because I don't want to derail the OP here.

You're forgetting one thing, Hollywood isn't in the business to make movies, they're in the business to make money and movies just happens to be the way they make their money. The reason why we don't see more original ideas in films is because it is risky and they'd rather go with something that has a higher likelihood of making them a profit, especially after they've spent hundreds of millions making and advertising their movie(s). If you want to watch something that's not a reboot, sequel, or a prequel then you're just going to have get into indie films because that's where the originality is, not in the big Hollywood studios who only want to make big blockbusters that will make tons of money. Besides, this is hardly a new phenomena, Hollywood has been doing this for decades, just think of how many Buck Rogers, Lone Ranger, Charlie Chaplin, Three Stooges, etc. film have been made in the past. Remakes are hardly a new thing either, Hollywood's been doing that for decades too, we just tend to forget that some movies are really remakes because often times the remake is so much better than the original(s) that people forget about the original(s).
 
Some of the best movies in history are remakes and sequels.

Caddyshack 2 does not ruin my enjoyment of the original in any way whatsoever.

I think the Daniel Craig Bond movies are excellent. I prefer the Connery movies, but I think the time period they are set in has a lot to do with that, which is why I hope they keep any future Indiana Jones adventures set in the past.
 
The Bond/Indy comparison kinda falls short, though, in terms of recasting. The Connery Bond films basically were made within a single decade. Then you had another 40 years of actors changing, to the point where people dreamed up a "Dread Pirate Roberts" theory that "James Bond" is just a codename that's been held by multiple individuals. The Craig films have sort of confused the "timeline" which, prior to them, was largely respected, but my main point is that the Bond franchise has had over twenty films made in it, and has had multiple different actors playing the part.

By contrast, you have four Indy films spread out over 30 years, all with Indy played by the same actor.

Indy is, at least partially, Ford. By that I mean Ford's mannerisms, his voice, his physicality, all of those ARE Indy. It's not just the backstory, the whip, and the hat. This is why I don't think you can really recast Indy without essentially "rebooting" the franchise entirely, and honestly, I question how well the rebooted franchise would fare.



As a separate but related issue, I think that while Hollywood has remade plenty of stuff and played it safe in the past, there's a different vibe to it now. The money involved is a lot bigger, so the formulas are more closely adhered to. Moreover, I think there's a more "knowing" approach to it now, and a more perhaps cynical quality to it these days. For me, the big evidence of this is how branded movies are EVERYWHERE anymore.

There were periods where Hollywood relied on genre to sell films, or on particular big-name actors to do so, but now they rely on brands as well. And they know that if you slap a brand on it, idiots will file in to be easily entertained. Strip the brand away, and people would likely not bother with the film. But somehow the brand and the trappings of the brand actually improve their experience of a film. They like it because they WANT to like it.

Example:

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if a reboot of the Indy franchise happened, you could pretty much do a shot-for-shot remake of the 1980s Alan Quartermain films, just with Indy's name and costume instead, people would say "That wasn't bad! I liked it." Swap the name out though, and it'd be "What's this crappy Indy knockoff?"
 
The Bond/Indy comparison kinda falls short, though, in terms of recasting. The Connery Bond films basically were made within a single decade. Then you had another 40 years of actors changing, to the point where people dreamed up a "Dread Pirate Roberts" theory that "James Bond" is just a codename that's been held by multiple individuals. The Craig films have sort of confused the "timeline" which, prior to them, was largely respected, but my main point is that the Bond franchise has had over twenty films made in it, and has had multiple different actors playing the part.

By contrast, you have four Indy films spread out over 30 years, all with Indy played by the same actor.

Indy is, at least partially, Ford. By that I mean Ford's mannerisms, his voice, his physicality, all of those ARE Indy. It's not just the backstory, the whip, and the hat. This is why I don't think you can really recast Indy without essentially "rebooting" the franchise entirely, and honestly, I question how well the rebooted franchise would fare.



As a separate but related issue, I think that while Hollywood has remade plenty of stuff and played it safe in the past, there's a different vibe to it now. The money involved is a lot bigger, so the formulas are more closely adhered to. Moreover, I think there's a more "knowing" approach to it now, and a more perhaps cynical quality to it these days. For me, the big evidence of this is how branded movies are EVERYWHERE anymore.

There were periods where Hollywood relied on genre to sell films, or on particular big-name actors to do so, but now they rely on brands as well. And they know that if you slap a brand on it, idiots will file in to be easily entertained. Strip the brand away, and people would likely not bother with the film. But somehow the brand and the trappings of the brand actually improve their experience of a film. They like it because they WANT to like it.

Example:

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if a reboot of the Indy franchise happened, you could pretty much do a shot-for-shot remake of the 1980s Alan Quartermain films, just with Indy's name and costume instead, people would say "That wasn't bad! I liked it." Swap the name out though, and it'd be "What's this crappy Indy knockoff?"

You make some very good and valid points. In relation to you last paragraph I feel that Hollywood has had a hard time with making reboots/remakes these days, make the story too close to the original then people will complain about it being too much like the original and that there was no need to remake it, differ too much and people will complain that it's too different with nothing in common except the title. It's a very fine line to walk and sadly most Hollywood studio execs are about as coordinated as bear on roller skates and think making movies is like painting by numbers.
 
You make some very good and valid points. In relation to you last paragraph I feel that Hollywood has had a hard time with making reboots/remakes these days, make the story too close to the original then people will complain about it being too much like the original and that there was no need to remake it, differ too much and people will complain that it's too different with nothing in common except the title. It's a very fine line to walk and sadly most Hollywood studio execs are about as coordinated as bear on roller skates and think making movies is like painting by numbers.

Oh, I agree there. But (A) even if people dislike the films, they keep making money, and (B) all that does is tell the suits that yes, making movies really IS just painting by numbers.

The best two examples that I can think of are G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and the Transformers films. These films have basically nothing whatsoever to do with the IP on which they're based, other than some costumes, organization names, and character names. Oh, and Peter Cullen's voice. You get rid of those aspects alone and I guaranfreakintee you the fans who turned out in droves would've ignored these films. Rename the films "American Commandos: The Hunt Begins" and "Warbots," rename the characters, and make the leader of the good robots voiced by, I dunno, Liam Neeson, and the suits would be seriously considering whether it's worth making sequels based on the performance of the first films. But with all the familiar IP? They make bank.


I expect that this model will, eventually, give way to a different business model, but for the foreseeable future, to my way of thinking, "licensed IP/branding" is the 2010s equivalent of what "star power" was in the past. You still need a bankable star, but consider how broad that definition is now. I'd argue that the "star power" driving, say, G.I. Joe was pretty mediocre. Same with Transformers. The IP is what sells those films.
 
I'm glad Tom Hardy got the part, big fan of his.. Will be cool seeing Mel Gibson making a camo appearance..

As for Eric Bana.. Noooo.. :lol We've seen what he did with Hulk.. When I think of Bana, all I see is Poida from Full Frontal, and Chopper.. Though, he was awesome as Chopper..
lol,yeah,i know what u mean but he was good in blackhawk down,troy and munich
 
someone close to this guy:
463px-Schultes_amazon_1940s.jpg


because he IS Indiana Jones, and not some ficticious charactor.

Richard Evans Schultes (SHULL-tees) was a biologist (January 12, 1915 – April 10, 2001) and may be considered the father of modern ethnobotany, for his studies of indigenous peoples' (especially the indigenous peoples of the Americas) uses of plants, including especially entheogenic or hallucinogenic plants (particularly in Mexico and the Amazon), for his lifelong collaborations with chemists, and for his charismatic influence as an educator at Harvard University on a number of students and colleagues who went on to write popular books and assume influential positions in museums, botanical gardens, and popular culture.
 
Last edited:
someone close to this guy: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...zon_1940s.jpg/463px-Schultes_amazon_1940s.jpg

because he IS Indiana Jones, and not some ficticious charactor.

Richard Evans Schultes (SHULL-tees) was a biologist (January 12, 1915 – April 10, 2001) and may be considered the father of modern ethnobotany, for his studies of indigenous peoples' (especially the indigenous peoples of the Americas) uses of plants, including especially entheogenic or hallucinogenic plants (particularly in Mexico and the Amazon), for his lifelong collaborations with chemists, and for his charismatic influence as an educator at Harvard University on a number of students and colleagues who went on to write popular books and assume influential positions in museums, botanical gardens, and popular culture.

But was he ever chased by a huge boulder??? :lol

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2
 
Harrison Ford can only be Indy, just as Carrie Fisher can only be Princess Leia. It's done. Either expand and let it be a new character, or leave it alone.

I am okay with the idea of expanded games or animated features.

The Indiana Jones films are some of the few films out there that can't really be rebooted. Maybe some matte/FX fixes to update, but really they are solid and shouldn't be rebooted.
 
Child's play! Compared to what this man actually did. So! On looks alone (along with some serious butt-kicking) my vote is Jason Statham, and absolutley NO George Lucas involved.

Lucas is basically out at this point. He's no longer a filmmaker. I think his experiences, and particularly the backlash he received for the last, oh, 15 years or so basically put him off to it. The prequels, Indy IV, Red Tails, I think he just got tired of it, and that's why he sold out.
 
Lucas is basically out at this point. He's no longer a filmmaker. I think his experiences, and particularly the backlash he received for the last, oh, 15 years or so basically put him off to it. The prequels, Indy IV, Red Tails, I think he just got tired of it, and that's why he sold out.

Hopefully he'll stay out too. It's past time that he realizes that he's completely lost his touch as a filmmaker and especially as a director. He should just stick to being an idea man but with others maintaining veto power over any of his ideas and his ideas being largely limited to broad ideas like the overall concept but none of the finer details and especially not the plot.
 
Hopefully he'll stay out too. It's past time that he realizes that he's completely lost his touch as a filmmaker and especially as a director. He should just stick to being an idea man but with others maintaining veto power over any of his ideas and his ideas being largely limited to broad ideas like the overall concept but none of the finer details and especially not the plot.

Agreed. My sense is he's on board with all that, too, actually. It was why he got out of LucasFilm and focuses now on things like the George Lucas Foundation.
 
This thread is more than 8 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top