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

I have just had a shudder... please gawd, devil or sun.. if they at least have the wisdom to use Ford sparingly and hand off to a young actor in his prime... Please NO JJ style reebooqel of Raiders! Yes I want that bad ass Indy back that works in the shadows, but please a different story!
 
I was pleasantly surprised with Ford in TFA considering how much he sucked in KOTCS...


Ford was never the problem with KOTCS.


KOTCS was never a worse problem than Temple of Doom.
 
At this point the only reason they would make a new Indiana Jones would be because Disney is all about making money, I mean I love Indiana Jones and all I do when I go to Disneyland is go on the Indiana Jones Jeep Ride.. Heck Ive been on it over 50 times in my 16 years of existence and it never gets old, In my eyes with a new movie, mocking what there doing with Star Wars right now, there might some day be a whole Indiana Jones Land, How cool with that be !!!! But to do it with Harrison Fords age.. Well lets face it he can't go running around shooting up Germans.. or Russians and swinging around with cables strapped to his back anymore. So in my eyes although many Hate TKOTCS I think they should just use Shia Le Beouff. But the problem with that the year would be 1963 and it would not have that same feel, Unless the Aliens send him back through time which with Show Biz now a days it could happen ;)
 
I just don't see "Geezer Dr. Jones" working out very well...

While it was possible to bring Ford back for TFA, Han Solo does not have the same physicality that Indiana Jones can and must have.

I can accept a new actor in the role at this point.
 
You have a little Geezer Jones story at the very beginning action sequence (Age appropriate action, you could actually have some clever fun with that) that ends with a mystery only explained by the past, maybe Geezer Jones gives a knowing nod of recognition of something that the audience is clueless about... fade to the past with new actor, in his prime Indy for the bulk of the film that ends with explaining of that mystery. Torch passed.

Yeah aint' gonna happen is it!
 
You have a little Geezer Jones story at the very beginning action sequence (Age appropriate action, you could actually have some clever fun with that) that ends with a mystery only explained by the past, maybe Geezer Jones gives a knowing nod of recognition of something that the audience is clueless about... fade to the past with new actor, in his prime Indy for the bulk of the film that ends with explaining of that mystery. Torch passed.

Yeah aint' gonna happen is it!

True. And as I stated before, they could plan way ahead and have future stories lined up and film Harrison all at one time. Then the future films would have him in the opening and end of each film, even long after he passes away.
 
True. And as I stated before, they could plan way ahead and have future stories lined up and film Harrison all at one time. Then the future films would have him in the opening and end of each film, even long after he passes away.

And as I stated before, future technologies won't need this. We WILL have Ford in future Indy movies, long after he's gone from us forever. ;)
 
I was pleasantly surprised with Ford in TFA considering how much he sucked in KOTCS...

I was pleasantly surprised, too, but you'll also note that he didn't have to do a ton of actual action sequences. He runs (kind of shuffles, really) around in the film, and he shoots at stuff, but he's not doing what he did in his 30s-60s.

Look, Ford has aged exceptionally well, no doubt partially because he has had to in order to maintain "leading man" status. But he's over 70. At some point, he simply should not be an action hero anymore.


On a related note, as he ages, given that Indy is canonically an historical character in the sense that he actually experiences the passage of time (rather than a sort of timeless/ageless character like Bond), how the hell are you going to fit Indy into, say, the 1960s or worse, the 1970s? Who would the badguys be? What would the setting be? And doesn't all of that get way, way too far afield from the decidedly "history-ish" feeling of the pre-1960 era in which his movies have always been set? Hell, I had an issue with Indy existing in the 1950s, just given how different the world was from his 1930s/1940s feel in the original three.

But now it'll be, what, Indiana Jones and the Fall of Saigon? Indiana Jones and the Paris Student Uprising? Indiana Jones and the Secret of the Brown Acid?

Think about Indy rubbing elbows with hippies and long-haired rockers and people in ******* leisure suits. Think about Indylistening to the Beatles or Janis Joplin or Led Zeppelin or, god forbid, doing the hustle.
 
Ford was never the problem with KOTCS.


KOTCS was never a worse problem than Temple of Doom.

I suppose I mostly agree.

But his acting, especially in the opening sequence, was wooden.

Poor acting? Poor direction? Poor script? Poor editing choices?

Hard to say...
 
I was pleasantly surprised, too, but you'll also note that he didn't have to do a ton of actual action sequences. He runs (kind of shuffles, really) around in the film, and he shoots at stuff, but he's not doing what he did in his 30s-60s.

Look, Ford has aged exceptionally well, no doubt partially because he has had to in order to maintain "leading man" status. But he's over 70. At some point, he simply should not be an action hero anymore.


On a related note, as he ages, given that Indy is canonically an historical character in the sense that he actually experiences the passage of time (rather than a sort of timeless/ageless character like Bond), how the hell are you going to fit Indy into, say, the 1960s or worse, the 1970s? Who would the badguys be? What would the setting be? And doesn't all of that get way, way too far afield from the decidedly "history-ish" feeling of the pre-1960 era in which his movies have always been set? Hell, I had an issue with Indy existing in the 1950s, just given how different the world was from his 1930s/1940s feel in the original three.

But now it'll be, what, Indiana Jones and the Fall of Saigon? Indiana Jones and the Paris Student Uprising? Indiana Jones and the Secret of the Brown Acid?

Think about Indy rubbing elbows with hippies and long-haired rockers and people in ******* leisure suits. Think about Indylistening to the Beatles or Janis Joplin or Led Zeppelin or, god forbid, doing the hustle.

AND...

You have the same problems if the story hands off to a younger character (say, Indy's other cool and studly son)... Only way around that problem is a full reboot.
 
AND...

You have the same problems if the story hands off to a younger character (say, Indy's other cool and studly son)... Only way around that problem is a full reboot.

I don't disagree, but at least if you do the handoff, you have a chance of contextualizing the character so that they aren't some walking anachronism.
 
Agreed the magical time period of Jones is magical because the world still had unexplored
places where one can imagine finding a lost city or unpilfered tomb. Indy was a tomb raider among
other things, go passed WWII and it's just not the same.
 
I suppose it's nothing new, really, when I think about it. I mean, Arthur Conan Doyle had Holmes die at Reichenbach Falls...and then brought him back due to fan pressure and probably the fact that he had bills to pay.

Same thing in The Wrath Of Khan, You had kids at the paramount lot with billboards screaming " Spock Lives !!!" , And although they actually WANTED him to die they had to bring him back due to the fans. It simply won't go well that way with Indy…… Let it go down in history….. Let it rest……. No more
 
Agreed the magical time period of Jones is magical because the world still had unexplored
places where one can imagine finding a lost city or unpilfered tomb. Indy was a tomb raider among
other things, go passed WWII and it's just not the same.


This is one of my major beefs with doing Indy after the classic trilogy, including KOTCS. They put Indy in the 1930s because that's when he works best. Any earlier and it becomes harder for modern people to relate (no vehicles & guns, etc). Any later and the world has become too settled.


Raiders was fictionally set 43 years before the movie came out. Do the math. In 2024 Indy could go watch Raiders in the theater.
 
Last edited:
Here's my thoughts on this.

For Indy in the '70s the villain is obvious, the last of the hippies or the people behind disco.

In order to pass on the torch we don't need to dig up another long, lost son, we just need bring back an old friend, Short Round. He's still around there somewhere, who's to say that Indy didn't eventually set him up at a nice private school somewhere and he eventually goes on to college and goes into archaeology, following in the footsteps of his friend and mentor. Heck, you could even have it said at some time that Indy actually adopted Short Round making him officially a Jones and maybe he even adopts the nickname of Indy/Indiana in honor of his adopted father. The nice thing is that you could then set the movies some 10 -15 years later (after Temple of Doom) so they'd still be set in the '40s or maybe early '50s.
 
Here's my thoughts on this.

For Indy in the '70s the villain is obvious, the last of the hippies or the people behind disco.

In order to pass on the torch we don't need to dig up another long, lost son, we just need bring back an old friend, Short Round. He's still around there somewhere, who's to say that Indy didn't eventually set him up at a nice private school somewhere and he eventually goes on to college and goes into archaeology, following in the footsteps of his friend and mentor. Heck, you could even have it said at some time that Indy actually adopted Short Round making him officially a Jones and maybe he even adopts the nickname of Indy/Indiana in honor of his adopted father. The nice thing is that you could then set the movies some 10 -15 years later (after Temple of Doom) so they'd still be set in the '40s or maybe early '50s.

IMO that could work.

A lot would hinge on finding just the right new lead actor. But that's true no matter what.
 
Here's my thoughts on this.

For Indy in the '70s the villain is obvious, the last of the hippies or the people behind disco.

In order to pass on the torch we don't need to dig up another long, lost son, we just need bring back an old friend, Short Round. He's still around there somewhere, who's to say that Indy didn't eventually set him up at a nice private school somewhere and he eventually goes on to college and goes into archaeology, following in the footsteps of his friend and mentor. Heck, you could even have it said at some time that Indy actually adopted Short Round making him officially a Jones and maybe he even adopts the nickname of Indy/Indiana in honor of his adopted father. The nice thing is that you could then set the movies some 10 -15 years later (after Temple of Doom) so they'd still be set in the '40s or maybe early '50s.

That is why I felt they could do a series of films about his pilot from the Raiders, Jock. Heck, they just did a Jock Lindsey's Hanger restaurant in Disney Springs, so there could be interest there. They could go back to his adventures around the same time era.
 
Back
Top