It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I just don't know.... I'm sort of on the same fence as @Murdock-- Indy has to be a credible Professor of Archaeology too now. Not saying he can't do it. I'm just not sure we've found our right replacement (If we even go that route)
Of course, there could definitely be worse things to happen to the series.
i think Pratt could pull it off - the whole professor thing.. it is hard to picture, i'll agree... but until they are actually in the role, it's hard to suggest that they couldn't..
and who knows, maybe if they did it with Pratt still being young enough - perhaps he isn't a "tenured" professor yet - perhaps he is just starting out his teaching career.
if they wont do anymore films... at least get the best Harrison Ford sound-a-like, and do more adventures in video game form... i'd be all for that \m/
I'm sure there's plenty of American actors that can play Indy just like there are plenty of British actors for Bond.
I'm sure there are other candidates, but Pratt has that casual unassuming 'guy next door' quality which Indy must have, and can play a little more on the smart side if he has to.
As long as they don't go with their other 'it' boys (namely Reynolds, Pine or Renner) I'll be ok.
McConaughey would have been a shoo-in some years back, but is probably too old now.
Most of the names thrown around have big commitments in other franchise already; let's let other guys get a shot at it. In these kinds of casting pickles, going with an unknown talent with no expectations or labels put to them allows for a more natural perception of the actor to be formed. If Pratt did it, people would see the goofy Parks and Rec. character or Starlord, just as people would see Kirk with Chris Pine. A unknown allows no comparison, giving us a better chance of gauging their performance for nothing but what it is.
If Disney ever choose to do Indy prequels, this would be a good formula to follow. Hiring an unknown for the title role would also support their somewhat infamous history of underpaying actors in multi-picture deals, as we'd likely see a trilogy of prequels with whatever man they pick.
Do you think this franchise has legs? I can't help but feel it's going to be a case of diminishing returns, with movies that never quite match up to the originals. If you take Bond, something like CR is a shot in the arm. For me Indy is a period piece and always has been, so the task is very difficult beyond the initial 'buzz' of a first film in 'x' years.
Oh, I'm entirely against any more Indy films barring one last movie for Harrison, if it's a good send-off and worthy of standing next to the originals.
Indy films without Ford are pointless to me, but my post outlined how I think it will go down, if Disney choose to make more in the coming years. It's a money maker for them, and audiences will flock to them in good enough numbers that they'll continue for however long Disney want them to, for better or worse.
At least they can't take the originals away from us.
But I agree with you on the second part.
i am always down for more adventures - if they are done right that is...
sometimes, i feel like saying "they shouldn't do this or that" is a bit much... did they need to make a 4th one? No they didn't... but at the same time, does EON have to make another James Bond movie? No, they don't... they could end it all right now with Bond retiring at the end of SP and call it quits after 53 years.... but we want more.... the trouble is, Indy 4 left a bad taste in everyone's mouth (even the director's) - and now you got more people saying "leave it alone"... when before, people couldn't shut up about the idea of an Indy 4 for 20 years... point being, if no one was clamoring for Indy 4 for so long, they likely wouldn't have made it..... the same goes with Star Wars - people for years were anticipating Ep.I ...but after the prequels, when it was announced that Disney bought Star Wars and were going to do more movies, everyone said the same thing "leave it alone... don't make it worse... it's bad enough already." ... but after Ep.VII, everyone is clamoring for more Star Wars..
but i am willing to give Spielberg the benefit of the doubt with Indy 5, because there is no Lucas involved this time - and Steven himself has been adamant about setting the series back on track after the last one... because Steven, unlike Lucas, hasn't lost his directorial touch over the years - he is still amazing, and even his work on Indy 4 was great.. it was the script that failed him.
Sure some people wanted another Indy post-Last Crusade, but that was during a period when it was actually viable and Ford wasn't as old as he was when the project finally got realized in 2008, a "too little too late" moment if I've ever seen one. By that point the idea should have been passed on or improved entirely from the bad concept they were finally choosing to run with, as the film wasted the paranoia and danger of the McCarthy era communist witch hunts and turned out a film heavy in computer effects that looks poor next to a series that was heavily practical in its special effects and felt truly cinematic without feeling artificial.
In layman's terms, Indy 4 was approached in a way that really didn't speak to the history of the past three Indy adventures, and for that reason-amongst many-failed all expectations or standards held for it.
in terms of effects in KOTCS, there were actually far less CGI than it appears in KOTCS... when you watch the film it doesn't appear that way - but i would say the film is, at the very least, 70% practical effects, 30% CGI.... the stuff that is obvious - and i mean OBVIOUS CGI, was done that way - but they used a hell of a lot of miniature and model work as well - the nuke town being blown to dust by the nuclear blast for example was all shot and done practically using miniatures... the problem is, like i said, when they used CGI, it was used for the dumbest things (that probably had no business being in the film the begin with).. the Alien could've easily had been practical - still don't understand why the choice to do him in CGI..
you are right about expectations or standards - but i also believe that because of people's extremely high expectations and standards, that the film was doomed from the jump - because no matter what, it's hard to meet, or exceed 20 years of expectations.. if KOTCS had been released in say 1994, would it have been better received??.. hard to say..