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
There are major differences between the Bond and Indy franchises though. Bond had existed before Connery and he still exists after Connery. Plus SC played Bond (initially at least) for 6 years. Harrison Ford has been synonymous with the role of Indy since 1981.
And Faye Dunaway, and Mia Farrow. It was a first class gathering of actors.
...I mean sure I guess they could, but then the question is 'should they'.
It's a bit funny to see so many conservative persons here, given how many novelties the Bond franchise created that we take now for granted (changing the actor without introducing plastic surgery in the plot for instance).
The difference is every subsequent Bond actor could go back to Fleming as a basis on which to build their own interpretation of the character rather than just imitating Sean.
A new Indy has nowhere to go except attempt to copy Harrison.
@WillyGalore Mel Gibson was synomynous with Mad Max for even longer but the new one is shaping up to be fantastic.
With respect, Mad Max has always been a low budget, cult film series as opposed to Indy, which is mainstream cinema.
That's my whole point: it would be a copy of a copy. But even though Indiana Jones was inspired by serials, it was not (unlike Bond) a direct adaptation from a specific source.
As I said before, do graphic novels, novels, what have you, animated movies even, things that can be officious sequels or prequels. But a reboot? Not the way to go.
This is precisely the point. The adventurer-seeking-some-valuable-artefact-in-competition-with-ruthless-adversaries is hardly an original concept. We have had films such as King Solomon's Mines and Alan Quartermain, Tomb Raider, The Mummy, National Treasure, Sahara which all copied the old serial concept but none of them have really come close to Indy's success so there must be something about the character/Harrison (for unlike Bond whom exists on the page, Harrison is Indy).
To just knock up another 'adventurer' film without Harrison and call it Indiana Jones would be fraught with risk. Look how Bourne turned out without Bourne.
I guess the big question the studio have to ask themselves is: Is the Indiana Jones brand strong enough to, not just survive, but flourish without Harrison?
Bond in the 70's shows the difference between surviving and flourishing. Yes LALD and TMWTGG made money but not the sort of success that Sean delivered and there was a definite downward trajectory. Another TMWTGG sized gross in 77 and the studio may well have pulled the plug. Fortunately Cubby realised the danger and pulled out all the stops, Rog hit his stride and the rest is history.
Will any Indy film make money? Initially yes but will they keep making money if its LeBoeuf as Indy junior or a complete reboot? Who knows?
I'm not sure the Indy brand is as strong as Star Wars whereby three duds in a row were served up and they still made massive returns. I think there's a desire for more Indy but I don't know anyone who desires Indy sans Harrison.
I think he would make a great Indiana Jones. I would love to see that.
Low budget yes but how is it not "main stream"? They're iconic films that've inspired tons of other movies, they made Mel Gibsons career and Road Warrior is rightfully regarded as one of the best action films ever made.
I would need a teaser and one hell of a good plot to be convinced
https://www.google.com/search?q=fillion+as+indy&client=ubuntu&hs=A6l&channel=fs&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DpmjUqWBFqrjsATK54GoCw&ved=0CDYQsAQ&biw=1599&bih=960#facrc=_&imgdii=ufy_6HqL_cmAVM:;H-iISu5U0hyq6M;ufy_6HqL_cmAVM:&imgrc=ufy_6HqL_cmAVM:;jbLl3jzh8WKk7M;http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsMPRiw0.png;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comicbookmovie.com%2Ffansites%2Fmovienewsandreviews%2Fnews%2F%3Fa%3D85626;500;626
New Indiana Jones movies?
I agree pretty much with the Wiz, especially : To just knock up another 'adventurer' film without Harrison and call it Indiana Jones would be fraught with risk. Look how Bourne turned out without Bourne.
For me, I can see that the character of Indiana Jones is so beloved, and so much fun, that to continue the character is tempting. I am not saying that in itself is a bad idea. But they need to be very, very careful. I adore Harrison Ford to this day, but I do not want him in another Indiana Jones film, unless it is something like @Master_Dahark wrote. That would be good! I think they could do the next movie(s) set in earlier decades.
But I would thing I cannot stomach is Shia coming back as Indy. Get a new actor, please, no matter what else!
And then there's these:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/c683c7fa34fac098200101c36924146b/tumblr_mgf6wsJd7Z1qbd6mpo1_1280.jpg
http://www.comicsgalerie.de/shop2011/pics/ccrc000x1.jpg
;)
Putting aside Harrison ford is to old or no one can replace him.
I ask everyone on this thread what would be the quest? What would he look for?
If Harrison is still cast in the role? How about the Fountain of Youth?
If Harrison is returning, that's the only option. Or a time machine that somehow alters aging. Like I said earlier, by the time he manages to return and start filming, he'll be nearly 75 years old.