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
Given Harrison Ford has been playing Indy since 1981, and is still the only actor to portray the character on the big screen, no one on earth has grown up with anyone other than him as Indy. This is like re-casting Bond in 1999 after Connery had been the only incarnation of the character since 1962. Teenagers and kids today who happen to watch Indiana Jones films only know Harrison Ford as Indy, as there aren't any film that doesn't feature him as the titular character.
Good lord when you put it like that.... :-O
The only Indiana Jones film to come out in the past 30 years is kingdom of crystal skull, so with all due respect, there is a generation of children, who were babies or not born, that have never seen an Indie film in the cinema, which is what I said. It may startle some to learn that children nowadays are not watching and talking about the OT from the 80's, in their droves. Those films have there place, because of the impact they had at the time of their release, to the children and families of that era. If they want the franchise to continue, they need to create a Indie for this generation, and the same is true of Bond.
Your argument makes no sense. Try again please.
Unless you are saying that going to the cinema is the only way for people to watch films, in which case I must announce to everyone that I've never seen any of the Bond films released between 1962 and 1989 since I wasn't alive at the time, and I don't have any possibilities to watch them.
Bond survived past Connery because Moore was different. Still Bond, but he put his own spin on it and they ditched a lot of the stuff associated with the Connery era (no more shaken not stirred, no more Aston Martin). I think the only way to make it work is to recast and do that. Harrison Ford is too old to carry a whole action film himself, and if you split it between him and flashbacks to a young Indy, then the new actor is basically locked into doing a Harrison Ford impression and can't really put his own spin on it.
Not that they have no way to see them, but have no inclination to. You won't get a generation of Indie fans without any new Indie movies. 10 year olds aren't rushing out to buy the OT on Blu-ray, sorry to tell you. They would rather spend the movie to see something new at the cinema.
I didn't see my first Bind film till 1983. I saw all the films to date before I saw TLD in 1987.
Indy is Fords role. He's been playing it since 1981. As @DaltonCraig007 said, it would be like Connery playing Bond from DN to TWINE.
Again, you make no sense. How many times have the Indiana Jones films been played on TV on regular broadcasts? And sorry to to tell you, but no kid, teenager on this earth has seen an Indy film on TV that didn't feature Harrison Ford.
At least you are using your brain gradually more - there's not only the cinema to watch films, and Blu Ray's aren't the only other option either.
No it wouldn't be, at all. Because there weren't 19 Indie films between 1981 and now, like there were Bond films. I can't see why it's years in the role that matters, over films actually being made. There's no doubt Harrison will always remain the most famous Indie, like Connery will always be the most famous Bond, but it doesn't mean others can't play the role, and successfully. There is a generation, me included, which considers Brosnan "their Bond", inspite of us all having the opportunity to go out and buy the VHS of the old Connery films and prefering him. Fact is, a new Bond (or Indie) is simply going to be more present in the public consciousness, and leave a mark on those of an impressionable age the time. Its why by and large those who grew up in The 70's hold Moore as their Bond, those who grew up in the 90's generally hold Brosnan as their Bond, and kids of the 2000's will hold Craig as their Bond. Such a simple idea shouldn't be so difficult to grasp.
The point really goes way over your head. It's a waste of time talking to or arguing with someone who is clearly too clueless to understand simple things.
Who in the world cares about how many Bond films or Indy films there has been? The point is, since we must spell it out for you, there were 5 Bond actors between 1962 and 1999, but there's been ONE Indiana Jones actor on the big screen in the same timespan. No one on this earth, aged from 1 year to 99 years has seen a single Indy film in cinema, on DVD, on VHS, on Blu Ray, on streaming, on TV, or via illegal download that doesn't feature Harrison Ford as Indy.
...But you were just saying it would be like if Connery played Bond from 62 until 1999. So if that was the case, there wouldn't have been 5 Bond actors in the role would there? There would have been, that's it, one actor in the role.
How is the idea of modern movies leaving more an impression on today's kids than classics so hard to wrap your head around. Next you will be saying modern teenagers think of Basil Rathbone when you mention Sherlock Holmes to them, instead of Cumberbatch or Downey Jr. After all, they have access to the Rathbone films by TV, Streaming, Blu-ray, VHS.
1. Go back to school and learn how to read the English language, since you seem utterly unable to even understand what I've been saying in my past few posts. Like seriously, are you one of those 10 years old who don't rush to buy Blu Rays, since your comprehension skills are very poor, I doubt you're even 5 years old. If you keep asking such questions, it means you aren't even bothering to read what me and @benny are telling you, or you are too simple minded to understand. And don't project your ignorance to me, I am very well aware that there would be 1 Bond actor in 1999 had Connery been the only person playing the role, that's what I told you an hour ago.
2. As for your 2nd paragraph, you are a complete idiot. Are you now comparing 1 Indiana Jones actor in 37 years to over 70 actors who have portrayed Sherlock Holmes, sometimes multiple actors at the same time?
If they were to make a new Indiana Jones reboot, featuring similar adventuring escapades as the first 4 films, but with a new actor in the role, modern families and teenagers would refuse to spend their money and the film would not be a success, on the basis that Harrison Ford isn't in the lead role? This is what you're saying?
Indiana Jones has become a pop culture icon just like Bond or Sherlock Holmes. The fact that only one person has played him, does not mean that no film featuring the character without him would fail. The character and iconography itself is a boxoffice draw, just like with every other franchise in existence, funnily enough.
Can you explain then why Solo : A Star Wars story has been a flop then. By your rationale, it should be a success. To be fair I actually quite enjoyed it. And I might even enjoy an Indy movie without Ford. But then I'm happy with the three good films we got, and can leave it at that. We don't have to continue making them.
Maybe because it had a notoriously troubled production, switching directors halfway through, and being priced together from two different visions. I didn't say a Indie movie is immune to failure, just that it wouldn't be a failure on the basis that Harrison is not playing him.
I agree. It depends on how it all comes together.
I am more open to a new actor in the role, than trying to build the action around actor that's close to 80 year old.
It might work with different type of character, but Indy should remain a fairly young character, or the action wouldn't work that well.
Maybe Indy 5 will be less action oriented and Indy will just study archeology from old books.
A small sample: I could easily picture this in one of the old movies! :))
They definitely took their time with this one though! I'm actually looking to see if there are more now!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Jones_(comics)
There were two stories from the mid 90's, Iron Phoenix and Spear of Destiny, which I've never read. Other than that it's just the 80's ones :(
*edit ok there are a lot more in the 90's, but Tomb of the Gods is the final, most recent one. (sitting at 10 years old....) I'd love move like that!!
Antarctic Hidden Jungle, 1932...