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 couldn't possibly agree more; no impersonators, no lookalikes, just someone who can carry the movie on their own through suave charisma, and play the role their own way without mimicking Ford.
As for Solo, I doubt we'll ever really know the main reason as to why it bombed considering there are about a dozen reasons that could contribute to it.
That is it.
The article mentions all the Bond actors. Bond is kinda unique in franchises. It managed to continue with new actors but other franchises have had mixed results.
That's assuming the sole reason Solo bombed was due to the actor; I figure it's a number of things, and doesn't solely fall upon that.
As far as de-ageing , what was done with Michael Douglas for Ant-Man was remarkable; if they wanted to, they could make him look like Last Crusade era Indy, but I don't think they will go to that extreme, if at all. Harrison Ford is in remarkable shape; if anything they may shave 5, 10 maybe 15 years off of him or just "freshen-up" his appearance a bit.
Fun fact, Ford has always been older than Indy.
Raiders: Indy’s 36, Ford’s 39
Temple: Indy’s 35, Ford’s 42
Crusade: Indy’s 38, Ford’s 47
Skull: Indy’s 57, Ford’s 65
I'm also pretty sure he'll be physical enough to do the basic running and jumping needed.
I understand many don't want this film to happen, but I'm hoping for it to be one of those "best bad ideas" (2049 is a perfect example of a film that nobody wanted but ended up becoming one of the best sequels ever). I would want Indy 5 on the sole condition that it ends the franchise in much better form than KOTCS did, and if that means taking an extra year than so be it. However, something tells me this film won't see the light of day.
In my case at least, Ehrenreich was a major reason I missed the Solo film in the theatres (although I fully intend to watch it on the small screen when it's released). It's not because I dislike him - in fact, I really know nothing about him as an actor. Rather, it's because he didn't impress me in the trailers, and neither did anybody else. I don't think anyone would have lined up to see a hypothetical 'Indy: The Young Years' story starring the late River Phoenix in 1992 either. Indy is Ford and Ford is Indy.
So I think Mendelson is right. The difference with Bond or Bat is that the characters are larger than the actors who play them. That isn't the case with Indy or Han. Moreover, these two latter characters were established in continuity driven films with backstory, potentially making it more difficult to move forward. That wasn't the case with Bond where narrative continuity in the initial years was loose (thank goodness!). In the case of Batman, as Mendelson said, there was serious supporting cast firepower when Kilmer took over and moreover there is comic lore as a base.
Ford still looks very good for his age but maybe they shouldn't do this. Just let the character expire and try something different. After all, I think there is a market for an adventure type hero.
It's also like saying only William Shatner is Captain Tiberius "Jim" Kirk, when we now have Chris Pine successfully playing the modern-day Captain Kirk.
I think the fact that there is comic book history to fall back on benefits the Batman series. We expect it to continue, and so inevitably expect a recast at some point. I certainly do anyway.
I can't speak for Bond in the past of course because I wasn't around for Connery's time in the saddle. However, we all expect a Bond recast these days. It's inevitable for a series that has lasted 50+ years. Additionally, I'm pretty sure people wanted Bond to continue in 1968, even if they didn't believe Connery was really replaceable. After all, there were more novels to film.
The difference here is do we really want that with Solo or Indy at this moment? How many of us here are really clamouring for these characters to go on without Ford? Not many I'd surmise, even if many enjoyed the Solo film. Regarding Ehrenreich, I was only commenting on my own reasons for not seeing the Solo film in the theatre. I can't speak for others and I'll certainly watch it on blu.
I can't speak for Kirk because I'm not a huge Trekkie, although for me at least The Shat remains quite definitive. I've never bought into Pine as Kirk and didn't see the last film in the theatre.
I'm not suggesting that these series cannot continue without the original actors. In a day and age full of reboots and reimaginations it's almost inevitable that series will be recast. That's the Hollywood mantra. However, I think it's more perilous than it is with Bond or Batman where there is a certain benefit of doubt given.
Again, I'd say the difference with Solo was that the character had never helmed his own movie before. He was always part of a team with Luke Skywalker being front and centre. There's probably a hundred-and-one reasons why Solo didn't perform well. To list them all would be futile. For the record, I never once thought giving these side-characters their own movie was a good idea, but Disney won't be taking my advice anytime soon as they're too busy trying to milk the cow dry.
I also disagree on your Batman assumptions. TV Batman Adam West's show managed to save the Batman comic book series from cancellation at a vital point in the character's history. By the 50's Batman's comic sales were seriously on the wane, which was why they had to introduce Bat-Woman and Bat-Girl in the mid-50's to freshen it up and hope it'd boost sales. Of course, they didn't help. By '61, Batman was selling so poorly it was about to be cancelled, then along came William Dozier to boost its sales with his "Batmania" TV series. The huge debt the comic owes to Adam West for reviving interest in the character goes without saying. Sales even managed to surpass the original triumphs of 1940-1943. Like I said, had you been around in '67, you'd have been convinced that only Adam West could be Batman.
The problem I have with Ford playing Grandpa Jones is that he might kill-off any future possibilities of resurrecting the series with another actor in the role. After Indy 5, they're going to have to give it at least another 20 years before they can touch this character again, such will be the stink this movie leaves behind.
July 1st 1899
Yes, Harrison is rather old for this job. I think he has iconically defined both characters (Solo and Indy) though, and even though he was a supporting character when the original SW film was released, he became by far its biggest star by the time the original trilogy finished its run and I think that contributed to the difficulty in replacing him for both roles. Moreover, he has defined Indy for many decades, and similarly with Solo. I think something similar will apply to MI once Cruise hangs it up. Will there be demand for MI after Cruise? I'm not so sure, although it's possible if they reimagine it as an ensemble affair. Just recasting someone as Hunt and moving forward as though nothing happened wouldn't work imho. There has to be a valid and motivating reason to continue in the audience's mind.
I'm somewhat ambivalent about this new Indy film. While I'd love to see him don the fedora and whip one more time, I see the risks, and perhaps they should just close it out now rather than continue. After all, he's really not the draw he once was.
You're missing the point of my comment. Had it not been for the TV show's "Batmania" the comics would have ceased to exist. It was the triumphant success of the TV show and its tie-in merchandising that dragged it back from the abyss. I know you're thinking from the present and with the hindsight of comic superheroes now being all the rage, but you can't seem to grasp a different perspective from another era before all that took place. Would the current trend of superhero movies have existed without William Dozier's successful Batman series? Would the Salkinds have shown an interest in making a Superman movie had it not been for "Batmania" of the 60's paving the way several years before that? Would comics still be only confined to spotty nerds that couldn't get a girlfriend without the success of Batman? Would the current superhero movies exist without George Lucas advancing digital-effects through his ILM? I seriously think not.
I'm merely demonstrating how things can change and how a different actor can replace an actor that defined the role previously, that's all. It's been done before and it can be done again.
I don't disagree that Harrison Ford was popular in the role, but he's no longer the A-list actor of the 80's and 90's he once was. He's an old man now. The kids need to understand that no-one stays young forever.
No, not really. Only for one decade if we're going to be precise. Sure, there was a belated Indiana Jones 4 that the majority seemed to dislike but went to see anyway out of nostalgic reasons, therefore making it a nice BO earner. Sadly, it didn't work for the bloated mess of Blade Runner 2049. Of course, VHS and DVD sales reached out to a much younger audience that somehow feel that they have an emotional attachment to the original series and believe that the series has been going for decades, but both only really existed within the late 70's and 80's time-capsule kept alive by over-the-counter sales. I have no affiliation with the modern-cinemagoer that pays to see a new Star Wars movie, that's for sure, so I can't understand their way of thinking. Though I think some of them are wising up to being played by the studios.
I have no idea. But the big selling point of MI is the stunts, so whoever replaces Cruise will have to be as much of a daredevil as pint-sized Tom if the series is going to survive without him.
I'll be honest here. I really don't want to see Ford playing him anymore. I think he's far too old. This is coming from someone who paid to see the movies when they first came out.
In the Summer of '81 I was 21, and saw Raiders with my then GF, and we liked it a lot, but we weren't quite amazed. But around the third time I saw it theatrically I realized it was one of my favourite films of all time (I would end up seeing it some twenty times theatrically). After Jedi in '83 came Temple of Doom in '84. At this point Jones fully eclipsed Solo for me. Harrison WAS Indy. Last Crusade, while I had some comedy issues with Sallah, was basically pure gold. In 2008 I really wanted to love Crystal Skull, but I merely enjoyed it for what it was (and still do). Not Ford's fault though- I blame Shia & the lame script....
Solo, Deckard, Ryan... all great, but if adventure has a name, it IS Indiana Jones.
With the right charismatic actor in the role, I'd be SO up for new entries.
But NOT Chris Pratt. Sorry Chris... ;)
Ignore him Mendes4life. Your comments make perfect and logical sense.I've had patronising, insulting comments from DaltonCraig007 in the past and they went the way of Daniel Craig detractors ie completely ignored.
@Mendes4lyfe, I also got your point.
Well that is an adult look at thinks or NOT. Discussion is the basics of a good forum, if everybody agrees on anything it will become a boring place. If you start ignoring people because they disagree with you. please leave the forum as you are intent on killing it.