Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

[ChrisIII]

Although the film's production is still a year off, Spielberg and Lucasfilm recently have stated that the film will be Harrison's last, but not the last in the series, and stated a female lead is possible.

So it's possible that a sixth film could recast, perhaps featuring a younger Indy in the 30s and 40s again (as was thought would and maybe still could happen with Chris Pratt)...or this other way.

While we do have a female archaeologist adventurer with the "Tomb Raider" franchise (although that's mostly in the video game stuff; I'm not sure if the new movie made enough for a sequel), I think part of the appeal of the films is that their 30s-50s setting.

There's one possible avenue for a female Jones apart from creating a character from scratch. In the Old Indy segments in "Young Indiana Jones" chronicles, Indiana Jones has a daughter (although she's only seen a few times over the course of the series), although it's unclear who the mother is.
However, the "canon" of the old Indy stuff is up for debate, as when the show got released on home video, they were edited out (The series itself apart from that is still considered canon, as "Crystal Skull" referenced it. Some versions of Indiana Jones IV also would've used the daughter character, but the series eventually settled on Mutt. I suppose if the old Indy scenes aren't canon, they can actually kill off Indy and still do more films; sort of like "Solo"-the Harrison incarnation of the character was killed off, but the character "continues" in a younger form in a prequel.


Speaking of Mutt, Shia Lebouf has no interest (and Ford, likewise, doesn't want to work with him again either) although Frank Marshall has said Mutt won't be in the film, so he'll probably be written off (Maybe Indy sends him to "finish school"). No word on Marion though.

[The Great Usagi]

Indiana Jones needs to be left alone. Some franchises don't need to continue.

[Hiromi]

Speaking of Mutt, Shia Lebouf has no interest (and Ford, likewise, doesn't want to work with him again either) although Frank Marshall has said Mutt won't be in the film, so he'll probably be written off (Maybe Indy sends him to "finish school").

Oh thank God

[Zero Hunter]

It just makes me sad. Indiana Jones was always this swashbuckling dude running and jumping, and those are two things geriatric Ford can't even pretend to do anymore. Old man Indy just limping around in the 50's or 60's just is sad.

[Hiromi]

Provided Lucas isn't heavily involved I might be cautiously optimistic, some of the set rumors said that 4's major problem was that Spielberg just didn't have the energy to keep vetoing Lucas when he got too Lucasy like he did with the first three movies

[Jekyll]

It just makes me sad. Indiana Jones was always this swashbuckling dude running and jumping, and those are two things geriatric Ford can't even pretend to do anymore. Old man Indy just limping around in the 50's or 60's just is sad.

The new film will be titled: Indiana Jones and the Quest for the Luxurious Retirement Community.

[Zero Hunter]

Harrison Ford is 75 years old. He is not one of those "oh he is 75 but looks 55" kind of guys either. He looks and moves every bit like a 75 year old man.

[Guy1]

Harrison Ford is 75 years old. He is not one of those "oh he is 75 but looks 55" kind of guys either. He looks and moves every bit like a 75 year old man.

[ChrisIII]

Yeah-even in "Crystal Skull" a lot of the action seemed to be left to Shia (Such as the bike and jungle chases), with Ford mainly doing one or two fist-fights and some swinging with an obvious CG double. Him reprising Han and Deckard went much better since neither were really physical; Han pretty much just required running, shooting, and piloting (It was mainly Luke who did all the swashbuckling stuff in those films), and Deckard was never that physical anyway (The character is clearly outmatched by the replicants in that film).

[TomServofan]

Indiana Jones needs to be left alone. Some franchises don't need to continue.

Agree this franchise died along time ago.

I dunno about this and the idea of recasting Indiana Jones.

I haven't seen it but i dunno.

Some people are actually defending recasting iconic film characters with different actors. And even more so with the recent release of Solo. They actually think that all film characters are fair game for a new actor portraying them.

And it's fine that they feel that way. But I vehemently disagree and I just don't understand. Sure. I do have exceptions, like Bond (he was a literature character) or characters from novels or comic books. But for the most part, I want beloved film characters (original characters made for film and not from other sources) to remain pure and untouched by half-assed or horrible attempts to recapture lightning in a bottle.

Some roles have actors that were born to play them and there really are no substitutes. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Peter Weller as RoboCop, Bill Murray as Peter Venkman, Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly and Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger are all examples of this. And any actor that will attempt to play the character will pale in comparison. They have the charisma and personality that is unique only to them and that is what makes these characters so iconic and what brought them to life.

And don't give me the "They will make it their own" response. Make it their own means they will take the character and make it something completely alien to the character we all know and love in order to separate it from the original, potentially swap the genders, or just half-heartedly attempt to capture the same magic.

I have never seen a single remake with an iconic character or film have a lead that is anywhere near as memorable or as effective as the original for these same reasons. The track record is abysmal and that is why I don't agree with the idea of every character in every film is fair game for a re-imagining.

The rare times I have seen a remake be successful is when the character was not played by an actor that was irreplaceable or the film featured different characters altogether. And I honestly prefer the second approach. In three of the most well-received remakes of all time The Fly and The Blob, they all have one thing in common. They don't have the same characters as the originals. They have their own. And because of this their films stand on their own two feet and have created new characters that audiences loved and still remember fondly to this day.

What's the better option, continue to dig up popular characters out of the grave every ten or twenty years and try to do the impossible and find the perfect actor to play the role again, or stop doing that and put that effort into finding new characters for a new generation?

There need to be limits. Otherwise, you get A wannabee John Cena as RoboCop, and a southern friend Freddy who sounds like Sling blade. I would rather these iconic made-for-cinema (created by cinema) characters be retired on film and only brought back in books, comics, and video games then see lazy attempts by Hollywood to bring them back with new faces in "new" films just to piggyback off the success of the previous franchise.

Let these made for cinema original characters that you love die and become legends, instead of live forever and become total jokes and nothing but hollow cash grabs.

[Jokerz79]

Agree this franchise died along time ago.

I dunno about this and the idea of recasting Indiana Jones.

I haven't seen it but i dunno.

Some people are actually defending recasting iconic film characters with different actors. And even more so with the recent release of Solo. They actually think that all film characters are fair game for a new actor portraying them.

And it's fine that they feel that way. But I vehemently disagree and I just don't understand. Sure. I do have exceptions, like Bond (he was a literature character) or characters from novels or comic books. But for the most part, I want beloved film characters (original characters made for film and not from other sources) to remain pure and untouched by half-assed or horrible attempts to recapture lightning in a bottle.

Some roles have actors that were born to play them and there really are no substitutes. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Peter Weller as RoboCop, Bill Murray as Peter Venkman, Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly and Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger are all examples of this. And any actor that will attempt to play the character will pale in comparison. They have the charisma and personality that is unique only to them and that is what makes these characters so iconic and what brought them to life.

And don't give me the "They will make it their own" response. Make it their own means they will take the character and make it something completely alien to the character we all know and love in order to separate it from the original, potentially swap the genders, or just half-heartedly attempt to capture the same magic.

I have never seen a single remake with an iconic character or film have a lead that is anywhere near as memorable or as effective as the original for these same reasons. The track record is abysmal and that is why I don't agree with the idea of every character in every film is fair game for a re-imagining.

The rare times I have seen a remake be successful is when the character was not played by an actor that was irreplaceable or the film featured different characters altogether. And I honestly prefer the second approach. In three of the most well-received remakes of all time The Fly and The Blob, they all have one thing in common. They don't have the same characters as the originals. They have their own. And because of this their films stand on their own two feet and have created new characters that audiences loved and still remember fondly to this day.

What's the better option, continue to dig up popular characters out of the grave every ten or twenty years and try to do the impossible and find the perfect actor to play the role again, or stop doing that and put that effort into finding new characters for a new generation?

There need to be limits. Otherwise, you get A wannabee John Cena as RoboCop, and a southern friend Freddy who sounds like Sling blade. I would rather these iconic made-for-cinema (created by cinema) characters be retired on film and only brought back in books, comics, and video games then see lazy attempts by Hollywood to bring them back with new faces in "new" films just to piggyback off the success of the previous franchise.

Let these made for cinema original characters that you love die and become legends, instead of live forever and become total jokes and nothing but hollow cash grabs.

Except Younger Actors have played the character in the River Phoenix scenes in Last Crusade and the TV series.

[TomServofan]

Except Younger Actors have played the character in the River Phoenix scenes in Last Crusade and the TV series.

I'm talking about adult Indiana Jones

[TomServofan]

Maybe they ought to reboot the franchise rather than continue. Give us a new Indiana Jones remake

If it ain't broke don't fix it! leave it alone. You can't strike lightning in a bottle twice.

[feenix219]

If it ain't broke don't fix it! leave it alone. You can't strike lightning in a bottle twice.

Too bad Tomb Raider can't be retconned in as Indy's daughter....

[brettc1]

HA! They tricked me once.

If they've got a movie good enough to be worth my money it should be able to stand on its own.

And I'd it can't do that, why would I see it instead of just sitting in my comfy lounge room watching Netflix?