Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Discussion in 'Movies and Television' started by QLRformer, Dec 15, 2012.

  1. SouthtownKid

    SouthtownKid Headmaster

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Posts:
    26,059
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    357
    Likes:
    +10,543
    The problem isn't Shia's meltdown itself so much as it's that since that meltdown, Shia has become an actual actor who is making great movies and is no longer interested in being part of big empty franchise nonsense.
     
  2. DrTraveler

    DrTraveler Wheeljack, Wheeljack, Wheeljack

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Posts:
    5,444
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Likes:
    +5,654
    Ebay:
    I didn’t say that well. Let me explain. Crystal Skull is clearly meant to start the handoff to Shia. Walking out of that I expected one more with Ford where he’s in the backseat and Shia drives the movie. Think Last Crusade with Ford in the role of Connery. Mutt as a character had some rough edges that one more movie could have smoothed out.

    Now Shia is off doing his own thing, and after badmouthing Lucas and Spielberg there’s no way he comes back. That means Crystal Skull failed in its mission starting the handoff. So for Indy 5 you’re in a tough spot. Either acknowledge this is it for Indy and give him a proper send off or hire a new actor to play Indy (which was rumored for a while). I’m betting they’ll try another handoff to keep the franchise going, but I’m not sure this will work.
     
  3. dinobot1

    dinobot1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    1,039
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Likes:
    +1,863
    I don’t see any major studio attaching Shia Labeouf to a project since he’s been outed as an abuser. He was even fired from Olivia Wilde’s most recent film.

    Bringing this back to Indiana Jones, I could’ve maybe seen them do the “Creed” approach with Short Round. Age him up, give him an actual name, and make him the main character. Indy would serve in a mentor capacity like Rocky did. I feel like they should’ve done this regardless with “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” seeing as how Indy was already Short Round’s guardian.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2021
    • Like Like x 2
  4. DrTraveler

    DrTraveler Wheeljack, Wheeljack, Wheeljack

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Posts:
    5,444
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Likes:
    +5,654
    Ebay:
    Yeah, this. Short Round would have been the natural go to for a successor to Indy and I do not know at all why they didn't do that. I've heard that idea tossed around before, but never heard a good reason for why they didn't go that way.

    They also should have considered just recasting Jones. But I'm convinced that Solo's failure has made everyone gun-shy about recasting any of these classic movie roles.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. dinobot1

    dinobot1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Posts:
    1,039
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Likes:
    +1,863
    Thinking about Short Round some more, they could have even just had him inherit Indiana Jones’ name as well. It’s not even Indy’s original name either. Lucasfilm could’ve done a transitional film with Indy and an adult Short Round before passing down the title.

    I also agree that recasting Indy could’ve worked as well. Indiana Jones assuming a James Bond approach feels like a natural fit. Both franchises are episodic in nature. Unfortunately, that bridge sort of passed when they did “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” with an older Harrison Ford. It would be weird to have a new Indy only to revert back to Harrison Ford later on. I also agree that “Solo: A Star Wars Story” flopping probably killed that notion. It’s interesting how characters like Batman and James Bond can routinely be reinvented, but characters like Indiana Jones are one and done.
     
  6. bellpeppers

    bellpeppers A Meat Popsicle

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Posts:
    27,633
    News Credits:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    412
    Location:
    Somewhere over Macho Grande
    Likes:
    +26,766
    There were multiple Bonds since the start: Lazenby, Connery, and Moore.

    Bond was based on a book, so anyone could be plugged in to the role.

    Indiana Jones was invented for the screen and around the specific character. People have a hard enough time re-casting supporting actors; recasting the main character IMO wouldn’t fly.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Macross7

    Macross7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Posts:
    14,049
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    362
    Likes:
    +8,440
    All the Bond actors have been the same character.

    I've said for years to recast Indy. Bond being the example of viewers accepting a new actor playing the same character.
     
  8. DrTraveler

    DrTraveler Wheeljack, Wheeljack, Wheeljack

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Posts:
    5,444
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Likes:
    +5,654
    Ebay:
    When did things go in this direction though? We used to recast all the time. 80's sitcoms were not at all shy about recasting characters. Movies in the 80's and 90's that got sequels would recast if they couldn't get the original actors back. So when did this change?

    It's also a problem in that the companies behind these films want to keep making movies, and actors don't live forever. Eventually all of this has to be reckoned with. I think I'll be happier if audiences reject recasting as it means we now have to let these stories go and allow them to stay complete and finished, and move on to other new stories.
     
  9. SHINOBI03

    SHINOBI03 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Posts:
    17,350
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +18,219
    Indian Jones taking the Bond route does make sense since the franchise did take some inspiration from Bond film. You think casting Sean Connery as Indy's dad was a random casting choice? No. It was to bring the "old Bond" and "new Bond" together. The present meeting the past.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Galvatron1998

    Galvatron1998 Maximal

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2016
    Posts:
    1,897
    News Credits:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Likes:
    +6,047
    I'm not completely against them recasting Indiana Jones but I feel it's going to be a hard to live up to Harrison Ford's performance. He's always been Dr. Jones (excluding the spinoffs and River Phoenix in TLC) so recasting after 40 years would be a pretty big deal and could potentially draw a lot of flak from fans.
     
  11. Hobbes-timus Prime

    Hobbes-timus Prime Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    4,959
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    342
    Likes:
    +7,856
    This is really where the Bond model kicks in, IMO. You shouldn't try and replicate Ford in the role, but rather tailor the whole tone to your new leading man (or woman) and let them do their thing.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  12. Deathcatg

    Deathcatg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Posts:
    12,169
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    362
    Likes:
    +20,408
    Ebay:
    Facebook:
    Twitter:
    Instagram:
    YouTube (Legacy):
    Like that other classic movie character, Deathstalker!
    MV5BNzc5Y2FmODctMzM2OC00YmZmLTlkYzItNzI3YWEwM2RkZTE5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjUyNDk2ODc@._V1_.jpg deathstalker-impressing-wenches.jpg
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. bellpeppers

    bellpeppers A Meat Popsicle

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Posts:
    27,633
    News Credits:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    412
    Location:
    Somewhere over Macho Grande
    Likes:
    +26,766
    Let’s see some examples.

    Who here thinks that Ford in Raiders, Tom Selleck in Temple of Doom, and someone else in Last Crusade would have worked?
     
  14. SHINOBI03

    SHINOBI03 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Posts:
    17,350
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +18,219
    Since Temple of Doom was a prequel the choice for a younger actor would've worked there, but the film was already polarizing when it came out and having a different actor for the role would certainly be added to the list of why it's worse than Raiders. I'd keep Ford for Last Crusade though.
     
  15. bellpeppers

    bellpeppers A Meat Popsicle

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Posts:
    27,633
    News Credits:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    412
    Location:
    Somewhere over Macho Grande
    Likes:
    +26,766
    Raiders was 1936, and Temple of Doom was 1935. Is 1 year really justification to cast a younger actor?
    20 years? Sure.
    10 years? Let’s talk about it.
    But 1 year?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Daelo88

    Daelo88 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2021
    Posts:
    1,061
    Trophy Points:
    177
    Likes:
    +1,005
    Stop making sense
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. SHINOBI03

    SHINOBI03 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Posts:
    17,350
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +18,219
    Just 1 year? I thought the gap was bigger! :confused: 
     
  18. Constructor

    Constructor Behold my true form!

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Posts:
    2,685
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +1,648
    I'm surprised nobody brought up Mad Max as an example of recasting the main character.
    With Indiana Jones, Harrison Ford has had 4 movies to himself, where the last one was mostly just him not being able to really "be" Indiana Jones.
    I think if they took the Mad Max: Fury Road approach and just inexplicably recast him, leaving it ambiguous as to where it falls in the timeline, they could pull it off.
    At least we can all attest that watching Indiana Jones being more and more incapable of a main character due to advanced age was not exactly something fans of Indiana Jones wanted to see.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. bellpeppers

    bellpeppers A Meat Popsicle

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Posts:
    27,633
    News Credits:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    412
    Location:
    Somewhere over Macho Grande
    Likes:
    +26,766
    I read someone else somewhere else make a point about Mad Max, recasting, and how his interceptor wasn’t destroyed any more but could get destroyed again:

    Instead of a straight progression of stories we are actually watching legends of a man named Max.

    And I think that works.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Daelo88

    Daelo88 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2021
    Posts:
    1,061
    Trophy Points:
    177
    Likes:
    +1,005
    Just like how Bonds have been. To me 007 was and will be James Bond's code # and having another agent be it male or female isn't right, get your own damn code #. There's a qajillion other numbers out there. I don't want a Jane Bond, Jerome Bond, Jorge Bond or Jimmy Woo Bond:D 
     
    • Like Like x 1