Disney now controls Indiana Jones as well...

[Christopher]

(I'm not against tributes/continuations/adaptations of something like BTTF, I *loved* the Adventure Games and the animated series, but something that basically reworks the franchise into something modern and does that 'Year Zero' type stuff would be a step too far for me. I kind of feel like that about Indiana Jones, even though weirdly I'm 100% okay with something like Doctor Who or Star Trek being given the reboot treatment...)

Yeah, it depends on how it's done. As with everything else, it's not the category that determines worth, it's the specific case. I'm fine with some reboots, and I think a full-on Star Trek reboot that made a clean break would've been a better idea than the sort of hybrid-alternate-reality thing they've done (if only because the use of time travel has made a lot of fans expect the timeline to be "reset," which is the opposite of what was intended), but there are cases where it doesn't seem like a good idea because of the specific route they're taking. For instance, the Ghostbusters reboot they're doing strikes me as a bad idea because they're making it just another cliched secret government program, when part of what made the original work so well was the public nature of the Ghostbusters, the way they were a business that advertised on TV and got in trouble with city officials and so on. Also because the premise of the Ghostbusters inherently allows for an in-universe continuation by having the original team build the business into a franchise, and I would've liked to see that. This reboot seems to be replacing something fresh and expansive with something cliched and self-limiting, and I don't see that as a change for the better.

But Indiana Jones is a case where I just don't see what the purpose of a reboot would be. A reboot is worth doing if it changes the original in a creative way that adds something worthwhile or brings a fresh approach. But Indiana Jones isn't about novelty, it's about affectionate homage to the cinema of a past era. What could they change that's significant enough to make the change worth doing? If it's going to be the same kind of classic adventure story set in the pre-WWII era, there's no reason that I can see to alter the continuity rather than just telling more stories in it.

 

[The Wormhole]

"Reboot" does seem to be a trendy buzzword and it does get the message out to Joe Public that this not directly connected to the other Indy films, thereby making it more "accessible."

Also, reboot also gets sloppily and very inaccurately used these days anyway. Many sites I got to, and even "Innerspace" (a sci-fi news program on Canada's Space channel) have described Star Wars Episode VII as a reboot even though that is most definitely a direct sequel continuing the storyline of the original movies.

Personally, I'm surprised it's taken this long to hear anything about this. The news that Disney now owns Indiana Jones came over a year ago, and this is the first we've heard about a new movie. Disney announced a new Star Wars movie the day they obtained the rights to that franchise.

 

[Christopher]

Also, reboot also gets sloppily and very inaccurately used these days anyway. Many sites I got to, and even "Innerspace" (a sci-fi news program on Canada's Space channel) have described Star Wars Episode VII as a reboot even though that is most definitely a direct sequel continuing the storyline of the original movies.

Well, it's not sloppy and it's not these days. Originally, "reboot" was an industry term that referred to any kind of revival of a dormant property, regardless of whether it was a new continuity or a continuation of the old one. (After all, when you reboot a computer, you just start the existing software over again, rather than installing new software.) The tendency to equate the word exclusively with new continuities is the more recent phenomenon, originating with the Battlestar Galactica reboot. The use of the word in connection with BSG led fandom to equate it exclusively with reinventions, and these days that usage has become so familiar that the media use it that way too. But it's not, strictly speaking, the "correct" or original usage of the word.

So it isn't actually wrong to refer to a continuation as a reboot -- it's just using an industry-insider term in a way that the general public no longer recognizes.

 

[Captain Craig]

I like Pratt, recast the Mutt(Henry III) character for Pratt.
Have Indy 5 pick up enough years later that Mutt has now gone back to school and is apprenticing under his dad...part time. Harrison's Indy is still the lead but Mutt is now along for the adventure.

Have Indy 6 be more Mutt with Ford taking a backseat with the films still set in the 60's where the Soviets are the bad guy. At some point have a line in there with Mutt adopting the name Indy to honor his dad(not cause he dies mind you) more of a full acceptance of the father/son dynamic since he showed some resistance in Crystal Skull.

If Pratt wants to do more Indy, great. The Indy concept can still be a "period piece" film the period will just be the 70's & 80's for the 2020 audience years, that'd still be about 40 years ago to many who were born in the 21st century and that would seem like history to them just like the originals felt to us.

 

[davejames]

I still don't see any reason why it needs to be rebooted. Just recast the role and add to the existing continuity. I mean, it's not like it needs to be modernized, because it's a period piece. And Indy's already been played by five different actors. And there are still plenty of unchronicled years between the movies. It would be so easy to insert prequels and sequels that I can't see any point in a reboot.

Honestly, as much as I adore the original movies, I don't think continuity is really all that terribly important with this franchise, at least like it is with Trek or SW. These were basically all standalone adventures with a guy searching for the Ark, Sankara Stones, and Holy Grail, with movies that never made reference to each other at all except for one tiny little injoke in TLC.

Unless people really take all the Young Indy stuff seriously as part of his continuity, which... I definitely do not.

Of course I guess that does make the case for why they don't even need to bother calling this a "reboot", since they could just follow the same pattern as the original three movies and have a new adventure in the 30s, with no explanation given at all.

 

[davejames]

That actually works surprisingly well.

 

[MacLeod]

Reboots/reimagning call them what you will are not intriguingsly bad. I would say in part of how we feel about them is linked to how we feel about the work(s) being rebooted. Many of these are things we remember from oue childhood and as such we can have a emotional attachment to it.

Sometimes a reboot works sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Christopher]

Honestly, as much as I adore the original movies, I don't think continuity is really all that terribly important with this franchise...

Of course I guess that does make the case for why they don't even need to bother calling this a "reboot", since they could just follow the same pattern as the original three movies and have a new adventure in the 30s, with no explanation given at all.

Yeah, that's just my point. There isn't anything in particular about the existing films that would need to be changed, so it would be hard to see what the difference would be between a continuation and a reboot -- unless they do something radical like updating Indy to a Cold War-era or 19th-century figure or something.

 

[Gaith]

But Indiana Jones is a case where I just don't see what the purpose of a reboot would be. A reboot is worth doing if it changes the original in a creative way that adds something worthwhile or brings a fresh approach. [...] What could they change that's significant enough to make the change worth doing?

Going by your phrasing here, you are making a clear distinction between a reboot and a simple continuation. Sounds good. A reboot is not a continuation.

So it isn't actually wrong to refer to a continuation as a reboot -- it's just using an industry-insider term in a way that the general public no longer recognizes.

Wait, what? So... a reboot can be a continuation. No inherent contradiction after all. Okay.

There isn't anything in particular about the existing films that would need to be changed, so it would be hard to see what the difference would be between a continuation and a reboot --

Wait, so now a continuation is necessarily something other than a reboot again?


Kindly make up your mind!

 

[Christopher]

^I'm just saying that using "reboot" to mean "continuation" is not a recent or inaccurate use of the word, but an older, industry-insider use that's been superseded by the modern popular perception of it to mean a continuity restart, a meaning that (as far as I know) is only about a decade old. For the most part, in this conversation, I'm using the word in its newer sense, because that's what most people reading my words will understand it to mean. But if someone else chooses to use it in the original, broader sense, they aren't intrinsically wrong to do so, although the usage may lead to confusion among those who aren't industry insiders.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/403673-chris-pratt-sought-for-indiana-jones-reboot

Surprised this isn't being discussed in here yet, since it seems like such big news today (even if it's only confirmation that Disney is seriously considering a reboot). I may not be totally sold on the idea of an Indy reboot to begin with, but if they ARE planning to go ahead with it, I can't think of cooler choice than Pratt.

He's already proved with Guardians that he's one of the few actors out there today who's got the same kind of charisma and swashbuckling energy as Ford back then, and I can also imagine him getting much darker and grittier when the story requires it as well.

I think Pratt does a great job in Parks & Rec and Guardians of the Galaxy as the lovable doofus type, but when he tried to put on his serious face/voice in the Jurassic World trailer, it just comes off as the goofy guy trying to sound hard, like he's actually doing his "Burt Macklin, FBI" character within a character from Parks & Rec. I couldn't take him seriously.

Admittedly, the sample size of him playing serious characters or scenes is incredibly small, and maybe he can pull it off. He wouldn't be the first actor to transition from zany roles into more serious fare. Not that Indiana Jones is super serious, but moreso than Andy Dwyer.

 

[Relayer1]

I can't see them going for reboot as in a new continuity. That would either mean:

A) They are going to remake Raiders, which would be simply ridiculous

or

B) Nu-Indy didn't find the Ark (or the Grail etc.)


If he has already found the Ark etc., it's the same continuity...

 

[Skywalker]

I'm okay with this.

Pratt as Indy, that is, not any talks of a reboot. There's no need to dump the old continuity and start a new one.

 

[Gaith]

I think Pratt does a great job in Parks & Rec and Guardians of the Galaxy as the lovable doofus type, but when he tried to put on his serious face/voice in the Jurassic World trailer, it just comes off as the goofy guy trying to sound hard, like he's actually doing his "Burt Macklin, FBI" character within a character from Parks & Rec. I couldn't take him seriously.

Admittedly, the sample size of him playing serious characters or scenes is incredibly small, and maybe he can pull it off. He wouldn't be the first actor to transition from zany roles into more serious fare. Not that Indiana Jones is super serious, but moreso than Andy Dwyer.

Quite. Though there are much worse choices for a Ford replacement (which, oy), I'd just as soon buy Pratt as a recast Rick O'Connell than as Indy.

 

[davejames]

Yeah I suppose Pratt would be a better fit for a smartass rogue like Han than the more earnest and serious Indy. But still, even Ford's Indy became a lot more soft and loveable by the time of Last Crusade, and I could easily see Pratt playing that version of the character.

And even if they need to slightly redefine his personality to make him a bit less serious, I don't think that would be the worst thing in the world. As long as there's still a good adventure story being told.

 

[sttngfan1701d]

I always saw Joe Flanigan from Stargate Atlantis as my ideal Ford replacement if they did indeed reboot Indy. But maybe that's because I have Ford in my head and they have similar looks and snark about them.

Chris Pratt? I don't know. I haven't seen enough of him. Although Ford was 39 when they filmed Raiders, I've always viewed Indy as an older character with plenty of experience and "miles" on him. Pratt seems too young. But again, I guess that's because I haven't seen enough of him.

Indiana Jones is my absolute favorite character and film property of all time. It is close to my heart. I don't want them to reboot and ruin it. Crystal Skull already did enough damage...but Ford's age was NOT a part of that.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

That actually works surprisingly well.

 

[Skywalker]

Chris Pratt? I don't know. I haven't seen enough of him. Although Ford was 39 when they filmed Raiders, I've always viewed Indy as an older character with plenty of experience and "miles" on him. Pratt seems too young. But again, I guess that's because I haven't seen enough of him.

Chris Pratt is turning 36 in June, so he's not that far off.

 

[Relayer1]

Chris Pratt? I don't know. I haven't seen enough of him. Although Ford was 39 when they filmed Raiders, I've always viewed Indy as an older character with plenty of experience and "miles" on him. Pratt seems too young. But again, I guess that's because I haven't seen enough of him.

Chris Pratt is turning 36 in June, so he's not that far off.

Besides which, it's not a huge stretch to set his films in the early 1930's when Indy was a little younger...

 

[JD]

There is a lot of potential for this to be good, but if I had my choice I would just have Pratt as protege to Ford's Indy, either a recast Mutt or a new character, in a new story set after the others.