• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Disney now controls Indiana Jones as well...

Yeah, Lazenby's performance wasn't the best. It also hurt his performance that for a good chunk of the film he's dubbed over by George Baker as he is impersonating Sir Hilary Bray at the "clinic". It'd be interesting to see what Connery would've done with the film, although by the time of You Only Live Twice he was sort of phoning it in.
OHMSS, while not well regarded initially seems to have been reevaluated recently, with some saying it's the best of the films. The theme is certainly good, one of Barry's best.


As for it being referenced in other films, the first major mention is Spy Who Loved Me when Anya brings it up at the nightclub, in addition to the opener to For Your Eyes Only, it's also mentioned in Licence to Kill when Bond is uncomfortable about the subject when Della, Felix's new wife, brings it up (and a bit of foreshadowing Della's sad fate). There's also an arguable reference of sorts in The World Is Not Enough; and some interpet Bond's chasing down of Blofeld in the opening of Diamonds Are Forever as part of a revenge for Tracy.

Getting back to the sliding timescale/recasting thing, Roger Moore was around the same age as Connery when he started playing Bond, and Bernard Lee(M) Lois Maxwell (Moneypenny) and of course Q were retained from the Connery films, so there was sort of some continuity there. Moore's first two films, despite some campy goofiness (Which honestly started in Diamonds Are Forever), had him be more brutal ala Connery as well.

However this kind of unravels a bit with the casting of Dalton as Bond and Caroline Bliss as Moneypenny, although Dalton's films retain the Robert Brown M from Moore's last two films and of course Q.
 
Again, though, since Indiana Jones is a period piece, there's no need for a sliding timescale. You can do a film decades later and have it take place just a year or two later, or earlier.
 
For me, Indy was a great trilogy of films and should be left as such.

But those films themselves are homages to the films of an earlier era, such as the old Republic adventure serials, She, and King Solomon's Mines. The 1954 Charlton Heston film Secret of the Incas was a particularly direct influence, with Indy's costume being almost an exact match for Heston's in that film and with many of the scenes in Raiders being almost shot-for-shot identical, or so it's been said. Here's a site that discusses the influences on the series.

So since the Indy films themselves were a tribute to past adventure film series, it would not be at all inappropriate for a new generation to pay tribute to them in turn. Sure, we've seen plenty of knockoffs like Tomb Raider and The Librarian, but I see nothing wrong with directly reviving a timeless character like Indiana Jones.
Don't forget about the Uncharted franchise. That is probably the closest tribute to Indiana Jones out there.
 
11viq2d.jpg
6i9m4o.jpg
 
It's a popular and well regarded franchise for the Sony Playstation.

Assuming you will probably never actually play the games itself, skimming through this video gives you a pretty good sense of it.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61Rho1tmnvk[/yt]
 
what next? Disney owning star trek. I am no huge fan of Disney's monopoly.

Well, not that long ago I viewed Disney as a creatively bankrupt pile of money incapable of producing anything better than crap.

Sensibly they seemed to realuse this and exchanged some of that cash to acquire Pixar when they decided to walk away from their cooperative agreement.

Having purchased some creativity, and finding it worked, Marvel and Lucasfilm followed.

Disney have kept the quality high on their productions - I'm fairly sure Star Wars 7 will be better than episodes 1-3, Marvel's fantastic and I would be amazed if after paying multiple millions for Trek they'd squander that...
 
The following is my fantasy casting in regards to the plan for the new film series I outlined previously in this thread:

Marion Ravenwood would be played by Kaya Scodelario. She's a good actress, a brunette with freckles, and has large expressive eyes. Ford and Allen are about a decade apart in age. Pratt and her a bit further apart, but not crazy different. She's from the UK, so odds are she can whip up an American accent, as that seems to be a superpower of most Brit actors.

[URL=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Base_Delta_Zero/media/Kaya%20Scodelario%202_zpsi2co56f2.jpg.html][/URL]

Sallah would be played by Amr Waked. He's actually Egyptian and not a white guy pretending to be an Egyptian! And he can presumably speak Arabic in addition to English. ;) He's a good actor, has worked in Hollywood before and is close in age to Pratt, just like Rhys-Davies and Ford. He'd also only be playing the younger version of Sallah in the second of the new movies, so no need to try and match up with Crusade Sallah.

[URL=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Base_Delta_Zero/media/Amr%20Waked_zps0hsipevf.jpg.html][/URL]

Dr. René Belloq would be played by Michael Fassbender. Great actor with awesome screen presence. Close in age to Pratt, as were Freeman and Ford. I had only planned for him to be in the first two of the new films, as I wanted the third to be without direct ties to the originals beyond the opening scene involving Marion & Abner, which leads into Temple and then Paul Freeman establishes the veteran mercenary archaeologist in Raiders.

[URL=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Base_Delta_Zero/media/fassbender-studio_zpsjlnmleyy.jpg.html][/URL]

Base_Delta_Zero's Indiana Jones Timeline:

New Film One (1932) (Features: New Marion, First Appearance of Abner, New Belloq, New Lao Che)

New Film Two (1934) (Brief: New Marion, Abner, Features: New Sallah, New Belloq)

New Film Three (1935) (Brief: New Marion, Abner, Features: All new villains/allies/love interest)

Temple of Doom (1935) (Features All "new" Original villains/allies/love interest, Original Lao Che)

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1936) (Features: Original Marion, Original Belloq, Original Sallah)

New Film Four (1937) (Features: New Marion, perhaps as Indy's rival this time, and to provide the opportunity for him to father Mutt (who was apparently born in 1938), All new villains/allies otherwise)

The Last Crusade (1938) (Features: Original Sallah, and rest of the Original cast)

New Film Five (1941/2) (Features: All new villains/allies/love interest)

New Film Six (1945/46) (Features: All new villains/allies/love interest)

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (1957) (Features: Original Marion, and rest Original cast)
 
Last edited:
While I'd just as soon (if not sooner) see a new property about a contemporary adventurer of Indy's, I'm not heavily opposed to recasting him, and one could definitely do a lot worse than Pratt as either Jones or a Jones-like figure. That said, I'm not much interested in bringing the Ravenwoods back. Belloq, maybe.


... But my vote goes to Caity Lotz as Dakota Jones, the Indy-free parallel-universe only child of the Joneses. :bolian:
 
Yep.

This is what I meant upthread. He's always been my personal choice, because he's similar in looks and manner to Ford.

But that's the rub...he fits when you think of Ford. And his age now (mid-40's) could allow for a pre-WW2 story in the 1940's, possibly 1940 or 1941 before American involvement in the war. Or later, with Indy as an OSS agent during the war.

Ford is so ingrained in the character that I can't help but think of him when it comes to the recasting, which is why Flanigan comes immediately to mind.

But if they do want to go younger if they reboot the franchise and make movies possibly before 1935 (Temple of Doom), then I guess Chris Pratt would work. Take Indy to China or Mongolia or the Silk Road, something like that. Just please, no remaking of Raiders. You just can't do it. You can bring back Belloq and flesh out their rivalry, and perhaps recast Marion (conveniently forgetting her "Ten years!" line)...that might be fun if they explore an earlier era.
 
There's rumors that Spielberg might direct with Pratt as the star:

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/ne...lberg-may-direct-chris-pratt-as-indiana-jones

It'd be interesting to know what Ford thinks of this, or if George Lucas will be involved in any way.


As for John Williams, he's elderly now but maybe would still be able to do it (He is working on Force Awakens). However, I did feel apart from the Mutt theme it was a fairly weak score, mainly just using the same Raider's March, Marion's theme and a bit of the Ark theme without any really memorable new compositions . I did think he did some nice scores for TPM, AOTC and ROTS although a lot of his work got mangled in editing or reused.


Of course some are a little nervous about Spielberg after Crystal Skull, but others lay the film's problems primarily on Lucas (I think it was his idea for the "ancient aliens" angle for the film). Also have to wonder if Spielberg's frequent screenwriter David Koepp (Who co-wrote the first two Jurassic Parks and Crystal Skull as well as other Spielberg projects) will also be involved.

I can't see Ford really doing a great Indy at his age...I think a good chunk of his action in the upcoming Star Wars will probably be making quips and piloting the Millenium Falcon (and even that was problematic with the foot injury!)

Even in Crystal Skull which was filmed nearly a decade ago, he didn't really do that much action when you think about it-the motorcycle chase and the Jungle scene were more Lebouf/Mutt oriented. Sure he did get one or two fight scenes but they were largely lethargic compared with his fights with Pat Roch (In Raiders and Temple of Doom) and Michael Bryne (In Crusade).
 
Crystal Skull's problems weren't related to Ford's age, or Spielberg, or even the ancient aliens idea (for all of the flak Lucas gets, I do understand his wish to make a spin on B-movie sci-fi with Indiana Jones in the atomic age). Crystal Skull was weak because of the script.

There was no sense of wonderment. No sense of discovery or exploration. No sense of peril. They found the dang skull in the first hour of the film, and they faced precious-little danger in doing so. Finding the jungle city was like rather pedestrian...it was like they said "Okay, we've been working on this idea since 1993 and the script has been worked on in various forms since 1997. If we're going to do this, let's just go with THIS script. We aren't going to rewrite it yet again."

The script was a paint-by-numbers, horrendous thing with Indiana Jones elements just thrown together. I did enjoy the first half-hour, but the film just fell apart once they reached Peru.

Karen Allen's acting was rather forced and awkward...maybe you could blame Spielberg there. Maybe you could blame Lucas for the CGI groundhogs. But I don't think it was incompetently directed at all. There's only so much a director can do with a weak script.
 
Disney is on the way to owning all the stuff they already had in their amusement parks all these years. I guess next they'll try to buy Twilight Zone.

Too bad that they can't buy the other CBS Studios property along with it if they were to do so.

It's a popular and well regarded franchise for the Sony Playstation.

Assuming you will probably never actually play the games itself, skimming through this video gives you a pretty good sense of it.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61Rho1tmnvk[/yt]

And its popularity also helped reboot this similar game franchise:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_U4JBNhKN8[/yt]
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top