Well, apparently, prior to this, they had to go sharesies with Paramount if they did anything. Now they don't have to share, they'll probably start putting together a team to move Indy forward
Disney now controls Indiana Jones as well...
- Thread starter Professor Zoom
- Start date
No big shock given the purchase of Lucasfilm and how Indiana Jones, like Star Wars/Star Tours, has an existing ride in the Disney Parks.
Personally, I'm fine with it if they can revive or possibly reboot the franchise and leave it on a better note than the awful Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls.
I've already got a great idea for their first movie:
And the sequel:
Personally, I'm fine with it if they can revive or possibly reboot the franchise and leave it on a better note than the awful Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls.
I've already got a great idea for their first movie:
And the sequel:
Last edited:
Of course they can always opt not to reboot it. Not every historical blockbuster can be revived.
There have been rumblings for a while that Ford's participation in any more Star Wars films was contingent on getting another Indy film off the ground (and that couldn't happen until the distribution rights with Paramount got settled). Whether that happens now may still be a long shot though as Spielberg probably won't commit to anything until a script is written that he likes. Of course, Lawrence Kasden is back in the fold with Lucasfilm for SW, which might be interesting...
More likely, Disney can move forward with something like an animated series they can put on Disney XD or perhaps reboot the films. Personally, I'd like to see them cast a younger actor as Indy and give us adventures set pre Temple/Raiders. After all, it's not as if we haven't already seen a younger Indy on screen anyway.
More likely, Disney can move forward with something like an animated series they can put on Disney XD or perhaps reboot the films. Personally, I'd like to see them cast a younger actor as Indy and give us adventures set pre Temple/Raiders. After all, it's not as if we haven't already seen a younger Indy on screen anyway.
I wouldn't mind seeing Ford give it one more go, but I wouldn't mind a James Bond-style recasting either. After all, the character was somewhat inspired by Bond, and they got Sean Connery to play his father. And as noted above, Indy has already been played by, chronologically by age, Corey Carrier, River Phoenix, Sean Patrick Flanery, Harrison Ford, and George Hall. And apparently an uncredited Andrew Simms as "Young Indiana Jones" in Crystal Skull, according to IMDb, but I don't remember where that was in the film. And that's not counting the people who played him as a baby or did his voice in video games.
Besides, due to the gap between feature films, the chronology skipped over the entirety of WWII and most of the '50s, so recasting Indy with an actor in his 40s (since Indy was born July 1, 1899) would be the only way we'd get to see that missing era.
Besides, due to the gap between feature films, the chronology skipped over the entirety of WWII and most of the '50s, so recasting Indy with an actor in his 40s (since Indy was born July 1, 1899) would be the only way we'd get to see that missing era.
Actually, according to the deal, Paramount will still receive money from future IJ releases. Probably just a small percentage, but Disney isn't getting all of it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, but The Mummy ('99) is still the best archaeology-themed flick since Raiders, in large part because it doesn't have the baggage of being a companion piece to/thematic rehash of the same.
I don't think we need more Indiana Jones, and I think KOTCS was Spielberg's subtle way of saying so - between the seriousness of Lincoln and the awesome action insanity of Tintin, I'm sure he could still make another great Indy movie; but since doing so would require ignoring Lucas totally and maybe not using Ford, or completely switching genres and doing a Le Carre-type spy flick as RLM's Stoklassa suggested, he's simply not determined to try.
But while we don't need more Indy, we could definitely use more 1920s-40s themed archaeology adventure. Because they can, however, Disney will choose to capitalize on the Indy franchise anyway. If Ford doesn't come back as the lead, we'll probably get Garrett Hedlund in a pre-Temple adventure, maybe with Ford bookending things or something...
I don't think we need more Indiana Jones, and I think KOTCS was Spielberg's subtle way of saying so - between the seriousness of Lincoln and the awesome action insanity of Tintin, I'm sure he could still make another great Indy movie; but since doing so would require ignoring Lucas totally and maybe not using Ford, or completely switching genres and doing a Le Carre-type spy flick as RLM's Stoklassa suggested, he's simply not determined to try.
But while we don't need more Indy, we could definitely use more 1920s-40s themed archaeology adventure. Because they can, however, Disney will choose to capitalize on the Indy franchise anyway. If Ford doesn't come back as the lead, we'll probably get Garrett Hedlund in a pre-Temple adventure, maybe with Ford bookending things or something...
I think Spielberg was trying to make the best Indy movie he could, but he was hamstrung by Lucas's atrophied story sense and inability to take no for an answer.
I still think Crystal Skull is a fun movie that doesn't deserve it's online reputation.
I would agree about The Mummy, though. That's also a fun movie which is far better than the Karloff original (which is a re-tread of Dracula that is of interest only because of Karloff and his make-up). It's a shame the sequels couldn't do anything different with the concept, though. I would have had Fraser fighting other Universal monsters rather than try to re-do the first movie (but with a kid, and a subplot with The Rock that only existed to launch a spin-off).
I would agree about The Mummy, though. That's also a fun movie which is far better than the Karloff original (which is a re-tread of Dracula that is of interest only because of Karloff and his make-up). It's a shame the sequels couldn't do anything different with the concept, though. I would have had Fraser fighting other Universal monsters rather than try to re-do the first movie (but with a kid, and a subplot with The Rock that only existed to launch a spin-off).
And yet Kingdom was the profitable of all the Indiana Jones movies. The storyline fit the time period and Indy's marriage to Maron was an event of some significance.
So maybe one more Indy film with Harrison Ford and then probably a new actor in the role at some point within the next 10 years. The director who'll probably be at the top of Disney's list to direct the first non-Ford Indy film: J.J. Abrams.
I think they should just keep trucking forward with Ford. Who doesn't want to know why Indy was in Dallas the day JFK was shot? Or why Indy was already on the moon when the Eagle landed? Or how Indy managed to clear out Al Capone's vault just minutes before Geraldo's camera crews arrived? Or how Indy saved the world from Y2K?
I, for one, want to know.
I, for one, want to know.
Indiana Solo: Into the Temple of Darkness
Starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Indiana Solo?
They need to get on this.
He's more likely to be an Indy villain than the man himself.
And there's no hope for Nathan Fillion to play Indy. That ship has sailed.
Eh. Not like Disney can do worse with the franchise than the people who controlled it before.
I don't think Disney would put the effort to gain the rights to the franchise and not do anything with it. And since I doubt any sequels are viable what with Harrison Ford in his 70s, a reboot seems the most likely path to go.
No need for a reboot when a simple recasting would do. As I said, James Bond was an inspiration for the character, and Indy's been played at different ages by multiple actors already. And since it's a period piece, there's no need to start over in the modern age, as is often the motivation for a reboot.
Not to mention that there's precedent for Indiana Jones tales being told out of order. Temple of Doom was set a year before Raiders, and the episodes of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles aired in a fairly random order (and of course were all set before the earlier movies, aside from the frame sequences). So there's no reason a new trilogy couldn't be slotted in between Last Crusade and Kingdom, with plenty of room to spare.
The only justification I'd see for any kind of continuity reboot would be if such a trilogy disregarded the backstory of Kingdom in order to include a recast Marion Ravenwood as the recast Indy's recurring partner/love interest. I always felt they should've done more with Marion, and her role in Kingdom was too little, too late, not serving the character well at all.
Not to mention that there's precedent for Indiana Jones tales being told out of order. Temple of Doom was set a year before Raiders, and the episodes of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles aired in a fairly random order (and of course were all set before the earlier movies, aside from the frame sequences). So there's no reason a new trilogy couldn't be slotted in between Last Crusade and Kingdom, with plenty of room to spare.
The only justification I'd see for any kind of continuity reboot would be if such a trilogy disregarded the backstory of Kingdom in order to include a recast Marion Ravenwood as the recast Indy's recurring partner/love interest. I always felt they should've done more with Marion, and her role in Kingdom was too little, too late, not serving the character well at all.
Similar threads
