It was no Raiders or Last Crusade, but I enjoyed Crystal Skull. I'll likely see any new Indy film, as long as Ford plays Indy.
I also want to see more Indy movies set back in the 20s to the 40s with a younger actor, but not a reboot, have them in continuity with the Ford movies. The only stumbling block is that Ford doesn't want a recast. And if he doesn't give his blessing to the new actor it won't work.
Basically a big screen Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. I'm down for that.One way I've been envisioning it is by Harrison Ford as we know him, to tell some of his earlier stories to a younger generation, perhaps even grandkids, and have a younger actor playing him in those scenes.
He married Mutt too?I'm curious how they're going to Indy's marriage to Marion and Mutt.
Basically a big screen Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. I'm down for that.
Yeah, I guess there should have been comma there. I fixed it.He married Mutt too?
That's a viable idea as long as the franchise remains popular enough to be commercially viable. If it isn't, well, there would be your reason why he couldn't be recast.Since Indy was supposed to Spielberg and Lucas's own James Bond, there is no reason why the character can't be recast like 007. And unlike Bond they can keep the character as a period piece.
I like Mangold a lot but to me to not have Speilberg and to have a aging Harrison Ford to me makes this movie just not really interesting. Makes me think of the latest "Terminator" movie where you just know the whole point of the movie is to basically try and reboot it for a younger audience and keep the brand going and to me that just doesn't interest me.
Jason
And yet, Stephen Sommers, Brendan Fraser, and Rachel Weisz made a better companion piece to Raiders of the Lost Ark than any of the actual IJ sequels, so...Indiana Jones without Spielberg and Ford is just pointless, IMO.
Why not introduce another adventurer in the same era?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.