SPOILERS: Indiana Jones 5 (Jun 30, 2023)

[Disney Irish]

Then you recast for a younger Indy.

Yeah like that worked out so well for Solo....

You might be in the minority, but the same fans that don't want to see a female lead take over the franchise aren't going to want a recast either.

As you said "We just want Indy", except that gets taken to the extreme of, "We only want Harrison as Indy" or "You ruined Indy with this new actor".

There is nothing wrong with loving a character, but that character is played by a real person who ages out of the role. You can't have Harrison playing the role forever. And recasts just don't appear to work with the majority of the fans. So either the franchises end, which isn't something that is likely to happen, or you end up moving the franchise away from the main character. And that appears to be what is happening.

 

[spacemt354]

Why can't there be a female archaeologist that becomes the new lead in a new show that is in the same universe as Indy?

Hear me out:

Why can't Indy retire (so Ford doesn't have to play the role anymore as he said he was done after this movie), teach full time or be some curator overseeing the acquisition of antiquities like Marcus Brody. And a new female lead show continues the franchise without having the name Indiana Jones. So you keep and honor the lore of the past, and continue with new lore with new characters going forward.

This idea that no female can lead any film or tv show in the Indy universe is ridiculous.

The issue with that is the franchise is called 'Indiana Jones.'

In this scenario, it would be putting the female lead (not named Indy) in an impossible position because she will be compared to Indy since it's a continuation of the franchise, while also being accused of taking his place since she basically is. All of that just so Disney can market the film/show as a continuation of the 'Indy' franchise to its established audience.

 

[Disney Irish]

The issue with that is the franchise is called 'Indiana Jones.'

In this scenario, it would be putting the female lead (not named Indy) in an impossible position because she will be compared to Indy since it's a continuation of the franchise, while also being accused of taking his place since she basically is. All of that just so Disney can market the film/show as a continuation of the 'Indy' franchise to its established audience.

I get the point, however you don't know if the plan is this movie is the end of the "Indy saga" or not. They can continue on in the same universe without actually continuing the "Chronicles of Indiana Jones" saga. Meaning that its still building on the universe of the franchise without actually continuing the main character's saga.

 

[sedati]

“Raiders” can be the wider franchise.

 

[spacemt354]

I get the point, however you don't know if the plan is this movie is the end of the "Indy saga" or not. They can continue on in the same universe without actually continuing the "Chronicles of Indiana Jones" saga. Meaning that its still building on the universe of the franchise without actually continuing the main character's saga.

The universe of the Indiana Jones franchise doesn't exist without the main character. It's not like Star Wars.

It would be better to simply make a new franchise about an archeologist or explorer or anything else. A Mary Oceaneer franchise for example would be awesome.

The only logical reason to continue the franchise without the main character would be advertise based off the nostalgia for the main character, which is setting up to the new character for unneeded criticism.

 

[erasure fan1]

Yeah like that worked out so well for Solo....

And recasts just don't appear to work with the majority of the fans. So either the franchises end, which isn't something that is likely to happen, or you end up moving the franchise away from the main character.

But it can work. Solo isn't a great example because like every star wars movie, except ep8, was extremely troubled. While I don't think the movie was ever destined for a billion, it should have done a lot more. You need to be able to read the room. Something Disney is pretty terrible at. People weren't clamoring for a young Solo movie. It was never going to be a billion plus showing. Recasting one of the most iconic figures in cinema history, is a tall order. Fords played 2 of them.

Keep in mind, there are good examples of recasting younger that has worked really well. Star trek and xmen are two good examples. Heck, say what you want about the prequels, but Ewan is as beloved in star wars as ANY character. I'd even go as far to say it's already been successful in the Indy franchise. The young Indiana Jones tv show is very well liked among fans.

 

[erasure fan1]

The only logical reason to continue the franchise without the main character would be advertise based off the nostalgia for the main character, which is setting up to the new character for unneeded criticism.

I agree. Disney knows they don't have the creative chops to create their own ip. It's why we see all the live action animated remakes. It takes zero creative energy and generally makes decent returns. They will most likely never create a new ip again outside of an animated film. It's just easier to play off of the name of something well known. And to be fair, it's not just Disney who does this. Ghost busters 2016 anyone?

 

[Casper Gutman]

Yea, that's fine. You can read into it how you want. I've been pretty positive on this trailer hoping the movie is good. I'd say I'm being more open minded than you. I can at least admit there's a chance this goes sideway. Especially with Kennedys track record. Do I want it to fail? No, I've loved the character since I was a kid.

Here's the thing. That's a fine scenario, and could make a lot of sense. My question is why won't they come out and say that? Their trailer could have dispelled all the noise. I think the movie gets a lot of the same criticism if it was his son taking over as well. You know what would have worked best? One last pure Ford Indiana Jones film with him walking into the sunset. Then you recast for a younger Indy. Something after the age of the young Indy series but before the films. Problem solved. People really don't want a knock off Indy. We have plenty of those. Tomb raider, uncharted, the mummy, national treasure... We just want Indy.

Recasting Indy is MASSIVELY more disrespectful then having a new female character carry on his legacy (or going back and doing Ravenwood). Ford is Indy. When Ford is done, Indy is done, at least for the foreseeable future. And thats the way it should be.

 

[Casper Gutman]

But it can work. Solo isn't a great example because like every star wars movie, except ep8, was extremely troubled. While I don't think the movie was ever destined for a billion, it should have done a lot more. You need to be able to read the room. Something Disney is pretty terrible at. People weren't clamoring for a young Solo movie. It was never going to be a billion plus showing. Recasting one of the most iconic figures in cinema history, is a tall order. Fords played 2 of them.

Keep in mind, there are good examples of recasting younger that has worked really well. Star trek and xmen are two good examples. Heck, say what you want about the prequels, but Ewan is as beloved in star wars as ANY character. I'd even go as far to say it's already been successful in the Indy franchise. The young Indiana Jones tv show is very well liked among fans.

Recasting works well only when the character is bigger then the actor - hence why X-Men works (and why Tarantino grumbles, with some justification, that superhero cinema killed the film star). Ford is Indy. You can’t just recast with Chris Pratt (who I actually really like, but who needs to take some time between projects).

There IS aN Indiana franchise without Indy, because the tone, subject, and look of the films are so unique. None of the rip-off franchises being bandied about have come close to capturing the feel.

 

[erasure fan1]

Recasting Indy is MASSIVELY more disrespectful then having a new female character carry on his legacy (or going back and doing Ravenwood). Ford is Indy. When Ford is done, Indy is done, at least for the foreseeable future. And thats the way it should be.

You do realize they've already done it right? And it's pretty well liked among fans? I'm not sure what you are even arguing anymore. You say this, and that is really all the people saying they don't want Phoebe taking up the mantle want. Make a great Indy movie, and let him walk off into the sunset. The reason the whole anti female replacement comes up is, it's an obvious thing. Most everyone against it just wants Indy to be Indy. And you seem to agree, so why all the negativity to anyone saying a female is probably taking over?

 

[GimpYancIent]

But it can work. Solo isn't a great example because like every star wars movie, except ep8, was extremely troubled. While I don't think the movie was ever destined for a billion, it should have done a lot more. You need to be able to read the room. Something Disney is pretty terrible at. People weren't clamoring for a young Solo movie. It was never going to be a billion plus showing. Recasting one of the most iconic figures in cinema history, is a tall order. Fords played 2 of them.

Keep in mind, there are good examples of recasting younger that has worked really well. Star trek and xmen are two good examples. Heck, say what you want about the prequels, but Ewan is as beloved in star wars as ANY character. I'd even go as far to say it's already been successful in the Indy franchise. The young Indiana Jones tv show is very well liked among fans.

It would take creativity and imagination (something that seems to be lacking these days) but yes it could work. Interesting you mention Star Trek as an example, while the original crew became iconic and synonymous with the series, the story line was about the Star Ship Enterprise and its voyages. Any crew could be cast as the Enterprise in its different iterations performed different voyages.

 

[spacemt354]

Recasting Indy is MASSIVELY more disrespectful then having a new female character carry on his legacy (or going back and doing Ravenwood). Ford is Indy. When Ford is done, Indy is done, at least for the foreseeable future. And thats the way it should be.

The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles already re-cast Indiana Jones in the 90s. It's nostalgic sure to see Harrison Ford in the role, but if they have more stories to tell with the character of Indiana Jones, I'd prefer they re-cast and pursue the James Bond style of eclectic actors playing the titular role.

 

[Casper Gutman]

You do realize they've already done it right? And it's pretty well liked among fans? I'm not sure what you are even arguing anymore. You say this, and that is really all the people saying they don't want Phoebe taking up the mantle want. Make a great Indy movie, and let him walk off into the sunset. The reason the whole anti female replacement comes up is, it's an obvious thing. Most everyone against it just wants Indy to be Indy. And you seem to agree, so why all the negativity to anyone saying a female is probably taking over?

I’m not sure what is confusing you. Indy retires. Phoebe continues as a fun, skin-of-her-teeth, adventuring archaeologist in the same narrative universe. Maybe she wears the hat.

I think the confusion is that you and a lot of fans seem to see Phoebe continuing adventures in the Indy world as “replacing” Indy and some sort of deep insult to Indy and his fans. I think that’s hysterical culture war nonsense. The Indy films will continue to exist. Nothing is “replaced” or disrespected, just like Iron Heart or new Hawkeye didn’t “replace” anyone. If I misunderstand, I’d be eager to know how.

 

[_caleb]

My question is why won't they come out and say that? Their trailer could have dispelled all the noise.

I don’t think they make movie trailers to dispel internet rumors.

 

[Disney Irish]

The universe of the Indiana Jones franchise doesn't exist without the main character. It's not like Star Wars.

Says who? You? Just because you feel its only limited to Indy himself doesn't mean it can't be expanded upon. Heck even your example started out as just the Skywalker saga, and yet its been expanded on (even by fans themselves) because its bigger than just the Skywalker family.

It would be better to simply make a new franchise about an archeologist or explorer or anything else. A Mary Oceaneer franchise for example would be awesome.

Why make a new franchise when you can fill out this universe a lot more with a lot more characters. For example, why not the adventures of a young Marcus Brody, or a young Abner Ravenwood. There is more characters to this universe and more stories to be told than just Indy.

Also they have another archeologist franchise, one which they are expanding also without the main character, National Treasure.

The only logical reason to continue the franchise without the main character would be advertise based off the nostalgia for the main character, which is setting up to the new character for unneeded criticism.

So what? Hollywood has been doing that for a long time, long before Disney ever did it. For example its a very common TV trope, continue on in a world without the main original characters.

 

[Disney Irish]

But it can work. Solo isn't a great example because like every star wars movie, except ep8, was extremely troubled. While I don't think the movie was ever destined for a billion, it should have done a lot more. You need to be able to read the room. Something Disney is pretty terrible at. People weren't clamoring for a young Solo movie. It was never going to be a billion plus showing. Recasting one of the most iconic figures in cinema history, is a tall order. Fords played 2 of them.

Keep in mind, there are good examples of recasting younger that has worked really well. Star trek and xmen are two good examples. Heck, say what you want about the prequels, but Ewan is as beloved in star wars as ANY character. I'd even go as far to say it's already been successful in the Indy franchise. The young Indiana Jones tv show is very well liked among fans.

You do realize that viewership was low for the Young Indy series right? Its the reason it was cancelled after 2 seasons. They tried to do a few more made for TV movies, but those also had low viewership. So that isn't a really good example of how recasting Indy is going to somehow be different this time.

Also as was said already recasting works when the character is larger than the actor playing it, soap operas are a perfect example, or they have setup to have it be part of the story like Doctor Who. When you have an iconic actor playing an iconic character they become the character and fans can't see any other actor playing that character.

 

[spacemt354]

Says who? You?

Why the accusative tone? I'm not attacking you and perhaps I poorly worded my view.

What I meant was the story of 'Indiana Jones' is focused on him moreso than a franchise like Star Wars, especially when the last four films have the name 'Indiana Jones' in the title.

So to me, if Indiana Jones retires/dies/etc in Dial of Destiny, then the story of 'Indiana Jones' is complete.

If another character becomes the lead of future films, has similar characteristics/adventures as Indy, and it's marketed as a 'continuation of Indy films' -- that's where I feel like it would be bringing on unneeded criticism off the bat.

Yet, if Disney wants to spin-off films about side characters within the universe I don't see an issue with that if there are good stories to tell.

 

[erasure fan1]

I’m not sure what is confusing you. Indy retires. Phoebe continues as a fun, skin-of-her-teeth, adventuring archaeologist in the same narrative universe. Maybe she wears the hat.

Maybe. But Im pretty sure that is exactly what the main part of the rumors were. Time travel and Helena continuing the role.

I don’t think they make movie trailers to dispel internet rumors.

The point of a trailer is to give you a baseline of what your film is about. And to get people to want to see said movie. They felt strong enough about the rumors to address them in an interview. My point was you can frame a trailer to hit certain points so people are clear on the direction of the film. It's called getting ahead of things. They lead the narrative instead of a few internet personalities.

You do realize that viewership was low for the Young Indy series right? Its the reason it was cancelled after 2 seasons. They tried to do a few more made for TV movies, but those also had low viewership. So that isn't a really good example of how recasting Indy is going to somehow be different this time.

Ok, so the viewership wasn't great. It was well liked by fans. So Andor shouldn't continue because viewership hasn't been great?

 

[Phroobar]

If they're going to continue the Franchise it should be with a Younger Indy. There's still a lot that can be told from that time period.

If it was upto me Ansel Elgort would get the fedora and whip. Since Chris Pratt has officially aged out of the role. He looks the part and is very likable in whatever he's in.

Chris Pratt can't be everyone.
I stopped watching the Young Indiana Jones Chronicals because it felt more like a history lesson than Indy. I've watched it recently. It would probably be a hit on Disney+ since it is about as slow paced as Andor.

I preferred Tales of the Gold Monkey. That show had adventure and was silly just like Tail Spin.

 

[erasure fan1]

Chris Pratt can't be everyone.

I can see Pratt in this type of role though. I would have liked to see him replace Shia as his son and continue that thread from 4. Pratt has a good acting style and personality for the part. He's similar to Ford in some ways. He can be funny, he can be serious and he has the physicality for the role.