I just think it is ridiculous to drag the 30s pulp hero Indiana Jones up to the 1960s or 1970s or beyond. They really should cast a young actor in the role and go back to the 1930s setting.
shareThe only guy I think could do it justice is Bradley Cooper. He's the right age, good acting chops, can pull funny and serious, and would look good in the fedora.
shareBut he's creepy, there's something unsettling and repellent about him, and Indiana Jones has to be likable! Seriously, they have to cast an actor that everyone likes if they're every going to recast and continue the franchise, and Cooper is not that actor.
And Harrison Ford will be over 80 by the time this film is in the can, just too damn old to play the action hero.
lol i don't disagree with their being something off with him. it's in the eyes. he should only play disturbed characters. that aside, back when he was first rumored I thought he'd do a great job. but he's 46 now. if we're gonna recast Indiana Jones, let's do it with somebody we can make movies with for the next 20 years.
shareYeah, Cooper's too old and too creepy. They need someone about 30 if they want to try beating a dead franchise back into life.
Which I think is a godawful idea, myself. Ford is 80 and Spielberg hasn't directed a lot of hits in the last decade or two, if it didn't work last time it's not going to work now.
Spielberg is not directing.
shareHe looks off his face most of the time.
shareI'm pretty sure Chris Pratt is the top-runner for the role.
shareI agree, I don't want to see Indiana Jones become like James Bond.
007 films should really be set in the 50's and 60's, just as Indiana Jones adventures belong in the 1930's.
I'd love to see Indy recast by a younger actor in the 1930's rather than Harrison Fod play him in the 1950's and beyond.
If Ford wanted to play Indy so much he should have played him a few more times in the early 90's when he was doing so many action movies.
Indy movies are action adventures. You can't have this 80 year old guy pulling stunts and make it look believable. You either tone down on Indy doing the action set pieces and stunts to legislate for his much older age, or you use some CGI on Ford. I'm not a fan of either options, so I agree it's preferable to use another younger actor if they want to continue this franchise.
shareAgreed
Look at the scene in The Irishman when DeNiro stomps on a guy for being mean to his kid
It was laughably bad (in an otherwise fine movie)
I'm willing to bet Indy is just there to introduce the younger actor... but they totally should do an Indiana Jones spoof film with Harrison Ford rolling around in a combat wheelchair!
shareWait, you think it's ridiculous to see a 1930s character in the 60s, 70s, etc? I thought you were going to say it looks silly him being so old still playing the character, but simply seeing the character in another decade bothers you? LOL, what?
shareCurrent audiences probably do not realize this, but you have to understand that the original Indiana Jones movies from the 1980s were based on a very time-specific genre: pulp adventure heroes from the magazines and movie serials of the 1920s-40s. These stories relied on elements from those decades that do not translate well to a later time period. Bringing the character up to the 1960s or 1970s would be ridiculous. Ford's age is not nearly as problematic as trying to do a 30s pulp character in a relatively modern era. Indiana Jones interacting with hippies? Going to the disco? It would be laughable.
sharePulp actually lasted until the late 50s, but ok. I will ignore it.
"Bringing the character up to the 1960s or 1970s would be ridiculous."
"It would be laughable."
Why is that? What elements were present in the 20s-40s, but would be laughable and ridiculous in later decades? You're not really explaining why, just saying it wouldn't work.
If you understood the pulp adventure genre, it would be obvious. I don't have time to explain it to you. I recommend that you go watch some old pulp serials or read some stories to get a better feel for it.
shareSo you have time to tell me you don't have time to tell me something?
shareYou are obviously a dick and I don't want to continue to humor you.
shareWhat about me? I understand the pulp adventure genre quite well, and have no issue with a character like Indy having an adventure in the 1970s. I'd enjoy a story of old Indiana, who used to fight Nazis in the '30s and '40s, set in the 1970s, where we see him as an old man. I'd also enjoy a story with an Indiana Jones who born in, say, 1940, and never met a Nazi, having adventures as a 30-something in the 1970s.
share
I'd enjoy a story of old Indiana, who used to fight Nazis in the '30s and '40s, set in the 1970s, where we see him as an old man. I'd also enjoy a story with an Indiana Jones who born in, say, 1940, and never met a Nazi, having adventures as a 30-something in the 1970s.
I agree with you. Indy should go no farther than the 40s. Even the 50s of Crystal Skull was too late of an era.
These are supposed to be throwback stories to an earlier, more romantic time and that time definitely isn't the 60s or 70s.
Agreed. Pulp was basically adventures in uncharted territories, no matter it was far shores, supernatural or other planets like Mars or Venus. An key element was that romantic feeling of marvel when facing the unknown. That would be out of place during the 60s.
shareI think it could work out fine. The Jonny Quest cartoon sometimes covered similar territory as Indiana Jones and that took place in contemporary times (circa 1964). That last Kong movie had a lot of weird pulp elements to it like a Hollow Earth, an uncharted island, etc. despite taking place around 1973 and it was friggin awesome.
My biggest concern is the writing and Harrison Ford himself. Face it, he's really old now.
I agree that the early 70s time frame can work. As far as Harrison being too old...I don't know. Clint was a bad ass in Gran Torino without having to be an action hero. If the writing is spot on, it could work. Unfortunately good writing is no longer an element in Hollywood movies.
shareGran Torino was a very different kind of movie though. Indy is supposed to be a whip-wielding swashbuckler who goes on all sorts of adventures that demand great physicality. Take that away and it's not really Indy anymore.
Also, fuck the 70s. Indiana Jones has no place there. I agree with the OP: He is a character that should exist in no later a decade than the 1940s.
He needs to be old to add gravatis to his search for the Fountain of Youth.
Only in the end, when he has the opportunity to drink from said fountain, will he be struck by the revelation that having watched his young female sidekick's exploits throughout the film he's already lived again.
He will then turn down the elixir and walk off into the sunset, with us the viewers happy to see his endorsement of his successor and looking forward to seeing Phoebe Waller-Bridge in the next adventure. The end....
You about to be hired.
share