Indiana Jones V

[Edward]

Yes, there were two kids in the Young Indy TV show. I memory serves, one played him at around twelve, the other fifteen or sixteen.

I hear Ehrenreich got the role because Spielberg took a shine to him at some Hollywood shindig. Everyone I've talked to would have preferred Ansel Elgort (of Baby Driver fame) to Ehrenreich. Furthermore, reports from the set say that Ehrenreich can't act.

If h doesn't do well as Han Solo, I doubt they;'ll let him at Indy. The real shame is they cancelled the Boba Fett picture, which would arguably have been much more interesting. While I'm sure some would say the same of Fett, I do think there's a danger of ruining Solo's mystique with this.

 

[Benzadmiral]

My nominee for the new Indiana Jones: my man Chris Pratt. After I saw him swaggering (just enough, mind you) in Jurassic World, I said, "Hollywood better get him into a leather jacket and fedora, stat."

 

[Zombie_61]

Corey Carrier who played boy indy in the 'chronicles' thingy.

Yes, there were two kids in the Young Indy TV show. I memory serves, one played him at around twelve, the other fifteen or sixteen...

So Flanery played young Indy, and Carrier played even younger Indy. Got it. Thanks Gents!

...If h doesn't do well as Han Solo, I doubt they;'ll let him at Indy. The real shame is they cancelled the Boba Fett picture, which would arguably have been much more interesting. While I'm sure some would say the same of Fett, I do think there's a danger of ruining Solo's mystique with this.

I agree. Characters like Boba Fett and Han Solo are best left enigmatic--mention an incident or two from their pasts that hint at how they've earned their respective reputations, and let the audience fill in the rest for themselves. Once they explain the details, whether in movies or the "Expanded Universe" novels (which are no longer considered canon), a lot of that mystique is lost. I'd bet the Han Solo movie will include incidents we fans are already aware of--how he won the Falcon from Lando Calrissian and the Kessel Run--but the rest of the movie could do as much damage to Solo's reputation as Greedo shooting first, especially if Alden Ehrenreich isn't up to the task.

 

[redlinerobert]

^ Agreed. It'll be interesting to see how this affects the perception we have of Solo.

 

[Seb Lucas]

I hear Ehrenreich got the role because Spielberg took a shine to him at some Hollywood shindig. Everyone I've talked to would have preferred Anthony Ingruber to Ehrenreich. Furthermore, reports from the set say that Ehrenreich can't act. Ingruber, on the other hand... he's got the swagger of Ford himself:

That's an impression of Harrison Ford, fine for a nightclub act but I don't want to see it for a whole movie.

A range of good actors could do Indy and make it their own. If they can have a score of guys play James Bond and Batman (some of them passable), there's room for another actor to play Indy.

Chris Pratt looks ok for the role but the key issue is the script. Even Ford couldn't save Crystal Skull or most of Last Crusade. Raiders, however, is one of my favourite movies of all time so I understand that Ford is almost sacred.

I doubt that they can produce a script that will work because they'll just get bogged down pandering to the teen demographic, bring in a politically correct foe and then get marooned by a half-arsed occult McGuffin that no one cares about which will erupt in a vulgar CGI plot resolution.

But I live in hope.

 

[Edward]

I feel like this is going to either be a "passing the mantle" movie done better than KotCS was done (and I half-way like KotCS), or a retelling of an old tale done mostly in flashback with a "new Indy" as a sorts. Disney will then use New Indy to tell new stories with either Ford introducing them or without Ford completely. I just hope to whoever's in charge of this that they don't let Alden Ehrenreich anywhere near the audition stand. The guy is playing Han Solo in the next Star Wars movie, and he looks NOTHING like Harrison Ford.

I completely believe it will be a passing of the mantle, but best done as a framing device. Let Ford retell his story of some other younger guy playing Indy in his thirties or whatever, in flashback. If it works, then we'll see this other guy in future. No Ford, I'm sure: I get the impression that he's spent the last couple of years saying goodbye to his iconic roles; Solo, Deckard, now Indy.... I wonder is he intending to retire?

Crystal Skull seems to have become a pass/fail test movie for fans of the franchise, and if you like it at all you're banned from the clubhouse.

Almost moreso than with [I[Star Wars[/I] , where there seem two equal camps - those of us who recognise the prequels as dreadful, and those who'd drink wee wee and call it champagne if George Lucas rained it on them. Indy fans are like Bob Dylan fans - it'sonly cool to like pre-conversion Dylan, or every third album, or what have you.

I hear Ehrenreich got the role because Spielberg took a shine to him at some Hollywood shindig. Everyone I've talked to would have preferred Anthony Ingruber to Ehrenreich. Furthermore, reports from the set say that Ehrenreich can't act. Ingruber, on the other hand... he's got the swagger of Ford himself:

Is that the kid who did the Solo fan film and campaigned to have himself cast as Solo? Certainly a good lookalike AND he does the impression well. Whether he can act at the level required might be another matter. If he could, it could be like watching Karl Urban summon Bones McCoy from beyond the grave.

My nominee for the new Indiana Jones: my man Chris Pratt. After I saw him swaggering (just enough, mind you) in Jurassic World, I said, "Hollywood better get him into a leather jacket and fedora, stat."

Last I heard he was a frontrunner. Could still be in the running if his divorce doesn't get messy.

^ Agreed. It'll be interesting to see how this affects the perception we have of Solo.

There is a danger there. If they stay true to the character as established in Star Wars, he's unlikely to be an especially pleasant protagonist, or one people can really get behind. Let's not forget that even at the start of Empire, he was getting ready to split - and only really stayed around for the girl. My worry would be that they'll make him too likeable for this and thus undermine his character arc in the original trilogy.

That's an impression of Harrison Ford, fine for a nightclub act but I don't want to see it for a whole movie.

A range of good actors could do Indy and make it their own. If they can have a score of guys play James Bond and Batman (some of them passable), there's room for another actor to play Indy.

Ish, yes, though I think this is harder. Bond had already been played before Connery (albeit not on the big screen); Keaton only had Adam West to live up to (talk about setting the bar low!). Also, both Bond and Batman were long established on the page before the screen, so had an existence beyond the films that Indy didn't from the off.

Chris Pratt looks ok for the role but the key issue is the script. Even Ford couldn't save Crystal Skull or most of Last Crusade. Raiders, however, is one of my favourite movies of all time so I understand that Ford is almost sacred.

I doubt that they can produce a script that will work because they'll just get bogged down pandering to the teen demographic, bring in a politically correct foe and then get marooned by a half-arsed occult McGuffin that no one cares about which will erupt in a vulgar CGI plot resolution.

But I live in hope.

In terms of script, it's well known that Lucas put real restrictions around Star Wars in the Disney deal. No contradiction, no crossing timelines, and such. That could affect what stories they can tell (unless Georgie was less sensitive about the criticism he took for Indy v Episodes I-III).


The story that's not been told is one where the McGuffin relates to the other major world faith group - Islam. Raiders - Judaism, Temple - Hinduism, Crusade - Christianity. I think it would be hard to make that without real risk of causing offence in some way (nor, frankly, would I wish to see a film where they caused a lot of offence when that can be avoided). Pity, though. Still, the great untold story is Indy's war years when we know he became a decorated US (Secret Service?) officer. There's loads of scope there for taking on the Nazis in their pursuit of occult artefacts like the Spear of Destiny and all sorts. Great villains, the Nazis: unequivocally an evil philosophy and nobody minds when you kill 'em.

 

[Zombie_61]

...Keaton only had Adam West to live up to (talk about setting the bar low!)...

This isn't entirely accurate. The 1960s television series was loosely based on the Columbia Pictures serials from 1943 and 1949 with Bruce Wayne/Batman played by Lewis Wilson and Robert Lowery respectively. That said, while they're fun to watch the acting in those serials wasn't exactly Shakespearean, so your point stands.

 

[Edward]

This isn't entirely accurate. The 1960s television series was loosely based on the Columbia Pictures serials from 1943 and 1949 with Bruce Wayne/Batman played by Lewis Wilson and Robert Lowery respectively. That said, while they're fun to watch the acting in those serials wasn't exactly Shakespearean, so your point stands.

I was thinking specifically of the big screen - there was only Adam West had done that dreadful one that was feature length before, wasn't there? I've never seen the older TV show. I cherish fond hope it couldn't possibly be as bad as the West vehicle....

 

[scottyrocks]

The '40s serials were pretty horrible, overall, but for a fan, very watchable, if that makes any sense. Corny, but not campy in the way that the West series was.

The '40s characters were even more 'human' than the '60s characters, as in lacking in actual superhero-type talents. When you watch a few episodes, you can see where the '60s producers may have gotten the impossible and ridiculous situation scenarios, just updated for the decade. But it was Batman, for gosh-sakes, so it was all good!

 

[Edward]

Scenarios plural? I only remember there being one in West-Batman:

Batman and Robin come up against supervillain with Great New Plan. They Get Captured. They Escape. Invent new gadget or solution in Bat Cave, take on Bad Guy, Win. For years I hated Batman because I thought the West show was all there was to it!

 

[Doctor Strange]

Guys, in a lifetime of Bat-fandom and Bat-scholarship, I've never read anywhere that the 1966 series was "loosely based on the forties serials". Can someone point me to a source for this?

Those serials were long forgotten until they got a rushed theatrical release after the TV show became a hit to cash in on the Bat-craze. (They were not among the serials that ran regularly on the afternoon kiddie TV shows I watched for years in the early 60s - Flash Gordon, Buck Rodgers, Undersea Kingdom, Phantom Empire, Commando Cody. Remember, back then, if it wasn't on TV or in theaters, it effectively didn't exist... unless you knew a 16mm collector!) I thought it was based on the wacky plots of the "benign scoutmaster walking around in broad daylight" Batman of the early 60s comics, pushed to a then-hip comic camp sensibility.

Anyway, I'm just wondering...

From Wiki:

In the early 1960s, Ed Graham Productions optioned the television rights to the comic strip Batman and planned a straightforward juvenile adventure show, much like Adventures of Superman and The Lone Ranger, to air on CBS on Saturday mornings.

East Coast ABC executive Yale Udoff, a Batman fan in his childhood, contacted ABC executives Harve Bennett and Edgar J. Scherick, who were already considering developing a television series based on a comic-strip action hero, to suggest a prime-time Batman series in the hip and fun style of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. When negotiations between CBS and Graham stalled, DC Comics quickly reobtained rights and made the deal with ABC, which farmed the rights out to 20th Century Fox to produce the series.[4]

In turn, 20th Century Fox handed the project to William Dozier and his production company, Greenway Productions. ABC and Fox were expecting a hip and fun—yet still serious—adventure show. However, Dozier, who had never before read comic books, concluded, after reading several Batman comics for research, that the only way to make the show work was to do it as a pop-art campy comedy.[5] Originally, espionage novelist Eric Ambler was to have scripted a TV movie that would launch the television series, but he dropped out after learning of Dozier's campy comedy approach. Eventually, two sets of screen tests were filmed, one with Adam West and Burt Ward and the other with Lyle Waggoner and Peter Deyell, with West and Ward winning the roles.
​

They say pretty much the same thing over at Batman On Film:

http://www.batman-on-film.com/2bof/batman-1960s-tv-series-main/

http://www.batman-on-film.com/2bof/batman-films/batman-batman-robin-1940s-serials/

 

[Zombie_61]

Guys, in a lifetime of Bat-fandom and Bat-scholarship, I've never read anywhere that the 1966 series was "loosely based on the forties serials". Can someone point me to a source for this?

That was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said the TV show's format of having a "cliffhanger" ending at the end of one episode that would be resolved in the beginning of the next episode was borrowed from movie serials; I recall reading that in a magazine article decades ago, and never questioned it because it seemed so obvious. No, the show itself was clearly based on the comic books.

For anyone who doesn't know, serials were originally produced and shown in theaters, a practice that began during the "silent" era. Featuring heroes, heroines, and villains from almost every genre (western, crime fiction, comic strip/book, science fiction, jungle adventures, and so on), they were a series of short movies that would collectively tell a longer story over the course of 12 to 15 episodes (or "chapters" as they were commonly referred to). The "cliffhanger" endings meant audiences had to keep coming back to the theaters every week so they could see how their favorite heroes escaped whatever "death trap" the villain(s) had devised (and, of course, would provide theaters with more income in the form of ticket sales). In some ways they were the template for modern television shows--a series of short stories that tell a longer story through the course of a season/series.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Examples at:

http://www.serialsquadron.com/index.html

 

[Seb Lucas]

I was thinking specifically of the big screen - there was only Adam West had done that dreadful one that was feature length before, wasn't there? I've never seen the older TV show. I cherish fond hope it couldn't possibly be as bad as the West vehicle....

Edward, I don't think Indiana Jones history or how re-casting operated in other films matters much. There's a clear precedent that a range of actors can play a single role. The young men and women in my office don't remember Raiders and only some dimly recall Crystal Skull as being pretty a pretty vanilla action film. Harrison Ford is of no significance to them and it is this detail, more than anything, that will more likely decide things for us.

 

[Edward]

Edward, I don't think Indiana Jones history or how re-casting operated in other films matters much. There's a clear precedent that a range of actors can play a single role. The young men and women in my office don't remember Raiders and only some dimly recall Crystal Skull as being pretty a pretty vanilla action film. Harrison Ford is of no significance to them and it is this detail, more than anything, that will more likely decide things for us.

THat is the thing I keep forgetting: Disney aren't going to see old farts like us as the target market, but rather young kids who never saw the orginal. In that respect, it'll be the same as any revived brand - Mission Impossible, The A Team, U.N.C.L.E. and whatever. Some work, some don't. I hope they'll do it at least as well as the Jurassic Park[/] franchise revival - or, indeed, Star Wars, in both of which they produced new films that were significantly better than a chunk of the original offerings.

 

[scottyrocks]

THat is the thing I keep forgetting: Disney aren't going to see old farts like us as the target market, but rather young kids who never saw the orginal. In that respect, it'll be the same as any revived brand - Mission Impossible, The A Team, U.N.C.L.E. and whatever. Some work, some don't. I hope they'll do it at least as well as the Jurassic Park[/] franchise revival - or, indeed, Star Wars, in both of which they produced new films that were significantly better than a chunk of the original offerings.

And it is that thought that pushes my thinking to believing we will see HF as a story framer for someone such as Chris Pratt to take over the role. The plot will be back in the '30s or '40s, where it belongs.

Pratt is hot as h*ll these days, meaning lots of young'ns would go see him, and would work well in the part (as would some others, some not even known yet).

 

[Edward]

And it is that thought that pushes my thinking to believing we will see HF as a story framer for someone such as Chris Pratt to take over the role. The plot will be back in the '30s or '40s, where it belongs.

Pratt is hot as h*ll these days, meaning lots of young'ns would go see him, and would work well in the part (as would some others, some not even known yet).

I remember both Pratt and Pine being rumoured a couple of years ago, though Pratt seems more likely, especially off the back of Guardians of the Galaxy. Definitely, it needs to go back to the 30s / 40s. I very much enjoyed, myself, the 50s setting with appropriate pastiche of 50s scifi that they did with Skull, but there seems little point to doing a 50s era picture. I don't think there's anything new to do with that now. A big part of the joy of it, to me, was that they played Indy as an older man, with the physical limitations that carried and yet the benefits of wisdom and experience. That really worked for me, but again, to simply repeat it, nah.

Tell you what I'd like to see them do - maybe one big film release, then instead of cinema films, let's see a Netflix type series with Indy spending the war years thwarting the Nazis continuing attempts to steal and used various occult artefacts. Six times one-hour episodes per season, got to be at least four or five seasons' worth in that. Either way, there's a lot of stuff Indy could have gotten up to in the period we don't see him on screen. There's the whole war period and thereafter, whatever he was up to in 1939 to 1956 that remains unexplored. t might also be interesting to see some of the 30s era adventures hinted at in the films if not seen on screen. Maybe they'll do the backstory to him, Marion, and Marion's father - though I'd have doubted that at a time of Disney, I now second guess myself on the basis of what they've done with Star Wars. Again, I also wonder whether Lucas put any restrictions on the direction they might take it as he is rumoured to have done with Star Wars. That could affect whatever story they tell.

 

[Zombie_61]

And it is that thought that pushes my thinking to believing we will see HF as a story framer for someone such as Chris Pratt to take over the role. The plot will be back in the '30s or '40s, where it belongs...

I think this would be the best way to introduce a new actor in the role. Otherwise, it'll be the usual announcement that gets repeated all over the 'Net, then a couple of years waiting for them to film yet another "reboot the franchise" movie.

 

[Edward]

I think this would be the best way to introduce a new actor in the role. Otherwise, it'll be the usual announcement that gets repeated all over the 'Net, then a couple of years waiting for them to film yet another "reboot the franchise" movie.

Indeed. If ever a franchise proved wed don't always need a character origin story, it was Indiana Jones.

 

[Zombie_61]

Indeed. If ever a franchise proved wed don't always need a character origin story, it was Indiana Jones.

This is the main reason I never watched The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles--after seeing River Phoenix playing young Indy in Last Crusade, I knew I didn't want to see more. I know that was intended to show Indy was passionate about archaeology from a young age, and secondarily where he got his "sense of style" with the leather jacket and fedora, but to me it was just silly.

If they're going to give the role to Chris Pratt they'd better hurry, 'cause he's the same age now that Harrison Ford was when they filmed Raiders. But then, they wouldn't necessarily need to do "prequel" movies, would they? There are still untold adventures between Temple of Doom, Raiders, Last Crusade, and Crystal Skull.