Should Disney reboot the Indiana Jones series?

Feature Mark Harrison 17 Dec 2013 - 06:41

Disney's bought the rights to make more Indiana Jones films. Is it time for a reboot?

Raiders Of The Lost Ark is my favourite film of all time. It's just as vital and entertaining as it was when it was made, over thirty years ago. While neither The Temple Of Doom or The Last Crusade are up to the standard of the original, they're both almost as good, in different ways, almost serving as a Superman III style split of the darkness and lightness of Raiders, into two separate entities.

I love Indiana Jones so much, I can't even completely hate Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. To many, that may seem contradictory, but to me, it's a bit like a late-era Roger Moore Bond film, or Die Hard 4.0 - not an bad film, just a bad Indiana Jones film. Even having said all that, it's interesting to play devil's advocate in reaction to recent developments.

On Friday, it was announced that Disney had fully acquired the rights to make future Indiana Jones films, as part of the LucasFilm deal. It's interesting that in all of the talk about Star Wars: Episode VII in the last twelve months, few have asked if there'd be more Indy on the cards. Did we all think that they'd just leave it alone?

Over the weekend, Disney's chairman Alan Horn told the press that a new Indy film would be at least two to three years away, and added "there will surely be new Indiana Jones movies in the future, be they sequels or reboots, and when they do come to fruition, Lucasfilm will be producing".

The three leading creative talents behind the series - director Steven Spielberg, producer George Lucas and leading man Harrison Ford - have all been talking about another Indiana Jones sequel to some extent or another since the fourth one came out in 2008. If anything, Ford seems much more eager to reprise this role than he is about the possibility of revisiting Han Solo in JJ Abrams' new film.

Realistically speaking, there are probably executives at Disney who would like to reboot the series, but there won't be many film fans out there who are interested in the prospect of anyone else playing Indiana Jones while Harrison Ford is still willing and able.

To go back to the Die Hard comparison, a straight-out fifth film would not necessarily be commensurate with the disaster that was A Good Day To Die Hard. Ford clearly cares too much about the character to ever phone it in like Bruce Willis.

Even if he were further hemmed in by Shia LaBeouf, CGI monkeys and the sheer expanse of time that has gone by since his heyday as a leading man, it's fair to say that most would still prefer another sequel, to a reboot with a younger actor.

On the other hand, revisiting the Roger Moore comparison, Steven Spielberg initially conceived of Indy after the Broccolis spurned his desire to direct a Bond film. Even if you're the kind of cineaste who believes that Hollywood films have gradually become more creatively bankrupt since the advent of the Lucas/Spielberg-led blockbuster movement, at least there was some innovation there.

One of the problems with originality in current blockbuster cinema is nostalgia, because Hollywood is unfettered by any kind of deferral of satisfaction. Just as Spielberg couldn't make a Bond film, George Lucas' difficulty in acquiring the rights to Flash Gordon gave us Star Wars. Nowadays, directors can clamber aboard reboots or belated sequels to films they were watching when they were kids, because they've become properties that studios are eager to monetise again.

However, the Bond films rebooted every few years, in recasting the lead role. Where Indiana Jones has differed from 007, however, is in the same actor playing the role over three decades. It would be much harder to change actors while keeping the same façade of continuity at this point. We all know it; Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones.

As I said though, the prospect of playing devil's advocate is too tempting. If you have to reboot it, and you rule out magically de-aging Ford in some top secret machine at Disneyland, who do you cast as the man in the hat in an Indiana Jones movie for the 2010s?

Even having already acknowledged that Ford's performance is indelible, it's tough to try and recast without looking for someone like him. To think like an executive, and turn around and say “We have the rights to do what we want, let's reboot this”, perhaps the most obvious casting choice would be Hugh Jackman.

In his mid-40s, he's only a little older than Harrison Ford was when he took the role, but he looks the part, and he'd also be coming into the role from another iconic turn in a geek property (Han Solo and Wolverine, respectively.)

We know that Indy would probably be younger in a reboot than he was in Raiders, because it ain't the years, honey, it's the mileage. I've seen some suggest Chris Pine of Star Trek fame, but you probably wouldn't cast William Shatner as Indy either.

Pine's co-star Karl Urban would probably be a better fit for the role. Again, older, but given how the internet response to any attempt at recasting will be roughly a million times more vitriolic than the recent Bat-fleck farrago, a fan favourite like Urban would probably have the most cushion-y landing on fanboy ears.

It's fair to assume that they wouldn't try to outright remake Raiders, because in terms of filmmaking, that's probably the difference between heresy and face-melting sacrilege. A reboot would inevitably tread over some of the same beats from the original trilogy, but there's a plethora of McGuffins from unmade sequel scripts, which could easily lend to new adventures set in the 1930s and 1940s - Excalibur, the Round Table, Atlantis, and the Garden of Eden, to name but a few.

Ultimately, Spielberg and Ford probably have to pass on doing a fifth film, or actually make it, and properly round off their run, before we see any movement on a reboot. This means we'll probably see Shia LaBeouf in another Indiana Jones movie before we see a new Indy, and which is the less palatable prospect?

In a pre-Crystal Skull universe, a reboot would be unthinkable. Now that the fourth film exists, we might need a reboot just to be safe in knowing that LaBeouf isn't going to take over the franchise as Henry Jones III. We'll leave that nasty little possibility in the “face-melting sacrilege” pile.

Despite taking its inspiration from James Bond, we have to conclude that casting Jackman or Urban or Andrew Lincoln or Ryan Gosling (etc. etc.) in the lead role of the Indiana Jones franchise would not be the same as Roger Moore replacing Sean Connery. It's not an unthinkable prospect, but Disney can't ignore first refusal on the part of Spielberg, Lucas and Ford.

What do you think? Would you rather see a reboot of Indy, or another sequel? If you had to make Indiana Jones today, who would you cast in the lead role?

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Sequel reboot, Nazi time travel means that the 3rd Reich won WW2. Indy is shielded by a Mcguffin goes back in time meets young Indy (liking the idea of Karl Urban). Dies heroically in the end reboot complete. Final scene shows birth control devise to prevent Mutts conception.

Seriously, why not? Its not like anyone got that pissy about Sean Patrick Flanery playing young Indiana did they? He's an iconic character associated with one actor, but that never stopped James Bond did it?

You need to put this context; the only reason they're even thinking of another Indy film is because Harrison Ford DEMANDED it as one of his contractual stipulations for reprising Han Solo in the upcoming 'Wars trilogy! They have an obligation to finish a story outline by the end of 2015 and a release date of 2018 at latest... by which time, Ford will be older than Moses!!!

They had a golden opportunity to make a fantastic fourth and final Indy film with Frank Darabont's excellent '... City of the Gods' script in 2003, that opportunity was royally blown by Luca$ and his hubris, and Spielberg has now officially retired from action films (or so he says), so the momentum is no longer there much less the creative team that made the previous films!

So, to answer the question posed in the title of the above article... DEAR GOD, NO!!!

As you say, it's a real shame that Indy 4 didn't come together earlier. For me, the biggest problem with an older Indy isn't the age of the character, but the era the films then have to be set in. The stories belong to the 40's and earlier, the time of the adventure serial when much of the world was still poorly known but for the first time could be reached by plane.

I didn't like the 50's setting of Kingdom, possibly because we're getting into Mad Men territory. An Indy 5 with Ford would probably have to be set around 1960, and that's just wrong. Indy travels by seaplane or zeppelin, I never want to see him boarding a Jet!

The remade Indy Jones in the late 90's - It was called 'The Mummy' and Brendan Fraser did a great job of playing the 'making it up as he goes along' hero.

I would suggest that if they are going to use Harrison they should go for a more serious thriller style story - make Indy a bit more Robert Langdon - brains over brawn. I recall there was an episode in the young Indiana Jones adventures where Harrison told a story about his younger self, we then cut to the story with the younger actor. This could work as an introduction to a new actor - but would Harrison be willing to give up on Indy...? I'd personally go with the old Indy actually being old - less action and a good solid thriller that is intelligent and well told.

And in gaming Nathan Drake! (While Lara Croft is the female counterpart of course.) Give Nathan Fillion his Uncharted movie already, Sony!

Darabont's script - which would have undoubtedly underwent some further revisions before filming began had it been kept - was still set in the 1950's, still had Cold War themes, still had the aliens... but it was so very, very much better than what ended up onscreen! It's not necessarily the content as much as the execution, and Darabont's execution was infinitely superior in almost every conceivable way!

A real missed opportunity... but then again, what else would you expect from Luca$, the man who publicly declared 'The Empire Strikes Back' as "the worst 'Star Wars' film of them all"... 'nuff said!

The choice of setting Indy 4 in the 1950's was of course because of Ford's age, but also because Spielberg doesn't want to use Nazi's in comedic situaties due to his making of Schindler's List. Sovjets on the other hand he has no problem with.
And the new Tomb Raider game and the Uncharted series proof you still can make a good adventure story even if it is set in modern times.

I don't know I always pictures Nathan Drake being played by Joe Flanigan.

I've read Darabont's Indy 4 script, and as Northern Star has said below, it still has some of the same elements, but it's a really interesting read- especially interesting for the lack of a Shia LaBeouf character. Thanks for your comment though! :)

Sounds a bit too Philadelphia Experiment 2 though ...

Karl Urban could be great, It has the swagger, and could work, albeit it would be a pretty different Indy. If it were up to me, I'd try Timothy Olyphant, his Raylan Givens its the most close to a Indiana-Han Solo character I have seen in years, and he is a very good actor.

On the positive side didn't LeBeouf publicly criticise Indy 4? Spielberg and Co are unlikely to take that very well so maybe they wouldn't want the little twerp back for a fifth. He's not in Transformers 4, produced by Spielberg, after all.

Indy is a Time Lord and regenerates! :D

I like the idea of this, but I have always been a sucker for a time travel movie. Although it has already been done in Star Trek of course...

No!!!! Reboot is the most wretched word in Hollywood.

Could always send Indy after the fountain of youth, he finds, he drinks -only his new youthful self is (insert actor here). Instant reboot.

Thank you Disney, remember my name is spelt 'stu' not 'stew' when you write it on the cheque.

I dunno though, would be very odd to see anyone else wielding the hat and bull whip.

I can hear Walt cackling from beyond the grave as we speak!

Stay away from the classiscs like Indiana Jones, there are enough alternatives. Mutt can pick up the hat. Or like being said here, get Drake on the screen. But a reboot of Indiana Jones, is taking away part of a legacy.

Actually that's not an entirely bad call. But someone will inevitably bring up Hitman.

That's what I first thought about. It was an episode when Ford was sporting his beard for The Fugitive if I recall. The Ford segment was set in the 50's and he was escaping from somewhere in the snow.

"Mutt can pick up the hat"
You have GOT to be kidding right? ................................ right?

Like you I'm a massive Indiana Jones fan, the 80's films were monumental and I would hate to see the character diluted any more - Harrison Ford is the only guy that can play the character, even after Crystal Skull his character was still just about intact.
I believe the intention was to introduce his Son to carry the series forward but looks like Shia has pissed on his chips, which to the rest of us is a relief.
I couldn't like The Young Indy series as it implied that the character met or influenced practically every historical figure from that time period, which for me spoiled the character.
A reboot with Indy's character going through more fantastical adventures would just turn him into a superhero, which he is not - he's an average guy put into situations where he becomes heroic - to me the definition of his character is fighting the big German guy, as Indy doesn't have super powers or gadgets or skills, he takes a beating and beats the guy through his wits.
Also, after all he has witnessed up to this point i find it hard to believe he could carry off his incredulous attitude towards yet another fantastical McGuffin.

That lousy movie does not exist in this dojo XD

Personally I don't think Indy 4 is nearly as bad as some of the hate likes to make out, it might not be on the same level as Raiders or Last Crusade but I think its of the same quality as Temple of Doom.
And I don't think an Indiana Jones reboot would necessarily be an improvement over 4, if anything it would rely even more on CGI and nostalgia, potentially recreating iconic sequences from the original trilogy just because they can rather than doing something completely original.

One way to reboot-without-actually-rebooting the Indy series is by having Ford start the movie in the 50's, or so, then relate the tale(s) of a "Missing" adventure with a recast younger Indy. Have the missing adventure have something to do with the 50's storyline and end it with Ford Indy saying something along the lines of "And that's not the only story I haven't told you about." ... Cue recast younger Indy setting off on another adventure leading into Indy 6.

Unfortunately and reluctantly, I will have to say yes. Yes, they should reboot the franchise RATHER than make a sequel.

It makes me sick to my stomach to say that, but if Disney must insist on raping the franchise for all it's worth, then they need to start over with a younger Indy. I dont want to see the Indy I grew up with on screen being bent over by the studios in his old age and forced to chase Aliens, not into space, but to the space between spaces.

Oh no wait, that's already happened.

David Duchovny...?
But id rather see a fifth film...and tell me what is this 5th die hard film you speak of..i only got a coffee cup coaster in my boxsett

Recast by all means after all Indy has been played by a number of actors not just Harrison Ford - though the elderly one-eyed Indy played by George Hall in TYIJC tv series seems to have been edited out of history - but don't reboot.

One of the great things about Indy; Corey Carrier, River Phoenix, Sean Patrick Flannery, Harrison Ford and George Hall is following him through his history with 'of the time' enemies of Nazis and Soviets etc...

It was "Mystery of The Blues" set in 1950. It was the only set of bookends not removed on the DVD release. The other bookends by Sean Patrick Flannery and George Hall were removed.

Whatever happens with it, whether it turns out to be a reboot or sequel, great or awful, we'll always have the original three. The Last Crusade is one of my favourite all time movies, and ain't nothing gonna change that.!
Especially if the reboot is of one of the most popular franchises in history. Leave it alone! They already ruined my beloved Star Trek. I still think there should be a nerd committee in Hollywood that has to approve all proposed remakes.

Nathan Fillion

Jensen Ackles

That is all


At first I thought this article would be utter sacrilege...and then I thought about Crystal Skull and realised nothing could possibly be worse than that.
I think you've nailed the casting with Hugh Jackman - although it might be easier retooling it as another 'Adventure of Young Indiana Jones' and having someone much younger.
Having said all that, I'd much prefer it If they could just reboot my memory and wipe Crystal Skull out of it. That would be MUCH better.

In the previous Indy article I suggested Nathan Fillion, but now I'm thinking...Nikolaj Coster-Waldau?

A glimmer of hope! Perhaps the new film could open with a grieving Indy and Marion. "Why did Mutt have to die in that freak yachting accident?" they ask, but they are soon swept up in a new adventure and forget all about him.

I really like that suggestion :) It's the only one that seems to fit in my head, I think he could be great - he's definitely got the confidence/smugness of an early Indy, and I think he could do the 'Indy almost panics while trying to work out how hell he's going to get out of this one' face brilliantly.

Calm down dear, it's only a movie.

Just leave it alone

You know what's weird? If River Phoenix had lived, he'd be about the right age to play the adult Indy now. That would have been perfect.

Recast Mutt. Carry on.

Personally, I'd much prefer a reboot at this stage. The prequel/sequel options would both exist in the same continuity as the original trilogy and so would affect that world. Much as I havent and won't rewatch it, I can't pretend KoCS didn't/won't happen, much as I can't pretend there is only one Matrix film, leaving me free to imagine a possible ending to that story. The same applies to Young Indiana Jones, which I also avoid, but at least that was very careful not to intrude on the films. With a reboot, I can just ignore it if I choose - as they said, I think, when they rebooted Star trek, it's not like your old dvds will be wiped, you can just ignore the new universe and stories. Just one thing, though - if you're going to reboot, reboot. Don't set up a reboot and then just remake the old films. And yes, this is a very thinly-veiled side swipe at Star Trek: Into Darkness. Indy is a great character, he could have loads of great new adventures, but let's leave the ark/stones/holy grail out of it please. And no Hugh Jackman, not because I don't like him, but he had a go at being a hat-wearing renegade adventurer and we poor viewers got Van Helsing.

I also think Sawyer from Lost would be a good shout

You are mistaken. The only things Nazi time travel ever means is dinosaurs... Nazi dinosaurs. It's an inevitable and inescapable concept.

While I was reading I was like "reboot? Are you nuts?" but when you mentioned Karl Urban or Hugh Jackman I was like "huh. Maybe." My main issue would be my lack of trust that it would actually be done well, though it certainly could be.

Watch it. The article sorta-erroneously claims that "the same actor (played) the role over three decades", which is not exactly true. We could argue that he did so over eight years (1981-89), which is when the franchise showed signs of consistency, and then reprised the role very briefly for the TV series and, later, a fourth entry released almost twenty years after LAST CRUSADE.

That is as if we argued that Sean Connery has been James Bond for over twenty years, from 1962's DR.NO to 1983's NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, which is A) incorrect since there happened to be a long hiatus from 1971's DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER to the latter; and B) weirdly disrespectful to Roger Moore, who did take the 007 mantle and ran along with it for 12 years, an even longer run than Connery's official nine.

That said, I'm with you. Indiana Jones is associated to Harrison Ford because there hasn't been anyone else -Sean Patrick Flannery & River Phoenix excepted- that played him for a distinct lack of opportunities. But yeah, should they really wanna reprise the (original) character with the intention of continuing his adventures for a long period of time, they should ditch Ford and recast. At this point with him we'd only get a ROCKY/ RAMBO-type Twilight-Years story, which is what we already got with CRYSTAL SKULL anyway and what the public doesn't seem to be thrilled about.

They can certainly give Ford a honorable exit and have him bookend the new movie, but being honest, he's never gonna play the youthful adventurer again. And if it worked with Bond (and might work with Tony Stark as well right after AVENGERS 3), Indy should be no exception. Whether we embrace it as the original is another story, but hey, if we gotta have it, why not do so with a positive attitude?

"The Adventures of Modern-Day, Fat Indiana Jones".

Harrison Ford also did FORCE 10 FROM NAVARONE and similar dreck, so it's not like he came in with a stellar track record.

Apologies, I thought we were all here to comment on the subject in this comment section.

TEMPLE OF DOOM has more wit and energy in its first 10 minutes than the whole of CRYSTAL SKULL combined.

And mind you we are talking about a movie Steven Spielberg allegedly regrets doing because at the time he was going through some bad stuff in his personal life (a divorce, though on the other hand he also got to meet his current wife on set) and finds the movie too dark. These days the only quotes you'll get from him regarding CRYSTAL SKULL are something like "mmmyeah, I did it for a friend... uh, I guess".

I think its much easier to recast an iconic role, when the character pre-exists. So Connery interpreted Fleming's Bond. Actors interpret Shakespeare's Hamlet. Whomever takes over from Robert Downey Jnr will be able to draw upon the history of Iron Man.
Harrison Ford isn't interpreting Indiana Jones, he is Indy. Subsequent actors would therefore be mainly doing an impersonation, rather than an interpretation.

And while the world and its dog debates the merits (or not) of an Indy reboot, Disney have probably already started the reboot ball rolling...

For me i if they are to continue the Indi movies, i would make the fith an incorprate a younger indi into the story, ie Ford thinking back to his younger days going after the artifact that he is currently also going after, so its an object that he has been chasing his entire life, and then in the future movies after that use the same actor aho played the younger Indi as the indi in these futere films, but focusing on Indi's life in his 20's ,so basing the films throughout the 1920's, so a young marian and their courthship can be introduced plus hsi adventures with Marians father etc. Bu i would not try and cover the same time period of the 1930's with another actor playing the role.

Please god not Shia, he's terrible. I think Karl Urban is a good shout.

I'd personally prefer him to play Solid Snake in a Metal Gear Solid movie...

The first half of the 20th century is Indie's fictional universe - the era of the fedora. It's an essential ingredient. A sequel set any later than 1959 would simply no longer be a true Indie movie. Prequels are the future of Indiana Jones, I think - set in the interwar years.

agreed, he was great in Serenity

As long as Ford is alive and kicking, I'd consider a reboot of Indiana Jones incredibly insensitive and illogical choice. Also, recasting a role is not rebooting the franchise. It would be a reboot if they'd reshoot the old films or simply start at the beginning of his career story-wise. Bond was only rebooted with the second Casino Royale with Craig in the lead role.

It sounds plausible, but audiences would not go for it.

It's Disney. They are hardly going to go for a 'serious thriller' direction with Indy. They want in your face action and whip cracking sounds for all the family!

But I'm with you on that idea, that's what I would like to see.

Or they could say he went back to live with those monkeys he loved to swing with.

Glad you prefer Temple of Doom, but personally I feel any film featuring the chemistry between Harrison Ford and Karen Allen is always going to be preferable to the constant screaming of Willie Scott!
As for your Spielberg quote, he was referring specifically to the use of inter-dimensional beings as the McGuffin saying he wasn't sure about them but ultimately deferred to George Lucas and had faith in his choice. He then continues to talk about how he is proud of the film, overall, and seems to have no real regrets about it in the slightest!
As I said, personally I don't think Crystal Skull is that bad, the Aliens make sense as part of the plot given the 50's setting (changing the films from focussing on the 30's Adventure serials to the 50's sci-fi/ red menance thrillers.)

This is the best idea I've read so far. As much as I think Harrison Ford is THE man and it would hurt to see anyone in the role the fact is he is in his 70s and a new film is a couple of years off at least. This would at least ease us into a new actor.

Good points. But I think prequels could work as long. The original three films were fairly stand alone with little nods to each other. Also ToD was a prequel (although some would say that this proves prequels are a bad idea).

how about.... instead of rebooting Indiana Jones, they think up and create a new franchise... or am I being too adventurous?

Shame Nicholas Cage and Samuel L Jackson are so old now.

I didn't think KoTCS was that bad. Shia and the monkeys (as well as Ray Winstone shouting "Jonseeeeeey") were annoying but it was an OK film. Worth it just to see Harrison Ford back in the Fedora. A sequel doesn't need the Mutt character in it. Just as Sallah wasn't in the last one.

No, wait. I don't think CRYSTAL SKULL is the Yeti of Filmdom as many hyperbolically claim it to be, but it's nowhere near the level of the first three entries by a long shot. It does have good stuff sprinkled throughout, and I personally have no problem with the aliens and 50s setting either, but the bad occasionally outweighs the good and you can see why simply by focusing Spielberg's oft-disinterested direction.

...And it's too bad because it could've been something special! Sadly, bringing back (most of) the original creative team didn't prove to be enough since it's obvious most of their spark together had long gone. I'm sure Lucas gave it his all (however wrong might've been his decisions), just as Ford visibly does on screen. But Spielberg at the helm doesn't seem to be so playful as he once was within the trilogy, and coupled with seriously defective material -the Russian jungle camp stuff, for one, that kills the movie dead for a good 10 minutes?- turns the movie into a seriously limp affair.

I wish I had your perspective, but a few rewatches down the line it's not about wishful thinking anymore, but accepting the cold hard facts. And regarding those Spielberg quotes, I find it hard to believe from a guy that's been consistently delivering objectively superior directorial work for over fifteen years now. I mean, if their creative collaboration was at a 33% as they always stated, should Steven Spielberg, the movie director, have relinquished so much creative control over his friend George Lucas, the movie producer?

The Bond franchise has been "rebooted" -by today's terms- many times during its run. Even with the same actors if that means changing the tone or the direction of the series. Sean Connery's FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE's James Bond could never be the same character of Roger Moore's LIVE AND LET DIE (that deals with supernatural elements!), much less MOONRAKER.

However, the fact that its generally non-serialized nature presents many standalone adventures -and mind you all movies from DR.NO to DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, save for GOLDFINGER, follow some sort of narrative arc related to SPECTRE- has led its audience to view it as many timeless adventures featuring an ageless character... until CASINO ROYALE indeed, which yet again opens another narrative arc related to either the rise and fall of Quantum (to be continued) or 007's career at MI6 (of which SKYFALL presents a considerably more aged and experienced Bond).

Anyway, with that in mind, I'm wondering why it would be "insensitive" or "illogical" as long as Ford is alive (or RDJ whenever Marvel feels like rebooting IRON MAN?). The Bond franchise has done exceptionally well so far after Connery and, changing leads if done smartly, would certainly benefit the franchise considering the all-time iconic status of the character.

The continuity of the Indy films is such that a potential film with a new actor could be set at any time, like the Bond films. I know it's not the popular approach now, but with the exception of one or two minor nods, each of the films existed almost independently of one another. I hope they don't lose that in favour of a three-film build up and so on.

And I'd like to suggest Geoffrey Rush for Marcus Brodie.

Absolutely. However, part of the charm of the Indy films is that they're set in the past during the time of those serials it so effectively homages, kinda like a cinematic nod to that era.

I'm all for rebooting and for recasting and trying with different directors (and mediums?), but I think they should keep the old-timey serial look that also brings it so much charm.


I thought one of the problems with KofCS was that it had nicked too much stuff (including its comedic tone) from The Mummy which, in itself, copied a lot from Indiana Jones. Basically, it's become a parody of itself. Unless they're going back to basics (and I mean Raiders) - have an unknown but talented actor, a great story and macguffin, all done on a shoestring budget, then I really wish they wouldn't bother. IMHO the high gloss and budget of KotCS was one of the things that killed it.

"Don't set up a reboot and then just remake the old films. And yes, this is a very thinly-veiled side swipe at Star Trek: Into Darkness."
Absolutely 100% agree with this.

I think we should put our heads together on this your Nazi dinosaurs and my Mutt contraception........we may have just cracked it.

No, they shouldn't reboot them just as Star Wars (the originals), they've told their stories, it doesn't need to be told again.

Nice choice.

Unequivocally, NO!

Sorry, but Nate has grown too fat (compare current "Castle" Nate to old "Capt. Mal" Nate for evidence). If he drops 30 pounds and hits the gym a little, then maybe.

If you steal £5 from me, then I steal it from you, is that note still worth £5? Anyway...

KotCS isn't the horror show most people like to make out. It's on a par (joint 3rd) with ToD for me, if not better as there's not a long sequence in it that's pretty racist.

With KotCS I think I must be the only person who didn't go:

"Yep, I can believe he finds the Ark of The Covenant; yes, I can believe he finds the Holy Grail; yes, I believe people can magically pull hearts from chests, but aliens.... now you're having a laff."

I enjoyed KotSC, it made me feel like I was 14 again and on a fun adventure with silly action.

Also, at least Indie makes a difference in KotCS, if you remove him from RotLA, then the end result is exactly the same, but fewer people get shot.

No, I don't understand that word.

If Indie is rebooted, can we have it like the Bourne films and just call it Indie without the Indie character?!

I'd hate to see someone else play Indie, I'd be happy with a franchise that's exactly the same, except with a different character name.

Don't forget the casual racism in ToD!

It's the only workable reboot idea I've ever heard of and in keeping with the general fantastical nature of the films.

Still, even then I can't think of anyone I'd want playing Indie. I think I must be the only person who finds Jackman over rated.

Johnny Depp as Indiana Jones

I thoroughly enjoyed Crystal Skull, but I have to agree that Darabont's script was far superior - aside from perhaps the biplane sequence, which took things too far.

As to your last point, his cynicism makes even less sense if you take into account his expanded universe adventures. It's like he can't take two steps without stumbling onto another magical artifact ;-)

Some argue that the increasingly comedic tone began with Last Crusade (a single bullet going through several Nazis, the pen is mightier than the sword, Brody the buffoon), and that KotCS simply continued with it.

Last Crusade is better than Raiders.

No. Indy is fine as a set of 4 films. (I don't mind "nuking the fridge"... it's Indy!)

It wasn't Harrison Ford i was disappointed with in Crystal Skull,i still want to see him play Indy again,not really bothered if he is in his 70s,if they get the story right and ease on the dumbstuff...Indy 5 could still be great

Happy Birthday Steven Spielberg aged 67 today! Now I understand that Harrison Ford is only continuing to do Star Wars providing he gets to play Indy again. Tis' tempting to say: "Indiana ... let it go" but let's face it; he isn't going to let it go.

So here is my idea for Indiana Jones & the Sword of Excalibur... the year is 1965 & Indy returns from having finished another exciting opening action sequence only to be confronted by Marion who accuses of him of living life like he was still a young man as a way of failing to confront the fact that their son is dead. Indy counters that he was on the trail of discovering how and why Mutt died & it turns out he was looking for the Sword of Excalibur but the Soviets are after it as well and murdered him. Now the Soviets have an idea of where the Sword is and they intend to obtain it & use it for world domination (what else). Marion lets him go on one more adventure, to get the Sword before the Soviets do but only on the condition that she comes with him.

Along the way they meet a mysterious young woman in her mid-twenties; it is the twin sister of Mutt who fell out with her mother and left home 2 years before the events of Crystal Skull. Marion has never mentioned her as she left vowing she would never see her mother again & Marion was upset by this and also felt if she told Indy he would find her again and attempt to get them to patch things up. This would inevitably end in failure and only succeed in opening old wounds. She swore Mutt & anyone else to silence for the same reason. During the course of the adventure, Marion & daughter patch things up & Indy and daughter bond together well (helped by the fact that she is a lot less annoying & far more likeable than Mutt).

By the end of the film; Indy gets the Sword away from the Soviets and succeeds in saving the world (again) and he, Marion and their daughter walk off happily into the sunset together.

Directed by Steven Spielberg. Written by Lawrence Kasdan. Daughter of Indy played by Jennifer Lawrence. If her character proves popular (unlike Mutt) it could lead to three spin-off films. Meanwhile, a 1930s set animated Indiana Jones series could also be made. Just a few ideas

This is a terrific idea.

Raiders of the Lost Ark was made to pay homage to Saturday morning adventure serials. Nobody has complained that Flash Gordon, Batman or Buck Rogers have been rebooted over time, so I see no reason why this shouldn't be restarted with a younger actor, and returned to its 'thirties setting. I think we are growing to precious nowadays in associating actors to characters.

If anyone were to be cast as Nathan Drake, the above mentioned Karl Urban would be so perfect, it's not even funny. To be sure, I think he'd be a perfect fit as Indy as well.

What no-one mentions here is how important the score was for capturing the feel of the film. I think a John Williams type score would be great for uncharted or an Indy remake.

Listening to it now, it's incredible how much the score brings to the films. You'd find yourself lacking without it in the film

:) Yeah you're totally right! How can they expect the Indiana Jones to keep being the cynical grounded character he's supposed to be when he comes coming across magic, aliens and other paranormal situations all the time?...

Matt Davis. (I mean it!)

Oh please, River Phoenix only had 1 decent role and that was when he was about 10 years old in 'stand by me'. The lad was a dick.

Indiana Jones in a Doctor Who style regeneration. A bold vision, sir :-)

I respectfully disagree, he was good in all his adult roles - with stand out performances in My Own Private Idaho and Dogfight. He was pretty good in Mosquito Coast. Although, you do of course have the right to your undoubtedly learned and carefully considered opinion.

Indiana Jones should have been like Bond - they should have just recast Indy years ago and carried on making stories in the 30s, changing the actor every 5 or 6 years - it would have worked perfectly. Now they've mucked it all up with Crystal Skull, so really the only option is to reboot in my mind, but it's probably too late to turn it into the sort of serialised movie series it had the potential to be.

James Franco is the man to be the new Indy

Nathan Fillion is not Nathan Drake, Nolan North is! He played him the last 3 times, with voice, mo-cap and he looks like him, why recast??

Leonardo DiCaprio is a chameLEOn. He could play Harrison Ford play Indiana Jones. Or Meryl Streep. Or a young Jeff Bridges. Seriously: it can only be Clive Owen.

Harrison Ford IS too old now, and will be even older by the time Indy 5 would start shooting. He may be the fittest 70-something ever, but he is still in his 70s. He was in amazing shape for Crystal Skull, but if you watch it closely, he hardly does any of the stunts - understandably so. By the next one, Ford would not be able to do any action at all. And do we want to see a movie of Indy sitting around looking at maps while someone younger runs around doing all the action?

If there must be another Indy film, then yes, cast Hugh Jackman. That is a better idea than having Harrison Ford return.

Sponsored Links