New rumour suggests Indiana Jones may be recast

News Simon Brew 26 Mar 2014 - 07:06
Indiana Jones

If Indiana Jones 5 doesn't get moving soon, it looks as if Harrison Ford may be replaced in the title role...

The current state of play with Indiana Jones 5 is that it's now a wholly Disney-owned project, with the studio having snapped up the remaining rights to it from Paramount towards the end of last year. Furthermore, Harrison Ford remains interested.

George Lucas? Less so, it seems, as he's in semi-retirement now. Steven Spielberg? It's feasible he's done with Indy too, having suggested that his own action movie directing days are done. But one way or another, he's still got a huge influence over Indiana Jones 5, whether he directs it or not.

The issue though is that Harrison Ford isn't getting younger, and it's already looking like he's committed to doing at least one Star Wars film in the year or two ahead. Ford is 72 this summer, and the way things are going, he'll be a lot closer to 75 by the time Indiana Jones 5 gets into physical production.

Now Ford at 71 has more energy, charisma and talent than we have many years his junior, but according to a fresh rumour over at Latino Review, the window for him to return to the role of Indiana Jones is shrinking. So much so that "there is a date and if Indiana Jones 5 is not moving forward by then, the studio are 100% prepared to recast a younger Dr Jones and ready up a new trilogy".

Hmmm.

In truth, it's inevitable that this will happen at some stage. The site throws in the name of Bradley Cooper as a possible 'replacement'. It also reckons that Frank Darabont - who famously had his script for Indiana Jones 4 turned down by George Lucas - has pitched an idea for the new film.

We'll keep you posted as we hear more. Treat this as rumour for the time being though...

Latino Review.

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

Disqus - noscript

Oh lord, SPARE us from Bradley Cooper!! :(

The first names in the ring rarely turn out to be the ones who get the gig. I think Disney will recast though, and I hate to say it, but it's probably for the best.

Nathan Fillion. Just the right age - not too young but still a few years in him. And believable as a charming university professor AND an action hero.

a recast seems wise. Indy seems perfect for the 30/40s, if Ford was cast it would be hitting the 60s and not sure how that would work.
just as long as they cast someone 35+

If the Indy Jones Franchise is to continue it need a younger actor to take over the role. 'Skulls' didn't set the world alight box office wise - despict the hype. And while you can argue it wasn't a great film - neither were the Pirates follow up movies and they all made a shed load of box office cash.
So yeah I love Ford - but I love Indy Jones more and if the franchise is to survive I'm happy for a new lead.

No Ford - no Indy. End of discussion.

What we need is someone who used to be in ER, maybe that Noah guy, and make him something like an archaeologist... maybe a librarian... I'm pitching this!

(Nathan Fillion would be awesome)

As long as they tell a new story, then it could work.

They could make it like a more grand episode of "Young Indiana Jones", with Ford putting on an eye-patch and narrating the story. Then it won't matter if he's recast for the scenes taking place in the past.

It made over 780 million worldwide, was the second highest grossing film of the year and (at the time) was one of the 30 highest grossing films of all time.

It's still in the top 50 Highest Grossing films, as it was only around 2009 that films making over 1 billion at the Box Office became a regular occurrence (only 4 had when Indy 4 came out, including The Dark Knight that year, now 19 have.)

So it most certainly was a huge Box Office success, and got a reasonably solid critical response, even if they the years since haven't been kind to the film.

You don't call $786,636,033 setting the world alight box office wise???? That film was a juggernaut!

He can always make these films in his.......PART TIME

I'm not even sure that we need an Indy reboot to be honest. Mr Ford did an exemplary job of entertaining a generation (or two) with his archaeological antics. But Indy is an old man and should be left to grow old with dignity. I'm under the impression that the Uncharted series of movies (and they will be a series) will be going onto production sometime soon, and they will surely slake the thirst that people have for these sorts of shenanigans. I'm a big fan of the Uncharted games, so I'm all for them getting the Hollywood treatment...
At the end of the day, Dr Jones is an old man. He is a fantastic character and worthy of all the praise that's been heaped upon him over the years. Now, it's time for Nathan Drake to carry the torch into the 21st century and entertain and excite us the way that only Indiana Jones and his like could...

If they don't make Indy 5, and re cast Ford, then the only way forward would be prequels.

Everyone loved seeing River Phoenix as young Indy in Last Crusade. There is an interesting story to be told there. I could see Dane DeHaan filling the young Indy role well.

On another note, I read another rumour elsewhere that Bradley Coopers name was being touted around.

No, just... no.

Depending on casting/acting ability don't personally see it as a problem as with James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood and The Doctor etc....

We have already had other actors play Indy; Corey Carrier (tv), Sean Patrick Flannery (tv), George Hall (tv) and River Phoenix (movies).

It's got to be better than a Mutt movie.

You know what they should do? They should make Mutt the new Indy! That'd be so cool! ;)

(I promise this'll be the only trolling I'll ever do here)

Personally I disagree. People have used the examples of James Bond and The Doctor not just succeeding with new interpretations but taking their shows/films in new directions. I do think it would have to be Indy in his younger days though.

But this was the return of Indy Jones - one of the most beloved characters well, ever. Sure it made a sizable total - but given the weight of expectation, hype and general good feeling to the franchise I still stand by the fact it underperformed.

If they were to make a new trilogy set in the late 1920's early 1930's then I could see Bradley Cooper being a better fit for a young Rene Belloq, but I can't see him as Indy. In fact, I can't picture any of the mentioned names as Indy - maybe it is too iconic a role on the big screen.

The Bond comparison doesn't really work because there has been such a gap between films and television. Even Sean Patrick Flannery is older now than Harrison Ford was when he made Last Crusade. The Bond recasting was continuous enough that the character didn't cement itself so much as one actor for so long. Connery was great, but when Roger Moore came along it was a different Bond and that's pretty much how it has continued. Indy is perhaps not so open to radically different interpretations?

I'm not against a new trilogy but it would have to be done by people who were sympathetic to the original trilogy without being too slavish to it. If they could make a fifth film that could somehow give Harrison Ford a send-off but involve the younger Indy in the teaser (much like Last Crusade but maybe set in 1927 or something), possibly even integrate the earlier adventure through the story - a quest in two different eras that might go some way in establishing the new actor. However that's an approach that could end up with a messy movie.

I don't envy those who do a 5th Indy, they have a lot to live up to.

Jesus, welcome back to 2005. Have you guys seen Fillion lately? He is in this TV show called CASTLE that's been going on for a while. Yeah, the one your parents enjoy from time to time and skirts the edges of irrelevancy just like Fillion's career.

Don't fool yourself. As Richard and Matthew say above, it was a bonafide global hit -if anything somewhat ridiculed by the fact that IRON MAN slightly outgrossed it in the US- with a good critical response. The fans, however, were less kind with it, but as for the general moviegoing audience, they found it OK and have no problem with it standing alongside the (infinitely superior, IMO) other three movies.

That could be it. If the fans are really reluctant to see Ford go (and why would they? Again, the Bond franchise has been doing fine for decades without Connery), have him pass the torch to his replacement and let him carry the thing from the following installment.

"Indy is perhaps not so open to radically different interpretations"? You should see RAIDERS OF THE LAST ARK and INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE (or KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL for that matter) back to back. The original character is heavily diluted in the latter.

Same with DR.NO and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, which could very well have been a Roger Moore film (no coincidence that Guy Hamilton was the director who bridged the Connery and Moore eras). Both characters have changed through time to the audiences' tastes -and filmmakers' whims, since it was Spielberg himself who wanted a lighter, goofier Indy after TEMPLE OF DOOM- so it's not looking likely that we get a cold-blooded swordsmen murderer Indy again if we want those four-quadrant audiences back in theaters.

Can't they tell a story about another archaeologist instead?

Indy's done, give us something new.

Aye, you're right - the character does change throughout the films - but maybe it's because it was Harrison Ford that played him that the change didn't seem so radical? I quite like the noticeable difference between Raiders and Temple of Doom - it shows a certain level of growth and I have always had some issues with the ways that all the established characters in Last Crusade were written. However with Indy I have always felt that from the point where he meets up with Henry all the old insecurities kick in and that's why he's less confident.

I also take your point about Connery in Dr No and Diamonds Are Forever - I like the latter a lot as a spy adventure but it does veer quite close to being an overweight Matt Helm adventure at times. But at the core of Connery and Moore's performances the characters ended up playing to where each actors strengths lay. So, even chubby, heavily made up Connery was still Connery and Moore was Moore (even when they gave him colder harder things to do).

So, when I mean radically different I really mean a brand new Indy (on the big screen - much as I quite enjoy YIJC apart from a few episodes I think it's only tangentially like the movie Indy). A new actor brings new mannerisms and different nuances and I think because Harrison Ford has been cemented in the public mind for so long it's not very like the Bond series.

Bradley Cooper? I'd prefer Jennifer Lawrence!

Matthew Davis.

Yeah, no. Indiana Jones is not a 'character' who can be inhabited by anyone learning lines and devising mannerisms. Indiana Jones IS harrison Ford. Same with Han Solo.

Maybe it's time for Harrison Ford to do an Andy Serkis and motion capture his own younger self just as Serkis does for Gollum!

Indy was written with Ford in mind - this is where it differs from Doctor Who, Sherlock and Bond - that being said I'm for Jensen Ackles, Bradley Cooper or Ryan Reynolds

As Doubledown1138 says No Ford, No Indy!! If Ford's too old for the part lay the franchise to rest and think up a whole new character/franchise (just not LeBeouf again, please God).
Come on Hollywood, stop digging up and dumping on the past and use your imaginations (if anyone out there has one anymore!!) to come up with new heroes for the 21st century!!

Blood.........boiling.........

Bring back shia labeouf! :-)

Hugh Jackman? Why not- he could definitely pull off the role...

I would go for Karl Urban or Michael Fassbender. I don't think Bradley Cooper is rugged enough and he comes across as a smug git.

Indy was not written with Harrison Ford in mind. Tom Selleck was originally cast, but had to pull out.

Tom Selleck IS Indiana Jones. Harrison Ford is merely a stand in for him.

But an Indiana Jones movie without Spielberg, Lucas and Ford isn't an Indiana Jones movie. It's this.

Except Bond, Holmes, Robin Hood were all literary characters first before they were on screen. Indiana Jones was created as a movie character and had life breathed into him by Harrison Ford: neither Lucas nor Spielberg nor Kasdan's concept of the character was anything like the character created by Ford.

Also, after Basil Rathbone as Holmes no one could come close to portraying that character any near as well for generations. In my opinion, no one will ever embody Robin Hood as Flynn did.

As for James Bond, Bond is a bland sort of character anyway and relies on the cars, the gadgets, the girls, the style, and the intrigue of the Cold War type theme. Indiana Jones as a screen characters is a classic throwback to 1930s screen charisma. As for The Doctor, initially it was all about the monsters, Daleks etc.

As for the other actors who played Indy, none of them were Indiana Jones as he is on the big screen. SPF's Young Indy was good but he wasn't Indiana Jones.

Actually, you do have a very good point. Jesse 'Magnum' Stone IS Harr- Indiana Solo. Yes.

agreed however it is very big shoes to fill!

That's why no one could replace Harrison Ford. Neither Lucas, nor Spielberg, nor Kasdan created Indiana Jones as one of the most-loved and iconic characters of all time. Harrison Ford entirely created Indiana Jones, his charisma, his vulnerability (e.g. things never went wrong for Indiana Jones in the ROTLA script), his humour. The script Indiana Jones was 2D, Harrison created the 3D Indiana Jones.

*slap*

Karl Urban always strikes me as someone who deserves a really iconic role of this own. Not sure if this is it, but not a bad shout

Recasting makes 100% sense...and you can do it in a very smart way. There is a period of Indy's life not covered in film or tv...1921 to 1934 which is the period between the last Young Indiana Jones tv series set in 1920 when Indy was 21 & 1935 (Temple of Doom) when Indy is 36 years old. So basically, you can have a whole slew of movies set in a near 15 year period. So you can cast someone between the age of 25 & 30 (ideally) and have those stories dove-tail into what harrison Ford did in the role without pissing anyone off...because they did it with the tv show! It could be sort of a Batman Begins of Indiana Jones, but casting the right actor is the hard part - and they can't be too familiar either or it won't work. But I suspect this will be the route they go down.

They should get Chris Pine in so he can complete his own personal trilogy of re-casted younger roles.

STATHAM.

And as for who I would go for...Armie Hammer. That's right. Armie Hammer. Why? Watch Lone Ranger - not a great movie, sure, but the guy has that sort of old school, movie matinee idol thing which you don't see much of anymore...and he's 27 so the absolute perfect age if they were serious about making a 'series' of movies. As for Bradely Cooper - he's too old for this now, ditto the 40-something Hugh Jackman. The actor HAS to be under 30, but over 25 to cover this 'earlier' period in Indy's life.

Ridiculous. Make a new role with a new actor and get original, Hollywood. Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones.

Said no one ever lol.

I think you might have a good idea here, even a short intro at the bigging would link the new actor to the old.
I as much as anyone would love to see Harrison grin at the camera one more time but frankly Indy is an action hero and unless we wont all the action scences to be a mix of CGI and stunt doubles (yes I know that happens a lot anyway), I think it is time to let this verison of Indy hang up his whip and hat.

He should play this or Nathan Drake! Heck, he would even be a good Green Lantern given his voice work.

We've got a Fillion hater here!

Yeah, could you imagine it, Rocket Racoon playing Indy.

Indiana Jones is a story line that follows his age. You can't recast him and continue with new stories. Doing a reboot is not that exciting. Didn't they try that with the Mummy series? They were fun, but it isn't Indiana Jones.

I think there's a difference here though. There wasn't really a break in any of these series between seasons/films. OK, Doctor Who had a bit break, but we'd already seen several iterations of the Doctor before this happened.

Indiana Jones is a cult classic (indeed, mainstream recognisable) that has been left largely untouched in the minds and imaginations of those that love it for over 20 years. Ford has been cemented in the imaginations of many as Jones and the series has been stationary in this for too long.

I'm not sure how I would feel about someone else playing Jones, but my instinct and immediate reactions weren't positive.

What we need is a new Tomb Raider.

Yes to all this. Obviously the whole perception of Harrison Ford being The One and Only Indy lies on how much time we've seen him do the same thing (which is actually 8 hours and change, and not 33 years), though we've associated him with the character because there's never been a substitute since he first grazed the screen... and no, I don't think the TV series counts.

My point is had this been 1992 -we can't even follow Bond's parallel since Connery himself got recast a mere 6 years after his first movie- we wouldn't be having such heated debate. Hell, not even the lead of *the* biggest film of the year LAST CRUSADE was released made it to his third movie, and little fuss was made of it despite still being considered one of the best Batmen to this day.

Yes, bring in Rick O'Connell (not an archeologist per se, but whatever)! Not like Brendan Fraser seems busy behind the counter of McDonald's these days...

Shia LaBoeuf is not famous anymore, so I don't think he is even in contention.

Wouldn't be the first time he's played a Ford role either.

Aye, I thought it did a good job as Dredd and he would have made a good older batman in my opinion.

I'm still hoping Dredd 2 isn't dead yet

HEY! Take that back! He was in Percy Jackson 2!

Ok you're right.

Also, no Shia. Whatever happens, no Shia.

In anything.

Ever.

Yeah, you are exactly right - there aren't any real meaningful parallels between the franchises apart from the action adventure genre.

I have thought that the one thing that sets Indy apart from Sherlock Holmes, Bond, Tarzan, Batman etc is the fact that he is the one big action / adventure hero that didn't have any other history behind him? (Obviously taking away the fact that he was an amalgam of many different influences). When Dr No was released the character was known because of the books, Holmes, Tarzan, Batman etc had a huge catalogue behind them. The first we see of Indy is in Raiders.

Since Last Crusade we've had Rick O'Connell, essentially in an Indy style adventure, Lara Croft, Nathan Drake and the many other characters influenced by him. Maybe that makes it difficult to see someone else playing the part because he was never being compared to anything else to begin with.

In 1992 I was all for a reboot, I thought Dennis Quaid or Sam Neil would have been great in the role, I was also up for Tom Selleck getting his crack at the whip. Now, I'm not against it at all - I just struggle a bit more with the idea now and maybe that has more to do with the fact that I am not sure how many filmmakers could make a great Indiana Jones film. In fact that worries me a little bit more than the casting. I can't, off the top of my head, think of too many people that make adventure films as well as Spielberg did at the time.

If only I could give a damn about him...

Stop. Captain Hammer time.

What? CASTLE is actually good?

I agree with you here. If they could get the casting right and bring in a fresh director then I don't see why the series can't continue. Recasting is just a fact of the acting world and I don't think an actor can just keep the role for themselves.

He's a fictional character. Many other actors can be as good as Ford. As much as I love Harrison Ford AND Indiana Jones, this can be done and will inevitably be. How many actors played James Bond when Connery left the role ?

Timothy Olyphant! The man can wear a hat like a champ and really works the whole "reluctant hero" vibe. Justified alone should sell this!

I think Jensen Ackles could be a great replacement. Dean Winchester Jones sounds pretty cool to me :p

Yes, they were literary characters first. So ? Most of people only watched James Bond movies, for them he's a movie character. Proof ? There was a big event with Skyfall being the 50th anniversary movie. Do you remember such an event for the 50th anniversary of the books ? My point is, people made the exact same statement when Connery left the role. Now we are at James Bond's 6th official incarnation.

WRONG ! It was written with Tom Selleck in mind. Lucas didn't want Ford as he already was Han Solo. But as he was already on Magnum, they took Ford instead.

She could be a great Lara Croft.

I was about to post a very similar comment till i thought to search for uncharted...
I agree 100% on that idea, what could be done is to have a cameo of Ford in his Indy gear effectively passing the torch, only problem with that idea is that Indy would have to be 110+ if set in the present day but there is no reason why there cant be some sort of sequence set in the 70's passing a map or something on or something like that.

Speaking of games i would also be very interested in a rebooted Tomb Raider franchise based around the recently rebooted Lara....

Noooo

Or on the plus side, this.

Or this

Despite some references to Bond, Indy is not Bond.

I'm ok with Shia being recast. Just not Ford.

For the love of Lucas, no Indy re-boot please! We've already be stuck with a Star Trek re-boot, must we endure this as well?

No idea, never watched it, not my cup of tea. But Fillion has done lots of good stuff including Doctor Horrible.

I can't see him as Indy though. To me Indy will always be two people, action hero and college professor. Anyone taking that role has got to do the tweed as well as the fedora.

May I refer you to the feature film "Tron: Legacy", and various comments about it that may exist somewhere on this site.

so? People were freaked out when Connery and Roger left Bond. Bond of the movies also little to do with the books. Robin Hood and Holmes have never been that successful. Sure one off films but nothing beyond that.

As for the Doctor is was baked into the show that the main character could change after the then the makers of the show wanted Hartnell to go but didn't want to end the show. Nothing to do with the monsters.

It is well past the Time Indy should be recast if they want to continue. Ford is a great actor but if they want to make more movies it is time. If not leave the Franchise to history rather than make the same movie again.

I am not to sure. People felt the same about Bond when Connery wanted to go.

The issue will be can they cast a new actor and bring a new direction to the role. This will be hard but not impossible.

Bond had the same issue in the 60's with Connery leaving. Then the same issues in the 80's with Roger leaving. We have gotten used to the actor changing now and the series taking new directions. Even if it leaves continuity in peaces.

Doctor Who is a very different case. They baked it into the show very early on to solve the issue of Hartnell's. Most people would argue this is one of Doctor Who's master strokes.

For me the case is can you take the series in a new direction? People may want to see another Indy movie with Ford in the role but if you recast it you need a new direction.

This should have happened YEARS ago! I've always said that Indy should have taken the Bond route and just recast every decade or so and told us lots of stories - it would have been brilliant.

I agree with what you said here. Indy was co-created by Ford himself, as opposed to Bond, Holmes etc.
I'm not sure Doctor Who is a good example either, since it's been written into lore that his personality can completely change with each actor, as required.
Basically, with Indy a new actor would be attempting to mimic Ford's performance. This isn't the case with Bond, Holmes or the Doctor.

Gollum is Serkis' own younger self?! ;-)

Exactly. This could easily work. That's probably why I don't like the term 'reboot' in this case. As long as they never, EVER, actually remake the existing four films, then I'm fine with prequels/interquels/whatever.

Recasting James Bond has been successful, but the nature of the Indy films is different than Bond. James Bond goes up against a villainous enemy to thwart a dastardly scheme for wealth & power. Indiana Jones has some *thing* he's after (the Macguffin). Yes, there are villains standing in his way, but it's ultimately the thing itself that he's after. I think the character could be successfully recast if handled the right way. I'm just not sure there are that many compelling "things" left for Indy to pursue. I think that was probably the biggest issue with Indy 4.

Here would be my suggestion: Recast Indy's son (I think Bradley Cooper would be a great choice), and send him off on adventures. Ford could makes cameos from time to time, you carry forward the cache of the franchise, and you can develop a whole new character. Keep the most endearing parts of what makes Indiana Jones without being tied to Indy's established motivations and background.

Most people only watched the movies? By the release of Dr No, the Bond books had become a popular literary phenomenon. 10 books had been published by the time Dr No was released. Connery was criticised for not fitting the character from the books.

He wasn't even the first actor to play Bond on screen!

I know about that attempt for Tron. It doesn't look real. It will be achieved one day. Perhaps with the right amount of effort it could be achieved for Indy V.

I thought Shia was great.

And Connery wasn't the first choice for Bond, anyway. Cary Grant turned the part down before him.

I think this is a terrible idea. Regarding the comparisons to Bond, I don't think they're the same at all: Indy's films give us much more of his character than any Bond film does, and each story is tied in with his own personal goals and motivations. For the most part, in my opinion, Bond's films just follow a guy doing a job. It's rare you feel anything for Bond beyond hoping he wins because he's the good guy.

Don't recast. Just let the originals stay untouched (yeah, even the last one). Why not come up with a similar concept/character and roll with that? Don't make it a direct rip-off, but just try to apply the same thoughts and feelings to something new that Spielberg, Lucas and co. did with Raiders.

It's OK. I like the guy as well, but let's face it: his time is up and claiming for him to headline any dashing hero-centric movie is just as tired as screaming for Bruce Campbell to headline any major property. Wake up, guys, this ain't 2003 anymore!

As for Indy, you are right: he is two people, but he occasionally merges into one more often than we realize. His action hero is not as chiseled and perfect as he (& we) would lead to believe and he keeps fumbling stuff, making things up as he goes, and lucking out A LOT. That, in fact, is what makes him really charming as he is far from this awesome, whipsmart (heh), invulnerable adventurer* and more in line with his self-absorbed college professor that sometimes gasps when his students send him love messages.

*Don't forget he starts TEMPLE OF DOOM as a vain fortune & glory-seeking scoundrel to eventually evolve into a true hero when he saves those kids in his (selfish) quest for the Sankara stones.

Exactly, even his Bond impersonation was slightly Mr Bean but you don't laugh AT him. That's going to be really tough for another actor (and Director...) to pull off with the same feel.

20 years ago they should have cast Dennis Quaid as Indy.

And so is River Phoenix, Sean Patrick Flannery, Corey Carrier . . . (although I refuse to acknowledge the 90+ year old Indy since he has been edited out of the DVDs of the show.)

...Yet embraced absolute unknown George Lazenby when he replaced him. Not to make ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE a bigger hit than YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, but contrary to what many believe, it wasn't a flop either. Far from it.

Of course, when Connery returned for DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (because Lazenby mighty cockily quit, not that he was fired) box-office figures picked up. But the movie wasn't well liked and when EON got the widely-beloved Roger Moore to replace him again, no one ever thought as much about Good Ole Sean.

Maybe what Ford needs is a bad Indiana Jones movie for the audience to not mind him getting replaced... or maybe it has already happened?

He only wanted to do the one movie where as the producers wanted someone who would commit to the franchise.

Lazenby is an odd guy. He claims he was given bad advice by his manager but other people say his ego was the big problem.

Connery was brought back to role at considerable cost even though John Gavin had been cast and apparently paid. However it became clear no amount of money could get Connery back after Diamonds so Roger even though he was 45 got the nod.

I would say the movies by the time Connery wanted to go were more famous than the books. Goldfinger and Thunderball made about billion each when adjusted for inflation.

The Eon movie Bond is very different to the Bond in the books and also the character in the 1967 version of Casino Royale.

The obvious idea to continue the franchise is to have the Indy 5 adventure based around the fountain of youth. So 3/4 into the film we are introduced to the new 'younger' Indy. Which can lead into possible comedic elements now that his wife is much older than him. Imagine a young Indy having all that old Indy knowledge and experience, and physically being capable of new adventures. Casting a suitable replacement will be the real issue. But in the end, Indy hasn't been replaced. It's still him, he just looks different (younger).

So agree with this. I can't imagine any of the pretty boy actors around nowadays giving this role such flaws and gravitas.

Sponsored Links