Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Do we know yet?

Keanu Reeve's will take over.

I would just love for the answer to be "nobody will be playing him because they won't make a 5th film".

Chris Pratt would be the perfect person to take over if they really need to.

He would prolly... if they're thinking a real reboot.

However... would a reboot work at all?

I dont see why not.

And the answer is...

HARRISON FORD!

Ford & Steven Spielberg are reuniting to do Indy 5!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/ford-and-spielberg-to-reunite-for-new-indiana-jones-movie/article29246859/

Ford is spending his golden years revisiting all the old favourites.

At least this time Spielberg won't have Lucas sticking his nose in things.

Indy in the 1960's - what could the story be? Vietnam, Cambodia...Woodstock?

Indy in the 60s? Epic!

OMG... I dunno guys. Indy as an old man... it wasn't very interesting in KOTCS... how could it be interesting now.

I mean, Han Solo was great in TFA. But he was an old man and it was about an entire new generation... This is about INDY... Another Shia? Another young gun? I dunno...

I do. Old Indy rules. Liked him in the TV series, so, this works for me.

I hate to say this, but Harrison Ford just hasn't aged very well. There is old and then there is "looks like the only thing keeping him alive is black magic".

Plus after the last movie it's hard to imagine people would want more. I mean it was bad, it made the Star Wars prequels look like Citizen Kane.

Originally posted by Kazenji
At least this time Spielberg won't have Lucas sticking his nose in things.

I don't think this is fair. It seems like you're trying to say what made the last film bad was Lucas. If he produced it, directed it, wrote it, etc. then I would agree. He wrote the story, but not the screenplay or anything else.

Originally posted by Surtur

I don't think this is fair. It seems like you're trying to say what made the last film bad was Lucas. If he produced it, directed it, wrote it, etc. then I would agree. He wrote the story, but not the screenplay or anything else.

He also produced the 4th movie too, Even rejected Frank Darabont's script which he later rewrote the final act.

Originally posted by Surtur
I hate to say this...
I hated to read it.

Originally posted by riv6672
I do. Old Indy rules. Liked him in the TV series, so, this works for me.

Yeah, as a side character, someone introducing an episode. Even the tv series had a younger lead to do all the action. So if that is the case, the question is really: who's gonna be the real lead?

And basically that makes Indiana Jones an entirely different movie.

And I agree that Spielberg is not to be excused by Lucas. Spielberg is one of the few final cut directors in Hollywood. KOTCS is entirely his work.

To me a movie at this point is a halfway point between old(TV) and young Indy.
As to action, well, Ford is in his early 70s, so yeah, he cant do it all, but so what?
His "dad" Sean Connery was doing action movies well into the same age range (The Rock at 66, Entrapment at 69, LoEG at 73).
Not a big deal for an old actor to get through a movie on a wink and a smile and some deadpan snark (all Indy staples BTW), some creative stunt work and a good cast around them.

Sean Connery didn't do any major stunt work AND he wasn't the main character in the movies you mentioned. Indiana Jones is.

Plus, the characters Connery played WERE old men. The best comparison with Connery is seeing him in James Bond in Never Say Never Again... he was quite an old Bond then and that almost worked. Imagine him playing the new Bond now (he's only a few years older than Ford). That just wouldn't work.

Someone once said after KOTCS, and I agree with this, that Indy isn't a character you'd want to SEE. Indy's a character we wanted to BE (in the 80's). In your imagination, who wants to be an old man?

Well, i guess since i AM an old man (and still kick major ass), i have no problem seeing my childhood hero age.

REALLY slow posting morning on the site for me, so, imma come back to this.


Yes he did, and yes he was.
The stuntwork SC did in all three movies varied, but, he did it, the way i said, creatively, and with a good cast.
As for not being the main character? Sorry but thats just not true:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images? q=tbn:ANd9GcQng4rV8ypQDPngFy1cnv38jhe_SzB88qiCmdVO
ko5j2GnsP07Q

http://m.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/67/MPW-33593

http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/movieposters/32277/p32277_p_v8_aa.jpg

Front and center on every poster, and more importantly, top billing.

I get it, you dont want to see an old Indy. Not going to call you an ageist, but, its gonna happen. Ford's in credible enough shape to pull it off, and if he doesnt do the lion's share of the heavy lifting, well, you're probably going to disagree, as you have with everything else i've said (even when what i said was true see above), but, its Indy's charm, personality, and self depreciating wit that make up 90% of why the character's endured for 35 years.
Hollywood slapped hats and/or leather jackets on dozens of actors in a score of movies with hundreds of stunts trying to replicate the Indy formula.
Only a handful had any success, and none to the degree of the original.
You cant bottle lightning. Even if, at this point the lightning is well past its prime.

A reboot could surely be done, and be succsesful, but it wouldnt be Indy.
Pratt, Cooper, even my man Oswalt, wouldnt be causing this discussion 35 years down the line.

Well, I DID see old Indy. In the tv series and in KOTCS... it all depends on what role they give him.

But it's not like Han Solo. I loved Ford in TFA, I really did. But they made him a) and old man/mentor like and b) he as always a secondary character. So they did well here...

And then there's the other thing: the time where the next Indy should take place in. The 60's? The 70's. I thought KOTCS was already pushing it.

Indy was made to star in a time before WWII. Spielberg and Lucas said that many times before the made KOTCS. Because they felt the world kinda lost its innocence after WWII... Although philosophically that's kinda nonsensical, I kinda got what they meant. His character was from a different era. The closer you get to the now, the more impossible his character gets.

Anyway, obviously it's gonna happen. I'll see it. Let's just hope it's better than KOTCS.

Agree to disagree, i guess.
You simply arent into the concept, as evidenced by your reasoning (that i addressed) in your last couple posts.

Originally posted by riv6672
I hated to read it.

You have to admit it's true though.

Originally posted by riv6672
Agree to disagree, i guess.
You simply arent into the concept, as evidenced by your reasoning (that i addressed) in your last couple posts.

Huh? What does that mean? Apart from being condescending...

The concept is: archaeologist goes around to world to retrieve ancient artefact with mythical powers.

The question is: does that work with an old man in the lead? I think KOTCS shows it's dodgy at least. And now Ford is even older.

Maybe Ford will be like Sean Connary's role from Last Crusade?

Originally posted by Surtur
You have to admit it's true though.
Not at all. He's aged fine. Not all septuagenarians are going to look like Stallone.

Originally posted by queeq
Huh? What does that mean? Apart from being condescending...
It means you choose to ignore the fact that the things you said regarding Sean Connery (and by extension Harrison Ford in regards to this conversation) being a viable action star in his old age were straight up wrong.
So, while i may be condescending, you either cant or wont admit you were wrong about what you said.
I'm not saying saying your opinions are wrong, just that the "facts" you're basing those opinions on, are.

Originally posted by queeq
The concept is: archaeologist goes around to world to retrieve ancient artefact with mythical powers.

The question is: does that work with an old man in the lead? I think KOTCS shows it's dodgy at least. And now Ford is even older.
I disagree with your opinion. Thats all.
An old codger stuck in his ways, an anachronistic character in a movie? Works all the time.
From movies like 1976s The Shootist to 1986s Tough Guys.

I'm just going to leave it at that, because i'm obviously pissing you off, without trying, and i really dont want to start trying.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Maybe Ford will be like Sean Connary's role from Last Crusade?
Maybe. It was a variation in that in Crystal Skull, though he definitely still took the lead in the adventure.

Originally posted by riv6672
It means you choose to ignore the fact that the things you said regarding Sean Connery (and by extension Harrison Ford in regards to this conversation) being a viable action star in his old age were straight up wrong.
So, while i may be condescending, you either cant or wont admit you were wrong about what you said.
I'm not saying saying your opinions are wrong, just that the "facts" you're basing those opinions on, are.


Okay, let's talk facts then, mate. I doubt that will convince you, because if this is just about opinions , you don't care about other people's opinions very much.

The Rock - the main character was played by Nicholas Cage. Not by Sean Connery.

Entrapment - the main character was played by Catherine Zeta Jones. Not by Sean Connery

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is an ensemble movie with the entire League as the main character.

In all of these movies Connery is a headlining major star to draw an audience (just like DeNiro in Meet the Parents) not the main character (just like DeNiro in Meet the Parents).

As I said before , the only comparible movie franchise starring Sean Connery is James Bond. THat's not opinion... THAT is fact.

Besides, Connery didn't do his own stunts...

Originally posted by riv6672

I disagree with your opinion. Thats all.
An old codger stuck in his ways, an anachronistic character in a movie? Works all the time.
From movies like 1976s The Shootist to 1986s Tough Guys.


Yeah, we had that. In KOTCS.

And don't forget Dirty Grandpa.

Too late, kid. Facts went out the window when you chose to ignore them just because they contradicted your opinion.

Oh, you think you'e funny now.

I thought I'd just ignore the ignorant remarks about those movies you mentioned. But hey, now it's all in the open.

http://i.imgur.com/yOQgbq0.jpg

Was it ever not cool?

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/5-Ancient-Artifacts-Indy-Could-Search-Indiana-Jones-5-118737.html

Interesting!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0QcyX9JWMMo

Fun!

That Harrison Ford, i tell you. Irreplaceable.

Originally posted by queeq
Oh, you think you'e funny now.

I thought I'd just ignore the ignorant remarks about those movies you mentioned. But hey, now it's all in the open.
I know i'm funny.

You have the market cornered on ignorant remarks thouhh...

You: Sean Connery didn't do any major stunt work AND he wasn't the main character in the movies you mentioned.

Me:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images? q=tbn:ANd9GcQng4rV8ypQDPngFy1cnv38jhe_SzB88qiCmdVO
ko5j2GnsP07Q

http://m.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/67/MPW-33593

http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/movieposters/32277/p32277_p_v8_aa.jpg

You: NUH UH! Thats not true even though it is!

Originally posted by riv6672
I know i'm funny.

Yeah, you know how funny people are who say that about themselves.

Showing pics of movie posters doesn't mean anything.

It does when they all give Sean Connery top billing, refuting your argument, and then you choose to ignore them.

Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rock_(film)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment_(film)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_League_of_Extraordinary_Gentlemen_(film)

Imdb:

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0117500/fullcredits/cast?ref_=m_tt_cl_sc

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0137494/fullcredits/cast?ref_=m_tt_cl_sc

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0311429/fullcredits/cast?ref_=m_ttfc_3

All give SC top billing. Making my point. A point you chose to ignore, then flat out call ignorant.
My point was only ever that an older actor can lead an action movie.
You seem hell bent on saying thats impossible.
Even if you have to do the internet equivalent of holding your breath and shaking your head.

If, as you infer, i'm not funny (though i am ), then, this exchange is hilarious, when all you had to say a few days back was something along the lines of "point taken", and gone on with your own take on the subject.
But, no, you dont seem to be that mature.

Me, i'm not mature.
But.
I know how to have a conversation.
And have fun with those who dont.

Top billing means they use him to draw an audience. He's not the main character. He outranks Zeta-Jones and Cage ins status as an actor and therefore he gets top billing.

If you start these kinds of silly arguments, you should at least know how the movie business works, immature person.

Now you're disagreeing with Hollywood. Nooice.

If Merking silly posters with facts has a name, it must be...

http://i522.photobucket.com/albums/w344/riv6672/usedsigs/7421.gif

Originally posted by riv6672
Now you're disagreeing with Hollywood. Nooice.

Now you need to go back to your padded cell.

Originally posted by queeq

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PRABBELusgs



I wonder if this C-3PO fella will ever come back and check this thread, and see how much fun i had here this week?
See you at the movies, mate. naughty