A reboot, by its definition, replaces a continuity. Batfleck's Batman is replacing Bale's which replaced Keaton's/Kilmer's/Clooney's which replaced West's. They are the same character but their movies don't fit with one another. They're separate continues. So yes, a reboot does replace a series. Yes you're correct, the original exists, but after a film series has been rebooted there's little to no chance to see a previous incarnation get expanded upon.
Yeah, like I said, the original still exists. As far as the continuity ending. So what? Every story comes to an end and the continuity has to end at some point, so it makes no difference if they make a reboot or not.
They can. By casting Harrison Ford as Indy. The guy's alive.
He's also 72 now and Indy is a very physical role. By the time they make another one he'll be in his mid 70's. In the last film he was beating guys half his age, and it didn't look believable...imagine a guy in his mid 70's doing that and running around and jumping. Sure, they can and will use a YOUNG (the irony) stunt double, but that doesn't make it believable, when we know he can't do that anymore.
Moot point, those are both adaptations of books. Try again. And yes, True Grit did come to an end so there was no need for a sequel. Indiana Jones didn't come to an end. I distinctly remember him snatching the fedora from Mutt and placing it on his head where it belongs.
What difference does it make if they are book adaptations? You said Connery was not really accurate to the book and Moore played himself as James Bond, which shows that any actor can play a character without mimicking the previous actor or relying on the book to interpret a character. If a new actor plays Indy, he can do his own interpretation because it's not a sequel, it's a reboot/ remake, thus, he doesn't even have to look or act like Ford, just like Bale doesn't act or look like Keaton. Chris Pine plays Capt Kirk in the reboot and he doesn't look or act like William Shatner. Did that hurt the film? No. As far as the Indy 4 ending...that's a fine ending. He gets married, happy ending. And more importantly, it's an ending! There are good remakes not based on a books, like Ben Hur, Star Trek, Planet of the Apes...and the list goes on.
That's fine. But I don't see the point to do it within 20 years of the last Indy movie or as long as Harrison Ford is alive. Not only alive but supposedly interested in reprising the role.
So the choices are to use a 72 + year old actor...or wait more than 20 years? What difference does it make to wait more than 20 years then? It's going to get made eventually, I rather get one while I'm still alive to see it
True, there's no reason to make a sequel other than to make money. Or is there? Because a writer has a story to tell with that character? Because a film team enjoys working together? Or maybe an actor has fun playing the role? Likely it's a combination of all of those elements. Don't see much point in making sequels/prequels with new writers or actors unless there is an unresolved story arc. As you observed with Indy, there isn't one so why try to make one anyways without the original team?
Writers have zero control...in most cases they are hired by the producer to do a job. Film teams don't decide to make movies either, the studio does. Actors can love a role, but again the studio decides if they want a sequel, and it's not because they are creative, it's business. Ron Perlman wants to play Hellboy, and he can't do anything about it, even the writer/ Director Guillermo Del Toro wants to do it, but the studio doesn't. Why? It's a business. I can think of several reason of why they should do a reboot with new actors. Age, Ford is too old, imo. The original team...just doesn't have the magic any more either. Indy 4 proves it. Also, at this point I feel Ford just wants another big paycheck, so he having "interest", it's just a paycheck role. Maybe a young actor will bring passion and something new to the character...maybe.
I'm not against reboots or remakes either. That is, if a film franchise is driven into the ground and effed up beyond all repair (Burton/Schumacher Batman series), it's run its course and has a conclusion preventing a sequel (Nolan Batman), they messed up the adaptation the first time or it's dated compared to current publications of a story (West Batman), or due technical limitations and poor budget of the original (Wizard of Oz, Ben-Hur, Narnia, etc).
I guess I wouldn't care to see a new Indy without Ford. Especially as long as he's alive.
Indy 4 is the Batman and Robin of the franchise....it was horrible, imo. You combine that with Ford's age and the fact that it was the original team dropping the ball, an I think it's time to get a new actor to play the character and a new team. If Ford plays Indy again, fine, but I'm just not against a new actor.
Funny I never even read the thread from the beginning just that last couple of pages. Love that pic of Cooper though-looks 'special'
