Movies Rumor: Chris Pratt Eyed For INDIANA JONES written by Sean Gerber January 27, 2015 You had to know that when Disney purchased the rights to the INDIANA JONES franchise from Paramount in 2013, it was only a matter of time before a relaunch was in the works. While the franchise is nowhere near filming a new installment, early rumor has it that Disney likes Chris Pratt for the title role. It won’t be easy for anyone to fill Harrison Ford’s Fedora, but Pratt is talented and, more importantly, likable enough to be up to the task. The real question is whether or not he will have the time. Pratt is already lined up for GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY sequels and likely other Marvel crossover films. He’s also starring in JURASSIC WORLD this June and unless he’s eaten by one of his pet velociraptors (perhaps due to motorcycle envy), Universal will want to bring him back for more dino-adventures. The good news is that the production trucks aren’t going anywhere just yet. Disney has plenty of time to resolve scheduling issues with Marvel, which Disney owns, while Pratt’s other franchise commitment winds down. What do you think? Would you accept Chris Pratt as your new Indy? Tell us in the comments section below! Source: Deadline Rumor: Chris Pratt Eyed For INDIANA JONES was last modified: February 20th, 2016 by Sean Gerber Related DisneyIndiana Jones 40 comments 0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest Sean Gerber Sean Gerber is the founder and editor-in-chief of Modern Myth Media. When he's not writing here, you can catch him as the host of Popular Opinion Podcast, Batman News, and Marvel News! previous post AGENT CARTER Season 1, Episode 4 Clip next post THE FLASH – The Sound And The Fury Clip You may also like JUPITER ASCENDING Review February 6, 2015 BIRDMAN Soars at Venice Film Festival August 27, 2014 Open Forum: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – ROGUE NATION July 30, 2015 Katniss Takes Aim In The Final Poster... September 30, 2013 Meredith Anne Bull & Elijah Kelley Talk... January 22, 2015 IMAX Goes “Behind The Frame” With THE... October 1, 2013 HERCULES Trailer Unleashed! March 25, 2014 Open Forum: TIME LAPSE May 15, 2015 New Featurette Explains Why GRAVITY’s 3D Isn’t... September 23, 2013 New TV Spot And Character One Sheets... September 1, 2013 T.J. For the wrestling fans out there, let’s ask the real question: Is this Chris Pratt’s Roman Reigns moment? Sean Gerber Only if John Krasinski was in the running and got eliminated midway through via text message. T.J. Thank you, Sean. ( o/ JIM! JIM! JIM! o/ ) T.J. That said, as a fan of Pratt (Paul can just deal with it haha), I hope he will be passed by for the Indy recast. He’s not gruff enough. Now that fella who voiced his raccoon friend in Guardians of the Galaxy, on the other hand… Adrian While I can’t say whether Jurassic World will make money or not, I get a premature vibe that it won’t be received well. Don’t ask me why. It’s just a feeling I have. Hey berto Well, not that I’m any indication of what a mass audience will do.. I have zero interest in Jurassic world… Which is to say I will wait for it on video. Robert Reineke Hey one out of three ain’t bad. Gregory Walsh Oh, JUST GOD NO. My opinion is worth less then the energy to type these words but I found him rather dull in GOTG. He did not hinder the movie but he did not elevate it either. The guy is the flavor of the month and will be forgotten once a couple of his movies do not do great. He is not why GoTG made money. Marvel is. Now Nathan Fillon for the Indy. Yes, please. Joshua Nathan Strong Why is Nathan Fillon everyone’s favorite to play every role? Gregory Walsh Lol. Cause he is great at what he does. he is very much like a young Harrison ford. Watch firefly. He was cast to be Han solo in that show and movie. But Maybe not your cup of tea, and that is fair. Joshua Nathan Strong I love Firefly, I just hate that whenever a role is open in a big genre film or established franchise that the first name that always comes up is Nathan Fillion. Most of the time, it makes no sense. Gregory Walsh Totally agree. Cant speak for others but I don’t do that. He would not be a fit for a lot of parts. Hey berto He’s probably as good a choice as anybody. A lot of people have suggested Chris Pine… I think because he played Kirk as the beleaguered hero so well in Trek, and really reminded a lot of people of Indy. We’ll see. Robert Reineke The University professor side seems a stretch. Pratt looks like a grad student. Sean Gerber Maybe so, but there’s things they can do about that. Plus, he’ll probably have another 2 or 3 years on him before any filming would take place. Robert Reineke Sure there’s time. Indy needs to be able to sell intelligence and authority though. We’ll have to see but I’d be surprised if that’s in Pratt ‘ s current repetoir. If you’re casting today I think Jake Gyllenhaal is a better fit. Sean Gerber I think Pratt can pull off those qualities, but yes, Gyllenhaal is also an excellent choice. John Bierly And the three of us were JUST TALKING about how Gyllenhaal needs a franchise! I’m not sold. But I’m swayed. Sean Gerber Yeah, I think this would be a great one for Gyllenhaal and perhaps with Indy in his back pocket, he’d be open to a role in the superhero genre that wasn’t necessarily front and center. Gregory Walsh Based on what? Let the guy prove he can do it in something that is not iconic. Their are plenty of other choices for the part with out needing to risk it on a guy that has one hit, that frankly would have been a hit with any number of other actors in the same part. Sean Gerber It’s a risk no matter which actor Disney ultimately chooses. There’s no way around that. Having a guy audiences generally like (and they like Chris Pratt) is a good start, though, after which it’s on him to give a great performance. I appreciate that you thought Pratt was dull in GOTG. I disagree, and you really have no way of knowing that GOTG would have been just as big of a hit without Pratt and with “any number of other actors” playing his part. Marvel is powerful, but part of the company’s power is finding the right actors to star in its films, and that includes Chris Pratt. A large number of other actors tested for the role of Peter Quill before Pratt, so it’s not like his casting was arbitrary. GOTG was financially and critically successful because it was good and Pratt helped make it that way. GOTG was not at all iconic before the movie came out. It was a property many comic book fans didn’t know very well, if at all. The Marvel name definitely helped convince audiences to give it a chance, but Pratt was among the major reasons why those moviegoers were happy they did. Gregory Walsh There are different levels of risk and putting an untested actor into an iconic role is taking a risk that is not needed. And you have no way of knowing that it would not have been the same or bigger. For all we know he was marvels fifth choice but was cheaper. There are too many “what ifs” on both sides of the argument. In fact, I can argue that marvel has proven that the actor does not matter as much as it once did considering the string of their successes with unknowns. As well as the moderate success those actors have had outside of their marvel films. But I am not arguing that. All I am saying is let they guy prove his chops in a couple of films that are not as iconic as Indiana Jones before dropping him into one of the most iconic roles of all time. Gylennehall, Brolin, Fillon, etc have all shown they can do it and fit the role as well if not better then a guy who has never shown he can. Sean Gerber But Pratt’s not untested. He took a property that was not iconic and helped make it so. He was the lead in the film. If most people felt the same way you did (that Pratt was dull), I don’t see how it’s even reasonable to think the movie would have enjoyed the success it did. Did Gyllenhaal make PRINCE OF PERSIA a worldwide smash? Brolin in JONAH HEX? Nathan Fillion in anything? Seriously, I’m a huge fan of Fillion, but as far as being a movie star is concerned, he’s never had a major hit like Pratt now has. I love CASTLE, FIREFLY, and SERENITY, but let’s not stretch their popularity into more than it is. The burden isn’t on me to prove that GOTG could not have been a hit with a number of other actors because it was a hit with Pratt. I’m not the one basing arguments on things that didn’t happen. The numbers show Pratt did his part and Disney, the people who obviously know how many other actors tested for the role and where Pratt fell in the offer line, must feel pretty good about what he brought to GOTG if they’re considering him for INDIANA JONES. If they, the ones who saw all the other Star-Lord auditions, felt Pratt delivered a performance that was interchangeable with what they could have got out of several other actors, it’s highly doubtful Pratt would be on the Indy short list. And here’s the kicker: Disney doesn’t have to make this decision right now. There’s been no report of any contract being offered or signed. INDIANA JONES is years away, which means the studio can sit back and see how Pratt’s career evolves from here. If JURASSIC WORLD is a big hit and people like Pratt’s performance, there’s more evidence to support him taking the role of Indy. If that performance isn’t so hot, then they can take a look at the rest of Pratt’s upcoming slate to continue the evaluation process. And of course, once they have a script, they can screen test Pratt to see how he does. There’s still plenty that has to play out, but at this moment in time, I don’t see any issues with Disney having an eye on Pratt for this role. Lucky for Disney, they have the gift of time to make sure he or someone else is the right choice. Gregory Walsh You are also basing things on things that did not happen. Just because Pratt was in a movie that made money does not mean it had anything to do with him. Your telling me Shia LeBouf made Transformers a billion dollars. It is a total oversimplification of what is far more complex and intricate. There are so many variables to claim your arguments are somehow more valid is myopic. I do not discount yours. You are correct that maybe Pratt did play a much bigger part then I believe. However you have not given one shred of evidence to support that. By your logic your telling me Pratt would have made Prince of Persia a success and Gyllenhaal would have made GotG a failure. Pratt made a smart choice to attach himself to a successful film company, director and script. That is all. I have not seen a single review or heard a single person say he was Downey in Iron Man, Jackman as Wolverine, or Reeves as Superman. That would be actual evidence that he played a much larger part. It is simply too soon to know if Pratt is for real. And Indy does not need that. Indy is established. It is not a risk. So it does not need to risk itself on an unknown. So why settle for that? Let the guy prove himself in some other parts before placing him into something as iconic as Indy. If he proves it. Great. I will look forward to that. Just because I thought him dull in GoTG (which actually might have been an editing issue, he was not the only one I saw the same odd timing issue with) does not mean I don’t think he can be a success. When not over used he is a riot on Parks & Rec. Ultimately my concern is not with Pratt. If is successful I am sure he earned it. If not, best of luck in his next venture. What I don’t like, and I see this all the time in entertainment, from sports to movies to authors, is the marketing departments of large corporations pushing out stars so they can associate their brand with them for the sole purpose of making more money. When the only concern is money it almost never ends well. And Indy definitely does not deserve that. After the fourth film, Indy needs to be squarely back on track. Sean Gerber GOTG was a massively successful film and Pratt was the LEAD. That happened, so no, I’m not basing my argument on purely hypotheticals. His performance was well reviewed (see Rotten Tomatoes for evidentiary links). The cast, not digital robots, was the main attraction in GOTG. Was Pratt the only reason GOTG was successful? Of course not, but it’s quite a leap to argue that relegates him to being an interchangeable spoke on the wheel. I never argued that PRINCE OF PERSIA would have been successful with Pratt instead of Gyllenhaal. You claimed Pratt was untested and threw out a series of names you felt were more proven. I gave examples to question just how proven those guys were in leading blockbusters and drawing box office. Regardless of how much credit you want to award or take away from Pratt, it is a point of fact that none of the names you brought up have been the lead in a film as successful as GOTG. Does that mean they can’t be Indy? Of course not. Does Pratt’s success in GOTG mean he will be a great Indy. Maybe or maybe not. But the people who know more than you or I ever could regarding exactly how much credit Pratt deserves for GOTG’s success think he’s worth a look for Indy and that says something. Gregory Walsh Your right, it was successful and Pratt was the lead. That is all you have proven. I am not saying he didn’t help the movie. I said he did not help it for “me, nor did he hinder it. I clearly stated it was my opinion. But you have not proven that he in fact did help it. So again I say, let him prove it before sticking him into a movie and part as iconic as Indy. Sean Gerber “Chris Pratt, overflowing with charisma, plays the leader of the pack of misfits, and his blissed-out space cowboy (with a love for seventies music) is so full of good will that he buoys the film and its requisite whizbang special effects.” -Bruce Diones, The New Yorker “Pratt is their prime asset for turning the comedy up to 11. With him playing Star-Lord, you never question what Quill brings to the team: a sparkling, cracked esprit de corps.” -Michael Sragow, Orange Country Register “The cheeky comic tone keeps things buoyant – as does Chris Pratt’s winning performance as the most blissfully spaced-out space crusader this side of Buckaroo Banzai.” -Scott Foundas, Variety There’s more where those came from, but I think you get it. Chris Pratt was indeed a significant factor in GOTG’s success and proved he could meet his responsibilities as the lead. And, as I’m saying again, those who best know just how much Pratt contributed relative to what they could have received from other actors who tested (Disney) quite obviously feel he did enough. But, as I’ve also said, Pratt has more blockbusters on his slate between now and official casting for Indy, so Disney will have more evidence to support their decision either way, as will you. John Bierly This one’s really difficult. My favorite fictional character is Luke Skywalker. I love Mark Hamill’s performance as Luke, and I can’t wait to see him again in THE FORCE AWAKENS. But, if Disney announced three years or so down the road that they were going to make a movie about an untold adventure with a new actor who could capture the goodness and the spirit of the character, I’d be okay with it, because I’d love to see more filmed adventures of the character. But I can’t apply that to Han Solo for the same reason I can’t apply it to Indiana Jones, and it’s the Harrison Ford factor. There’s just something about how the guy inhabits a role. With the Indiana Jones character in particular, there’s something very specific about how Ford played the honest-to-God sense of true, holy wonder for the artifacts he sought and the legends around them. You believed him as a professor, and what made him so believable in the action scenes was his lack of belief in himself as a fighter. (The exhausted reluctance with which he puts up his dukes against the bald Nazi in the flying wing fight is what I’m talking about, or the fact that he’s always got a look on his face that says he knows in big trouble that he might not get out of.) I’m not saying that Pratt (or someone else) can’t capture those things, but there’s something about Ford that just forever bonds him to those iconic roles. Accepting someone else in that role would be really, really tough. And it’s not so much a “clinging to nostalgia” thing as it is that pesky Ford Factor. Sean Gerber It’s certainly fair to consider and be concerned over the Ford Factor, which obviously applies to any actor not named Harrison Ford being asked to play the legendary roles of Han Solo or Indiana Jones. It’s a ridiculously tall order and any actor who takes the job will have to walk in with the understanding that some people may reject him simply for whom he is not. In terms of public perception, however, I think Pratt is better suited than most. People like him, as they should. He and Chris Evans are using their opposing football fandom to benefit sick kids (I love it when our onscreen heroes are even more heroic in real life). It’s not gonna be enough to get him a complete pass on the Ford Factor, but it’ll help. For the purposes of the film we will see, admittedly Pratt’s performance will matter more than him being a good guy behind the scenes. I think he’s got the chops to be the new Indy. I assume that not every element of Ford’s characterization will make it into the new iteration anyway, as it’s unfair to ask any actor to go do what a legend did. Pratt is capable of honoring the past while putting his own stamp on the future. He’s not the only one, though. There are other candidates worth considering and I’ll be surprised if we don’t hear at least a few more names tossed into the hat before a final selection is made. Robert Reineke In addition to the Ford Factor, I think we’d do well not to discount the Spielberg Factor. And in all likelihood the Williams Factor. Replacing one would be tough enough, but all three is going to take some doing. Unlike Star Wars, there aren’t necessarily a ton of different stories to tell with Indiana Jones, so you better be at the top of your game in all aspects. Nostalgia won’t bail out a subpar effort. CaptainJack As much as I would love to see a wholly new adventure, the “Fate of Atlantis” could be the basis, or inspire, one hell of a good Indiana Jones film 🙂 Robert Reineke I’ve spent many an hour on “Fate of Atlantis” so it definitely would be something I’m interested in. Still, I’m not sure it’s a great cinematic adventure, as opposed to being a great, fun puzzle game. CaptainJack More the broad-strokes of that story than a straight adaptation, otherwise the majority of the movie would be “I don’t think that will work” and “Doesn’t seem to open…” 🙂 Atlantis as a concept does fit the bill however as a recognizable enough mythological / legendary pursuit within the mainstream, but is yet to be sufficiently tackled in an amazing live action blockbuster I reckon. Disney’s own “Atlantis” has probably come the closest in animated form, but I think there is still some Orichalcum-gold to be mined from that story – what with concepts like lost dialogs of Plato, artefacts that possess people, car chases in 1940s France, stunning feisty redheads, it’s got it all. With that said, I would still ultimately prefer a brand new story for the future of Indiana Jones. Joshua Nathan Strong Finally someone mentioned the possibility of Spielberg, Lucas and Williams being replaced. Those three, Lucas and Williams in particular are more valuable to Indiana Jones than Ford was. Before Disney thinks about casting, they should get a creative team in place. I think that while they still have him working on Star Wars, I would get Lawerence Kasdan to initiate the story for a new Indy film. Joshua Nathan Strong I think that Ford’s characterization is going to be the guide for the character of Indy going forward. The same way Sean Connery is the guide so to speak for James Bond. Lucas always said that he envisioned Indiana Jones being like James Bond and that you could have different actors play the character, while the adventure continues for the audience. CaptainJack I agree with you John, the “Ford Factor” is in many respects what makes Indiana Jones unique to one man’s towering portrayal. However, I would say that although a few years back I would have called blasphemy on having anyone be Indiana Jones but the big man himself, I am coming around to the idea of a recast, simply for the fact that more adventures with the man with the hat in his Nazi-bashing prime is just too irresistible. And when you consider that, in my opinion, River Phoenix captured that spirit in the brief appearance in Last Crusade (as well as the under appreciated Sean Patrick Flannery in the Chronicles), it is a tall task but not insurmountable to carry on the legacy of the character in different but respectful ways. If Chris Pratt is indeed being looked at to take on this role, it would require a vastly different performance from what some consider to be his most “Indiana Jones-esque” role in Star Lord. Indiana Jones is in many ways an entertaining rogue in the mold of Madmartigan, Mal Reynolds and Han Solo, and certainly to a degree Peter Quill, but the charm and humor of the character comes not from jokiness, one-liners and gags at his expense, but rather his crankiness, his, as you say, exhausted reluctance [you should trademark that perfect phrase, along with Ford Factor 🙂 ] and this requires a performance that at least appears to come effortlessly to Ford, but is a tall order for most anyone else… But not impossible, and I look forward to seeing if Pratt or whoever is eventually named, can reach above and beyond an easy perception of what Indiana Jones is, and go for the meat of the character and what makes him such a wonderfully reluctant / unexpected hero fighting impossible odds in the name of archaeology. Robert Reineke You convinced me to spend some time with Soderbergh’s silent, black and white, Raiders experiment. A couple of thoughts. Man, was Spielberg on fire as a director. Watching that is watching one of the greatest directors ever at the top of his game. I don’t know how you replace an in his prime Spielberg without people automatically knowing the difference. Ford is a man’s man as Indiana Jones. The one thing that you really don’t want is to replace Ford with a man-child. That would be my big concern with Pratt, although with the right direction, script, etc. they can probably avoid it. And I really don’t want a prequel. Between Temple of Doom and Last Crusade, not to mention Young Indiana Jones (which makes a good case for how much Ford and Spielberg make the character work), that stuff has been explored more than adequately. You want to tell an Indiana Jones story, tell an “in his prime” Indiana Jones story. I’m not against the further adventures of Indiana Jones, but I’m sure skeptical of them having anywhere close to the same magic. CaptainJack Agreed, and so true regarding the magic of that first film, and I also agree that anything less than a fiery young Spielberg clone would indeed be noticeable, as it was certainly noticeable with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The man is a legend, and still capable of amazing work, but that film was an unfortunately awkward, almost weak-tea version of an Indiana Jones film in many ways. We are yet to see, however, that “prime” era of the character in the hands of anyone else. It’s difficult to say what it would look like with any real certainty – I think we can exclude the example of the Young Chronicles series to be fair, which had entirely different goals, budget and expectation to the film series. I believe that similarly to what is happening with Star Wars, a fresh take from a younger, passionate and energetic director who “gets it” is essential to take the character somewhere new and interesting, if Lucasfilm really must do it at all. It will be different, and the illusive magic will almost certainly be impossible to live up to, but if the casting of the director is treated as importantly as casting the man’s-man with the hat, we could get something that, ideally, carries on the spirit and energy of the original films in a classy way. But there will never be another lightning-in-a-bottle type moment that equals the collaboration of that original production team and cast. It’s just great to know that Raiders will last forever, no matter what happens next. Kerry Vanderberg I feel like I read somewhere that Bradley Cooper was being eyed as the new Indy. Nothing against Chris Pratt, but Bradley Cooper has simply demonstrated a ton of range in the last few years. I could easily picture Cooper in the fedora and leather jacket, but have a harder time doing so with Pratt (or at least seeing it and going, “Yep, that’s Indy.”). Joshua Nathan Strong I think that Pratt is a great choice for the role. Pratt’s character in Zero Dark Thirty reminded me of Indy a little bit. I think that Pratt is a great leading man and that his back ground in comedy makes him an even better candidate because I think that performers with a comedic background transition greatly into dramatic fare. And while Indy is not a comedic role, he’s not Henry V either. And to those who think that Pratt can’t pull of the gruffness and the manly man physique of Indy, just watch Zero Dark Thirty and look at the guy. I think Bradley Cooper is another good choice. I saw that some people suggested Jake Ghyllenhaal but I don’t see it.