Answer: When studios stop thinking that people want to see his Jimmy-Olsen-esque presence in every adventure movie they put out. Seriously, I try not to have anything against him, but he played like the exact same character in both iRobot and Constantine, and he was annoying as piss in both. He's not right for that kind of part. He's just not. I don't care what you think, he's not lovable. And even if he was, lovable sure isn't what we're looking for in those roles. Being an action-hero sidekick you don't want to murder is a very, very, tricky thing, and someone as intrinsically murderable as La Beouf shouldn't be trying it.

Incidentally, "bouf" is not quite French for beef, but depending on verb conjugations has something to do with eating. Obviously this gives rise to "Gotta Eat" jokes but I'm not going to be the first to touch that...

I misread this jackass's name, by the way. My French was correct and my reading was wrong. So it doesn't really mean anything.

What's left? The Spear of Destiny? Atlantis? Some Mayan thing?

I just checked imdb and the problem isn't that he's running out of time, he's got too many projects on the go to maintain the quality. He has about9 or 10 in production right now as exec producer. I'd prefer more of a Terrence Malick pace at this point compared to what he's doing now.

Good lord, I can see it now - the kid snaps the whip onto his belt, puts on the fedora, turns to face the camera, and gives the audience his best Harrison Ford-style grin.

That's the shot! Can it!!!

"But dad, we named the hampster New Mexico!"

Batman: "Because we fail to engage our memory cloth wing current at high altitudes, before the wind carries us straight into the sidewalk."

John McClane: "Yippee kai yay, motherfucker."

But let's face it: this is probably WHY Lucas canned Darabont's version. Because Darabont probably DID want to make a new Indiana Jones movie EXACTY that way, but George shitted all over it, once again thinking "I know what's best!"

Of course, let's look at who is involved here and WHAT to expect. First you have Lucas, you know, the guy who thought Jar Jar was a GOOD idea and who now had Greedo shoot first because Han could no longer be a bad-ass Bounty Hunter, he now had to be a lovable one!...and you have Speilberg (and Koepp) who just had to wedge in a politically correct Black daughter to Malcolm in LOST WORLD and who were actually SO clueless that they thought a great character arc invoved her being a failed school gymnast who then gets to take out a FUCKING RAPTOR by swinging on a pipe. And you have Speilberg (and Koepp again) who thought Dakota Fanning whining like a little spoiled brat for 2 hours made for a better Alien Invasion movie then...oh, I don't know...ACTUALLY SHOWING ALIENS INVADING THE EARTH AND DESTROYING THINGS.

Seriously, given how much Lucas and Speilberg had become parents and old farts who are totally out of touch with what people REALLY want to see, does anyone have ANY faith in this movie actually turning out good as opposed to being something we will want to hurl our popcorn over???

Mark these words: The kid in THE MUMMY 2 will prove to be LESS annoying then the hamminess Lucas and Speilberg will try to shoehorn into this fim -- and I think we all KNOW how great the kid in MUMMY 2 worked out! (insert mocking Rodney Dangerfield eye roll here)...

Steven, get your OLD mojo back. Go watch RAIDERS in your private screening room and realize THAT'S what people want to see, not the shit you've put out like WOTW which was actually WORSE then ID4. Seriously -- Emmerich and Devlin actually made a BETTER alien invasion movie than you and Koepp because you guys lost sight of what people wanted to see, which was NOT Dakato Fanning being the ultimate whiny, bratty poster child for a political campaign called "Reason why spanking your child should always be an option."

Lastly, sad to say, the weak link here is Ford -- and we all pretty much know it. Hey, I loved Ford in the role IN HIS PRIME, but those days are LONG GONE. Did any of you actually suffer through FIREWALL? Ford is now where Roger Moore was when he made VIEW TO A KILL. It's PAINFUL to see him trying to be an action star onscreen at his age. So the truth is its time to let Ford go. Get someone else and just REBOOT the whole franchise. 3 new films with a new, younger, in his prime Indy that we can all get behind.

So seriously George and Steven: Do a Casino Royale. Go see what Daniel Craig did to literally revitalize a decades old franchise and how they made Bond seem TOTALLY FRESH once again. In short, reboot the damn thing in a way that will make a new generation WANT to see further adventures.

Oh, and here's a tip for you. It's NOT SHIA LA BEOUF. A newer, younger Indiana Jones should be...hmm, how to put this politely...ACTUALLY MANLY.

And since this involves Lucas, wasn't the same argument made over the announcement of the Prequels? That since they didn't star Hammill, Fisher and Ford that no one would show up? But as I seem to recall again, Ford NOT being in the Prequels only resulted in PHANTOM MENACE going on to become the biggest hit of all time until TITANIC came along.

Bottom line: if they did this right and cast it right -- picked a good charismatic actor to take over the role and announced it as the launch of a new trilogy and then REALLY worked hard to put out a movie that completely kicked ass in the spirit of the original RAIDERS -- I'm sure the box office would not suffer.

Hell, as far as your Ford notion, let's also NOT forget a little back history here: Lucas HIMSELF was planning to push Ford aside and put Phoenix Rivers into the role for a new set of films after LAST CRUSADE was over, where Rivers would continue on with his portrayal of Younger Indy -- but then Rivers overdosed, died, and squashed all of those plans.

As for "dissing one of the finest actors of our generation", hey, he wasn't MY generation -- so it's not like I feel some insane emotional bond towards him. Sorry, but to me, he was simply another actor, someone I basically liked, that I had no real problem with on screen, so I'll politely leave it at that.

However as for calling me a retard...as opposed to simply posting a correction minus the sarcasm...compared to your "genius" idol, at least I was smart enough in life not to BE a fucking retard who partied too hard and who overdosed on drugs, thus completely wasting and pissing away my entire life.

Although talking about Phoenix and things that will kill you, a side anecdote courtesy of IMDB: Ironically despite his reputation for healthy living, Phoenix was a chain smoker. Peter Bogdanovich recalled, "He'd say about meat, 'That's not good for you, man, that'll kill you.' And he'd be smoking a cigarette and he'd look at it and say, 'I know, man, I know.'"

A bit closer to Shia's birth year??? Uh, I hate to break this to another web site's resident Math whiz, but the fact that RAIDERS was released in '81 and TEMPLE in '84 is completely irrelevant to Shia being born in '86 SINCE THE MOVIES ARE SET IN THE THIRTIES.

Years ago there had been talk that THAT was the story angle they wanted to use for INDY 4. So I say resurrect that and do it with TOM SELLECK since he was supposed to BE Indiana Jones over Ford. Selleck only lost the role because CBS infamously wouldn't let him out of his MAGNUM PI contract -- the crock being that they hadn't even aired Magnum yet, it was still in the can as a pilot. However they didn't want to let go of someone that Speilberg was interested in. After all, he must know something they didn't!

Anyway, I think that would be far cooler thing to see onscreen than fucking Shia La Beouf. For crying out loud, even typing his name and THINKING about him being in the movie is nausea inducing! And if it can't be Selleck, use Dennis Quaid who still looks pretty damn great for his age since he was the other casting runner-up. But toss in Selleck (or Quaid), Connery and, HELL YES, Jet Li (or Jackie Chan) as a grown up Short Round and you'd have a fun, kick ass movie.

Of course all this all makes sense and would actually make for a GOOD Indy 4, but since Lucas and Speilberg have gotten old and totally lost it, we should instead count on Shia and something guaranteed to make us power vomit our popcorn...

To all posters suggesting Indy should be reluctant when going on this one last adventure, just stop. Please. That is the main reason (of many) that The Last Crusade sucks. Indiana Jones is extremely obsessive about acquiring what he's after in Raiders and Temple of Doom. To the point of putting anyone around him in danger if that's what it takes. The character was totally reworked for Last Crusade, to the point of being a different person. The whole "It belongs in a museum!" bullshit was the first thing they changed, and got wrong. "It belongs in a museum"? Since when?! He acquired the Ark of the Covenant for the United States Government. He acquired the last remains of Nurhachi for Lao Che, and was to be paid with a very large diamond. He acquired the Sankara Stone for the Indian villagers, and specifically said "it would just be in some museum collecting dust". And then they make him a reluctant adventurer. He doesn't even want to find the Holy Grail, he just wants to find his father, or feels as though he should find him. They had him perfect in Raiders when Belloq says "I am but a shadowy reflection of you. It would take only a nudge to make you like me. To push you out of the light". That is exactly who Indiana Jones is: obsessive, brilliant, and a mercenary/fortune hunter whose methods are questionable and dangerously close to being unscrupulous. I don't know who that guy in The Last Crusade is, but he isn't nearly as interesting.

The last shot of The Last Crusade is perfection though. It's a shame that riding off into the sunset isn't the last time we'll see Indiana Jones.

However for the notion that "nobody was saying no one would show up for Episode 1", I actually disagree with you a bit on that. There's no question that the very idea of a new SW film ranked high on most geek's wish lists and that anticipation for it grew more and more as it actually went into production -- that's all true. However when Lucas first announced that he'd be doing prequels (with an all-new cast) as opposed to doing SEQUELS (and bringing back the original stars) I definitely remember a very loud chorus of naysayers who thought that was a COLOSSAL mistake and that it WOULD ultimately affect the box office. And I remember that very, very vividly simply because being a lifelong SW fan, I remember being in many a heated argument online and in chat rooms and on message boards over which way a new set of films should go -- that is, whether they should be forward in time (with Luke rebuilding the Jedi order) or backwards in time (to show the Jedi's fall and birth of Vader). Hell, there are STILL people who argue that Lucas made a huge mistake and he should have gone forward with the old cast and that that would have made the 3 new films even MORE popular and MORE profitable than the prequels were. Which is a whole other geek argument for another time...

Look, these things aside, you've sidetracked or even lost the point I was simply trying to make in my original post. Namely that years ago, quite a few people claimed that IF the new SW films DIDN'T have the original stars, that would hurt the new films' box office. But as we all know, that assertion wasn't true. And as I pointed out with Bond, there were also those that said going with Craig versus bringing Brosnan back one more time would ALSO hurt the final box office. But that, too, was proved to be wildly untrue since going with Craig ultimately gave Sony the BIGGEST grossing Bond in history.

So going back to my core point (which we've gotten away from) I would still argue that those who say Harrison Ford can't be replaced are dead wrong. I still think that a complete reboot of Indiana Jones -- IF it was casted right and IF Speilberg/Lucas could get their heads out of their asses -- would succeed on its own merits. Because again, I think that like the Prequels and like the CASINO ROYALE Bond relaunch, TODAY'S teenagers who have no real emotional attachment to the Ford films of old and even today's adult filmgoing audience looking to get out of the house for a blockbuster summer "fun" movie WOULD accept and embrace a "new" Indiana Jones. Again, IF you picked the right actor to pick up the fedora and start anew.

Which is all I was arguing in my original post to begin with...

According to official Lucasfilm licensing, Indiana Jones was born July 1, 1899.

TEMPLE OF DOOM takes place in 1935, so Indy is 36 at the time.

Harrison Ford was born in 1942, so in REAL LIFE he was 41 when they filmed the movie (in '83). So technically Ford was "playing young" since he was 5 years OLDER than Indiana was supposed to be.

Jonathan Ke Quan was born in 1971. He was 12 when they filmed TEMPLE OF DOOM, and that basically lines up right. The official screenplay states Short Round is 11, but we'll just go with 12 and say he's in perfect sync his character's age.

Since Ford was born in '42 and Ke Quan born in '71, IN REAL LIFE there's a 29 year difference between the two actors...meanwhile in the movies it should only be a 24 year difference (remember Ford is technically off and older by 5)

Jet Li was born in 1963.

If Li were to play an adult Short Round onscreen, in REAL LIFE there would be a 21 year age difference between him and Ford. So given that in the STORY its supposed to be a 24 year difference, onscreen together Ford and Li would only be "faking" a 3 year gap. So, yes, pairing Jet Li with Ford would be a near perfect way of pulling off an adult Short Round.

I tossed Jackie Chan's name off the top of my head as I was typing. That's simply because I thought he would make for a more humorous Short Round, and I had Jackie on my mind since I was literally watching RUSH HOUR 2 on TV yesterday. But being a Chan fan, I do often forget that he's actually older than he looks. Hey, we should all look so young and bounce around with so much vigor when we're his age!

Jackie Chan was born in 1954.

That means there's a 12 year age difference between him and Ford. So if they were paired together onscreen as Indy and Short Round, they would have to fake a 12 year gap -- in essence, Jackie would have to play about 10 years younger than he is. So, yes, I agree that would be a stretch. Ironically I think he's simply crossed that age mark where you can't fake it anymore, even with the best of Hollywood makeup. However had they made INDY 4 with Chan as Short Round 5-6 years ago, I think then he might have been able to fake the years then. But for now, yes, Li would be near perfect.

Oh, as for Marion, mother of the potential new sibling...

According to the official timeline, Indy begins post-graduate studies with Abner Ravenwood around 1926 and becomes involved with Marion almost immediately. That SAME year they also have their infamous falling out and Indy moves on...at which point they meet 10 years later in RAIDERS, in 1936.

If that's the case, that means Indy was 27 when he hooked up with Marion and broke her heart.

In REAL LIFE Karen Allen is 9 years younger than Harrison Ford. So if we simply apply that same age difference to the Indy/Marion characters, that means Marion was 17 when Indy broke her heart. Which would basically play to her infamous line in RAIDERS when she says to Indy, "I was a child! I was in love! It was wrong and you knew it!"

Anyway, that's the actual spread on the numbers. Of course the REAL question becomes what year Lucas/Speilberg/Koepp intend to set INDY 4 in and how much they'll try to fake everyone's ages against THAT...

Triumph poops! Sorry, but nobody thought that we were getting Star Wars sequels over Star Wars prequels. I don't know who you were discussing this with but they were definitely ignorant. Every geek in the world knew we were getting prequels when in May of 1980 THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK scrolled up the screen with EPISODE V over the top of it. And then when STAR WARS was re-released into theaters in 1981 it had EPISODE IV A NEW HOPE on the opening scroll for the first time. Were you not a member of the Lucasfilm Fan Club? Upcoming prequels was all I heard about from the early 80's until around 1994 when they were confirmed to be going into production.

Also, Temple of Doom isn't actually a prequel. TOD has no story elements that take place before Raiders. The only reason they set it in 1935 is because Lucas wanted the opening to take place in Shanghai, but the Battle of Shanghai (between China and Japan) started in 1937. They had already used 1936 for Raiders so they went just one year earlier.

Your age timeline is irrelevant by the way because Jet Li would be an awful choice for Short Round. Have you seen Temple of Doom? Short Round is a very upbeat and happy character, I have never seen Jet Li play either of those things. Thank God your a writer and not a casting director. Seriously, what were your reasons for suggesting Jet Li? Because he is Asian and well known? How about suggesting someone who can embody WHO Short Round is, not what he is.

Sorry, but that argument doesn’t even make sense. Someone else simplified it all the way down to "You can recast Bond because people EXPECT it” (which for all intents is your argument, too). So I tell you what -- hop in Marty McFly's DeLorean and go back to when Connery was first filming his Bond films -- back to when GOLDFINGER or THUNDERBALL were first released and setting the global box office on complete fire --- find yourself some Bond fans, and ask them how much they love the idea of replacing Sean with a new lead actor. The point being that diehards will ALWAYS stomp their feet like little kids having a hissy fit and fall back on the emotional argument "But you CAN’T replace him! I love him in this role! Noooooo!" (Insert Darth Vader SITH moan here)

And to be honest, they replaced Connery AS they were making the films which was certainly far more chancey and potentially scarring or alienating to the movie-going audience since at that moment in time they were clearly in love with the fit of actor and character. But with Indy it’s the opposite. Now you've had a pretty damn long break in time -- nearly 20 years of Indiana Jones being OFF the screen -- so I’m willing to bet that moviegoers today WOULDN’T mind a casting change. In fact, I’d argue that BECAUSE they rotated Bond -- that is, with today’s moviegoers being as saavy as they are -- they'd simply look at that AS the template and shrug their shoulders and say “Sure, what the heck. Bring on a new guy. I wouldn’t mind seeing some new adventure movies, with someone new as Indy who’s in his prime and who I’d actually believe was doing the stunts. Ford's old and gray now. Hey, they replaced Bond and I bought into that, Daniel Craig proved he could kick ass as much as Pierce Brosnan, so why can’t there be a new Indiana Jones too?”

Sorry, but I honestly think people would feel that way -- which brings us full circle to my original post that TODAY'S teenagers (the backbone for movie attendance and bringing home the big box office bucks) DON’T have any emotional attachment to Ford. As I said it's been nearly 20 years since LAST CRUSADE premiered which means TODAY'S teens are only familiar with Ford in the role (Hell, with the character itself at this point) IF they ever bothered to watch the films on DVD or caught one of them being rerun on TV.

You know, this whole thing makes me think of a business friend of mine, who's in the Hollywood art end but who is younger. He'll tell you how big of a STAR WARS fan he is and how he LOVED the Prequels. He went to them over and over, bought all the toys, did all the usual fan geek stuff. One day we were having lunch and I mentioned something about A NEW HOPE and he casually said "I never saw it." I shook my head and said, "Wait a minute. You never saw it? But you go on and on about how you're such a huge SW fan. You've got all these toys all over your office. But you haven't seen the original?" And it turned out he hadn't seen ANY of the Original Trilogy. At which point, my jaw dropped as he said "Yeah, I guess I should rent those one day. Are they any good?"

My point being he's EXACTY what I'm talking about here. He's someone who loves geek films, but who embraced things that he saw as being part of HIS generation. To him STAR WARS is the prequels, not the originals. It seems wacky, but that's what I'm talking about --the frame of mind each generation brings to a set of films and how they claim them as "their own."

Bottom line: today's moviegoers are used to seeing a new Bond. Hell, soon today’s teens will even be seeing a new Captain Kirk -- that is, a Kirk for THEIR generation who ISN'T Shatner. TO today's teens THEIR Kirk will never be Shatner, it'll be the new guy. And let's face it, in comparison to Indy, that's about as "iconic" as you can get. So, yes, I think people DO accept change more now simply because they EXPECT to see change more now.

Anyway, I was just tossing an idea out, but I still think a reboot would be the better way to go. I think Lucas/Speilberg should do a Bond...pull a CASINO ROYALE...and launch a new set of Indy films with an all-new actor. Look, going back to the utterly lame and ridiculous argument that with the Bond films people "expect the role to get recast" THAT'S only true because at one point in time the producers DID pull the trigger and say "Hey, let's keep going, but with a new guy. Let's see where it takes us." They COULD have stopped making Bond movies once Connery was gone, they simply chose NOT to stop.

So let’s be honest here. Its not like Lucas and Speilberg couldn't make the exact same business decision or pull the exact same creative trigger and create a new Indiana Jones for a new generation.

In fact, remember this. In years past, back when they were first making the Ford films, Speilberg himself gave interviews and went on record as saying he thought Indiana Jones could always live on ala Bond. In short, Steven had it right 20 years ago...

Okay, first of all, I TOTALLY disagree with you on this. The sky is the limit with ANY franchise so long as you bring FRESH IDEAS to the table, plain and simple. Seriously, you have to freakin’ kidding me if you think that given the story starting point of "Indiana Jones: rugged, two-fisted, womanizing, globe-hopping professor, archeologist, and adventurer who goes treasure hunting for any and all types of artifacts against the backdrop of the World War II” that there are ONLY FOUR stories worth telling about him. That there can’t be anymore.

Tell you what, One9Deuce -- once David Koepp’s INDY 4 script reaches the screen, why don’t you track down and read Frank Darabont’s script which Spielberg LOVED so much that he declared it the BEST script ever since the original Raiders film (so of course Lucas shit-canned it) and get back to us. Because I’m sure Darabont’s script will prove there are FIVE good stories to be told. And once that dam has been broken, I’m sure there are six...or seven...or plenty more Indiana Jones tales that could be told. It's merely a question of a good STORY, that's all.

Sorry, I disagree there, too. Look, in his prime I liked Ford as Indiana Jones -- I think he did a great job, no question -- but I would also argue that RAIDERS success was also due in a very large part to it being a product of its time. In other words as if often the case with movies, I think the “timing” for when RAIDERS came out and “how” the overall film was made -- that is, it’s tone and whatnot -- as well as the mood of the country and the moviegoing audiences of the time played every bit as big a deciding factor in making it the hit that it was. Bottom line: I think if Selleck had starred in the movie back then, right now we’d be having the SAME conversation about him about how “he” couldn‘t be replaced.

In fact, I’ll be ballsy here as a big Selleck fan. I think Selleck, back at that time and when he was in his prime, would have made a BETTER Indiana Jones than Harrison Ford. And in the back of his head for a moment in time Spielberg must’ve thought so too since after all Selleck was offered the role FIRST.

But I have to ask, who the hell his She-Ra Le Beef? I never heard of him before Transformers, and now he's in TF and Indy?

Is he like Speilberg's boy toy or something? It just doesn't make sense....

As someone else said, this movie is 2 years away, and I'm already tired of it. They missed the boat. This should have COME OUT in 2000. It's too little, too late. At this point I'd rather it NOT be made at all.

Not sure how many remember a false rumour back a few years ago that said Indy's soon to be wife would be abducted by aliens minutes before (or after?) their wedding.

Could you even comprehend that shit? much less imagine it?

Tom Selleck over Harrison Ford? Harrison Ford has been in at least 10 all-time classics. Tom Selleck? None, nil, zero. Tom just doesn't have the all-world charisma that the biggest stars do in their prime.

I'm not interested in making any more posts about why Indiana Jones can't successfully be recast, you'll eventually see that I'm right. Just remember I said it.

Look, I'm willing to give this shit the benefit of the doubt until it actually goes into production (something else I'll believe when I actually SEE it!) Because unlike that Transformers travesty LaBark is in, this film at least doesn't have a HACK directing it and the screenwriter has a half-decent rep, which is far more than I can say for whomever penned that leaked TF script. As Chunk said: HOO-LEH!!

A number of the original posters have since been banned and their messages gone forever with them, but there's plenty of gems left in there.

Just don't go trying to post nothin. Them mods don't approve of that sorta thing.

DAMN YOU SPIELBERG!

DAMN YOU SHIA LABIRTH!

or Agent Cody Banks

or Last Action Hero

or the "Shia leBarf True Hollywood Story!"

or did you just see a special sneak preview of Bay's Transformers movie?

(there, I made an Indy reference, ok?)