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