Chris Pratt has been taking Hollywood by storm - from "Guardians of the Galaxy to Jurassic World" - and now he may be joining another franchise. The beloved "Parks and Recreation" star -- he plays loveable lout Andy -- could be stepping into the leather boots and iconic fedora of Indiana Jones!

Disney bought the rights to the franchise from Paramount in 2013, and has been looking for the perfect actor to take up the mantel of the legendary action archeologist from Harrison Ford. According to Deadline, Disney has their sights set on Pratt.

NEWS: 7 Times We Fell in Love With Chris Pratt

While this sounds like the best possible fit – and in all likelihood it would make for an amazing movie – there could be some downsides to casting the 35-year-old heartthrob. Here are six reasons Chris Pratt might be the best or the worst choice to take over the adored franchise.

WHY HE'S THE BEST CHOICE:

1. He's Already Proven He Can Play the Part

The entire opening of "Guardians of the Galaxy" features Pratt essentially playing Indiana Jones in space. He's got the swagger, the attitude and the ancient temple-fortress setting. Trade out his rocket boots for a whip and the distant planet for Aztec ruins and you're already there.

2. He's Got Indiana Jones' Trademark Blend of Humor and Seriousness

"Guardians of the Galaxy" really went a long way toward showing Pratt's range. Despite being considered by many as a fun, mindless action film, Pratt's die-hard determination and shattered emotional core hit you in the feels several times. Sure he showed his fun, goofy side too, but a lot of that was just to mask his pain and anger, which Pratt blended perfectly. Indiana Jones has that same mix of cocky self-assurance, powerful insecurity, and a steadfast sense of duty and determination to save the world.

3. Now Is the Perfect Time

Pratt is done shooting "Parks and Rec," so he wouldn't have to worry about the challenges of shooting a TV show and a movie at the same time, and he's already in shape from shooting "Jurassic World" and the "Guardians" sequel.

VIDEO: Chris Pratt: From Lovable Goofball to 'Man of the Year'

WHY HE'S THE WORST CHOICE:

1. Overexposure

We know this sounds impossible, but could we get sick of seeing him in everything? It seems crazy, but just look at any song that people love when it first comes out, and then hate it a month later because it just won't stop getting played on the radio. With Pratt dipping his hand in every major movie franchise, how long could it be before we just want him to go away for a while?

2. We Might Not Buy Him Playing a Teacher

After years of watching and loving him as the loveably stupid Andy Dwyer on "Parks and Recreation," will we be able to buy him as an archeology professor and intellectual historian? Sure Pratt can play a fast-taking rouge, but Jones was a student of biblical study and an expert on theology, sociological archeology and ancient mythology, and it just doesn't feel like Andy Dwyer or Star-Lord could pull that off.

It's already hard to buy Pratt as a man who knows things about dinosaurs in the "Jurassic World" trailer, and he's not even playing a scientist or a teacher.

3. What If He's Too Good?

So you don't think you'll get sick of him, and you think you'll buy him as an intellectual? Fine. But what if he's so damn good it makes the original series look bad in comparison? "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is one of the greatest action-adventure movies ever made and "Indiana Jones" and the "Last Crusade" is almost as good (we'll just ignore "Temple of Doom" and "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" for now). But if Pratt is even half as amazing as we all imagine he'd be it might ruin our ability to enjoy those classics!

VIDEO: Chris Pratt Interrupts Interview To French Braid Intern's Hair

Of course, all of this might be much ado about nothing. Deadline admits that the process of casting is in the very early stages, and that Disney has declined to comment. In the end, it might not even go to Pratt at all. For the time being, we can only speculate and have hope.

WATCH: Four4Four: Super Bowl ad too hot for TV?