It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I have to agree. I LOVE Ray Winstone as an actor (he seems like a really cool person too) but Mac is not a necessary sidekick in a movie where Indy already ends up with two other sidekicks - Marion and Mutt.
It's definitely got too many people in it. I think I'd be tempted to ditch Oxley as we don't know him and he barely does anything. Better just to make it clear from the beginning that it's Marion and she's missing.
I think Mac actually has some potential, but they do fumble his story. There's a story I heard, which may be erroneous, that Winstone turned it down because he thought the script was too poor, but they took that as a salary negotiation tactic and kept making him better offers until he couldn't say no :D
I like Ray Winstone. But I think his role needed some re-writing badly.
Instead of Spalko trailing Indy via homing devices left by Mac, she actually uses her psychic powers to sense their location. It’s odd that they introduced her supposedly having ESP, but don’t really do much with it beyond h that bit where she tries and fails to read Jones. Doesn’t mean she can’t pick up any other character.
As much as I like Ray Winstone, I'd get rid of Mac. Way too much with the 'JONESY!'
It's Indy, Dr. Jones, or Indiana Jones. Not Henry, not Junior and certainly not Jonesy.
I honestly don't think anyone could've done anything more with that role that Cate Blanchett didn't do.
Who would you have in mind?
Well… there were probably a few video cards in the nineties, but apart from that…
Yeah; it’s not a criticism- I love ToD.
So it's meh and entertaining. Just like today's cinema overall. A product of our times. But better than KOTCS, and that was what I wanted.
N.B- There is a spoiler section in the Chris Gore one but he gives fair warning before he gets there to give u time to click out.
Predictable.
I-)
And even if they had, why’d you keep posting these things? Is it to make a point that “Hollyweird” has destroyed another franchise by going “woke”? Why don’t you relax on trying to change opinions of this film before any of us have had a chance to see it?
Just watch the bloody film and form your own opinion. And respect the opinions of others when they may not be the same as yours, jeeeeeeez…
Helena might be a great character or she may be awful, but I'll wait and see how it goes down for me in a fortnight's time.
Bang-on @CraigMooreOHMSS … What a strange thing to say: a studio “hates” the IP or the character that they’ve sunk millions into during preproduction; hundreds of milllions in production and post and PA….. any film of this size is a two to three year project (if not longer), but, yeah, the studio “hates” this character.
We’ve heard the same thing with Bond.
Just angry fanboys who aren’t getting exactly what they want; they allow themselves to get enraged about the smallest things….
If DoD is better than Kotcs then I'll be more than happy.
I'd even be happy if it is only as good as KOTCS. Though I'm still hoping it will be even better.
I'll know in thirteen days at this time of day.