› ›

Indiana Jones

1…164165167169170…199

Comments

  • delfloriadelfloria
    Posts: 1,860
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    It would be like getting Pierce Brosnan back for one more film as an older James Bond. It would certainly draw in Bond fans, particularly the older crowd, but I can’t imagine that generating as much excitement for broader audiences as casting a new actor in the part.

    It's subjective but 70 ish could be the maximum age to convince as an action star? Sylvester Stallone was 72 in the final Rambo film: Last Blood. Never seen the film but I guess a 70 ish old Rambo might be credible to some of the potential audience.

    Pierce Brosnan is 70. Maybe he could be convincing as a retired James Bond returning for one final mission. But an 80 year old Indiana Jones is too much of a stretch. In terms of fight sequences/leaping from fast cars etc is seems too unrealistic. Also, film makers can patronise older actors. You get younger actors cast playing their children or whatever and they treat the older hero as past it. If Brosnan returned to play Bond you might end up with a varation of Jinx played by a 20 something year old. "Hey, old man, leave the secret agent stuff to me."

    ;))
    In DOD, Indiana Jones is supposed to be 70 (in 1969). So if Sly could do Rambo until he was 72, and Broz could do a final Bond mission at 70+, I don't see why a 70-year old Indy should have less credibility (disclaimer: all those characters were never really credible anyway, but that's the charm of the stories). But I admit I thought that HF looked too old for a 70-year old (he was 77 when they started filming). On the other hand, this guy must have seen it all, broken every bone in his body at least once, and this may just be plausible as an extremely weathered face, rather than pure age.

    It's not the age.....................it's the milage.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    matt_u wrote: »
    On a side note, given its $329M budget just to produce it, this film will likely become the biggest flop maybe ever.
    It won’t even top Raiders’ $389M gross… and we are talking about 1981…

    And if so...who will care, except the studio's shareholders and accountants?
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    On a side note, given its $329M budget just to produce it, this film will likely become the biggest flop maybe ever.
    It won’t even top Raiders’ $389M gross… and we are talking about 1981…

    And if so...who will care, except the studio's shareholders and accountants?

    Just pointing it out.
    All previous four Indy films crossed the $900M mark adjusting for inflation (Temple is the only one under the billion mark) so such a boxoffice failure is a proof that wide audiences just didn’t care about a last Indy film.

    Anyway here’s my ranking:

    Crusade
    Raiders

    Temple
    Kingdom


    Dial
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    As I said, so be it. I'm not losing money on it. I'm just enjoying it for what it is no matter how much dough they make or lose. The product is fine for me.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,433
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    On a side note, given its $329M budget just to produce it, this film will likely become the biggest flop maybe ever.
    It won’t even top Raiders’ $389M gross… and we are talking about 1981…

    And if so...who will care, except the studio's shareholders and accountants?

    It eventually will effect us as studios will be less likely to invest millions if they aren't getting a return. Some will say the Hollywood blockbuster is dead anyway with streaming being the most important driver to success. After all it was Jaws that got the studios into blockbusters after all, or at least a summer blockbuster.

    I think it's sad that many will wait to watch it at home. They will complain about prices, and such. Studios are going to respond. So while today most won't care that DOD loses millions, or that The Flash will also lose millions, one day soon the blockbuster as we know it will cease. I wonder if EON is watching and waiting it out to see how the dust settles. They are one of the few who have argued and fought for the theatre experience. Look at how resistant they were to NTTD heading to streaming.

    Interesting times ahead for the film industry as a whole.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    As I said, so be it. I'm not losing money on it. I'm just enjoying it for what it is no matter how much dough they make or lose. The product is fine for me.

    We got it. ;)
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited July 2023 Posts: 9,041
    thedove wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    On a side note, given its $329M budget just to produce it, this film will likely become the biggest flop maybe ever.
    It won’t even top Raiders’ $389M gross… and we are talking about 1981…

    And if so...who will care, except the studio's shareholders and accountants?

    It eventually will effect us as studios will be less likely to invest millions if they aren't getting a return. Some will say the Hollywood blockbuster is dead anyway with streaming being the most important driver to success. After all it was Jaws that got the studios into blockbusters after all, or at least a summer blockbuster.

    I think it's sad that many will wait to watch it at home. They will complain about prices, and such. Studios are going to respond. So while today most won't care that DOD loses millions, or that The Flash will also lose millions, one day soon the blockbuster as we know it will cease. I wonder if EON is watching and waiting it out to see how the dust settles. They are one of the few who have argued and fought for the theatre experience. Look at how resistant they were to NTTD heading to streaming.

    Interesting times ahead for the film industry as a whole.
    I must say that I had to google for "The Flash" to even know what this is about. And except for the latest Bond and Indiana Jones entries I have extremely seldom gone to cinemas at all and rather waited for a Blu-ray that is cheaper than two cinema tickets.

    Barring a new James Bond timeline and considering that Indiana Jones has now come to an end, there is simply no "franchise" that I'm interested in and eager to watch the next installment. I'm fed up with the four or so "X-Men" movies I've seen (not saying they were bad films), only saw some basic Marvel movies but don't remember them, and the same goes for DC. I was never into the original comics anyway.

    I'm tired of the M:I series, and I don't need any further Superman and Batman movies. I've never seen a Fast and Furious episode and am rather sure I haven't missed anything. I even stopped watching the "Jurassic" series after the first Jurassic World, ceased being interested in Star Wars after finding "Episodes 1 through 3" absolutely dismal, and there are probably other films I should have seen but didn't care to. I won't be missing much if they stop producing those "blockbusters" because no one goes to cinemas any more. So be it. I'll watch the films I have on disks (whether I've watched them already or not) which will keep me busy until I die, and miss nothing.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,433
    Even Blu-Rays and DVD's have dramatically shrunk in terms of market. Costco used to have many tables of discs, now? None. Walmart had a large portion of their Electronics floor dedicated to BluRays, now shrunk and I predict soon to be less. As I said there is a revolution coming to the movie industry. Streaming, while first seen as a savior is now causing the studios to really look at what gets made. Small films are feeling the pinch and a medium sized budgeted movie will go right to Netflix, with maybe a week or two in the theatre so they qualify for the Academy Awards.

    Now for some, this is nothing to care or be concerned about. For others who remember the days of going to the movies because it would be months before you would see it at home. Those days are gone.

    There are exceptions to the rule, Maverick Top Gun which became a global juggernaut! But lately the films that would be blockbusters, have noticeably under-performed with butts in seats. I believe The Flash had such horrible CGI because they didn't wish to throw good money after bad. Can't comment on DOD CGI, but why spend millions to make something look good for the big screen when it will be enjoyed by someone at home?
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    Yes, I know, the days of physical media are over. And yet I prefer them over something that is somewhere in the "cloud" and that the provider can cut off at a whim. I have some 2,000+ movie disks, the overwhelming majority of which are Blu-ray by now, and about the same number of music CDs...not counting the 400+ vinyl albums which have basically been rotting in my basement since I bought my first CD player...wait...37 years ago. I'm still waiting to "digitize" those that I haven't bought on CD in the meantime. Not too many, but maybe some gems.

    Regarding the films, I don't care what they churn out that I'm not interested in. I never cared to watch the second instalment of that Air Force commercial called Top Gun. The first one was well-made and captivating, no doubt, but I haven't felt the urge to see another one. Plus I think that Tom Cruise is generally a lousy actor. Kindly leave me alone with that kind of stuff.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 1,993
    No question COVID and streaming have had an impact on film, but for me seeing a film in a theater has been a waning experience for about ten years. Perhaps because I am no longer a part of the key demographic, films are simply less entertaining.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 16,413
    TGM is a practically perfect blockbuster; they don't come much better-made.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    mtm wrote: »
    TGM is a practically perfect blockbuster; they don't come much better-made.

    Which film are you talking about?
  • UnivexUnivex
    edited July 2023 Posts: 6,709
    I'm sorry, I know this isn't the place, but Tom Cruise is a formidable actor.

    tom-cruise-is-ron-kovic_144569-fli_1379072375.jpg
    tom-cruise-crying-magnolia-600x338.jpg
    31zogi.jpg
    19722_ad.jpg

    And if you haven't watch any of these, I urge you to, having 2000+ movie disks, it won't hurt to add a couple more ;)

    But, as you put it, I'll kindly leave you alone with that kind of stuff.

    BTW, since we're on the Indy thread, here's a pic of Harrison in one of his greatest roles

    MV5BMjljNDIxMjYtOTFkNi00ZTZhLThhMzgtMmVkYjQwMzZmMjRmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzU1NzE3NTg@._V1_QL75_UX500_CR0,47,500,281_.jpg

    I wish he'd made more dramatic roles. I also love him in Frantic, Presumed Innocent, Random Hearts, ...

    Point being, Tom Cruise has plenty of great roles on his curriculum. It's too bad he's dedicated to action only pics as of late. But I'm still waiting for a Oscar worthy performance. He just needs the right script and director.

    Anyway, back to Indy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 16,413
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    TGM is a practically perfect blockbuster; they don't come much better-made.

    Which film are you talking about?

    Sorry; Top Gun Maverick. I'd recommend giving it a go someday, you might be pleasantly surprised.
    I had hoped that Indy would be this year's TGM: a reprise of the old-fashioned, perfectly assembled blockbuster, but it wasn't quite to be, fun though it is.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    edited July 2023 Posts: 2,847
    thedove wrote: »
    [ I wonder if EON is watching and waiting it out to see how the dust settles. They are one of the few who have argued and fought for the theatre experience. Look at how resistant they were to NTTD heading to streaming.

    Interesting times ahead for the film industry as a whole.

    A great question. Maybe, just maybe, that is one of the factors causing EON not to rush Bond 26. They want to see how these 250+ million dollar films play out in the marketplace. If things look "bad" (whatever that means), Bond 26 maybe a leaner, more paired back production. Time will tell.

    -My Two cents.

    BTW @Univex Today, July 3rd was Tom Cruise's birthday.
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred
    Posts: 1,398
    Yeah I am also not too fazed about the poor box office . With Bond , we want it to be as successful as possible to secure the next film sooner than later . But with Dial Of Destiny , we aren’t clamoring for the next IJ film I think .
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    Tom Cruise has done some diverse stuff. And he's been around.

    200w.gif?cid=790b7611wa0e6gup8kdds1wwjoiv4sys2yh43uxam4xcqh7y&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

    FodUhgrWcAMmvr_.jpg
    s-l1600.jpg
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR327nBNGSVFaOqE9yk-39GmC44p0sz9CriW9lQ6G9yX94afjQs
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @Univex, I loved Regarding Henry growing up, haven't seen it in quite a while now though. Harrison Ford was great in it.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,709
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Univex, I loved Regarding Henry growing up, haven't seen it in quite a while now though. Harrison Ford was great in it.

    Me too, and I too haven’t seen it for ages, but it left its emotional mark.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Univex wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Univex, I loved Regarding Henry growing up, haven't seen it in quite a while now though. Harrison Ford was great in it.

    Me too, and I too haven’t seen it for ages, but it left its emotional mark.

    "Get this man some Ritz crackers!!"
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 16,413
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    Tom Cruise has done some diverse stuff. And he's been around.

    s-l1600.jpg

    Yikes: back when retouching meant plonking some Tippex in the whites of peoples' eyes! Harrison looks like he's possessed :D
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,709
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Univex, I loved Regarding Henry growing up, haven't seen it in quite a while now though. Harrison Ford was great in it.

    Me too, and I too haven’t seen it for ages, but it left its emotional mark.

    "Get this man some Ritz crackers!!"

    “Just say when…”
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,007
    Watched Crystal Skull the other day for the first time in years. Not half as bad as I remember. I quite liked the Mutt character. He's first appearance a nice homage to Marlon Brando in The Wild One. The trouble is, after a pretty good first hour the film then nosedives considerably. Those action scenes are really ruined by being saturated with CGI. The bit with the 3 tier waterfall is much worse than the 'fridge' moment. In fact the entire third act is pretty appalling.

    A shame because I think there is a brilliant Indy movie in there somewhere. Next up I will see what the Dial of Destiny has to offer. Hard to judge with so many varied opinions about the film....
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,430
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Watched Crystal Skull the other day for the first time in years. Not half as bad as I remember. I quite liked the Mutt character. He's first appearance a nice homage to Marlon Brando in The Wild One. The trouble is, after a pretty good first hour the film then nosedives considerably. Those action scenes are really ruined by being saturated with CGI. The bit with the 3 tier waterfall is much worse than the 'fridge' moment. In fact the entire third act is pretty appalling.

    A shame because I think there is a brilliant Indy movie in there somewhere. Next up I will see what the Dial of Destiny has to offer. Hard to judge with so many varied opinions about the film....

    Yeh mate. Am debating whether or not I will bother with the latest one! Hated 'Crystal Skull' and I just want to remember 'Raiders' for the superb action/adventure it is, with a nearly as good sequel in 'Temple of Doom'
    And not think about the rest!
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Yeh mate. Am debating whether or not I will bother with the latest one! Hated 'Crystal Skull' and I just want to remember 'Raiders' for the superb action/adventure it is, with a nearly as good sequel in 'Temple of Doom'
    And not think about the rest!
    What? Not even "The Last Crusade"? If I'm not mistaken, it is second favourite for almost everyone here.

  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,473
    I wish I could get as much enjoyment out of Skull as some of you.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    mtm wrote: »
    Yikes: back when retouching meant plonking some Tippex in the whites of peoples' eyes! Harrison looks like he's possessed :D

    Reminds me of one of the infamous "blonde" jokes from decades ago: How can you tell the secretary is a blonde? There are tipp-ex blots on the computer screen...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Watched Crystal Skull the other day for the first time in years. Not half as bad as I remember. I quite liked the Mutt character. He's first appearance a nice homage to Marlon Brando in The Wild One. The trouble is, after a pretty good first hour the film then nosedives considerably. Those action scenes are really ruined by being saturated with CGI. The bit with the 3 tier waterfall is much worse than the 'fridge' moment. In fact the entire third act is pretty appalling.

    A shame because I think there is a brilliant Indy movie in there somewhere. Next up I will see what the Dial of Destiny has to offer. Hard to judge with so many varied opinions about the film....

    Yeh mate. Am debating whether or not I will bother with the latest one! Hated 'Crystal Skull' and I just want to remember 'Raiders' for the superb action/adventure it is, with a nearly as good sequel in 'Temple of Doom'
    And not think about the rest!

    I'd say the new one is better than Skull and has a bit of the grittiness of Raiders. But if Crusade wasn't good enough then maybe you won't enjoy it.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    I watched the film a second time yesterday, loved it as much or more.

    Probably most for the human moments for Indiana Jones threaded through the film. Pauses to recognize his son, his friend, his failures to console a loved one. His own flawed vision of a final success. Harrison Ford's reactions are measured and heartfelt and are very affecting. It's a fine send-off and tribute for the character. Very very well done and appreciated by me.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRvG4wvBF5iC_MSRsTCqMTM2oL1npDUImeplGcgHzPL8_ZMaXDI
  • delfloriadelfloria
    Posts: 1,860
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    I watched the film a second time yesterday, loved it as much or more.

    Probably most for the human moments for Indiana Jones threaded through the film. Pauses to recognize his son, his friend, his failures to console a loved one. His own flawed vision of a final success. Harrison Ford's reactions are measured and heartfelt and are very affecting. It's a fine send-off and tribute for the character. Very very well done and appreciated by me.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRvG4wvBF5iC_MSRsTCqMTM2oL1npDUImeplGcgHzPL8_ZMaXDI

    I have the feeling that I will feel the same way on the second viewing.
Sign In or Register to comment.