Indiana Jones

12829313334199

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited June 2018 Posts: 40,957
    chrisisall wrote: »
    IMO Solo flopped mainly because Alden is just flat out not as charismatic as Ford. A new Indy film with a new actor would be a resounding success (given great script & direction) if, and ONLY if, a new actor was cast that could equal Ford in the charisma department. And NO look-alikes or guys 'doing' Ford. It has to be like Moore as Bond- the new actor must make Indy his own. This might alienate some of us old guys (not me), but the kids would love it.
    Antarctic Hidden Jungle, 1932...

    I couldn't possibly agree more; no impersonators, no lookalikes, just someone who can carry the movie on their own through suave charisma, and play the role their own way without mimicking Ford.

    As for Solo, I doubt we'll ever really know the main reason as to why it bombed considering there are about a dozen reasons that could contribute to it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    chrisisall wrote: »
    IMO Solo flopped mainly because Alden is just flat out not as charismatic as Ford. A new Indy film with a new actor would be a resounding success (given great script & direction) if, and ONLY if, a new actor was cast that could equal Ford in the charisma department. And NO look-alikes or guys 'doing' Ford. It has to be like Moore as Bond- the new actor must make Indy his own. This might alienate some of us old guys (not me), but the kids would love it.
    Antarctic Hidden Jungle, 1932...

    That is it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    All this Indy talk makes me remember that I *STILL* haven't read the four novels I bought SIX years ago!!! This must be remedied.
    BVLKJ2x.jpg
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Those look great. Reminds me of some The Phantom novels I had in the 80s.
  • Posts: 1,661
    Harrison Ford will be even older! How old will he be? 80? LOL Oh well, let's hope ILM can de-age him a bit!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,957
    They really would be much better off either going with a new actor, or scrapping this altogether. I'll be gobsmacked if this ends up being a hit.
  • Posts: 1,661
    The only problem is Solo underperformed big time with a new actor as Han Solo so Disney might have major concerns about recasting Indiana Jones and a potential new rebooted Jones movie underperforming too. If Harrison Ford is the only actor people want to see then the franchise could be in trouble longer term. Solo was a major reality check for Lucasfilm/Disney.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Ford is Indy. I'd never want to see the role recast.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 1,661
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/05/30/solo-a-star-wars-story-is-bad-news-for-rebooted-indiana-jones-series/#22902d18737b

    The article mentions all the Bond actors. Bond is kinda unique in franchises. It managed to continue with new actors but other franchises have had mixed results.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,957
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    The only problem is Solo underperformed big time with a new actor as Han Solo so Disney might have major concerns about recasting Indiana Jones and a potential new rebooted Jones movie underperforming too. If Harrison Ford is the only actor people want to see then the franchise could be in trouble longer term. Solo was a major reality check for Lucasfilm/Disney.

    That's assuming the sole reason Solo bombed was due to the actor; I figure it's a number of things, and doesn't solely fall upon that.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,194
    Whatever the future holds for the franchise and the character, It's obvious that they want one last go with Ford. Jonathan Kasden is working on the script, maybe his Dad will have a look at it as well, even if unofficially.
    As far as de-ageing , what was done with Michael Douglas for Ant-Man was remarkable; if they wanted to, they could make him look like Last Crusade era Indy, but I don't think they will go to that extreme, if at all. Harrison Ford is in remarkable shape; if anything they may shave 5, 10 maybe 15 years off of him or just "freshen-up" his appearance a bit.
  • edited July 2018 Posts: 4,813
    Agreed @talos7 (btw I haven’t seen you in a while, welcome back!) there’s no reason we can’t get a movie that takes place 4 or 5 years after Crystal Skull, provided they get a move on.

    Fun fact, Ford has always been older than Indy.

    Raiders: Indy’s 36, Ford’s 39
    Temple: Indy’s 35, Ford’s 42
    Crusade: Indy’s 38, Ford’s 47
    Skull: Indy’s 57, Ford’s 65
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    Indeed. Harrison Ford is going to be in his late seventies when they finally shoot, but that doesn't mean Indiana Jones is going to be the same age. I think they'll set the film in something like 1969, making Indy 69 or 70 years old. He can pass off as that age with the right lighting, make-up, etc. I mean, look at him in Blade Runner 2049:

    fotonoticia_20170717151624_640.jpg

    I'm also pretty sure he'll be physical enough to do the basic running and jumping needed.
  • Posts: 1,661
    His stuntman can do the walking, running and stunts. The close-up shots of Ford talking - I think he can do that. Just about. :P
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,194
    @Master_Dahark Thanks, sometimes real life intrudes. ;)
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Ford looked great in BR2049, but is wasn't exactly a physically demanding part (though he was a total badass). I assume they we're planning on going in an action-light approach for Indy 5 and so I doubt delaying the film another year will seriously impact the direction of the film.

    I understand many don't want this film to happen, but I'm hoping for it to be one of those "best bad ideas" (2049 is a perfect example of a film that nobody wanted but ended up becoming one of the best sequels ever). I would want Indy 5 on the sole condition that it ends the franchise in much better form than KOTCS did, and if that means taking an extra year than so be it. However, something tells me this film won't see the light of day.
  • Posts: 9,842
    Look if Indy was recast tomorrow Life` has shown me enough times that I should give it a shot before dismissing anything... (one day I will share how wrong I was on other Hollywood projects and why I refuse to go into stocks because of it)
  • Posts: 5,767
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Look if Indy was recast tomorrow Life` has shown me enough times that I should give it a shot before dismissing anything... (one day I will share how wrong I was on other Hollywood projects and why I refuse to go into stocks because of it)
    What I don´t get is how you are able to use … and ( ), but otherwise totally deny the existence of any such grammatical implements.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2018 Posts: 23,883
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/05/30/solo-a-star-wars-story-is-bad-news-for-rebooted-indiana-jones-series/#22902d18737b

    The article mentions all the Bond actors. Bond is kinda unique in franchises. It managed to continue with new actors but other franchises have had mixed results.
    Not only that, consider all the articles that have been written over the past 3 years speculating on a new Bond actor. They probably number in the 1000s globally. The public and press almost anticipate and expect it after a while these days. We hardly ever see that with other franchises, including The Bat (probably the closest in terms of actor churn).

    In my case at least, Ehrenreich was a major reason I missed the Solo film in the theatres (although I fully intend to watch it on the small screen when it's released). It's not because I dislike him - in fact, I really know nothing about him as an actor. Rather, it's because he didn't impress me in the trailers, and neither did anybody else. I don't think anyone would have lined up to see a hypothetical 'Indy: The Young Years' story starring the late River Phoenix in 1992 either. Indy is Ford and Ford is Indy.

    So I think Mendelson is right. The difference with Bond or Bat is that the characters are larger than the actors who play them. That isn't the case with Indy or Han. Moreover, these two latter characters were established in continuity driven films with backstory, potentially making it more difficult to move forward. That wasn't the case with Bond where narrative continuity in the initial years was loose (thank goodness!). In the case of Batman, as Mendelson said, there was serious supporting cast firepower when Kilmer took over and moreover there is comic lore as a base.

    Ford still looks very good for his age but maybe they shouldn't do this. Just let the character expire and try something different. After all, I think there is a market for an adventure type hero.
  • edited July 2018 Posts: 3,333
    bondjames wrote: »
    The difference with Bond or Bat is that the characters are larger than the actors who play them. That isn't the case with Indy or Han. Moreover, these two latter characters were established in continuity driven films with backstory, potentially making it more difficult to move forward. That wasn't the case with Bond where narrative continuity in the initial years was loose (thank goodness!). In the case of Batman, as Mendelson said, there was serious supporting cast firepower when Kilmer took over and moreover there is comic lore as a base.
    No, the difference here is that you have hindsight on your side to endorse whatever claims you want to make to the contrary. I'm willing to bet that had you been around in '67 you'd be saying that only Sean Connery could be James Bond and Adam West was the definitive Batman. The other major difference here is that Han Solo isn't even the leading protagonist in Star Wars, whereas Bond and Batman were "leading protagonist" in their own respective universes. As @Creasy47 shrewdly pointed out, it's a number of things, and doesn't solely fall upon the casting of Ehrenreich as Solo. Time will tell how the other spin-offs fare compared to Solo. If the downward trend continues then it'll point to something much bigger than just miscasting.

    It's also like saying only William Shatner is Captain Tiberius "Jim" Kirk, when we now have Chris Pine successfully playing the modern-day Captain Kirk.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The difference with Bond or Bat is that the characters are larger than the actors who play them. That isn't the case with Indy or Han. Moreover, these two latter characters were established in continuity driven films with backstory, potentially making it more difficult to move forward. That wasn't the case with Bond where narrative continuity in the initial years was loose (thank goodness!). In the case of Batman, as Mendelson said, there was serious supporting cast firepower when Kilmer took over and moreover there is comic lore as a base.
    No, the difference here is that you have hindsight on your side to endorse whatever claims you want to make to the contrary. I'm willing to bet that had you been around in '67 you'd be saying that only Sean Connery could be James Bond and Adam West was the definitive Batman. The other major difference here is that Han Solo isn't even the leading protagonist in Star Wars, whereas Bond and Batman were "leading protagonist" in their own respective universes. As @Creasy47 shrewdly pointed out, it's a number of things, and doesn't solely fall upon the casting of Ehrenreich as Solo. Time will tell how the other spin-offs fare compared to Solo. If the downward trend continues then it'll point to something much bigger than just miscasting.

    It's like saying only William Shatner is Captain Tiberius "Jim" Kirk, when we now have Chris Pine successfully playing the modern-day Captain Kirk.
    I'm not sure I agree with your analysis here @bondsum.

    I think the fact that there is comic book history to fall back on benefits the Batman series. We expect it to continue, and so inevitably expect a recast at some point. I certainly do anyway.

    I can't speak for Bond in the past of course because I wasn't around for Connery's time in the saddle. However, we all expect a Bond recast these days. It's inevitable for a series that has lasted 50+ years. Additionally, I'm pretty sure people wanted Bond to continue in 1968, even if they didn't believe Connery was really replaceable. After all, there were more novels to film.

    The difference here is do we really want that with Solo or Indy at this moment? How many of us here are really clamouring for these characters to go on without Ford? Not many I'd surmise, even if many enjoyed the Solo film. Regarding Ehrenreich, I was only commenting on my own reasons for not seeing the Solo film in the theatre. I can't speak for others and I'll certainly watch it on blu.

    I can't speak for Kirk because I'm not a huge Trekkie, although for me at least The Shat remains quite definitive. I've never bought into Pine as Kirk and didn't see the last film in the theatre.

    I'm not suggesting that these series cannot continue without the original actors. In a day and age full of reboots and reimaginations it's almost inevitable that series will be recast. That's the Hollywood mantra. However, I think it's more perilous than it is with Bond or Batman where there is a certain benefit of doubt given.
  • edited July 2018 Posts: 3,333
    I don't entirely disagree with your assessment, @bondjames, that The Shat still remains "quite definitive" as Kirk, if not still the most definitive, but the fact remains Shatner is too old to play the character anymore and there comes a time for every actor to pass on the baton. In this case it was Chris Pine that took over. I'm not a Trekkie myself but I'm a fan of the OST and am old enough to remember the show the first time round in the 60's on TV. For me, Shatner was Kirk, Nimoy was Spock and DeForest Kelley was McCoy, but I still went to see Star Trek (2009) and enjoyed the new cast, well aware that I knew the old cast couldn't continue to helm the franchise. Call me pragmatic, but I'm also a realist.

    Again, I'd say the difference with Solo was that the character had never helmed his own movie before. He was always part of a team with Luke Skywalker being front and centre. There's probably a hundred-and-one reasons why Solo didn't perform well. To list them all would be futile. For the record, I never once thought giving these side-characters their own movie was a good idea, but Disney won't be taking my advice anytime soon as they're too busy trying to milk the cow dry.

    I also disagree on your Batman assumptions. TV Batman Adam West's show managed to save the Batman comic book series from cancellation at a vital point in the character's history. By the 50's Batman's comic sales were seriously on the wane, which was why they had to introduce Bat-Woman and Bat-Girl in the mid-50's to freshen it up and hope it'd boost sales. Of course, they didn't help. By '61, Batman was selling so poorly it was about to be cancelled, then along came William Dozier to boost its sales with his "Batmania" TV series. The huge debt the comic owes to Adam West for reviving interest in the character goes without saying. Sales even managed to surpass the original triumphs of 1940-1943. Like I said, had you been around in '67, you'd have been convinced that only Adam West could be Batman.

    The problem I have with Ford playing Grandpa Jones is that he might kill-off any future possibilities of resurrecting the series with another actor in the role. After Indy 5, they're going to have to give it at least another 20 years before they can touch this character again, such will be the stink this movie leaves behind.
  • Posts: 4,813
    Today is Indy's 119th birthday!

    July 1st 1899
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondsum wrote: »
    I don't entirely disagree with your assessment, @bondjames, that The Shat still remains "quite definitive" as Kirk, if not still the most definitive, but the fact remains Shatner is too old to play the character anymore and there comes a time for every actor to pass on the baton. In this case it was Chris Pine that took over. I'm not a Trekkie myself but I'm a fan of the OST and am old enough to remember the show the first time round in the 60's on TV. For me, Shatner was Kirk, Nimoy was Spock and DeForest Kelley was McCoy, but I still went to see Star Trek (2009) and enjoyed the new cast, well aware that I knew the old cast couldn't continue to helm the franchise. Call me pragmatic, but I'm also a realist.

    Again, I'd say the difference with Solo was that the character had never helmed his own movie before. He was always part of a team with Luke Skywalker being front and centre. There's probably a hundred-and-one reasons why Solo didn't perform well. To list them all would be futile. For the record, I never once thought giving these side-characters their own movie was a good idea, but Disney won't be taking my advice anytime soon as they're too busy trying to milk the cow dry.

    I also disagree on your Batman assumptions. TV Batman Adam West's show managed to save the Batman comic book series from cancellation at a vital point in the character's history. By the 50's Batman's comic sales were seriously on the wane, which was why they had to introduce Bat-Woman and Bat-Girl in the mid-50's to freshen it up and hope it'd boost sales. Of course, they didn't help. By '61, Batman was selling so poorly it was about to be cancelled, then along came William Dozier to boost its sales with his "Batmania" TV series. The huge debt the comic owes to Adam West for reviving interest in the character goes without saying. Sales even managed to surpass the original triumphs of 1940-1943. Like I said, had you been around in '67, you'd have been convinced that only Adam West could be Batman.

    The problem I have with Ford playing Grandpa Jones is that he might kill-off any future possibilities of resurrecting the series with another actor in the role. After Indy 5, they're going to have to give it at least another 20 years before they can touch this character again, such will be the stink this movie leaves behind.
    I don't disagree with a lot of your thinking here, but I can't agree with your premise that I would have been only convinced by Adam West for Batman in 1967 (although I'm a big fan of his tv show by the way). I'm generally open to reimaginations and recastings and have always been that way. When it's time to go, it's time to go. Even if Batman comic sales were declining at a point in time, those comics still existed, and so there was a history to draw from in the future, including a villain roster etc. The same applies to Bond. I don't think we can overestimate the power of the literary source in engendering continued passion, even if it's used loosely.

    Yes, Harrison is rather old for this job. I think he has iconically defined both characters (Solo and Indy) though, and even though he was a supporting character when the original SW film was released, he became by far its biggest star by the time the original trilogy finished its run and I think that contributed to the difficulty in replacing him for both roles. Moreover, he has defined Indy for many decades, and similarly with Solo. I think something similar will apply to MI once Cruise hangs it up. Will there be demand for MI after Cruise? I'm not so sure, although it's possible if they reimagine it as an ensemble affair. Just recasting someone as Hunt and moving forward as though nothing happened wouldn't work imho. There has to be a valid and motivating reason to continue in the audience's mind.

    I'm somewhat ambivalent about this new Indy film. While I'd love to see him don the fedora and whip one more time, I see the risks, and perhaps they should just close it out now rather than continue. After all, he's really not the draw he once was.
  • edited July 2018 Posts: 3,333
    bondjames wrote: »
    ...but I can't agree with your premise that I would have been only convinced by Adam West for Batman in 1967 (although I'm a big fan of his tv show by the way). I'm generally open to reimaginations and recastings and have always been that way. When it's time to go, it's time to go.
    Oh, so we do agree that Indiana Jones can be reimagined and recast then?
    bondjames wrote: »
    Even if Batman comic sales were declining at a point in time, those comics still existed, and so there was a history to draw from in the future, including a villain roster etc. The same applies to Bond. I don't think we can overestimate the power of the literary source, even if it's used loosely.
    You're missing the point of my comment. Had it not been for the TV show's "Batmania" the comics would have ceased to exist. It was the triumphant success of the TV show and its tie-in merchandising that dragged it back from the abyss. I know you're thinking from the present and with the hindsight of comic superheroes now being all the rage, but you can't seem to grasp a different perspective from another era before all that took place. Would the current trend of superhero movies have existed without William Dozier's successful Batman series? Would the Salkinds have shown an interest in making a Superman movie had it not been for "Batmania" of the 60's paving the way several years before that? Would comics still be only confined to spotty nerds that couldn't get a girlfriend without the success of Batman? Would the current superhero movies exist without George Lucas advancing digital-effects through his ILM? I seriously think not.

    I'm merely demonstrating how things can change and how a different actor can replace an actor that defined the role previously, that's all. It's been done before and it can be done again.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, Harrison is rather old for this job. I think he has defined both characters (Solo and Indy) though, and even though he was a supporting character when the original SW film was released, he became by far its biggest star by the time the original trilogy finished its run and I think that contributed to the difficulty in replacing him for both roles.
    I don't disagree that Harrison Ford was popular in the role, but he's no longer the A-list actor of the 80's and 90's he once was. He's an old man now. The kids need to understand that no-one stays young forever.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Moreover, he has defined Indy for many decades, and similarly with Solo.
    No, not really. Only for one decade if we're going to be precise. Sure, there was a belated Indiana Jones 4 that the majority seemed to dislike but went to see anyway out of nostalgic reasons, therefore making it a nice BO earner. Sadly, it didn't work for the bloated mess of Blade Runner 2049. Of course, VHS and DVD sales reached out to a much younger audience that somehow feel that they have an emotional attachment to the original series and believe that the series has been going for decades, but both only really existed within the late 70's and 80's time-capsule kept alive by over-the-counter sales. I have no affiliation with the modern-cinemagoer that pays to see a new Star Wars movie, that's for sure, so I can't understand their way of thinking. Though I think some of them are wising up to being played by the studios.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think something similar will apply to MI once Cruise hangs it up. Will there be demand for MI after Cruise? I'm not so sure, although it's possible if they reimagine it as an ensemble affair. Just recasting someone as Hunt and moving forward as though nothing happened wouldn't work imho.
    I have no idea. But the big selling point of MI is the stunts, so whoever replaces Cruise will have to be as much of a daredevil as pint-sized Tom if the series is going to survive without him.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm somewhat ambivalent about this new Indy film. While I'd love to see him don the fedora and whip one more time, I see the risks, and perhaps they should just close it out now rather than continue. After all, he's really not the draw he once was.
    I'll be honest here. I really don't want to see Ford playing him anymore. I think he's far too old. This is coming from someone who paid to see the movies when they first came out.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited July 2018 Posts: 17,789
    Indy history time for me here-
    In the Summer of '81 I was 21, and saw Raiders with my then GF, and we liked it a lot, but we weren't quite amazed. But around the third time I saw it theatrically I realized it was one of my favourite films of all time (I would end up seeing it some twenty times theatrically). After Jedi in '83 came Temple of Doom in '84. At this point Jones fully eclipsed Solo for me. Harrison WAS Indy. Last Crusade, while I had some comedy issues with Sallah, was basically pure gold. In 2008 I really wanted to love Crystal Skull, but I merely enjoyed it for what it was (and still do). Not Ford's fault though- I blame Shia & the lame script....
    Solo, Deckard, Ryan... all great, but if adventure has a name, it IS Indiana Jones.
    With the right charismatic actor in the role, I'd be SO up for new entries.
    But NOT Chris Pratt. Sorry Chris... ;)
  • Posts: 1,548
    Indy 5 could see

    No it wouldn't be, at all. Because there weren't 19 Indie films between 1981 and now, like there were Bond films. I can't see why it's years in the role that matters, over films actually being made. There's no doubt Harrison will always remain the most famous Indie, like Connery will always be the most famous Bond, but it doesn't mean others can't play the role, and successfully. There is a generation, me included, which considers Brosnan "their Bond", inspite of us all having the opportunity to go out and buy the VHS of the old Connery films and prefering him. Fact is, a new Bond (or Indie) is simply going to be more present in the public consciousness, and leave a mark on those of an impressionable age the time. Its why by and large those who grew up in The 70's hold Moore as their Bond, those who grew up in the 90's generally hold Brosnan as their Bond, and kids of the 2000's will hold Craig as their Bond. Such a simple idea shouldn't be so difficult to grasp.

    The point really goes way over your head. It's a waste of time talking to or arguing with someone who is clearly too clueless to understand simple things.

    Who in the world cares about how many Bond films or Indy films there has been? The point is, since we must spell it out for you, there were 5 Bond actors between 1962 and 1999, but there's been ONE Indiana Jones actor on the big screen in the same timespan. No one on this earth, aged from 1 year to 99 years has seen a single Indy film in cinema, on DVD, on VHS, on Blu Ray, on streaming, on TV, or via illegal download that doesn't feature Harrison Ford as Indy.

    Ignore him Mendes4life. Your comments make perfect and logical sense.I've had patronising, insulting comments from DaltonCraig007 in the past and they went the way of Daniel Craig detractors ie completely ignored.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Indy 5 could see

    No it wouldn't be, at all. Because there weren't 19 Indie films between 1981 and now, like there were Bond films. I can't see why it's years in the role that matters, over films actually being made. There's no doubt Harrison will always remain the most famous Indie, like Connery will always be the most famous Bond, but it doesn't mean others can't play the role, and successfully. There is a generation, me included, which considers Brosnan "their Bond", inspite of us all having the opportunity to go out and buy the VHS of the old Connery films and prefering him. Fact is, a new Bond (or Indie) is simply going to be more present in the public consciousness, and leave a mark on those of an impressionable age the time. Its why by and large those who grew up in The 70's hold Moore as their Bond, those who grew up in the 90's generally hold Brosnan as their Bond, and kids of the 2000's will hold Craig as their Bond. Such a simple idea shouldn't be so difficult to grasp.

    The point really goes way over your head. It's a waste of time talking to or arguing with someone who is clearly too clueless to understand simple things.

    Who in the world cares about how many Bond films or Indy films there has been? The point is, since we must spell it out for you, there were 5 Bond actors between 1962 and 1999, but there's been ONE Indiana Jones actor on the big screen in the same timespan. No one on this earth, aged from 1 year to 99 years has seen a single Indy film in cinema, on DVD, on VHS, on Blu Ray, on streaming, on TV, or via illegal download that doesn't feature Harrison Ford as Indy.

    Ignore him Mendes4life. Your comments make perfect and logical sense.I've had patronising, insulting comments from DaltonCraig007 in the past and they went the way of Daniel Craig detractors ie completely ignored.

    @Mendes4lyfe, I also got your point.
  • Posts: 7,653
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    Indy 5 could see

    No it wouldn't be, at all. Because there weren't 19 Indie films between 1981 and now, like there were Bond films. I can't see why it's years in the role that matters, over films actually being made. There's no doubt Harrison will always remain the most famous Indie, like Connery will always be the most famous Bond, but it doesn't mean others can't play the role, and successfully. There is a generation, me included, which considers Brosnan "their Bond", inspite of us all having the opportunity to go out and buy the VHS of the old Connery films and prefering him. Fact is, a new Bond (or Indie) is simply going to be more present in the public consciousness, and leave a mark on those of an impressionable age the time. Its why by and large those who grew up in The 70's hold Moore as their Bond, those who grew up in the 90's generally hold Brosnan as their Bond, and kids of the 2000's will hold Craig as their Bond. Such a simple idea shouldn't be so difficult to grasp.

    The point really goes way over your head. It's a waste of time talking to or arguing with someone who is clearly too clueless to understand simple things.

    Who in the world cares about how many Bond films or Indy films there has been? The point is, since we must spell it out for you, there were 5 Bond actors between 1962 and 1999, but there's been ONE Indiana Jones actor on the big screen in the same timespan. No one on this earth, aged from 1 year to 99 years has seen a single Indy film in cinema, on DVD, on VHS, on Blu Ray, on streaming, on TV, or via illegal download that doesn't feature Harrison Ford as Indy.

    Ignore him Mendes4life. Your comments make perfect and logical sense.I've had patronising, insulting comments from DaltonCraig007 in the past and they went the way of Daniel Craig detractors ie completely ignored.

    Well that is an adult look at thinks or NOT. Discussion is the basics of a good forum, if everybody agrees on anything it will become a boring place. If you start ignoring people because they disagree with you. please leave the forum as you are intent on killing it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,957
    We finally got back on track - please don't needlessly bring up something that occurred yesterday. Save it for PM's.
Sign In or Register to comment.