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 usually don’t mind recasting but looking at how they screwed up with solo no thanks
Too bad River Phoenix is no longer with us.
Yes....
Well, in this case the kiddies can hit up Netflix or Hulu or put in the discs of the good ole days. No clean slate, just leave well enough, make that great, alone. It's all about the kids and that's part of the problem sometimes.
I am somebody who understands the remakes and prequels and all that and sometimes I even enjoy them. But when it comes to Indy, don't mess with it. It's good as is. Do all the graphic novels and whatever else to continue mining the potential with this great character, but do not do a big screen version with Chris Pratt or whatever pretender comes along and bring in the CGI trickery. Look how that turned out with KOTCS.
It turned out great.
Well said.
I'd love to see one more with Ford if just to make up for the last film. After that I think Indy should be retired and left as an iconic cinema legend of the past. However I'm feeling like it's a bit too late. Should have been done 5 years ago.
May sound sacrilegious, but I watched RAIDERS the other day and think it's really the only film that holds up. I tried to watch TEMPLE OF DOOM and couldn't get past the dinner sequence. Something about that film now seems a bit too silly to me, especially Capshaw's character. The Shortround scenes are nowhere near as funny as they were when I was 12. The bits in the jungle with the elephant don't hold up , and the opening comedic night club action scene wasn't very funny at all.
Maybe I just wasn't in the mood for that entry.
When we get closer to summer I'll pop in LAST CRUSADE as I have a feeling I'll enjoy that more. It's got to hold up better than DOOM.
Haha that's true
And Dalton went in the hard hitting door, the one Moore went out
Ford especially acted goofy in TEMPLE. Still, I have yet to warm to the idea of Pratt or anyone else taking over from Ford. Something about Pratt's voice sounds high pitched to me.
However, hypothetically if Disney were to reboot with a younger actor, Pratt might be at the top of my short list. As much as I dislike CGI and tend to walk away unhappy from so many contemporary films, I do think there's an opportunity to get the period settings right.
Although the initial films were set in the '30's, I never really get a '30's vibe from those films visually. Aside from the cars, RAIDERS feels timeless in look. Harrison's haircut for instance, is generic enough he could be playing any decade, really.
Films today that are set in specific times tend to have more attention to detail, IMO.
Some of the recent prohibition era films like LAWLESS, PUBLIC ENEMIES, even THE MUMMY films with Brendan Fraser get the look and styles of the '30's fairly right.
So a Disney Indy film with Pratt or somebody else might capture the world of the 1930's quite well. That I would love to see.
I agree with this comparison. Pratt is charismatic but he's different from Ford. More overtly jovial and less serious. Even so, Ford has displayed great comedic skills in his films.
Bradley Cooper?
I see, @boldfinger. Personally, I feel the film has many good scenes, a good story and a good narrative structure, but it's missing a sense of drama and intensity. One never takes the situation too seriously, the stakes never seem too high. It's also lacking blood, cruelty, grit. The introduction of the film is good (though I don't care for the gophers-- not necessarily a bad idea, but they are overused and a bit too goofy), but it takes a lot of time until Indiana Jones meets Mutt and the plot gets going properly, so the later part of the film, in the Amazon jungle, seems short and rushed, especially with all the characters. They should've cut one or two characters and/or made the film longer to give the story time to develop properly.
Still, as I said, I think it has many good moments, with the scenes in Peru, with Indiana and Mutt investigating, being terrific.
There’s a line in one of the Jurassic films where Pratt is talking to a young actor and ends the line with the word “kid” where he sounds just like vintage Indy.
Who knows anymore. It got a new director (Dan Trachtenberg) back in January, but I haven't heard of any progress since. I'm not optimistic or interested if they're still taking the prequel avenue.
So Tom Holland is Nathan Drake and some blonde kid is macGyver. =))
what happened to real men?
https://screenrant.com/indiana-jones-5-writer-dan-fogelman/
That's a shame if that plot gets thrown out, that train idea sounds interesting. If this next writer doesn't work, I say reboot with a unknown actor and a new crew.
Totally agree. This is why I love all the movies in the tetralogy but Raiders, to me, is many, many miles above the other three.
They feel like totally different characters to me. Also I could never see Chris Pratt play Indiana Jones as a teacher.