Indiana Jones

15253555758199

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    Absolutely!
  • Posts: 16,169
    I'm getting more and more excited for INDY 5 by the day. Mads!!! That's the kind of news I love to come home from work to discover. Can't wait to see him and Ford together.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    Fine additions to the cast with PWB and now Mads Mikkelsen. Though I'm optimistic about Indy 5, it's hard to get excited after KOTCS.
    However, with a great story, a good cast (which is shaping up nicely) it could be a winner.
    As for the year in which it's set...chalk me up for 1962. Maybe Indy has a hand in averting the Cuban Missile crisis.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    mattjoes wrote: »
    This is getting ridiculous.

    8hyjmPH.png

    You raised my hopes, only for Twitter to squash them again.
    Sorry about that! Seemed like an obvious joke to me after Mads Mikkelsen's casting but whaddaya know.

    But it's great to see Mads has been cast. I find it exciting to see this film is finally getting underway.
  • Posts: 1,630
    I hope they bring Jim Broadbent back...look, I saw IJATKOTCS (wow, that's a mouthful) once, when it came out...that was enough. So, please forgive any failure of recollection. But -- didn't the terrific Jim Broadbent portray the university gent who took over, sort of, for the role played by the departed and missed Denholm Elliot ? Not the same role, but the purpose in the plot. The guy at the University who smoothes things over when Indy leaves mid-semester, receives stolen goods, funds -- I think ? -- Indy's adventures...
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,133
    Just heard about Mads on the national news great stuff, perfect casting for Indy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    Since62 wrote: »
    I hope they bring Jim Broadbent back...look, I saw IJATKOTCS (wow, that's a mouthful) once, when it came out...that was enough. So, please forgive any failure of recollection. But -- didn't the terrific Jim Broadbent portray the university gent who took over, sort of, for the role played by the departed and missed Denholm Elliot ? Not the same role, but the purpose in the plot. The guy at the University who smoothes things over when Indy leaves mid-semester, receives stolen goods, funds -- I think ? -- Indy's adventures...

    Yes I thought he was good in it too.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    mtm wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    I hope they bring Jim Broadbent back...look, I saw IJATKOTCS (wow, that's a mouthful) once, when it came out...that was enough. So, please forgive any failure of recollection. But -- didn't the terrific Jim Broadbent portray the university gent who took over, sort of, for the role played by the departed and missed Denholm Elliot ? Not the same role, but the purpose in the plot. The guy at the University who smoothes things over when Indy leaves mid-semester, receives stolen goods, funds -- I think ? -- Indy's adventures...

    Yes I thought he was good in it too.

    Let’s be honest, Jim Broadbent is always dependable. A very talented and likeable actor. Has he ever given a bad performance. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anything.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,133
    Jim Broadbent will always be Slater to me.

  • Posts: 669
    mtm wrote: »
    Since62 wrote: »
    I hope they bring Jim Broadbent back...look, I saw IJATKOTCS (wow, that's a mouthful) once, when it came out...that was enough. So, please forgive any failure of recollection. But -- didn't the terrific Jim Broadbent portray the university gent who took over, sort of, for the role played by the departed and missed Denholm Elliot ? Not the same role, but the purpose in the plot. The guy at the University who smoothes things over when Indy leaves mid-semester, receives stolen goods, funds -- I think ? -- Indy's adventures...

    Yes I thought he was good in it too.

    I thought Jim Broadbent was wonderful in Skull and I'd love to see him return. As strange as it sounds considering the sometimes-lacking quality of writing in that film, he actually delivers one of my all-time favorite movie lines in that film. When he and Indy are talking about Henry Sr. and Marcus Brody dying within a few years of each other, he says, "We seem to have reached the age where life stops giving us things and starts taking them away." I find myself quoting that often, anytime I hear of a friend or loved one dying. It is (IMO) the one great line in the film, and Broadbent's delivery is pitch-perfect.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    There are a few great lines in that film. "They weren't you, honey" still hits the spot.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    mattjoes wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    This is getting ridiculous.

    8hyjmPH.png

    You raised my hopes, only for Twitter to squash them again.
    Sorry about that! Seemed like an obvious joke to me after Mads Mikkelsen's casting but whaddaya know.

    But it's great to see Mads has been cast. I find it exciting to see this film is finally getting underway.

    It's cool! :))
  • edited April 2021 Posts: 618
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Raiders is perfection.
    Nope. It's a terrific, classic film, but it's not perfection.

    - Clearly visible reflection of snake on pane of glass in front of Ford
    - Convoy chase makes no sense (Nazis simply stop the convoy; officer & a couple of troops dismount and riddle the helpless Indy with bullets)
    - U-boat does not do what it absolutely WOULD do: submerging before approaching the SECRET base (thus Indy drowns)
  • Posts: 7,430
    Jim Broadbent will always be Slater to me.


    And did you know, he was the original choice for Del Boy?
    Great actor i everything he appears in!
  • Posts: 669
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Raiders is perfection.
    Nope. It's a terrific, classic film, but it's not perfection.

    - Clearly visible reflection of snake on pane of glass in front of Ford
    - Convoy chase makes no sense (Nazis simply stop the convoy; officer & a couple of troops dismount and riddle the helpless Indy with bullets)
    - U-boat does not do what it absolutely WOULD do: submerging before approaching the SECRET base (thus Indy drowns)

    No, definitely not perfection. (I love the random HUGE cliff that comes out of absolutely nowhere during the car chase, in between patches of jungle.) But it's perfect for me. It's an old friend whose flaws I can easily look past.
  • Posts: 669
    mtm wrote: »
    There are a few great lines in that film. "They weren't you, honey" still hits the spot.

    Good point! That is a great line, too.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Raiders is perfection.
    Nope. It's a terrific, classic film, but it's not perfection.

    - Clearly visible reflection of snake on pane of glass in front of Ford
    - Convoy chase makes no sense (Nazis simply stop the convoy; officer & a couple of troops dismount and riddle the helpless Indy with bullets)

    He's already in the cab before they know he's there.
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    - U-boat does not do what it absolutely WOULD do: submerging before approaching the SECRET base (thus Indy drowns)

    U-boats only submerged when they were attacking- there would be no reason to submerge approaching the base as no-one is around. The idea was Indy lashed himself to the periscope anyway (and this is shown briefly in the film) so would have survived.

    The main problem with Raiders is that Indy's knowledge not to look in the Ark is never established beforehand and is a bit of a cheat.

    But apart from that, it is perfection.
  • Posts: 1,493
    mtm wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Raiders is perfection.
    Nope. It's a terrific, classic film, but it's not perfection.

    - Clearly visible reflection of snake on pane of glass in front of Ford
    - Convoy chase makes no sense (Nazis simply stop the convoy; officer & a couple of troops dismount and riddle the helpless Indy with bullets)

    He's already in the cab before they know he's there.
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    - U-boat does not do what it absolutely WOULD do: submerging before approaching the SECRET base (thus Indy drowns)

    U-boats only submerged when they were attacking- there would be no reason to submerge approaching the base as no-one is around. The idea was Indy lashed himself to the periscope anyway (and this is shown briefly in the film) so would have survived.

    The main problem with Raiders is that Indy's knowledge not to look in the Ark is never established beforehand and is a bit of a cheat.

    But apart from that, it is perfection.

    There was a cut scene of Indy clinging to the top of the extended periscope, waves washing over him, when the U-Boat submerges, but the feeling was it might stretch credibility, so the brief scene, I believe just one close shot, was deleted.

    Raiders is perfection for me.

  • edited April 2021 Posts: 618
    mtm wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Raiders is perfection.
    Nope. It's a terrific, classic film, but it's not perfection.

    - Clearly visible reflection of snake on pane of glass in front of Ford
    - Convoy chase makes no sense (Nazis simply stop the convoy; officer & a couple of troops dismount and riddle the helpless Indy with bullets)

    He's already in the cab before they know he's there.
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    - U-boat does not do what it absolutely WOULD do: submerging before approaching the SECRET base (thus Indy drowns)

    U-boats only submerged when they were attacking- there would be no reason to submerge approaching the base as no-one is around. The idea was Indy lashed himself to the periscope anyway (and this is shown briefly in the film) so would have survived.

    The main problem with Raiders is that Indy's knowledge not to look in the Ark is never established beforehand and is a bit of a cheat.

    But apart from that, it is perfection.
    No, for the first two years of WWII (i.e., a couple of years after the events of RAIDERS), U-boats mainly attacked on the surface. The surface attack -- using torpedoes and/or deck gun -- was the Ubootwaffe's preferred method of assault until 1942.

    Also, the Mediterranean in the 1930s was perhaps the most heavily trafficked body of water on earth, ringed by RN/RAF bases (as well as French installations), not to mention all the merchant vessels, fishing boats, etc. No sub commander in his right mind would risk "giving away" a secret base like that... certainly not in daylight. (All of this could've been fixed with about 1 minute of additional footage.)

    As for the truck convoy, it's been years since I've watched the film but I seem to remember that after dealing with the rearmost vehicles, the Nazis become aware of Indy's presence but just keep on going -- which is stupid.

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    The reflection in the snake shot has been removed.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Raiders is perfection.
    Nope. It's a terrific, classic film, but it's not perfection.

    - Clearly visible reflection of snake on pane of glass in front of Ford
    - Convoy chase makes no sense (Nazis simply stop the convoy; officer & a couple of troops dismount and riddle the helpless Indy with bullets)

    He's already in the cab before they know he's there.
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    - U-boat does not do what it absolutely WOULD do: submerging before approaching the SECRET base (thus Indy drowns)

    U-boats only submerged when they were attacking- there would be no reason to submerge approaching the base as no-one is around. The idea was Indy lashed himself to the periscope anyway (and this is shown briefly in the film) so would have survived.

    The main problem with Raiders is that Indy's knowledge not to look in the Ark is never established beforehand and is a bit of a cheat.

    But apart from that, it is perfection.

    There was a cut scene of Indy clinging to the top of the extended periscope, waves washing over him, when the U-Boat submerges, but the feeling was it might stretch credibility, so the brief scene, I believe just one close shot, was deleted.

    Raiders is perfection for me.

    I think you still get a glimpse of that (perhaps just a model) in the map montage in the finished film.
  • Posts: 312
    I hope that Marion Ravenwood will return. Are there any news or rumors about this?
  • mtm wrote: »
    There are a few great lines in that film. "They weren't you, honey" still hits the spot.

    Me too. I love that line. Great chemistry between Indy and Marion.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited April 2021 Posts: 25,133
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Jim Broadbent will always be Slater to me.


    And did you know, he was the original choice for Del Boy?
    Great actor i everything he appears in!

    I did know that he would have been a good Del, though they definately struck gold with David Jason in the role.
  • Posts: 1,917
    I thought of another angle the new story could take if set in the early '60s and still involve Nazis: If Indy somehow got caught up in the hunt for rogue Nazis who escaped when the war was lost. Given many went to South America, it could also involve a jungle and ancient cultures, although that wouldn't exactly be a fresh setting.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    A little to the discussion on my part but Mads and PWB cast with Mangold directing? I'm sold.
  • edited April 2021 Posts: 669
    mtm wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Raiders is perfection.
    Nope. It's a terrific, classic film, but it's not perfection.

    - Clearly visible reflection of snake on pane of glass in front of Ford
    - Convoy chase makes no sense (Nazis simply stop the convoy; officer & a couple of troops dismount and riddle the helpless Indy with bullets)

    He's already in the cab before they know he's there.
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    - U-boat does not do what it absolutely WOULD do: submerging before approaching the SECRET base (thus Indy drowns)

    U-boats only submerged when they were attacking- there would be no reason to submerge approaching the base as no-one is around. The idea was Indy lashed himself to the periscope anyway (and this is shown briefly in the film) so would have survived.

    The main problem with Raiders is that Indy's knowledge not to look in the Ark is never established beforehand and is a bit of a cheat.

    But apart from that, it is perfection.

    I think people generally consider the main problem with Raiders to be the fact that Indy doesn't need to be in it. If you took him out, the Nazis would still find the ark, open it, and die. But no film is completely perfect. It's still an absolutely amazing film, one of my all-time favorites.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,216
    mtm wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Raiders is perfection.
    Nope. It's a terrific, classic film, but it's not perfection.

    - Clearly visible reflection of snake on pane of glass in front of Ford
    - Convoy chase makes no sense (Nazis simply stop the convoy; officer & a couple of troops dismount and riddle the helpless Indy with bullets)

    He's already in the cab before they know he's there.
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    - U-boat does not do what it absolutely WOULD do: submerging before approaching the SECRET base (thus Indy drowns)

    U-boats only submerged when they were attacking- there would be no reason to submerge approaching the base as no-one is around. The idea was Indy lashed himself to the periscope anyway (and this is shown briefly in the film) so would have survived.

    The main problem with Raiders is that Indy's knowledge not to look in the Ark is never established beforehand and is a bit of a cheat.

    But apart from that, it is perfection.

    I think people generally consider the main problem with Raiders to be the fact that Indy doesn't need to be in it. If you took him out, the Nazis would still find the ark, open it, and die. But no film is completely perfect. It's still an absolutely amazing film, one of my all-time favorites.

    Would they have found it? They were digging in the wrong spot.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Raiders is perfection.
    Nope. It's a terrific, classic film, but it's not perfection.

    - Clearly visible reflection of snake on pane of glass in front of Ford
    - Convoy chase makes no sense (Nazis simply stop the convoy; officer & a couple of troops dismount and riddle the helpless Indy with bullets)

    He's already in the cab before they know he's there.
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    - U-boat does not do what it absolutely WOULD do: submerging before approaching the SECRET base (thus Indy drowns)

    U-boats only submerged when they were attacking- there would be no reason to submerge approaching the base as no-one is around. The idea was Indy lashed himself to the periscope anyway (and this is shown briefly in the film) so would have survived.

    The main problem with Raiders is that Indy's knowledge not to look in the Ark is never established beforehand and is a bit of a cheat.

    But apart from that, it is perfection.

    I think people generally consider the main problem with Raiders to be the fact that Indy doesn't need to be in it. If you took him out, the Nazis would still find the ark, open it, and die. But no film is completely perfect. It's still an absolutely amazing film, one of my all-time favorites.

    Would they have found it? They were digging in the wrong spot.

    Yes, the Nazis only found it because of Indy.
Sign In or Register to comment.