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 didn't mind that they treated Indy as "same ol' Indy".... on a list of problems with the film - that would probably be dead last.. here's mine..
1. George Lucas
2. Too many stupid silly forced gag laugh moments
3. Too sanitized (played it safe for the kids)
4. Annoyingly blatant references to the previous films - way too much - impaired this film from having an identity of it's own - felt more like a greatest hits compilation.
5. Mack - a piss poor character that served no real purpose - he was just hanging around.. if you take him out of the film, the movie is literally no different.
6. Marion Ravenwood.. it was nice to see Karen Allen again - but i didn't need to see her for half of the movie... should've been saved as a cameo for the end of the movie.
7. Mutt is Indy's son - completely stupid... I didn't mind Mutt as a character on his own, even if it was Shia LeBouf - making him Indy's son is just cheap soap opera writing... now, having him as Marion's son was fine (and note, it could've been a nice way to cameo Marion at the end).
8. I know it was the cold war era, and maybe it different for people who grew up during that time - but I just didn't buy the Russians as a dangerous threat in this film - certainly not in the same way we did the Nazis in the other films... plus, inexplicably, Indy decides to help decipher Oxly's cryptic scatterbrained nonsense, after the Russians just tried to fry his brain with the Crystal Skull - WTF???... younger Indy would've told them to F off.
Seriously Ford is far too old to be playing Indiana Jones.
Some of you don't when to let something go, it's like those are getting wet about Arnie still being the Terminator or Conan.
Both actors are too old for playing these roles.
Indiana Jones needs to reboot if it wants a future, I'm sure Disney didn't buy the property to release one film then stop.
The longer and the same goes for Terminator that you keep casting the same actor in the role the more the audience will find it hard to let these people go.
They'll always be associated with the franchise and make it hard of anyone else to be accepted in the role, Ford may well like the role but him playing a whip cracking archeologist is just absurd
That being said some of you are still saying Brosnan or Dalton could still be Bond so why am I bothering?
first off - i am for a Indy recasting... i think he works better as a character set in the 20s/30s .... but the difference between Indiana Jones and Bond - in terms of casting - is that over the course of the first 35 years of Bond films - we had already gone 5 different Bonds.. Connery - 6 years, Lazenby - 1 year, Moore - 13 years, Dalton - 7 years (if you count in the hiatus), Brosnan - 3 years..... in terms of Indiana Jones, since 1981, it's only ever been Harrison Ford... while i personally feel that audiences would eventually adjust to a new actor - you can't fault people for being apprehensive about seeing anyone else in the role other than the one it's been associated with for over 35 years.
They should have released it in within the last few years.
Not for now. Disney didn t pay a gazillion dollars for the rights, just to make one more movie.
Chris Pratt people, Chris Pratt, you better believe it.
Oh, right. Then we are in agreement.
Indeed. Like you said, you'd be stupid to buy up those rights, shoot another installment, and be done with the franchise entirely.
Who would you rather have as Ford's replacement: Shia Laboeuf again, Jai Courtney or Aaron Johnson? Remember, those are the only 3 possible choices in this question.
H
R
I
S
P
R
A
T
T
I think im on the pratt train as well
I prefer Karl Urban. ;)
i personally don't even think Shia will be back for Indy 5 - and in terms of passing the torch to him?.. do we really need adventures taking place eventually in the 80s and 90s?.... besides, the main draw is the character Indiana Jones, not his son - i think people would rather see the role recast, and set back in the 1920s/30s than it continue on as the adventures of Mutt Williams..
Ford will be back for this one last film - then after another 10 years or so, they'll recast the role..
H
R
I
S
P
R
A
T
T
It's been 35 years and 4 films so far since RAIDERS. One actor in the lead role for a period piece where the decades can evolve to suit the actors age.
By comparison, TND was 35 years, 18 films and 5 actors since the Bond series began. Each Bond takes place in the present day and presents and ageless hero (assuming he's in his late 30s thru his 40s give or take). Kind of like how the Dennis The Menace comic strip went on for decades and he remained around 6 years old. Same with Charlie Brown, etc etc
If by the Bond comparison, Indy were to be recast, it probably would have happened around 1991, and we'd be on our 4th or 5th actor by now. They are completely different franchises.
As iconic a film character like Indy is, he's not exactly a literary figure like Sherlock Holmes, Dracula or Scrooge where you can almost expect to see a new interpretation every few years.
It would be like trying to recast Rocky Balboa, or The Fonz.
That being said, on the flip side- the Star Trek franchise did a successful recasting of their iconic characters and even worked a way to have Leonard still be Spock. So you never know.
i like Karl Urban.. but i don't think he carries quite the same level of cocksure charm as Pratt does... Indiana Jones and James Bond are pretty much cut from the same cloth - just opposite ends lol - but both carry a presence, and as i said before, cocksure charm / bravado... the real difference being that Bond flaunts it more openly - where is Indiana Jones is a little more reserved(?)... both are lady killers, and both can throw down at a moment's notice... and that is why i like Pratt as the only real choice should they ever recast Indy..... i recently went and saw the remake of The Magnificent Seven (which was actually pretty good surprisingly).. and Pratt in a cowboy hat throughout the whole film - had me picturing him in the fedora - and i honestly wish it would happen now - i mean hell, even Steven Spielberg himself approves....
... no reboots... just set it back in the 20s and 30s, with him fighting Nazis again..