Silvor said:
Not too sure of that, I think he's playing an older prospector in this, not exactly someone who's as active as Indy would be. You can't just take any Ford movie and judge hys physical abilities, they're completely different beasts.
Also, apparently it's based on a book where the story is seen trough the eyes of a dog and a special effects company is supposed to be heavily involved so it's very likely Ford only has a bit part and the main character is a dog with the help of some cgi.
Yes,
The Call of the Wild is notable for being a story told through the eyes of a dog, but previous adaptations of it (including the Charlton Heston version) focused more on the relationship between Thornton (the prospector Harrison is rumored to play) and Buck (the dog that he adopts), and it is certainly not a bit part. In fact, Thornton is undoubtedly one of the biggest characters in the book.
Furthermore, the prospector in the book does get a few action scenes himself, so I'd have to disagree with you when you say we wouldn't be able to judge his physical abilities. If they play it like the novel, he'll have at least one or two action sequences.
youngindygirl said:
Are we even sure Call of the Wild will be a live action movie? That said it's very different from Indy 5, (and the main protagonist is indeed the dog) so I don't know how well one can judge anything.
To answer your first question, it indeed is going to be a live action movie
a la the 2016 adaptation of
The Jungle Book. And as I told Silvor above, even if they make it a story centered more on Buck, Thornton is still an important and adventurous character, so I'm betting we could judge it pretty well.
Face_Palm said:
Again, second biggest Star Wars movie, biggest film of 2017, 91% critic approval rating and A from audiences. Those sites you mentioned are not verified audience rating sites. This video helps explain that:
https://youtu.be/qVYwqepVCY0
I just wanted to address this, especially with the CinemaScore rating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but CinemaScore usually asks people about their opinions
right after they exit the theater, before a full opinion could develop yet. I'm going to be honest, once I left the theater I thought that TLJ was OK. After five minutes I realized how bad it was.
Granted, sites like Rotten Tomatoes are sometimes inaccurate, especially when racist trolls flooded the boards, but after their reviews were removed, the score for TLJ
remained the same. I think it's a good site for people to explain their honest reactions rather than after getting asked as they leave the theater. And again, as Dr. Jonesy noted:
Dr.Jonesy said:
Critics really overlooked a lot of issues they had to have noticed as experienced film critics. They were lenient on glaring issues that would've skewered a lesser known film.
And the film did well - but it lost a ton of revenue from a lack of repeat viewings and bad word of mouth. Box office was 63% of the previous film. That's not a drop that investors want to see.
Completely agreed with this statement. The film, although bolstered by fantastic performances (including those of Adam Driver and Kelly Marie Tran, who although I didn't like her character, thought she did a great job), was filled to the brim with terrible humor, poor dialogue and plot, and an absolute lack of direction. The only two good things about it are that it sometimes looks pretty and that it has actors who can act. And look at the word of mouth with the film. Everyone I saw it with had a tepid opinion of it, and that spread until pretty much everybody I knew thought the film was at best mediocre and at worst excruciatingly boring.
And finally, look at merchandise sales above all else. There's only one franchise winning here-and that's Marvel.
Star Wars has, since
The Last Jedi been declining with sales of toys, games, etc.
Hopefully with Episode 9 they can rectify that.