Disney eyeing Chris Pratt

IndyForever

Active member
Ford does not need the money so the only way he would return is if he is the lead....there is still time to make 2 back to back Indy's with Ford as the lead then they can remake/reboot in about 10 years making Henry Jones Jnr & The Uncalled Remake From Creatively Bankrupt Hell ;)

Hopefully the terrible looking 1:1 shot by shot Poltergeist remake will fail miserably & stop Hollywood remaking classic movies just because they have no original ideas & or talent to do something original & worthwhile.

Ford was rumoured to have got Disney to agree to 2 more Indy with him in return for SW EP7..............
 
I wanted to write this days ago, but my account wasn't working, so damn, now I'm late... well, for what's worth...

Finn said:
All series and IPs worth something go through the process at one time or another. There is really no viable reason for why this particular one should become a stale relic frozen in time when the original group of creators has disbanded, especially if the reasons to think so are deeply emotional and hardly rational.

Time and again, we've seen how changing the creative powers behind it all has actually brought some fresh air into it all. Sure, there have also been times when the product has not reached the bar set by the originals, but that is no problem either - it still does not affect quality of those originals, and can be freely ignored if one so chooses. Hell, some people already think they've seen a subpar addition to the series, yet KotCS does not in any way taint the awesomeness that is Raiders of the Lost Ark. If anything, it may make you appreciate it even more.

Yes, all the IPs that are worth something get rebooted and/or rebranded every now and then. Hollywood is just like that, and we all know too well.

But now, seriously, think of just one big movie saga that have successfully gone that way in recent history. Or even past history, for what that matters.

Star Trek?? Yes. The characters were created for a sloppy TV series of the 60s, so, basically, they were already a parody of themselves before the start. Kirk, Spock, Sulu and all the rest, no matter how much people could like 'em (I'm a fan too), but they have been firstly written as poor, corny sci-fi for kids and B-movie aficionados.
And in spite of this they had to wait more than 40 years before deciding to revamp the series according to the vision of J.J. Abrams. And Spock is still played by Leonard Nimoy as of 2015, with William Shatner rumored to be in talks to reprise the role of Kirk for the future film.

James Bond?? The franchise was based on novels, so the character was completely faceless in its origins.
Then true, the movie series have been revamped multiple times, spawning more than 20 films over 50 years. But the first time they decided to recast the role, the movie was good yet the backlash from fans and critics was so enormous that MGM was forced to convince Connery to return for the sequel, and exponentially increase his salary. Not only that, the demand for him was so high that he played the character AGAIN twelve years later, and his movie still topped the one with Roger Moore. (On a side note, George Lazenby refused to return in the sequels because he feared that his public image would be damaged by the comparison with Connery, and his career was both started and ruined by that film.)

Batman and other superheroes really do not matter, for a number of reasons so vast that it would be even pointless to list. Superheroes are based on comic books, not exactly quality works, and they are ALL characters that have already been rebooted, retconned or reimagined many times on paper, much before their on-screen counterparts. Also remind, most of the better known superheroes are characters with more than 50 or 60 years of story behind them. Batman and Superman have both been created almost one century ago.

So, any others?

I'm with Montana Smith on this thing. Indiana Jones is one of the most legendary characters in cinema history. It was creaded for the silver screen, as a tribute to the silver screen, and have been played by Harrison Ford for more than 30 years. The first three movies were all top notch quality productions, under every possible aspect, acting, writing, storytelling, special effects, directing. They are still up among the best movies ever in spite of their age, while most other action/adventure/thriller films of that period just look like crap if you rewatch them now. Think of it.

So, basically, what I'm saying is that we can all agree the Indiana Jones IP may deserve a future reboot treatment, but I still strongly think that recasting the actor NOW would be just the most disastrous jackshi* in the entire history of moviemaking. As I've said before, and as we all know already, even the more "progressive" ones :) , Harrison Ford is still perfectly capable of playing an mid-aged version of the role, while still dealing with action and stunts on his own, and by doing that being the only good thing of a film. He has given us proof of this with Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull.
If they really want to go for a recast, first, I don't think there are any actors that could fit the role as of now, let alone Chris Pratt, and second, it would be a very risky maneuver.

I think they'd better wait at least another decade. At least. Maybe even more.
Go write some other stories, with other characters. Go write a good Mummy 3 for Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz to return. Go write a new National Treasure. Go write a decent Uncharted film. Do something different. An animated series, a comic book run, or something entirely new. Do not touch the freaking Indiana Jones now, if you don't want Harrison to be involved. I say it would be a disaster. I may be wrong but honestly don't think so.


FordFan said:
While I think a lot of actors could bring something to the role, they can't bring everything. Ford's performances fire on every cylinder. Can you see Pratt playing the college professor? Can you see any other actor riding on a horse, leaning over the side, and picking up that rock off the ground like Ford did in TLC, without a stunt double? Can you see someone making a suggestion as brilliant as Ford's to shoot the Cairo swordsman?

You get it.
 
Last edited:

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
The Stranger said:
I'm with Montana Smith on this thing. Indiana Jones is one of the most legendary characters in cinema history. It was creaded for the silver screen, as a tribute to the silver screen, and have been played by Harrison Ford for more than 30 years. The first three movies were all top notch quality productions, under every possible aspect, acting, writing, storytelling, special effects, directing. They are still up among the best movies ever in spite of their age, while most other action/adventure/thriller films of that period just look like crap if you rewatch them now. Think of it.

So, basically, what I'm saying is that we can all agree the Indiana Jones IP may deserve a future reboot treatment, but I still strongly think that recasting the actor NOW would be just the most disastrous jackshi* in the entire history of moviemaking. As I've said before, and as we all know already, even the more "progressive" ones :) , Harrison Ford is still perfectly capable of playing an mid-aged version of the role, while still dealing with action and stunts on his own, and by doing that being the only good thing of a film. He has given us proof of this with Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull.
If they really want to go for a recast, first, I don't think there are any actors that could fit the role as of now, let alone Chris Pratt, and second, it would be a very risky maneuver.
Way to go missing the point.

I wasn't saying "do it" because it think it has chances of succeeding. I'm saying "do it" because its chances of succeeding do not matter.

It's exactly like you say. We have three great Indiana Jones movies that are truly ageless. And then we have one, that, well... divides opinions. But yeah, despite that, we still have at least three great ones. That aren't going anywhere.

Now, back to the serious question... how many great ones will there be if they make a new one that does not live up to the standards? Two? Two and a half? No. Three.

You "Ford is Indy" types are exactly like the crybabies who wailed "Lucas ruined my childhood!" upon the release of the prequels. For them, I have a newflash: The originals are still there. They haven't gone anywhere. Your childhood's intact and well.
 

Indy Jones

Active member
Considering that the person who has portrayed Indiana Jones more than anyone else is actually not Harrison Ford, it makes fear over his replacement a bit late. Although Ford returned for KOTCS, technically Indy had already been recast when Sean Patrick Flanery took over.

Yeah, yeah. "Not in feature films/not as an adult" some will cry. For me, TV or film, it's a moot point. Young Indy was an official, canon production and Ford had little to do with the show, thus making Ford a large part of the legacy, but not the be-all, end-all.

If people could accept SPF, or Doug Lee, why not someone else in the role?

Also, I agree with Finn; people take the idea of new installments or reboots/etc too seriously. First off, they're just movies. Second, you have nothing to lose, but everything to gain. If you hate KOTCS, it didn't do anything to the OT. If you like KOTCS, then you got another great Indy film!

Same thing with a reboot/recast interquel: you have nothing to lose, but only an enjoyed film to gain.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Indy has his reputation to lose.

But that's a moot point as well, considering it's already in tatters since KOTCS. :p


There's only one way to settle the dispute over who should take over from Harry.

Dance-off.

giphy.gif


The Stranger said:
I'm with Montana Smith on this thing.

I would have to respectfully disassociate myself with that comment. Rebooting is inevitable. The issue is keeping the character relevant, otherwise it'll just be a cash-grab banking on the 'Indiana Jones' name. (And such a film might as well feature Jack Hunter or Benjamin Franklin Gates).

It's about preserving the legacy.

Which may involve some rebuilding post-KOTCS.
 
Last edited:

Indy Jones

Active member
Montana Smith said:
Indy has his reputation to lose.

That assertion is banked on the fact that recasting or making a new film is promising poor quality inherently, and it's a viewpoint that baffles me. If they made another film with Ford, just because KOTCS was "bad" doesn't put a voodoo curse on Indy 5 so that it is destined to be poor in quality. The same for recasting the role.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
I would have to respectfully disassociate myself with that comment. Rebooting is inevitable. The issue is keeping the character relevant, otherwise it'll just be a cash-grab banking on the 'Indiana Jones' name. (And such a film might as well feature Jack Hunter or Benjamin Franklin Gates).
One thing I don't really see happening is taking Indy out of his natural timeframe (namely, the early 20th century) and just setting the reboot in modern days, or any other point in history. I don't even see where such a notion is coming from in the first place.

That would be like taking Star Wars out of its galaxy and setting it in Cleveland. <Though I bet somebody's done that already. And we're about to have evidence in pictures.>
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
One thing I don't really see happening is taking Indy out of his natural timeframe (namely, the early 20th century) and just setting the reboot in modern days, or any other point in history. I don't even see where such a notion is coming from in the first place.

That would be like taking Star Wars out of its galaxy and setting it in Cleveland. <Though I bet somebody's done that already. And we're about to have evidence in pictures.>

I think that began with Mutt, and the implication that he thought he was deserving of the hat.

That would have pushed the timeframe into the 1960s.

A slippery slope hopefully avoided since Shia's post-KOTCS shenanigans!

Indy Jones said:
That assertion is banked on the fact that recasting or making a new film is promising poor quality inherently, and it's a viewpoint that baffles me. If they made another film with Ford, just because KOTCS was "bad" doesn't put a voodoo curse on Indy 5 so that it is destined to be poor in quality. The same for recasting the role.

The assertion is always relevant in all cases of new entries in a series. It doesn't imply future poor quality, but the possibility of such.

And it's not even just poor quality, because there might be an excellent film made, but it might have little to do with what Indiana Jones means as a character.

In any case Ford is too old to carry another film in any capacity other than that of mentor to a young pretender. Something they felt necessary to do in KOTCS, even though the character was only in his late fifties.

The films are characterized by stunts and cliff-hanger situations. For Ford to lead a new film it would have to be a change of pace and style. In itself that is not a bad idea - the Hitchcockian style has been raised here - but it isn't what made Indiana Jones popular, or made money enough to secure further films and enterprises.
 
Finn said:
Way to go missing the point.

I wasn't saying "do it" because it think it has chances of succeeding. I'm saying "do it" because its chances of succeeding do not matter.

Finn said:
You "Ford is Indy" types are exactly like the crybabies who wailed "Lucas ruined my childhood!" upon the release of the prequels. For them, I have a newflash: The originals are still there. They haven't gone anywhere. Your childhood's intact and well.

But you missed my point too.

I didn't write that I absolutely don't want a reboot, that I despise the idea, or that I don't want somebody to "ruin my childhood memories", or something. That's not what I'm saying. We know it's obvious that it will be done anyway, sooner or later.

What I am just saying is that I'm convinced they'd better wait.
Or do a fifth one with Ford now.
It would be risky for them to go another route. :)
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
The Stranger said:
But you missed my point too.
On the contrary. You seemed to be of the mind that it shouldn't be done while Ford could still do it, but didn't exactly elaborate why. When that happens, it's not really that unusual to get lumped in with other people who seem to be crying "wah-wah I don't wanna", but can't really tell why. Even if you are of the more moderate mind.

Also, you're quite mistaken when you say that even us "progressive" ones agree that Ford could still pull off a mid-aged version of the role. There are quite a bit of us who disagree. And even if Ford could still do it, it would still be missing quite a bit of elements that also make Indiana Jones. Because, as Smitty alluded, the character is simply NOT Ford in a fedora.

No, about as much as Ford, you need the proper setting, which is the early part of 20th century. Sure, you could make Ford don the hat and have him play an aged Indy in, say, a pastiche to 60s/70s spy caper. But that would very much be "Star Wars in Cleveland".

It doesn't really matter whether Ford is in good physical shape or not. He can't anymore play Indiana Jones in the 30s/40s/50s timeframe. Even KotCS was cheating a bit to pull it off. Therefore, the arguments stating "they shouldn't do it now with a new guy because Ford can still do it" have gone stale and ring hollow.


Moving on. You also seem to challenge us to come up with a recent movie series that has been successful, as your main point of argument. I could accuse you of moving the goalposts for listing some and then coming up with reasons why they don't really count. But let's not go there. Instead, I ask... why "recent"?

Why don't we look to the origins of Indiana Jones? Namely, the age of the old, cheap serials. Now, I encourage everyone who wants to hang onto Ford, no matter what, to look at characters like Zorro, Tarzan, Allan Quatermain... and see how many peeps have played them over the years. Heck, just check out how many different actors have played them before the second half of past century alone. Reboots and recasts are way older than some of you think, and were perhaps treated even more offhandedly back then.

Indiana Jones was designed after characters who were given iconic looks - because the guys wearing those looks were to be easily replacable. Therefore, I might even argue that those of us who have no issues seeing a new fellow pick up the hat are far more in tune with what the character really is about. Indy's intellectual origins lie smack dab in the middle of an era where the clothes stayed the same, but the man inside them changed all the time.
 

Indy Jones

Active member
Actually, I think you could still wring a couple Indy adventures out of the 1960s--just stay away from the US and the UK, like Temple of Doom, where you didn't see the "civilized" world at all. If you're in South America, or Africa or the Middle East, those areas don't immediately reflect the evolution of modern society. They did it deliberately in KOTCS to emphasize how different the world is, which was fantastic, but they wouldn't wanna repeat that same schtick anyway.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Indy Jones said:
Actually, I think you could still wring a couple Indy adventures out of the 1960s--just stay away from the US and the UK, like Temple of Doom, where you didn't see the "civilized" world at all. If you're in South America, or Africa or the Middle East, those areas don't immediately reflect the evolution of modern society. They did it deliberately in KOTCS to emphasize how different the world is, which was fantastic, but they wouldn't wanna repeat that same schtick anyway.
Not to mention that would kind of do away with the point of Indy films being pastiches of movie genres popular at the time they were set in. Many of us have spent plenty of hours to make that point to people who have panned KotCS's alien element. Even then, of course, they couldn't take Indy completely out of the "high adventure" setting which is why I said they were cheating a bit. Having 60s movie tropes combined with high adventure themes would most likely make an even more dreadful mix than what we saw with KotCS.

And to have an adventure in the 60s without elements typical to pop culture of the time means we couldn't use that point anymore to excuse KotCS. Double standards are never nice.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Indy Jones said:
Considering that the person who has portrayed Indiana Jones more than anyone else is actually not Harrison Ford, it makes fear over his replacement a bit late.
Game...
Finn said:
It doesn't really matter whether Ford is in good physical shape or not. He can't anymore play Indiana Jones in the 30s/40s/50s timeframe.
Set...
Finn said:
Indy's intellectual origins lie smack dab in the middle of an era where the clothes stayed the same, but the man inside them changed all the time.
...and match! (y)
 

Indy Jones

Active member
Finn said:
And to have an adventure in the 60s without elements typical to pop culture of the time means we couldn't use that point anymore to excuse KotCS. Double standards are never nice.

I wouldn't care, haha. I don't think KOTCS needs to be 'excused,' as no higher power has come down and officially declared that KOTCS is actually 'awful.' It's in the eye of the beholder. Granted, I think people who hate the film with a burning passion are going overboard, but quality is subjective. Character is the be-all, end-all for me. KOTCS could have had Indy riding a flying dinosaur through space but as long as Ford had given a great recreation of his character, I would have still been entertained.

I don't think the pastiches have to be relegated to when the story was set; there were still very much elements of the homage to '30s serials in KOTCS, you could have stories set in the 1960s that don't bother to reflect that era at all. As long as you're away from 'cilivized' society, it wouldn't be any different from the OT, just Indy would be older.

KOTCS had to reflect it because the 1950s culture was so affected by the atomic age that, given that the first act was dependant on being set in the US, you had to at least touch on-it (the Communist fear getting Indy fired, Area 51, atomic tests), but you could have avoided it more if they hadn't had Indy confront a nuke himself. But then again, what better way to show had vastly things had changed?

KOTCS kind-of worked as a re-introduction of Indy, since we hadn't seen what he was doing (on movie screens, at least) for 20 years of his life. We had to touch base with his home, his job... it necessitated seeing the state of how those parts of his life had changed. A fifth film could (again, like TOD) just get right into it without having to touch on him in his off-hours. Wnat to see how the family's doing? Marion joining him and Mutt being "back at school" in a telegram would suffice.
 
Last edited:

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Indy Jones said:
I don't think the pastiches have to be relegated to when the story was set; there were still very much elements of the homage to '30s serials in KOTCS, you could have stories set in the 1960s that don't bother to reflect that era at all. As long as you're away from 'cilivized' society, it wouldn't be any different from the OT, just Indy would be older.
And now you were missing the point.

It could work since there are locales that would still be very much the same as they were in the 30s, yes. But it would still very, very brazenly break one of the meta rules the series is based on.

And if you don't care about that, you're hardly worthy of the moniker you've chosen to bear.
 

Indy Jones

Active member
Finn said:
And now you were missing the point.

It could work since there are locales that would still be very much the same as they were in the 30s, yes. But it would still very, very brazenly break one of the meta rules the series is based on.

And if you don't care about that, you're hardly worthy of the moniker you've chosen to bear.

Aside from the use of Nazis (which were relegated to a specific point in history), the OT didn't cram the era down your throat. They didn't have Indy see a newsreel, listen to "Amos 'n' Andy," or do anything else ultra-1930s. The eras were matter-of-fact. KOTCS upped it more, but again it's because they were trying to emphasize how things were different.

A '60s-set Indy doesn't have to see Marion in a leather catsuit, sneak into a building and spy on Auric Goldfinger, or watch Batman on TV. And given that KOTCS continued the homage to serials, other films could, too.

I know that the serials homage was done hand-in-hand with the '30s setting. I get that. But I don't think that influence has to stop just because the setting has moved, and granted, I don't think it was an 'official' rule as part of doing the character that you could only make it in the same style if it was set in that era.

Obviously, it would make sense with the series to make Indy 5 a '60s pastiche, but KOTCS being a '50s pastiche didn't work so well for it, did it? Or didn't it? The general populace doesn't hate KOTCS, despite what haters would want us to believe. Apathetic maybe, but not hate.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Indy Jones said:
Aside from the use of Nazis (which were relegated to a specific point in history), the OT didn't cram the era down your throat. They didn't have Indy see a newsreel, listen to "Amos 'n' Andy," or do anything else ultra-1930s. The eras were matter-of-fact. KOTCS upped it more, but again it's because they were trying to emphasize how things were different.
Neither did the original serials. Again, the meta rule is not to make an Indiana Jones film a period piece. It's to make an Indiana Jones film resemble the pieces typical to said period.

Indy Jones said:
A '60s-set Indy doesn't have to see Marion in a leather catsuit, sneak into a building and spy on Auric Goldfinger, or watch Batman on TV. And given that KOTCS continued the homage to serials, other films could, too.
Like I said, it'd likely be a mix of both. And like I also said, I'm not all sold that those elements are going to mix.

Indy Jones said:
Obviously, it would make sense with the series to make Indy 5 a '60s pastiche, but KOTCS being a '50s pastiche didn't work so well for it, did it?
Which gets us to the logical conclusion. If you want Ford, either you follow the meta rule and make a film quite different from the rest - or just make another high adventure one with way more aged Ford as the lead. Both of which could fly with "Ford fetishists", but... yeah. They don't make Indiana Jones movies for them alone. Therefore, the only direction to go is recast. Especially since it does not violate what the character is about in any manner.
 
Finn said:
Moving on. You also seem to challenge us to come up with a recent movie series that has been successful, as your main point of argument. I could accuse you of moving the goalposts for listing some and then coming up with reasons why they don't really count. But let's not go there. Instead, I ask... why "recent"?

My idea was not to challenge anyone. I used that comparison just to sort of demonstrate that rebooting something that have been so successful to actually become part of the popular culture in general, is far more difficult and tricky than people may think it is at first. And it could also turn out counterproductive. I agree with Montana on another one of his sentences. Everything's about the legacy.

I wrote "recent history" on purpose, mainly because we live now in 2015. I don't think it would be anyway useful to start looking back for some other examples that clearly belong to a past where the movie-making industry, and the commercial market in general, was completely different to what it is now that we are in the age of the internet and information.

Finn said:
Indy's intellectual origins lie smack dab in the middle of an era where the clothes stayed the same, but the man inside them changed all the time.

Yes, but I think it was created as a tribute to that, not strictly to be seen as a part of that. The first three films were soooo good that they really can't be put on the same level to anything of what they drew inspiration from. No way. They definitely were not just corny entertainment for kids and teens. They were far more than just that.
It was sort of "let's create something that will address the pulp fiction magazines, comic strips and saturday movie serials, cause we love 'em, but still can stand up on its own feet as something much better than any of those, more artistically relevant, and much more worthy of being remembered." And it worked.

Finn said:
No, about as much as Ford, you need the proper setting, which is the early part of 20th century. Sure, you could make Ford don the hat and have him play an aged Indy in, say, a pastiche to 60s/70s spy caper. But that would very much be "Star Wars in Cleveland".

It doesn't really matter whether Ford is in good physical shape or not. He can't anymore play Indiana Jones in the 30s/40s/50s timeframe. Even KotCS was cheating a bit to pull it off. Therefore, the arguments stating "they shouldn't do it now with a new guy because Ford can still do it" have gone stale and ring hollow.

Man, I'm all in for this as well. The 30s and 40s were the ideal setting for him, it was all depending on the aura of mystery and fascination that the world still had back at the time. Going through the 60s and beyond would deter from the basic premise, because everything was changing to a much more modern iteration, and socio-political situation was far more similar then to what it is now. Less intriguing to my taste too.

But then it seems we definitely have opposite opinions on the matter. To each their own.
I personally think that with a little make-up and perhaps some more stunt double work, Harrison can still convincingly play a man in his fifties, and he is capable of still doing most of the action by himself. So, I don't see big problems in Disney even possibly going as far as setting a film prior to the events of Crystal Skull, in early to mid 50s. And this time without the unnecessary urge to make people "feel" the changes in America's cultural background and society, because it's been done already.

I think, if it's possible, why not try?
It would be even more interesting if you ask me, because it could play out as Disney revisiting the "older Doctor Jones" premise, without the need to follow the nostalgic creative input of Lucas and Spielberg, which is one of the things that fans disliked the most about the film.

Then by 2020 we can have all the Chris Pratts you want.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
The Stranger said:
I wrote "recent history" on purpose, mainly because we live now in 2015. I don't think it would be anyway useful to start looking back for some other examples that clearly belong to a past where the movie-making industry, and the commercial market in general, was completely different to what it is now that we are in the age of the internet and information.
And yet, the gold standard to some appears to be hanging onto a man born back in those days. I hope the irony is not lost on that.

The Stranger said:
I personally think that with a little make-up and perhaps some more stunt double work, Harrison can still convincingly play a man in his fifties, and he is capable of still doing most of the action by himself. So, I don't see big problems in Disney even possibly going as far as setting a film prior to the events of Crystal Skull, in early to mid 50s. And this time without the unnecessary urge to make people "feel" the changes in America's cultural background and society, because it's been done already.

I think, if it's possible, why not try?
It would be even more interesting if you ask me, because it could play out as Disney revisiting the "older Doctor Jones" premise, without the need to follow the nostalgic creative input of Lucas and Spielberg, which is one of the things that fans disliked the most about the film.
Personally. If.

Don't get me wrong, I'd have nothing against such project. If they announced plans for it, I'd be on board, 100%. I'd pay to see it. I'm a fan, after all. However, I still would figure they're loaded with optismistic thinking and would keep fingers crossed that said optimism actually turned out to be realism, rather than delusions.

But then, they don't make these things for us die-hard fans only. Many would be put off by the idea, and calling whoever came up with it downright insane. So yeah, fat chance they're going to pick up on that. Also, Ford may be extraordinarily healthy for a man in his 70s, but his actual shape might actually be irrelevant. People have certain preconceptions about how human beings are when they hit that decade, and there would be plenty who are put off by the idea simply because they just can't fathom a 70-year-old action star, no matter how fit and capable. Every shot where something happens and things look a bit stiff would be scrutinously picked apart and called out because of the leading man's age, even stuff someone 20 years younger would get a pass with. As a fan, one might not see it... but that's spelling "marketing disaster" right there.

It's the usual logical infallacy that comes with being fan. We tend to imprint our individual thoughts onto the larger audience.

The Stranger said:
Then by 2020 we can have all the Chris Pratts you want.
Then there's this part you still haven't exactly explained. Why do they need to sit on this step instead of just skipping into it? Is it simply because some of you think Ford could still do it, and see it as a wasted chance if they don't?

Whether it would be or not, I just can't emphasize enough that let's not assume that because a small handful of people say it would work, it actually did if it came to that.
 
Top