John Hurt's role?

Indy4fan

New member
I still think the Abner is "alive" idea is lame. I agree with Sankara and for those who don't, "you don't believe us? You will (May 22) you will become a true believer..." lol j/k
 

commontone

New member
joelwatts said:
Has he reflected publicly about his role in Hellboy?

Ha, excellent point. He's done that, and is doing the upcoming sequel, and has also done V for Vendetta and some Harry Potter stuff. Not that any of those are bad movies, but it's not like he was breaking some decade-long spell of pure art to do Indy 4.

Personally, I believe Indy 4 probably will probably have more substance and nuance than any of the movies listed above.
 
I'm sure Indy 4 will be a FANTASTIC movie!! (y)
And I would personally like a lot if John Hurt was really playing Abner. It would be a perfect way to create a deeper connection with the original trilogy and one of its most important characters, Marion Ravenwood.

If there's one thing I'm not convinced about (apart from aliens), that is definitely Shia LaBeouf as Indiana Jones' son. He is a GREAT actor, very talented and very nice... but I would somehow prefer if he was simply a "Short Round type" of sidekick, instead of the son of the main protagonist. Don't know... maybe the son of Marion with another man... or maybe one of the young relatives of some old friend of Indiana (Marcus, for example). Maybe it's just me, but I'm ok with something like that, while I still can't see LaBeouf as the son of Indiana Jones...
 

Kingsley

Member
A recent report pegs you as Abner Ravenwood, the father of Karen Allen's Marion Ravenwood and Indy's mentor. The man Marion also tells Indy is dead in Raiders of the Lost Ark?[A big grin spreads across Hurt's face] Hmmmm?
How much knew Hurt about Indy's world before filming this movie? Playing Abner or not, is it possible he never heard about him before?

So, if there is no Abner in Indy 4... would this question make him grin?
I know, he doesn't live in a bubble, he probably knows now who abner is anyway. But still...


Where there plans to shoot in Peru?:confused:
 

commontone

New member
Kingsley said:
Where there plans to shoot in Peru?:confused:

That is where the movie takes place, and I think at one point they were considering going there. Then they checked out several other jungles around the world, and decided on Hawaii, mainly it is said for the large tax break Hawaii offers filmmakers.

Personally I think they just weren't up for a complicated, messy globe-trotting adventure anymore, which is kind of sad. I'm sure the tax break thing sealed the deal, but I don't doubt they didn't mind being only a few hours from California.

Peru has a bad history with filmmakers. Werner Herzog and his main actor basically went insane there while filming "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" (aMAZing movie btw).
 

Kingsley

Member
commontone said:
Peru has a bad history with filmmakers. Werner Herzog and his main actor basically went insane there while filming "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" (aMAZing movie btw).

LOL. Kinski was insane before filming that movie!
Great movie, but the behind the scenes are even better as a result of all that madness :D


But I would like such an estranged situation in Indy 4, almost surreal. I am hoping scenes like the russian dance deep in the jungle can give such a feeling to the movie.
 
Last edited:

Adamwankenobi

New member
commontone said:
Personally I think they just weren't up for a complicated, messy globe-trotting adventure anymore, which is kind of sad. I'm sure the tax break thing sealed the deal, but I don't doubt they didn't mind being only a few hours from California.

I'm not trying to criticize the film, but with all the location shooting done for Young Indy... ;)
 

commontone

New member
TheLastCrusader said:
Spielberg once said he doesn't want to make a film far away from home for his family.

They were only in Hawaii for 2 1/2 weeks. I'm sure they all could have survived on another continent for that long.
 

deckard24

New member
The Stranger said:
I'm sure Indy 4 will be a FANTASTIC movie!! (y)
And I would personally like a lot if John Hurt was really playing Abner. It would be a perfect way to create a deeper connection with the original trilogy and one of its most important characters, Marion Ravenwood.

If there's one thing I'm not convinced about (apart from aliens), that is definitely Shia LaBeouf as Indiana Jones' son. He is a GREAT actor, very talented and very nice... but I would somehow prefer if he was simply a "Short Round type" of sidekick, instead of the son of the main protagonist. Don't know... maybe the son of Marion with another man... or maybe one of the young relatives of some old friend of Indiana (Marcus, for example). Maybe it's just me, but I'm ok with something like that, while I still can't see LaBeouf as the son of Indiana Jones...

I agree with this completely! Hurt as Abner is a great choice, LaBeouf as Indy's son...not so much! I like LaBeouf, but I'd rather Indy not have a kid in the movie. On the other hand, Indy reuniting with Marion would be a great way to end the series!
 

commontone

New member
Kingsley said:
LOL. Kinski was insane before filming that movie!

Not to make this a Klaus Kinski thread, but I read that he was actually offered the role of a Nazi villain in Raiders (I'm guessing Tot). But, he said that while he would love to work with Spielberg, the script was "moronically ****ty."

He was a great actor who didn't think Indy was worth his time. Hurt's comments were nowhere near that critical, but it kind of puts things in perspective.
 

Dr.Sartorius

New member
On the front page, Mitchell Hallock's (or who ever wrote the headline) characterization of Hurt's "light-weight" comment is a little misleading. It completely takes his quote out of context.

Also how did Mitchell Hallock become a contributer to TheRaider.net? Just curious. :confused:
 

Kingsley

Member
commontone said:
Not to make this a Klaus Kinski thread, but I read that he was actually offered the role of a Nazi villain in Raiders (I'm guessing Tot). But, he said that while he would love to work with Spielberg, the script was "moronically ****ty."

He was a great actor who didn't think Indy was worth his time. Hurt's comments were nowhere near that critical, but it kind of puts things in perspective.
Yes, but Kinski wasn't looking for heavier stuff at that time... he was looking for money: "So I sell myself, for the highest price. Exactly like a prostitute. There is no difference."

A reason for Hurt to accept the Indy 4 role was surely the money... but he isn't as raw as Kinski in his comments. Well, few can be so raw in fact :rolleyes:
 

commontone

New member
It's too bad about Kinski...he would've been absolutely brilliant as Tot: "We are, uh...not thirsty!"

This is by far the most star-studded cast an Indy film has had. But several of the stars (Ray Winstone, Jim Broadbent, John Hurt) are primarily character actors, who disappear into their roles without dominating the screen. So it should be great.

And, there seem to be a few relatively unknown B-actors in there too, which will help balance things out...Igor Jijikine, possibly Andrew Divoff.
 

No Ticket

New member
commontone said:
They were only in Hawaii for 2 1/2 weeks. I'm sure they all could have survived on another continent for that long.

Yeah, but whether or not they were actually in another continent doesn't really matter. It is portrayed as south america (i am guessing) in the movie even though it's not... so either way ya know.

Everyone is so focused on them not having actually traveled to another country. If you really think about how much of each movie is shot on sets. I mean, the castle in LC... the grail temple interior... the inside of the sewers... etc. etc. TOD was almost all sets minus the ending and jungle trek stuff.

I see what the point is, but I don't think it will hurt the film.
 

commontone

New member
I also see your point, No Ticket. A lot of the last three were filmed on sets.

But, part of what makes those sets seem real is the juxtaposition with real, on-location stuff. The castle may have been a set, but the exterior is a real castle. The grail temple was a set, but the exterior was a real ancient temple in Jordan. The sewers were sets, but when they emerged at the end they were actually in Venice. etc, etc.

How much of this kind of thing would have been possible with Indy 4 remains to be seen. But, my worry is if Last Crusade had been shot the way Indy 4 is being shot, that the temple exterior wouldn't have been real, but an on-set facade with a blue screen, and computer image of a canyon...does that make sense? I hope Indy 4 isn't forgoing realism to that extent.
 

joelwatts

New member
When you think about how many matte paintings were used in the previous films, it doesn't really matter too much if they use a bunch of digital matte paintings in Indy 4. Its basically the same concept. So a 'digital' canyon wouldn't be any different than the matte painting cliff from the truck chase in Raiders.
 

deckard24

New member
joelwatts said:
When you think about how many matte paintings were used in the previous films, it doesn't really matter too much if they use a bunch of digital matte paintings in Indy 4. Its basically the same concept. So a 'digital' canyon wouldn't be any different than the matte painting cliff from the truck chase in Raiders.


I can't say I really agree with this, because a traditional matte painting has a much more organic feel. As great as some digital work is that is integrated with real life ie. LotR, Harry Potter, etc., there's also a lot of lousy digital matte work that is lacking that personal human touch. It can go either way, and end up looking like a video game like 300. Sadly the days of traditional hand painted matte backgrounds is over. I'm sure though with KotCS ILM will knock it out of the park, but still I'm nostalgic for the work of Ralph Mcquarrie and other masters of matte painting!
 

joelwatts

New member
digital matte paintings are still paintings, just done with a digital painting program. Some of the digital mattes form the Star Wars prequels fooled me into beleiving they were traditionally painted.
 

commontone

New member
Yeah, they did use matte paintings in the Indy movies...but there were many times they could have understandably used them, but didn't. The lack of foreign travel for this movie might suggest that there are many times they could have understandably used mattes, and did.

Then again, principal photography ended, but they might still be doing second unit stuff. If all it takes for them to get some great establishing shots is to put three guys with a Panavision setup on a plane, they probably will.
 
Top