Joosse
New member
lao che & sons said:Plus I where a 007 watch!
Nice!
Wich one? The one with the magnet or the one with the extending piano wire that you can use to strangle your opponents with?
lao che & sons said:Plus I where a 007 watch!
Joosse said:I just realised I never even mentioned the obvious Bond tribute in Temple of Doom...
Joosse said:Nice!
Wich one? The one with the magnet or the one with the extending piano wire that you can use to strangle your opponents with?
Attila the Professor said:I'm not sure it's all that obvious; it's not Sean Connery that made the dinner jacket iconic.
lao che & sons said:well the tuxedo in doom included a vest whcih I don't recall Bond wearing one and bond's shirt is more of a tux shirt then what indy has on, or the other way around. But I like the reference, that is my favorite indy variant outfit
Montana Smith said:The cut of Indy's Temple of Doom tuxedo is presumably in line with the 1930s fashion, whereas Bond's would be 1960s. I think the big give away is the red carnation - this is is as close as we get to the playboy Indiana Jones that Lucas originally conceived.
Comparing the photos of Sean and Harrison, Sean's tuxedo looks sharp at the shoulders, and immacualtely pressed. Harrison's is more crumpled and wrinkled, even on the lapels. The crumpled nature of the the Indy tux suits his less showy character.
Rocket Surgeon said:Connery's look was classic conservative, ala Brooks Brothers (worked there while in school) and is still classy today...
Joosse said:They tried to make Indy's tux look like a 1930's tux by adding a vest, but the lapels are certainly 1960's.
Bogey's jacket (wich is naturally true 1930's) has less obvious lapels, and is also much longer.
Rocket Surgeon said:I tend to think Indy's "relaxed" look is all about material and tayloring...even Seans sleeves are not immune! But opinions are as they are.
Rocket Surgeon said:(unlike the horrid Roger Moore lapels, collars and "bell bottoms" of the 70's)
ResidentAlien said:No. Hate Bond.
Saber79 said:I guess Indiana Jones to me is what James Bond is to my dad. The generational hero.
Montana Smith said:I watched Daniel Craig's Casino Royale last night, and enjoyed it. I think that Craig makes a much closer representation of Fleming's vision of Bond.
I can see that the film was trying to do something new, but at the same time not entirely alienating the traditional Bond fans. Just like Batman Begins, Casino Royale is Bond rebooted, a way of ensuring thst the character will always remain young, contemporary and relevant (as opposed to allowing Indiana Jones to age in real-time, since the adult Indy is so specifically associated with Harrison Ford, whereas Bond is associated with Niven, Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and now Craig).
I liked the way Craig played the character - he was brutal (as you would expect a professional killer to be), he was imperfect, he was a loose cannon. In bridging the gap between the old and the new, this new Bond was less focussed on gadgets, and apart from the early 'jumping' scenes, the stunts were more 'grounded' than in previous incarnations. Crashing the Aston was a stunning scene - and Craig wasn't thrown clear to allow the car to explode, as you would normally expect in a Bond movie.
I still prefer Indiana Jones as a far more engaging character, but Casino Royale was definitely, in my eyes, a step in the right direction. Now I have Quantum of Solace lined up for viewing...
No.I'm not a Bond fan personally.But every time I say I have cold fingers,the song GoldFinger goes through my head.LOLJoosse said:Is every Indy fan a Bond fan?