Stoo said:With all due respect, William, the Indy films cannot be compared to Tarzan. Someone else brought up Tarzan movies in another thread, too.
James said:The characters are similar in the sense that both are pulp heroes, and the original Tarzan films were obviously an influence on Lucas and Spielberg.
However, I don't think Indy could be recast multiple times ala Tarzan.
James said:Indiana Jones is closer to someone like Dirty Harry. Neither began as a particularly complex character, so a great deal of the personality was supplied by the actor himself. If you take that away, you're left with little more than a stock character. This means it's easier for filmmakers to just make an Indy or Dirty Harry clone- as opposed to trying to find the 'right' actor or securing any film rights.
Jono11 said:So you're saying you want Indy to become formulaic and predictable? Not that I think that's what Bond is, but you clearly do. And you want Indy to become like that?
jamiestarr said:I see what you are saying. However, I don't agree that Dirty Harry and Indiana Jones are any less complex than James Bond.
Nor do I agree that Indiana Jones is a stock character---he started out as an homage to the stock character adventurer
jamiestarr said:Furthermore, one HUGE complaint (by causal movie goers) of Quantum of Solace is that it "wasn't Bond enough". Did the 007 film makers error in taking Bond too far from the original conceit?
What about River? Fans who grew up watching the original 3 films in the theatre have already lived through the experience of of seeing someone else fill the shoes on TV. (Harrison wouldn't have pulled off a 16-21 year old very well.) Like I said, I re-cast would work for the years c.1921-1934.Dewy9 said:Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. I would rather see the series fade away than have someone else play him. It's a major reason why I couldn't get into Young Indy.
Not only that but (unlike Ford as Indy) the actors most associated with those 2 roles were the not the first to portray them. Johnny Weismuller wasn't the 1st Tarzan nor was Sean Connery the 1st James Bond!Le Saboteur said:Tarzan existed independently of cinema in the 24-original stories penned by Edgar Rice Burroughs. With a general idea of what Tarzan is supposed to be, you can recast the role over and over again. This also works in Bond's favour; with the mold cast by Ian Fleming, you can continually recreate the character with the changing times.
James said:When I say they were less complex, I'm referring to the original concept (or scripts). At the time, Bond already had a series of books and films which had fleshed out his character. He was also fairly dynamic, in that he changed over the course of the original books. The character in You Only Live Twice is quite different from the one going through the motions in Live and Let Die or Moonraker.
As you note, Indiana Jones "started out" as a homage to those stock characters. I'm merely saying that Eastwood and Ford added quite a bit to what was written on the page. If you strip away what they added, there's not very much for an actor to fall back upon. Batman or Bond can be taken back to the original source material, but Indy simply has the original concept.
Le Saboteur said:That has more to do, I believe, that the general consciousness has moved on from a sense of wonder and awe to a sense of irony. Movies can no longer be 'serious'; there needs to be an ironic sense of detachment, with a wink and a nod to the audience. Media saturation plays a part, too.
James said:When I say they were less complex, I'm referring to the original concept (or scripts). At the time, Bond already had a series of books and films which had fleshed out his character. He was also fairly dynamic, in that he changed over the course of the original books. The character in You Only Live Twice is quite different from the one going through the motions in Live and Let Die or Moonraker.
As you note, Indiana Jones "started out" as a homage to those stock characters. I'm merely saying that Eastwood and Ford added quite a bit to what was written on the page. If you strip away what they added, there's not very much for an actor to fall back upon. Batman or Bond can be taken back to the original source material, but Indy simply has the original concept.
Now, I do agree with you that Bond isn't really that much more complex than what Indiana Jones has ultimately become.
James said:The dynamic quality has largely been absent from the films, and unlike Ford, the actors haven't been allowed to address their physical aging.
I'm a big fan of all three characters in question, but today we do tend to exaggerate how important our cartoon heroes are. Just because you give a hero a few vulnerabilities, it doesn't automatically make them great literary figures. Even Fleming used to joke that Bond was rather shallow, and this becomes evident when compared to peers such as Le Carre's George Smiley or Deighton's Harry Palmer.
Crack that whip said:True, but I think once George Lucas decided to add The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, everything changed quite a bit as far as Indy was concerned. It made him a much more fully-developed character.
Crack that whip said:I'd go farther and say that Bond isn't as complex as Indy has become, to say nothing of being "that much more complex" (I say this with the caveat that I'm speaking just about the Bond of the movies; I don't know the one from the books.
True, but I think once George Lucas decided to add The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, everything changed quite a bit as far as Indy was concerned. It made him a much more fully-developed character.
Lance Quazar said:The people on this board, by definition, represent an extremely small and passionate segment of the Indiana Jones fanbase.
The general public as a whole is only dimly aware at best of the existence of the Young Indiana Jones TV series. I think it is extremely charitable (and frankly inaccurate) to say that the series helped define and expand Indy's character in any meaningful way, or at least for the vast, vast, vast majority of the Indy film audience.
Lance Quazar said:Heck, even I watched almost the entire series of YIJC and, though some episodes were interesting and entertaining, that series did nothing to illuminate my appreciation for the films in any way, nor my understanding of the character. They really are tonally and dramatically entirely different creations. The character in the series bares only the faintest resemblance to the Indiana Jones of the films.
One could argue that, by and large, the general public is "dim". But I'm a biased Young Indy fan so I fully understand where you're coming from, Lance.Lance Quazar said:The general public as a whole is only dimly aware at best of the existence of the Young Indiana Jones TV series.
If anything, the series gives a large amount of insight towards the rift between Indy and his dad. Knowing the history makes the dialogue in "Crusade" much more poignant.Lance Quazar said:I think it is extremely charitable (and frankly inaccurate) to say that the series helped define and expand Indy's character in any meaningful way, or at least for the vast, vast, vast majority of the Indy film audience.
Heck, even I watched almost the entire series of YIJC and, though some episodes were interesting and entertaining, that series did nothing to illuminate my appreciation for the films in any way, nor my understanding of the character.
Crack that whip said:Now, this more addresses the point I was trying to make, though I do have to say I simply disagree, and in the strongest possible terms. Yes, it's absolutely true that it's a tonally and dramatically different entity from the movies, but that's part of the point. It shows us where the guy in the movies comes from, how he got to be the way he is. Simply showing the same guy with fewer lines on his face doing exactly the same things he does in the movies would add far less. Here, we see all sorts of things that expand upon and complement the character we see - we witness how, where, why and/or from whom he acquires so much of the knowledge and skill he puts to use (everything from his mastery of many languages to how to fire a gun), we garner greater insight into the rift between him and his father and why they spoke so little for so long, we gain clues as to the formation of his general worldview and why the man he'll become is this particular odd mix of mercenary cynicism and heroic idealism, and so on. Everything in the show leads to the movies. No, he's not exactly like the person we see in the movies yet; he's on the path that clearly will take him there, though. I think the show complements the films beautifully.
jamiestarr said:
Some would argue that Bond hasn't been improved upon since Connery's earlier 007 films...just refined for new eras. I don't necessarily agree with that.
jamiestarr said:
The question is this: Is the lack of a modern setting enough to justify not making anymore Indy films? It seems to me that the early 20th Century is ripe with ideas that are different enough for new, and invigorating adventures. Yes, the adventures would essentially be retreads of Raiders, however aren't most of the Bond films retreads of Goldfinger? Many Bond fans say that, up until Daniel Craig, they have been.
jamiestarr said:
Furthermore, one HUGE complaint (by causal movie goers) of Quantum of Solace is that it "wasn't Bond enough". Did the 007 film makers error in taking Bond too far from the original conceit?
Stoo said:What about River? Fans who grew up watching the original 3 films in the theatre have already lived through the experience of of seeing someone else fill the shoes on TV. (Harrison wouldn't have pulled off a 16-21 year old very well.) Like I said, I re-cast would work for the years c.1921-1934.
Stoo said:P.S. Sean Connery was NOT the 1st James Bond!
Darth Vile said:Agreed... But I was talking more around the potential for improvement. Seems to me that the more one moves away from the original concept of Indiana Jones, the more one is likely to make an inferior (or perceived inferior) Indy movie. One only has to see the debates around aliens, crystal skulls, UFO's Elvis Presley etc. to see where many draw the line. I believe James Bond's broader palette provides a wider scope for diversity/change.
Ultimately, 99.9% of all movies are adaptations of previous works. James Bond movies are no exception. But I think it's the adaption of premise (or story) where they can be successful. As a series, I don't think James Bond is any better than Indiana Jones (and I much prefer Indy overall)... but playing the devils advocate, I would posit that there is probably more development of story/scope and movie making technique in the first 4 James Bond movies (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball) than there was in the 4 Indy movies. I think that's largely because the contemporary setting of James Bond allows for more successfully tonal shifts.
I thought QOS was a good action movie myself. Was it too far removed from what the audience expects of James Bond? Possibly... but ultimately these movies have to stand on their own feet. The best Bond movies IMHO are those where it doesn't necessarily seem like a Bond movie e.g. Dr. No, From Russia With Love, OHMSS. Personally speaking, I relish the opportunity for new Bond movies without Miss Moneypenny, Q and gadgets galore.