Indy 5 "Only if you want More"

Do You Want More?

  • Yes, I Want More

    Votes: 76 85.4%
  • No, Enough for Me

    Votes: 13 14.6%

  • Total voters
    89

Indy4fan

New member
Agent Spalko said:
Worst idea ever. Ford is Indy. If it ain't Ford, it ain't Indy. If Lucas/Spielberg want to continue making action movies with Shia then create an entirely new vehicle for him that exists apart from the continuity of Indiana Jones. This ain't Son of Zorro. New hero, new franchise, fresh ideas. I'm tired of Hollywood recycling the old and repackaging it like new. It's time for a new generation of icons to be invented. I'd like to see something completely different than Bond, Batman, Die Hard, Indy. I love them all but in 20 years what new franchises will have come along? Not many if Hollywood continues "re-booting" the old franchises.
I agree. It's time for something new.
 

Salacious

New member
More Indy's as long as there is no Mutt. Sorry...I dont need son of Indy as the lead or as a sidekick stealing all the action.

If Harrison cant do the work, let the franchise die then. Let it live in comics, vid games, or as a cartoon series....which would be cool.
 

Sir Galahad

New member
If it's gonna be done, it should be done ASAP in order to secure Ford, the crew (or most of it) and the writers. I hate to say it, but time is the franchise's worst enemy at this moment. Hey, why not 5 and 6 back to back (different stories as the previous) to end things with a big bang? ;)
 

Mike00spy

Well-known member
gallandro said:
Frankly I would like to see the Indy series continue with another actor donning the fedora a la' James Bond if Ford gets too old for the part. There is no reason in the world the Indy adventures cannot continue with another actor playing the role.


Yancy


James Bond is of course a different story. The character existed for 10 years prior to the first movie in book form. While Sean Connery will always be considered by many to be the best bond, he is by no means the Bond of the books. It is not his character. Given that, Bond as a character has a life beyond Sean Connery- you have Roger Moore who played him lighter, and Dalton and Craig who used the literary Bond as their inspiration.

Just like there are countless Hamlets, or Sherlock Homes, or Draculas.

Indiana Jones did not exist before Harrison Ford put on the fedora. It is his character. I don't see a future without him.
 

gallandro

New member
Mike00spy said:
James Bond is of course a different story. The character existed for 10 years prior to the first movie in book form. While Sean Connery will always be considered by many to be the best bond, he is by no means the Bond of the books. It is not his character. Given that, Bond as a character has a life beyond Sean Connery- you have Roger Moore who played him lighter, and Dalton and Craig who used the literary Bond as their inspiration.

Just like there are countless Hamlets, or Sherlock Homes, or Draculas.

Indiana Jones did not exist before Harrison Ford put on the fedora. It is his character. I don't see a future without him.

Completely irrelevant whether Bond was a literary character first as the vast majority of people's first exposure to Bond was via the films. The Bond novels had a loyal, if somewhat small, following until JFK revealed in 1961 that "From Russia With Love" was one of his top 10 favorite books. Sales of the Bond novels soared in the U.S.

Additionally, during the entire run of the Sean Connery Bond films every advertisement on the planet said "Sean Connery IS Jame Bond"... not "as" James Bond. In the public's mind back then 007=Sean Connery. Hell, Fleming even fudged Bond's background a bit and acknowledged Connery's contribution to the series by informing readers, in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," that Bond's father, Andrew Bond, was Scottish.



Yancy
 

BuiltFordTough

New member
I'm def up for an Indy V, but like the rest of you, only if Indy is the lead. Making an "Indiana Jones" movie about Mutt is like making Star Wars VII with Lando.
 

Mike00spy

Well-known member
gallandro said:
Completely irrelevant whether Bond was a literary character first as the vast majority of people's first exposure to Bond was via the films. The Bond novels had a loyal, if somewhat small, following until JFK revealed in 1961 that "From Russia With Love" was one of his top 10 favorite books. Sales of the Bond novels soared in the U.S.

Additionally, during the entire run of the Sean Connery Bond films every advertisement on the planet said "Sean Connery IS Jame Bond"... not "as" James Bond. In the public's mind back then 007=Sean Connery. Hell, Fleming even fudged Bond's background a bit and acknowledged Connery's contribution to the series by informing readers, in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," that Bond's father, Andrew Bond, was Scottish.



Yancy

Well, it is not irrelevant at all. Without the books, there is no series. After Connery's departure you had On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which was an attempt to get Bond back to his literary roots. If there was no novel, then there is no basis for that specific movie. You also had the next 8 movies that were inspired by Fleming novel/short story titles (granted they weren't close to the corresponding novels). You then had the whole Dalton and now the Craig era, whose sole inspiration and purpose is to bring Bond back to Fleming. Those era's don't exist without the novels. You cannot say that they are irrevlant at all.

Let's make Indiana Jones more like Bond for a second. Let's assume that there were 10 Indiana Jones novels BEFORE Raiders of the Lost Ark hit theaters. It doesn't matter how popular they might have been. That would mean that Lucasfilm owns the rights to make at least 10 movies. That sure becomes an incentive for them to keep going until at least those novels have all been filmed. For the fans, it would be a huge incentive as well. We would all be spending countless hours on sites like this hungry for this book to be adapted, or to be excited about this specifc action scene to finally make the jump from print to screen. With this desire, we could forgive Harrison Ford's replacement to make way for another actor so we can keep this series going- because then that makes Indiana Jones bigger than Harrison Ford. If we were to even add that the actor following Ford played the character drastically different than the original novels, we would spend time wanting the next movie to "get back to the spirit of the novels."

As we have it now, we have no other Indiana Jones adventures and no other basis for the character other than Harrison Ford. So that is why there is a big distinction between the two series.

I hope that clarifies the issue a bit better.
 
Top