John Hurt's role?
- Thread starter Dr.Sartorius
- Start date
Indyologist
Well-known member
Personally, I vote for him playing Abner Ravenwood. Ravenwood would be unexpectedly "found," (Abner's body was never really found-- see the novelization of Raiders) have a yell or two at Indy over the past, but somehow he and Indy would smooth it over. Then, conveniently, Abner would die (uh, for real this time) and Indy and Marion could then get back together since the whole Abner thing is what was holding them back.
UNLESS-- He will be Abner in a flashback to the past when the whole Indy/Marion/Abner thing blew up in Indy's face.
Just HMO as a writer. That's what I would do.
UNLESS-- He will be Abner in a flashback to the past when the whole Indy/Marion/Abner thing blew up in Indy's face.
Just HMO as a writer. That's what I would do.
Ah, the ever hapless romantic. You want Abner alive simply because it could be used as a plot device to get Indy and Marion truly together?Indyologist said:
Did Marion ever blame Indy for Abner's supposed death in Raiders in the first place? Besides, since they were good in the end of the first film, wouldn't it be logical for whatever happened to cause a new grudge between the two to have happened after the film, not before it?
Have to admit though that this whole Abner thingy is something (as is son of Indy) that sounds awfully lame on paper, but may end up working beautifully on screen. Guess we'll have to wait and see...
Professor Jones
New member
Indy4fan said:Okay, I need to know y everyone keeps tlking about Abner being back in Indy4. HE IS DEAD! Doesn't anyone remember that line from Raiders? "Abner's dead" - Marion. Various Indy timelines say that he was killed in a landslide. Why do ppl think he's alive?
For the same reason that when Henry Jones Sr. says "I've lost him" referring to Indy himself actually he... HADN'T LOST HIM!
Come on, it's an adventure motion picture, everything can happen, an easy plot escamotage could bring Abner back to life. Cinema is full of examples of "resurrecting" heroes/villains or thought-to-be-dead characters who are still alive or similar. Surely it's one of the most abused narrative tricks.
In Raiders we all think Marion is dead after the truck explosion in Cairo, Indy himself thinks that, and so does Sallah... yet a few scenes later we know that she's still alive! In "You Only Live Twice" James Bond (apparently) dies in the opening scene. We SEE him die, they let us think he's really dead yet... he's alive. In Psycho, Hitchcock makes us believe into the existence of a crazy old woman, he tricks us! In Lord of the Rings we read/see Gandalf dying, falling into the pit of the Balrog, yet later he reappears, even more powerful than before. In his tales Arthur Conan Doyle makes finally die Sherlock Holmes, throwing him into the falls embraced to his mortal enemy, Professor Moriarty: but later, the pressure of the fans wanting a "return" of their beloved detective induced Conan Doyle to find an explanation to why Sherlock wasn't indeed dead and bring him back on the scene (of crime).
The recurrent use of this kind of this common expedient doesn't necessarily means that it's BAD or GOOD by itself... it could be bad if absurdely developed in the plot, or it can be good if the idea is quite solide and reasonable.
I personally think that the fact that Marion said "he's dad" doesn't really demonstrates nothing, either in a narrative, nor in a logical-argumentative way. If they could give us a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the mistake of Marion and for the return of Abner I would call myself satisfied. The idea doesn't bother me.
Kingsley
Member
John Hurt as?
Now we know a lot of most of the characters...
We know Indy, and we know he has a quiet life now.
We know Marion, not so much what happened to her after raiders.
We know Mac, an "unethical" archaeologist.
We know Spalko, a russian agent.
We know Broadbents character, a university professor.
We know Mutt, a greaser and "sidekick" (and surely Indy's Son)
This info isn't just a rumour anymore... Marshall said it.
So... WHY AREN'T THEY SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT JOHN HURT'S ROLE?
Is ABNER the answer?
Now we know a lot of most of the characters...
We know Indy, and we know he has a quiet life now.
We know Marion, not so much what happened to her after raiders.
We know Mac, an "unethical" archaeologist.
We know Spalko, a russian agent.
We know Broadbents character, a university professor.
We know Mutt, a greaser and "sidekick" (and surely Indy's Son)
This info isn't just a rumour anymore... Marshall said it.
So... WHY AREN'T THEY SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT JOHN HURT'S ROLE?
Is ABNER the answer?
replican't
Guest
Sankara said:
John would Hurt.
clorrificus said:
The above got me thinking and I just wanted to jump in here.
The way Marion spat, "Abner's dead!" seemed like an indication that she was indeed lying to him. I don't know, there just seemed to be a lot of malice behind her words. Maybe she was hurt too, but it just seemed to me that there was more behind her words. Just something to indicate that she wanted to move on from the conversation so she threw that at him.
I could be wrong too, but it was just a little something that sprang to mind.
Ska
New member
joelwatts said:
As was I...by excessively explaining the joke...
Now back on topic.
I don't really care if Abner is or isn't in the movie. I guess I'm kinda leaning towards him being in it...ONLY if it involves the Ark.
And I think the Indy son idea is inevitable. The movie business is about making money...and the only way to make money is to make movies...and the only way to make more "Indy" movies is to either:
1. Use another actor as Indy in the future.
2. Have Indy have a child.
I'd much rather have no. 2.
Zorg
New member
I don't believe that Hurt is playing Abner. Having said that, there's definetely something they don't want us to know, because Hurt is the only major cast member whose role has not been officially revealed (well, you could count LaBeouf in, since we still don't know for sure if he's Indy's son or not). But at least we know his character's name and that he's a greaser etc.
The way I see it, the only logical way to have Abner in is to have a flashback scene explaining more about him and the Ark – if the Ark really is featured. Maybe the film opens with a flashback with Abner and then jumps to 1957?
The way I see it, the only logical way to have Abner in is to have a flashback scene explaining more about him and the Ark – if the Ark really is featured. Maybe the film opens with a flashback with Abner and then jumps to 1957?
Sankara said:
How do you know it would hurt. Is it impossible to think that maybe these elements could make a good story? How do you even dare to think to know what would or would not be good. Even the stupid sounding ideas could be so well written that they just work for Indy.
Please start understanding that you have NO idea what will and won't work.. simply taking a few elements and standing them on their own does nto foreshadow the Indy 4 story.....You might not have the ability to imagine a good story with these elements. However, you are not the writer are you?