Olliana
New member
Strolling around in LA...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...-bonding-time-daughter-Georgia-stroll-LA.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...-bonding-time-daughter-Georgia-stroll-LA.html
Z dweller said:Jeez guys, we all agree Harry is physically very fit for his age.
But that is simply not enough to play Indy.
His face refects his age 100%, and there is nothing anyone can do about that.
This was already a big problem in KOTCS, for gawds sake, and that was over 6 years ago!
Most of Harry's facial expessions in that movie came across as tired, lacking the intensity and fire required to play Indy convincingly.
Even the patented Indy smirk seemed like a bad imitation of the original.
Z dweller said:Who wants to see an old, tired looking Indy lead an action movie?
Z dweller said:Unless of course they digitally alter his face like they did with Jeff Bridges in Tron: Legacy. Now, would you really want to see that ??
Z dweller said:I'd rather they recast it, in fact I'm pretty sure that's what Disney are going to do at this stage.
Not so.The Stranger said:Hm... let me think... basically everybody.
But what exactly does soon mean for the Disney execs?The Stranger said:Disney have invested millions of dollars to secure the rights for future movies. Future movies, 'cause the rights for the previous ones still belong to Paramount.
Well, to me it just wouldn't make sense for them to have done this now, if they didn't have at least the clear intent of start working on something tangible really soon. They could have just waited otherwise.
I hope they make at least 1 more with Harrison, I think he could do it.The Stranger said:Not sure, man. Disney have invested millions of dollars to secure the rights for future movies. Future movies, 'cause the rights for the previous ones still belong to Paramount.
Well, to me it just wouldn't make sense for them to have done this now, if they didn't have at least the clear intent of start working on something tangible really soon. They could have just waited otherwise.
And honestly I don't understand people talking about recast. What's the problem with Harrison being older??
Indiana Jones 5 would be no different. If they made it, I bet it would easily become the biggest hit of the year.
Using a small forum of die hard Indy fans is no gauge as to what should happen with the future Indy movies. Its a tiny tiny percentage of the millions of people that would be going to see an Indy movie around the world.Z dweller said:Not so.
Here at the Raven, many have openly stated their preference for a recast.
Clearly, that could go either way - but personally I'd rather take my chances with a new actor than watch Ford play Indy again. Sorry...
Absolutely! That's the spirit.AndyLGR said:New Indy films can be around for another 30 years or more.
I think we are saying the same thing.AndyLGR said:Using a small forum of die hard Indy fans is no gauge as to what should happen with the future Indy movies. Its a tiny tiny percentage of the millions of people that would be going to see an Indy movie around the world.
Z dweller said:But what exactly does soon mean for the Disney execs?
3-4 years is probably soon enough to justify the acquisition, in their mind.
Z dweller said:My point is: if even here at the Raven many posters would rather see Indy recast than Ford reprising the role, imagine out there in the real world, where most people under 30 have no fond memories of him playing the role back in the 80s.
And them suddenly starting to pay interest in them maybe a decade from now while more or less ignoring them that far wouldn't have been?The Stranger said:And that's why I wrote that for Disney to buy the rights NOW was a pretty suspicious maneuver.
Finn said:The timing is pretty irrelevant here, if you ask me. It's obvious they eventually want to do something with those rights, they wouldn't have acquired them otherwise. But companies can really sit on IPs for years, if not decades.
The only reason they need for their acquisition was that they were presented an opportunity to acquire them. You get that, you take it, and you figure later what you intend to do with them. And when.
IndyForever said:Harrison's age/mainstream appeal is not the main issue its lack of story & Lucas being obstructive.
The Stranger said:...but let's remember that the rights for the Indiana Jones character were firmly and permanently hold in the hands of Paramount.
The Stranger said:Obviously I can't be sure that they are really working on a new script or whatever. It's impossible to tell. But I would be surprised if they were not.
Dr. Gonzo said:... -- and it's big news that they want to cause hype, especially for something like Indiana Jones. You couldn't be more wrong. When a writer gets hired, trust me, we'll know...
Dr. Gonzo said:False. Paramount had the distribution rights, not the rights to the character... When Disney purchased Lucasfilm ltd, that encompassed all it's properties...
They wanted to make another Star Wars, Indiana Jones was just a bonus... There was just the tricky business of the distribution rights which have now been settled.
Dr. Gonzo said:Also false. Things like hiring a writer come out in the trades -- and it's big news that they want to cause hype, especially for something like Indiana Jones. You couldn't be more wrong. When a writer gets hired, trust me, we'll know...
Down right false. If Disney wants the rights cheap, they'll have to acquire them at a moment when the interest from the buyer's POV seems peripheral at best.The Stranger said:I think Disney could have easily waited for some years, and most importantly save much money by doing so. It would have been a far better strategy. To buy them now for no reason wouldn't make sense. The rights for a fading IP would have cost a lot less in five or six years, or a decade, from now.