TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Indiana Jones 5
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-06-2015, 01:23 PM   #76
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Jones
I don't think the pastiches have to be relegated to when the story was set; there were still very much elements of the homage to '30s serials in KOTCS, you could have stories set in the 1960s that don't bother to reflect that era at all. As long as you're away from 'cilivized' society, it wouldn't be any different from the OT, just Indy would be older.
And now you were missing the point.

It could work since there are locales that would still be very much the same as they were in the 30s, yes. But it would still very, very brazenly break one of the meta rules the series is based on.

And if you don't care about that, you're hardly worthy of the moniker you've chosen to bear.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 01:34 PM   #77
Indy Jones
IndyFan
 
Indy Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
And now you were missing the point.

It could work since there are locales that would still be very much the same as they were in the 30s, yes. But it would still very, very brazenly break one of the meta rules the series is based on.

And if you don't care about that, you're hardly worthy of the moniker you've chosen to bear.

Aside from the use of Nazis (which were relegated to a specific point in history), the OT didn't cram the era down your throat. They didn't have Indy see a newsreel, listen to "Amos 'n' Andy," or do anything else ultra-1930s. The eras were matter-of-fact. KOTCS upped it more, but again it's because they were trying to emphasize how things were different.

A '60s-set Indy doesn't have to see Marion in a leather catsuit, sneak into a building and spy on Auric Goldfinger, or watch Batman on TV. And given that KOTCS continued the homage to serials, other films could, too.

I know that the serials homage was done hand-in-hand with the '30s setting. I get that. But I don't think that influence has to stop just because the setting has moved, and granted, I don't think it was an 'official' rule as part of doing the character that you could only make it in the same style if it was set in that era.

Obviously, it would make sense with the series to make Indy 5 a '60s pastiche, but KOTCS being a '50s pastiche didn't work so well for it, did it? Or didn't it? The general populace doesn't hate KOTCS, despite what haters would want us to believe. Apathetic maybe, but not hate.
Indy Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 01:46 PM   #78
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Jones
Aside from the use of Nazis (which were relegated to a specific point in history), the OT didn't cram the era down your throat. They didn't have Indy see a newsreel, listen to "Amos 'n' Andy," or do anything else ultra-1930s. The eras were matter-of-fact. KOTCS upped it more, but again it's because they were trying to emphasize how things were different.
Neither did the original serials. Again, the meta rule is not to make an Indiana Jones film a period piece. It's to make an Indiana Jones film resemble the pieces typical to said period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Jones
A '60s-set Indy doesn't have to see Marion in a leather catsuit, sneak into a building and spy on Auric Goldfinger, or watch Batman on TV. And given that KOTCS continued the homage to serials, other films could, too.
Like I said, it'd likely be a mix of both. And like I also said, I'm not all sold that those elements are going to mix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Jones
Obviously, it would make sense with the series to make Indy 5 a '60s pastiche, but KOTCS being a '50s pastiche didn't work so well for it, did it?
Which gets us to the logical conclusion. If you want Ford, either you follow the meta rule and make a film quite different from the rest - or just make another high adventure one with way more aged Ford as the lead. Both of which could fly with "Ford fetishists", but... yeah. They don't make Indiana Jones movies for them alone. Therefore, the only direction to go is recast. Especially since it does not violate what the character is about in any manner.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 04:09 PM   #79
The Stranger
IndyFan
 
The Stranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Italia
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Moving on. You also seem to challenge us to come up with a recent movie series that has been successful, as your main point of argument. I could accuse you of moving the goalposts for listing some and then coming up with reasons why they don't really count. But let's not go there. Instead, I ask... why "recent"?

My idea was not to challenge anyone. I used that comparison just to sort of demonstrate that rebooting something that have been so successful to actually become part of the popular culture in general, is far more difficult and tricky than people may think it is at first. And it could also turn out counterproductive. I agree with Montana on another one of his sentences. Everything's about the legacy.

I wrote "recent history" on purpose, mainly because we live now in 2015. I don't think it would be anyway useful to start looking back for some other examples that clearly belong to a past where the movie-making industry, and the commercial market in general, was completely different to what it is now that we are in the age of the internet and information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Indy's intellectual origins lie smack dab in the middle of an era where the clothes stayed the same, but the man inside them changed all the time.

Yes, but I think it was created as a tribute to that, not strictly to be seen as a part of that. The first three films were soooo good that they really can't be put on the same level to anything of what they drew inspiration from. No way. They definitely were not just corny entertainment for kids and teens. They were far more than just that.
It was sort of "let's create something that will address the pulp fiction magazines, comic strips and saturday movie serials, cause we love 'em, but still can stand up on its own feet as something much better than any of those, more artistically relevant, and much more worthy of being remembered." And it worked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
No, about as much as Ford, you need the proper setting, which is the early part of 20th century. Sure, you could make Ford don the hat and have him play an aged Indy in, say, a pastiche to 60s/70s spy caper. But that would very much be "Star Wars in Cleveland".

It doesn't really matter whether Ford is in good physical shape or not. He can't anymore play Indiana Jones in the 30s/40s/50s timeframe. Even KotCS was cheating a bit to pull it off. Therefore, the arguments stating "they shouldn't do it now with a new guy because Ford can still do it" have gone stale and ring hollow.

Man, I'm all in for this as well. The 30s and 40s were the ideal setting for him, it was all depending on the aura of mystery and fascination that the world still had back at the time. Going through the 60s and beyond would deter from the basic premise, because everything was changing to a much more modern iteration, and socio-political situation was far more similar then to what it is now. Less intriguing to my taste too.

But then it seems we definitely have opposite opinions on the matter. To each their own.
I personally think that with a little make-up and perhaps some more stunt double work, Harrison can still convincingly play a man in his fifties, and he is capable of still doing most of the action by himself. So, I don't see big problems in Disney even possibly going as far as setting a film prior to the events of Crystal Skull, in early to mid 50s. And this time without the unnecessary urge to make people "feel" the changes in America's cultural background and society, because it's been done already.

I think, if it's possible, why not try?
It would be even more interesting if you ask me, because it could play out as Disney revisiting the "older Doctor Jones" premise, without the need to follow the nostalgic creative input of Lucas and Spielberg, which is one of the things that fans disliked the most about the film.

Then by 2020 we can have all the Chris Pratts you want.
The Stranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 04:45 PM   #80
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
I wrote "recent history" on purpose, mainly because we live now in 2015. I don't think it would be anyway useful to start looking back for some other examples that clearly belong to a past where the movie-making industry, and the commercial market in general, was completely different to what it is now that we are in the age of the internet and information.
And yet, the gold standard to some appears to be hanging onto a man born back in those days. I hope the irony is not lost on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
I personally think that with a little make-up and perhaps some more stunt double work, Harrison can still convincingly play a man in his fifties, and he is capable of still doing most of the action by himself. So, I don't see big problems in Disney even possibly going as far as setting a film prior to the events of Crystal Skull, in early to mid 50s. And this time without the unnecessary urge to make people "feel" the changes in America's cultural background and society, because it's been done already.

I think, if it's possible, why not try?
It would be even more interesting if you ask me, because it could play out as Disney revisiting the "older Doctor Jones" premise, without the need to follow the nostalgic creative input of Lucas and Spielberg, which is one of the things that fans disliked the most about the film.
Personally. If.

Don't get me wrong, I'd have nothing against such project. If they announced plans for it, I'd be on board, 100%. I'd pay to see it. I'm a fan, after all. However, I still would figure they're loaded with optismistic thinking and would keep fingers crossed that said optimism actually turned out to be realism, rather than delusions.

But then, they don't make these things for us die-hard fans only. Many would be put off by the idea, and calling whoever came up with it downright insane. So yeah, fat chance they're going to pick up on that. Also, Ford may be extraordinarily healthy for a man in his 70s, but his actual shape might actually be irrelevant. People have certain preconceptions about how human beings are when they hit that decade, and there would be plenty who are put off by the idea simply because they just can't fathom a 70-year-old action star, no matter how fit and capable. Every shot where something happens and things look a bit stiff would be scrutinously picked apart and called out because of the leading man's age, even stuff someone 20 years younger would get a pass with. As a fan, one might not see it... but that's spelling "marketing disaster" right there.

It's the usual logical infallacy that comes with being fan. We tend to imprint our individual thoughts onto the larger audience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Then by 2020 we can have all the Chris Pratts you want.
Then there's this part you still haven't exactly explained. Why do they need to sit on this step instead of just skipping into it? Is it simply because some of you think Ford could still do it, and see it as a wasted chance if they don't?

Whether it would be or not, I just can't emphasize enough that let's not assume that because a small handful of people say it would work, it actually did if it came to that.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 02:58 PM   #81
TheFedora
IndyFan
 
TheFedora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 630
Chris Pratt: "Playing Indiana Jones would be an amazing opportunity"
TheFedora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 03:51 PM   #82
Duaner
IndyFan
 
Duaner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Somewhere Out There
Posts: 214
I am starting to warm up to the idea of Pratt as Indiana Jones. It sure beats the Robert Pattinson or Bradley Cooper rumors! I have heard that Pratt will also be a part of a Magnificent Seven remake as well. That might be fun to see.
Duaner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 05:20 PM   #83
kongisking
IndyFan
 
kongisking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Skull Island
Posts: 3,022
Lest anyone think I've forgotten just how awesome Harrison Ford's run as Indy was, here's something to show my appreciation for that era. I'm very proud of this one, hope you all like it. And shout-out to my mate Henry Junior for the beautiful logo at the end! If he's still around these parts...

kongisking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 06:21 PM   #84
fixer79
IndyFan
 
fixer79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 741
That was pretty awesome, Kong! Kudos!
fixer79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 06:36 PM   #85
Silvor
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern Norway
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFedora
So much for Pratt backing off in respect for Ford still wanting to play the part..
Silvor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 06:55 PM   #86
TheFedora
IndyFan
 
TheFedora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvor
So much for Pratt backing off in respect for Ford still wanting to play the part..

Honestly, I think he sees it as a chance to add another franchise to his name, now that he has got big roles in JP, Marvel and now potentially the leading man in Indy.
TheFedora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 07:34 PM   #87
Indy Jones
IndyFan
 
Indy Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvor
So much for Pratt backing off in respect for Ford still wanting to play the part..

It's entirely possible, given that Indy is no longer in the hands of someone like George (who can let the franchise sit until he wants to do something with it), that Ford no longer has enough pull with the character in Disney's court. Thus it wouldn't matter if an actor wanted to respect Ford's investment in the character: unless it's true that Ford negotiated more Indy films to be in SW7, Disney owns Indy now and it's a commodity to be exercised, as opposed to a character owned by his creator who makes each installment only as a labor of love.

As much as Harrison loves Indy, it's a whole new ballgame now. A big corporation isn't going to respect Harrison's involvement like a close personal friend (Lucas) would.

It's not to say I wouldn't want Ford in another one, but I think it's practically assured now that the franchise will move ahead without him. George respected Harrison, and wouldn't think of making Indy without him, or at least his blessing. Disney doesn't have to care, or to be loyal to anyone.

The talk in Hollywood must be that Ford will not return in the role. Nobody is making hints that there's even a chance of Harrison returning.
Indy Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2015, 02:38 PM   #88
DOOMSTOWNFRIDGE
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFedora


hate to be negative but this sentence fills me with dread,deep dread, theyve gone from Harrison ford is Indy to silence to rumours (B Cooper),to this and with Pratt being in Jurrasic Park with Marshall's links to the indy franchise,it just plain and simple sucks! i don't like him,i don't think he has natural charisma,hes just adding to his resume,my eyes won't allow me to see it.
DOOMSTOWNFRIDGE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2015, 02:39 PM   #89
The Stranger
IndyFan
 
The Stranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Italia
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
It's the usual logical infallacy that comes with being fan. We tend to imprint our individual thoughts onto the larger audience.

May be. I could be the one who is wrong.
But I still think you underestimate the existing fanbase.
It's not only us die-hard fans, as you say. It's the whole generation of people behind us.

The fourth Indy film made almost 800 million dollars at the box office. It was one of the biggest hits of the last decades, and still ranks in the top 50 of the highest grossing films of all time, in spite of the fact that it featured a character that had been completely absent from the spotlight since 1989. And mind that, apart from us real die-hard fans that read on this message board and surf the cinema sites for news, most of the fans that made those 800 millions possible were casual moviegoers and people who didn't even had an idea a fourth film was being made, until they saw the trailer or somebody told 'em in person.
You can't just take as fanbase the very small group of people that write on this message board, or comment on facebook, youtube channels, or whatever, because most of them are just young boys and girls that may have not even been born during the golden years of the franchise. I am 27 years old.

But Indiana Jones managed to bring back to the theater the previous generation of people, many of those guys that first connected to it in 1981, when Raiders came out at the theatre.
My parents went to see it. My uncles went to see it. And all of my friends' parents, and families. People in their late fifties and sixties, that simply do not go to the theater anymore because they don't care, or have better things to do. But yet they were there for Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, because "Harrison Ford, that ole' scumbag, had made another Indiana Jones film". I think it's the combination of the two things, Indiana Jones and Harrison Ford, that so many people are really fond of, to the point that it could work so well even now.

On the other hand, people like us, that regularly use the internet, and comment on the internet, and are so vocal about their opinions and whatever, are generally ranging from their teens to their early thirties. Older people usually just do not care a damn about message boards, facebook, movie sites and social networks. But lots of them are fans nonetheless. And I bet they would go see a fifth movie with Harrison Ford whitout even thinking about it twice. I'm not so sure they would, if Chris Pratt would take on the role.

This is the main reason why I think they would do better going for Harrison while it's still a possibility, if they want to do something with it now.
I didn't write an explanation for this because I had already written it with different words in another post some days ago, on the thread about "What's Harrison Ford doing these days".
Given that the thing is still a concrete possibility, for how slight it can be, I think it would be far more intelligent for Disney to target the already existing fanbase, instead than just reboot everything and aim to a new breed of kids and teenagers alike, many of whom do not even have an idea who that guy Indiana Jones is. And it's not so sure they'd be interested in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Jones
As much as Harrison loves Indy, it's a whole new ballgame now. A big corporation isn't going to respect Harrison's involvement like a close personal friend (Lucas) would.

It's not to say I wouldn't want Ford in another one, but I think it's practically assured now that the franchise will move ahead without him. George respected Harrison, and wouldn't think of making Indy without him, or at least his blessing. Disney doesn't have to care, or to be loyal to anyone.

Guardians Of The Galaxy is a film that is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the biggest and most successful movie saga ever. It was one of the most hyped films in recent years. It featured Chris Pratt, Bradley Cooper, Zoe Saldana, Vin Diesel, and many other of the coolest and hottest actors in modern Hollywood. It was one of the most acclaimed films of the year. It was released in 3D, so tickets even cost more...
... and STILL it underperformed in comparison to Indiana Jones 4, with Harrison Ford.

Now, I'd really say it is safe TO BET that our good old Harrison has still much more star power in Hollywood than both Chris Pratt and Bradley Cooper put together. He has more star power than simply anybody else they could choose as his younger replacement. And just wait for next year, right after Star Wars 7 and the new Blade Runner have come out...

P.S.
Sorry for another damn long post...

Last edited by The Stranger : 02-08-2015 at 02:45 PM.
The Stranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2015, 03:24 PM   #90
Indy Jones
IndyFan
 
Indy Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 128
But ya gotta realize that as generations move out of prominance, Hollywood's focus shifts. I'm 28, and most people in the generation just after me, the kids that are in their early 20s and late teens (at least the ones I encounter and work with at a Starbucks) do know of Indiana Jones due to pop culture, but they have no real affinity to the character, and have only seen bits and pieces of the movies, if anything at all.

It's kind of the same thing that happened to James Bond around the time Roger Moore got off the character. Kids and young people lost interest in the character it seemed, not saying it was because Moore left the role, but it seemed to coincide all the same. When I was a kid in the '90s, GoldenEye was kind of an anomaly, and I think people my age only were attached to that film because of the N64 game. Indiana Jones isn't a character (or style of film) that appeals to the youth of today, and especially not kids when you've got so many superhero movies now.

'80s kids will still be into Indy. Older folks will, but less interested once he's recast (my 63-year-old dad doesn't go to the movies anymore, but sure as Hell went for KOTCS, has said he won't if Ford retires). But the thing is, the target of Hollywood, the teenagers and younger, barely know who Harrison Ford is, and would be unlikely to be into a period adventure movie. The only way to rectify that is to bring a younger actor into the role, and an actor that young people are attached to.

KOTCS did well because of nostolgia and the foreign markets, which I think are much more reverent of tradition and more aware of legacies/franchises than the US is (at least it seems to me). A Ford-starring Indy 5 would still make bank on this alone, but it wouldn't get the youth talking, just as KOTCS didn't.

A Drake/Katy Perry-listening teen wouldn't be interested in some movie about treasure hunting starring some old man named Harrison Ford, set in 'olden days.' But take the same movie and stick Chris Pratt in the lead? They'll at least give it a look, 'cause he's a hot commodity with young people. And young people are the lifeblood of Hollywood, to be targeted when it's a franchise. You want to hook new fans so they'll grow up with the franchise. Harrison Ford will not gain interest from young people any more.

If Raiders had been made with the aged Jimmy Stewert, how many young people at the time would have even looked at it? Food for thought.
Indy Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2015, 04:19 PM   #91
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,950
First, let it be said that no one should apologize for writing long posts on this board.

Now, then...

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
May be. I could be the one who is wrong.
But I still think you underestimate the existing fanbase.
It's not only us die-hard fans, as you say. It's the whole generation of people behind us.

The fourth Indy film made almost 800 million dollars at the box office. It was one of the biggest hits of the last decades, and still ranks in the top 50 of the highest grossing films of all time, in spite of the fact that it featured a character that had been completely absent from the spotlight since 1989. And mind that, apart from us real die-hard fans that read on this message board and surf the cinema sites for news, most of the fans that made those 800 millions possible were casual moviegoers and people who didn't even had an idea a fourth film was being made, until they saw the trailer or somebody told 'em in person.
You can't just take as fanbase the very small group of people that write on this message board, or comment on facebook, youtube channels, or whatever, because most of them are just young boys and girls that may have not even been born during the golden years of the franchise. I am 27 years old.

But Indiana Jones managed to bring back to the theater the previous generation of people, many of those guys that first connected to it in 1981, when Raiders came out at the theatre.
My parents went to see it. My uncles went to see it. And all of my friends' parents, and families. People in their late fifties and sixties, that simply do not go to the theater anymore because they don't care, or have better things to do. But yet they were there for Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, because "Harrison Ford, that ole' scumbag, had made another Indiana Jones film". I think it's the combination of the two things, Indiana Jones and Harrison Ford, that so many people are really fond of, to the point that it could work so well even now.
The base you'd aim this piece for is still too narrow. Die-hard fans like us would see it. And yes, I guess it is fair to assume that those who still had hair on their chest by the time the original trilogy was in the theaters would see it too, because of "Ford, that ole' scumbag".

However, these two groups alone do NOT make $800M bucks at the BO. That sum also includes plenty of casual people who went to see it because it had "Indiana Jones" in the title, and "Indiana Jones" happens to be a well-known pop culture icon. And quite many of those people walked out of the cinema, feeling put off by the film. (Note, we shouldn't mix 'em with hardcore haters and other fan dumb, but simply folks who thought the film was "meh".) While Ford in the title role was actually one of the finer parts of the piece, many of them put at least partial blame on the 60-year-old leading man. And to be fair, even for some of the more enthusiastic fans, it took multiple viewings and the test of time to start appreciating what fine points the picture had.

I can't see that quite sizable group of casual viewers going back for another serving with Ford who would be even more aged by now. Simply put, the film still couldn't sustain itself even if you add the nostalgia hunters on top of us die-hard fans.

In the end, it's simple math. You get a younger actor, and with him you get the kids, you also get the casual audience back... and the fans will naturally still be there. You may lose out on your dad sitting next to you grinning like an idiot, but hey, if the BO tops out, he's one of those acceptable losses.

I get the nostalgia argument, I really get it. And I think it would actually be pretty cool for those people who went to see KotCS because of that. But to sustain that view, one needs plenty of idealism. I know I've seen the reality ensue a few times too many to have that. And I'm fairly certain there aren't too many Hollywood execs who have even what little I have left.

Also, I think us fans could lose plenty with such a project too. If it isn't a hit, it doesn't necessarily mean that somewhere some suit figures out "oh well, let's just get Chris Pratt and try again in a couple of years". Nope, a failed outing with an aged Ford and it could take a decade or two, even more, before they'd dare to dust off the character. To some of those "Ford fetishists", that might actually be a somewhat desired outcome, because it would mean that Harrison Ford would get to be THE face of Indiana Jones from here to eternity. But trust me when I say this, there'd be very little people left to maintain that legacy.

Because, sometimes, you need continued sustenance on the character to truly uphold its legacy and turn it into a legend. It was mentioned earlier that the first recasting of James Bond caused quite a bit of fan backlash. However, at the same time that same move kept the character topical. Also, it made Sir Sean Connery perhaps even a bigger legend than what he would have been. Up to this day, you have people, some born decades after he left the role, swear in the name of "the original 007". I'm fairly certain most of these people would never have tuned into those films if they hadn't watched the contemporary entries to the series first. Nope, 50 years pass and only true movie aficionados would still recall that they made a series of about five films after an old series of spy novels written by Sir Ian Whats-his-name.

If you beg to differ, I have a name for you: Harry Palmer. And no googling, if you have no idea who that is.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2015, 05:47 AM   #92
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
If you beg to differ, I have a name for you: Harry Palmer. And no googling, if you have no idea who that is.

Len Deighton's Harry, a spy woefully short in the gadget department...

Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2015, 05:06 PM   #93
DARTH ZOIDBERG
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 93
I would love Chris Pratt as Indiana Jones he was great in Guardians Of The Galaxy and The Jurassic World Trailers look Amazing. I think as we all kind of know already There is definitely a James Bond connection With Indiana Jones, and James Bond has had a ton of Actors play Bond. May be they could have Harrison Be a Consultant on the film or even Play an Older Indy that later In the Film transitions into a young Indy, kind of like the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles....
DARTH ZOIDBERG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2015, 02:25 PM   #94
DOOMSTOWNFRIDGE
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 24
the general feeling you get from reading the news about Pratt is that the majority are in favour of it,it's the second time ive seen him since i was dissapointed in the new Jurrasic Park trailer didn't have Sam Neil or Jeff Goldblum,just another 'face' like the young actors now one gives a shi+ about in the Expendables films(Kelan Lutz?) ,point being the actual fans who went to see the expendables at the cinema paid to see the names,doesn't matter they are near 70.

And another point,while Harrison Ford has never had a major role in the script process im sure he wanted to know the IJ films were trying to stay on the good path,all 4 films worked,Harrison wouldn't have done it if say the script called for something like him turning into a robot and flying,would Pratt?

i'd expect it to do quite well without Harrison Ford,around half of Crystal Skull's takings,but much of this would be about people curious to see it go in a different direction,new director,new star,same music.
DOOMSTOWNFRIDGE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2015, 03:24 PM   #95
Moedred
Administrator
 
Moedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4,858
http://www.broadwayworld.com/article...-Year-20150207
I never could find raw video of Pratt's Indy quote, just these Hasty Pudding highlights.

Moedred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2015, 08:22 PM   #96
TheFedora
IndyFan
 
TheFedora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moedred
http://www.broadwayworld.com/article...-Year-20150207
I never could find raw video of Pratt's Indy quote, just these Hasty Pudding highlights.


Trying to think of a good Indy Quote here...

"I could have been your greatest adventure Indiana Jones!"

Ummmm I got nothing.
TheFedora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2015, 10:16 PM   #97
kongisking
IndyFan
 
kongisking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Skull Island
Posts: 3,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFedora
Trying to think of a good Indy Quote here...

"I could have been your greatest adventure Indiana Jones!"

Ummmm I got nothing.

"Heeyyyy, I'm RIGHT HERE!"
kongisking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 03:27 PM   #98
Moedred
Administrator
 
Moedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4,858
http://www.tmz.com/2015/01/29/chris-...t-video-tmz-tv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMCt2h5CUR8
Quote:
"Like, dude, no. That's the problem. No, I donít know, I might be, I just got back from being in the woods killing a bunch of stuff. So maybe uh, maybe it is. This is very jarring. I had no idea. The is first I'm hearing of it. That's right. Yeah."

Last edited by Moedred : 02-12-2015 at 04:18 PM. Reason: better source
Moedred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 06:07 PM   #99
TheFedora
IndyFan
 
TheFedora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 630

Uh huh...so not the best way to respond to papparazi saying you were just in the woods killing stuff.
TheFedora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 06:13 PM   #100
kongisking
IndyFan
 
kongisking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Skull Island
Posts: 3,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFedora
Uh huh...so not the best way to respond to papparazi saying you were just in the woods killing stuff.

Just a couple Thuggees, nobody'll care...
kongisking is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:22 PM.