MattJones
New member
Shortie said:Where's the jacket at?
What?! No jacket in Indy 4? AAAGH!
Shortie said:Where's the jacket at?
ResidentAlien said:Been on several, but thanks for condescending. It's kind of hard to you know... be a film student and not have been on a film set...
But we aren't talking about a set. We're talking about a promotional video. A video recorded to whet the appetite of the fans. I find it bunk to excuse the lack of a gun as "on-set politics." THIS IS NOT A SET.
thebacklot said:Ah, I love it. Pretty nice gun, right Resident?
Whoa, back it up here...it is confirmed???? What did I miss???? Please say it's so!!!!ResidentAlien said:As always, I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong.
And from the get-go I stressed that I hoped he had the gun. He does. Good, glad to hear it. At the time though, the evidence was rather damning in the other direction.
CaliforniaJones said:Whoa, back it up here...it is confirmed???? What did I miss???? Please say it's so!!!!
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s10/JasonBraudaway1977/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>tnswman said:This is the best statement regarding the fact! The Lack of the Holster in EVERY pic we have seen and I'm sorry but if you have not been looking at the Gossip mags, you have missed SEVERAL shots of Harrison in the gear ( eating ice cream, drinking coffee, on the cell phone, with a paper) and in several shots he has all the gear but the holster... the lack of a jacket does not matter because even when he has been without the jacket, he had the holster.
NOW, let's look to mystery of the Blues. Indy DOES NOT have the gun OR holster....In fact he exclaim's " THEY HAVE GUNS!" So, I think it is SAFE to say at this point that HISTORY shows that a 1950's Indy does not carry a gun
San Holo said:<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s10/JasonBraudaway1977/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
YOU ARE SOO FULL OF BULLSHEET
tnswman said:Well, How mature...Notice back in my posts...I statedthat we could see him without a gun...COULD!! It is a Very easy word to understand. I also pointed to examples of why there was concern. Did I ever state 100% that he would not wear it? No, Who knew either way on here?
Nice try though
I agree, it hadn't crossed my mind. Then when I started to read the thread, I started to see a possibility he might not. In this PC world, anything is possible. People can make fun all they want. There are so many who are ready to gobble anything up, no matter how bad it is. I know there are alot of us who are just hoping this new movie stays true to the originals.tnswman said:Well, How mature...Notice back in my posts...I statedthat we could see him without a gun...COULD!! It is a Very easy word to understand. I also pointed to examples of why there was concern. Did I ever state 100% that he would not wear it? No, Who knew either way on here?
Nice try though
Avilos said:I don't want to rub it in.... Nah! Making predictions from ALMOST NO evidence can happen to anyone...(actually only if you enjoy complaining without justification)
All is forgiven.
F0r the record this would be
how I would rub it in - ( this is just an illustration)
"BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I told you so!"
Yes, there was some substantial hints in what little we saw towards this possibility, but none of them - to ironically use a little copspeak - the "smoking gun". Besides, all the theories were countered with equally plausible explanations So all the evidence? Definitely not.tnswman said:ALL the Evidence pointed to him possibly not wearing one...You might want to look at the pics yourself.