Popular, but no...
- Thread starter ROTLA
- Start date
IndyJohan said:
That doesn't mean much. Life expectancy in the late 18th century was 34 years for all men living past the age of 21. However, the most extraordinary men of the era, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson lived to the ages of 91 and 83. There are always exceptions; Dr. Jones could reasonably be one, since he seemed rather fit in his sixties.
ROTLA
New member
I also need to say that I disagree with those who have said they don't want Calista Flockhart in Indy IV. I think it would be great if she were in a scene such as the Palace scene in ToD and they made her eat Eyeball Soup and Monkey Brains. Heck, it would be great if they made her eat ANYTHING!!
Luckylighter
New member
Renderking Fisk said:
Obviously, I wasn't trying to say that I want all those people banned forever because of their politics, I was just being silly.
But, as far as the teeny bopper actors that I listed, I would really hate to see any of them in a new Indy IV movie.
You know what? People are going to hate me for writing this, but please don't think I'm going all AntiJones on you...but, I don't think I want them to make an Indy IV. I'm really happy with the series the way it is. Part of the energy that made it so special in the first place, was the time period. To put Indy in the Fifties, they would have to update things--like his gear--that I'm not so sure I want to see. Unless they went the Mystery of the Blues route with him and his gear; that I could get behind.
indy_fan31
New member
no Orlando Bloom, no Lindsey Lohan, no Hilary Duff, no Chad Micheal Murry, No Brad Pitt, no Ray Ramono, no Ben Affleck, no Halle Berry, no JLo
ROTLA
New member
To be honest, I really wouldn't want them to exclude people just because of their politics. If an actor will make Indy IV the best movie it can be, I want that person in there. As I noted previously, I greatly admire Tim Robbins as an actor (plus I think he genuinely wants what's best for people - though I disagree with his means of getting those results). But, I would be lying if I wasn't fed up with the incredibly wealthy Hollywood yahoos telling me about how they are representative of the common man. When is the last time Meryl Streep had to eat 10 cent ramen noodles at night because she didn't think she could afford much else, not even Taco Bell?
Oh yeah, now that I mention it, I don't want Meryl Streep in the movie either!! (Really...I don't think she would be good in an Indy movie.)
I think it's safe to say that most of the politically charged "don't cast them" actors are listed mostly as a joke. However, my original list (the first post), still stands. I just don't think those cats can act!!
Oh yeah, now that I mention it, I don't want Meryl Streep in the movie either!! (Really...I don't think she would be good in an Indy movie.)
I think it's safe to say that most of the politically charged "don't cast them" actors are listed mostly as a joke. However, my original list (the first post), still stands. I just don't think those cats can act!!
indy_fan31
New member
ROTLA said:
lol! And I agree with you on the political thing. Alot of my favorite actors and actress have different political veiws then me-but I still like them as long as they don't get all bigheaded.
indy_fan31
New member
Renderking Fisk said:
lol! I almost through my Dixie Chicks cd away becasue of what they said--and I'm only 12!
If I were too ban support of those people whose politics I didn't agree with, there would be no art for me to view. Tim Robbins has a different view from me, (from the sound bytes I have heard) but he is a compelling actor with great talent. I doubt, though that Lucas will have many familiar faces in the next film. Here's to something new.
ROTLA
New member
Pale, that is the approach I have been taking. I consider myself to be rather conservative, but I'm also someone who loves the art and craft of cinema. Acting, directing, photography, writing, etc. I love movies. If I were to cross people like Robbins off my list, I would be doing a disservice to the movie fan side of me. However, I will swear off lesser actors for their comments and actions. Basically, I weigh the comments/actions against the importance of the artist and how they impact me. For example: I am a huge U2 fan. They are obviously very, very liberal. However, my "fandom" outweighs my displeasure with their comments/actions. On the flipside, Linda Rondstadt and Michael Moore don't mean enough to me artistically to worry about, so I'll swear them off. Make sense? Basically, I think people need to realize that they will be held accountable for their actions. If an artist (or any famous person) is going to make a comment, they better be certain that what they offer professionally will outweigh what they present politically. If it doesn't...bye-bye. I'm sure some will say this is hypocritical, but in my warped mind it makes sense.
Luckylighter
New member
I just miss the old days, when actors and actresses didn't talk about their political/social views because they understood that such behavior alienates their fan base, not to mention what it does to their performances on screen.
Modern actors like Jack Nicholson, even Harrison Ford, understand that to make their characters believable onscreen, they need to keep a low public profile. It adds to the mystery. That's the problem, most actors are so hot to express their opinions, that there is no mystery surrounding them; we know what they are all about. And they lose their appeal.
Mystery is interesting. Full disclosure is not. Modern actors have lost their intrigue.
Modern actors like Jack Nicholson, even Harrison Ford, understand that to make their characters believable onscreen, they need to keep a low public profile. It adds to the mystery. That's the problem, most actors are so hot to express their opinions, that there is no mystery surrounding them; we know what they are all about. And they lose their appeal.
Mystery is interesting. Full disclosure is not. Modern actors have lost their intrigue.
Last edited:
ROTLA
New member
Good points, Lucky.
The other thing that they don't realize is that it isn't McCarthyism when the public holds them accountable for their actions/statements. If people are offended by comments from the Dixie Chicks, they have every right to throw away their cd's and not go to the concerts. If Sean Penn infuriates people with his actions, they are free to boycott his films. This is NOT McCarthyism. As long as the government isn't mandating the boycotts and such, it's fine. Too many entertainers feel the public shouldn't be allowed to exercise its rights to revolt against outspoken artists they don't agree with. So if the Dixie Chicks wanted to go on stage and talk about how great child abuse is and praise the benefits of heroin, are we not allowed to take action and show our disagreement? I just don't get where their thought process comes from. It's just another sign of the disconnect between Hollywood (and much of the recording industry) and the common person.
OK, no Dixie Chicks in Indy IV...or on the soundtrack.
The other thing that they don't realize is that it isn't McCarthyism when the public holds them accountable for their actions/statements. If people are offended by comments from the Dixie Chicks, they have every right to throw away their cd's and not go to the concerts. If Sean Penn infuriates people with his actions, they are free to boycott his films. This is NOT McCarthyism. As long as the government isn't mandating the boycotts and such, it's fine. Too many entertainers feel the public shouldn't be allowed to exercise its rights to revolt against outspoken artists they don't agree with. So if the Dixie Chicks wanted to go on stage and talk about how great child abuse is and praise the benefits of heroin, are we not allowed to take action and show our disagreement? I just don't get where their thought process comes from. It's just another sign of the disconnect between Hollywood (and much of the recording industry) and the common person.
OK, no Dixie Chicks in Indy IV...or on the soundtrack.
Last edited:
Patrick
New member
Whatever publicity they can get, they want it. So people aren't going to want to hear how Whoopee Goldberg supports the president and his conservative government and his christian values, the people are going to be somewhat "shocked" the more "liberal" opposition.
Sometimes they are being completely silly, but other times I think that they are using their fame to perhaps, insipire us to vote for what they think, is the right choice.
It is sort of like putting up signs for the candidate on your lawn, or in the park. Every vote counts, and they are hoping that their words can get you to vote for their choice. And if you really hate him or her, you might just vote against theirs, just by spite.
Sometimes they are being completely silly, but other times I think that they are using their fame to perhaps, insipire us to vote for what they think, is the right choice.
It is sort of like putting up signs for the candidate on your lawn, or in the park. Every vote counts, and they are hoping that their words can get you to vote for their choice. And if you really hate him or her, you might just vote against theirs, just by spite.