Disney Takes Over Future Rights to Indiana Jones Films

[RavenEye]

Not exactly the same, but fair enough. However, what you're arguing is only supported by alternate reality versions of what happened, nothing at all that did. That, and what you've made up in your head to feel justified in all those truly baseless but no less forceful remarks.

In mine, there's a definite future where it seems that Indiana Jones will be played by someone else. I have reality pending in my favor. If it sucks and fails, then so be it. But at least I'm arguing for something that can be proven out.
The difference is, I'm willing to keep my head up about it and wait and see, whereas you and others are determined to hate everything about anything new because it always somehow goes against something you seem to feel "Hollywood" owes you. And so you lash out.

Is this one of those "Novice will be Noviced" Arguments?

 

[thenammagazine]

Not exactly the same, but fair enough. However, what you're arguing is only supported by alternate reality versions of what happened, nothing at all that did. That, and what you've made up in your head to feel justified in all those truly baseless but no less forceful remarks.

In mine, there's a definite future where it seems that Indiana Jones will be played by someone else. I have reality pending in my favor. If it sucks and fails, then so be it. But at least I'm arguing for something that can be proven out.
The difference is, I'm willing to keep my head up about it and wait and see, whereas you and others are determined to hate everything about anything new because it always somehow goes against something you seem to feel "Hollywood" owes you. And so you lash out.

You're completely delusional. "Alternate reality versions of what happened?!" So clearly you're from another reality where Harrison Ford didn't play Indiana Jones? Did Tom Selleck ditch Magnum PI in your reality to jump at the role?! I didn't make that up in my head. It happened. 4 films of Harrison playing Indy were produced. An entire series of novelizations was produced based on Ford's performance as well as several video games, comics, etc. Please enlighten us all on what reality you exist in, claiming the one all of us here exist in, the reality where Ford played Indiana Jones, is "only supported by alternate reality versions of what happened" as "nothing at all that did."

Edit: Serious question. Is English your first language and and if no, are you using a translator? If it isn't and you are, I'll back off because your posts aren't really making sense.

 

[cilantropants]

Since you jumped in to toss your definitive opinions around like the Samsonite gorilla, which seems like all you can do, you've been arguing that Skull with someone else would have failed. I never once said anything that should have started you on that kind of tear and you lashing out about it is pretty weird. That was nothing anyone said. But that's the direction from which you've been arguing. Like I said more than once already, you're stuck arguing some "what if" version and trying to make that somehow become a fact in all this.

Oh, gosh, how trite. Can't get on top of the argument so the insults to intelligence come out. That's internet tough guy 101.

You avoid just about anything I say that's salient and zero in on anything superficial you can to keep insulting me. I've noticed that's pretty typical of your style, and I guess you've been digging that rut so long it's made it hard for you to see out of. So I don't expect anything I say it, no matter how many times I have to say, is going to meet with a fair shake on your end.

Translated on my umbrella using forklift

 

[thenammagazine]

You, not I, were the one claiming KOTCS would've made quadruple it's budget with or without Ford. I'm not the only one who read your post as inferring that. There are plenty of other posts to back that in between your belligerent rants. Start there.

 

[cilantropants]

I said no such thing. Go find exactly where I said that and quote it.
You can't because if you force yourself to actually read it you'll see you're wrong and I said something quite different. I'm sorry that you merged the scenario Deckard put forth into somehow becoming my position, that's your own failure to rectify, not my responsibility to have to keep pointing out to you.

I already restated it for you, and you willfully ignored it to keep harping on that same point.

I'm sure you'll brush it off, and not bother looking, but what I had said was that the movie was deemed bad by the loyalists and many other people, fans critics and neophytes alike. However, even though it was still a failure to many, it was still a box office success and lots of people did like it. Yes, Ford as Indy drew a great many of those asses to seats, but in the end a lot of other people liked the entire movie, and it wasn't solely Ford being in it that was their reason.
Nowhere in what I said did I say anything close to it doing as well without him. Nowhere. Again, for the third time to get it into that skull, the only mention I made of a recast where Skull is concerned was in regards to what Deckard said and that you backed up, which was nothing but a "what if" scenario. I only said that if a recast had happened, then maybe that "what if" that you guys were arguing could have some merit. That's all I said.
It shouldn't be so hard to get by now. If you fail this time, **** it, I'm done. The Miracle Worker would've given up by now.


Anyone not interested in constantly making the same "everything sucks, my childhood is being raped" posts over and over, I'd love to see what hopes and ideas for future Indy movies you'd like to see.

 

[Deckard]

Anyone not interested in constantly making the same "everything sucks, my childhood is being raped" posts over and over, I'd love to see what hopes and ideas for future Indy movies you'd like to see.

No one has said this either. You are putting words into people's mouths.

 

[cilantropants]

It's all based on the same selfish emotions, that you somehow get to claim these properties as your own because you grew up with them, and no one else can have anything new from them.

 

[devilof76]

People kept going to see KCS, even after it was panned, because Harrison Ford came back to play Indy.

Or, what?

I've watched a lot of remakes over the last few years. Not one of them met with my disapproval on account of it not being the same movie from my childhood. They sucked out loud on their own merits.

As for underhanded debate tactics...how is arguing that we're against an Indy film without Ford in the lead role, purely on account of childhood loyalty, not an attempt to support your optimism by smearing our motives?

 

[Deckard]

It's all based on the same selfish emotions, that you somehow get to claim these properties as your own because you grew up with them, and no one else can have anything new from them.

Nope, that's just your hypocritical inference.

how is arguing that we're against an Indy film without Ford in the lead role, purely on account of childhood loyalty, not an attempt to support your optimism by smearing our motives?

 

[devilof76]

^^^^

Selfish...

Classic. When did you graduate from the seminary?

 

[cilantropants]

People kept going to see KCS, even after it was panned, because Harrison Ford came back to play Indy.

Or, what?

Exactly. Or what, for many viewers. Didn't I say that more than once already?

I've watched a lot of remakes over the last few years. Not one of them met with my disapproval on account of it not being the same movie from my childhood. They sucked out loud on their own merits.

As for underhanded debate tactics...how is arguing that we're against an Indy film without Ford in the lead role, purely on account of childhood loyalty, not an attempt to support your optimism by smearing our motives?

Then why are you opposed? There's nothing at this point to base such negativity on.

Nope, that's just your hypocritical inference.

Same question then. Why?

^^^^

Selfish...

Classic. When did you graduate from the seminary?

Give me another reason then.

 

[Deckard]

We've already told you why countless times. Indiana Jones is not a literary character. He was created for Harrison Ford and Harrison is the only version of the character that has ever existed, even when Indy is drawn in comics or print, it looks like Harrison. In the video game when you punch a bad guy so hard you fall down on top of him, it's because those are Harrison's mannerisms. He is Indiana Jones. You can't change those things about the character without losing what makes him special. You would just end up with Rick from The Mummy or Drake from Uncharted. It's just another random nobody adventurer Indy clone. And if you copy it than you just have an actor doing a Harrison Ford impression.

He isn't a superhero. He doesn't wake up every morning and save the world. He's just an archeoligist that got in over his head once or twice. That's all it ever needs to be. There aren't another 40 years of story to tell.

 

[cilantropants]

Those really aren't reasons, besides being personal opinions. That's fine, but none of that puts a stop on the marketing idea that someone else can play him.

Actually, he gets in over his head about 10 times a movie in 4 movies.

I can believe in a world where Indy had more adventures during and between the adventures we've seen onscreen. They can go back to the 20s and work from there, all self-contained stories. Could be fun.

 

[devilof76]

They sounded like reasons to me. More grounded than your supposition that Indy movies without Ford will be worth a damn, just because you want to see more of his adventures at the expense of the character at his best.

Um, doesn't that make you the selfish one?

Exactly. Or what, for many viewers. Didn't I say that more than once already?

And no matter how many times you say it, it's just as meaningless. You're hypothesizing alternate motives. Like what?

Then why are you opposed? There's nothing at this point to base such negativity on.

Track record of the film industry over the past 20 years when it comes to revisiting franchises that were successful in their original incarnation.

Give me another reason then.

Good taste.

 

[cilantropants]

Well, since they're going ahead with it this is all meaningless except as a distraction, and that makes me happy.

See ya on the other side of it.

 

[Bardoon]

We've already told you why countless times. Indiana Jones is not a literary character. He was created for Harrison Ford and Harrison is the only version of the character that has ever existed, even when Indy is drawn in comics or print, it looks like Harrison. In the video game when you punch a bad guy so hard you fall down on top of him, it's because those are Harrison's mannerisms. He is Indiana Jones. You can't change those things about the character without losing what makes him special. You would just end up with Rick from The Mummy or Drake from Uncharted. It's just another random nobody adventurer Indy clone. And if you copy it than you just have an actor doing a Harrison Ford impression.

He isn't a superhero. He doesn't wake up every morning and save the world. He's just an archeoligist that got in over his head once or twice. That's all it ever needs to be. There aren't another 40 years of story to tell.

Actually....Tom Selleck was the first cast for Indiana Jones, but he turned it down in favor of Magnum P.I. Ford was earlier suggested by Spielberg but Lucas didn't want Ford at first. He was never "created" with Ford in mind initially. Obviously, Harrison took the role and made it his own. He did an awesome job drawing the line between the rugged adventurer and the sharp school professor. There will never be an Indy quite like him. But there almost WASN'T an Indiana Jones like him.

Also, is everyone forgetting about the YOUNG INDIANA JONES CHRONICLES that were on TV?

 

[The Ween]

They'll do stuff like that I'm sure. They won't just sit on it.

I just genuinely wonder are the classic Indy films in some way inaccessible to kids of today like how apparently Robocop '87 is (granted it was never for kids) A few people attested in the Robocop 2014 thread that they know teens who flat out won't watch Robo '87 because its old. Are these films really dated? That's rhetorical.

If it doesn't look like a video game they're not interested.

 

[Kamandi]

We've already told you why countless times. Indiana Jones is not a literary character.

You're right.He's not.
He's not a movie character.
He's not a book character.
He's not a superhero, legend, or mythological figure.

He IS a corporate asset that has generated two billion dollars worldwide just in ticket sales.

Until now and perhaps for a few years more he has been played primarily by Harrison Ford. And then someone else will play the role. To think otherwise is naive.

 

[Deckard]

Actually....Tom Selleck was the first cast for Indiana Jones, but he turned it down in favor of Magnum P.I. Ford was earlier suggested by Spielberg but Lucas didn't want Ford at first. He was never "created" with Ford in mind initially. Obviously, Harrison took the role and made it his own. He did an awesome job drawing the line between the rugged adventurer and the sharp school professor. There will never be an Indy quite like him. But there almost WASN'T an Indiana Jones like him.

Also, is everyone forgetting about the YOUNG INDIANA JONES CHRONICLES that were on TV?

View attachment 101170

Tom was never cast as Indy. He was considered. Yea, I'm aware of Jim Steranko's art but that wasn't something public. It was one concept drawing to show his overall outfit, with more than some dues to Treasure of Sierra Madre. But Indiana himself is all Harrison like I said, the personality, mannerisms(watch that old canceled lucas game demo), little touches like his own stunts, weathering his hat and gear is all there has ever been. Why would you want to see any other interpretation of the character is what I don't understand. It's already perfect and we have enough story. And as for Young Indy, well guess what he grows up to look like

You're right.He's not.
He's not a movie character.
He's not a book character.
He's not a superhero, legend, or mythological figure.

He IS a corporate asset that has generated two billion dollars worldwide just in ticket sales.

Until now and perhaps for a few years more he has been played primarily by Harrison Ford. And then someone else will play the role. To think otherwise is naive.

Thanks for agreeing with me completely. I'm not naive. This is my point entirely. The reboot is about nothing but money, why would I get behind it?

And for the record I've also never said I'm against another movie with Ford as Indy still. I'd prefer it end but if we had to get another that would be better than a reboot. I've also already said multiple times, he was not the problem with KotCS.

 

[devilof76]

What's naive is thinking he will be anything other than a corporate asset when Ford is long gone; an asset to be used and ground down into the last marketable grains of a once great character. Myself, I can't wait to see that happen.