Shia LaBoeuf says Indy 5 coming

[The Josh]

I might have to both. I just don't find Bond a character that can't be played by more than one person.

I'm sure both do. I admit I love Indy but I'm not blind by it in anyway. I enjoy KOTCS because I do think its a good movie. IMO the folks that have lots of issues with it are more stuck in their childhood or 1981.

 

[Entropy]

Funny how both opinions see the other as looking through the rose colored glasses of nostalgia.

But I'm sure part of it is that different people are interested in and looking for different things from a film.

 

[CelticPredator]

Give me Indy, adventure, and mystery. Thats all I need....


Besides, if you can believe God arks, and heart ripping, and Jesus cups...then I have no idea why Aliens would be a huge leap.

 

[The Josh]

Funny how both opinions see the other as looking through the rose colored glasses of nostalgia.

But I'm sure part of it is that different people are interested in and looking for different things from a film.

All I can say for myself I'm not looking through anything other than I like the Indy flicks for what they are.

Of course we all do. Its a chance to get away for the world for a few hours.

Give me Indy, adventure, and mystery. Thats all I need....


Besides, if you can believe God arks, and heart ripping, and Jesus cups...then I have no idea why Aliens would be a huge leap.

Yup, pretty much.

 

[Something Sexy]

Give me Indy, adventure, and mystery. Thats all I need....


Besides, if you can believe God arks, and heart ripping, and Jesus cups...then I have no idea why Aliens would be a huge leap.

I completely agree with that.

 

[Entropy]

it's not the what, it's the how.

Indy & aliens wasn't the problem.
Any story can be told well or poorly.

Personally, I need a well written, deftly told story.

 

[The Josh]

I do too. I didn't mind how it was told though. There are a few things about KOTCS that I didn't or don't like but overall it was good. Which is all I can really ask for.

 

[Entropy]

For sure Spielberg can tell even a craptacular story well.

 

[The Josh]

For sure Spielberg can tell even a craptacular story well.

Thats if you consider it a craptacular story.

 

[CelticPredator]

Well...it wasnt a GREAT story. Darabont's was better.

 

[The Josh]

Well...it wasnt a GREAT story. Darabont's was better.

It wasn't great either I agree.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Shia LaBoof is a turd. I hope if they decide to continue ruining this franchise they at least get someone that is a real man that would make a believable action hero instead of a twit like LaBoof. I just can't get past his dork factor. A terrible actor too. Very high school drama class D+/C- level acting.

 

[Entropy]

Thats if you consider it a craptacular story.

Regardless of whether or not you think the KotCS story is crap, Spielberg has the chops to tell a crap story with proficiency.

 

[thenammagazine]

Exactly. Its a different beast all together. I've never thought of James Bond as just Connery. Its a character that I think was built to be played by multiple folks. Indy is Ford and I don't think you can have someone else play it without trying to be Ford.

If you'd been a James Bond fan when they recast in 69 you might have felt differently. Growing up with different people already playing the same character is going to skew your perception.

I do think your comparison between KotCS and Terminator Salvation is a good one. I'm sure each has it's share of franchise devotees that enjoy them for what they are, but overall audience reaction is one of disappointment and dislike.

As a huge fan of Bond, I can say that I wasn't thrilled with Roger Moore aka the combover bond. He brought a hokey, surrealistic view to the character with his groaning one-liners and Mr. Furley karate. Then there was Timothy Dalton aka the "dirty" bond who was just too much of a schlep. I couldn't buy him as having the sophistication needed to carry the character. Pierce Brosnan didn't really have the freedom to fully realize the character as Bond should have been, with the studio thinking one way and him wanting to get back to the gritty Bond that made Connery's work so well, which is why I think Craig's works. With the grittier, no-nonsense bond, we're back to Connery's ground level character that the world fell in love with back in the days of Dr. No.

As for Indy, he's entirely different. 99.999999999999999999% of what makes Indiana Jones work is what Harrison Ford naturally brings to the role. It's not something that can be copied, or reproduced by someone playing at being Harrison playing Indy. It's also something that'll be sorely missing from anyone giving their own take on Indy. As much as I hate to say this, I think I'd actually rather sit through a sack-punching round of "The Adventures of Mutt Williams" than try to stomach another actor ruining the Indy franchise by playing Indiana Jones. It didn't work for Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan flicks and it won't work here either.

 

[The Josh]

Regardless of whether or not you think the KotCS story is crap, Spielberg has the chops to tell a crap story with proficiency.

I agree with that.

 

[BuddyGus]

No Ford. No Indy.

 

[Entropy]

As for Indy, he's entirely different. 99.999999999999999999% of what makes Indiana Jones work is what Harrison Ford naturally brings to the role. It's not something that can be copied, or reproduced by someone playing at being Harrison playing Indy. It's also something that'll be sorely missing from anyone giving their own take on Indy. As much as I hate to say this, I think I'd actually rather sit through a sack-punching round of "The Adventures of Mutt Williams" than try to stomach another actor ruining the Indy franchise by playing Indiana Jones. It didn't work for Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan flicks and it won't work here either.

I agree recasting Indy would be a huge mistake. But I could also see it working in the sense that a Nathan Fillion or Tom Selleck even could perform well as an adventure archeologist, but would it be Indy? not so much.

What works for the Bond reinventions is that Bond is always "modern" and reflects his times so the films and actors can adapt with that. Indy has always been a throw back to the 40s serials and was somewhat stuck in that time. Another actor in that setting would feel like an ugly rehash or impersonation rather than the modernization and freshening up the Bond franchise goes through.

 

[thenammagazine]

I agree recasting Indy would be a huge mistake. But I could also see it working in the sense that a Nathan Fillion or Tom Selleck even could perform well as an adventure archeologist, but would it be Indy? not so much.

What works for the Bond reinventions is that Bond is always "modern" and reflects his times so the films and actors can adapt with that. Indy has always been a throw back to the 40s serials and was somewhat stuck in that time. Another actor in that setting would feel like an ugly rehash or impersonation rather than the modernization and freshening up the Bond franchise goes through.

Well, I'd rather see Mutt duking it out with cold war commies than watch someone else trying to play Indy. Take the Cairo Swordsman scene for example. That's the epitome of what Indy is. I don't think anybody else could've pulled that off like Harrison. That's why, for all intents and purposes, Harrison IS Indy.

 

[Deckard]

Plus theres 22 bond movies and Connery was only Bond for 10 years. Nivens before that actually if you want to get technichal.

Harrison has been Indy since 1981. 28 years. I would sooner go to jail for burning down my local theatre then support anyone else taking over the role.

 

[thenammagazine]

Plus theres 22 bond movies and Connery was only Bond for 10 years. Nivens before that actually if you want to get technichal.

Harrison has been Indy since 1981. 28 years. I would sooner go to jail for burning down my local theatre then support anyone else taking over the role.

Eh, Niven was a nob goblin and the movie wasn't really Ian Flemming's "Bond." To many, Connery was the one and only bond, and let's not forget he came back for Never Say Never Again, which despite MGM's wishes, is still a bond movie. So while not consecutive, he played James Bond over the course of 23 years. That said though, they ran the Bond franchise into the ground, hitting the coffin with Brosnan's last, Die Another Day, before rebooting it 44 years after the first movie with a real Casino Royale. It'd be a crime to do either of those (bury the franchise or reboot) with Indy. Especially since Harrison is still capable of pulling it off.