[ July 30, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]
Posted by Kattus Magnus (Member # 411) on :
Somehow I thought this would generate more interest.
Maybe it's because I just gave myself an Indy marathon, watching, (in chronological order), Temple of Doom, Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade (which also happens to be, entirely coincidently, the order in which I like them -- most fave to least fave)
Posted by The_Evil_Lord (Member # 256) on :
Hmm. Ford is 58 years old now (he could pass for 70 though - no offense, the man just doesn't look the part anymore), and will be in his mid-sixties by the time the movie is released... I can't quite picture an IJ that old. Perhaps Spielberg will introduce an Indy Junior (as in Shaft 2000, for instance)?
Anyway, that doesn't mean I don't look forward to a new episode. I like the IJ series a lot, I only hope it won't be spoiled by a weak sequel (like the Alien saga).
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I, on the other hand, can't believe you liked Temple of Doom the best.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
People always say that. I also don't like "Empire Strikes Back" the best of the Star Wars trilogy, and I get shit for that too ...
Posted by Dr. Obvious (Member # 271) on :
I prefer ..
The Last Crusade , The Lost Ark , Temple Of Doom
Evil : Yeah I agree Ford is a bit to old for the part , it would be like having Sean Connery Come back as Bond , not exactly my vision of a Suave Agent
Ford Could probebly pull it off now , but not in 2005 , they would have to have one hell of a makeup artist
Or Perhaps they are planning on having Jones hand over his position in this movie , training another guardian of antiquities.
Jeff : ESB is the best of the three... your wrong , utterly wrong , beyond redemption wrong.
Shame.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
You ... bastard!
I think Ford can do it -- I certainly don't think casting someone else in the role would be good. And Connery still does action movies ... The Rock, Entrapement ...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Ent-rapement? Wouldn't you get splinters?
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
Hush.
Posted by Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
Besides, if Indy would be sixty it would mean the movie would be set in the 50's or early 60's, which probably would have the plot be about the cold war and "kill russians", like the Indy computer game. That stuff just doesn't swing anymore, I think, and the Indy movies have always been about struggling against an evil group that wants to take over the world. Even "Fate of Atlantis", the old computer game.
They'd prolly just fuck it up anyways, as other sequels have these last years, better let the franchise rest in peace with the trilogy.
As for rating, I like them 1-3-2. Sure, "Last Crusade" is longer and more intricate, but the first movie started it all, with the indian tribe and the rolling ball and crazy nazis. I think the first movie displayed the nazis better, or "worse". The second movie had too many "cute" and fun bits. Hell, BOTH supporting roles were comedy sidekicks... Not to say I don't like it, it was the first Indy movie I saw. I watched them 2-3-1, I think.
About "Raiders...", that end scene still gives me the creeps. I think there's some version of the film where you can see that ark-sprung ghost, sneering at the three men beside it, in horrific detail.
[ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: Nimrod ]
Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :
ive been following Indy 4 news for quite awhile now, and from what I hear, the project is go.
I also can't believe you like Temple of Doom the best. And you also lose several points for being nerdy and pointing out that you know that, chronologically, Temple of Doom has to come before Raiders. Nerd.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
Like you DIDN'T know that. Besides, it says quite clearly at the beginning of each film what year they take place ...
Temple of Doom: 1935 Raiders: 1936 Last Crusade: 1939
Still, there's nothing I like better than the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles ... or, at least, the original aired version. I remember the first episode aired with Old Indy sliding down a banister to the Raider's March ...
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Last Crusade takes place in 1938, not 1939, Mr. Beer. I agree with Nimrod's order: 1,3,2. Raiders is the best, no doubt. I've also heard that M. Night Shamalyan(is that right?), the creator of the Sixth Sense, might write or direct the next one. Oh, and Sean Connery is only 12 years older than Ford. Connery is about 70. That means he had Indy when he was 12, or adopted a fetus when he was that age. I think Indy 4 could have Indy training a new kid to take his place, like the 1998 Mask of Zorro film.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
Erm. How do you get that? Dude, they've got DATES on them!
Yes, whoever said "Last Crusade" takes place in 1938 (not '39) is right. My mistake.
But Temple of Doom is in '35, and Raiders in '36. The dates are at the beginning of the films ...
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I'm pretty sure we can all see that the dates are at the beginning of the three films.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
At this point, I would like to mention that I think that the dates are at the beginning of all three films.
Posted by Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
The three movies that is about Indiana Jones have dates in the beginning, every last one of them.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"Funding for this thread was made possible by the Mojo Jojo Fan Club, the Helena Rubenstein Foundation, & viewers like you."
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Next on PBS...
Posted by Jubilicious (Member # 99) on :
Lambchop's Playalong!
'This is the song that doesn't end......"
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I would note here that I've never noticed the dates, at the begining of the films, but then everone would be like: "So whats your point"
so I'll just leave it at that.
(Hated the second film) I've seen cartoons with more believeable action scenes then that movie had.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You hated it because you didn't notice that the date was shown at the beginning of it. And, indeed, was also shown at the beginning of the other two films, which are the first and third ones. That is to say, the prequel and the sequel to the second one.
Curses.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
How can you not notice them? The secoond film may be the worst, but you can't say it wasn't innovative! (That heart, the new PG-13 rating...a milestone!)
Posted by Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
Some of the thugee guards were a little sterotyped. Like, "hehe, look at the stupid little creatures try to catch little-chinese-kid and fail, haha. Oooh look, he slides between their legs, making them run in to eachother!"
What was his name, "short-round"? What, was that his designation in the preWWII chinese labour camps?
Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :
Harrison Ford is the only actor I know who seems to stay the same age. And- no one else has even thought of it- with what George Lucas is capable of, Ford won't even need to be on film. He could be completely CGI and all Ford would need to do is supply the voice. If Final Fantasy is any indication, a fully photo-realistic CGI creation is possible in 3-4 years, or even less.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
And to think in 5-10 years we won't even need actors anymore who want $20 million a movie. They'll just have CGI actors that cost less, and in 10 years I doubt you would notice a difference...if Final Fantasy is any indication that is.
Posted by Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
And soon, you won't even have to rent a movie or go to the cinema to see your synthetic, holographic movies, you can just shove a ten inch steel pin in the back of your head and live in it! Watch that girl in red dress go!
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Would that girl in the red dress be the same one from "The Matrix?"
--"That girl in the red dress?" --"Yeah?"
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Would that girl in the red dress be the same one from "The Matrix?"
--"That girl in the red dress?" --"Yeah?" --"Look again" (It's an Agent!)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Is this some sort of recursive exercise?
Anyway, cynic mode:
I don't see why Lucas needs CGI. He's perfectly capable of creating two dimensional cartoon characters using real actors.
And as for doing away with actors, why not? Hollywood has already done away with such minor concerns as "character" and "plot."
