posted
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)
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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).
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
posted
I, on the other hand, can't believe you liked Temple of Doom the best.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- My Mother never found the irony in calling me a son of a bitch
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
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 ]
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
