Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[The Chris]

Anyone who says Indiana Jones would be good without Harrison Ford automatically loses all credebility in my book. Bond had different actors true, but no one till Craig was even fit to hold Sean Connerys hat in the role, so that's really not a good example.

Besides, with seeing his age, we now have 3 totally seperate periods of Indy movies. Young Indiana Jones with the old TV series, Indy in his prime with the original 3, and now Indy in his later years with the new one. It's a nice way to go.

I have to concur with this. I just can't see anyone else wearing that hat on the big screen.

[cerealkiller182]

Why? Bond has had various actors play the part, and Indy is often said to be the American Bond. Ford (like Connery) may be the best to play him, but that doesn't mean we can't get a suitable replacement (like they did with Bond several times).

Bond is cheesy, he just stands there and looks slick until he has to use some gadget to get by. Indy has so much more natural charm and personality because of Ford.

[scifiwolf]

I dunno what made me think of this, but does anybody think there still may be room for Tom Selleck in the Indyverse somewhere? Not as Indy, but somewhere else?

[Spider-Fan]

Anyone who says Indiana Jones would be good without Harrison Ford automatically loses all credebility in my book. Bond had different actors true, but no one till Craig was even fit to hold Sean Connerys hat in the role, so that's really not a good example.

I found Dalton and Brosnan to be rather good Bonds, but held back partly cause their movies were mostly not as good as they could have been. Not their fault though.

So you want to see something different but youdont want to see something different:huh:

You dont want the father/son thing rehashed, but you want the same age, same era, same adventures as before. Ford has done more action than he ever has on an Indy film, Spielberg know how to implement CGI into a movie and mix it well.

Icould care less you dont like WOTW since you agreed that you liked his other films of the time. It doesnt mean hes out ofhis element, it means he wants to try newthings. Everyone knows the Jurassic Parkmovies were only made because Spielberg had fun making them, he could care less what you thought.

Thomas Harris isnt the same because unlike Hannibal, Indy is a collaborative effort worked on for a long period of time to get it right instead of quikly writing up stories just so they can make more movies which is what Harris did.

Indy is a collaboration with the man who made the Star Wars prequels...very frightening thought if you ask me. Lucas has definately lost his creativity that he once had. Ford has no say really cause at this point, he needs this movie. His star is falling. Spielberg is the one person who can make this work imo, but I just don't see how based on his more recent works. He may not care what I think (nor should I), but my opinion on the movie is what counts to me. Not Spielberg's. Not Lucas". Not anyone on the hype's. Just mine.

And yes, I think the father/son thing was covered already, and many other things can be covered in the same era. The only reason they are making Indy's story centered around age is because of Ford. If Ford were dead and this was a new Indy, I'd guarantee it would be another WWII era flick, and not this story. Which in the end, is Indy's element, and where he belongs imo.

[The Joker]

Uh...one of the reasons this took so long to happen was because they couldnt find a script that Lucas, Speilberg, AND Ford could all agree on. So yeah, Ford does have a say in it. Also, at this point, I dont think it would matter if his "star fell," he doesnt need the movie, he has enough money to swim around in like Scrooge McDuck for the rest of his life without ever working another day.

Also, if Ford were dead, there would be no new movie.

[Spider-Fan]

Ford defined the role. Ford is the only man to play the part of Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones is an iconic character in the sense that when you think of him, you think of Ford in the jungle with a fedora and whip. Bond is iconic because when you think of him, you think of a suave, slick spy. There have been too many bonds over the past twenty years to implicitly match the name Bond to one of their faces. There's only ever been one Indiana Jones. :up:

Your right, but at one point, there was just 1 Bond...same principles apply. Ford could have been replaced.

I have to concur with this. I just can't see anyone else wearing that hat on the big screen.

Same could have been said prior to Her Majesty's Secret Service or when Routh played Superman (though I found him boring). But, no one thinks like that on those characters now.

[The Chris]

Oh and I don't think Spielberg has lost his sense of wonder and happyness, he just hasn't used it since Jurassic Park. The rest of the stuff he's done is just naturally darker stuff, even the Lost World is dark really. I think Transformers was the first movie in along time to have that speilberg sense of wonder (I know he didn't direct it, but transformer out of the pool, autobot arrival, the autobots in the backyard, bumblebee and sam relationship, and seeing Optimus and bonecrusher fight from the perspective of inside a car scream spielberg to me) I have a feeling that will be in Kingdom of The Crystal Skull and it will be great to see fun Spielberg again.

[Spider-Fan]

Uh...one of the reasons this took so long to happen was because they couldnt find a script that Lucas, Speilberg, AND Ford could all agree on. So yeah, Ford does have a say in it. Also, at this point, I dont think it would matter if his "star fell," he doesnt need the movie, he has enough money to swim around in like Scrooge McDuck for the rest of his life without ever working another day.

You know the phrase $$$ isn't everything. You don't think Ford's current career status doesn't bother him? I think it does. And Lucas should have no say on anything ever again as far as stories are concerned.

Had this been made by 1994, I would have been happy to have a 4th, but 2008? I lean to the side of too late. At some point, the dream has to die, and to me, that was years ago.

[Matt Murdock]

Your right, but at one point, there was just 1 Bond...same principles apply. Ford could have been replaced.
I don't know why you're using the Bond films as a model. They've decreased in overall quality since they started juggling actors.

[Spider-Fan]

Oh and I don't think Spielberg has lost his sense of wonder and happyness, he just hasn't used it since Jurassic Park. The rest of the stuff he's done is just naturally darker stuff, even the Lost World is dark really. I think Transformers was the first movie in along time to have that speilberg sense of wonder (I know he didn't direct it, but transformer out of the pool, autobot arrival, the autobots in the backyard, bumblebee and sam relationship, and seeing Optimus and bonecrusher fight from the perspective of inside a car scream spielberg to me) I have a feeling that will be in Kingdom of The Crystal Skull and it will be great to see fun Spielberg again.

I don't think you can use Transformers since he didn't direct it.

[Spider-Fan]

I don't know why you're using the Bond films as a model. They've decreased in overall quality since they started juggling actors.

The actor is not why they have juggled in quality. There are a lot of people behind the scenes responsible for that. I can just as easily say to you stop blaming the recasts for them not being as good.

[The Joker]

The actor is not why they have juggled in quality. There are a lot of people behind the scenes responsible for that. I can just as easily say to you stop blaming the recasts for them not being as good.

The recasts were definitly part of it. If you're saying Roger Moore had no hand in every single Bond movie he was in sucking ass, then you're deluding yourself.

[Matt Murdock]

The actor is not why they have juggled in quality. There are a lot of people behind the scenes responsible for that. I can just as easily say to you stop blaming the recasts for them not being as good.

:lmao:

[The Chris]

I don't think you can use Transformers since he didn't direct it.

But I can see that influence he has, just like with Back to the Future and Poltergeist, and Mask of Zorro and such. He can be apart of something that still makes you having that feeling, and if he can do that when he's just producing, I think he can definately still bring it with his directing.

[Tempest19]

Spielberg OBVIOUSLY was the HEART behind Transformers. A KEY producer of the film, "I want this story to be about a boy and his car." The Transformers arrival shot was also obviously Spielberg- compare it to the dinosaurs in the back yard scene in 'Lost World' and you'll definitely see the relevant example there. Spielberg may have not directed the film, but he was without a doubt the heart of it.

[scifiwolf]

The actor is not why they have juggled in quality. There are a lot of people behind the scenes responsible for that. I can just as easily say to you stop blaming the recasts for them not being as good.
Agreed. Brosnan and Craig were both upgrades. The fall in quality came from over-the-top, childish plots that were only set ups for inane action sequences.

[Spider-Fan]

The recasts were definitly part of it. If you're saying Roger Moore had no hand in every single Bond movie he was in sucking ass, then you're deluding yourself.

Moore was inferior, granted. But, I do think Brosnan given better scripts may have been able to get to where Connery did. It is not his fault the scripts to his movies (sans Goldeneye) sucked. Dalton I think may even have been able to perform better given Connery level scripts.

[The Joker]

Moore was inferior, granted. But, I do think Brosnan given better scripts may have been able to get to where Connery did. It is not his fault the scripts to his movies (sans Goldeneye) sucked. Dalton I think may even have been able to perform better given Connery level scripts.

Oh come on, most of Connerys scripts sucked too. But he was able to elevate them with his presence and charm, which no other Bond actor was able to do. The same goes with Indy here. No other actor could make the movies work as well as Ford. It's his character. It was pretty much designed to suit him as an actor, as opposed to Bond which was based off books and even when Connery played him, had already had 2 other actors in the role for TV specials.

[Spider-Fan]

:lmao:

I guess we won't agree here. No point in going on I guess.

But I can see that influence he has, just like with Back to the Future and Poltergeist, and Mask of Zorro and such. He can be apart of something that still makes you having that feeling, and if he can do that when he's just producing, I think he can definately still bring it with his directing.

Again, he was behind a desk on those movies (sans Polergiest), and not filming them. Two different levels of creativity.

Spielberg OBVIOUSLY was the HEART behind Transformers. A KEY producer of the film, "I want this story to be about a boy and his car." The Transformers arrival shot was also obviously Spielberg- compare it to the dinosaurs in the back yard scene in 'Lost World' and you'll definitely see the relevant example there. Spielberg may have not directed the film, but he was without a doubt the heart of it.

Again though, he was not the director. It is easier to be light from a desk than a camera.

Agreed. Brosnan and Craig were both upgrades. The fall in quality came from over-the-top, childish plots that were only set ups for inane action sequences.

Agreed. Who knows what Brosnan and Craig would do if given movies as good in quality as Connery.

[Matt Murdock]

Why the hell are we talking about james bond? He sucks compared to Indiana Jones. :cmad:

[Spider-Fan]

Oh come on, most of Connerys scripts sucked too. But he was able to elevate them with his presence and charm, which no other Bond actor was able to do. The same goes with Indy here. No other actor could make the movies work as well as Ford. It's his character. It was pretty much designed to suit him as an actor, as opposed to Bond which was based off books and even when Connery played him, had already had 2 other actors in the role for TV specials.

No one watched those TV specials...you know that :cwink:

Recast may not be as good as the previous 3 films, but I think we may have gotten a better product than I think we'll end up with on this movie (which won't be near the last 3 movies anyway).

[The Joker]

Why the hell are we talking about james bond? He sucks compared to Indiana Jones. :cmad:

Not the Daniel Craig Bond...he's on the same level as Indy :o

[Matt Murdock]

I can agree to that... sorta.

[Tempest19]

From the behind the scenes videos I watch where he's a producer all the directors say that he is very hands on and comes to the set a lot to make sure that everything is running efficiently. Hands on producer. That's anything but just sitting behind a desk dude.

He still has the magic touch- EVERY film he produces has the Spielberg element to it and EVERY film he directs as the Spielberg element to it. That says a lot. If he was just behind a desk, you wouldn't have Spielbergian produced films- ud just had produced films

[Spider-Fan]

From the behind the scenes videos I watch where he's a producer all the directors say that he is very hands on and comes to the set a lot to make sure that everything is running efficiently. Hands on producer. That's anything but just sitting behind a desk dude.

OK, better way to put this. Which did Transformers feel more like? Spielberg movie or Bay movie? To me, definately a Bay movie. I rest my case.

[The Joker]

No one watched those TV specials...you know that :cwink:

Recast may not be as good as the previous 3 films, but I think we may have gotten a better product than I think we'll end up with on this movie (which won't be near the last 3 movies anyway).

Uh...I'm sure a ton of people watched those specials. In fact, Flemming had said that the 2nd, English one was his favorite interpretation of Bond on screen for a long time. And I'm done arguing with you here. You claim to have an open mind, but with statments like the parenthesis there, you've already made up your mind about the movie from a one minute teaser trailer, and nothing is going to change your mind on it, regardless of what you claim. So you can keep on trolling here, but I'm going to be ignoring you.

[scifiwolf]

USA reels in 'Indiana Jones'
Network lands 'Crystal Skull'
By JOHN DEMPSEY (http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=bio&peopleID=1235)


Pre-buys of unreleased movies are back in vogue, and USA Network (http://www.variety.com/profiles/Company/main/2009878/USA%20Network.html?dataSet=1) has landed a big one: Paramount and Lucasfilm's "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." (http://www.variety.com/profiles/Film/main/27815/Indiana%20Jones%20and%20the%20Kingdom%20of%20the%2 0Crystal%20Skull.html?dataSet=1)

USA is buying not only the latest sequel but the first three entries in the series as part of an overall deal that could cost the network $40 million, depending on the box office racked up by "Crystal Skull" in U.S. theaters. (USA's license fee is directly tied to the movie's domestic theatrical revenues.)

USA and Par declined to comment on the deal.
Paramount won't be releasing "Crystal Skull" until May 22, but the deal calls for USA to get its first runs of the previous three -- "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (http://www.variety.com/profiles/Film/main/30121/Raiders%20of%20the%20Lost%20Ark.html?dataSet=1) (1981), "The Temple of Doom" (1984) and "The Last Crusade" (http://www.variety.com/profiles/Film/main/79153/Mihai%20Viteazul.html?dataSet=1) (1989) -- in May as a marathon promotional vehicle for the new pic.

"Crystal Skull" is only the latest purchase in a marketplace distinguished by unusually active bidding for pre-release theatricals. In the past two weeks, USA nabbed "Sex and the City: The Movie" and the Will Ferrell (http://www.variety.com/profiles/people/main/30075/Will%20Ferrell.html?dataSet=1) vehicle "Semi-Pro" (http://www.variety.com/profiles/Film/main/165642/Semi-Pro.html?dataSet=1) in pre-buys from New Line, and FX harvested five movies from Sony/Columbia before they open in theaters, including two Judd Apatow (http://www.variety.com/profiles/people/main/31667/Judd%20Apatow.html?dataSet=1) comedies: Ferrell movie "Step Brothers" (http://www.variety.com/profiles/Film/main/182279/Step%20Brothers.html?dataSet=1) and "Pineapple Express," with Seth Rogen (http://www.variety.com/profiles/people/main/880489/Seth%20Rogen.html?dataSet=1).

USA is also high on sequels, having locked up the three "Pirates of the Caribbean" pics, the two "National Treasure" (http://www.variety.com/profiles/Film/main/29300/National%20Treasure.html?dataSet=1) movies, "Ocean's Thirteen" and "The Bourne Ultimatum." (http://www.variety.com/profiles/Film/main/147716/The%20Bourne%20Ultimatum.html?dataSet=1)

One reason USA was able to outbid its two main rivals, TNT and FX, for the "Indiana Jones" (http://www.variety.com/profiles/Film/main/27817/Indiana%20Jones%20and%20the%20Temple%20of%20Doom.h tml?dataSet=1) package is that all four movies are likely to play on both USA and its sister net Sci Fi Channel (http://www.variety.com/profiles/Company/main/2014798/Sci%20Fi%20Channel.html?dataSet=1), with maybe even a run or two on its Bravo sibling. Paramount and USA are still working out the details of these extra exposures; USA is looking to amortize its license fee over at least three networks.

USA takes title to "Crystal Skull" in 2011, and during the course of the movie's multiyear license term, Paramount will get the right to sell a few runs to a broadcast net in a carve-out following USA's premiere group of runs.

Movie fever has taken hold among the big general-entertainment cable networks at least in part because off-net hours including "Without a Trace" (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:zodInfuser.FillDescriptions('%22Without%20a%2 0Trace%22');) and "Cold Case" (http://www.variety.com/profiles/TVSeries/main/163562/Cold%20Case.html?dataSet=1) have disappointed in the ratings. These nets have held off buying reruns of such current shows in the genre as "Criminal Minds" (http://www.variety.com/profiles/TVSeries/main/174997/Criminal%20Minds.html?dataSet=1) and "Numbers," (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:zodInfuser.FillDescriptions('%22Numbers.%22') ;) and no new scripted primetime hours on the broadcast schedules in 2007-08 have scored big enough numbers to be of immediate interest to USA or TNT.

[Spider-Fan]

Uh...I'm sure a ton of people watched those specials. In fact, Flemming had said that the 2nd, English one was his favorite interpretation of Bond on screen for a long time. And I'm done arguing with you here. You claim to have an open mind, but with statments like the parenthesis there, you've already made up your mind about the movie from a one minute teaser trailer, and nothing is going to change your mind on it, regardless of what you claim. So you can keep on trolling here, but I'm going to be ignoring you.

I am hardly trolling this board. I am giving an opinion opposite yours. Why is always people against the majority are labeled trolls? :whatever:

And my opinion is the movie won't be as good as the last 3. Wow, what a crime! I have no open mind to possibly being wrong at all :whatever:

[Tempest19]

OK, better way to put this. Which did Transformers feel more like? Spielberg movie or Bay movie? To me, definately a Bay movie. I rest my case.

Nope. Spielberg. The only part that felt like a Bay movie were the chase scenes (the police car chasing Bumblebee) and the final fight. The whole Sam Witwicky element of the story screamed Spielberg.

[Spider-Fan]

Nope. Spielberg. The only part that felt like a Bay movie were the chase scenes (the police car chasing Bumblebee) and the final fight. The whole Sam Witwicky element of the story screamed Spielberg.

We'll have to agree to disagree here then.

[The Joker]

I am hardly trolling this board. I am giving an opinion opposite yours. Why is always people against the majority are labeled trolls? :whatever:

And my opinion is the movie won't be as good as the last 3. Wow, what a crime! I have no open mind to possibly being wrong at all :whatever:

An opinion you've formed off of a minute of footage. Coudl this movie suck? Yes, that's a very real possibility. But commiting either way at this point is stupid. And you are trolling. Trolling is coming into a thread with no intent other to bash what the thread is about, which is what you're doing. Sure, you're not talking in AOL Speak while doing it, but that doesnt make a difference, it's still the same intent.

[Tempest19]

Agree to disagree about everything dude.

[Spider-Fan]

An opinion you've formed off of a minute of footage. Coudl this movie suck? Yes, that's a very real possibility. But commiting either way at this point is stupid. And you are trolling. Trolling is coming into a thread with no intent other to bash what the thread is about, which is what you're doing. Sure, you're not talking in AOL Speak while doing it, but that doesnt make a difference, it's still the same intent.

I came to this thread to discuss my thoughts on the teaser and the film in general as I see it. Yes, I am showing a negative viewpoint, but it is not trolling. The footage is not the only thing that has contributed to my opinion on this movie as it stands. Read my posts and you will see I have made other points on why I don't think it will be good. There is a difference between trolling and being negative. I am being negative.

Agree to disagree about everything dude.

That's fine :yay:

[Matt Murdock]

:lmao:

What a joke.

[cerealkiller182]

We'll have to agree to disagree here then.

Dont agree to disagree, thats like admitting defeat wihtout actually admitting defeat.Explain yourself,all you said was TF was a Bay movie, rest my case.That isnt a case, thats a statement. Tempest made a point and a good one at that.

[Threshold]

I would hardly call any of the first 3 indy's guerilla films. They all had the look and budget of blockbuster summer flicks. Maybe due to age they look a little rougher, but they were always meant to make big BO.

Yeah, that's true. I meant 'guerilla' more in terms of how rugged and dirty the films looked. This one just looks too shiny, kind of like how the SW Prequels deviated from the look of the Original Trilogy. That said, I haven't seen the film, so I could be way off.

Eh, gotta say I disagree. the first time I watched the trailer I was floored. It instantly felt like Indiana Jones...and this is coming from someone who is a major fan of the original 3.

Dude, I'm in no way trying to sully that feeling. If it got you 'jonesing' (pun regrettably intended) for this flick, then that is AWESOME. If anything, I'm a little jealous. I wanted to get that feeling from the teaser... and I did from the opening of the trailer up until when the silhouette of Indy on the car puts on the hat... Classic. But the rest of the footage left my with a sour taste in my mouth, and I wasn't eating sour patch kids. :indy:

[Spider-Fan]

Dont agree to disagree, thats like admitting defeat wihtout actually admitting defeat.Explain yourself,all you said was TF was a Bay movie, rest my case.That isnt a case, thats a statement. Tempest made a point and a good one at that.

The way the camera looked, all the fight scenes were militaryish (like Bay's movies are), and it was heavy on cool effects and slow motion moments (like Bay's films tend to be). The way the story unfolded was very Bayish. Other than Sam & Bumblebee's plot, it felt like a Bay movie.

So that is why Transformers was more Bay than Spielberg.

[Matt Murdock]

So it felt like a Bay film in every branch of the film other than the main, core storyline...

Well, I dunno about anyone else, but I'm sold.

[CorpusBlack]

Bond is cheesy, he just stands there and looks slick until he has to use some gadget to get by. Indy has so much more natural charm and personality because of Ford.

:up: :up: :up:

[cerealkiller182]

Spielberg has had all those elements,the aesthetic ones. As for camera angle and story unfolding,well, Bay is the director so I have to agree there

[Spider-Fan]

So it felt like a Bay film in every branch of the film other than the main, core storyline...

Well, I dunno about anyone else, but I'm sold.

One aspect of the plot...are we forgetting the unfleshed out villains (ala Bay), and fact that other than 3 characters, no one gets fleshed out (like a Bay movie) :whatever:

Do I have to be pinpoint exact? Come on :whatever:

[CorpusBlack]

Not the Daniel Craig Bond...he's on the same level as Indy :o

I'll see if he can keep it up over several films before I even compare the two.

[Matt Murdock]

One aspect of the plot...are we forgetting the unfleshed out villains (ala Bay), and fact that other than 3 characters, no one gets fleshed out (like a Bay movie) :whatever:

You're right... The reason they hired Shia LaBeouf was because it was such an unimportant, boring part of the main story.

Get off your high horse. If you're going to continue to antagonize most of the people in this thread, you should simply leave. :o

[Spider-Fan]

You're right... The reason they hired Shia LaBeouf was because it was such an unimportant, boring part of the main story.

Get off your high horse. If you're going to continue to antagonize most of the people in this thread, you should simply leave. :o

I have been antagonized more than I have given...down to the SM3 comments right from when I entered here to the vast sarcasm thrown at me in every other post. I am not trying to fight you guys, but your making it hard not to.

And a story has more than one aspect. The other aspects of the plot were Bayish.

[cerealkiller182]

Stop being suck d*ckheads to Spider-Fan, its a cop out. Your arguments sound much more credible without lashing out.

[Spider-Fan]

Stop being suck d*ckheads to Spider-Fan, its a cop out. Your arguments sound much more credible without lashing out.

THANK YOU!!! At least I am not crazy here!

[Matt Murdock]

I have been antagonized more than I have given...down to the SM3 comments right from when I entered here to the vast sarcasm thrown at me in every other post. I am not trying to fight you guys, but your making it hard not to.

And a story has more than one aspect. The other aspects of the plot were Bayish.

Spider-Man 3 was good and I don't care what anyone says to the fans. :spidey:

[Spider-Fan]

Spider-Man 3 was good and I don't care what anyone says to the fans. :spidey:

At least we agree there.

[danoyse]

Anyone who says Indiana Jones would be good without Harrison Ford automatically loses all credebility in my book. Bond had different actors true, but no one till Craig was even fit to hold Sean Connerys hat in the role, so that's really not a good example.

Besides, with seeing his age, we now have 3 totally seperate periods of Indy movies. Young Indiana Jones with the old TV series, Indy in his prime with the original 3, and now Indy in his later years with the new one. It's a nice way to go.

Agreed. And you can't compare it to Bond, because the character was based on a book series, so the character existed before the films. And he's not like a superhero character that usually wears a mask or existing in other media forms before. Indiana Jones started with Harrison Ford, it still belongs to Harrison Ford, and he's still more than able to play the part, so there's no point in recasting him.

I cannot agree with any argument that he's too old. I saw him in NY a few years back and he looked terrific, and I know a few people who spotted him in Disneyland last week, and he still looks great.

He's 65, he's not 80.

[cerealkiller182]

He's 65, he's not 80.

Hate people who think people over 60 are suppose to be wheelchair bound (obvious exaggeration). Jackie Chans about 65 and he still does alot of his own stunt (not asmuch as he used to)

[strikezone89]

god i cant wait for this movie to come out!!!!!!!

[Hunter Rider]

Minority Report was good, WOTW sucked, CMIYC was very good, Munich was great (but not what Indy needs to be), and I enjoyed AI a lot. But, these movies don't have the feel Indy needs. They are quite different. Based on his more recent work, I don't see the wonder/humor the movie needs, and I feel a recasting and new crew would have made a better Indy movie.

IYO............Spielberg uses whatever style fits the project at hand............I can't believe you'd even suggest the last part bro.

[cerealkiller182]

sweet avy HR :up:

[Iron Fist]

I loved War of the Worlds. :o

[Spider-Fan]

IYO............Spielberg uses whatever style fits the project at hand............I can't believe you'd even suggest the last part bro.

The recasting? I just don't see where it is blasphemy. Indiana Jones is a franchise, and heroes of a franchise can be replaced by other actors. It is about the series, not the actor. I still stand by my Bond comparison, despite Bond originating in books not movies. They are still both franchise heroes, thus I see no difference.

I'll agree to disagree on WOTW. Though I won't appease those people thinking I am copping out by not outlining why I hated it.

[danoyse]

The recasting? I just don't see where it is blasphemy. Indiana Jones is a franchise

No, Indiana Jones is Harrison Ford.

Anyone who suggests otherwise about a new Indy film at the present time is just not showing any respect for the original films to suggest anyone else should be playing him.

[Iron Fist]

I can't imagine anyone else as Indy right now.

[Hunter Rider]

The recasting? I just don't see where it is blasphemy. Indiana Jones is a franchise, and heroes of a franchise can be replaced by other actors. It is about the series, not the actor. I still stand by my Bond comparison, despite Bond originating in books not movies. They are still both franchise heroes, thus I see no difference.

I'll agree to disagree on WOTW. Though I won't appease those people thinking I am copping out by not outlining why I hated it.

danyose pretty much summed up what my response would be.

I don't think you are coping out, i don't care why you didn't like it, it's all good, you don't need to justify it to me or anyone, just like i have no idea how you could think so highly of SM3 but you do and that is your right.

[danoyse]

Honestly, people can whine that he's too old, but I think if he'd been recast there would be even more people complaining that he wasn't there at all.

I'll take old Indy over a new Indy anytime. After all, it's not the years...it's the mileage. :cwink:

[steintym]

Wow, I didn't check this forum for a day and all **** breaks loose. :yay:

Spider-Fan makes some valid points, I'm just surprised his opinion is so final without much of the movie being released (trailers, pictures, etc). It might not be your intent, but you really are sounding like you want to hate the movie. I know you said you'd love to be wrong, but it doesn't seem that way.

As much as it kills me to say, I do agree that Indy could be recast. It would have to be a real solid movie to win over most, but it could be done. Several movie franchises have done it and I don't think Indy would be different. It would be tough to swallow, but ...

[cerealkiller182]

Wow, I didn't check this forum for a day and all **** breaks loose. :yay:

Spider-Fan makes some valid points, I'm just surprised his opinion is so final without much of the movie being released (trailers, pictures, etc). It might not be your intent, but you really are sounding like you want to hate the movie. I know you said you'd love to be wrong, but it doesn't seem that way.

As much as it kills me to say, I do agree that Indy could be recast. It would have to be a real solid movie to win over most, but it could be done. Several movie franchises have done it and I don't think Indy would be different. It would be tough to swallow, but ...

Several? Likewhat

Bond- which has been mediocre since Connery up to Craig. Sorry i dont want mediocre

Batman- who never really had a definitive Batman.Keaton was good as Wayne, Kilmer as Bats, Clooney completely missed the mark, and Bale is the closest yet.

Jack Ryan-Again Ford was the best there

Replacing Indy is like recasting Snake Plissken or John McLane. The actors helped create the character,so they will always capture the true essence o the character. Everyone else would be mediocre at best

[steintym]

You named them. It would have to be a solid movie to pull it off, but not impossible.

I think the franchises that have done this suffered more from inferior stories/movies then the changing of the actor.

Whether you like the other actors or not, the Bond franchise has gone on to continued success. Same with the Batman franchise and the last actor, Bale, has been the best Wayne/Batman to date.

I don't want to argue about changing the actor for Indy, because I also wouldn't want to see that happen. Just saying it wouldn't be impossible.

[scifiwolf]

Well, there's always the fact the Harrison has clearly stated he'd kill George and Steven if he were ever replaced.

[cerealkiller182]

Bonds boring, they get made easy because Bond is abad character outside Connery and Craig. Craig like Bale followed a number of mediocre casting decisions which is why it was accepted in the first place. Fords the definitive one,you want to see 8 mediocre Indys before someone reminds us of Ford? I dont!

I cannot see how you an consider yourself an Indy fan and want anew actor

[cerealkiller182]

Well, there's always the fact the Harrison has clearly stated he'd kill George and Steven if he were ever replaced.

as would I, andanyone else.

point of reference: who saw how pissed Kurt Russel was when they said they were going to remake Escape from NY

Wheres the respect? theloyalty?

[Gold Samurai]

point of reference: who saw how pissed Kurt Russel was when they said they were going to remake Escape from NY

Wheres the respect? theloyalty?


any youtube video or quote of this?

[steintym]

I cannot see how you an consider yourself an Indy fan and want anew actor

Don't recall that, but whatever, I'll let it go. I'm more interested in discussing the upcoming movie then "what ifs" anyway. :cwink:

[Pablo Parker]

No, Indiana Jones is Harrison Ford.


...and you just have to rewatch the prologue of The Last Crusade, when he uses the whipp for the fist time and accidentaly hits himself in the face, explaining the distinctive scar on his chin, on Harrison Ford´s chin. That little reference says it all if you think about it... They are merging the character with the actor.
Without Harrison Ford, Indiana Jones could be a cool character anyway... But he wouldn´t be Indiana Jones.

[Matt Murdock]

Great avatar. :up:

[Mr. Socko]

You named them. It would have to be a solid movie to pull it off, but not impossible.

I think the franchises that have done this suffered more from inferior stories/movies then the changing of the actor.

Whether you like the other actors or not, the Bond franchise has gone on to continued success. Same with the Batman franchise and the last actor, Bale, has been the best Wayne/Batman to date.

I don't want to argue about changing the actor for Indy, because I also wouldn't want to see that happen. Just saying it wouldn't be impossible.

No recasting would be as good. Batman can be and has been replaced, so has James Bond, and they are both pre-existing characters who were around long before their respective films.

Indiana Jones, on the other hand, actually is Harrison Ford. The character did not exist before him. Ford is the definitive version of Indiana Jones and that part isn't an opinion, it is a fact. Batman and Bond's definitive portrayals will never unanimously exist on screen because that's what their comic and novel versions are for.

So yes, George Lucas could easily choose any old actor from a screentest to be the new Indiana Jones, but he wouldn't be the definitive version, he wouldn't be Ford so there would be no reason to bother.

[cerealkiller182]

any youtube video or quote of this?

No, it was in a magazine

heres the link
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20015465,00.html

heres the quote
People come up to me and say, ''You played Snake Plissken.'' I didn't play Snake Plissken, I created him!.......F--- that! I am Snake Plissken!"

[cerealkiller182]

Don't recall that, but whatever, I'll let it go. I'm more interested in discussing the upcoming movie then "what ifs" anyway. :cwink:

I didnt mean to target you. I meant it as a generality

[The Don Killuminati]

so i gave it a few days before i said this....even after the trailer coming out...the anticipation for Indy isnt as much aa ironman, and DEF NOT The Dark Knight. so i dont see how people think this will rule the box office....as of right now, its looking like

1. harry potter
2. the dark knight
3. iron man
4. indy
5. hulk

yes 3 of the top 5 are comic book films. and i know we dont even have footage of HP, but lets be serious, itll be #1 worldwide no questions asked...probably domestic too.

[Taiwarriorz21]

so i gave it a few days before i said this....even after the trailer coming out...the anticipation for Indy isnt as much aa ironman, and DEF NOT The Dark Knight. so i dont see how people think this will rule the box office....as of right now, its looking like

1. harry potter
2. the dark knight
3. iron man
4. indy
5. hulk

yes 3 of the top 5 are comic book films. and i know we dont even have footage of HP, but lets be serious, itll be #1 worldwide no questions asked...probably domestic too.

I like that list. Looks good.

[The Don Killuminati]

i can see the future, you didnt know that?

[Spider-Fan]

No, Indiana Jones is Harrison Ford.

Anyone who suggests otherwise about a new Indy film at the present time is just not showing any respect for the original films to suggest anyone else should be playing him.

How am I disrespecting the original films? I love them. Saying I wanted a recast is not disrespectful. Is it disrespectful to place Maggie Gylenhal (I know I butchered her spelling) as Rachel in TDK when it was Katie Holmes in BB? I know that is not nearly as extreme, but I think the same thing applies. Movies are plays on screen, and if plays can be recast countless times, why not movies? I don't see much of a difference, especially in a case like this where I feel Indy would have been better off.

danyose pretty much summed up what my response would be.

I don't think you are coping out, i don't care why you didn't like it, it's all good, you don't need to justify it to me or anyone, just like i have no idea how you could think so highly of SM3 but you do and that is your right.

Yep, and I excersise my rights, much to the dismay to some in this thread :cwink:

Wow, I didn't check this forum for a day and all **** breaks loose. :yay:

Spider-Fan makes some valid points, I'm just surprised his opinion is so final without much of the movie being released (trailers, pictures, etc). It might not be your intent, but you really are sounding like you want to hate the movie. I know you said you'd love to be wrong, but it doesn't seem that way.

As much as it kills me to say, I do agree that Indy could be recast. It would have to be a real solid movie to win over most, but it could be done. Several movie franchises have done it and I don't think Indy would be different. It would be tough to swallow, but ...

I don't hate the movie as a whole yet. That would be hard considering I haven't seen it. However, I strongly disagree with the direction this project has taken, especially considering the length it took to happen, and don't like the footage/info I have seen/read in regards to the movie. That is not to say that Steven can't prove me wrong opening day. I just am not walking into the theater with the optimism most people in this thread will have that day. It is not my intention to sound like I hate the movie already. What I am more intending to say is that I hate where it appears to be going. Again, I can be proven wrong (I walked into SR convinced it would be genious, and anyone on here who knows me knows how much I loath SR).

[Spider-Fan]

No recasting would be as good. Batman can be and has been replaced, so has James Bond, and they are both pre-existing characters who were around long before their respective films.

Indiana Jones, on the other hand, actually is Harrison Ford. The character did not exist before him. Ford is the definitive version of Indiana Jones and that part isn't an opinion, it is a fact. Batman and Bond's definitive portrayals will never unanimously exist on screen because that's what their comic and novel versions are for.

So yes, George Lucas could easily choose any old actor from a screentest to be the new Indiana Jones, but he wouldn't be the definitive version, he wouldn't be Ford so there would be no reason to bother.

Yet we could be saying the same for Tom Selleck if not for him dropping out.

Again, no recast may be as good as Ford's Indy portrayel, but that doesn't mean a recasted Indy movie can't make a better product than we may get in this one (I am phrasing this more friendly so not to offend anyone with my blasphemy). I think using Ford as he is now limits what they can do with the character. Hence why they are rehashing the father/son thing (which I find totally unneccessary). I think a new Indy would have given more options.

[The Kid]

Holy ****, you guys gotta see this. Here's the way the trailer SHOULD have been, according to this guy, and you know what? I like it a lot!!!

L4nrP-nn1_s :indy:

[The Chris]

Holy ****, you guys gotta see this. Here's the way the trailer SHOULD have been, according to this guy, and you know what? I like it a lot!!!

L4nrP-nn1_s :indy:

You know, that guy makes a great point. All these damn rip offs (even though I like the mummy films) that don't even come close, so it's great to see the MASTER back in action.

[cerealkiller182]

Yet we could be saying the same for Tom Selleck if not for him dropping out.

Well then Id be fighting for Tom Selleck as Indy.Its a "what could have been" not a "what if"

Again, no recast may be as good as Ford's Indy portrayel,

Then why even go down that road.

I think using Ford as he is now limits what they can do with the character. Hence why they are rehashing the father/son thing (which I find totally unneccessary). I think a new Indy would have given more options.

Limits? Ford has said he has done more stunts than he ever has on an Indy flick. And god forbid a character actually grows, ages, and continues to develop. Its better than eternal youth franchise heroes, more interesting too

[cerealkiller182]

You know, that guy makes a great point. All these damn rip offs (even though I like the mummy films) that don't even come close, so it's great to see the MASTER back in action.

Indys not the original adventurer. Doc Savage and Allan Quartermane came before him, and more will come after. Thats like saying every superhero is a Superman rip off.Every cowboy a Duke rip off

[The Chris]

Indys not the original adventurer. Doc Savage and Allan Quartermane came before him, and more will come after. Thats like saying every superhero is a Superman rip off.Every cowboy a Duke rip off

I know, but to me he's the best, and when ever these other dudes make these movies they think indy. Even the lighting and color is similar at times.

[danoyse]

How am I disrespecting the original films? I love them. Saying I wanted a recast is not disrespectful. Is it disrespectful to place Maggie Gylenhal (I know I butchered her spelling) as Rachel in TDK when it was Katie Holmes in BB? I know that is not nearly as extreme, but I think the same thing applies. Movies are plays on screen, and if plays can be recast countless times, why not movies? I don't see much of a difference, especially in a case like this where I feel Indy would have been better off.

Rachel in the Batman movies is not an iconic character like Indiana Jones.

And it's disrespecting the original films by thinking the performances that came with them are so disposable.

If it was 50 years later, I'd be curious about a "new" Indiana Jones, for all of the obvious reasons. But Ford is more than capable to play the part now, and should be the only one who gets to play him.

[Geo7877]

How about... Instead of recasting Indiana Jones... Hollywood use some originally and make a *gasp* new series and not ruin a great franchise by replacing the person who is the character.

Had they thought about recasting John Mclane, it would have been terrible. Bruce Willis as John Mclane and Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, it's how it should always stay.

Just watch the trailer and the way Harrison sighs when he picks up his hat, and his delivery of the "Damn, I thought that was closer." line feels like Indiana Jones, because Indy is very much a part of Ford and it would never be anywhere as good without him.

In closing, Harrison Ford should never be replaced as Indiana Jones. There's no reason they can't just make a new character and new franchise without slapping Indiana Jones on it to make more money.

[DoctorJones]

Indeed. So much of Ford was incorporated into Indiana: his scar in Crusade, and now his age in Kingdom. He has that weariness and droll sense of humour everybody loves about Jones. It was his idea to shoot the Arab swordsman! Who else would you cast? Ford was approaching 40 when he made Raiders: Indy isn't meant to be young.

I get my prequel fix in the excellent books, TV episodes and comics. But I love the idea of seeing Indy age for real on screen. I don't want a younger and cockier actor as Jones on screen: moreso than Batman or Bond, my other favourite fictional characters, Indy is a movie character.

[Spider-Fan]

I suck at seperating, so replies to each point in bold:

Well then Id be fighting for Tom Selleck as Indy.Its a "what could have been" not a "what if"

Yes it is a what if, but it shows that Spielberg and Lucas felt someone else could fill the role of Indy (and in Selleck's case as their 1st choice, better than Ford...though we will never know).

Then why even go down that road.



Limits? Ford has said he has done more stunts than he ever has on an Indy flick. And god forbid a character actually grows, ages, and continues to develop. Its better than eternal youth franchise heroes, more interesting too

I am not talking as far as limiting stunts. I am talking about limiting the direction the character goes in the story. With a 65 year old Indy, you have fewer story options. With a younger character, he can experience more of a wide variety of things, and we won't have to rehash the father/son thing. And the stunts in this movie may also be eaiser due to the use of CGI (not sure how much is in the movie, but it is a possibility), so that remains to be seen.

Rachel in the Batman movies is not an iconic character like Indiana Jones.

So? They are roles. Actor's fill in roles. It is their job, iconic or not. Truth is actors can be replaced imo no matter what.

And it's disrespecting the original films by thinking the performances that came with them are so disposable.

This is not like LOTR where the movies are connected by a strong continuity to where you need to see them all to appreciate them. Like Bond, you can watch Last Crusade without having seen the other 2 and get it perfectly. Nothing changes with a new Indy. Those movies will always be the same.

If it was 50 years later, I'd be curious about a "new" Indiana Jones, for all of the obvious reasons. But Ford is more than capable to play the part now, and should be the only one who gets to play him.

I disagree, and instead of outlining my reasons in reply to this last point you made, I will leave it at that. I think Indy should have been recast, many of you guys don't. I guess we just won't agree here.

[DoctorJones]

With a 65 year old Indy, you have fewer story options. With a younger character, he can experience more of a wide variety of things, and we won't have to rehash the father/son thing.


I don't think it will be a rehash, because clearly Koepp found a way to work this in when Darabont didn't. It isn't just the possibility of a son: Indy might finally be reconciling with a woman he loved, and maybe even her father.

Besides, in every movie Indy has to discover the power of God "or something". I swear the man has short-term memory from all those punches he endures.

[Spider-Fan]

I don't think it will be a rehash, because clearly Koepp found a way to work this in when Darabont didn't. It isn't just the possibility of a son: Indy might finally be reconciling with a woman he loved, and maybe even her father.

Besides, in every movie Indy has to discover the power of God "or something". I swear the man has short-term memory from all those punches he endures.

You can try to add small changes however you want. I still think it is an unneccessary rehash.

[cerealkiller182]

Yes it is a what if, but it shows that Spielberg and Lucas felt someone else could fill the role of Indy (and in Selleck's case as their 1st choice, better than Ford...though we will never know).

Wrong, this was an early stage of development before the Indy character became who we all know and love.

This is not like LOTR where the movies are connected by a strong continuity to where you need to see them all to appreciate them. Like Bond, you can watch Last Crusade without having seen the other 2 and get it perfectly. Nothing changes with a new Indy. Those movies will always be the same.

Its not about continuity, its about the character.

[DoctorJones]

Consider this then: For years people have seen Indiana Jones as a trilogy, and Temple of Doom as the odd-one-out. With a fourth film, it will feel more unique. Raiders had Marion, Nazis, Sallah, Brody and a Middle Eastern setting. Doom lacks all these: Crusade restores the latter three. Kingdom will bring back Marion but in a tropical setting. There have been numerous other characters unique to each film.

Kingdom will not be just a fourth film too: it is the final adventure of Jones in 1957. It is the finale to to the TV series, the Bantam Books set before the films, and Dark Horse Comics' series. We will see Indy has learnt to no longer be a mercenary like Belloq and accept content not in earthly riches, but spiritual wisdom, and he will pass on this wisdom to Mutt and Mac.

Lastly, how cool is it they're delving into the ancient astronaut theory!? Screw the Garden of Eden.

[DoctorJones]

Yes it is a what if, but it shows that Spielberg and Lucas felt someone else could fill the role of Indy (and in Selleck's case as their 1st choice, better than Ford...though we will never know).


Ford was Spielberg's first choice, and Lucas only felt comfortable with casting him in another one of his projects after Selleck left and the producers forced him.

[Spider-Fan]

Wrong, this was an early stage of development before the Indy character became who we all know and love.



Its not about continuity, its about the character.

I feel like we are running in circles here right now.

Would a new Indy be different? Yes. I have no doubts about that. However, the character was conceived before Harrison Ford. Stan Lee may have created the X-Men, but for my money, Lee's X-Men books are not good. I love Stan Lee, but I don't like that X-Men run. Now, just because Lee wrote the X-Men, does that mean no Claremonts can't come in later and do well? Though this is an example with comics and not movies, the same principle I feel applies. Yes, Ford is the Indy we know. But, I don't think that means another person can ever play the part. Much like my comic example, the X-Men are bigger than just Stan Lee, and I feel Indy (as a franchise hero) is bigger than Ford. While it may take getting used to, I feel it could be done.

[Spider-Fan]

Consider this then: For years people have seen Indiana Jones as a trilogy, and Temple of Doom as the odd-one-out. With a fourth film, it will feel more unique. Raiders had Marion, Nazis, Sallah, Brody and a Middle Eastern setting. Doom lacks all these: Crusade restores the latter three. Kingdom will bring back Marion but in a tropical setting. There have been numerous other characters unique to each film.

Kingdom will not be just a fourth film too: it is the final adventure of Jones in 1957. It is the finale to to the TV series, the Bantam Books set before the films, and Dark Horse Comics' series. We will see Indy has learnt to no longer be a mercenary like Belloq and accept content not in earthly riches, but spiritual wisdom, and he will pass on this wisdom to Mutt and Mac.

Lastly, how cool is it they're delving into the ancient astronaut theory!? Screw the Garden of Eden.

I think the whole space thing can really blow up on them. It might be cool, but I see it as a big risk. I don't always need Christian/religious lore (other stuff can be done most certainly), but I think the space thing can really be bad. However, this is not one of the things I have a problem with on the movie (though I do see it as a risk).

Ford was Spielberg's first choice, and Lucas only felt comfortable with casting him in another one of his projects after Selleck left and the producers forced him.

I stand corrected, but still, they were willing to go elsewhere before.

[cerealkiller182]

I feel like we are running in circles here right now.

Would a new Indy be different? Yes. I have no doubts about that. However, the character was conceived before Harrison Ford. Stan Lee may have created the X-Men, but for my money, Lee's X-Men books are not good. I love Stan Lee, but I don't like that X-Men run. Now, just because Lee wrote the X-Men, does that mean no Claremonts can't come in later and do well? Though this is an example with comics and not movies, the same principle I feel applies. Yes, Ford is the Indy we know. But, I don't think that means another person can ever play the part. Much like my comic example, the X-Men are bigger than just Stan Lee, and I feel Indy (as a franchise hero) is bigger than Ford. While it may take getting used to, I feel it could be done.

Running in circles! I think thats you. How many posters have to mention that Ford has a lot to do with the creation of the character of Indy. So whether it was concieved before him means nothing because Indy was created with him. He has left his permanent stamp on him.

And your Stan Lee example means nothing. Not only is the medium different, writing a character and protraying a character is too different things. Film is a carries more emotional weight (unless you get teary-eyed and adrenaline rushes from reading comics). Comics also have the dreaded "recon" which has seriously screwed up the whole system to the point of no return. I could care less about comics. They serve entertainment to me, but theres no emotional weight. Im a film fan first and foremost and if you are think classic cinema can just be rewritten for you by todays standards then you are sadly wrong.

A new indy will be different. Does this sound like a good thing to you. It sounds god awful.

[cerealkiller182]

I stand corrected, but still, they were willing to go elsewhere before.

No they werent, Lucas was. Spielberg wasnt and he is the true brains of the operation, no one can deny that.

[Spider-Fan]

Running in circles! I think thats you. How many posters have to mention that Ford has a lot to do with the creation of the character of Indy. So whether it was concieved before him means nothing because Indy was created with him. He has left his permanent stamp on him.

And your Stan Lee example means nothing. Not only is the medium different, writing a character and protraying a character is too different things. Film is a carries more emotional weight (unless you get teary-eyed and adrenaline rushes from reading comics). Comics also have the dreaded "recon" which has seriously screwed up the whole system to the point of no return. I could care less about comics. They serve entertainment to me, but theres no emotional weight. Im a film fan first and foremost and if you are think classic cinema can just be rewritten for you by todays standards then you are sadly wrong.

A new indy will be different. Does this sound like a good thing to you. It sounds god awful.

I am not saying Ford did not have input in the Indy we have seen in these movies. Far from it. What I am saying is I don't buy into this idea that he can't be replaced. He has left his stamp on Indy, I agree. However, like comic writers, do we honsetly believe no one else can have their stamp on the character just because Ford made his stamp already? I don't.

And yes, I get teary eyed from comics. The Death of Captain Marvel made me cry at several points. Both are visual mediums, and even Stan Lee says it is a form of direction. When a story is good, despite the medium, it carries an emotional weight. That goes for novels, short stories, movies, comics, plays, etc. I will fight anyone on this point.

And a new Indy sounds better to me than a poor lasting taste of Ford's Indy. If Indy 4 sucks, I will be MUCH more angry than if Indy had just been recast and sucked. Terrible recasts can be seperated from the original movies, but a new Indy with Ford that sucks leaves a poor taste, and is harder to seperate from the overall body of work of his Indy.

[DoctorJones]

Does it look like it will suck though? Consensus, as judged by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7246851.stm) and E! (http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=43c60696-52ab-432b-bcce-d25708ea5e6a), indicates otherwise.

[cerealkiller182]

I am not saying Ford did not have input in the Indy we have seen in these movies. Far from it. What I am saying is I don't buy into this idea that he can't be replaced. He has left his stamp on Indy, I agree. However, like comic writers, do we honsetly believe no one else can have their stamp on the character just because Ford made his stamp already? I don't.

You cant use comics as an example, its a different medium. The nature of which is to f'up characters and fix them later, a continuing trend in comics. I'd rather try to keep integrity in film (even thought its slowly leaving). See how nobody is *****ing about the guy who plays Indy in the stunt show. Different medium, different circumstances.

And yes, I get teary eyed from comics. The Death of Captain Marvel made me cry at several points. Both are visual mediums, and even Stan Lee says it is a form of direction. When a story is good, despite the medium, it carries an emotional weight. That goes for novels, short stories, movies, comics, plays, etc. I will fight anyone on this point.

I'll buy that.

And a new Indy sounds better to me than a poor lasting taste of Ford's Indy. If Indy 4 sucks, I will be MUCH more angry than if Indy had just been recast and sucked. Terrible recasts can be seperated from the original movies, but a new Indy with Ford that sucks leaves a poor taste, and is harder to seperate from the overall body of work of his Indy.

So you'd rather see the franchise **** on then to see it go down in flames of glory. Do you realize the integrity of this character. Writers have taken him in other directions. He has comics and books and video games. But we are talking about a man who completely embodies Indy, you'd rather see someone come in with an incredibly high rate of potential failure than to see Ford do what he does.

And you want something new direction, here you go, Indy is older, dealing with his age and looking for artifacts that have nothing to do with religion or mysticism. A brand new direction with the ONLY man who can protray Indy on film. You sound like a producer for god sakes. Lets take everything good about a film and make it hip and flashy. Wheres the integrity?

[Spider-Fan]

You cant use comics as an example, its a different medium. The nature of which is to f'up characters and fix them later, a continuing trend in comics. I'd rather try to keep integrity in film (even thought its slowly leaving). See how nobody is *****ing about the guy who plays Indy in the stunt show. Different medium, different circumstances.

The same principles can apply to different mediums. In this case, I feel the comparison is adequate. You disagree, that's fine.

I'll buy that.

Thanks :yay:

So you'd rather see the franchise **** on then to see it go down in flames of glory. Do you realize the integrity of this character. Writers have taken him in other directions. He has comics and books and video games. But we are talking about a man who completely embodies Indy, you'd rather see someone come in with an incredibly high rate of potential failure than to see Ford do what he does.

And you want something new direction, here you go, Indy is older, dealing with his age and looking for artifacts that have nothing to do with religion or mysticism. A brand new direction with the ONLY man who can protray Indy on film. You sound like a producer for god sakes. Lets take everything good about a film and make it hip and flashy. Wheres the integrity?

People get on me for having a negative viewpoint of this movie, but what if the new recasted Indy movie turned out a better product? If people want me to constantly focus on the positives that this movie may have, then I want people to acknowledge the same posibilities in a new vision. I feel either way, Indy 4 from the start has had a very high suckage potential. No matter which way they go. However, if the suckage happens, I would rather have not seen Ford's Indy taken down in non-glorious fashion. As far as integrity, I can easily say where is the integrity in possibly hurting Ford's Indy legacy as a whole?

[DieSmiling]

Comparing comics to an iconic movie character is ridiculous. Comics are meant to go on forever.

Anyone else just wouldn't be Indy. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones, period.

[DoctorJones]

That was my point too. Indy originated in film, unlike Batman or Bond, who remain interpretations of a character printed on a page.

[danoyse]

So? They are roles. Actor's fill in roles. It is their job, iconic or not. Truth is actors can be replaced imo no matter what.

Again, you're treating the character like something that came off an assembly line rather than something an actor created on screen.

I've watched Harrison Ford on interview shows for years, and almost every time he's asked about the status of the new Indiana Jones movie. More importantly, when he's going to be doing the next Indiana Jones movie. And this was long before this film finally went into production.

That's because people don't see Indy as just this faceless, replacable character in a film. They see Harrison Ford as Indy. And that's who they want back in a new film. Not someone who wasn't even there the first time around.

[Mr. Socko]

so i gave it a few days before i said this....even after the trailer coming out...the anticipation for Indy isnt as much aa ironman, and DEF NOT The Dark Knight. so i dont see how people think this will rule the box office....as of right now, its looking like

1. harry potter
2. the dark knight
3. iron man
4. indy
5. hulk

yes 3 of the top 5 are comic book films. and i know we dont even have footage of HP, but lets be serious, itll be #1 worldwide no questions asked...probably domestic too.

I think Iron Man will do good, but not that good...as many people are saying.

How about... Instead of recasting Indiana Jones... Hollywood use some originally and make a *gasp* new series and not ruin a great franchise by replacing the person who is the character.

Had they thought about recasting John Mclane, it would have been terrible. Bruce Willis as John Mclane and Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, it's how it should always stay.

Just watch the trailer and the way Harrison sighs when he picks up his hat, and his delivery of the "Damn, I thought that was closer." line feels like Indiana Jones, because Indy is very much a part of Ford and it would never be anywhere as good without him.

In closing, Harrison Ford should never be replaced as Indiana Jones. There's no reason they can't just make a new character and new franchise without slapping Indiana Jones on it to make more money.
I agree. I'd rather the studios come up with another adventure hero than recast Indy.

[GhostPoet]

I can't speak for everyone...but i'd love to eventually see the role of Indiana Jones passed on to a new actor. Just like what is done with the Bond series.

[Tempest19]

In response to Cory's predictions:

There is no way in hell Iron Man can beat Indy. Are you fcking out of ur mind with IM bias or something dude? Iron Man is good, but we've seen it all before. Indy is making his come back. Indy is a LEGEND. Iron Man is a just recognizable comic book hero. He'll give Hulk a run for his money due to the 1st film, but nothing more than that. Granted I'm not saying it won't be a good movie-it will be, but don't see it having any chance of beating Indy. Empire estimated somewhere between 200-300 mil and I'd say that's a reasonable estimate. I believe:

1. Harry Potter/ Indiana Jones
2. Harry Potter/ Indiana Jones
3. The Dark Knight
4. Narnia/ Iron Man
5. Narnia/ Iron Man
6. Hulk

Narnia brought A LOT of money with the first one, I believe, and I have no doubt that it will do very well this summer as well since it seems more suited for the summer crowd than winter crowd like many fantasy films are.

[cerealkiller182]

People get on me for having a negative viewpoint of this movie, but what if the new recasted Indy movie turned out a better product? If people want me to constantly focus on the positives that this movie may have, then I want people to acknowledge the same posibilities in a new vision. I feel either way, Indy 4 from the start has had a very high suckage potential. No matter which way they go. However, if the suckage happens, I would rather have not seen Ford's Indy taken down in non-glorious fashion. As far as integrity, I can easily say where is the integrity in possibly hurting Ford's Indy legacy as a whole?

Whats the positive? That it will have a higher regard by Spidey-Fan.I see no positives. but I see negatives in Indy 4. And Im ready to take it on full head, but Im a fan,and Im gonna take the good with the bad. Dont misunderstand to say I'll take a new actor though. The creative team of Indy isthe reason Im a fan in the first place, take it away and Im no longer a fan.

What about a little something for the effort? Rocky V did not ruin the legacy of Rocky 1-4.

[cerealkiller182]

There is no way in hell Iron Man can beat Indy. Are you fcking out of ur mind with IM bias or something dude? Iron Man is good, but we've seen it all before. Indy is making his come back. Indy is a LEGEND. Iron Man is a just recognizable comic book hero. He'll give Hulk a run for his money due to the 1st film, but nothing more than that. Granted I'm not saying it won't be a good movie-it will be, but don't see it having any chance of beating Indy. Empire estimated somewhere between 200-300 mil and I'd say that's a reasonable estimate. I believe

I could care less about Indy beating IM. All I know is that we have some of the best casting ever to look forward to this summer.

[CorpusBlack]

I could care less about Indy beating IM. All I know is that we have some of the best casting ever to look forward to this summer.

Yes we do.

[Kevin Roegele]

I can't speak for everyone...but i'd love to eventually see the role of Indiana Jones passed on to a new actor. Just like what is done with the Bond series.

I'd go against that. So much of Indy is Ford's personality. There are some roles you just can't recast. Plenty of actors have already played Indiana Jones in a all-but-name - Brendan Fraiser, Michael Douglas, Richard Chamberlain - and none came anyway near Ford.

[scifiwolf]

Well, I've been wanting to do this for a while, and finally got around to finishing it. It's a vector wallpaper of the Comic Con poster. It's my first real attempt at using Adobe Illustrator, so I'm pleased with the result. It's sized 1280 x 1024.

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j70/balonywolf/IndySilhouettethumbnail.jpg (http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j70/balonywolf/IndySilhouetteWallpaper.jpg)

[CorpusBlack]

Well, I've been wanting to do this for a while, and finally got around to finishing it. It's a vector wallpaper of the Comic Con poster. It's my first real attempt at using Adobe Illustrator, so I'm pleased with the result. It's sized 1280 x 1024.

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j70/balonywolf/IndySilhouettethumbnail.jpg (http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j70/balonywolf/IndySilhouetteWallpaper.jpg)

Nice. :up:

[OctaviousINC]

I don't know if it's been posted but, they're gonna re-release and have a special edition Indiana Jones Trilogy come May. Awesome on one hand, bull**** on the other. US true Indy fans have to rebuy...again. Ugh.
http://www.theraider.net/news/fullstory_merchandise.php?id=517

[Golgo-13]

Yeah, i just bought the dvd pack. :cmad:

[OctaviousINC]

There should be a rule where you can present your receipt to the Old trilogy box set and get the new one half off or something lol.

[Geo7877]

I don't know if it's been posted but, they're gonna re-release and have a special edition Indiana Jones Trilogy come May. Awesome on one hand, bull**** on the other. US true Indy fans have to rebuy...again. Ugh.
http://www.theraider.net/news/fullstory_merchandise.php?id=517


What's so special about it?

[Rezzo]

What's so special about it?

There seem to be no details at the moment.

[SpandexFan]

so i gave it a few days before i said this....even after the trailer coming out...the anticipation for Indy isnt as much aa ironman, and DEF NOT The Dark Knight. so i dont see how people think this will rule the box office....as of right now, its looking like

1. harry potter
2. the dark knight
3. iron man
4. indy
5. hulk

yes 3 of the top 5 are comic book films. and i know we dont even have footage of HP, but lets be serious, itll be #1 worldwide no questions asked...probably domestic too.

Don't quit your day job. A box office prognosticator you are not. Iron Man will be lucky to pull over $100 million, just like the other "less known to regular joes, but known to comic book fans" movie in Daredevil. Indy will more than double Iron Man's earnings. I'm stumped how you could think otherwise. HP and DK will be up there, you're right about that. I'm willing to bet Indy could make more than either of those, but those 3 will definitely be top 5. I have to wait for a Hulk trailer before making any predictions, but I doubt it makes more than the Ang Lee version, even if it does appeal more to movie goers than the first try.

[scifiwolf]

Indy's big battle will be longevity. It has the 5 day opening weekend, but will people keep showing up? I think it'll push $150 million, maybe top $200 million

[Matt Murdock]

http://www.sideshowtoy.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?item=39051

[Tempest19]

Indy's big battle will be longevity. It has the 5 day opening weekend, but will people keep showing up? I think it'll push $150 million, maybe top $200 million

Are you talking opening weekend or overall? Because that prediction is way too low. It will be 300-400.

[theShape]

Are you talking opening weekend or overall? Because that prediction is way too low. It will be 300-400.

I think he means domestically. Indy will not pull in $300-400 in the US. Maybe the worldwide total.

[Spider-Vader]

Anyone who says Indiana Jones would be good without Harrison Ford automatically loses all credebility in my book. Bond had different actors true, but no one till Craig was even fit to hold Sean Connerys hat in the role, so that's really not a good example.

Besides, with seeing his age, we now have 3 totally seperate periods of Indy movies. Young Indiana Jones with the old TV series, Indy in his prime with the original 3, and now Indy in his later years with the new one. It's a nice way to go.
Indy movies should die with Ford.

At least we agree there.
I also like Spidey 3, it's better than 1 IMO.
so i gave it a few days before i said this....even after the trailer coming out...the anticipation for Indy isnt as much aa ironman, and DEF NOT The Dark Knight. so i dont see how people think this will rule the box office....as of right now, its looking like
yes 3 of the top 5 are comic book films. and i know we dont even have footage of HP, but lets be serious, itll be #1 worldwide no questions asked...probably domestic too.

Ummm.... Most polls/lists for most anticipated movie of 2008 have Indy at #1 or very high. So, get your facts straight.

[SpandexFan]

Are you talking opening weekend or overall? Because that prediction is way too low. It will be 300-400.

I don't know what Phantom Menace's numbers were, but I'm betting a little below that.

[Tempest19]

Phantom Menace brought in around 430 mil, Revenge of the Sith brought in 380 mil. DOMESTIC.

And then weren't most summer blockbusters this summer over 300 mil?: SM3. Pirates. Transformers.

SM3: 336
SHREK: 322
TF:319
POTC3: 309

Do u guys seriously believe Indy will be that far below those? That's why I say 300-400, makes more sense.

[Spider-Vader]

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/6183/ab83c4a873cf4aab5c897d2fl0.gif

[Tempest19]

Lmaol. If you look at it with music it's like they all have their different rocking reactions.

[PWN3R]

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/6183/ab83c4a873cf4aab5c897d2fl0.gif
:lmao:

[Matt Murdock]

I hope nobody missed this :)

http://www.sideshowtoy.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?item=3905

[Spider-Vader]

I don't have a credit card. :-(
I'll have to settle with the 3 3/4.

[Matt Murdock]

Their figures are fantastic. :up:

[Spider-Vader]

Yeah, to bad I don't have a credit card. I'd have that, a couple SW & Terminator figures.

[Cagefighterkip]

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/6183/ab83c4a873cf4aab5c897d2fl0.gif

awww what a cute family :)

[Spider-Vader]

Look how Indy makes Marion duck but not Mutt.
Looks like he wanted the abortion.

[scifiwolf]

I'll bet a million bucks that we're seeing our first continuity error - Indy's hat's coming off and then in the next shot, I bet it'll be normal.

[Spider-Fan]

Whats the positive? That it will have a higher regard by Spidey-Fan.I see no positives. but I see negatives in Indy 4. And Im ready to take it on full head, but Im a fan,and Im gonna take the good with the bad. Dont misunderstand to say I'll take a new actor though. The creative team of Indy isthe reason Im a fan in the first place, take it away and Im no longer a fan.

What about a little something for the effort? Rocky V did not ruin the legacy of Rocky 1-4.

Rocky 5 cheapened the series a bit, at least to me. So did Rocky 4 IMO. The first 3 are awesome movies, but when I watch them, those poor 4 & 5 always pop up in the back of my head, and I am sure I am not alone on that. Rocky Balboa got Rocky a better ending, but the movie was still not the level of 1-3 IMO.

Though as for how much I'd want a new Indy, that is not my first choice. My first choice would have been to let the series die at Last Crusade. I have been against Indy 4 since 2000. But, my view is that if it has to happen, I'd rather not see a poor end to Ford's run. If I am wrong and I think the movie is awesome, I will come in here and take my punches for being wrong. But, that is a fight for another day.

[danoyse]

There should be a rule where you can present your receipt to the Old trilogy box set and get the new one half off or something lol.

Yeah, because I still have my receipt. :huh:

[terry78]

It honestly looks like Indy is ramming her head into the back of the seat.

[CorpusBlack]

Rocky 5 cheapened the series a bit, at least to me. So did Rocky 4 IMO. The first 3 are awesome movies, but when I watch them, those poor 4 & 5 always pop up in the back of my head, and I am sure I am not alone on that. Rocky Balboa got Rocky a better ending, but the movie was still not the level of 1-3 IMO.

I actually thought all Rocky's after the first two failed in comparison.

[Spider-Fan]

I actually thought all Rocky's after the first two failed in comparison.

I feel Rocky 3 is an underrated movie.

[CorpusBlack]

I feel Rocky 3 is an underrated movie.

I like them all to some degree, but I feel from 3 on they lost the atmosphere and feel of the first two. Great, I'm turning this into a Rocky thread. :cwink:

[cerealkiller182]

Whatever the case the first Rocky is still the same GREAT movie it was regardless of how good its sequels were. Same for The Crow, probably same for a lot of series that have escaped me at the moment.

[CorpusBlack]

Whatever the case the first Rocky is still the same GREAT movie it was regardless of how good its sequels were. Same for The Crow, probably same for a lot of series that have escaped me at the moment.

No doubt about it.

[Spider-Fan]

Whatever the case the first Rocky is still the same GREAT movie it was regardless of how good its sequels were. Same for The Crow, probably same for a lot of series that have escaped me at the moment.

Good thing for The Crow that the only sequel I even remotely remeber was Salvation (City of Angels I saw once when I was like ten).

Rocky is a great movie, but the crappy movies are in my head after I watch it to a degree. Same with the OT for Star Wars. I love the movies. I think about them for a bit after I watch them. I still love them, and then "Too bad the prequels sucked" will pop into my head at some point. Same with Rocky.

[GhostPoet]

Don't quit your day job. A box office prognosticator you are not. Iron Man will be lucky to pull over $100 million, just like the other "less known to regular joes, but known to comic book fans" movie in Daredevil. Indy will more than double Iron Man's earnings. I'm stumped how you could think otherwise. HP and DK will be up there, you're right about that. I'm willing to bet Indy could make more than either of those, but those 3 will definitely be top 5. I have to wait for a Hulk trailer before making any predictions, but I doubt it makes more than the Ang Lee version, even if it does appeal more to movie goers than the first try.

I know people at work who've never heard of Iron Man before but are very excited for the film. It's got that vibe that draws in the regular joe.

[cerealkiller182]

Good thing for The Crow that the only sequel I even remotely remeber was Salvation (City of Angels I saw once when I was like ten).

Rocky is a great movie, but the crappy movies are in my head after I watch it to a degree. Same with the OT for Star Wars. I love the movies. I think about them for a bit after I watch them. I still love them, and then "Too bad the prequels sucked" will pop into my head at some point. Same with Rocky.

Star Wars i agree in an aspect since it relies on continuity, but I can easily differentiate between the prequels and the originals.

Take the Matrix for example. Revolutions blows, so it reflects poorly on Reloaded which had no solid ending. But the original Matrix is still great as a standalone.

But Indy, Crow, Rocky, each were standalone films. A new mission/victim/fight/whatever so none of the movies should reflect poorly on the one before itbut can always be fixed by a better sequel.

Rocky Balboa>Rocky 5
Last Crusade > Temple of Doom(which wasnt even awful)
The Crow has yet to have one and probably never will, but The first one is still great

[Spider-Fan]

Star Wars i agree in an aspect since it relies on continuity, but I can easily differentiate between the prequels and the originals.

Not if you're watching the DVD versions. Even with the original theatrical movies, while I can differentiate them, I no less think about the prequel suckage.

Take the Matrix for example. Revolutions blows, so it reflects poorly on Reloaded which had no solid ending. But the original Matrix is still great as a standalone.

Actually, I loved Revolutions, and think the Matrix sequels are very underappreciated.

But Indy, Crow, Rocky, each were standalone films. A new mission/victim/fight/whatever so none of the movies should reflect poorly on the one before itbut can always be fixed by a better sequel.

Indy is stand alone...now. But, something tells me this movie will try to establish more of a continuity, thus making it hard to seperate. The Crow I agree with you on, but I disagree on Rocky, since each Rocky film builds to the next.

Rocky Balboa>Rocky 5
Last Crusade > Temple of Doom(which wasnt even awful)
The Crow has yet to have one and probably never will, but The first one is still great

Balboa may have been better than 5, but that is not much of an accomplishment (since 5 really sucked). I liked Balboa, I just don't think it is a great movie. Last Crusade was made fairly close after Temple of Doom, so I don't even see how that is relevant in depicting how good a sequel this long in the making will be. Of all the examples people can give me of sequels taking this long to be made, none of them have turned out great. None. May have a couple decent ones (Balboa), but most suck.

[cerealkiller182]

Balboa may have been better than 5, but that is not much of an accomplishment (since 5 really sucked). I liked Balboa, I just don't think it is a great movie. Last Crusade was made fairly close after Temple of Doom, so I don't even see how that is relevant in depicting how good a sequel this long in the making will be. Of all the examples people can give me of sequels taking this long to be made, none of them have turned out great. None. May have a couple decent ones (Balboa), but most suck.

Not my point, my point was in general sequels dont ruin legacies

But while we're on it. Movies that get rushed into production are never that good. If it takes a long But why does the amount o time matter anyway

[Spider-Fan]

Not my point, my point was in general sequels dont ruin legacies

I don't think Temple of Doom was bad enough to qualify in the ruins the legacy catagory. Something more extreme like Conan The Destroyer or Terminator 3 I think is required. Not Temple of Doom. Like I said, crappy sequels/prequels do pop in my head personally in cases like this.

[cerealkiller182]

I don't think Temple of Doom was bad enough to qualify in the ruins the legacy catagory. Something more extreme like Conan The Destroyer or Terminator 3 I think is required. Not Temple of Doom. Like I said, crappy sequels/prequels do pop in my head personally in cases like this.

Didnt mean to say you did not like ToD, I like it too,but it gets alot of guff and and it was the first thing to come to mind. T3 also bad but T1 and T2 are still the same movie. They havent changed. It doesnt make sense

[Spider-Fan]

Didnt mean to say you did not like ToD, I like it too,but it gets alot of guff and and it was the first thing to come to mind. T3 also bad but T1 and T2 are still the same movie. They havent changed. It doesnt make sense

T1 and T2 may be the same movie, but with T3 I know where the story goes, and it sticks in my head. I just can't see the end of T2 and know Judgement Day is avoided. I know a crappy bad guy and new Terminator (with exploding batteries :whatever: ) saves them from being destroyed on Judgement Day. I can watch those first two movies, and be happy for a bit, but that crappy 3rd part to the story does pop up, and I get mad. Just the way I am.

And ToD shouldn't get hate at all. May not be as good as LC or RotLA, but it is a worthy addition to the series.

[cerealkiller182]

T1 and T2 may be the same movie, but with T3 I know where the story goes, and it sticks in my head. I just can't see the end of T2 and know Judgement Day is avoided. I know a crappy bad guy and new Terminator (with exploding batteries :whatever: ) saves them from being destroyed on Judgement Day. I can watch those first two movies, and be happy for a bit, but that crappy 3rd part to the story does pop up, and I get mad. Just the way I am

This doesnt sound melodramatic too you?

[Kevin Roegele]

Forget the Crystal Skull....this is the real Indy IV-!!!

http://www.boomerangshop.com/dvdcover/imageweb21/KingSolomonsMines198513609_f.jpg

[Kevin Roegele]

T1 and T2 may be the same movie, but with T3 I know where the story goes, and it sticks in my head. I just can't see the end of T2 and know Judgement Day is avoided. I know a crappy bad guy and new Terminator (with exploding batteries :whatever: ) saves them from being destroyed on Judgement Day. I can watch those first two movies, and be happy for a bit, but that crappy 3rd part to the story does pop up, and I get mad. Just the way I am.

And ToD shouldn't get hate at all. May not be as good as LC or RotLA, but it is a worthy addition to the series.

Just tell yourself that T1 and T2 are James Cameron's complete story - a trilogy in two movies - and T3 is merely a lame attempt by those unconnected with the series to extend the franchise for purely financial reasons.

The message of T3 is, "Hey, it's just getting started." The message of T2 is, "It never happened."

[steintym]

And ToD shouldn't get hate at all. May not be as good as LC or RotLA, but it is a worthy addition to the series.

I think there's a lot of people that actually prefer Temple over Crusade (myself included). Either way, you are correct, it fits right into the series.

[Webhead2006]

well actually a couple of producers from t2 worked on t3 also.

[Mr. Crumb]

I prefer TOD over LC anyday of the week. TOD while darker, still harks back to the old adventure serials IMO.

LC feels like a totally different movie. Much slower pace. Not adventurous enough. Very slapstick.

The only good scenes are between Ford and Connery. Thats it. Everything else was underwhelming to me. I liked it when I was a kid. I doesnt hold up well enough for me now.

[BatJeff7786]

TOD was so over the top that it was rediculous. I don't care if it was dark or not. It's still an entertaining movie though.

[DoctorJones]

As much as a thrill-ride Doom is, I prefer the themes and humour of Crusade. It showed how much Spielberg was maturing as a filmmaker.

[Spider-Fan]

Just tell yourself that T1 and T2 are James Cameron's complete story - a trilogy in two movies - and T3 is merely a lame attempt by those unconnected with the series to extend the franchise for purely financial reasons.

The message of T3 is, "Hey, it's just getting started." The message of T2 is, "It never happened."

Doesn't work that way with me :csad: Even when I want to seperate it, my "Too bad T3 sucked" thoughts always appear.

This doesnt sound melodramatic too you?

Why? It is part of the series. It counts. How is that melodramatic?

I think there's a lot of people that actually prefer Temple over Crusade (myself included). Either way, you are correct, it fits right into the series.

Agreed. I love TOD.

[Cagefighterkip]

Forget the Crystal Skull....this is the real Indy IV-!!!

http://www.boomerangshop.com/dvdcover/imageweb21/KingSolomonsMines198513609_f.jpg

wtf is this?

[GhostPoet]

I loved all three films....and this one doesn't look any different...it'll go down as a classic and fitting in well with the series.

[cerealkiller182]

wtf is this?

adaptation of an Allan Quartermain story

[Fawfulhasfury]

An adaption which I loved BTW. It was cheesy, but you can't admit it wasn't fun.

[Matt Murdock]

I'm confused. Why all the arguments in this thread all of a sudden? People can have opinions, for sure, but I don't think that all the condescension (which I am certainly not innocent of) should really keep going. We're all fans of Indiana Jones, aren't we?

At best, this film will outdo Raiders of the Lost Arc, and will become the best movie in the franchise. For all we know, Harrison Ford may have allowed the time away from the fedora and whip to ingrain the character of Indiana Jones to his heart, and he may be Indiana Jones himself on the screen.

At worst, what are we getting? In my opinion, it's hard to make the argument that the movie will be bad. We have the original production team from Raiders. The entire original cast, the ones who're alive at least, including Allen. Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford are all ready to make this film for us, the fans. The effort, I hope, will be there, and the anticipation from anyone who has ever liked an Indy movie ought to be at an all-time high. From the trailer, it's pretty obvious the movie should be fun and a good popcorn flick, so what's the worst that could happen? We get a movie that we'll enjoy, even if it isn't the best film of the set.

I'm puzzled by how people can say one more Indy movie can ruin the series. If you don't like it, so what?! The first three films will be just as enjoyable. Nothing can ruin those. Even if it does totally, absolutely, horrifically fail in every sense of the word, won't that just make the original films that much better? I'm not worried at all about this film. :up:

[Cagefighterkip]

I'm confused. Why all the arguments in this thread all of a sudden? People can have opinions, for sure, but I don't think that all the condescension (which I am certainly not innocent of) should really keep going. We're all fans of Indiana Jones, aren't we?

At best, this film will outdo Raiders of the Lost Arc, and will become the best movie in the franchise. For all we know, Harrison Ford may have allowed the time away from the fedora and whip to ingrain the character of Indiana Jones to his heart, and he may be Indiana Jones himself on the screen.

At worst, what are we getting? In my opinion, it's hard to make the argument that the movie will be bad. We have the original production team from Raiders. The entire original cast, the ones who're alive at least, including Allen. Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford are all ready to make this film for us, the fans. The effort, I hope, will be there, and the anticipation from anyone who has ever liked an Indy movie ought to be at an all-time high. From the trailer, it's pretty obvious the movie should be fun and a good popcorn flick, so what's the worst that could happen? We get a movie that we'll enjoy, even if it isn't the best film of the set.

I'm puzzled by how people can say one more Indy movie can ruin the series. If you don't like it, so what?! The first three films will be just as enjoyable. Nothing can ruin those. Even if it does totally, absolutely, horrifically fail in every sense of the word, won't that just make the original films that much better? I'm not worried at all about this film. :up:

agreed
hand in hand we can live together
indy4 fan or not, its all the same...

[Webhead2006]

yea i agree with your statements matt

[HUMAN]

I'm confused. Why all the arguments in this thread all of a sudden? People can have opinions, for sure, but I don't think that all the condescension (which I am certainly not innocent of) should really keep going. We're all fans of Indiana Jones, aren't we?

At best, this film will outdo Raiders of the Lost Arc, and will become the best movie in the franchise. For all we know, Harrison Ford may have allowed the time away from the fedora and whip to ingrain the character of Indiana Jones to his heart, and he may be Indiana Jones himself on the screen.

At worst, what are we getting? In my opinion, it's hard to make the argument that the movie will be bad. We have the original production team from Raiders. The entire original cast, the ones who're alive at least, including Allen. Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford are all ready to make this film for us, the fans. The effort, I hope, will be there, and the anticipation from anyone who has ever liked an Indy movie ought to be at an all-time high. From the trailer, it's pretty obvious the movie should be fun and a good popcorn flick, so what's the worst that could happen? We get a movie that we'll enjoy, even if it isn't the best film of the set.

I'm puzzled by how people can say one more Indy movie can ruin the series. If you don't like it, so what?! The first three films will be just as enjoyable. Nothing can ruin those. Even if it does totally, absolutely, horrifically fail in every sense of the word, won't that just make the original films that much better? I'm not worried at all about this film. :up:

I agree 100%!

The same can be applied to remakes, but that's a different discussion.

I really don't see how people can so easily judge this movie so far by what we've seen. We haven't seen ANYTHING yet. Make plot theories, discuss the artifact that they're using, discuss the hints that they've given us, discuss Indy's age. But it's hardly applicable to put your foot down already and slam this movie with a box office failure prediction.

Enjoy this time of speculation! The movie will be upon us soon enough. And be happy that you're actually GETTING a Indiana Jones 4 with the trio that brought us the franchise in the first place. That's a rarity in it's own rite.

[OctaviousINC]

Enjoy this time of speculation! The movie will be upon us soon enough. And be happy that you're actually GETTING a Indiana Jones 4 with the trio that brought us the franchise in the first place. That's a rarity in it's own rite.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a25/scarecrowx41/Hooray2.gif

[That'ssuper!]

People remember it's just a movie as well!

[Jack Napier]

I challenge anyone here not to crack a smile when that opening Paramount mountain transforms before the credits. Into what? I don't know! That's the surprise, the excitement! And that's just the transition into the first shot, the movie hasn't even started yet, and you'll already be smiling!

I love exclamation points!:hehe:

[HUMAN]

Maybe it'll turn into a part of a map like it showed in the trailer? That'd be interesting.

What's really interesting is that they go back to the warehouse where they placed the Ark of the Covenant. I wonder what's in there that they're trying to find. One interesting tidbit: my MySpace layout is an Indiana Jones layout with the background being a wooden crate with "Property of Dr. Jones" written on it. I wonder if Indiana has a piece of the grand puzzle stored in there. Hmm...

[HUMAN]

Here's what SuperShadow.com thinks the plot is gonna be:

The Indy Jones 4 film begins in Marrakesh, Morocco in 1925 with young Indiana Jones and Professor Ravenwood in search of an Egyptian stone artifact related to the Ark of the Covenant. The Paramount Studios "mountain" logo fades into a mountain peak behind the city. This stone will allegedly reveal the location of Tanis. The two meet with a shady underground merchant, who has a crystal skull, which the merchant tries to hide from the two. Ravenwood offers to give $ 3,000 U.S. dollars for the crystal skull, but the merchant will not sell at any price.

Ravenwood goes back by himself to the merchant's tent and tries to take the crystal skull. Ravenwood is found out and is taken prisoner by the merchant's evil minions. Young Indiana Jones arrives and helps Ravenwood escape with Indy's trademark whip and revolver. Indy Jones takes a wagon to get away. They then take control of a car. A chase sequence in Marrakesh at night ensues. It ends with Indiana Jones and Ravenwood getting on a ship heading down a river.

Indy Jones inquires Ravenwood why Ravenwood took such a tremendous risk over the crystal skull. Ravenwood reveals the legend surrounding the crystal skulls. There are suppose to be seven of them, which have been dispersed and hidden around the planet. When the crystal skulls are together in the Temple of the Crystal Skulls, the crystal skulls unlock vast knowledge and unlimited power that can't be imagined by Humans. This power is believed to be greater than even the Ark of the Covenant. The Kingdom and the Temple of the Crystal Skulls are located in the Yucatan, hidden by the Mayans during the Spanish conquest of the New World.

The movie then jumps to the future in the year 1957. Indiana Jones is preparing to retire from Marshall College. Hawthorne, Indy's good friend, arrives from Yale University carrying a crystal skull, which Hawthorne is going to give to the museum. The villains enter the museum and take the crystal skull. The villains kill Hawthorne. Mutt, a local motorcycle enthusiast, locates a map in Hawthorne's brief case that reveals the hidden location of the Temple of the Crystal Skulls and the secret hiding place of an additional crystal skull.

The villains then proceed to chase Indy Jones and Mutt through the Marshall College campus and other city locations. The villains capture Indiana Jones, but Mutt eludes them with the important map. We find out that the villains are Soviets (from Russia). Their leader is named Irina Spalko. The Soviets transfer Indy Jones to a ship where Indy sees Marion Ravenwood, who the Soviets have also captured. The Soviets order Indy to help them find the remaining crystal skull and the temple or else they will kill Marion.

The Soviets leave Indy Jones and Marion by themselves. Marion punches Indy for abandoning her twenty years in the past. To save Marion's life, Indy Jones agrees to help the Soviets. While being watched by the Soviets, Indy arrives at his home and packs some of his belongings for the arduous trip. Mutt is clandestinely following them and sneaks on the air plane used by the villains and Indy.

The air plane arrives in Mexico City, Mexico. Mutt attempts to rescue Indy. Mutt is startled to find his mother, Marion, with Indy. Indy and Mutt discover that Mutt is actually Indy's biological son, but neither Indy nor Mutt knew this. The heroes then find Indy's rival and friend named Mac in Mexico City. Utilizing Hawthorne's map, the heroes plan to find the crystal skull and the temple before the Soviets do.

Indy and the other heroes ride in a jeep and camp out in the forbidding jungle. Mutt and Marion remain at the camp while Indy and Mac go into a catacomb to find the last crystal skull. They encounter several clever traps before entering the crystal skull lair. Indy and Mac can see the crystal skull hanging from vines over a pit. Choosing to cut the correct vine will give them the crystal skull. However, if they cut the wrong vine, then the crystal skull will crash into the bottom of the pit and thereby be destroyed. Indy deciphers the map, which tells him the right vine to cut. They retrieve the crystal skull and burn the map.

When Indy and Mac get back to the camp, once again they are captured by the Soviets, who are additionally holding Marion and Mutt captive. The Soviets severely rough up Indy Jones. The nefarious Irina has Indy strapped to a chair and Indy is systematically tortured with an electric device. Irina holds a gun at Marion's head, then Irina does this to Mutt. Irina asks for the location of the Temple of the Crystal Skulls. Indy gives her the info, but Indy Jones states the Soviets will be unable to get inside the temple without Indy's advice.

It turns out that the Temple of the Crystal Skulls is located in an ancient Mayan city located in the depths of the dense jungle. Mutt wants to go with Indy and Mac inside the temple. Marion says if Mutt is heading in the temple she wants to go also. Irina and the other Soviet villains follow the heroes. Indy and the heroes have to swing over a chasm. The Soviets proceed to build a simple bridge over the chasm after Indy Jones and Mac give them ropes from the other side. To unlock the massive powers of the crystal skulls, they have to be placed correctly on an altar located inside the temple.

Irina requires that Indy Jones reveal to her the exact placement for each crystal skull. Indy gives her this info. Irina puts the crystal skulls in the proper locations on the altar. The crystal skulls and the entire room begin to glow with light. To unlock the power of the crystal skulls for yourself, you have to know which crystal skull to take away from the altar. Indy Jones will not reveal to Irina which crystal skull to take.

Irina has Marion, Mutt and Mac shot to death. Subsequently, Indy grabs the upper most left crystal skull and takes it to bring Marion, Mutt and Mac back to life. Indy then proceeds to put the crystal skull back into its original position. Irina greedily grabs the exact crystal skull just as Indy did previously.

The entire temple begins to rumble with great force and light begins to appear. Indy Jones has tricked the Soviets. Indy reveals the nature of the power of the crystal skull depends on the intentions of those who desire to unlock its great power. Since Irina wanted the crystal skull for personal glory and power, she unleashed the curse of the crystal skulls. The wrath of the crystal skulls starts to destroy the temple and the whole city. The heroes escape from the temple, which is being leveled by the violent power of the crystal skulls. The entire city is being enveloped in the destruction.

The heroes safely escape the mayhem while Irina and the Soviet soldiers with her are all consumed by the inferno of the crystal skulls. Mutt inquires from Indy if Indy is really ready to retire from all this excitement. Indy Jones replies who knows what tomorrow will bring for any of them. The four heroes then take the jeep back to Mexico City.

Extra Bonus Spoilers: During Indiana Jones 4 and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Soviet troops disguise themselves as American soldiers to infiltrate the United States in order to retrieve the Ark of the Covenant, which was hidden in a secret warehouse by the U.S. Government at the end of Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I never ever think this guy is right, but in case one of his predictions come true I went ahead and put spoiler tags...

[sithgoblin]

Here's what SuperShadow.com thinks the plot is gonna be:

The Indy Jones 4 film begins in Marrakesh, Morocco in 1925 with young Indiana Jones and Professor Ravenwood in search of an Egyptian stone artifact related to the Ark of the Covenant. The Paramount Studios "mountain" logo fades into a mountain peak behind the city. This stone will allegedly reveal the location of Tanis. The two meet with a shady underground merchant, who has a crystal skull, which the merchant tries to hide from the two. Ravenwood offers to give $ 3,000 U.S. dollars for the crystal skull, but the merchant will not sell at any price.

Ravenwood goes back by himself to the merchant's tent and tries to take the crystal skull. Ravenwood is found out and is taken prisoner by the merchant's evil minions. Young Indiana Jones arrives and helps Ravenwood escape with Indy's trademark whip and revolver. Indy Jones takes a wagon to get away. They then take control of a car. A chase sequence in Marrakesh at night ensues. It ends with Indiana Jones and Ravenwood getting on a ship heading down a river.

Indy Jones inquires Ravenwood why Ravenwood took such a tremendous risk over the crystal skull. Ravenwood reveals the legend surrounding the crystal skulls. There are suppose to be seven of them, which have been dispersed and hidden around the planet. When the crystal skulls are together in the Temple of the Crystal Skulls, the crystal skulls unlock vast knowledge and unlimited power that can't be imagined by Humans. This power is believed to be greater than even the Ark of the Covenant. The Kingdom and the Temple of the Crystal Skulls are located in the Yucatan, hidden by the Mayans during the Spanish conquest of the New World.

The movie then jumps to the future in the year 1957. Indiana Jones is preparing to retire from Marshall College. Hawthorne, Indy's good friend, arrives from Yale University carrying a crystal skull, which Hawthorne is going to give to the museum. The villains enter the museum and take the crystal skull. The villains kill Hawthorne. Mutt, a local motorcycle enthusiast, locates a map in Hawthorne's brief case that reveals the hidden location of the Temple of the Crystal Skulls and the secret hiding place of an additional crystal skull.

The villains then proceed to chase Indy Jones and Mutt through the Marshall College campus and other city locations. The villains capture Indiana Jones, but Mutt eludes them with the important map. We find out that the villains are Soviets (from Russia). Their leader is named Irina Spalko. The Soviets transfer Indy Jones to a ship where Indy sees Marion Ravenwood, who the Soviets have also captured. The Soviets order Indy to help them find the remaining crystal skull and the temple or else they will kill Marion.

The Soviets leave Indy Jones and Marion by themselves. Marion punches Indy for abandoning her twenty years in the past. To save Marion's life, Indy Jones agrees to help the Soviets. While being watched by the Soviets, Indy arrives at his home and packs some of his belongings for the arduous trip. Mutt is clandestinely following them and sneaks on the air plane used by the villains and Indy.

The air plane arrives in Mexico City, Mexico. Mutt attempts to rescue Indy. Mutt is startled to find his mother, Marion, with Indy. Indy and Mutt discover that Mutt is actually Indy's biological son, but neither Indy nor Mutt knew this. The heroes then find Indy's rival and friend named Mac in Mexico City. Utilizing Hawthorne's map, the heroes plan to find the crystal skull and the temple before the Soviets do.

Indy and the other heroes ride in a jeep and camp out in the forbidding jungle. Mutt and Marion remain at the camp while Indy and Mac go into a catacomb to find the last crystal skull. They encounter several clever traps before entering the crystal skull lair. Indy and Mac can see the crystal skull hanging from vines over a pit. Choosing to cut the correct vine will give them the crystal skull. However, if they cut the wrong vine, then the crystal skull will crash into the bottom of the pit and thereby be destroyed. Indy deciphers the map, which tells him the right vine to cut. They retrieve the crystal skull and burn the map.

When Indy and Mac get back to the camp, once again they are captured by the Soviets, who are additionally holding Marion and Mutt captive. The Soviets severely rough up Indy Jones. The nefarious Irina has Indy strapped to a chair and Indy is systematically tortured with an electric device. Irina holds a gun at Marion's head, then Irina does this to Mutt. Irina asks for the location of the Temple of the Crystal Skulls. Indy gives her the info, but Indy Jones states the Soviets will be unable to get inside the temple without Indy's advice.

It turns out that the Temple of the Crystal Skulls is located in an ancient Mayan city located in the depths of the dense jungle. Mutt wants to go with Indy and Mac inside the temple. Marion says if Mutt is heading in the temple she wants to go also. Irina and the other Soviet villains follow the heroes. Indy and the heroes have to swing over a chasm. The Soviets proceed to build a simple bridge over the chasm after Indy Jones and Mac give them ropes from the other side. To unlock the massive powers of the crystal skulls, they have to be placed correctly on an altar located inside the temple.

Irina requires that Indy Jones reveal to her the exact placement for each crystal skull. Indy gives her this info. Irina puts the crystal skulls in the proper locations on the altar. The crystal skulls and the entire room begin to glow with light. To unlock the power of the crystal skulls for yourself, you have to know which crystal skull to take away from the altar. Indy Jones will not reveal to Irina which crystal skull to take.

Irina has Marion, Mutt and Mac shot to death. Subsequently, Indy grabs the upper most left crystal skull and takes it to bring Marion, Mutt and Mac back to life. Indy then proceeds to put the crystal skull back into its original position. Irina greedily grabs the exact crystal skull just as Indy did previously.

The entire temple begins to rumble with great force and light begins to appear. Indy Jones has tricked the Soviets. Indy reveals the nature of the power of the crystal skull depends on the intentions of those who desire to unlock its great power. Since Irina wanted the crystal skull for personal glory and power, she unleashed the curse of the crystal skulls. The wrath of the crystal skulls starts to destroy the temple and the whole city. The heroes escape from the temple, which is being leveled by the violent power of the crystal skulls. The entire city is being enveloped in the destruction.

The heroes safely escape the mayhem while Irina and the Soviet soldiers with her are all consumed by the inferno of the crystal skulls. Mutt inquires from Indy if Indy is really ready to retire from all this excitement. Indy Jones replies who knows what tomorrow will bring for any of them. The four heroes then take the jeep back to Mexico City.

Extra Bonus Spoilers: During Indiana Jones 4 and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Soviet troops disguise themselves as American soldiers to infiltrate the United States in order to retrieve the Ark of the Covenant, which was hidden in a secret warehouse by the U.S. Government at the end of Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I never ever think this guy is right, but in case one of his predictions come true I went ahead and put spoiler tags...

Oh my god! He's still around?? :wow:

[HUMAN]

Oh my god! He's still around?? :wow:

Yeah, surprisingly so...

I think he should always be kept around, his site is a good laugh every once-in-a-while. :hyper:

:indy:

[Golgo-13]

Harrison Ford will be on Barabara Walters this sunday talking about Indie.

Sunday, 24th at 7pm. EST.

[scifiwolf]

I'm confused. Why all the arguments in this thread all of a sudden? People can have opinions, for sure, but I don't think that all the condescension (which I am certainly not innocent of) should really keep going. We're all fans of Indiana Jones, aren't we?

At best, this film will outdo Raiders of the Lost Arc, and will become the best movie in the franchise. For all we know, Harrison Ford may have allowed the time away from the fedora and whip to ingrain the character of Indiana Jones to his heart, and he may be Indiana Jones himself on the screen.

At worst, what are we getting? In my opinion, it's hard to make the argument that the movie will be bad. We have the original production team from Raiders. The entire original cast, the ones who're alive at least, including Allen. Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford are all ready to make this film for us, the fans. The effort, I hope, will be there, and the anticipation from anyone who has ever liked an Indy movie ought to be at an all-time high. From the trailer, it's pretty obvious the movie should be fun and a good popcorn flick, so what's the worst that could happen? We get a movie that we'll enjoy, even if it isn't the best film of the set.

I'm puzzled by how people can say one more Indy movie can ruin the series. If you don't like it, so what?! The first three films will be just as enjoyable. Nothing can ruin those. Even if it does totally, absolutely, horrifically fail in every sense of the word, won't that just make the original films that much better? I'm not worried at all about this film. :up:
I don't think the time away was intended. It just happened that they've not been able to get a decent enough script. Harrison has said in the past that of all his roles, he's most like Indy. He also said, rather recently, that he always keeps Indy close to his heart to be prepared to return to the role.

I cannot say this enough: the biggest Indy fans in the world are Harrison, Steven, and George. When Steven said he's making the movies for the fans, he's not excluding himself in that statement. The three of them have the same expectations and standards for themselves as we place upon them as an audience. I don't think they'll let us down in May.

[Spider-Fan]

I'm confused. Why all the arguments in this thread all of a sudden? People can have opinions, for sure, but I don't think that all the condescension (which I am certainly not innocent of) should really keep going. We're all fans of Indiana Jones, aren't we?

At best, this film will outdo Raiders of the Lost Arc, and will become the best movie in the franchise. For all we know, Harrison Ford may have allowed the time away from the fedora and whip to ingrain the character of Indiana Jones to his heart, and he may be Indiana Jones himself on the screen.

At worst, what are we getting? In my opinion, it's hard to make the argument that the movie will be bad. We have the original production team from Raiders. The entire original cast, the ones who're alive at least, including Allen. Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford are all ready to make this film for us, the fans. The effort, I hope, will be there, and the anticipation from anyone who has ever liked an Indy movie ought to be at an all-time high. From the trailer, it's pretty obvious the movie should be fun and a good popcorn flick, so what's the worst that could happen? We get a movie that we'll enjoy, even if it isn't the best film of the set.

I'm puzzled by how people can say one more Indy movie can ruin the series. If you don't like it, so what?! The first three films will be just as enjoyable. Nothing can ruin those. Even if it does totally, absolutely, horrifically fail in every sense of the word, won't that just make the original films that much better? I'm not worried at all about this film. :up:

I think the discussions have become quite civil recently (at least after that one day).

As for the rest, that is just a matter of opinion. I just happen to be more pessimistic, but others have every right to be excited :yay: . But at the same time, I also have the right not to be.

[Gold Samurai]

So.........

After the last few days of arguments. How would you see Irina going out?

melted face like in "Raiders"? or some new way? The melted face would be a nice homage but I don't think it will fit.

Crushed under the rubble of a temple?

Dragged away by some unearthly spirits?

[Nirvana]

I challenge anyone here not to crack a smile when that opening Paramount mountain transforms before the credits. Into what? I don't know! That's the surprise, the excitement! And that's just the transition into the first shot, the movie hasn't even started yet, and you'll already be smiling!

I love exclamation points!:hehe:

It's when you see the Lucasfilms logo when you really geek out! :woot:

[Spider-Fan]

After the Star Wars prequels, the Lucasfilm insignia makes me cry :csad:

[Rezzo]

I challenge anyone here not to crack a smile when that opening Paramount mountain transforms before the credits. Into what? I don't know! That's the surprise, the excitement! And that's just the transition into the first shot, the movie hasn't even started yet, and you'll already be smiling!

I love exclamation points!:hehe:

Would be impossible not to smile. :grin:

It's when you see the Lucasfilms logo when you really geek out!

I second this statement. :oldrazz:

[OctaviousINC]

I was reading a few pages back on how some people thought that the Indiana Jones character should die with Ford. And though I agree, I just wanted to get some opinions on what everyone thought about Sean Patrick Flannery's portal of Young Indy. Personally I liked it. But he does often go ignored. I'd rather see him than Shia carry on the legacy if that's what they plan to do.

[danoyse]

I liked Sean Patrick Flannery, but the show itself felt much more like a history lesson rather than an Indiana Jones adventure, so I could never see him taking over the role in a feature film sequel.

I don't see Shia taking over the role either, but if he turns out to be Indy's (and Marion's?) son, that would be OK if they do it right.

[DoctorJones]

After the last few days of arguments. How would you see Irina going out?


Being turned into a crystallized skeleton is the only way I can imagine it.

[Cagefighterkip]

So.........

After the last few days of arguments. How would you see Irina going out?


Dragged away by some unearthly spirits?

great idea, like the spirits from the ark or something or crystal skeletons yanking her to hell or something.

[Jack Napier]

Like Tony Goldwyn in "Ghost"? :woot:

[Gold Samurai]

^ exactly

When I meant "unearthly spirits" I meant aliens.

If anyone has see "fire in the sky" Irina should be dragged by the legs like that guy with the aliens

[Dr. Watson]

So.........

After the last few days of arguments. How would you see Irina going out?

melted face like in "Raiders"? or some new way? The melted face would be a nice homage but I don't think it will fit.

Crushed under the rubble of a temple?

Dragged away by some unearthly spirits?

Taken away for alien probing? :oldrazz:

I like the spirits idea though...

[DoctorJones]

Taken away for alien probing? :oldrazz:

I like the spirits idea though...

I suspect the "aliens" in the film won't have a physical form to be consistent with the spiritual themes of the series. I can see the skulls as a conduit to summon them.

[Cagefighterkip]

I suspect the "aliens" in the film won't have a physical form to be consistent with the spiritual themes of the series. I can see the skulls as a conduit to summon them.

exactly

[steintym]

I suspect the "aliens" in the film won't have a physical form to be consistent with the spiritual themes of the series. I can see the skulls as a conduit to summon them.

I hope so. I don't want to see little ETs running around.

[Webhead2006]

Yea i agree there we probably wont physical see an alien in the film it will just be talked about and all that.

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

I don't think the aliens will be in it at all..just that the Skull is probably in that case the Russians get.

and it's Alien in origin.

[DoctorJones]

But Indy always comes face to face with the supernatural. And the supernatural in this case is an advanced race of aliens who've evolved to no longer need a body.

Sounds like Forbidden Planet.

Wait, that's a 1950s B-movie!

EDIT: Now I realise why that popped into my head! Lucas in Vanity Fair:

"The one that I remember the most was the least science fiction-y, which was Forbidden Planet."

[Secret_Riddle]

This is my theory on the whole alien thing:

We know aliens are a topic..and we know everyone is trying to find the Ark again..well what if the Ark wasn't a radio for god, rather it was a radio to summon an Alien race..I mean think about it, the Ancient people would have looked at Aliens as gods most likely since they would have come from the "heavens"..i just think that were going to find out what the Ark is truly for in this movie..How will the skulls play into it? Hard to know..but I'm pretty sure that is the part the Ark will play, I would probably be willing to bet a little bit of money.

After all, the Ark can be viewed as a pretty advanced weapon..sounds pretty alien to me..especially during the 1930's..and ESPECIALLY in Ancient times, besides theres lots of theories out there surrounding Ancient civilization knowledge to be to advanced for their own tools..sounds like something that would fascinate Lucas and Spielberg to me.

[Kevin Roegele]

I'm all for the aliens.

[steintym]

Do we really know if the Ark has any part in this movie? I know we see the same warehouse, but I'm starting to wonder if the Ark is even in the movie. Possible that the plot of the movie just takes them to this location for top secret artifacts. I hope it is in it (cool full circle to the 1st), but I'm starting to wonder.

[DieSmiling]

Do we really know if the Ark has any part in this movie? I know we see the same warehouse, but I'm starting to wonder if the Ark is even in the movie. Possible that the plot of the movie just takes them to this location for top secret artifacts. I hope it is in it (cool full circle to the 1st), but I'm starting to wonder.

I agree, I think that was just a rumor. I doubt the Ark plays much of a role in this movie.

[The Don Killuminati]

maybe they are wookies :ninja:

[DarknessOfDeath]

maybe they are wookies :ninja:


wookie aliens

rawrrrrrrrrrrr i bring you peace rawrrrrrrrrrrrr

[dark_b]

it would be cool if the aliens were teh same from E.T.

[Majik1387]

It would be the best random movie connection ever.:up:

[Webhead2006]

lol yea it would be.

[Rocker22]

They are talking with Ford now on the Walters special. When it comes back they are talking about Crystal Skull, might be some new footage.

[The Don Killuminati]

no its the aliens from mars attacks

[Lord Blackbolt]

Well every Indy movie opens with Indy in a action scene? I wonder what the scene will be in this one. Does it open with the Warehouse scene?

[cerealkiller182]

Well every Indy movie opens with Indy in a action scene? I wonder what the scene will be in this one. Does it open with the Warehouse scene?

Doubt it, the opening scene usually has little weight on the rest of the movie. It usually just introduces a character.

[Majik1387]

no its the aliens from mars attacks

Bad joke.:down

[Cagefighterkip]

Well every Indy movie opens with Indy in a action scene? I wonder what the scene will be in this one. Does it open with the Warehouse scene?

every indy flick opens with what is supposed to be, like, the ending of an Indy film before it (spielberg jokes about this for raiders opening, that its the ending to the lost movie RAIDERS OF THE LOST FERTILITY GODDESS)... so yeah... my guess is that it opens in the warehouse to open w/spalko....

[dark_b]

i really doubt that tthe movie opens with blanchet.
wouldnt it make more sense that the movie opens with ford in a normal suit ridding a bike with shia?

[Shifty]

Doubt it, the opening scene usually has little weight on the rest of the movie. It usually just introduces a character.

Lucas likes to come into a movie that's already in the middle of a story, hence starting with Episode IV (and the opening scene) and the first scenes of Indy movies.

[Shifty]

Harrison Ford in ****ing Ben Affleck
sIQrBouWRiE

[Jack Napier]

Ah, you beat me to it! But yeah, that was ****ing hilarious.

[Jack Napier]

i really doubt that tthe movie opens with blanchet.
wouldnt it make more sense that the movie opens with ford in a normal suit ridding a bike with shia?

I wouldn't be surprised if the movie begins with the warehouse and the Ark, and after Indy rescues it, Blanchett sets her sights on the crystal skull, bating Jones out of retirement. She might find clues to the skull in the warehouse. Just speculating...

[Shifty]

I wouldn't be surprised if the movie begins with the warehouse and the Ark, and after Indy rescues it, Blanchett sets her sights on the crystal skull, bating Jones out of retirement. She might find clues to the skull in the warehouse. Just speculating...

They're not going to break the formula. It will be the end of some adventure.

[Jack Napier]

How could that not be true to the formula? The movie could very easily begin with Indy being thrown from the car trunk as seen in the trailer, being forced by Spalko to take part in the Ark being located. After escaping, he thinks he's rid of her by the time he's tracked down by the Russians on the college campus.

[DocHoliday]

I wouldn't be surprised if the movie begins with the warehouse and the Ark, and after Indy rescues it, Blanchett sets her sights on the crystal skull, bating Jones out of retirement. She might find clues to the skull in the warehouse. Just speculating...

I actually kinda have that feeling as well.

[scifiwolf]

It's been a given since last summer that the Air Force base is the opening of the movie. Indy's silhoutte on the car is his introduction in the movie, ala Raiders.

[Gold Samurai]

Do we really know if the Ark has any part in this movie? I know we see the same warehouse, but I'm starting to wonder if the Ark is even in the movie. Possible that the plot of the movie just takes them to this location for top secret artifacts. I hope it is in it (cool full circle to the 1st), but I'm starting to wonder.


my theory is that the ark was sent to the roswell base aswell as the crystal skull.

So it's only a coincedience. Maybe there might be a small nod to the ark.


Check out this Jimmy Kimmel video in response to Sarah Silverman's "I'm *****ing Matt Damon" video. Be sure to stay till the end LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIQrBouWRiE

[terry78]

Went to see Spiderwick last night and the trailer was shown. Some of the more little ones were asking their parents, "who's that, Dad/Mom? That looks COOL!" Haha.

[Cagefighterkip]

Went to see Spiderwick last night and the trailer was shown. Some of the more little ones were asking their parents, "who's that, Dad/Mom? That looks COOL!" Haha.

awesome --
a new gen of indy fans.

damn skippy it "looks cool!"

[cerealkiller182]

I credit the passing resemblance to the cowboy as a big attention getter.Its a familiar archetypical character

[theShape]

I wonder how many "I'm too old for this" jokes are in this Indy. Hopefully, not that many.

[Cagefighterkip]

I wonder how many "I'm too old for this" jokes are in this Indy. Hopefully, not that many.

prolly just a couple; i could get behind a "im too old for this s#!t" kind of joke I.E. lethal weapon

[theShape]

prolly just a couple; i could get behind a "im too old for this s#!t" kind of joke I.E. lethal weapon

I could do without all those cracks.

Also, I love the poll for this thread. The results are shocking.

[FaT_tONle]

I actually kinda have that feeling as well.

The warehouse scene probably is an opening scene... maybe takes place a few years BEFORE the most of the events depicted in IJ 4... so I can see that... maybe that's why the Russians go after Indiana in the trailer maybe a few years later... "not as easy as it used to be" could be referring to that warehouse scene but more likely just his past ordeals against Nazis... I have no idea where the ark fits into the story... if I had to guess I'd say it is probably just the opening scene... Indiana gets it out safely and stashes it safely in a museum in a secure country... and then the Russians capture him and use him to find out what the deal is with the whole Crystal Skulls.

[HUMAN]

I wonder how many "I'm too old for this" jokes are in this Indy. Hopefully, not that many.

"It's not the years, it's the mileage."

[Kanon]

Cool :up:

Funny thing the poster doesn't have the exact release date...

[DarknessOfDeath]

not bad...

[Gallagher]

Shia looks completely out of place. I can't quite place it he just looks... weird.

[scifiwolf]

Yeah, it doesn't look as if the perspective of his head matches his body. Also, Harrison looks like President Bush's love child with Will Ferrell.

[Gold Samurai]

that looks like it can go on the dvd cover or it reminds me of the dvd box set

[4516232]

i heard a lot of stuff about a younger indy travelling around with john hurts character in south america..maybe thats how the film opens...kinda like the cross of coronado from last crusade..the crystal skull might bridge young indys and old indys story together

[Gold Samurai]

If there is a young Indy shouldn't there have been an announcement about who would be playing young indy?

or is the role not as prominent as River Phoenixs, who as we all remember had to get Harrison's Fords mannerisms down pat.

maybe this time they're not going to have the new actor copy any of Fords mannerisms since the role is really minor.

[Rezzo]

SECOND MOVIE POSTER surfaces for 'Crystal Skull' with LaBeouf, Ford! See here..... (http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/forums/1403/second-poster-surfaces-for-indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull)

http://i26.tinypic.com/28iybs7.jpg

Paramount apparently confirmed that the poster is fake.

[Jack Napier]

Damn right it's fake! Or it had better be, because that's an image of Indy from "Last Crusade" holding the whip with Indy's face from "Crystal Skull" superimposed on top.

[Gold Samurai]

http://i26.tinypic.com/28iybs7.jpg

Paramount apparently confirmed that the poster is fake.


IT'S A FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!!!!
[/vreenak]

[Kent]

IT'S A FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!!!!
[/vreenak]

7qKcJF4fOPs

[Spider-Fan]

Shia looks completely out of place. I can't quite place it he just looks... weird.

Shia is out of place many places :o

[Kevin Roegele]

Indiana Jones IV. Wow. Who'd of thought it? Back in even 2005 I'd have bet against it actually happening.

[4516232]

http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=12898

hit that link..its not fake..its just reused art...

btw earlier i said that we might see a young indy in the start of the movie..like last crusade..does anything think that the big secret could be that sean patrick flannery is filming a small scene as young indy..its a bit of a coincidence that the young indy chronicles wer released prior to new film..wer they raising his profile so ppl wud know who he was wen he appears ..just a thought

[OctaviousINC]

btw earlier i said that we might see a young indy in the start of the movie..like last crusade..does anything think that the big secret could be that sean patrick flannery is filming a small scene as young indy..its a bit of a coincidence that the young indy chronicles wer released prior to new film..wer they raising his profile so ppl wud know who he was wen he appears ..just a thought

That would be cool, but Flannery is 43. He's about as old as Ford when he filmed Indy in his prime. So if you want a flashback, watch the 1st three films. Flannery passed as a young Indy, but he looks nothing like Ford now that he's in Indiana's original age range. It'd be cool if maybe they did something CG to make him younger like they did to Stewart and Mckellan in X3. But I don't really think we need it. And chances are they released the Young Indy Chronicles around the time of the new Indy film simply because they could cash in. It's all about the money.

[FaT_tONle]

The Young Indy shows were terrible... lets just hope the Star Wars shows don't end up the same way... but there is NO reason to have a young Indiana again.... unless it was a flashback to a scene shortly after Raiders and they DE-aged Karen Allen and Ford...

[OctaviousINC]

The Young Indy shows were terrible... lets just hope the Star Wars shows don't end up the same way... but there is NO reason to have a young Indiana again.... unless it was a flashback to a scene shortly after Raiders and they DE-aged Karen Allen and Ford...

I didn't think they were terrible. They just focused on the history part more then the adventure part. It was really just a history lesson featuring Indiana Jones. It was an educational tv show. i give it props for that.

[Compi716]

I wouldn't be surprised if the movie begins with the warehouse and the Ark, and after Indy rescues it, Blanchett sets her sights on the crystal skull, bating Jones out of retirement. She might find clues to the skull in the warehouse. Just speculating...
Please. The movie needs to open somewhere where this a mountain of some sort that resembles the Paramount logo. I can't see that being in the warehouse.

[cerealkiller182]

Please. The movie needs to open somewhere where this a mountain of some sort that resembles the Paramount logo. I can't see that being in the warehouse.

Temple of Doom opened in a club. The Paramount logo was part of a decoration. I think they could figure something out.

[FaT_tONle]

I didn't think they were terrible. They just focused on the history part more then the adventure part. It was really just a history lesson featuring Indiana Jones. It was an educational tv show. i give it props for that.

So they actually had accurate portrayals? I mean didn't one episode feature Dracula or something... I don't know... just seemed very prequelish from the trailers and clips from my box set trilogy.

[OctaviousINC]

So they actually had accurate portrayals? I mean didn't one episode feature Dracula or something... I don't know... just seemed very prequelish from the trailers and clips from my box set trilogy.

Heh. No Dracula from what I can remember. You can read up on it here.
http://www.theraider.net/films/young_indy/episodes.php

[The Don Killuminati]

i dont remember a dracula either

[Jack Napier]

Please. The movie needs to open somewhere where this a mountain of some sort that resembles the Paramount logo. I can't see that being in the warehouse.

The cars drive Indy to the warehouse and throw him out of the trunk. Indy's silhouette against the car would be more likely to re-introduce the character, rather than as a shot at say, the end of the movie. The warehouse sequence begins. We are introduced to Spalko, Blanchett's character, and Mac, Ray Winstone's character. It can establish that Spalko will rest at nothing to get the artifact she wants, while also establishing Winstone's character as a competitor/friend to Jones, which is what he's reported to be.

Hell, in the trailer, you can see the cars driving there, so the Paramount mountain might appear before that shot, while the credits roll simultaneously with the landscape like they did in "Last Crusade". Who knows, the stars around the Paramount logo might transition into the stars from the American flag, you never know. :huh: