Harrison and Shia go on record: The last Indy movie DID suck!
- Thread starter Funky
- Start date
darthgordon
Sr Member
You would actually get 60 Million pies... They are 2 for $1
-Gary
No... after income and sales tax he'd be lucky to get 30 million.
I believe the Chronicles made mention to his daughter (in the episode with the older Indy played by Ford?).
Capn_Jack_Savvy
Sr Member
A daughter and a son? Hmmmm! I wonder if her name is Leia? Wonder how she swings (reference to Mutt's vine swinging talents)?
Paracord Junky
Well-Known Member
oh. i haven't seen the YIJC, so that explains it. (don't want to either)
I liked the aliens, the Soviets, the references to Indy fighting in WWII, the psychic warfare idea, the McCarthy red-scare idea, and Karen Allen.
I didn't like that none of that really mattered for anything. None of these ideas are really expanded upon, or invested in, they're just there.
For example:
It's been said that your story is only as good as your villain. Cate Blanchett's character did nothing in the film. I love her as an actress, but she was underutilized in Crystal Skull. She was a psychic soldier right? Why wasn't she ripping info out of peoples' minds, reinforcing her bad-guy status and threat?
None of the actions of Indy move the story forward. It's like he's just on-the-rails...along for the ride. Same with everyone else.
(The nuclear bomb was kinda scary actually....)
I didn't like that none of that really mattered for anything. None of these ideas are really expanded upon, or invested in, they're just there.
For example:
It's been said that your story is only as good as your villain. Cate Blanchett's character did nothing in the film. I love her as an actress, but she was underutilized in Crystal Skull. She was a psychic soldier right? Why wasn't she ripping info out of peoples' minds, reinforcing her bad-guy status and threat?
None of the actions of Indy move the story forward. It's like he's just on-the-rails...along for the ride. Same with everyone else.
(The nuclear bomb was kinda scary actually....)
Last edited:
Let me sidetrack this thread...(If I may)...
Though I never thought anyone else could play Indy but Ford, Clooney might be able to pull it off, and after watching THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS, I am convinced he could.
In part of the movie, he and Ewan are traveling in the Iraqi desert and Clooney is dressed in brown cargo pants and an Adventurers shirt very similar to Indy's. His tongue in cheek humor is very close to Fords.
I think they could go back to the 30's and 40's again.
Ummm.... remember, Clooney already butchered BatMan. You want him to take a stab at Indy?! :confused
Star Wars Helmets
Sr Member
This was my understanding too. Basically, the two of them capitulated after they had gone round the block numerous times with similarly mediocre scripts.
It was an average movie on the printed page and thats exactly what they got when they filmed it.
Cheers
Jez
As if we needed them to tell us it sucked.
That monkey swinging has nothing on the flying raft in Temple of Doom. Which i think is even worse than the plane drop in Commando.
I liked KOTCS too and i don't mind the aliens either. As long as thats it. I look at it as just another crazy supernatural Indy adventure. I equate it to the heart pumping in the hand in TOD or the Raiders Ark ghosts, but thats it lets come back to earthly adventures.
Solo4114
Master Member
False.
True.
Clooney probably could have been an excellent Batman, if Joel Schumacher had not been involved and the studio hadn't decided that "more" = "better." So, not only do you get crappy set and costume design that looks less gothic and more like a rave, you also get way more of it, tons of useless gadgets, and far, far too many characters who all do NOTHING to create a coherent, interesting story.
At least the Adam West era of Batman was INTENTIONALLY tongue-in-cheek. The Schumacher version was half that, but also seemed to half take itself seriously.
Indy's adventures have almost never been earth-bound in the films. There's always been a supernatural element. And there's nothing wrong with that. Frankly, I just don't think Indy belongs in the 50s, but that's not to say that it'd be impossible to create an interesting, compelling Indy story that takes place in the 50s. My understanding, however, is that KOTCS just isn't that. I wouldn't know, though. Nor will I ever.
Indy needs the Casino Royale treatment. Get away from the silly crap and get back in the cliffhanger hero bad ass game that was Raiders.
Recast and hand it over to people that know how to handle the character. They don't know how to do it anymore that is clear, everything after Raiders was down hill and only for the onscreen presence of Ford himself was there reason to keep watching.
The first time we see Indy, when he walks out of the shadows in Raiders.
That IS the character. He is half light, half shadows and he has been screwed over getting farther and farther from that ever since.
I don't care who his DAD is for crying out loud!
No more then who Bond's father was.
Kasdan is still around isn't he?
Maybe he could bail this character out of the landslide diminishing return sequal hell it is in. Indy is a freekin' clown now. Lucas and Spielberg need to back off and let their character revive itself without them or at least as little as possible.
Recast and hand it over to people that know how to handle the character. They don't know how to do it anymore that is clear, everything after Raiders was down hill and only for the onscreen presence of Ford himself was there reason to keep watching.
The first time we see Indy, when he walks out of the shadows in Raiders.
That IS the character. He is half light, half shadows and he has been screwed over getting farther and farther from that ever since.
I don't care who his DAD is for crying out loud!
No more then who Bond's father was.
Kasdan is still around isn't he?
Maybe he could bail this character out of the landslide diminishing return sequal hell it is in. Indy is a freekin' clown now. Lucas and Spielberg need to back off and let their character revive itself without them or at least as little as possible.
Solo4114
Master Member
We clearly have VERY different taste in films. I think Casino Royale is one of the best Bond movies of the bunch, and probably is the only effective way to deal with Bond in the modern era. I don't think people can take Bond seriously anymore without doing something along the lines of what they did in Casino Royale. And I think that Bond is a character who deserves to be taken seriously. But then, I'm a fan of the literary version of Bond, rather than the film version, so the closer the films get to the novels, the more I like it.
As for Batman, I love the first one, and The Dark Knight was...ok. I think it could've been better with an extra half our or more focus on one of the characters, instead of trying to split the attention among the three.
But as far as recasting, with someone like Indy....no. Just...no. Don't bother. do an animated version. Do a video game. Do a novel or a comic book or something else. Do something where you don't NEED Harrison Ford to play the part, because ONLY Harrison Ford can be Indy. Period. End of discussion.
As for Batman, I love the first one, and The Dark Knight was...ok. I think it could've been better with an extra half our or more focus on one of the characters, instead of trying to split the attention among the three.
But as far as recasting, with someone like Indy....no. Just...no. Don't bother. do an animated version. Do a video game. Do a novel or a comic book or something else. Do something where you don't NEED Harrison Ford to play the part, because ONLY Harrison Ford can be Indy. Period. End of discussion.
Similar threads
