Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds

Indiana Jones V

Messages
11,333
Location
Southern California
...Course, there's always the chance that while we all speculate, they'll cast a relative unknown as Henry Cavill was pre-Superman. That was another franchise where there was a lot of talk about how they could get somebody as iconic as Christopher Lee. Of course, Lee was not the first screen - just the first big-screen - Supes, so that was probably not quite as difficult as Indy when there's only ever been Ford in any media, really...
I'm fairly certain you meant Christopher Reeve, not Lee who, to my knowledge, has never appeared in any Superman movies. ;)
 

Edward

Bartender
Messages
23,130
Location
London, UK

So, Disney's latest word is that they will never recast Indy, because recastings don't work.

In other news, Disney are in the middle of a publicity blitz for their new Obi Wan Kenobi show, the lead of which, er, is a recasting....

I'd give it ten years tops and maybe one or two "Indy extended universe" pictures before we see an Indy reboot.
 

Tiki Tom

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,453
Location
Oahu, North Polynesia
This guy MUST be a lounger. (And probably an Agent of F.L.A.S.K. too.) He’s got the hat, goes on adventures, drives a Land Rover Defender, and occasionally carries a whip. It’s been a long time since anyone asked me if I was going for the Indiana Jones look. Probably because I now have a gray beard and wear Aloha shirts with my Fedora. But I also suspect that the brand recognition has faded over the last 40 years. Anyway, I salute this bloke.

 

Bushman

My Mail is Forwarded Here
Messages
3,996
Location
Chicago

So, Disney's latest word is that they will never recast Indy, because recastings don't work.

In other news, Disney are in the middle of a publicity blitz for their new Obi Wan Kenobi show, the lead of which, er, is a recasting....
Ugh! Solo didn't tank because of the recast. It tanked because it was a by-the-numbers movie that was 80% reshot, and barely at all marketed. The fact that Ehrenreich was just okay in the role is beside the point
 

Edward

Bartender
Messages
23,130
Location
London, UK
Ugh! Solo didn't tank because of the recast. It tanked because it was a by-the-numbers movie that was 80% reshot, and barely at all marketed. The fact that Ehrenreich was just okay in the role is beside the point

The recasting certainly was far from its only failing. FWIW, I didn't have an issue with the fact that somebody else played the role; I was however, more than underwhelmed by the individual they chose to play the role.
 

MisterCairo

I'll Lock Up
Messages
6,939
Location
Gads Hill, Ontario

Edward

Bartender
Messages
23,130
Location
London, UK
It'll be what it'll be. I'm going to give it a chance and hope it's good. But then I rather liked Crystal Skull (not as good as 1 and 3, but about equal with 2 imo), and I'm not desperate to hate this. For those who don't care for the 'new' films, it's easy enough - just treat it like the rubbish replacements for Connery as Bond (i.e. all of them shy of Craig, at least 60% of the time) and ignore. It's not as if George Lucas is going to delete the originals out of spite at fans for not liking the new ones.
 
Messages
11,333
Location
Southern California
It'll be what it'll be. I'm going to give it a chance and hope it's good. But then I rather liked Crystal Skull (not as good as 1 and 3, but about equal with 2 imo), and I'm not desperate to hate this. For those who don't care for the 'new' films, it's easy enough - just treat it like the rubbish replacements for Connery as Bond (i.e. all of them shy of Craig, at least 60% of the time) and ignore. It's not as if George Lucas is going to delete the originals out of spite at fans for not liking the new ones.
I do want to see it, but with all of the negative and contradictory press this movie has received so far, not to mention having Disney at the helm, I'm having a difficult time believing it will have been worth the wait.
 

Edward

Bartender
Messages
23,130
Location
London, UK
I do want to see it, but with all of the negative and contradictory press this movie has received so far, not to mention having Disney at the helm, I'm having a difficult time believing it will have been worth the wait.

It could go either way. I'm a lot less worried about Disney, though, than I would have been in 2008, given how much better the Mouse did with Star Wars than did Lucas any time much after....1981? :)
 
Messages
11,333
Location
Southern California
It could go either way. I'm a lot less worried about Disney, though, than I would have been in 2008, given how much better the Mouse did with Star Wars than did Lucas any time much after....1981? :)
I think Mr. Lucas' divorce from Marcia in '83 hit him hard and took away a lot of the idealism with which he made American Graffiti, Star Wars (Episode IV, A New Hope, whatever), and The Empire Strikes Back, and the end result was movies that didn't have quite the same sense of adventure and wonder. Also, because of the business end of making movies he found himself becoming the very thing he hated earlier on--the corporate head who had to micromanage everything in order to keep it all together.

That being said, I think Disney's Sequel Trilogy movies are better movies than Lucas' Prequel Trilogy, I just don't think they're better Star Wars movies. Disney focused a bit too much on the action/adventure theme and, except perhaps for Rey and Darth Wannabe, neglected to create any new characters or situations that were interesting. Hell, The Force Awakens is just a loose remake of A New Hope. No, so far the only good Star Wars movie that's been produced by The Mouse is Rogue One.

Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.
 

Edward

Bartender
Messages
23,130
Location
London, UK
I think Mr. Lucas' divorce from Marcia in '83 hit him hard and took away a lot of the idealism with which he made American Graffiti, Star Wars (Episode IV, A New Hope, whatever), and The Empire Strikes Back, and the end result was movies that didn't have quite the same sense of adventure and wonder. Also, because of the business end of making movies he found himself becoming the very thing he hated earlier on--the corporate head who had to micromanage everything in order to keep it all together.

That being said, I think Disney's Sequel Trilogy movies are better movies than Lucas' Prequel Trilogy, I just don't think they're better Star Wars movies. Disney focused a bit too much on the action/adventure theme and, except perhaps for Rey and Darth Wannabe, neglected to create any new characters or situations that were interesting. Hell, The Force Awakens is just a loose remake of A New Hope. No, so far the only good Star Wars movie that's been produced by The Mouse is Rogue One.

Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

I've mostly enjoyed what Disney did. Definitely an improvement on the prequels, though that's such a low bar it's a chalk line on the ground. Cynically, perhaps, I always put the quality of ESB down to Lucas' minimal involvement, but hey ho. TFA really was a bit of a rerun, but I think that in a way had to be done as their "we're taking this back to how it was". My main issue with the Disney films was that they did some really interesting stuff with Last Jedi (Luke Skywalker as an interesting, three-dimensional character who actually makes choices for himself! Whoda Thunk!?), but then after a vocal minority kicked off about it because they don't like girls or something, it all got hastily rowed back and the final film left a lot of stuff abandoned and hanging. The way they treated the Rose character in the third one was awful. I do wonder if there's a vastly better edit in the spirit of the previous film out there somewhere.

Totally in agreement re Rogue One; for me, that stands out as not only a Disney best, but a franchise best. Really, really well done. The polar opposite of the scale from Solo. The only good decision about the latter was the cancellation of the two parts to follow of a planned trilogy. To be fair, though, the idea of it having been part of a trilogy at least explains why the character at the end of that film in no way, shape or form resembles the character it was supposed to be setting up, but it was still a complete mess. In that instance, Disney had learned nothing from Lucas' I-III disasters.

In some ways, though, the most interesting thing about Disney's tenure has been the shift from it being a film franchise to a 'TV' thing (as well as). Helped by the fact we're now in an era when TV has the budget to do this sort of thing, and a track record of big, genre shows being successful. Not that I'm likely to see any of those shows for the foreseeable with the way Disney Plus is playing its business model (I won't subscribe to Disney, and they're clearly taking the Apple walled garden approach with the content they own), but it's an interesting development of the industry in general.
 
Messages
11,333
Location
Southern California
I've mostly enjoyed what Disney did. Definitely an improvement on the prequels, though that's such a low bar it's a chalk line on the ground. Cynically, perhaps, I always put the quality of ESB down to Lucas' minimal involvement, but hey ho. TFA really was a bit of a rerun, but I think that in a way had to be done as their "we're taking this back to how it was".
ESB is the shining example that George Lucas is a strong "idea man", but the execution and production of those ideas are best left to someone else who is more capable of making them shine.

...My main issue with the Disney films was that they did some really interesting stuff with Last Jedi (Luke Skywalker as an interesting, three-dimensional character who actually makes choices for himself! Whoda Thunk!?)...
I was never a big fan of the character, but Mark Hamill is by far my favorite actor in the Star Wars franchise simply because every second of his performances are spot on. Rumor has it that Jon Favreau is working with someone to write the script for the first of three movies to replace The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, and The Rise of Skywalker, which I think is a terrible idea--you had your chance Mickey, and you screwed it up--but, as usual, no one consulted me, so...

...but then after a vocal minority kicked off about it because they don't like girls or something, it all got hastily rowed back and the final film left a lot of stuff abandoned and hanging. The way they treated the Rose character in the third one was awful. I do wonder if there's a vastly better edit in the spirit of the previous film out there somewhere...
I still haven't seen The Rise of Skywalker because life got in the way and far more important things have taken precedence. I can't say I understood all the fuss some fans made about "Rose Tico". Did they not like the character? Did they not like Kelly Marie Tran? Did they not like the romance between Rose and Finn? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? I thought Rose was a good character, and that Kelly Marie Tran's performance was exactly what that role needed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In some ways, though, the most interesting thing about Disney's tenure has been the shift from it being a film franchise to a 'TV' thing (as well as). Helped by the fact we're now in an era when TV has the budget to do this sort of thing, and a track record of big, genre shows being successful. Not that I'm likely to see any of those shows for the foreseeable with the way Disney Plus is playing its business model (I won't subscribe to Disney, and they're clearly taking the Apple walled garden approach with the content they own), but it's an interesting development of the industry in general.
I've been a big Star Wars fan since seeing what is now referred to as "Episode IV: A New Hope" on opening day back in 1977. And I've been a Star Trek fan since seeing what is now commonly referred to as "The Original Series" on TV way back in 1966. But I haven't seen any of the "streaming' television continuations of either franchise because a) aforementioned "life got in the way", and b) we really can't afford to spend money we don't have to pay for streaming services we don't need on top of already-too-expensive cable/satellite TV, Internet, and every other damned thing that drains our bank account on a monthly basis. Having found out "Kenobi" will allegedly be a very limited run (six episodes, I think?), if Disney sees fit to release it on DVD/Blu-ray I'll probably spring for that, and maybe The Mandalorian if they don't get too stupid with the number of "seasons" they produce, 'cause I'll probably pick up "Picard" and "Strange New Worlds" when Paramount releases them on DVD/Blu-ray too.
 

Edward

Bartender
Messages
23,130
Location
London, UK
ESB is the shining example that George Lucas is a strong "idea man", but the execution and production of those ideas are best left to someone else who is more capable of making them shine.

All that and half a pound of grapes. Indy showed it too, imo - I'm not a huge fan of Spielberg either, but when he gets it right (and dials back his schmaltz), he really nails it. Lucas doesn't understand how humans work, and he can't do dialogue. Almost feels like he fell into the movie business because the video game business, to which he'd have been better suited, didn't happen in time for him.

I was never a big fan of the character, but Mark Hamill is by far my favorite actor in the Star Wars franchise simply because every second of his performances are spot on. Rumor has it that Jon Favreau is working with someone to write the script for the first of three movies to replace The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, and The Rise of Skywalker, which I think is a terrible idea--you had your chance Mickey, and you screwed it up--but, as usual, no one consulted me, so...

Way I heard it, the new films are supposed to be something completely new which won't replace those, but have different folks in the same extended universe. Which I think would be healthy for the story. Hamill is a better actor, imo, than ever he got credit for - it was nice to see him get better material for Luke, something he could really get into. Seems to be a nice guy, as well. I do like how he clearly genuinely appreciates his audience that put him where he is - reminds me of Leonard Nimoy in that respect.

I still haven't seen The Rise of Skywalker because life got in the way and far more important things have taken precedence. I can't say I understood all the fuss some fans made about "Rose Tico". Did they not like the character? Did they not like Kelly Marie Tran? Did they not like the romance between Rose and Finn? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? I thought Rose was a good character, and that Kelly Marie Tran's performance was exactly what that role needed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As best as I could make out, it was mostly a bunch of loud neanderthals who didn't like People Who Look Different From Them.

I've been a big Star Wars fan since seeing what is now referred to as "Episode IV: A New Hope" on opening day back in 1977. And I've been a Star Trek fan since seeing what is now commonly referred to as "The Original Series" on TV way back in 1966. But I haven't seen any of the "streaming' television continuations of either franchise because a) aforementioned "life got in the way", and b) we really can't afford to spend money we don't have to pay for streaming services we don't need on top of already-too-expensive cable/satellite TV, Internet, and every other damned thing that drains our bank account on a monthly basis. Having found out "Kenobi" will allegedly be a very limited run (six episodes, I think?), if Disney sees fit to release it on DVD/Blu-ray I'll probably spring for that, and maybe The Mandalorian if they don't get too stupid with the number of "seasons" they produce, 'cause I'll probably pick up "Picard" and "Strange New Worlds" when Paramount releases them on DVD/Blu-ray too.

I've self-identified as an "ex-Star Wars fan" since 1999. Saw Eps 1 & 2 in the cinema. 2 only because a friend of the girl I was then seeing wanted to go for a birthday trip and I didn't want to be rude. I left the cinema wishing I'd been rude. Of III, I have seen only the "becoming Darth Vader" sequence - which was so hammy, I have no need to see the rest. Context: my local cinema is five minutes from my flat, and I could have seen it for free on release. I didn't bother. I have by and large enjoyed all the Disney versions, with the exception of Solo. I'm on the same page with the TV shows - if they come to something I can see them on, grand, but I'm not sufficiently interested to want to get Disney. We just, for the first time in a decade, dropped Netflix as there was so little on it by April just past that we wanted to see. WE'll probably pick it up again in a few months, at least for a bit, then lift and drop it intermittently. Netflix's habit of cancelling stuff, and poor quality edgelord comedy specials instead, has rather put me off. Disney, on the other hand, buying up content and then pulling it from all platforms bar their own has completely put me off buying in to their platform. The opposite of what they want, I'm sure - though doubtless that business model will be sufficiently effective with enough folks that they won't miss me.
 

Bushman

My Mail is Forwarded Here
Messages
3,996
Location
Chicago
No, so far the only good Star Wars movie that's been produced by The Mouse is Rogue One.
I think my biggest problem with the ST was how much of an exercise in wasted potential the movies are. The only one of the three I came out liking was TLJ, and it seemed to be the one that relied the last on nostalgia. Solo, on the other hand, was extremely poorly managed and very by the numbers. As I've expressed, Ehrenreich failed to win me over as Han Solo, and in all I was just rather indifferent to the entire thing.

But Rogue One... that was a masterpiece on the scale of the original trilogy. Everything was there. The music, the visual design, the story of sacrifice and hope... It was a perfect Star Wars movie.

I've mostly enjoyed what Disney did. Definitely an improvement on the prequels, though that's such a low bar it's a chalk line on the ground. Cynically, perhaps, I always put the quality of ESB down to Lucas' minimal involvement, but hey ho. TFA really was a bit of a rerun, but I think that in a way had to be done as their "we're taking this back to how it was". My main issue with the Disney films was that they did some really interesting stuff with Last Jedi (Luke Skywalker as an interesting, three-dimensional character who actually makes choices for himself! Whoda Thunk!?), but then after a vocal minority kicked off about it because they don't like girls or something, it all got hastily rowed back and the final film left a lot of stuff abandoned and hanging. The way they treated the Rose character in the third one was awful. I do wonder if there's a vastly better edit in the spirit of the previous film out there somewhere.
As I said, The Last Jedi was the only one of the trilogy I came out really liking. It honestly felt like a prequel movie in the use of visual callback, and using the previous movies not as nostalgia bait, but as a launching pad to create something new. I remember predicting that it would end up the most like a prequel movie in hindsight, that people would hate it in the immediate, but eventually grow to love it. So far, that prediction has been coming true.

ESB is the shining example that George Lucas is a strong "idea man", but the execution and production of those ideas are best left to someone else who is more capable of making them shine.
Lucas is very much an idea man. His dialogue is trash, his minutiae is ham-fisted, and frankly, there's sometimes when he just needs to be told "no" on an idea. I would go as far to say that the original trilogy turned out the way it did not because of Lucas, but in spite of him.
 

Herb Roflcopter

Familiar Face
Messages
60
I found an article about the film, and I wonder about the people who write this stuff. Here's the intro...

rLGw37J.jpg


Since when does Indiana Jones use a LASSO??? I guess we should file this one under "I Was Hired To Write an Article About a Film Series I Know Little About"!

Or, nobody there bothers to proofread. Either way, it's an embarrassing blunder.
 
Top