2519 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Don't think so, old buddy.

I guess the nearest thing Bond ever had to a sidekick was Jinx. But we didn't mind her, did we? Eh, lads? Eh?

[HildebrandRarity]

Don't think so, old buddy.

I guess the nearest thing Bond ever had to a sidekick was Jinx. But we didn't mind her, did we? Eh, lads? Eh?

Well...I didn't mind seeing her big tits and tight, firm bum in that orange bikini but I wished she'd kept her mouth shut more often.

And, o, if there's a hot member of the fairer sex in tow to bang, then I don't really consider that a 'side-kick'...it'd me more like a side-screw, if you know what I mean.

[Harmsway]

Agreed with all that. Sidekicks never work.

The sidekick worked in TEMPLE OF DOOM, at least from my perspective. I love Short Round.

Anyway, the positive word on INDY IV is really promising. Glad to see it's not an all-out failure as some would have had us believe.

[Righty007]

Agreed with all that. Sidekicks never work.

The sidekick worked in TEMPLE OF DOOM, at least from my perspective. I love Short Round.

I like Short Round too especially because he played the James Bond wannabe in The Goonies.

[kneelbeforezod]

Agreed with all that. Sidekicks never work.

The sidekick worked in TEMPLE OF DOOM, at least from my perspective. I love Short Round.

"I very little... you cheat very big!" Yep I pretty much love Short Round too.

"Hey lady... you call him Doctor Jones"

[Johnboy007]

Am I the only one that absolutely loves Connery's role in Last Crusade?

[kneelbeforezod]

Am I the only one that absolutely loves Connery's role in Last Crusade?

No I pretty much love him too. Crusade tips too much into all-out comedy for my liking, but he's still a great character.

I can definitely understand some people having a problem with sidekicks, but as with everything its all in the execution: Justin Long in Die Hard 4 = weak, Connery = pretty great. And the lack of sidekicks Rocky Balboa or Rambo doesn't help them come anywhere near the Indy films in quality... not even close

I also don't think the inclusion of Shia Labeouf is completely cynical in terms of bringing in a demographic. Sure, it helps, but Indy has often had people close by to play off, he's never been a complete loner.

[sharpshooter]

Am I the only one that absolutely loves Connery's role in Last Crusade?

Nope. Connery's performance is brilliant, junior!
The Last Crusade is my favourite Indy film, and his performance is a key reason why.

[Royal Dalton]

I quite enjoy Connery's performance, but I think he was miscast as Indy's dad. He's far too big and macho to play someone who's supposed to be an eccentric professor. Someone like Richard Vernon would have been a better choice, IMO.

As for Short Round; he sucks bum. And the less said about Willie Scott the better.

[HildebrandRarity]

Agreed with all that. Sidekicks never work.

The sidekick worked in TEMPLE OF DOOM, at least from my perspective. I love Short Round.

"I very little... you cheat very big!" Yep I pretty much love Short Round too.

"Hey lady... you call him Doctor Jones"

To clarify my position, i'm not against side-kicks, per se. I'm also not against watching an old actor playing an action adventure hero. What i'm against is the idea of an 'old/ageing' actor playing an action/adventure hero WITH a teen-aged side-kick in tow...for the sole purpose of attracting an audience (the 13 to 19 year olds) that the old actor could no longer attract on his own two feet.

Mel Gibson having a side-kick in Lethal Weapons and Indy having Short Round are NOT in the category i've described. They were perfectly fine and enjoyable, IMO.

[sark]

Agreed with all that. Sidekicks never work.

The sidekick worked in TEMPLE OF DOOM, at least from my perspective. I love Short Round.

"I very little... you cheat very big!" Yep I pretty much love Short Round too.

"Hey lady... you call him Doctor Jones"

What i'm against is the idea of an 'old/ageing' actor playing an action/adventure hero WITH a teen-aged side-kick in tow...for the sole purpose of attracting an audience (the 13 to 19 year olds) that the old actor could no longer attract on his own two feet.

I'm sure you have some proof of this claim that Lebouf (considered a very talented young actor, it'd be different if it was Lindsay Lohan) was cast solely to attract young viewers.

[Righty007]

I quite enjoy Connery's performance, but I think he was miscast as Indy's dad. He's far too big and macho to play someone who's supposed to be an eccentric professor. Someone like Richard Vernon would have been a better choice, IMO.

How was Connery miscast when Lucas based Indiana Jones off of Sean Connery's James Bond? That's perfect casting!

[jaguar007]

IF you are opposed to an ageing Indy having a sidekick, don't go see the movie. Indy has always had a sidekick on his adventures. General Pushkin...er...I mean Sallah in Raiders and Crusade, Short Round in Temple and Dad (along with Sallah and Marcus). I know Shia Lebouf was one of the critisims about this movie, but almost every review I have read said he is actually pretty good in the movie and does not take away from it at all.

[sharpshooter]

I think it will be a matter of taste with KOTKS. Whatever happens, at least we will always have the originals if we want to reminisce.

[Harmsway]

I think it will be a matter of taste with KOTKS.

Well, of course it is. What the viewer demands of INDY IV is going to vary. But if the film delivers its dose of "engaged nostalgia" (to quote the positive Boston Globe review), then I'm going to be happy as a clam.

[JimmyBond]

Roger Ebert loved it btw, gave it 3 and a half stars.

[HildebrandRarity]

IF you are opposed to an ageing Indy having a sidekick, don't go see the movie. Indy has always had a sidekick on his adventures.

I'm going to see the movie because I liked Raiders and Last Crusade (which, btw, I said already); because i'm a Spielberg and John Williams fan and am interested in what they come up with; and because I want the movie to prove me wrong.

And yes, Indy has had side-kicks...BUT he was in his 30s and he was able to draw in the 13-to-19-year-old demographic ON HIS OWN...WITHOUT A TEEN-AGED ACTOR AS A SIDE-KICK.

D O

I

N E E D

T O

S P E L L

I T

O U T

F O R

Y O U ?

O R ,

D O

Y O U

U N D E R S T A N D

T H E

D I F F E R E N C E ?


Some people really need to learn how to read English around here.

[Harmsway]

And yes, Indy has had side-kicks...BUT he was in his 30s and he was able to draw in the 13-to-19-year-old demographic ON HIS OWN...WITHOUT A TEEN-AGED ACTOR AS A SIDE-KICK.

Granted, but I don't really think Shia's there just to pull in the youthful demographic. Doesn't mean that your or others will feel happy about his character (Moriarty at AICN liked the film, liked Shia in the part, but didn't really think the concept was worthwhile), but there is an underlying character arc for Indiana Jones that Shia's character is meant to contribute to. Whether he ultimately does is something I'll be deciding on Friday evening.

I'll be going with expectations significantly lowered. KINGDOM doesn't have to be perfect (TEMPLE and LAST CRUSADE are woefully flawed movies), but it has to deliver the fun.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

HildebrandRarity, you assume that is the sole reason for the Mutt character's presence, but he is more than just a sidekick. He has a direct link to Indy. There is a bigger story here the bearded ones have wanted to tell for a long time. It's not like they suddenly realised Ford was old and they needed to slap in some young blood.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Before anyone here (a lovefest thread for Indy) nails me to the board I have to qualify why i've been less than enthusiastic about this film. [Before I do, i'll say that I am going to see it opening weekend...and I really liked Raiders and Last Crusade.]

So, here goes:

Philosophically speaking, I am an opponent of having an aging/old actor playing an action/adventure hero side-kicked by some snot-nosed 19 year old so that the studio in question can make a 'connection' with the teen demographic.

That to me is a cowardly way of delivering a blockbuster. That to me is a full dilution of the essence of the character that originally moved audiences to come see him, and him alone. That to me smacks of intellectual dishonesty. That to me smacks of an admittance by the producers that the hero, on his own, is unsellable...that it (the movie) won't be bought on the wings of the original hero's own cachet. That, let's throw in a 19 year-old so we, the studio, can play it safe and not alienate the 14 to 21 year olds.

It happened with LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD and it's happening here.

And i'm simply not a fan of such an idea.

I don't expect people here to understand what i'm trying to say. Fine. It's a personal preferrence. I want my heroes to be able to stand on their own feet and I want the studio that bank-rolls the film to have faith, *some* faith, in either the confidence of the character itself or the confidence of it's audience to deliver the goods with-out a dilution...the dilution of having a puppy as a side-kick...the puppy being a stupid punk teen...the teen being there only to 'help bring in the demographic'.

So there you have it. I abhore the idea of a Shia Lebuff, or whatever his name is, in a movie like this. Let Indy stand on his own...now that would be bold, wouldn't it?

People here are so cought up in a new Indy film...They have fond memeories of watching the films growing up. Fine, and that's how it should be. But I have a different view and each of us are entitled to that view. And the view is that Indy 4 ought not to have been sold to audiences with a punk in tow.

The day James Bond is played by a 60 plus year old with a 19 year-old side kick is the day I sell my Rolex, BMW, and everything that has anything to do with the Eon Bond. I'm betting that ain't gonna happen.

I'd love to buy you a beer for that post.I agree totally with everything you're saying...still, maybe we'll be surprised by Indy 4.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Chud ripped Indy a new one, 3.0 out of 10 and 4.5 out of ten. They are entertaining if snarky critics...

[marktmurphy]

I seem to remember THE PHANTOM MENACE getting an awful lot of rave reviews on the eve of its release. Just sayin'.

So did Casino Royale and Rocky Balboa- not sure that observation has any relevance.

And I'd agree that Indy isn't a memorable character, at least not to the degree that Bond is. Indy just happens to get caught up in amazing adventures, that's all. He's a bit of a blank canvas, lacking the personality or spark of, say, Bond or Rocky. He's closer to someone like John McClane, who's all very well and good fun to watch, but basically just a backdrop for the action, which is the real star of the show.

Hmm... no- can't really follow that. He's just as memorable as Bond; in twenty years (compared to Bond's 40) we've probably seen just as many Indy spoofs as Bonds. He's got a huge amount of character and is played by a huge movie star- I don't see how Bond is a 'better' character: he's essentially been six different characters, at times much, much worse than Indy. As a worse case example take OHMSS where there's no lead character there- just a cardboard cutout going through the Bond motions.
I can almost see where you're coming from- the films aren't about Indy; perhaps the Bond films worship Bond as a character more, but I'm not sure why that's a good or a bad thing?

[marktmurphy]

Am I the only one that absolutely loves Connery's role in Last Crusade?

Yeah- he's great, it's great. I hate all of this revisionism towards Last Crusade- it's not 'woefully flawed'. It's not as perfect as Raiders, but the question is: did you enjoy watching it? Did it make you laugh, excite you, entertain you? It's an excellent film- the lesser of the sequels? Maybe; maybe you think Temple is the lesser, but none of them are bad. They're all excellent adventure films.

I can definitely understand some people having a problem with sidekicks, but as with everything its all in the execution: Justin Long in Die Hard 4 = weak, Connery = pretty great. And the lack of sidekicks Rocky Balboa or Rambo doesn't help them come anywhere near the Indy films in quality... not even close

Arf! Good point

I also don't think the inclusion of Shia Labeouf is completely cynical in terms of bringing in a demographic. Sure, it helps, but Indy has often had people close by to play off, he's never been a complete loner.

Exactly- they've always tried to spice up the relationship by giving him different characters to bounce off. He didn't in Raiders, no; but then that was before they made a sequel- you try to make a sequel different to the original by shaking up the format slightly. I know what people mean; adding the teen sidekick is always a bit of a tiresome technique, but that doesn't mean that it can't work and it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in an Indiana Jones sequel.

Here's a fun thought; age-wise Ford doing this film would be equivalent to Connery starring as Bond in GoldenEye in '95

[Jim]

Exactly- they've always tried to spice up the relationship by giving him different characters to bounce off. He didn't in Raiders, no; but then that was before they made a sequel- you try to make a sequel different to the original by shaking up the format slightly. I know what people mean; adding the teen sidekick is always a bit of a tiresome technique, but that doesn't mean that it can't work and it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in an Indiana Jones sequel.

Good point; and given that the character is supposed to be a professor, always quite surprised they didn't go down the line of making one of his students a sidekick (and killing the student off in a "darker" moment).

Here's a fun thought; age-wise Ford doing this film would be equivalent to Connery starring as Bond in GoldenEye in '95

Arf!

Could have been spectacular. Would have been much more convincing. All that guff about Cold War dinosaurs would have made some sense.

[ACE]

Three friends of mine saw it yesterday in Cannes.

One hated it - and thinks it will bomb!!!!!
One thought it was OK, continued the diminishing scale of enjoyment in the series (too comic,silly and OTT)
One LOVED it.

(These guys are not Indy "fans" per se but movie industry longtimers.)

Here is other reaction.

http://www.darkhoriz...rystalskull.php

The CHUD chaps really have it in for Indy 4!
http://chud.com/arti...TAKE/Page1.html

http://chud.com/arti...TAKE/Page1.html

So bitter, it's funny!
http://chud.com/arti...TAKE/Page1.html

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36805

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36804

Personally, I cannae wait!

[sharpshooter]

I'm not sure if this has been posted, but The KOTCS soundtrack is on itunes.

[DamnCoffee]

Another Review....

IRoKZI04TMU

[Royal Dalton]

I quite enjoy Connery's performance, but I think he was miscast as Indy's dad. He's far too big and macho to play someone who's supposed to be an eccentric professor. Someone like Richard Vernon would have been a better choice, IMO.

How was Connery miscast when Lucas based Indiana Jones off of Sean Connery's James Bond? That's perfect casting!

He wasn't based on Connery's James Bond, or any other James Bond for that matter. Lucas was against casting Connery in the role to begin with, anyway. Spielberg had to twist his arm to agree to it.

I would have been absolutely fine with Connery, if they'd made the character an older (and, perhaps, better) version of Indy. They didn't do that. They made him a tweed-wearing fuddy duddy professor. And Connery doesn't convince me as that character, I'm sorry to say.

[DamnCoffee]

I quite enjoy Connery's performance, but I think he was miscast as Indy's dad. He's far too big and macho to play someone who's supposed to be an eccentric professor. Someone like Richard Vernon would have been a better choice, IMO.

How was Connery miscast when Lucas based Indiana Jones off of Sean Connery's James Bond? That's perfect casting!

He wasn't based on Connery's James Bond, or any other James Bond for that matter. Lucas was against casting Connery in the role to begin with, anyway. Spielberg had to twist his arm to agree to it.

Really? On the Documentary on the Trilogy Boxset. Spielberg said that "There is only one person to play Indy's dad, and thats James Bond, the original James Bond and the best James Bond - Sean Connery"... and apparently Connery agreed to it straight away.

[Royal Dalton]

Spielly always wanted Connery. Lucas didn't. Hence the arm-twisting bit.