Why not have Selleck?

Posted by Groo from ppp-207-193-4-223.kscymo.swbell.net on February 20, 1999 at 18:24:30:

In Reply to: Good thing Tom Selleck isn't Indy posted by Indiana James (Lambert) on February 19, 1999 at 14:40:49:

I sternly disagree, I believe that if Tom had been able to take the role, we would have seen more than just the three movies that Ford has distanced himself from. What about quality you ask? How do you know that Selleck's version of Indy wouldn't have been just as or even more exciting than Harrison? Not like it really matters, water under the bridge. BTW, unless you just like rehashing things all the time, maybe you should take some time and read through the archives of this forum. There is a lot of good information, and you can pick subjects to post that already haven't been talked into oblivion.
Take care Christipher"Indiana James"Lambert; There can be only one, and you aint it pally Regards,
Groo

Follow Ups:

• Re: Why not have Selleck? Indiana James (Lambert) 14:30:38 2/22/99 (1)
  • Re: Why not have Selleck? Groo 20:51:51 2/22/99 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL: