That webpage is at...

Posted by Goodsport from adsl-216-102-199-185.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net on July 30, 1999 at 06:23:03:

In Reply to: More Indiana Jones/James Bond comparison... posted by ROB T. on July 29, 1999 at 23:18:03:

: Just read the article that Goodsport linked on the similarities between Indy and 007. As Artie Johnson used to say, "Very Interesting."
: I'm glad they didn't go that route. James Bond to me always seemed more superhuman and I like the fact that Indy never comes out of his adventures unscarred. He always seems the worse for wear. I also like that he always ends up right back where he started from. In "Raiders" he finds the Ark but it's still "lost" at the end of the movie. He gives the Sankara stones to the village in "Temple of Doom" and he walks away without the Grail in "Last Crusade." James Bond could never get away with that kind of thing.
: I'm also glad they didn't go the rich playboy route. That would have made Indy seem like a trifler; a bored, spoiled brat looking for thrills instead of a serious archeologist (as much as Indy can be called a serious archeologist) Under those circumstances, I don't think the Army would have hired Indy to go after the Ark. Two career military men like Col. Musgrove and Major Eaton would have looked down their noses at some fancy-pants rich boy.

: In the Indiana Jones/James Bond article there was a picture of Indy in a tux and one of Sean Connery as Bond in a tux. I never noticed the resemblence between the two of them before. They really look like they could be father and son.

: If you haven't read this article, you really should. Goodsport linked it in one of his posts a little ways down so I won't re-link it here.

... http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Ring/4432/raidlost/raidbond.htm

Good points, Rob T. Could it be that Lucas was thinking more of the "super-archeologist/playboy" route for Indy because he originally had cast (or wanted to cast) Tom Selleck for the role?

-G

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : Just read the article that Goodsport linked on the similarities between Indy and 007. As Artie Johnson used to say, "Very Interesting."
: : I'm glad they didn't go that route. James Bond to me always seemed more superhuman and I like the fact that Indy never comes out of his adventures unscarred. He always seems the worse for wear. I also like that he always ends up right back where he started from. In "Raiders" he finds the Ark but it's still "lost" at the end of the movie. He gives the Sankara stones to the village in "Temple of Doom" and he walks away without the Grail in "Last Crusade." James Bond could never get away with that kind of thing.
: : I'm also glad they didn't go the rich playboy route. That would have made Indy seem like a trifler; a bored, spoiled brat looking for thrills instead of a serious archeologist (as much as Indy can be called a serious archeologist) Under those circumstances, I don't think the Army would have hired Indy to go after the Ark. Two career military men like Col. Musgrove and Major Eaton would have looked down their noses at some fancy-pants rich boy.

: : In the Indiana Jones/James Bond article there was a picture of Indy in a tux and one of Sean Connery as Bond in a tux. I never noticed the resemblence between the two of them before. They really look like they could be father and son.

: : If you haven't read this article, you really should. Goodsport linked it in one of his posts a little ways down so I won't re-link it here.

: 
: ... <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Ring/4432/raidlost/raidbond.htm">http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Ring/4432/raidlost/raidbond.htm</A>

: Good points, Rob T.  Could it be that Lucas was thinking more of the "super-archeologist/playboy" route for Indy because he originally had cast (or wanted to cast) Tom Selleck for the role?

: 
: -G

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]