The point of my essay wasn't logic...take a look again West!!

Posted by California Mike from 209-21-33-242.dialup.microweb.net on April 30, 2001 at 19:01:40:

In Reply to: Not sure if I agree with that logic... posted by West on April 30, 2001 at 07:51:59:

: Well, personally it's like the Lara Croft vs Indy thing. O'Connell's character is based on Indy's, or more loosely Indy and all other serial characters that have existed. So to me, I have to say I like the original better and to argue against your reasons:

: 1)So what if Fraser is taller than Ford? So is Michael Jordan and Shaq and they never made it into movies well...All I have to say is "Space Jam."
: To me Brendan Fraser is a good actor but is still a far cry from being an action star. I like the "Mummy" but still Fraser has some work to do. Especially after movies such as "Encino man" and "George of the Jungle" being part of his credit and no other action movies but the Mummy series, I think casting directors agree with me. Plus, Fraser looks nothing like Selleck and isn't someone I can imagine being "rough, dirty, and look good like a two fisted hellion." Ford has had plenty of action roles: Clear and Present Danger, the Fugitive, Star Wars....and so on. Plus, Sean Connery is 12 years Ford's senior and still going strong...would you really ask Indy much less James Bond to retire?

: 2) The advanced CGI of today didn't exist in the time any of the Indy movies were made, plus Ford wants to do as many of his own stunts as he can because it's real and looks real. Even today lots of the time you can tell the difference between a real flesh and blood stunt as opposed to a computer generated one. They do use special graphics in Indy movies anyways, and not overdoing them when they're not needed, I mean come on do you think that guy really went over the cliff in LC with the tank? Plus, what would stuntmen do for money if there wasn't anymore movie work?

: 3)Well the complicated story thing is something to give the characters more realism, that's the same about Indy leaving Marion. The point with Indy was to make serial characters more real, like how any normal person would react in a extraordinary situation. Plus he did do the hero in shining armor bit with Elsa when she was held by gun point by the Nazi (given she betrayed him later) and did the same after he got out of his trance in TOD for Willy.

: 4)Well, Indy takes on the Nazi army in two of the movies and a evil group of Kali (sp?) worshippers in India and gets out of it alive with his fedora, jacket, whip and side kicks in tact...unlikely enough for you? Plus the fact he gets cuts, scars, and very very hurt just adds a bit of realism to Indy, making him seem more plausable considering the unreal situations he's survived. For one, surviving the wrath of the Lost ark of the covenant!

: 5)Good they're still making Mummy movies! Last I checked they just started making them as opposed to Indy who has been around for a good 20+ years and is still going strong. Most people remember the name Indiana Jones and Harrison Ford quicker than they do Brendan Fraser or O'Connell (actually I forgot his character's name before this post). People go out and collect his gear (grin) and he's immortalized in a museum and not the least to say copied by many and a part of our society's history. The last Indy movie was made in '89 and people still like Indy and want more movies! Can O'Connell say the same? Plus, gigantic scorpians is more monster B-movie-ish than it is B-actions movie.

: I like the Mummy too, but it's a long cry away from replacing Indiana Jones...

: To quote some other great guys I know, "Just my 2 cents..."
: West

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : Well, personally it's like the Lara Croft vs Indy thing.  O'Connell's character is based on Indy's, or more loosely Indy and all other serial characters that have existed.  So to me, I have to say I like the original better and to argue against your reasons:

: : 1)So what if Fraser is taller than Ford?  So is Michael Jordan and Shaq and they never made it into movies well...All I have to say is "Space Jam."
: : To me Brendan Fraser is a good actor but is still a far cry from being an action star. I like the "Mummy" but still Fraser has some work to do.  Especially after movies such as "Encino man" and "George of the Jungle" being part of his credit and no other action movies but the Mummy series, I think casting directors agree with me. Plus, Fraser looks nothing like Selleck and isn't someone I can imagine being "rough, dirty, and look good like a two fisted hellion." Ford has had plenty of action roles: Clear and Present Danger, the Fugitive, Star Wars....and so on. Plus, Sean Connery is 12 years Ford's senior and still going strong...would you really ask Indy much less James Bond to retire?

: : 2) The advanced CGI of today didn't exist in the time any of the Indy movies were made, plus Ford wants to do as many of his own stunts as he can because it's real and looks real.  Even today lots of the time you can tell the difference between a real flesh and blood stunt as opposed to a computer generated one.  They do use special graphics in Indy movies anyways, and not overdoing them when they're not needed, I mean come on  do you think that guy really went over the cliff in LC with the tank?  Plus, what would stuntmen do for money if there wasn't anymore movie work?

: : 3)Well the complicated story thing is something to give the characters more realism, that's the same about Indy leaving Marion.  The point with Indy was to make serial characters more real, like how any normal person would react in a extraordinary situation.  Plus he did do the hero in shining armor bit with Elsa when she was held by gun point by the Nazi (given she betrayed him later) and did the same after he got out of his trance in TOD for Willy.

: : 4)Well, Indy takes on the Nazi army in two of the movies and a evil group of Kali (sp?) worshippers in India and gets out of it alive with his fedora, jacket, whip and side kicks in tact...unlikely enough for you?  Plus the fact he gets cuts, scars, and very very hurt just adds a bit of realism to Indy, making him seem more plausable considering the unreal situations he's survived.  For one, surviving the wrath of the Lost ark of the covenant!

: : 5)Good they're still making Mummy movies! Last I checked they just started making them as opposed to Indy who has been around for a good 20+ years and is still going strong.  Most people remember the name Indiana Jones and Harrison Ford quicker than they do Brendan Fraser or O'Connell (actually I forgot his character's name before this post).  People go out and collect his gear (grin) and he's immortalized in a museum and not the least to say copied by many and a part of our society's history.  The last Indy movie was made in '89 and people still like Indy and want more movies! Can O'Connell say the same? Plus, gigantic scorpians is more monster B-movie-ish than it is B-actions movie.

: : I like the Mummy too, but it's a long cry away from replacing Indiana Jones...

: : To quote some other great guys I know, "Just my 2 cents..."
: :                    West

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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