I thought Sean Connery's character in The Last Crusade was awful. Lucas' desire to have Connery reprise this unfunny Crusade role is further evidence that he's completely out of touch with contemporary humor. What's the opening scene going to be, Connery slipping on a banana peel?From Moviesonline, "George Lucas is hoping that he can tempt actor Sean Connery into reprising his role of Henry Jones in the next Indiana Jones adventure. Sean Connery has recently announced his retirement from acting, so this confrontation might prove interesting. Apparently Lucas is writing Sean Connery into the script "whether he wants to do it or not".
Boy that sounds brilliant. And in the case he still won't take the role they can always cast Hayden Christensen to replace him. And that would be just the tip of the money-making ice-berg. Just imagine the possibilities of "Indiana Jones: Special Edition" where Sean Connery in "The Last Crusade" is digitally masked over by Christensen's visage.
Yeah. Sarcasm is fun.
Hopefully they will write Henry Jones back out of the script in the likelyhood that Connery still doesn't take them up on the offer. He is the only one who can play the role. Period. You can replace Superman, Batman, Inspector Clouseau, etc. But leave Henry Jones as he is.
I'm looking foward to the upcoming Indiana Jones, but a lot of the recent news surrounding it has bothered me to some degree. Right now I've seen Lucas throwing around a lot of generalized statements about the quality of the script but has yet to show us anything concrete."
4 comments:
Eeeeyyeah, this isn't looking too good. Sounds like after manifesting the right amount of gravitas to make Sith something other than a total disaster, George is returning to the "fun" stuff. Run, everybody!
You guys are way too mad at Lucas, or rather, you're attacking him in the wrong way. Hollywood is full of crass, venal idiots who don't care about anything and don't know how to do anything, intermingled with talented people who have ego problems or whatever. Compare Lucas to Coppola, Scorsese, and others of his generation and you see someone incredibly successful who's still trying to do the same thing that he's been doing since the seventies! I feel that it's necessary to remind you guys that Lucas 1) is still doing his thing, out of love; 2) is doing exactly the same thing that we have always wanted him to do (make more "Lucasfilm" movies and all that that means; and 3) fucking invented this stuff. The entire "summer movie"/"toy from the movie" concept comes completely from him. He changed movies, himself, singlehandedly, and unlike Roddenberry or Bogdonavich or Orson Welles he's still in there, still doing it, not blaming anyone else and not turning into a hack. The prequels invented a new kind of moviemaking entirely, and getting even some of the way back (or, I would argue, 150% of the way back aesthetically and technically, while obviously failing from a narrative standpoint) is quite an achievement. "There are no second acts in American lives," F. Scott Fitzgerald said. Well, Steve Jobs and George Lucas prove that wrong. I mean, show some respect, can't you? We don't "deserve" another Indy movie. We're getting one anyway, and damn it, that's good news. It's not "gonna stink." Anyway how the hell do you know? Spielberg's doing it, for Christ's sake. Just lay off.
Hmm. On #2, he sure as hell isn't doing what I always wanted him to do. "Obviously failing from a narrative standpoint" isn't just a sidebar item, it's the whole thing. If Star Wars had been on Phantom Menace par in 1977 it would have sunk out of sight. I never wanted him to let his ego and his thrill over his new toys eclipse his ability to tell a story and direct live actors, any more than I wanted him to paint over my favorite dewback.
Re #3, so what? Yes, he's an amazing force in cinema past and present and he still does it for love, but he makes a lot of missteps as an artist and that results in movies I don't enjoy. These are movies I want to enjoy and would enjoy if certain basic, intuitive decisions were made differently in the beginning.
Why should I respect that he's been doing the same thing since the 70's when he doesn't respect those efforts and has to go back and change them? It's singular that he's got the ability to do that but it doesn't mean he should have. I don't idolize his success.
He was able to mature his vibe for Sith, why not keep it going? Why not wish for an Indy movie that looked back to the Raiders only for inspiration? Spielberg grew up, after all.
Yeah that's a bit of a generalization. For me it's not a black (Lucas sucks) or white (Lucas is the best) issue. I love and respect Lucas for what he's given me. I'm at work as I type this and there's an R2D2 and C3PO on my desk and a Slave One toy on my bookshelf. I think I even like the prequel films more than you guys. My point is that, at times, Lucas' sense of humor doesn't do it for me (e.g., any scene involving Jar Jar or Short-Round). I LOVE Raiders of the Lost Ark but I didn't dig Last Crusade as much because the SC scenes didn't work for me. I believe it's possible to criticize certain aspects of Lucas' or any artist's choices without the tacit implication being that I dislike their body of work as a whole. I'm thrilled that there will be another Indy flick. I'm not thrilled that SC might be in it. My "It will stink" comment might seem harsh, but it should be taken with a grain of salt. I’ve read much more provocative/inflammatory statements made on this blog by others about things that I like. That’s what’s fun about the blog. We can bitch all we want. We’re all cranky old men.
By the way, I’ll be first in line for Indy IV
Post a Comment