No Connery for Indy 4
Sean Connery confirmed that retirement was just too much fun and would therefore not be appearing in the much anticipated Indiana Jones 4th installment.
Is this good? Bad? Irrelevant?
I have my doubts, as much as I love Indy, that this can be any good. Harrison Ford is well past his prime, and although you have Spielberg, I’m not sure I can trust anything George Lucas has a hand in, after the terrible mess that was the Star Wars prequels.
Is there hope that Indy 4 can be good or even great?
Posted on June 8, 2007, in Movies. Bookmark the permalink. 14 Comments.
Steve Evans
RJH
Scott B.
John C.
Susan M
Aaron Brown
ninemoons
John Harrison
kulturblogadmin
Kyle M
Brad
KulturBlogGuest
MCQ
Wm
Rebecca
Ivan
Geoff J
btdgreg
Clark Goble
Aaron R.
Tim J
Ben
Marcus
Brad Williams
gibsonbn
Hmm. I have no idea what to think. Ford is certainly on the elderly side at this point, but that doesn’t mean he can’t do the Indy thing. I don’t think he’s had a chance at a decent script in a really long time, so it’s hard to know. Spielberg’s involvement is probably good, although it’s hard to know what to make of Lucas’s. Regarding Lucas, I loved Francis Ford Coppolla calling him out a month or so ago — telling him to make smaller, more personal artistic films, so that people would actually get to see his talent before the end of his career.
The real problem is that the franchise has to overcome a huge gap. Indy is a nostalgia piece at this point, and it’s hard to revive one of those successfully. With the right story, it could work. But I’d really think there was more hope here if Spielberg and Lucas had just produced and brought in new behind-the-camera talent. (Doug Liman?) That might give the film a fresh feeling that I bet it probably won’t have with the original team.
I’m OK with it. I think Connery was a nice touch in the 3rd film, but really was meant as a one-shot deal. He’s not essential to the franchise.
What?!? No sexy 77 year old Connery with his super sexy Scottish accent?!?!?
My husband knows I’m devastated already. (I mean it, really)
I’ll still see it though just because of Shia LeBeouf. And hopefully it will help Harrison Ford end his career on a high note. He’s a much better actor than the roles he’s taken for a long time.
I was excited when I heard they were setting it in 1958, 20 years after the other Indy films. A tad off but close enough for Harrison’s age. Then I heard it was going to deal with Area 51 and so forth and I got worried.
Despite American Graffiti, I’m not sure that Coppola is right about what Lucas should do. Given George’s evident weaknesses in directing actors and writing dialog, I have my doubts about whether “small and personal” is a good direction for him.
Anyway, I don’t think Connery’s absence will make a big difference to the movie. Obviously, he’s an asset to anything he’s in, but he’s not essential to the franchise.
Can I tell you how far away from caring I am? When I read the title, I thought it was a reference to the Indy 500. That is how far away from caring I am.
I’m not even sure he was a nice touch in the 3rd film. He suffered from the same disease as Sala and Marcus Brody: The became bumbling idiots, all three of them. I have no idea if this was in character for Henry Sr., but the first film didn’t give me that impression about the characters in it.
I think they were aiming a bit too much for the comedy.
I like the rumored storyline with Area 51, and I’m hoping Ford is less the action hero, more LeBeouf’s mentor. He’s just too old to pull off sliding under rock walls and swinging on a whip.
I felt that the third Indiana Jones movie was fairly formulaic – that it followed the model of the first movie very closely. The first movie is a classic but there is a serious danger of them turning the Indiana Jones series into the cinematic equivalent of the Hardy Boys.
The third movie was fun on first viewing. It really doesn’t hold up though. I doubt that #4 will be a classic, but it might be fun on a Saturday night. Once.
Yeah, when I got the DVDs last Christmas I was surprised at how much #3 was a rip of #1 but without the noirish elements and with too much focus on humor and buffoonery. On the other hand #2 which I remembered being weak was surprisingly good. Not as good as #1 but much better than I remember.
Wasn’t really interested until they cast Shia Lebeouf.
Now I think they might trying to prolong the franchise by passing the torch.
Too bad Sean won’t be doing a cameo, at least.
I don’t think they’re going to prolong the franchise.
It’s unfortunate as there were some excellent scripts as far back as the late 90′s. However Lucas always stood in the way. There are rumors that many of these scripts were far superior to the current script. Then there was the delay as Lucas made his craptacular prequels.
Our hope depends on Spielberg who has matured extremely well as a film maker. Some directors start out powerful and then lose it. However Spielberg arguably just gets better and better. (Although I’d still say the first Raiders is his best film by far – despite his tendency for zooms on the face in this era)
Pingback: Kulturblog » Looking Indy