Jump to content

The OFFICIAL Indy IV Thread


Recommended Posts

The more I see him, the more I'm kind of being able to buy him as being able to pull off any such role. I'm not really worried about it. :) And if such a series is as good as Young Indiana Jones, I'll be fine. It's a pretty underrated series, IMO.

And speaking of Young Indy, does anyone think we might end up seeing the beard he sported in the "Mystery of the Blues" bookends?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One thing i fear is that Labeowulf's character is most likely Indy's son.

That's probably the worst kept secret of the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the eyepatch...

I remember reading a fan script where it actually explains Indy's eyepatch. If I recall correctly, his eye got wounded by Excalibur. Perhaps we will see the birth of the eyepatch. But if they're taking out the Old Indy sequences from the DVDs (which would suck--more hacking from Lucas), it could be that they want to avoid that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if they're taking out the Old Indy sequences from the DVDs (which would suck--more hacking from Lucas),

I'm sorry, but this is a Spielberg film, you really think he's gonna allow anyone to cut and paste old footage just for the sake of saving a buck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he meant the DVD release of Young Indy would have the scenes with the old Indy removed.

What purpose would that serve?

Primarily, that i think he goes to his DAUGHTER's home for christmas or thanksgiving's day in one of them, i think.

It seems Indy has a son now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider the TV series' events to fit in with the films, kinda like the expanded Star Wars Universe. It doesn't count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go by LaBeauf's age, I think about 20. Which would place his conception somewhere in the 30's...

And yes, I was talking about the Young Indy DVDs. I don't mind having the TV movie versions, but I really want to see the original episodes in their entirety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

He doesn't look that bad for that old age as I though he would in those Indy clothes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, is it confirmed that John Hurt will be playing Einstein? I heard that in a couple of places that seemed to be convinced of the fact....I hope it isn't true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fate of Atlantis did have aliens in it, in a way.

In the same way as this movie is rumored to have. As Gods. By the way... i think that the ark could be stored in one of Area 51 warehouses.

I knew people would complain about aliens, while in the other hand ironically would had wanted indy IV to be 'Fate of atlantis'.

Great pic of indy hehe :angry:

cant wait for the score

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there already set a date for the recording sessions and the time this leaks to the net? :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider the TV series' events to fit in with the films, kinda like the expanded Star Wars Universe. It doesn't count.

Same here.

I also imagine Temple of Doom to take place between Raiders and Last Crusade. It just makes more sense that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also imagine Temple of Doom to take place between Raiders and Last Crusade. It just makes more sense that way.

Well its not that they changed the date for a special editiono r DVD release. Been there since the beggining...

It just makes more sense being released non chronologically, so they can be seen as sepparate adventures - isolated movies, and therefore Indy IV fits there better...

Then for Joe's standards, this is a better movie than Last Crusade...

Ricard's actually....

oops sorry Joe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also imagine Temple of Doom to take place between Raiders and Last Crusade. It just makes more sense that way.

Well its not that they changed the date for a special editiono r DVD release. Been there since the beggining...

I know, but it makes more sense to be put after Raiders: Indy's remarks early in the first film about superstition and hocus-pocus don't fit with him having had the Shankara stones adventure, and there's an obvious reference to the basket game as well. Also, the Japanese hadn't bombed Shanghai yet in 1935. I think this was originally just supposed to take place in 1937, then at the last minute there was some waffle about providing "backstory" to Indiana Jones, and the opening date was changed to 1935.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the Japanese hadn't bombed Shanghai yet in 1935. I think this was originally just supposed to take place in 1937, then at the last minute there was some waffle about providing "backstory" to Indiana Jones, and the opening date was changed to 1935.

:P interesting

I know, but it makes more sense to be put after Raiders: Indy's remarks early in the first film about superstition and hocus-pocus don't fit with him having had the Shankara stones adventure

Well he teaches in last crusade that X Never marks the spot... and then...

there's an obvious reference to the basket game as well

Williams made a mistake there. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's an obvious reference to the basket game as well

Williams made a mistake there. :angry:

I'm not just talking about Williams. I'm talking about Indy wanting to shoot the two swordsmen. It's clearly a callback to the previous movie, which makes more sense if you put it in 1937 than if you put it in 1935.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's an obvious reference to the basket game as well

Williams made a mistake there. :angry:

I'm not just talking about Williams. I'm talking about Indy wanting to shoot the two swordsmen. It's clearly a callback to the previous movie, which makes more sense if you put it in 1937 than if you put it in 1935.

mmm.............true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's an obvious reference to the basket game as well

Williams made a mistake there. :angry:

I'm not just talking about Williams. I'm talking about Indy wanting to shoot the two swordsmen. It's clearly a callback to the previous movie, which makes more sense if you put it in 1937 than if you put it in 1935.

your supposed to find it amusing because you've seen in in a previous MOVIE.In no way does it refer to a timeline within the films

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this. I'm just saying, watching the stories in the order they were released makes more sense story-wise than watching them in the way they're "supposed" to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.