Hasnt Shia LaBeouf sworn off big mainstream Hollywood projects? I was actually ok with him spinning off as Indy Jr. other than the timeline wouldnt have had much to offer and a couple other factors. regardless, that was before he seemingly went nutso too like every other actor.
Once his new film "Nymphomanic" tanks and along comes a big enough paycheck backed by Disney... he's in.
Hasnt Shia LaBeouf sworn off big mainstream Hollywood projects? I was actually ok with him spinning off as Indy Jr. other than the timeline wouldnt have had much to offer and a couple other factors. regardless, that was before he seemingly went nutso too like every other actor.
Once his new film "Nymphomanic" tanks and along comes a big enough paycheck backed by Disney... he's in.
I don't think people make or star in a movie like "Nymphomaniac" for the money. Pretty sure that one is for the "art cred", even for the people who finance it.
Hasnt Shia LaBeouf sworn off big mainstream Hollywood projects? I was actually ok with him spinning off as Indy Jr. other than the timeline wouldnt have had much to offer and a couple other factors. regardless, that was before he seemingly went nutso too like every other actor.
Once his new film "Nymphomanic" tanks and along comes a big enough paycheck backed by Disney... he's in.
I remember people saying exactly that about Tobey Maguire and a fourth Spider-Man movie.
Ford is 71. And don't get me wrong he is an iconic piece of my childhood but we accept different actors as James Bond. There is no difference.
Bond was played by Connery AFTER the books were released. Indiana Jones only existed after the Raiders of the Last Ark was made. Ford IS part of the source material. I cannot picture a new Die Hard movie with a new John McCLane cast.
I am sure there will be a time when Ford is replaced as the movie Indy. I won't be rushing to see it. If you're asking my opinion, I would rather not see a replacement anytime soon. He IS Indiana Jones. He IS Han Solo. The fact that there has been no talk about recasting Ford as Han if he doesn't/didn't sign for the new movies shows his importance to his iconic characters.
M
Where lately I am warming up to Matt's strident opinions and outlook, John Maclaine is not the same as Indy as he is based on Nothing Last Forever by Roderick Thorpe. As a Die Hard devotee I hope Willis kills off Maclaine as he does not feel as iconic as Indy. Indy can live on forever like Bond or Sherlock. John Maclaine should die under a pile of rubble before I meet another child or cousin or grandchild. Die Hard has run its course. I could see a revamped Indy.
Thanks, man.
True about Die Hard, but in Nothing Last Forever, the lead character is Joe Leland, so that's why I see it as being a Willis' specific character. That's why I see it similar to Indy, as the character is original, much like Indy. Bond and Sherlock were written before any actor portrayed the character and added his own 'angle' to the character.
I have not read the book, so I don't know how much of McClane's wittiness is actually based on Leland's personality. I think if McClane was Leland in the movie(s), I would feel different; I am aware of the ridiculousness of that statement.
I agree with the movies. I just got rid of the first 4 on DVD to upgrade to Blu-ray (Die Hard is my favorite Christmas movie). I realized beyone 2 (3 is borderline), I don't really see the point in spending the money. I could watch 1 & 2 over and over, the others, not so much (especially the last one.)
Ford is 71. And don't get me wrong he is an iconic piece of my childhood but we accept different actors as James Bond. There is no difference.
Bond was played by Connery AFTER the books were released. Indiana Jones only existed after the Raiders of the Last Ark was made. Ford IS part of the source material. I cannot picture a new Die Hard movie with a new John McCLane cast.
I am sure there will be a time when Ford is replaced as the movie Indy. I won't be rushing to see it. If you're asking my opinion, I would rather not see a replacement anytime soon. He IS Indiana Jones. He IS Han Solo. The fact that there has been no talk about recasting Ford as Han if he doesn't/didn't sign for the new movies shows his importance to his iconic characters.
M
Where lately I am warming up to Matt's strident opinions and outlook, John Maclaine is not the same as Indy as he is based on Nothing Last Forever by Roderick Thorpe. As a Die Hard devotee I hope Willis kills off Maclaine as he does not feel as iconic as Indy. Indy can live on forever like Bond or Sherlock. John Maclaine should die under a pile of rubble before I meet another child or cousin or grandchild. Die Hard has run its course. I could see a revamped Indy.
Thanks, man.
True about Die Hard, but in Nothing Last Forever, the lead character is Joe Leland, so that's why I see it as being a Willis' specific character. That's why I see it similar to Indy, as the character is original, much like Indy. Bond and Sherlock were written before any actor portrayed the character and added his own 'angle' to the character.
I have not read the book, so I don't know how much of McClane's wittiness is actually based on Leland's personality. I think if McClane was Leland in the movie(s), I would feel different; I am aware of the ridiculousness of that statement.
I agree with the movies. I just got rid of the first 4 on DVD to upgrade to Blu-ray (Die Hard is my favorite Christmas movie). I realized beyone 2 (3 is borderline), I don't really see the point in spending the money. I could watch 1 & 2 over and over, the others, not so much (especially the last one.)
M
Die Hard as your favorite Christmas movie? You are welcome in my house any Christmas eve. My sister still asks if we are watching my old VHS copy on the 24th. That's why watching the last one hurt.
Don't read the book or the book 2 is based on. They are very much of their time. Die Hard feels timeless despite the very 80's setting. It holds up beyond it's trappings much like Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I'll bring the Twinkies and your "detonators".
What's great is how on so many levels the movie still holds up. Introduce mobile phones, the terrorists brings a jammer.
It also has the same type of message as other Christmas movies without the stuff that normally gets me to roll my eyes.
Must they milk every single licensed property for all it's worth?
That's how licensing works.
What I mean to say is that I prefer it when they don't strip-mine the intellectual property as in churning out too much material, too fast, in too short of a time frame and thereby reducing its interest and charm.
They need to suck as much money out of us before we're on "fixed incomes". :-S
I would be happy to see them make new Indy movies every few years with as many different actors as they want. It isn't as if when the new ones comes out they take the old ones away and I can't enjoy them.
I though Crystal Skull was unwatchable crap, that dosent make Raiders any more awesome. We cant get more good Indy if no one is making them.
:-O what turned you at that tender age? was it a concious metamorphosis? it's quite impressive.
Thanks. As always I appreciate your wit and the blank check you have to be snarky.
Truth be told be there pictures of me with DC toys and PJs in kindergarten era. Forty years ago. To answer your less than sincere question I doubt it was a conscious choice and as a misanthrope superhero stuff has been in my life as long as I can remember. 40 years.
:-O what turned you at that tender age? was it a concious metamorphosis? it's quite impressive.
Thanks. As always I appreciate your wit and the blank check you have to be snarky.
Truth be told be there pictures of me with DC toys and PJs in kindergarten era. Forty years ago. To answer your less than sincere question I doubt it was a conscious choice and as a misanthrope superhero stuff has been in my life as long as I can remember. 40 years.
Thanks for profiling me. No need for further therapies. It's not easy to figure out how to be insidious in a foreign language. Snarky is such a lovely word though. Will add it to my vocabulary. You surprised me. That my insincere question even got an answer. How lucky I am that my clever deceit has worked out. If only I could use that ominous blank check more often, since my only purpose in life is to make you miserable.
:-O what turned you at that tender age? was it a concious metamorphosis? it's quite impressive.
Thanks. As always I appreciate your wit and the blank check you have to be snarky.
Truth be told be there pictures of me with DC toys and PJs in kindergarten era. Forty years ago. To answer your less than sincere question I doubt it was a conscious choice and as a misanthrope superhero stuff has been in my life as long as I can remember. 40 years.
Thanks for profiling me. No need for further therapies. It's not easy to figure out how to be insidious in a foreign language. Snarky is such a lovely word though. Will add it to my vocabulary. You surprised me. That my insincere question even got an answer. How lucky I am that my clever deceit has worked out. If only I could use that ominous blank check more often, since my only purpose in life is to make you miserable.
I don't even understand half of your post. We obviously do not like each other. Let's leave it at that. Happy Holidays
Thanks for taking the time to just say. But let me clarify- I am not talking about Maguire never wanting to do a 4. I am talking about when Raimi passed on Spider-Man 4. And, despite all the qualifications he gives in the earlier stories you link to ('if Raimi is there', 'if the script is good', etc.) people at the time made statements that 'once they back up the money truck' Maguire would still do it without Raimi.
And then he didn't.
That is what I was talking about, as I recall some talk from fans at the time that they could still get him to do it with enough money. That "Ready for Spider-Man 4" story is from before Raimi dropped out. But, I can see where my saying "a fourth" instead of "the fourth" could be misleading. What I am remembering is people speculating that Maguire would still go ahead and do it without Raimi if they paid him enough.
But, putting aside Maguire, my main point is that there have been plenty of times people talk about how a big enough paycheck will make this or that actor continue on a franchise no matter what. . . and there are actually quite a few examples of that not being the case. I don't follow LaBeouf, but if he has said that he isn't doing more big franchise movies, then there is precedent to believe him. There can be things other than money (especially for someone who already has tons).
Thanks for taking the time to just say. But let me clarify- I am not talking about Maguire never wanting to do a 4. I am talking about when Raimi passed on Spider-Man 4. And, despite all the qualifications he gives in the earlier stories you link to ('if Raimi is there', 'if the script is good', etc.) people at the time made statements that 'once they back up the money truck' Maguire would still do it without Raimi.
And then he didn't.
That is what I was talking about, as I recall some talk from fans at the time that they could still get him to do it with enough money. That "Ready for Spider-Man 4" story is from before Raimi dropped out. But, I can see where my saying "a fourth" instead of "the fourth" could be misleading. What I am remembering is people speculating that Maguire would still go ahead and do it without Raimi if they paid him enough.
But, putting aside Maguire, my main point is that there have been plenty of times people talk about how a big enough paycheck will make this or that actor continue on a franchise no matter what. . . and there are actually quite a few examples of that not being the case. I don't follow LaBeouf, but if he has said that he isn't doing more big franchise movies, then there is precedent to believe him. There can be things other than money (especially for someone who already has tons).
Christian Bale is in the same boat. He said he'd only do the Batman sequels if Nolan was at the helm. Reportedly, he got offered $50 million to return in the Man of Steel 'sequel,' but turned it down.
And did Raimi walk away or was he fired? I recall hearing they're was a stalemate & the studio decided to do a reboot. Part of Raimi's issues was he wanted control over the movie again, since the studio had Venom crowbarred into 3 instead of the Vulture (Ben Kingsley was all but signed for the role)
:-O what turned you at that tender age? was it a concious metamorphosis? it's quite impressive.
Thanks. As always I appreciate your wit and the blank check you have to be snarky.
Truth be told be there pictures of me with DC toys and PJs in kindergarten era. Forty years ago. To answer your less than sincere question I doubt it was a conscious choice and as a misanthrope superhero stuff has been in my life as long as I can remember. 40 years.
Those Swiss. What a snarky and insincere people. >:)
Thanks for taking the time to just say. But let me clarify- ...there have been plenty of times people talk about how a big enough paycheck will make this or that actor continue on a franchise no matter what. . . and there are actually quite a few examples of that not being the case. I don't follow LaBeouf, but if he has said that he isn't doing more big franchise movies, then there is precedent to believe him. There can be things other than money (especially for someone who already has tons).
You can think differently than I do all you want. That makes you an individual. I've merely deduced that Shia's "swearing off of “the industry” — feels an awful lot like the much-reported Joaquin Phoenix affair, which, wouldn’t you know it, turned out to be an act. You know, precedent and all that.
The Indy premise is that if Spielberg and Lucas and Disney want Shia, regardless of what's been in the press, they will get Shia. The examples you've sited regard trilogies that were preparing to move into a fourth film (Batman, Spider-Man) and that doesn't exactly apply here. The last one WAS the fourth film, so they were prepared to continue the franchise for as long as they could. It was NOT a one picture deal, I assure you.
Think about it, do you believe that Spielberg and Lucas signed LaBeouf to merely a one picture deal on Crystal Skull instead of the standard three? Maybe they did with Karen Allen (doubtful), but not the son of Indy. If you do, then I think you may have seriously misjudged their experience and wisdom. The bottom line is this, if they do a sequel and they want Shia to star, he will star in it or he is finished in Hollywood. It is my preference that they don't want him at all or they reboot if Disney moves forward with anymore movies in the franchise.
@bralinator yes, the studio went ahead with the reboot, but after Raimi dropped out. And then Maguire and Dunst dropped out rather than do it without Raimi. My memory was, at the time, people speculated that Maguire would still take some big check and go on with 4 (which was reportedly only weeks away from beginning to shoot) and instead Maguire stuck with those earlier qualifications that he would only do 4 with Raimi and if he liked the script.
VULTURE: I hope enough time has passed that you feel comfortable talking about Spider-Man 4, which was in preproduction and began casting but fell apart before shooting began. What happened there?
RAIMI: It really was the most amicable and undramatic of breakups: It was simply that we had a deadline and I couldn't get the story to work on a level that I wanted it to work. I was very unhappy with Spider-Man 3, and I wanted to make Spider-Man 4 to end on a very high note, the best Spider-Man of them all. But I couldn't get the script together in time, due to my own failings, and I said to Sony, "I don't want to make a movie that is less than great, so I think we shouldn't make this picture. Go ahead with your reboot, which you've been planning anyway." And [Sony co-chairman] Amy Pascal said, "Thank you. Thank you for not wasting the studio's money, and I appreciate your candor." So we left on the best of terms, both of us trying to do the best thing for fans, the good name of Spider-Man, and Sony Studios.
"Maguire, 34, who became famous for his breakthrough role in comic book film Spider-Man decided to hang up his webbed suit, weeks before filming on a fourth instalment of the super-hero franchise was due to start... Director Raimi was apparently unwilling to accept both the script, and financial conditions imposed by Sony executives... But on the weekend Raimi, Maguire and Dunst all decided to quit the film."
So to be clear, the studio settled for the reboot once they were both out. Them pulling out made way for the reboot. It wasn't that the studio chose the reboot, pushing them out.
As for LaBeouf and multi-picture deals for Indiana Jones-- of course. I would imagine they made such a deal, and I agree with you that they would have been foolish not to try to lock him up into such a franchise (if only to also avoid being in a weak position in future negotiations had the thing been an even bigger hit and fast tracked to a sequel). I take your point that not doing another Indiana Jones film would be expensive, and a questionable career move, but it is not like they can shoot him for deserting if he doesn't do it. Like all contracts, there are likely penalties built in for breaking it.
But if he really wants to break it, he could probably eat those costs. And certain studios or those looking to try to build another franchise around him would wisely take note of such behavior. But it is not like he would never act again if he wanted to. If he wanted to keep making small and esoteric movies like Nymphomaniac, he could.
Whether he wants to or not I have no idea. Following the link and writing these last few paragraphs is probably more time then I have ever spent on LaBeouf in my life. I really don't know much about him. I am just speaking to the general point that there have been times where no amount of money (including penalties on breaking a contract) will necessarily get an actor of a certain level to do what they might not want to do. Sometimes it is not just a check big enough to get anyone to do anything.
Also, on the flip side of that, using contract leverage to get a star to do something they don't want to is not necessarily good business. If they were to hold him to the contract and pressure him to make a movie that he doesn't want to make, then you have to deal with that attitude and energy on set. And in the promotional phase of the movie. Sure, I can imagine there have been times that it has still happened. But I would be surprised if it didn't impact the final results. Personally, I thought LaBeouf was rubbish in Indy 4. If he wants out, he certainly has my blessing to go!
Anyway, to circle back to the original topic, I love the era and feel of Indiana Jones. It was an amazing performance, but it is also a great character. Sure, it would be hard to imagine someone other than Ford, but I am game. As I also enjoy the world of those movies. And the originals will be right where I left them.
I've been trying to think of an actor who could fill Fords shoes as Indy. The closest I've come is Nathan Fillion, or possibly, Josh Brolin. Anyone else have somebody they'd like to see don the Fedora?
I've been trying to think of an actor who could fill Fords shoes as Indy. The closest I've come is Nathan Fillion, or possibly, Josh Brolin. Anyone else have somebody they'd like to see don the Fedora?
Off the top of my head I could possibly see Joseph Gorden-Levitt (low hanging fruit), Billy Crudup (mid-forties already), Armie Hammer (young but solid acting chops), Chris Evans (may be over-saturated), Charlie Hunnam, or any number of possible replacements. Please no Ben Affleck...
I actually wish they would just leave well enough alone. There really doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to keep making more films, not that that has ever stopped Hollywood. I was perfectly fine after the (so-called) "Last" Crusade.
I've been trying to think of an actor who could fill Fords shoes as Indy. The closest I've come is Nathan Fillion, or possibly, Josh Brolin. Anyone else have somebody they'd like to see don the Fedora?
What about (and I anticipate ridicule here) Matthew Mcconaughey? Sahara wasn't bad and he had pretty good range. He could lose the drawl. He's certainly fit as hell. I also thought about that cat from Eureka Colin Furgeson. Although e may be a bit generic.
I've been trying to think of an actor who could fill Fords shoes as Indy. The closest I've come is Nathan Fillion, or possibly, Josh Brolin. Anyone else have somebody they'd like to see don the Fedora?
Off the top of my head I could possibly see Joseph Gorden-Levitt (low hanging fruit), Billy Crudup (mid-forties already), Armie Hammer (young but solid acting chops), Chris Evans (may be over-saturated), Charlie Hunnam, or any number of possible replacements. Please no Ben Affleck...
I actually wish they would just leave well enough alone. There really doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to keep making more films, not that that has ever stopped Hollywood. I was perfectly fine after the (so-called) "Last" Crusade.
Please no Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He's more over-saturated then anyone else on that list.
Thanks for taking the time to just say. But let me clarify- ...there have been plenty of times people talk about how a big enough paycheck will make this or that actor continue on a franchise no matter what. . . and there are actually quite a few examples of that not being the case. I don't follow LaBeouf, but if he has said that he isn't doing more big franchise movies, then there is precedent to believe him. There can be things other than money (especially for someone who already has tons).
You can think differently than I do all you want. That makes you an individual. I've merely deduced that Shia's "swearing off of “the industry” — feels an awful lot like the much-reported Joaquin Phoenix affair, which, wouldn’t you know it, turned out to be an act. You know, precedent and all that.
The Indy premise is that if Spielberg and Lucas and Disney want Shia, regardless of what's been in the press, they will get Shia. The examples you've sited regard trilogies that were preparing to move into a fourth film (Batman, Spider-Man) and that doesn't exactly apply here. The last one WAS the fourth film, so they were prepared to continue the franchise for as long as they could. It was NOT a one picture deal, I assure you.
Think about it, do you believe that Spielberg and Lucas signed LaBeouf to merely a one picture deal on Crystal Skull instead of the standard three? Maybe they did with Karen Allen (doubtful), but not the son of Indy. If you do, then I think you may have seriously misjudged their experience and wisdom. The bottom line is this, if they do a sequel and they want Shia to star, he will star in it or he is finished in Hollywood. It is my preference that they don't want him at all or they reboot if Disney moves forward with anymore movies in the franchise.
I don't recall hearing there was going to be a 4th Nolan/Bale Batman movie. The Spider-man movie series (I refuse to call it a trilogy) did, however, plan for a 4th in that universe.
I don't recall hearing there was going to be a 4th Nolan/Bale Batman movie. The Spider-man movie series (I refuse to call it a trilogy) did, however, plan for a 4th in that universe.
M
There really wasn't much talk of a 4th Batman with Nolan / Bales, just speculation to which Bales said that unless Nolan was in, he wasn't in... (I'm paraphrasing)
Comments
What's great is how on so many levels the movie still holds up. Introduce mobile phones, the terrorists brings a jammer.
It also has the same type of message as other Christmas movies without the stuff that normally gets me to roll my eyes.
M
Or, hell, another one in general. We'll see.
I though Crystal Skull was unwatchable crap, that dosent make Raiders any more awesome. We cant get more good Indy if no one is making them.
Truth be told be there pictures of me with DC toys and PJs in kindergarten era. Forty years ago. To answer your less than sincere question I doubt it was a conscious choice and as a misanthrope superhero stuff has been in my life as long as I can remember. 40 years.
Maguire: Ready for ‘Spider-Man 4’: http://www.today.com/id/18396630
Just sayin'
And then he didn't.
That is what I was talking about, as I recall some talk from fans at the time that they could still get him to do it with enough money. That "Ready for Spider-Man 4" story is from before Raimi dropped out. But, I can see where my saying "a fourth" instead of "the fourth" could be misleading. What I am remembering is people speculating that Maguire would still go ahead and do it without Raimi if they paid him enough.
But, putting aside Maguire, my main point is that there have been plenty of times people talk about how a big enough paycheck will make this or that actor continue on a franchise no matter what. . . and there are actually quite a few examples of that not being the case. I don't follow LaBeouf, but if he has said that he isn't doing more big franchise movies, then there is precedent to believe him. There can be things other than money (especially for someone who already has tons).
And did Raimi walk away or was he fired? I recall hearing they're was a stalemate & the studio decided to do a reboot. Part of Raimi's issues was he wanted control over the movie again, since the studio had Venom crowbarred into 3 instead of the Vulture (Ben Kingsley was all but signed for the role)
M
Furthermore, I am not sure exactly where you're going with Tobey and Raimi, suffice to say they were both (eventually) ready to do another sequel and the studio settled for a reboot instead and they were both out. http://techland.time.com/2010/01/11/what-a-tangled-web-spider-man-4-killed-raimi-and-maguire-out/
The Indy premise is that if Spielberg and Lucas and Disney want Shia, regardless of what's been in the press, they will get Shia. The examples you've sited regard trilogies that were preparing to move into a fourth film (Batman, Spider-Man) and that doesn't exactly apply here. The last one WAS the fourth film, so they were prepared to continue the franchise for as long as they could. It was NOT a one picture deal, I assure you.
Think about it, do you believe that Spielberg and Lucas signed LaBeouf to merely a one picture deal on Crystal Skull instead of the standard three? Maybe they did with Karen Allen (doubtful), but not the son of Indy. If you do, then I think you may have seriously misjudged their experience and wisdom. The bottom line is this, if they do a sequel and they want Shia to star, he will star in it or he is finished in Hollywood. It is my preference that they don't want him at all or they reboot if Disney moves forward with anymore movies in the franchise.
If you want, you can read more about it from Raimi's interview with Vulture from when he was out promoting his Oz prequel. His answer is politic, but he says it was his decision to back out: Or this Daily Mail story from the time: So to be clear, the studio settled for the reboot once they were both out. Them pulling out made way for the reboot. It wasn't that the studio chose the reboot, pushing them out.
As for LaBeouf and multi-picture deals for Indiana Jones-- of course. I would imagine they made such a deal, and I agree with you that they would have been foolish not to try to lock him up into such a franchise (if only to also avoid being in a weak position in future negotiations had the thing been an even bigger hit and fast tracked to a sequel). I take your point that not doing another Indiana Jones film would be expensive, and a questionable career move, but it is not like they can shoot him for deserting if he doesn't do it. Like all contracts, there are likely penalties built in for breaking it.
But if he really wants to break it, he could probably eat those costs. And certain studios or those looking to try to build another franchise around him would wisely take note of such behavior. But it is not like he would never act again if he wanted to. If he wanted to keep making small and esoteric movies like Nymphomaniac, he could.
Whether he wants to or not I have no idea. Following the link and writing these last few paragraphs is probably more time then I have ever spent on LaBeouf in my life. I really don't know much about him. I am just speaking to the general point that there have been times where no amount of money (including penalties on breaking a contract) will necessarily get an actor of a certain level to do what they might not want to do. Sometimes it is not just a check big enough to get anyone to do anything.
Also, on the flip side of that, using contract leverage to get a star to do something they don't want to is not necessarily good business. If they were to hold him to the contract and pressure him to make a movie that he doesn't want to make, then you have to deal with that attitude and energy on set. And in the promotional phase of the movie. Sure, I can imagine there have been times that it has still happened. But I would be surprised if it didn't impact the final results. Personally, I thought LaBeouf was rubbish in Indy 4. If he wants out, he certainly has my blessing to go!
Anyway, to circle back to the original topic, I love the era and feel of Indiana Jones. It was an amazing performance, but it is also a great character. Sure, it would be hard to imagine someone other than Ford, but I am game. As I also enjoy the world of those movies. And the originals will be right where I left them.
I actually wish they would just leave well enough alone. There really doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to keep making more films, not that that has ever stopped Hollywood. I was perfectly fine after the (so-called) "Last" Crusade.
It's not as if it could be any worse than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
M
M
http://www.eonline.com/shows/e_news/news/212673/christian-bale-this-will-be-the-last-time-i-m-playing-batman