Uncle Festus


The spirit of Indiana Jones is obviously alive and well, but can the 2007 model — a.k.a., Uncle Festus — deliver the old brawny machismo that we all remember from the ’80s? That is the question.

81 thoughts on “Uncle Festus

  1. I’m sure the movie will blow, simply because Spielberg is a hack and Hollywood has lost all esteem in him.

    Is “Uncle Festus” the bastard child of Ken Curtis and Jackie Coogan? Or perhaps the real-world creator of Seinfeld’s Festivus? Because I’ve never heard of the expression until now.

  2. “calling spielberg a hack..this is the kind of shit im talking about. if spielberg is a hack who’s not a hack?”

    I was being ironic.

  3. Uncle Festus?
    Zing!
    I’m sure Ford is sweating in his boots that Wells thinks he looks old.
    I’ll agree with those who say he looks great in this pic.

    I really like Batman Begins but based on that film’s box office either The Dark Knight will have to be huge or Indy will have to suck for it to outgross Mr. Spielberg et al.

    Besides which – is anyone on this board an investor in either film? Who gives a shit which film does better BO? Is that really what we’ve been reduced to as “film lovers?”

    I don’t care which one makes a profit for the multi-national that is backing it – I hope they are enjoyable. Call me crazy, if you must.

  4. I can’t wait for this movie to come out and demolish the box office.

    The reason being: Just to show Wells how wrong he was months ago when he said no one is interested in seeing Indiana Jones.

    You are wayyyy off-base on that one.

  5. Batman is a must see opening weekend flick for me. Indy is a “maybe I’ll see it in theaters if I have the extra money, otherwise I’ll wait for it to show up on netflix.”

    I haven’t seen a Spielberg movie in theaters since AI (which I loved). I know Dark Knight will be great. But with Lucas’ involvement, Indy is iffy at best.

  6. I wouldn’t knock it just because of Lucas. As far as I’ve heard, he’s been pretty hands-off during filming.

    I have a feeling this is goign to be great… Spielberg has taken a dark tone as of late– wouldn’t be surprised if its close to something like Temple of Doom.

  7. In 1989, Indy III was expected to be the big boxoffice winner, with Back to the Future a close second. Burton’s Batman, which was an unknown commodity, came out of nowhere to take the crown.

    Next year, both Indy and Batman will make their coin, but I suspect another unknown commodity will come out on top. Don’t ask me why, but I think that Speed Racer (Rated G!) will be the one to do it.

  8. And has anyone watched the ’89 Batman recently? Indy 3 holds up extremely well in compatison.

    And yeah, can we not look forward to both? Leave the “my franchise is better than yours” BS to AICN.

  9. Indy has always been more about wit and nerve than brawn so as long he acts his age, it will be fine. As a guy with a pronounced disdain for the typical action movie mope, you should understand that.

    When Indy 4 first came up, I treated it with a groan and a yawn. I’m not in the 6th grade anymore. When I saw that first picture of Ford in the hat though…well the 6th grader in me woke up. That’s what’s always been great about those movies.

    Dismissing Indy 4 because of this or that specific opinion about Spielberg or Lucas is missing the point. Indy is bigger than the both of them and I’m genuinely looking forward to it. It could stiff, but it’s worth the chance and I hope it doesn’t.

    Comparison to Batman (which I’m also looking forward to) is a complete non-issue unless you only see one movie every year. I feel comfortable in assuming 100% of H-E readers see a good deal more than that.

  10. You sometimes read in the news about an assailant who messed with the wrong senior citizen and got their ass kicked. Remember when Gene Hackman took on those two knuckleheads a few years ago? Hackman was 71 and embarrassed by the incident, but I was all “Fuckin’ A, Gene!”

  11. I like Wells is trying to call Harrison Ford old, but makes a reference so dated that he himself comes off as the old fogey. All these new-fangled kids with their hula hoops and cell phones must really bother him.

  12. Howling man – I have the opposite reaction. Anytime I try to watch ‘Last Crusade’, it comes off as such a pale retread of ‘Raiders’ that I feel like I might as well just watch ‘Raiders’ (or a movie where Sean Connery does something). Anytime I watch any ‘Batman’ movie with isn’t that original Burton one, I feel like going back and watching that one instead. It’s the only one, for me, which translated all the aspects of Batman to the big-screen. The Schumacher ones got the camp side which is inherent to the material, and the Nolan one got the dark side which Miller brought to it in 1986, but only Burton managed to do both (and, even so, he only did it once).

    The people who like Nolan’s version don’t like to acknowledge the inherent ridiculousness of the story/characters/situation. Burton embraces it, and then transcends it, so his is the most complete vision to date, as far as I can tell.

    Nolan’s movie was not fun and frequently boring. I never really got the hype. Yay, let’s spend ten minutes watching him special order parts of his bat-suit in bulk! Tricky, Mister Wayne, tricky.

  13. I’ve learned not to get too excited about any movie — they always have the potential to disappoint.

    That said, this is supposed to be an older Indy — twenty years since the last film, a near exact real-world progression from 1938/1989 to 1957/2008. I’m hopeful it will be addressed in the film too … everyone knocking him for being “too old” and “ase relic” and asking “who cares anyway?”

    You know, a Jeff Wells type …

  14. Sean — Indy 3 is a poor man’s Raiders, I agree. After the negatives on Temple of Doom they swung back too much past Raiders, giving us Nazis, but losing the cold blooded nastiness of the first installment.

    I dug Nolan’s Batman overall — with Burton’s I just can’t get over the Prince songs, lousy FX and uneven tone. But visually it was a trendsetter — and visuals has always been Burton’s strong suit.

  15. Batman Begins was indeed a yawn. All putting the Batman story in a real context did was point out how silly it all is.

    And Sean, I disagree about the ’89 being the best. Burton’s Batman Returns was overall better, I thought. And there are moments of true, insane greatness in there.

    Oh, and count me in the Damn-Ford-looks-surprisingly-good-in-that-costume camp.

  16. Rich S. wrote: “In 1989, Indy III was expected to be the big boxoffice winner, with Back to the Future a close second. Burton’s Batman, which was an unknown commodity, came out of nowhere to take the crown.”

    Burton’s Batman came out of nowhere? On which planet? In a pre-Internet world, that movie had phenomenal buzz. Warner Bros. sold it brilliantly, and the marketing was damn near unavoidable. I remember seeing the film at midnight on its opening Friday, and that morning everyone at work stopped by my office (at a law book publisher) to excitedly ask how it was.

    And Batman only took the domestic crown that year. Internationally, Indiana Jones made substantially more money.

  17. That reminds me, I need to revisit Batman Returns. The first one just hasn’t held up for me over the years, so maybe I’ll have a better appreciation for Returns.

    Indy 3 remains my least favorite of the bunch, but it’s still enjoyable. If 4 doesn’t manage to capture Raiders, I hope it at least comes closer to Doom than Crusade. I doubt that it will though. The worst thing that could happen is a creakier, more bloated Last Crusade.

  18. I was running a movie theater in 1989 and the choice nuggets that every manager wanted were Indy III, Ghostbusters II, and Lethal Weapon II in that order. (Sorry, I misremembered as BTTF III came out the following summer.)

    The buzz started to build on Batman about two weeks before it was released. Prior to that, it was a kind of unknown quantity, especially since Burton had done Pee Wee and the fanboys were outraged over Keaton. I remember my district manager calling me the Wednesday before it premiered and telling me to double my staff.

    It came out the last weekend in June and shattered every box office record for a single weekend. And it didn’t really relent until they announced in September that the VHS would be released that Christmas. I remember my regional manager saying at the time that he didn’t think anything would ever top it. As I recall, it made nearly $50 million 1989 dollars in the days before multiple screens were common. In fact, I’ve maintained ever since that Batman was the reason for the modern megaplex. That summer was truly insane.

  19. I don’t understand the Batman revivalists. That comic had its cinematic run in the 90s. No matter who you hire to reanimate the series, it seems tired. Batman Begins tooks itself so damn seriously. Sure, its action was cool, but the whole thing felt been there done that, only devoid of humor. At the end of the day, it’s about a guy dressing up like a fucking bat as someone has already pointed out. Somehow, Indiana Jones seems the stronger, more durable, more intelligent concept.

  20. Rich S., well, of course every theater manager in 1989 put sequels to hit movies as their top choices. That is still the case.

    And the positive buzz on Batman almost immediately hit a fever pitch once Warner Bros. started running its trailers and commercials. As soon as people finally got to see the awesome new Batsuit crashing through the museum’s glass ceiling, the nimble Batmobile blazing around gothic Gotham City, and heard Nicholson as The Joker utter the near-classic “Wait till they get a load of me,” any reservations about Keaton were cast aside and the film’s fortune’s were set.

  21. I feel bad this thread his diverted from Wells-bashing but:

    -Batman is probably the single best-marketed movie … well, maybe ever. Remember how EVERYONE had a Batman t-shirt? For months you couldn’t go anywhere without seeing the Bat-logo. No words, no pictures of Nicholson, just that logo. Brilliant.

    Was it the same year or next that Dick Tracy tried and failed to do the exact same thing?

    I have to disagree that it was an “unknown quantity.” I don’t know what the pre-internet AICN equivalent was but I remember all sorts of talk about how lame a choice Keaton would be etc

    If it had less buzz than Indy or BTF:3 that’s only because it was not part of that huge Summer of the Sequel.

    Movies today tend to flare out after a couple of weeks but Batman ruled that entire summer of ’89 in a way nothing really can anymore.

    -Batman Returns is kinda like Temple of Doom: A dark, underrated sequel. It’s not perfect but it’s more of a pure Burton film. Plus, anything that uses Walken correctly (“Next time I’ll throw her out a higher window.”) can’t be all bad.

    Even on TV now it has this amazing wintery feel which one can see playing badly in the summer cineplex but I think the next two films showed that Burton had a solid grasp on the material.

    Yeah, they date a bit -they feel very studiobound, for example-but the 1989 film is still a landmark in terms of design, marketing and the re-emergence of comic movies.
    Some of the weak stuff (like the Prince songs) were imposed on Burton.

    -I like Indy III. No, it’s not the best but I find it more watchable than Temple of Doom (maybe it’s the lack of insects?). The dumbing-down of Brodie is a bit annoying but it’s mostly good fun. That’s not to say I don’t hope/expect Indy IV to be darker. Just seeing Indy shot by Kaminksi is exciting.

  22. I agree that things definitely turned once the trailers hit. But our bookings were well set by that time. I had a terrible booker who lost all the best films to the other theater down the street. The only way I got something good was if a blockbuster snuck past the the other guys. The same thing happened to me with Ghost, which I got as a consolation prize after Flight of the Intruder got postponed to the fall.

    I don’t dispute that Warners did a masterful job of marketing Batman and creating buzz. I’m just saying that in November of ’88, Batman was hardly a blip on anyone’s radar.

  23. And Christopher Walken is absolutely stellar in Batman Returns. It is one of his best, though least remembered, performances. I wish Rutger Hauer had been able to bring the same spark to Batman Begins.

  24. Back in the summer of ’89 I remember being bitter when Batman supplanted Last Crusade’s recently set opening weekend record. That was of course in my days of youth when I bought into the hype that box office means something.

    If I had to guess, I’d say the winner between the two franchises in the summer of ’08 will be Indy, if only because demand for a new Indy movie has been simmering for so many years and we had a dose of Batman only three summers ago. In ’89 Batman was the more unknown, fresh quantity.

    I found Batman Begins passable but rather tepid. I was surprised so many people raved about it. I was looking forward to it because I wanted something darker, but in the end its action and characters seemed so stock. I guess it didn’t go dark enough for me, and the virtual absence of any element light in tone didn’t help.

  25. I thought Begins was very good – not great. But I believe Nolan can knock this one out of the park now that all the origin stuff is out of the way.

    That said, as I mentioned above, Batman Begins didn’t do THAT well at the box office. It’s well behind the 1989 flick, for example. (According to Box Office Mojo it’s #76 domestic, all-time and Batman is #47 (adjusted).

    That’s no knock against Begins – I just have to think that if both films are decent, well-marketed and well-reviewed that Indy has a huge advantage if box office is your gauge of success.

  26. He looks to still be in tremendous shape, a hell of a lot better than my dad who is actually 3 years younger than him but looks like Santa Claus. Still, why wasn’t this movie made in 1998-1999, right after AIR FORCE ONE when Ford was riding high and still plausibly ass-kicking?

  27. I’m looking forward to both for a myriad of different reasons. Indy is as much a part of my childhood as the first two Burton Batman films were.

    I too think Batman Returns is the best out of the 89-97 Batman films, but I think overall Batman Begins is the best interpretation of the character. Still I probably have revisted Batman Returns more times than I can count. It truly is perverse and emotionally satisfying. It’s a true Burton film that just happens to utilize the characters of the Gotham universe.

    The Dark Knight looks like it’s going to be a killer good time – at least the stills and behind the scenes clips have sold it on that aspect.

    But man oh man, every pic I see of Indy, well I just want to see that movie like now. I think Spielberg will knock it out of the park. It’s his first real crowd pleaser since Jurassic Park (sorry, I don’t think any of his other films since then qualify as that). It should be a joy to watch. There was a trailer description floating around online, but no date for the trailer – anyone have an idea as to when it may be popping up?

  28. “maybe it’s the lack of insects?” or perhaps the lack of Short Round and Kate Capshaw. Though I have to admit when I watched it recently neither was quite as annoying as I remembered them.

  29. I never quite get all the distaste heaped on Temple of Doom.

    I mean, every fanboy (and aging fanboy, like myself) wants their light fun fantasy romp to be “darker,” with darker being another way of saying “not for the kids.”

    Temple of Doom had kids in it, alright. Kids being whipped and used as slave labor. Oh, and people with their hearts being torn out of their chest.

    Seriously, watch the movie. For all of Wells’s recent Spielberg bashing, watching Temple of Doom in comparison to other movies then– and other movies *now*– it’s actually quite insane to think that it got made the way it did.

    Do I love Raiders? Yes. It’s a *perfect* movie, on all levels. And I’ll vouch for that even after Jeff turns his eye to bringing THAT movie down a peg.

    But I also like Last Crusade. Yes, it’s needlessly cartoony. But it’s not *painfully* cartoony. I mean, yeah, Sallah and Brody are now goofy, we get Connery in parody, etc. But it still all works. I mean, it’s not Phantom Menace, people, with Jar-Jar and fart jokes. It’s just like the man above me wrote– Last Crusade just swung the pendulum too far away from Temple of Doom, missing the brilliantly enduring “happy medium” of Raiders.

    As for Indy IV, I’m excited because I can’t imagine spending two hours again with the character can possibly be anything other than entertaining in its purest form. Do I expect it to be great cinema? No, not at all, but of course I’m willing to be surprised. But I would be shocked if this turns out to be *awful*, or even groan-inducing like 90% of most summer blockbusters are, including other Shia projects (I really just don’t like that kid. . . nothing personal, as totally irrational as Jeff’s problems with some actors. Weird name, weak chin, easily lost in the crowd. . . I’m still waiting to be impressed. I’m hoping Indy 4 does it for him).

    Anyway. . . both Temple of Doom and Last Crusade are better films than most people give them credit for. They’re just very different from each other, and very different from the indisputably better Raiders. There’s room for all of them, as far as I’m concerned.

  30. I distinctly remember the hype for Batman before the film was released in the Summer of 89 (I was in my early teens). The promotion and marketing were insane to the point that teenagers had shaved the batman symbol in their haircuts. I also remember that this was about the same time that multiplexes started to pop up everywhere. I remember the local multiplex had about 12 screens. Batman opened on about 5 or 6 of the screens and Last Crusuade and Ghostbusters 2 filled out the rest. I remember thinking how unique this was. I could go see the 8pm Batman or the 8:15 pm or the 8:30 and so on and so on. Summer of 89 was history making. I also remember how startled I was that Batman was released on VHS by Christmas. That was also very unique at the time.

  31. Agree 100% Dave. I hope you didn’t take my comments as the usual Doom bashing. I really hated it when it first came out and always thought of it as a disappointment, but have since seen the error of my ways.

  32. My theater had 8 screens. Prior to Batman, we used a technique called interlocking. We could show one film on two screens. We did it very rarely, but it resulted in being able to show a single showing to about 600-800 people.

    The powers that be realized, however, that this resulted in huge crowds at the concession stand, and our per capita sales plummeted. Then someone got the bright idea to get two prints of a single film. The first time this happened at my particular location was for Batman. We could show the movie every hour on the hour and it was considered revolutionary.

    Another thing to remember was that at that time, theaters and distributors had an arrangement whereby two theaters within a certain distance of each other could not get the same films. So, even though the theaters had fewer screens, you tended to get more variety because they weren’t all showing the same five blockbusters on fours screens each.

    The summer of ’89, and Batman in particular, changed all that. It also created the “massive opening weekend leading to short window before the video release,” but that’s another story.

  33. Eh chillen, gather round and I’ll remind ye snappers of an age without tubes to deliver bitchery…Yup, it were the Summer O’ 89 and comic fans were a stirred up with the news that funnyman Michael Keaton would be playing Ye Dark Knight. Atwitter they was! Damn near tarre and feathered Burton! I know…because I was one too truth be told and damn the devil!

    Well, it weren’t until that bat symbol appeared on evr’y dead or livin’ thing betwixt here and Timbuktu that we got a li’l more excited, a li’l more curious as to this bat in the bag. I meself stood in front of the vast bat symbol billboard in front of Warner Brothers and I have the pictograh to prove it.

    Then that trailer…I still remember seeing it with a crowd and the rapturous attention it got. Made meself damn near excitable and I was willing to go along with Burton’s mad plan. As we all did in that 20th century summer so long ago…

    The movie kinda sucked, but that’s a tale for another day…

  34. Also, never forget, christian, that the prototype for Batman going into 1989 was Adam West and Burt Ward. Burton’s choice of Keaton did not exactly calm anyone’s nerves under those conditions.

  35. If history tells us anything, it tells us that Indy IV has the upper-hand over The Dark Knight at the 2008 summer’s box office.

    Regarding the comments that Batman was the bigger film of 1989: Indy III was the #1 box office performer in 1989 – at the worldwide box office.

    In North America the Harrison Ford starrer was #2 behind Batman of course, but at the worldwide box office, Indy III was the clear winner over Burton’s Batman.

    Worldwide, Indy III grossed $ 474.2 Million, while Batman grossed $ 411.3 Million

    Also, as great as Nolan’s Batman Begins was in 2005, it hardly made a huge impact at the overseas box office.

    The Pitt/Jolie action flick, Mr. & Mrs. Smith out-grossed Batman Begins by over $100 million. Heck, even King Kong made nearly $200 million more than Batman Begins.

    I have always believed that Batman is more an North American thing.

    Indiana Jones has greater worldwide appeal.

    1989 worldwide box office results (Indiana Jones III versus Batman):

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=1989&p=.htm

    2005 worldwide box office (see how Batman Begins held up against the competition, the Christopher Nolan film only managed to gross $ 371.9
    Million worldwide – with just a mere $166 Million of that total coming from overseas markets):

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2005&p=.htm

    * – all grosses courtesy of BO Mojo –

  36. Is “Uncle Festus” the bastard child of Ken Curtis and Jackie Coogan? Or perhaps the real-world creator of Seinfeld’s Festivus? Because I’ve never heard of the expression until now.

    How soon they forget.

    Festus. Dennis Weaver on Gunsmoke, which was only the longest-running series in the history of TV until The Simpsons.

  37. “How soon they forget.

    Festus. Dennis Weaver on Gunsmoke, which was only the longest-running series in the history of TV until The Simpsons.”

    How soon YOU forget. Dennis Weaver played Chester. Festus was played by Ken Curtis, as I already mentioned. Festus was not an uncle, so I still don’t get Wells’ gag. I think he confused Festus with Uncle Fester from the Addams Family. Ha ha. Funny stuff.

  38. The ’89 Batman was the first movie I ever heard of that had a Thursday midnight showing. The hype was unprecedented. Sadly, it’s now de rigueur.

  39. True dat. Kids were wearing batman t-shirts six months before the movie came out. Someone above reminded me that people were shaving bat symbols in their hair. It truly was the most heavily and successfully marketed movie of the decade. Anyone who thinks otherwise slept through 1989.

  40. Someone get a script for christian to work on…faast!

    Keaton made a great Batman, prosthetic chin and all. I agree wit christian, the movie was a bit of a let down, but the imagery was so mind-blowing and the redesigned logo so cool no one cared. Today it’s action is underwhelming, almost bad, although I still love some of Nicholson’s one-liners.

    I can’t believe so many people have knocked ‘Batman Begins’ without mentioning Katie Holmes. My god, a child running around playing a DA. The scenes with Bale and Neeson in the beginning had some real juice, but like a lot of people here I thought the movie unwound towards the end and became a rote, predictable actioner.

  41. Gittes: “The Dark Knight will demolish Indy at the box office.”

    Not with that shitty Joker it won’t. Anyway, the only hope for Indy 4 is how well Rambo 4 does first.

    christian: “And sorry, the Indy crowd and the Batmam crowd will see both. But families will be at Indy. Fanboys will be at Batman.”

    Other than possibly ‘Crusade, Indy’s not really a family series like Star Wars or those crappy Nick Cage knock-offs of the former series. What’s going to make the difference on this one are the action scenes. In that regard, George better not half-ass it like he did in the SW prequels…

    DavidF: “I really like Batman Begins but based on that film’s box office either The Dark Knight will have to be huge or Indy will have to suck for it to outgross Mr. Spielberg et al.”

    Yeah, but repeat viewing of might Batman Begins at least generate enough demand for Dark Knight to be profitable. I doubt anyone’s seen Ford’s recent stinkers much lately.

    “Was it the same year or next that Dick Tracy tried and failed to do the exact same thing?”

    Dick Tracy did pretty well, considering it wasn’t really an action-oriented series, and it was more appealing to an older generation of comic strip readers. Not huge, but not horrible, either.

    Craptastic: “The reason being: Just to show Wells how wrong he was months ago when he said no one is interested in seeing Indiana Jones. You are wayyyy off-base on that one.”

    I think they’re interested, but they want to see the Indiana Jones they remembered when they were younger, not the one they’ll be stuck with from the older Stevie and George…

    Rich: “In 1989, Indy III was expected to be the big boxoffice winner, with Back to the Future a close second. Burton’s Batman, which was an unknown commodity, came out of nowhere to take the crown.”

    Technically, Indy III outgrossed Batman world-wide, but I admit that Batman was clearly the media sensation that year. Unfortunately, the latter franchise has had weaker longevity, and it already underperformed in ’05, so it’s not going to be touted as *the* tent-pole to see; but it should at least be more successful than Superman Returns.

    cj: “Dismissing Indy 4 because of this or that specific opinion about Spielberg or Lucas is missing the point. Indy is bigger than the both of them”

    Yeah, and Star Wars is bigger than Lucas.

    Sean: “Nolan’s movie was not fun and frequently boring. I never really got the hype. Yay, let’s spend ten minutes watching him special order parts of his bat-suit in bulk! Tricky, Mister Wayne, tricky.”

    It’s still better than two hours of Cruise playing an unlikeable dad running away from UFOs.

    ‘”maybe it’s the lack of insects?” or perhaps the lack of Short Round and Kate Capshaw. Though I have to admit when I watched it recently neither was quite as annoying as I remembered them.’

    That’s because Jar Jar one-upped them on the annoying scale.

    Howlingman: “That said, this is supposed to be an older Indy — twenty years since the last film, a near exact real-world progression from 1938/1989 to 1957/2008. I’m hopeful it will be addressed in the film too … everyone knocking him for being “too old” and “ase relic” and asking “who cares anyway?”‘

    Exactly. Connery looked a lot older in part III, and no one held it against him.

    “Sean — Indy 3 is a poor man’s Raiders, I agree. After the negatives on Temple of Doom they swung back too much past Raiders, giving us Nazis, but losing the cold blooded nastiness of the first installment.”

    I’m guessing the point of part three was to focus on the treasure-hunting aspect of the series, since the previous film overlooked it in favor of actors re-enacting Mondo Cane. It may not have been as brutal, but it still had the feeling of an adventure.

    Dave: “I mean, every fanboy (and aging fanboy, like myself) wants their light fun fantasy romp to be “darker,” with darker being another way of saying “not for the kids. Temple of Doom had kids in it, alright. Kids being whipped and used as slave labor. Oh, and people with their hearts being torn out of their chest.”

    Yeah, but the story was a mess.

    FNG: “Heck, even King Kong made nearly $200 million more than Batman Begins.”

    It also cost $200 million more than BB…

    Oh, and count me in as someone who enjoyed Batman Returns, too. It was probably the only time Tim Burton tried to push the envelope for mainstream entertainment. (But one can hope it’ll happen again with Sweeney Todd…)

    Also, I was too young to notice any negativity towards Keaton, but if fanboys were originally against him, then why the fuck did they continue watching reruns of the Adam West show?

  42. Lets get one thing straight…there was no such thing as a “fanboy” in 1989. Interaction with outspoken fans of comics or this or that never took place in open forums like this, hence the label was simply “geek” or “nerd”. Fanboy implies someone who is a stubborn, ardent apologist in the midst of other well-adjusted people. Until the internet came around, they weren’t in your face where you found it necesary to defame them with such a word…back then “fan boys” were in their basements or bedrooms, ripping through some comics in between rolls of their 80-sided dice.

  43. the only hope for Indy 4

    Is to open in movie theaters. Oh, it is? Then it will make 300 fucktrillion. One of the few truly blue-chip things a studio could make, in a world where Fantastic Four POS’s are “events.”

    Other than possibly ‘Crusade, Indy’s not really a family series

    Pshaw.

    Dick Tracy did pretty well, considering it wasn’t really an action-oriented series, and it was more appealing to an older generation of comic strip readers. Not huge, but not horrible, either.

    Opened big, but cost way too much to make it. At least The Shadow and The Phantom were comparatively cheap. And why haven’t they made a Wash Tubbs and Captain Easy movie?

    I think they’re interested, but they want to see the Indiana Jones they remembered when they were younger, not the one they’ll be stuck with from the older Stevie and George…

    Which is why no James Bond movie has made money since You Only Live Once, no doubt.

    It’s still better than two hours of Cruise playing an unlikeable dad running away from UFOs.

    Here, I will agree with you completely.

    That’s because Jar Jar one-upped them on the annoying scale.

    That makes twice in one post…

    “Sean — Indy 3 is a poor man’s Raiders, I agree. After the negatives on Temple of Doom they swung back too much past Raiders, giving us Nazis, but losing the cold blooded nastiness of the first installment.”

    So whatever happened to whiz kid screenwriter Jeffrey Boam, the poor man’s Lawrence Kasdan? Oh whoops, I just checked the IMDB, he died of a rare lung disease. Yeesh.

    Also, I was too young to notice any negativity towards Keaton, but if fanboys were originally against him, then why the fuck did they continue watching reruns of the Adam West show?

    Not sure what that means, but, when Burton cast Keaton there was a lot of negativity about how a fairly slight comedian could play Batman. Once they saw that the concept was that a guy who wasn’t Schwarzeneggerian needed the suit and the bat mythos to seem invincible, and that Keaton didn’t play the part like Beetlejuice but took it seriously, the negativity went away.

  44. Mgmax: “Which is why no James Bond movie has made money since You Only Live Once, no doubt.”

    James Bond isn’t dependent on directors like Indiana Jones.

    “Once they saw that the concept was that a guy who wasn’t Schwarzeneggerian needed the suit and the bat mythos to seem invincible, and that Keaton didn’t play the part like Beetlejuice but took it seriously, the negativity went away.”

    I just find it weird that they had a problem with Keaton as Batman, because of his comedic roles, but not Carrey as The Riddler.

  45. Well, DZ, by the nature of his name “The Riddler” — you can assume he would have to be, you know, kinda funny. And at that point in the Batman films, we were already back into the 60′s TV show. So expectations for a Frank Miller style fest were rather low.

  46. christian: “Well, DZ, by the nature of his name “The Riddler” — you can assume he would have to be, you know, kinda funny.”

    The Joker was the one who made wisecracks. The Riddler was the one who gave clues to his crimes.

  47. Zelter’s got you with that last one, christian.

    Max, you had me rolling. The other day Zelter showed a self-awareness that made me question if this is all an act or if his arrogant, curt, non-sequitur, detached style of conversing is for real. I’m now back to believing it’s real.

    Too, too funny.

  48. The Riddler’s ‘clues’ always had an air of comedy about them and both he and the Joker could certainly be described as manic, so DZ’s wrong again. I suppose that whenever Nolan has a Riddler he’ll be some kind of autistic savant, bringing us back to DZ again (except the savant part).

  49. jeff: “The Riddler’s ‘clues’ always had an air of comedy about them and both he and the Joker could certainly be described as manic,”

    The Riddler was thinking man’s comic, though, while The Joker was generally a well-articulated thug.

  50. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? “Well-articulated” as if he had a full range of motion in his joints like a good action figure?

    Or perhaps you’re referring to Sid Caesar and Lenny Bruce.

  51. Nobody calls bullshit on DZ’s assumption that Indy IV’s success is somehow dependent on Rambo? That’s the most retarded thing I’ve read all day.

    Rambo is not Indiana Jones. They’re not really going to be marketed to the same crowd – Indy IV will be PG-13, so take your kids…Rambo looks to be a serious R. I doubt everyone will be taking their kids.

    And with all due respect, Ford is always going to have more fans than Stallone.

  52. Aladdin: “Rambo is not Indiana Jones. They’re not really going to be marketed to the same crowd – ”

    They’re gonna be marketed to the same nostalgia crowd at least.

    “And with all due respect, Ford is always going to have more fans than Stallone.”

    The same can’t be said for Lucas, though.

  53. DZ, I dunno why I bother but…

    “The Riddler was thinking man’s comic” you write after wondering why fans didn’t get upset at casting Jim Carrey. Nuff said.

    And RAMBO is a dark, hard R film with gang rape, swearing and over the top gore (and I actually liked it). It’s not family fare at all — unless you’re one of those typical Americans who take their kids to see bloody R rated films.

  54. “The same can’t be said for Lucas, though.”

    That’s just ridiculous. More people saw the least popular ‘Star Wars’ movie than any two Stallone movies put together.

  55. Jeff – actually, I believe that gibberish can be a sign of tourette’s as well. Different people manifest different sorts of tics.

  56. Sean: “That’s just ridiculous. More people saw the least popular ‘Star Wars’ movie than any two Stallone movies put together.”

    Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean they saw it, because they liked George….

    christian: “And RAMBO is a dark, hard R film with gang rape, swearing and over the top gore (and I actually liked it). It’s not family fare at all — unless you’re one of those typical Americans who take their kids to see bloody R rated films.”

    Yes, but my point is that they’re both essentially
    sequels to 80s action films which are meant to appeal mostly to nostalgic fans of the franchise.
    Plus they both feature actors whose recent work was considered mediocre. Die Hard 4 didn’t have that problem, because the series wasn’t as rooted in that decade as the other two.

  57. “Yes, but my point is that they’re both essentially
    sequels to 80s action films which are meant to appeal mostly to nostalgic fans of the franchise.”

    No they aren’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>