Conference bookie::movies

    Saw this mentioned on the local news last night, so if it's only a
    rumor, it's getting lots of press.

> Saw this mentioned on the local news last night, so if it's only a
> rumor, it's getting lots of press.

	It's more than a rumor since Harrison Ford himself appeared on
	a talk show and said they were at the "getting a script" stage
	for it.

    From todays Boston Globe (28-JUL-1994):
    (all typos are mine)
    
         Six years after vowing that the third Indiana Jones movie would 
         be his last, Harrison Ford has agreed to play the thrill-seeking
         archeologist one more time.  In an interview to be broadcast
         today on "Entertainment Tonight," Ford said that he loves working
         with Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, and, since the first two
         movies were so much fun, he is willing to try again.  For those
         who have lost track: First came "Raiders of the Lost Ark," then
         "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," then "Indiana Jones and
         the Last Crusade."  After the "Last Crusade" came out in 1989 Ford
         said he was through as Indiana Jones and donated his trademark hat 
         to the Smithsonian Institution.
         

    Can he get his hat back?
    
    -s
    

    In my KIRO NEWS FAX today it says:
    
    Actor Harrison Ford has reconsidered: It now looks like he will play
    the thrill seeking archaeologist in a 4th "Indiana Jones" movie.
    When 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' was released in 1989, Ford
    swore it would be his last. Ford now says he has changed his mind.
    There was no info on when a 4th 'Jones' movie might be released.
    
    Michael

    
    
    I hope the 4th is better than the 3rd.  I do love 1 and 2 though.  The
    3rd one just didn't hold up to the first 2.
    
    Of course, I'll go see # 4 anyways because HF is one of my favorite
    actors.
    
    

    
    
         I liked parts 1 & 3 better than part 2.  I guess
    the search for some religious relic coupled with the
    occasional reference to the Bible made me think about
    what Indiana and gang were actually doing and what
    the resulting outcomes would be.
         The quest for those glowing rocks in the second
    movie failed to capture my attention to any degree of
    enjoyment.
    
    Just an opinion,
    Kev --
    

    I agree with .7, I much enjoyed Raiders & Indy III better than The
    Temple Of Doom... Course I always enjoy Sean Connery. The only thing I
    didn't care for in III was the character of the museum curator was
    played like a senile comedy sidekick, whereas in the 1st movie showed he 
    was an intelligent knowlegable individual...
    
    
    My opinion..
    
    Michael
    

    RE: .4  by DELNI::DISMUKE 
    
    >Can he get his hat back?
    
    He should get a new one anyway, one without all those staple holes.
    

    I am glad to here of a new IJ movie. I too enjoyed I and III alot more
    than II.  The Temple of doom didn't really have much of a story to it. 
    The only good thing to came out of it was the addition of Short
    Round.(Shorty).
    As far as the museum curator goes, he wasn't in the second movie, and
    wasn't in much of the first.  In the first he seemed to have a good
    buissiness sense, but nothing more.  He seemed very niave to the world
    of IJ.  In the third movie he is put in adventures and situations that
    he is not accustomed to and doesn't know how to react to.

    Yet another fan of I and III who doesn't really care for II.  My
    favorite quote from all the Indy movies:  "He chose ... poorly."
    
    NAZZ

    It is hard to believe that some people could like II more than III.  If
    only because of the presense of Sean Connery (the greatest actor in
    movies).  It also had a much better story, but I figure some people
    were turned off by the religion involved.  It is strange how religion
    in the IJ movies only when it is about ancient christian relics, and
    not jewish(I) or some wierd indian religion(II),
    

>    It is hard to believe that some people could like II more than III.

Part of it for me is Spielberg's simplistic method of wheeling out a
few jackbooteed Germans to define the bad guys.  I do prefer the story
and acting in I and III but only just slightly and the above truly
grates on my nerves.  The inadequacies of II step, IMHO, from Spielberg's
relative ineptness with anything beyond the niche of a few sub-genres
to which he usually restricts himself.  Honestly, I've reached a point
where I futilely cheer on the Germans in all the WWII films... :-)

monty

    I loved I, enjoyed III and hated II.  Who cared about the story line in
    II?  Not me!
    
    And Sean Connery is the best actor in the movies?  I don't think so...the 
    man can never completley drop his accent.
    
    Mary Jo
    
    
    

    When has he tried to drop his accent, and why would he want to.His
    voice is what makes him such a strong screne presence.

RE last couple - let's not get into a Sean Connery tangent here.
You could start a new topic if necessary...

	-- Nina, with co-mod hat on

    RE: .16  by BOOKIE::CHAYNA::EPPES 
    
>RE last couple - let's not get into a Sean Connery tangent here.
>You could start a new topic if necessary...
    
    Yeh, besides which, we're already using him to rathole the Titanic
    topic.  ;-)
    

    As someone who also really enjoyed 1 and 3 but was disappointed in 2,I
    was interested to find out that there were two scenes which Lucas and
    Spielberg thought about for Raiders, but they dropped them as being
    just too improbable. One was an escape from a plane running out of fuel
    by jumping out on a liferaft onto a snow-covered mountain. The other
    was a chase through an underground mine on coal cars. It looks like
    Temple of Goons was S & L's dumping ground.
    			Jim