New SciFi Wire Poll.. Should Harrison Ford continue as Indiana Jones or should Nathan Fillion be considered?

POSTED BY: FollowMal
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 00:41
VIEWED: 37274
PAGE 8 of 11

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

CEDRIC

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:15 AM

I think it would be interesting, simply because Ford went from playing the captain of a beat-up smuggling spaceship to playing Indiana Jones, and now they're talking about Fillion doing the same thing. Funny, huh?

Doesn't Fillion talk about Ford as an influence in one of the commentaries? Looks like it's time to watch the commentaries again!

All this has me thinking about how shiny it would be if Whedon wrote the script for an Indiana Jones movie. Now, that would be great.

Cedric

"Some things stay with you, 'til the day you die."
On the Drift: Music Inspired by Firefly and Serenity, now on sale at
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bedlambards/from/celtic

ECGORDON

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by visageeza:
I've just checked the results and believe it or not, they are practically neck-a-neck.
Out of 11,190 votes Ford has 43% and Fillion has 42%.

I have to say myself, until I saw Firefly and probably more so Serenity I couldn't imagine anyone else playing Indy, but now I really can see Nathan Fillion in the role. He's got just the right balance of tough-guy, fun, fallable to be right in the role and still be different enough from Ford to bring something else to it.

Quote:
Originally posted by independant:
Reply to the question as wether Connery was the first bond?
The first person to play Bond was David Niven in 1967 in Casino Royal. A spoof Bond.
Although Ian Fleming had David Niven in mind when he was writing his books.

Not so. Dr.No came out in 1962, Casion Royale was 1967. Connery was first.

Both wrong. Barry Nelson was the first actor to portray Bond, in a television version of Casino Royale in 1954. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0310853/

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

BLUEEYEDBRIGADIER

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:47 AM

Ok...while this isn't part of the original thread idea, I think it would help the point some are making....

James Bond....first starred in a book series by Ian Fleming starting in 1952 with Casino Royale and ran till '64 with "The Man With the Golden Gun." First visual portrayal of James Bond was the 1950's CBS tv movie of "Casino Royale" where Bond was a Yank ("Card Sharp Jimmy Bond," anyone?) and Felix Leiter was a Brit (sacrelige, I know). First "official" (i.e. United Artists distributed, EON Productions-made) Bond was 1962's "Dr. No" with Connery.

Now...this means 6 men have played Bond before the current incarnation of Daniel Craig. However, some would argue that both the CBS tv movie and the 1967 spoof (along with the remake of Thunderball as "Never Say Never Again") aren't "official" Bond movies, so Nelson and Niven (along with every major character in the spoof, since a gag was to name all the MI6 agents "James Bond" to confuse the enemy) are out. That leaves Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan. Lots of people have varying favourites, though most swing either for Connery or Brosnan (depending on the generation).

So.....changing the actor can work for film series. Hell, no explanation was ever given for the changes between actors for James Bond and Fleming created a backstory that would make Bond around 86 years old right now...a might older than Harrison Ford's spritely 63. Plus, Paul Bettany has stated Ford can still take a pounding like always. Certainly looked like he was kicking pigu in "Firewall," though the movie was rather...mediocre. So while I have always enjoyed Ford as Indy and cannot wait for the 4th film....any future work with the character would need some new blood. which leaves the door open for our favourite captain;)

BEB

Literature has shown us some of humanity's greatest achievements; history, some of our greatest failures -- Alun Lewis

VISAGEEZA

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:41 AM

Quote:

Both wrong. Barry Nelson was the first actor to portray Bond, in a television version of Casino Royale in 1954. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0310853/

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

Bah!! Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!!!

MIGHTYROAR

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:

Both wrong. Barry Nelson was the first actor to portray Bond, in a television version of Casino Royale in 1954. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0310853/

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

and as I said earler, Bob Holness was the second actor to play Bond, in a 1957 radio version of Moonraker. Sean Connery was third, but who can deny that it was connery who really owned the role - the first to bring the character into mainstream viewing.

STOM

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:40 PM

I was voter number 12,994 and Nathan is currently leading by 1%

Nathan - 43%
Ford - 42%
Depends- 15%

I'd love to think it was i that tipped the scales... Hah hah.

[img][/img]

MIDNIGHTRAMBLER

Thursday, March 23, 2006 7:42 AM

I'd rather see him return as Malcolm Reynolds.

JAYNEZTOWN

Thursday, March 23, 2006 7:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by N0Skillz:
everyone should be aware, that at this point in time, Nathan only has 33% of the votes, while 51% think Harrison should be doing it until he falls over in his walker and breaks a hip.

-------------------------------
RAF Lakenheath
Security Deputy of the Sereni-Tree

It's a tough role to fill, an unenviable task. Re-makes can be very difficult and trying to fit into some one elses shoes is always tough.

If however Harrison does an average job, people might start asking 'Why didn't they get Nathan' - by then nobody will care who fills Indiana's shoes and Fillion will be first in-line for Indy-5 ( if there is one

)

N0SKILLZ

Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:45 AM

Haha, good point. But after seeing Harrisons latest movie. Not so excited about Indy 4, lol. But he did kill a dude with a kitchen appliance.....

-------------------------------
RAF Lakenheath
Security Deputy of the Sereni-Tree

GIXXER

Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:55 AM

I'm not sure I really want a new Indy film. The first one was great, and could have been left at that. Short Round and Willie were distinct harbingers of the cutesy doom that was to be that Binks fellow.

I'm not sure I could face another Prequel-style disaster that, no matter how dire, would be a massive unstoppable juggernaut of a franchise whether we liked it or not.

(Unless, of course, it was actually good...)

G

"Can I have a "P" please, Bob?"

Even if he has been forgotten as an early James Bond, Bob's immortality is guaranteed.

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE