|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
  |
 |
 |
 |
Viewing
1-10 of 21 User Comments
1
-
2
-
3
|
  |

djdoz19
on Jun 10 2007, 6:06:58 PM writes:
COULD BE WRONG
I'd read about a month ago or so that if Connery did not agree to reprise his role that they would write the character out of the story. At least I think I remember reading that. That could have been in a dream I had where the exec's were actually making sensible decisions. |
| Profile | WWW | Buddy |
|

buddha
on Jun 7 2007, 11:50:09 PM writes:
INDEEEEEEEEEEEE.....
connery could be holding out for the mega cameo payday...hurt could be an uncle for all we know...ford is long enough in the tooth to be running around like indy anyway, let him tell the story of a young indiana jones, no wait, thats been done already... |
| Profile | Buddy |
|

theotherness
on Jun 7 2007, 9:03:41 PM writes:
AH, POO!
This is seriously disappointing.
I hope his part is seriously small, then, if John Hurt is going to make the feeble attempt at filling Connery's shoes. It would just not work right if Dr. Henry Jones had a big part played by someone else. |
| Profile | WWW | Buddy |
|

LOUISFILM Ltd
on Jun 7 2007, 8:24:33 PM writes:
wow, how disappointing. i was hoping connery would want to return. it would be retarded for speilberg and lucas to recast, lucas himself said they would be able to write the character out. with that said, if its so simple for him to be written out, could it not have been such a small role that connery would have been able to just spend a small enough amount of time away from his "fun" retirement? |
| Profile | WWW | Buddy |
|

dome22
on Jun 7 2007, 7:16:30 PM writes:
THIS IS STRANGLEY A GOOD THING...
If there is one thing we have learnt about these recent sequels, over-crowding can suck the fun out of the liveliest venture. I doubt very much the John Hurt will replace Connery. That would be sacrilegious. I think it could be better if Hurt is the father figure Indy always yearned for. Connery's absents could easily be pushed aside with a cute dead pan quip and now that I'm done selling myself to this, I shall drink coffee. |
| Profile | Buddy |
|

deadshot
on Jun 7 2007, 7:07:07 PM writes:
MR. SPIELBERG, PLEASE READ THIS.
You are far and away my favorite filmmaker of all time. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is my favorite film of all time. In my top 5 of all time, 2 of those films are yours. So trust me when I tell you this: Please stop this film now. I know you and Mr. Lucas have spent quite a bit on this film already. Cut your losses and close down production on this film. This is not even in response to this news, but it certainly doesn't help matters. Move on to something else. Please. I do not want to see the legacy of the INDIANA JONES films sullied. |
| Profile | E-mail | Buddy |
|

bluetunehead
on Jun 7 2007, 5:51:19 PM writes:
UMM
What about announcing John Hurt as having been cast in the film indicates in any way that he is replacing Connery?
I'm sure he is playing a different role. |
| Profile | E-mail | WWW | Buddy |
|

RyFranzese24
on Jun 7 2007, 5:43:02 PM writes:
Completely upsetting, and earth shattering. Nothing was going to get Connery back. It's a shame. The only thing left to do is bring back Sallah! |
| Profile | Buddy |
|

stock
on Jun 7 2007, 5:35:25 PM writes:
I still don't see much of a reason to see it whether Connery is there or not, but I can't see little John Hurt replacing him. They shouldn't replace the original characters, Marcus included. So I'm hoping Hurt joins as the smarmy villian. |
| Profile | Buddy |
|

Burgerking
on Jun 7 2007, 5:16:16 PM writes:
I DOUBT
I doubt Indy's dad will have a pivotal role in the film like he did in the 3rd. So no biggie. |
| Profile | WWW | Buddy |
|


 |
Viewing 1-10 of 21 User Comments
1
-
2
-
3
|
  |
|
 |
 |
  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|