How Disney/Lucasfilm could bring Indiana Jones back

[Mage]

Nope, I did not say that. What I did say is that a living creature cannot be simultaneously living and dead at the same time. Instead of calling me stupid, try being part of the conversation.

I am part of the conversation. A lot of us are. You are simply ignoring what we are saying. That quantum mechanics backs what we are saying.
There is only one person not part of this conversation, and that's you. By simply ignoring what we are sharing with you. Someone literally posted a link that will explain everything and you said 'nope'.
Part of this entire concept is that we don't know if the cat is alive or dead. You begin with the fact that is is alive. That is the first flaw in understanding Schrodinger's Cat.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

28 days later... (runs from the infected)

Wait! Don't you want to sample the Henway?

 

[Firebird]

Then you don't understand, or want to understand, quantum mechanics and how the universe works. That's fine, your choice. Whether or not you believe in it, doesn't matter. It beliefs in you.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, "the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you."

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

That quantum mechanics backs what we are saying.

Explain it, not with a web link, but explain it in your own words.

Someone literally posted a link that will explain everything and you said 'nope'.

It's junk science.

Part of this entire concept is that we don't know if the cat is alive or dead.

This is subjectivism, which I do not subscribe to. The cat will either be alive or dead whether observed or not. I subscribe to objectivism. I went to Perplexity and asked:

Explain subjectivism vs objectivism. I tried to google, but all I got was religious stuff. I am talking about reality, not religion. The answer I got is below:

Subjectivism and objectivism are two opposing philosophical perspectives on the nature of reality and knowledge, unrelated to religion.
Objectivism asserts that there is an objective reality that exists independently of our thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. This view holds that:
There is a real, external world that we can observe and study.
Facts and truths about this reality can be discovered through reason and empirical investigation.
Scientific knowledge reveals objective truths about the world.

Subjectivism, on the other hand, posits that reality is shaped by our perceptions, sensations, and mental processes. According to this view:
Objective reality, as it exists independently of our minds, is unknowable.
Truth is relative and contingent upon individual perspectives and experiences.
Our understanding of the world is influenced by personal, cultural, and contextual factors.

Key Differences
Nature of Reality:
Objectivism: Reality exists independently of human perception.
Subjectivism: Reality is constructed by individual minds.

Truth:
Objectivism: Truth is absolute and can be discovered.
Subjectivism: Truth is relative and varies across different contexts.

Knowledge:
Objectivism: Knowledge is the discovery of external reality.
Subjectivism: Knowledge is the interpretation of personal experiences.

It's important to note that these are philosophical positions, and many thinkers argue for nuanced views that incorporate elements of both perspectives.

You begin with the fact that is is alive. That is the first flaw in understanding Schrodinger's Cat.

If it's not alive, then it's dead, and you cannot have life from death.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If it's not alive, then it's dead, and you cannot have life from death.

Not the point of the exercise.

 

[Firebird]

Explain it, not with a web link, but explain it in your own words.

For chrissakes, do your own legwork for once in your posting history on this website. No one here is obligated to teach you.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

If it's not alive, then it's dead, and you cannot have life from death.

Then how did my mother visit me one day after her memorial?

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

For chrissakes, do your own legwork for once in your posting history on this website. No one here is obligated to teach you.

It sounds like you do not understand it yourself, to be honest.

 

[Firebird]

It sounds like you do not understand it yourself, to be honest.

And your proof is?

But who am I kidding, this is right in line with your usual tactics.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

And God help the Borg if this Picard assimilates them.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

And your proof is?

I stated an opinion.

But who am I kidding, this is right in line with your usual tactics.

Tactics? You should talk to someone about the paranoia, mate.

 

[fireproof78]

Indiana Jones has already also been played by River Phoenix, Sean Patrick Flannery, George Hall and Corey Carrier. And by John Paval in various shorts, amusement rides and commercials.

I think one could easily do an adventure serial type film without it being Indiana Jones.

 

[Mage]

I really have better things to do tonight. Good night everyone, enjoy the show.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

I think one could easily do an adventure serial type film without it being Indiana Jones.

Sure, but what's that got to do with Indiana Jones?

 

[fireproof78]

Sure, but what's that got to do with Indiana Jones?

I think there is a tendency to become myopic on one character fulfilling and archetype so instead of saying "Hey, let's do an archeological action adventure movie" we look to recast or reboot Indiana Jones.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

I think there is a tendency to become myopic on one character fulfilling and archetype so instead of saying "Hey, let's do an archeological action adventure movie" we look to recast or reboot Indiana Jones.

I really don't care about this hyper-specific genre. I just want to see another Indiana Jones, otherwise give me something original. That said, I could go for a 4th Tomb Raider film. I also wouldn't mind a crossover film if they can somehow work around the two characters existing in different time periods.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I think part of the problem is that so many films aiming for the same sort of energy and feel as the Indiana Jones films failed to connect with audiences. High Road to China, King Solomon’s Mines (the Richard Chamberlain version), The Phantom, The Rocketeer, Sahara, various Tarzans come to mind. I personally like a lot of them but probably the only pulp-type films in that vein that were outright commercial and critical hits are Brendan Fraser’s Mummy movies. So it’s easy to understand why studios might find it easier to return to the proven character than take a risk on a new one. Whether or not the relative failure of Dial of Destiny changes that remains to be seen.

 

[Nerys Myk]

They tried a few time for Indy type adventurers, with mixed results.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

I think part of the problem is that so many films aiming for the same sort of energy and feel as the Indiana Jones films failed to connect with audiences. High Road to China, King Solomon’s Mines (the Richard Chamberlain version), The Phantom, The Rocketeer, Sahara, various Tarzans come to mind. I personally like a lot of them but probably the only pulp-type films in that vein that were outright commercial and critical hits are Brendan Fraser’s Mummy movies. So it’s easy to understand why studios might find it easier to return to the proven character than take a risk on a new one. Whether or not the relative failure of Dial of Destiny changes that remains to be seen.

Most of those, I haven't seen. The only Indy Jones style movies I can think of are the Mummy trilogy with Brendan Fraser, the Tomb Raider films, Sahara, and... that's it, really.

 

[Tosk]

If it's not alive, then it's dead, and you cannot have life from death.

The book in your sig says otherwise.