WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Disney Announces Plans to Continue "Indiana Jones" Franchise

Posted: December 7th, 2013 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Disney Announces Plans to Continue "Indiana Jones" FranchiseSubmit Comment
It seems that the "Indiana Jones" franchise is far from being over, since Disney has just signed a deal with Paramount Pictures to take control of the film series. Paramount would still retain rights to the first four movies and will receive a cut of any future installments.

While there has yet to be any official announcement about "Indiana Jones 5," Harrison Ford has already expressed interest in reprising his role.

It's not clear, however, what Disney plans to do with the franchise. As always, a reboot is an option.

Source: THR


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 72 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
cress writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 7:57:42 AM

They could go the YOUNG INDIANA JONES route ala the the mid 90s series. It had some great stories, but became ridiculous in that young Indy encountered important historical figures in his travels. But, if they're thinking of just an initial trilogy of new films, then they're limited in the the scope of their fictional world, and could crank out three good stories.

I'm also assuming Lucas won't be coming up with the Macguffin, so that's a huge positive. Ford is just too damn old now, and would be limited in whatever swashbuckiling is required. I wouldn't mind seeing him again, but only in a "I remember when.. " segue to his past, younger self's adventures.

Then, in 10 years when sh*t LeBouf's star is fading, i'm sure he'd be willing to return as the Son of Indiana Jones in a series of films, set in the 80s.
boogiel writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 8:03:32 AM

Hot Damn Disney, what's next? They're gonna buy up Star Trek too? Geez, next thing you know every movie theater is gonna be owned by Disney.

Deaft0ne writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 8:29:04 AM

Reboot with Josh Holloway and keep Lucas and Spielberg faaar away.
PORN-FLY writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 8:43:34 AM

leave that skank Shia out of it
BlackDynamite writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 8:45:15 AM

They're going to introduce Indiana Jones in Avengers 2 as Captain America's best friend from the 40's, and a scientist and historian that specializes in alien artifacts, something that's fascinated him since finding 1000 year old Chitauri sklls in a mayan pyramid.
Cannon writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 9:35:31 AM


@Deaft0ne: "Reboot with Josh Holloway and keep Lucas and Spielberg faaar away."

Oh, so basically you DON'T want another Indiana Jones film. Got it. That being said, a reboot is likely Disney's only viable option. They didn't by the franchise simply to make one more movie with an old Ford.

They might to a show or animated series of some kind. Or maybe just a spin-off franchise. For now, the whole thing is likely gonna sit on the shelf for a while.

Whatever. I've no interest in any future Star Wars films; for the same reasons, I'll probably have no interest in any future Indiana Jones incarnations. Disney's judgment with Lucasfilm properties has been dead weight thus far. I don't see that changing.

It's too bad, really, but life goes one.



Cannon writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 9:36:23 AM


Edit: *buy* not *by*

Cannon writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 9:38:04 AM


More Edit: *do* not *to* and *on* not *one*

God I suck at typing.

BJsforeveryone writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 9:53:17 AM

Walt is turning in his grave if he could see the greed coming from the Disney.
The Matrix is half right, but instead of the machines f*cking up humanity, it will be Disney..
Ford is to old and franchise is worth sh*t without him so just let it die !!
Don´t make another abomination, like part 4 !!
BJsforeveryone writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 9:53:50 AM

*too
BadChadB33 writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 9:56:29 AM

Thus it has begun.....a rebooted Indy franchise. f*ck!!
Skywalker121289 writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 10:26:23 AM

Damn.
Deaft0ne writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 11:02:11 AM

@Cannon

Crystal Skull was so anemic and it proves that S/L/F no longer had the passion to make a good Indy movie.

Holloway would be a decent Indy because he already has similar mannerisms that the character has and he's a solid actor and was one of the best cast members on L O S T.

Disney's first order of business will be a reboot trilogy. Cartoons and tv series would come later on.
sleepingshane writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 12:02:19 PM

hugh jackman would make a good indy, he kind of ticks all the right boxes as the best harrison ford substitute.
Cannon writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 2:04:01 PM


@Deaft0ne

What you call anemic I call spry-but-coolly-reflective. As for alleged lack of passion, Crystal Skull, in my opinion, is the most daring in premise and the most thematically clever. To each his own, I guess.

Holloway, or whomever, would NOT be a great Indy, but maybe a promising different character of his own. Any substitute they get to play Indy will inevitably be just that: a substitute. Unavoidable.

They're best bet is to start with a character.

Cannon writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 2:05:15 PM


Edit: Their best bet, not they're best bet.

Jesus Christ, Cannon, lay off the sauce.

minkowski writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 2:17:48 PM

This is pretty awesome news, actually, even though I consider Ford to be THE Indiana Jones; someone else taking over the role and making more films, without Lucas' idiotic narrative touches, seems like a good idea, and if anyone can do it, Disney can.

Just PLEASE keep that buffoon Jerry Bruckheimer away from the new films.
Tanman32123 writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 2:33:55 PM

Lol you're all drunk!

Anyways, I'd watch I fifth if they made it. Gotta watch the first ones again, It's been way to long
cress writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 3:01:09 PM

yes yes don't let Jerry Bruckheimer anywhere near these films

but I think Gore Verbinski would be an awesome choice to helm Indiana Jones films
Cannon writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 3:10:16 PM


Still trying to figure out why aliens are more "idiotic" than all the other sh*t from the series, but, whatever.

minkowski writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 3:20:37 PM

Probably because the other three films were archaeological in nature, operating on semi-plausible MacGuffins, whereas Indy 4 operated on a totally implausible and nonsensical "ancient astronaut" nonsense (the crystal skulls, which have been definitely proven fake) that has no place whatsoever in any sort of scientific discipline.

Basically, Indy 4 jettisons the thin patina of respectable treasure-hunting that we call archaeology for a CGI-sh*tfest jaunt in search of demonstrably fake artifacts, all serving one of the most unscientific "theories" ever created, outside the Bible.
minkowski writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 4:20:03 PM

Four articles today.

Don't work too hard, Alex.
greenfreak69 writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 5:01:12 PM

Yup, Hollywood writers sure do love to run that old von Daniken bullsh*t into the ground, don't they? (most recently with Prometheus)

As for the possibility of finding a younger actor to portray Professor Jones....well, if late-teens Indy looked like River Phoenix, then maybe mid-to-late-30s Indy should look like... Leonardo DiCaprio? (who would be, YES I know, completely wrong for the role)

I'm with Rambo Avatar Guy... I can't see it working without Harrison Ford.
Deaft0ne writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 5:29:03 PM

Well most younger audiences have never seen the original Indy movies. Ford is iconic in the role but any part can be re-cast. Given the chance, another actor can make it great too.

The only thing that stays the same is that everything must change.
elrei writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 6:14:13 PM

Can we PLEASE have Indiana Jones and The Fate of Atlantis now? ¡Goddamit THAT was an EPIC story!
SACdaddy writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 10:37:36 PM

Always thought Holloway was more geared to play Snake Pliskin than Indiana Jones.

That character should have been handled like James Bond or Jack Ryan a long time ago. Harrison Ford was great but so was Sean Connery, and they still managed to make good films after he retired. Anyone with enough charisma should be able to step into the part. Please God get a f*cking American for the role though. The character is an American icon for christsake!!! Please don't outsource yet another American icon.

You know Brad Pitt has been looking for that superhero role for a while now. Anyone think he may fit as Indy instead, or is he too robotic for the part?
Patrick Bateman writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 10:55:58 PM

Indiana let it go
CelluloidMan writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 11:01:56 PM

The Indy sequel movie thing is really tricky...I really don't envy the writers on this at all.

I think the magic of the trilogy is really 3 factors...factors that were missing on the 4th one and difficult to recapture.

First, the migraine inducing complex plot that has to have globe trotting, run into ancient world places-Macguffins and, of course, a major antagonists (plural) to bring down. Nazis are not really gonna cut it anymore. It really has to peak the interest of the audience that will involve on reality-based mysteries, legends, tales of lore etc. It really involves a lot of research. It's not just a simple plot...it never was.

The next was Ford. I really don't see anyone else really being equally great in the role. I saw the special features on the Indy Trilogy and Ford said part of his popularity of the character is of how he's always over his head and how Ford has to look like all the precise choreographed action stunts, are made nail-biting by Ford's facial expresses the spur of the moment decisions he makes. It really made sense. You saw it replacing the golden idol in RAIDERS. How he says something like, "Yeah, it's time to leave....all of us" in DOOM. It shows how he is thinking on the run...a big part. Also Indy gets hurt and plays every punch, kick, or bad landed jump. Check how he aches in the submarine in RAIDERS("It's the mileage, honey" quote), the Zombie-turning in DOOM. He really sells it. Now, he's too geriatric to pull off any stunts and was really underused in CRYSTAL SKULL to make room for... "Mutt" was it?

The third factor is the special effects. Part of the greatness of the trilogy is that it is mostly made up of practical effects. I think part of the off-putting of CRYSTAL SKULL was so much CGI...some that was really unnecessary at times (Cough)GOPHERS!(Cough). And that Sword fight between a long stretch of jungle...PPFFT!! The "old school" special effects gave it it's own feel, one that Spielberg missed.

If it were me, I'd use Ford to setup and pass the baton because let's be honest, no one could match Ford and that new character would have to path a new way...also because it would be a different era. Time passes as we could see in CRYSTAL SKULL.

The good news is that finding a new path to the new Indy is easy. The young, impressionable audience have almost forgotten Indy already if they haven't already...just most of the older crowd remembers.

Just don't let it be LaBeouf...He would have the star power to attract the young crowd, but the guy doesn't have the professionalism Ford had to be thankful to get this part...egotistical arrogant prick.

So a part of me piques me curiosity for another Ford led adventure and another part of me feels it will never reach that great level like the originals were ever again...so why try?

Oh yeah, money...I forgot, silly me.
Deaft0ne writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 11:26:03 PM

Holloway could kill it.
Deaft0ne writes:
on December 7th, 2013 at 11:27:11 PM

Ceccc GGG ft j he tugdd

Celly man is tl dr sh*t.

Stfu and makecsense bitch.
CelluloidMan writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 12:46:49 AM

^^
"Ceccc GGG ft j he tugdd

Celly man is tl dr sh*t.

Stfu and makecsense bitch." WTF?!

"Celly Man"?!

f*ck you on Deaft0ne?!
Phunky Dubbs writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 1:54:08 AM

"f*ck you on Deaft0ne?!"

DeafTone is on STUPID, yo. Has been for ALL his time here at phucking WorstPreviews.

I don't have the phoggiest idea why he has such a RAGING boner for Josh Holloway, who becomes MORE and MORE of a has-been as "Lost" becomes MORE and MORE of a distant memory.

Bradley Cooper would be the best choice to play Indiana Jones. So OF COURSE, none of you idiots thought of THAT.


Bonzaitri writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 3:13:06 AM

@cress
Young Indiana Jones! that was a lot of fun. you are right about it being kind of ridiculous at times, but a total guilty pleasure show.

Cannon writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 4:29:20 AM


@Mink: "Probably because the other three films were archaeological in nature, operating on semi-plausible MacGuffins whereas Indy 4 operated on a totally implausible and nonsensical "ancient astronaut" nonsense (the crystal skulls, which have been definitely proven fake) that has no place whatsoever in any sort of scientific discipline."

Scientific discipline? Floating phantasms coming out of an Ark, magic rocks or a 700 year old knight -- God, ghosts, quasi-Hindu-voodooism and immortality -- are all semi-plausible but ancient aliens are not? And the fact that the Mitchell-Hedges skulls have since been proven fake is irrelevant since they were never the MacGuffins sought after in the film in the first place. Not that it would matter either way: You know what else bears zero scientific evidence? GOD, GHOSTS AND MAGIC!!!!!!

"Basically, Indy 4 jettisons the thin patina of respectable treasure-hunting that we call archaeology..."

Wait, since when did archaeology garner nothing more than a thin patina of respect? It is as valid a method of study and empirical research as any other field of science. Now, if by "archaeology" you’re simply referring to that which was depicted in the first three films, I see no discrepancy whatsoever with the 4th installment, where characters spend just as much time thinking, theorizing, searching for clues and exploring tombs/temples--all of which concerning the past. If anything, Crystal Skull weighs the heaviest on the very theme of archaeology.

In any event, the Indiana Jones films are pulpy adventures whose narratives are predicated on known myths. I’m not saying ancient aliens are real, or even plausible, but the myth of ancient aliens is very much real and deeply imbedded in our history, both ancient, to a degree, and especially modern American lore of the 20th century regarding UFOs and Area 51, which the film wholeheartedly incorporates.

You wanna argue Crystal Skull on the merits of filmmaking or storytelling, fine, that’s another issue. But don’t sell me this blatantly horsesh*t double standard that criticizes the content for being unscientific and therefore uncharacteristic of the first three films.

BJsforeveryone writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 4:49:20 AM

Where is my god damn TRON sequel ????
cress writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 8:30:11 AM

@Bonzaitri. Yeah, it was a well made show with some very good stories, but having Indy encounter numerous famous historical figures was a bit of a stretch.

@Cannon. Excellent points.
Tanman32123 writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 12:29:22 PM

You can't be serious.. Update the f*cking website!
BadChadB33 writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 1:23:09 PM

Hey hack boy, Alex, update your f*cking sit!!!
BadChadB33 writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 1:23:35 PM

Site
WallyDee writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 2:05:25 PM

@celluloid

Well said
Deaft0ne writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 2:06:18 PM

Stfu Cannon. Crystal Skull sucked balls. Stop pretending it didn't.

Phunky Dubbs is a moronic wigger and Celluloid Man types too much.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 4:31:03 PM

@Cannon: all your blubbering aside (which I barely read) the first three films went in search of plausible archaeological facts.

The Ark of Covenant likely existed as did quite possible the chalice of Christ. In Temple of Doom, the MacGuffin was some kind of stone, which is hardly paranormal.

A crystal skull that leads to a space ship containing a dead alien waiting to be animated so it can fly up into the sky is NOT a plausible archaeological artifact.

That's what I said, and that fact is indisputable.

Anyway, I don't think you really understood what I wrote, and perhaps that's my fault, but regardless, I wasn't referring to the paraphysical aspects of any of the films, I was comparing a stupid alien skull and spaceship to artifacts that either did exist or could exist.

Shame you and Cress missed the very essence of what I said.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 4:32:44 PM

*possibly.

Can't believe Alex hasn't updated this site. It's been, what, 24 hours (cue ticking clock)?

Hope he didn't go Paul Walker on us.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 4:38:57 PM

"Scientific discipline? Floating phantasms coming out of an Ark, magic rocks or a 700 year old knight -- God, ghosts, quasi-Hindu-voodooism and immortality -- are all semi-plausible but ancient aliens are not? And the fact that the Mitchell-Hedges skulls have since been proven fake is irrelevant since they were never the MacGuffins sought after in the film in the first place. Not that it would matter either way: You know what else bears zero scientific evidence? GOD, GHOSTS AND MAGIC!!!!!!"





Stop screaming, fruitcake. Go back and re-read what I wrote. I wasn't talking about the paranormal aspects of the films, I was comparing the MacGuffins of all four films in an archaeological context. Duh. Which is why I said "MacGuffins", specifically. lol.

You really need to learn how to read before you even try to think.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 4:52:50 PM

"but the myth of ancient aliens is very much real and deeply imbedded in our history, both ancient, to a degree"

"Ancient astronauts" was invented by Erick von Daniken. It's is no older than him. The guy created the "theory" out of virtually nothing, before which there was a smattering of lights in the skies and lurid tales of anal probes for about two decades.

That you can compare something invented in the 1960s to, for example, the Ark of Covenant, which goes back millennia in recorded history, is really sad.

What's next? Kwanzaa is as old as Saturnalia? Scientology is as historically rooted as Judaism?

lol.




"and especially modern American lore of the 20th century regarding UFOs and Area 51, which the film wholeheartedly incorporates."



And?

Area 51...lol. A place they test top secret planes. A place that didn't find its way into "American lore" until the f*cking 1980s.

There wasn't even discussion of Area 51 back in the 50s when Crystal Skull was set, except for reports of low-flying craft which were U2 test planes.

The damned place was nothing but an airstrip until 1955 when the CIA took it over, but we're to believe it's operating as a full-fledged hotbed of "UFO activity" two years later in 1957 when Crystal Skull is set?

Sure.

Pure nonsense.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Christ had a cup at the Last Supper, and I'm pretty sure the Jews had more than a few prized religious artifacts, whereas I'm pretty sure there's never been a crystal skull that was part of alien, or a f*cking spaceship, and the few real-life crystal skulls were scientifically PROVEN to be 20th century fakes.

Of course, one could argue that Christ didn't exist, but then one could argue people two thousand years from now will argue you never existed either, and with more evidence for their position than those who would say Christ never lived, archaeologically speaking, of course.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 4:59:29 PM

"In any event, the Indiana Jones films are pulpy adventures whose narratives are predicated on known myths."



Wrong. The chalice of Christ is based on recorded history, namely that Christ had a cup at the last supper and another one, or perhaps the same one, was used to catch his blood as he died on the cross. These claims go back two thousand years to written history, specifically Matthew:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Chalice#History_and_tradition

The Ark of Covenant goes even farther back, and is recorded in written history as well.

On the other hand, the f*cking Crystal Skulls are manufactured 20th century bullsh*t created to make someone money and proven as fakes, and Area 51 was pushed into American modern myth among the conspiratorial fringe back in the 1980s.


BIG f*cking difference, man.
cress writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:04:58 PM

Other than the stories in the bible, there is no historical evidence that christ existed. He's more than likely an invention of the Roman Empire to quell the jewish uprising problems they were having. So for you to say the chalice Jeepers Creepers drank from actually existed, makes me laugh in that I thought you were an atheist--an atheist that believes in The Last Supper? What the f*ck is that?
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:07:45 PM

" But don’t sell me this blatantly horsesh*t double standard that criticizes the content for being unscientific and therefore uncharacteristic of the first three films."


You're apparently quite dumb. Are you another of the ghost account poster(s) here? Who are you really, because I smell scam.

@Alex: fix your f*cking register page so people cannot make eighty bullsh*t accounts every f*cking day.


As for what you said...like I stated previously, the first films are more archaeologically grounded because the MacGuffin is a plausible device. A f*cking CRYSTAL SKULL is nothing more than modern conspiratorial fringe bullsh*t popularized by one man back in the 1960s and a handful of morons trying to sell fake trinkets.

What's next? An Indiana Jones film wherein Indy goes in search of BigFoot with the Piltdown Man's skeleton as evidence? Or perhaps he goes looking for Nessie and enlists the cast and crew of The Land Before Time?


How can you not see the difference, or is your clear intent to promulgate dissension in the ranks in lieu of real discussion prompted by fresh news?

Hell, if Indy DID go looking for Atlantis, one could say even that "myth" is far more plausible than mid to late 20th century hokum, since Plato wrote about it in his Timaeus and Critias, and there's much evidence a certain place did exist which resembles Atlantis is a few important aspects.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:12:12 PM

@Cress: lol. Okay, he didn't exist, which is why numerous people write about him independent of one another.

I guess Nebuchadnezzar, Solon and Draco never existed either, since we don't have photo of them either.

But hey, who am I?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Existence


"However, today virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.[7][226][227] Robert E. Van Voorst and (separately) Michael Grant state that biblical scholars and classical historians now regard theories of the non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.[17][18]

In response to the argument that the lack of the contemporary references implies that Jesus did not exist, Van Voorst has stated that, "as every good student of history knows", such arguments from silence are "specially perilous".[228] Arguments from silence generally fail unless a fact is known to the author and is important enough and relevant enough to be mentioned in the context of a doc*ment.[229][230] Bart D. Ehrman argues that although Jesus had a large impact on future generations, his impact on the society of his time was "practically nil". It would therefore be unsound to expect contemporary accounts of his deeds.[231]

Ehrman says that arguments based on the lack of physical or archeological evidence of Jesus and of any writings from him are poor, as there is no such evidence of "nearly anyone who lived in the first century".[26] Teresa Okure writes that the existence of historical figures is established by the analysis of later references to them, rather than by contemporary relics and remnants.[232] A number of scholars caution against the use of such arguments from ignorance and consider them generally inconclusive or fallacious.[233][234][235] Douglas Walton states that arguments from ignorance can only lead to sound conclusions in cases where we can assume that our "knowledge-base is complete".[236]

Non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of first-century historians Josephus and Tacitus.[237][218][238] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in book 20 of the Antiquities of the Jews, and it is disputed only by a small number of scholars.[239][240] Tacitus referred to Christ and his execution by Pilate in book 15 of his work Annals. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus to be both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[241]"








lol. Care to try again, or will you just use that tired idiotic refrain that Wikipedia is a pack of lies?
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:13:08 PM

-either.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:15:52 PM

"Arguments from ignorance". lol. That would WP and the Internet in general, I guess, which is truly ironic in the sense everything you could ever want to know is available for free via a 'net connection.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:17:06 PM

@Cress: care to rephrase your statement, you goofy little queer?
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:18:45 PM

+be, +an and others.

Really need a better movie news website than this antiquated place.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:23:54 PM

"So for you to say the chalice Jeepers Creepers drank from actually existed, makes me laugh in that I thought you were an atheist--an atheist that believes in The Last Supper? What the f*ck is that?"


Because an atheist isn't a guy who doesn't believe in magical sky faeiries, it's a guy who refuses to believe a particular book has any historical significance whatsoever.


You really cannot be as stupid as you appear, but then given the machine-gun rapidity which which you deliver inane, infantile jokes, I guess it's hardly a stretch you would conflate atheism with willful ignorance of recorded history.

lol. Sorry Tacitus and Josephus, I can longer believe in Jesus because I'm an atheist, according to the WP village idiot named Cress.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:25:30 PM

I wonder how many people here realize they're being trolled repeatedly day after day, and *not* by me?

Probably none, as they only see what's right in front of their faces.

Sad.
Deaft0ne writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:27:38 PM

@mink

Josephus's original writings never mentioned a Jesus at all. Forgers added it in later on.
cress writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:30:42 PM

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the doc*ments and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more. No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a singlecontemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All doc*ments about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. 




minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:32:02 PM

"Other than the stories in the bible, there is no historical evidence that christ existed. He's more than likely an invention of the Roman Empire to quell the jewish uprising problems they were having.


Right. So forget the independent historical records of the man, which I quoted above, instead we'll dwell on a two thousand conspiracy theory that has zero evidence in favor of it, except for the wishful thinking of sad, ignorant angry ugly little people who would happily deconstruct recorded history just to demolish a religion they don't like. Pathetic.

I'd like to see you go to Saudi Arabia and spout that crap about Mohammed, for instance. You only do it here in the West because you know Christians are weak and unintimidating. You wouldn't post similar crap on a Muslim board in a Muslim country. Coward.

And yes, I'm an atheist. Absolutely an atheist, in fact, which means I'm so confident of my position I don't need to ignorantly deconstruct written history just to prove there's no god. That's the tactic of weaklings.

minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:35:50 PM

@Deaftone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[1][2] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.[1][3]

Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear[11] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[13][1][2][14][15][16] Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to also be authentic.[17][18][19]

The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence.[20] A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[17][21] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them.[17][22][21]
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:38:18 PM

Anyway, now that I've shown clearly that the overwhelming majority of extant and non-extant historians agree Jesus Christ existed, and he likely had a meal with a drinking cup some time before he was executed, we can perhaps move on to more germane matters, like who perhaps will Disney cast in a likely reboot of Indiana Jones.

I suggest they go with an unknown, but I'm not entirely against a known actor, as long as the story is there, which is more important than who takes Ford's place.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:40:20 PM

@Alex: you gonna update this dump or what? I've been gone an entire day and there's nothing new. What gives? You getting ready to shut the old bilge barge down and force the rats therein to scamper off to another cesspool of lies and disinformation? I hear TMZ has perpetually-open registrations.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:54:33 PM

@Cress: lol, you're so f*cking immature, and it hurts my eyes to watch you bang your sippy cup in anger when things don't go your way.

I post a lengthy article excerpt from Wikipedia, which reflects the well-known and demonstrable fact most academic historians, dead and/or alive, agree Jesus Christ existed, and you "reply" with what almost palpates with ignorant insolence: a spamming of some guy's contrarian opinion, like we couldn't do that all day with Climate Change, for example. You don't even source the article's author.

It's like you're saying "I know you are but what am I". Sad. Just f*cking sad.
Deaft0ne writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 5:56:18 PM

@mink

By the end of that page and others, none of them conclude with Josephus being any sort of first-hand witness to any actual Jesus existing as a real historical person. Zero evidence exists to support that.

Hercules is just as much Jesus as Superman and Flash Gordon. Myths made up by imagination.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 6:07:46 PM

^^The majority of all academic historians, people with a PHD after their names, disagree with you. Sorry.

But hey, you can believe whatever you want, even if it's not the truth. Freedom and all that.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 6:11:50 PM

"none of them conclude with Josephus being any sort of first-hand witness to any actual Jesus existing as a real historical person"

lol, well if that's the case then most of the people of historical antiquity simply didn't exist as the historians writing about them weren't first-hand witnesses.

minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 6:15:42 PM

"By the end of that page and others, none of them conclude with Josephus being any sort of first-hand witness to any actual Jesus existing as a real historical person. Zero evidence exists to support that."

lo, no one ever said he was. No one made the claim Josephus was physically present at every event he recorded. That's a really weak straw-man argument, even for straw-man arguments, and if you had actually read the passage you claimed to have read, you would know that's not even the content of the Wiki article.
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 6:20:16 PM

"Justin Bieber for Indiana Jones!"


Now that's how you troll, Deaftone, not what you're doing.
Cannon writes:
on December 8th, 2013 at 10:15:02 PM

@Mink

"The Ark of Covenant likely existed as did quite possible the chalice of Christ. In Temple of Doom, the MacGuffin was some kind of stone, which is hardly paranormal."

Uh, except it was paranormal in the movie. All three MacGuffins were paranormal in nature.

"A crystal skull that leads to a space ship containing a dead alien waiting to be animated so it can fly up into the sky is NOT a plausible archaeological artifact."

Neither is an Ark with ghost in it, stones that glow fire and magically suck dry crops or a chalice that grants immortality. The artifacts upon which these supernatural premises are based may be real, or at least plausible, but then so are crystal skulls. The fact that said skulls were likely faux is irrelevant in lieu of a make-believe narrative based on the notion that they weren’t; or, specifically, that another type of skull, not yet discovered, lead to something fantastical.

"There wasn't even discussion of Area 51 back in the 50s when Crystal Skull was set, except for reports of low-flying craft which were U2 test planes.

The damned place was nothing but an airstrip until 1955 when the CIA took it over, but we're to believe it's operating as a full-fledged hotbed of "UFO activity" two years later in 1957 when Crystal Skull is set?

Sure.

Pure nonsense."

Pure nonsense? It’s called FICTION -- the simple pitch that there was perhaps more to Area 51 than what we’ve been told, no different than the idea of subterranean Thuggee sorcery or some undiscovered temple in the middle of the desert with working booby traps built and maintained by a 700 year old knight. Yet, nonetheless, your argument here is that Area 51 related UFO activity doesn’t meet the standards of Indiana Jones movie storytelling because it’s...not plausible?

"Ancient astronauts" was invented by Erick von Daniken. It's is no older than him. The guy created the "theory" out of virtually nothing, before which there was a smattering of lights in the skies and lurid tales of anal probes for about two decades.

That you can compare something invented in the 1960s to, for example, the Ark of Covenant, which goes back millennia in recorded history, is really sad."

The theory of 'ancient aliens' came from Daniken, yes, but it’s a theory based on various myths and hieroglyphs dating back throughout history concerning star maps, gods in the sky, the intervention of supreme beings, is all I’m saying. That it might be a goofy theory doesn’t matter.

"Wrong. The chalice of Christ is based on recorded history..."

And crystal skulls are somehow not a part of recorded history?

"...namely that Christ had a cup at the last supper and another one, or perhaps the same one, was used to catch his blood as he died on the cross. These claims go back two thousand years to written history, specifically Matthew:

The Ark of Covenant goes even farther back, and is recorded in written history as well.

On the other hand, the f*cking Crystal Skulls are manufactured 20th century bullsh*t created to make someone money and proven as fakes..."

Guess what? The idea that the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant is of divine origin or possesses divine power is also manufactured bullsh*t. That this bullsh*t goes back two millennia or more doesn’t make it any less bullsh*t. Oh, and let’s stop and appreciate the irony here: that there is zero physical evidence that the Holy Grail or the Ark themselves, even as simple, ordinary artifacts, ever existed in the first place -- just stories and biblical texts -- whereas the crystal skulls, despite having no basis in scientific fact, are at least physical, tangible facts. Again, all the movie is doing is proposing the idea that there was something more to them, just like it proposed the idea that the Grail and the Ark were real and supernatural—all of which for the purpose of simple, 'suspension of disbelief' entertainment.

Still, you argue that the crystal skulls are ineligible for such entertainment simply because the myths and folklore surrounding them is...more recent? No, wait, unscientific? As opposed to that which surrounds the Ark, the Grail and Sankara stones, which I guess is, uh, "respectable" folklore?

"...and Area 51 was pushed into American modern myth among the conspiratorial fringe back in the 1980s."

So? I said the 20th century, didn’t I? And maybe Roswell and Area 5, specifically, were not yet a part of widespread American culture by the 1950s, but the general notion of flying saucers and extraterrestrials sure as hell were, given the significant boom of sci-fi movies during that same decade. All this movie did was incorporate all these aspects into one story.

"Stop screaming, fruitcake. Go back and re-read what I wrote. I wasn't talking about the paranormal aspects of the films, I was comparing the MacGuffins of all four films in an archaeological context. Duh. Which is why I said "MacGuffins", specifically. lol."

Actually, what you were doing is trying to rationalize this film’s inferiority, objectively, by dismissing its storied content -- crystal skull/ancient aliens/UFO myths -- for somehow being less...whatever...than the various content of the previous films, or diametrically opposed. And it backfired on you. People called you out on it, and so now you’re just sidewinding and back-peddling by splitting the hairs of your own assertions.

minkowski writes:
on December 9th, 2013 at 4:05:33 PM

Again you fail to understand that the Chalice of Christ and the Ark of Covenant are far more archaeologically-grounded than the fringe nonsense surrounding UFOs (which are unscientific bullsh*t), the silliness of Area 51 in the mind of conspiranoid Lone Gunmen types, and the fact the Crystal Skulls are FAKES.


To recap:

Ark of Covenant: probably a real object

Christ Chalice: probably a real object

Stones from Temple of Doom: stones, based on myriad other real Pre-Columbian artifacts.

Crystal Skull: out and out absolute modern-day FRAUDS.

Area 51: a real place turned into a fantasy by fruitcakes.

UFOs: utter bullsh*t.





And why the f*ck do you keep going back to the fact that all four films feature supernatural elements when that was NEVER MY ARGUMENT? I realize all of them possess supernatural elements. I never disavowed that fact. I said, one last time, the MACGUFFINS from the first three films are in FACT based (perhaps loosely) on actual archaeological objects, which makes them at least somewhat more scientifically grounded, whereas the fourth film is based on FRINGE NONSENSE AND FORGERIES!






I didn't even want to respond to your final post because I felt that not only did I sufficiently defend my position but that it wasn't ever understand by you or that virtual idiot Cress.





I'm done. Please try to understand what I say next time before we have a long argument over a position I never submitted or endorsed.

Cannon writes:
on December 9th, 2013 at 8:19:46 PM

"Again you fail to understand that the Chalice of Christ and the Ark of Covenant are far more archaeologically-grounded than..."

Than what? Archaeology is a science dependent on the presence of actual artifacts--on psychical, empirical evidence, of which the Grail and the Ark possess zero. They’re archaeologically grounded in nothing. So far, they exist only in historical/biblical writings.

"To recap:

Ark of Covenant: probably a real object

Christ Chalice: probably a real object

Stones from Temple of Doom: stones, based on myriad other real Pre-Columbian artifacts.

Crystal Skull: out and out absolute modern-day FRAUDS."

...that are nonetheless REAL OBJECTS. You keep repeating that they are fake, insofar that they were not crafted during the pre-Columbian eras as was initially claimed nor were they supernatural or extraterrestrial in origin. You keep repeating this as if it’s supposed to matter. That the crystal skulls were likely artifacts of 19th century fraudulence does not change the plain, indisputable fact that they were real, physical artifacts, which is something that cannot be said of the Grail or the Ark, as there is no actual goddamn evidence that they ever existed in the first place. None of this matters concerning the films. Why?

To recap proper:

The myths and folklore surrounding the Ark of the Covenant is real.

The myths and folklore surrounding the Christ Chalice is real.

The myths and folklore surrounding the Sankara stones (based on doc*mented Hindu religion) is real.

The myths and folklore surrounding the crystal skulls is real.

It doesn’t matter -- IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER. -- that said skulls were not "genuine" as claimed by their folklore; based on scientific evidence (or lack thereof) neither is the Ark, the Grail or the Sankara stones, to say nothing of the fact that their actual existence as physical objects has yet to be proven scientifically.

The stories for the Indiana Jones films -- the MacGuffins that drive them -- were never predicated on scientific evidence, only doc*mented historical beliefs, myths and folklore. The folklore concerning crystal skulls, ancient aliens, UFOs and related Roswell/Area 51 conspiracies is NO LESS REAL than the folklore concerning any of the three MacGuffins from the previous films.

"And why the f*ck do you keep going back to the fact that all four films feature supernatural elements when that was NEVER MY ARGUMENT?"

Oh, gee, I dunno. Probably because you’ve spent the last umpteen posts ranting about there being no proof or scientific basis for ancient aliens, UFOs or Area 51 cover-ups, all of which are, or are equivalently, supernatural elements. All of these notions constitute the general story/narrative content of the fourth film. You tearing down the film because said notions are unscientific is, by logic, the equivalent of criticizing the storied content of the prior three films for the same reason.

"I'm done. Please try to understand what I say next time before we have a long argument..."

First, please try to understand what you yourself are saying. f*cking idiot.


Cannon writes:
on December 9th, 2013 at 8:42:26 PM


Edit: I regret and retract that "f*cking idiot" jab. It was rude and unnecessary. My apologies.

But I stand by my point that your own assertions contradict your overall stated position.

cress writes:
on December 9th, 2013 at 9:04:10 PM

@Cannon. No need to apologize for the "f*cking idiot" jab. It fits perfectly.

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved