_, you edit your posts so quickly one can't even quote them! No need, insults on a message board don't ruffle my feathers.
Again, you can go to Google Earth, find the sub pens in La Rochelle and see the exact deatails of the scene in question. Why these details would be reproduced and matched to the smallest detail (bollards, tracks for cranes, patterns in the rocks, etc.) of the "real" location on a fabricated set for a mostly insignificant scene is, well, suspect.
Last edited by Raider S on Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Keep in mind, if not for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate, that it wouldn't be the first time an elaborate set was created for an "insignificant scene" in a movie that lasted a very short time. It's all about providing the audience with an environment of believable reality, regardless of how much detail is needed to achieve it.
Rick, I think you mentioned that in the last discussion. And yes, I agree. But that doesn't make it so in this case. Why duplicate, to the level of cracks in the walls, a physical location that isn't even shown in any other scenes?
I know in the earlier thread about this myself and (I believe) Yojimbo Jones had some pretty convincing images of the actual location.
It seems like some people want to belive it was a set just because they want to belive it was set, if for no other reason than to be contrary. I'm open to other ideas but all there has been was something mentioned in a conversation.
I'm not trying to win an argument as there's nothing at stake here. But please don't call people ignorant or foolish or make back-handed comments because they might call BS on something. Nobody here is an infallible oracle.
The photographic evidence of the sub pens in comparison to the Bantu dockside movie scenes is very convincing that it was on location. Too many small details match exactly. Details that would not be necessary to replicate on a set if no other location scenes were used.
No sense citing them all here, they've all been pointed out before
I can see certain other related scenes having been done on a set, but those dock side scenes.......
A lot of people in the Raiders trilogy are taller than Indy - if you watch closely. In fact if you watch just about any Ford film, you'll see taller members of the cast - which leads me to believe he was always a little under 6'.
Yes I believe he is under 6 and although I never met him _ has. I remember in The Fugitive when the cop is talking to Ford's character in the hospital and reading the specs from his wanted listed. He asked if he had seen anyone 6.1 etc.. Of course in Movie land they always want the male leads to be larger than life. Which is why they shoot from a low angle at times. Like Arnold in Terminator Series. Ford is not a short guy but, I don't think he breaks 6 As a matter of fact, I work in New York City and on Madison ave their is an Alden shop where I bought my boots. They claim Ford has been in their store and the one thing that they were surprised about was he was not as tall as they thought he would be. A man in the store around 5.10-11 said he was kind of short and then he corrected himself and said "Well not short, but not that tall either, He was around my height" I had forgotton about that until now with this thread. I had paid his comment no mind as I always thought myself Ford was taller. Although he may be under six, he is still larger than life!
RCSignals wrote:You should be able to get an idea of how tall he should be by is clothing sizes.
Wasn't it said his pant inseam is 34", and shirt sleeve 34"? We know the jacket length front and back and where it falls on him which gives an idea of torso length.
From those things I think he was at least 6' .
_, I believe you when you say HF was 5'10 and is NOW 5' 9.5"
I'm puzzled by the 33-34" inseam measurement back in the day. I'm 5' 10.5" and usually wear 29-30 inseam. Any idea if this is an exaggeration of his measurements or the ratio of his torso/legs? If I wore a 33" inseam I'd have to wear the waist up to my chest.
Ford is long-limbed with a short torso. It's why RC gets wrapped around the axle when it comes to the whole "James Dean" jacket, i.e. the Raider's jacket is short. Of course it's short - Ford has a short torso and long arms. ........
The James Dean jacket is a completely different pattern. It's silly to suggest the Raiders jacket is based on the James Dean jacket simply because it is a short jacket.
But really the Raiders jacket is not overly short, it's front and back lengths are approximately the same as regular sized A-2. The sleeves are about 26" and given where they fall at the cuff on Ford don't indicate freakishly long arms.
I don't think Ford has an obviously short torso, and he would given the scenario suggested. His legs don't even look proportionately too long.
It's obvious here _ that you wear your pants far too short.
and yes, shane is obviously 4'10", but taller than B(r)ink
_ wrote:Rc - That pic does show the pants riding low, but I guarantee a 30 inseam pair of 569's is keeping the junk packed tight.
I'm razzin' ya' on the James Dean. But maybe Raider S can pull-up Google maps and get some satalite proof?
It's time for a pint - cheers!
You should not underestimate the power of Google earth . Google earth could spot a
ping-pong ball in my backyard !
But I don't really care , because I play ping-pong in my basement .
Interestingly, I just came across a UACC dealer on Ebay selling a complete suit wardrobe used by Ford in CROSSING OVER. The pants are 34 X 32. The shirt is 16 1/2 34/35. The suit jacket is 44R. Oddly, the shoes are 11 1/2.
Feet, noses and ears do continue to grow as you age!
sithspawn wrote:Interestingly, I just came across a UACC dealer on Ebay selling a complete suit wardrobe used by Ford in CROSSING OVER. The pants are 34 X 32. The shirt is 16 1/2 34/35. The suit jacket is 44R. Oddly, the shoes are 11 1/2.
sithspawn wrote:Interestingly, I just came across a UACC dealer on Ebay selling a complete suit wardrobe used by Ford in CROSSING OVER. The pants are 34 X 32. The shirt is 16 1/2 34/35. The suit jacket is 44R. Oddly, the shoes are 11 1/2.
That's if it can be believed.
From other information, the pants are too short, the shirt collar too large, the jacket too large unless a purposely loose fit, and the shoes too big.
sithspawn wrote:Interestingly, I just came across a UACC dealer on Ebay selling a complete suit wardrobe used by Ford in CROSSING OVER. The pants are 34 X 32. The shirt is 16 1/2 34/35. The suit jacket is 44R. Oddly, the shoes are 11 1/2.
That's if it can be believed.
From other information, the pants are too short, the shirt collar too large, the jacket too large unless a purposely loose fit, and the shoes too big.
The items come with the tags from the production. There are close up PICs of everything. Looks legit.
RCSignals wrote:You should be able to get an idea of how tall he should be by is clothing sizes.
Wasn't it said his pant inseam is 34", and shirt sleeve 34"? We know the jacket length front and back and where it falls on him which gives an idea of torso length.
From those things I think he was at least 6' .
_, I believe you when you say HF was 5'10 and is NOW 5' 9.5"
I'm puzzled by the 33-34" inseam measurement back in the day. I'm 5' 10.5" and usually wear 29-30 inseam. Any idea if this is an exaggeration of his measurements or the ratio of his torso/legs? If I wore a 33" inseam I'd have to wear the waist up to my chest.
That's is the issue, almost nobody says his real height, for example, I'm 5'10 (179,5 cm) also and usually uses trousers with 32" inseam. Even more, I have a Noel Howard shirt in size M that fits me almost the same HF uses in the SOC scenes, my hat is also 58, the only differences are my waist that is 32" and the jacket size because since I'm workout my body I reduced mi torso from 40 to 38. I think all depends of the type of body you have and how your body distributes in your height. BTW the measurement system in US is too inaccurate, I think the metric system is more accurate.
I know that, I worked as a steel fabricator for 6 years and worked both in imperial and metric every day, I was just saying I think thats what he was getting at.
rover smith wrote:I know that, I worked as a steel fabricator for 6 years and worked both in imperial and metric every day, I was just saying I think thats what he was getting at.
I understood your meaning. It was more meant for him
I've seen somwhere that Igor Jijikine who plays Dovchenko in KOTCS is 6' 3 1/4" so it's possible to get an approximate height of Ford from when they stand together
and Cate Blanchett is 5' 8 1/2" (1.74m)
and shia labouf is 5' 9 1/2" (1.76m)
HF is shorter than Igor but taller than Cate and Shia
The Stormtrooper armour for Star Wars was sculpted based on 40" chest, 34" waist, and a height of 5'10" as the Hero suit was for Ford and Hamill (whose a little short for a stormtrooper) that ties in nicely with the Indy costume figures.
That's weird. I always heard that Ford was 6 foot tall. He's the tallest member of the Star wars cast (sans Peter Meyhew) and Darth vader. Connery I've herd was 6'2, and ford didn't seem THAT much shorter than him.
I find it really hard to believe that he's 5'10 or so.
No need, insults on a message board don't ruffle my feathers. 
[/quote]
