More Iconic: Indy or Bond?

walther p99

Who do you think is more an iconic character? the suave spy or intrepid adventurer, maybe its a bit bias since this is a Bond fan forum but i just wanted to hear everyone's opinion.

bondaholic007

I love both of them,
Every day i go on
* AJB007 (bond)
* COMMANDERBOND (bond)
* MI6 (bond)
* BONDAHOLIC (bond)
* THE RAIDER (indy)

Not sure, which is best though

Sweepy the Cat

I like Indy but so far there's only 3 films out anyway, as apposed to over 20 Bond films!

bondaholic007

Sweepy the Cat wrote:

I like Indy but so far there's only 3 films out anyway, as apposed to over 20 Bond films!

Soon to be 4

Asp9mm

Indy IS cool. I'm 50/50. I used to spend alot of time on COW as did Mantis. Love my Wested Craig would look great in one.

Barbel

"Iconic" is a much misused term, much as "unique" is. A character is either iconic or it isn't, just as something is either unique or it is not.

James Bond has longevity on his side; he's been around for more than 50 years and will certainly be around for 50 more at least. Indiana Jones is 30 years younger as a character.

So will they still be telling Indiana Jones stories (films, books, TV, whatever) in 20 years? Probably, I'd think; actors other than Harrison Ford have played a young Indy before and no doubt will again. In 50 years, who knows?

Older "iconic" charcters such as Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes (roughly equivalent to Indy and Bond) still crop up in TV series and an odd film now and then. Of course, they're both out of copyright which changes the situation.

Neither Bond nor Jones are unique characters- they have predecessors acknowledged by their creators, Ian Fleming and George Lucas. They are however the culminating point in the evolution of their respective archetypes- by which I mean that all subsequent characters will be compared to them.

Finally, Cubby Broccoli is on record as thinking that the Indiana Jones series was an imitator of the Bond series. -{

Asp9mm

[quote=BarbelFinally, Cubby Broccoli is on record as thinking that the Indiana Jones series was an imitator of the Bond series. -{[/quote]


Lucas and Speilberg are on record in the DVD extras on basing Indy on Bond. Hence hiring Connery to play Indy's father.

Napoleon Plural

Naturally Bond is more iconic in the sense that he has various trappings that are transferred across the different actors eg vokda martini, Aston Martin DB5, the tux, the Bond, James Bond catchphrase, etc. Indy really has only the hat and the bullwhip.

That's not to say one is better than the other... but obv Indy is tied up with Harrison Ford in the same way that Bond was with Connery in the 1960s. Until you get other actors playing him, you can't tell how iconic he is...

Dan Same

I agree with Barbel. First of all, I think that a character being iconic has nothing to do with how good one thinks they are. I love both Bond and Indy (especially Bond) but I'm not all that interested in Sherlock Holmes. Holmes, however, is very much an icon even though I am a little disinterested in him. (Another example is racing horse Phar Lap, an Australian icon, but I have so little interest in Phar Lap that I had to check to make sure I spelt his name right. ) )

The reason I agree with Barbel is that both characters are iconic, but Bond has time on his side. I think that Bond has, through its 40+ years of films and 50+ years of novels, established himself as a character able to satnd the test of time. I have no doubt that Bond will still be here, in some shape or form, for many decades to come. I think that Indy has established himself as an important cultural creation but I am less certain that he will be here in decades to come. He may very well, however the test wil come when Lucas and co decide to make a proper Indy film without someone else as Indy. Can they do it? I hope so, and I believe so, but I am less certain than with Bond.

emtiem

Oh I think there as big as icons as each other- when you see one of those montages on telly celebrating 100 years of cinema or whatever, you'll have Indy being chased by the boulder and something like Sean discovering the golden girl. They're both icons of adventure film and will be forever, regardless of if they make any more of each. Was Casablanca any less iconic because they didn't make any sequels? Of course not.

taity

Perhaps the questions is - does the character die with it's creators?

Bond has outlived Fleming, Cubby, Saltzman and 5 actors. Im also willing to bet it will outlive Craig, Babs and Micky.

Indy - well we're yet to see anyone besides Ford play (grown up) Indy and we are yet to see Lucas and Spielberg with no involvement.

emtiem

taity wrote:

Perhaps the questions is - does the character die with it's creators?

I don't think so; I think that's just a question set up to make Bond win. All the other iconic images of cinema; Hitchcock films, Ben Hur, Casablanca etc. did they die with their creators? Yeah. Does that make them any less iconic? No, of course not.

Jarvio

I'm a huge Indiana Jones fan, but I just don't think it can be compared to Bond - there's a hell of a lot more Bond films than Indy films, so cannot be compared IMO.

Loeffelholz

I'm not sure this question can be answered, as they're both incredibly iconic. It's like asking which is more of a fruit: an apple or an orange

Surrie

I would have to say Bond is, just because of his longevity and the fact that not only is he iconic, but he has been able to make vodka martini's iconic, and locations around the world iconic... and so forth