Talk:Harrison Ford

What are the 4 top-grossing movies referred to on this page? Anybody know? - Patrick Corcoran

I would assume:

• 1977: Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
• 1980: Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
• 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark
• 1983: Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

Cburnett 20:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For spelling of Mary Marquardt, see for example BBC News story. Of course its the same name as the Marquardts of mathematical and aeornautical fame. Billlion 18:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Grosses' Claim Corrected

The article previously contained the following text: "The U.S. box office grosses of all of Ford's films combined totals about $3.18 billion, with worldwide grosses at approximately $5.65 billion. No other actor in history has box-office grosses as large." (emphasis added). According to a CNN sidebar[1], the combined grosses of Harrison Ford's movies "are the second-highest of any actor in Hollywood history, after Tom Hanks" (emphasis added). Although I wasn't able to quickly locate comparative figures on this, I thought it should be corrected since it substantively discredits the original claim. 216.240.7.149 19:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how accurate any of those claims are. I've seen elsewhere that Samuel L. Jackson's movie have grossed the more than any other actor's.-66.254.232.219 08:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I would assert that CNN is a reputable citation. So without contradictory information from a more reputable (cited) source, I'm not understanding why someone (IP address: 80.186.32.143 ) opted to remove this information. Moreso without their stating a reason for doing so. 216.240.7.149 05:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

CNN is correct. Look at this chart [2]. Tom Hanks is #1. Ford is #2. Jackson is only #7. JackO'Lantern 05:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've editted the first paragraph to reflect this information. I used your citation as the reference. I was going to use the CNN one as well, but as it's a sidebar and more difficult to locate, AND is quoted here in the discussion, I opted not to put it into the article. Thanks for the reference! 216.240.7.149 06:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel Gibson has now overtaken them all.

What Lies Beneath grossed over 150 million in USA box office alone. Not to mention world-wide figures and dvd rental/sales. I would hardly count that as a minor hit.

filmography layout

Different, but nice. I was gonna split into two columns and keep the standard format, but didnt want to change this one. Dont think it would work well with other articles though. <>Who?¿? 20:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Minor change

Removed bolding around "there is no evidence he was ever baptized..." as irrevelant and distracting.

Top 10 Movies?

The opening sentence states that Ford "[I]s an American actor who, between 1977 and 1983, appeared in what were then the top ten highest-grossing movies of all time." I believe this must be incorrect, though he was in several of them. If someone knows the exact number, I hope they correct it; if not, I will excise the text in favour of something a little more general, like "He has appeared in many of the highest grossing movies of all time" or similar. Matt Deres 22:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Treehouse

I cannot tell you the address of the house for obvious reasons but the house is on Woodrow Wilson Drive which is a very famous and elite area and the neighborhood knows this story well. There is no other source of this information to my knowledge, sorry. Wyoming bill kelso II 02:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is, is there some kind of source online about this? Like, even a community website? Because otherwise it would be considered original research. I'll try to look for something online in the next little while. JackO'Lantern 02:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jack! Unless someone from around the houses has posted this information there is no mention anywhere. If you find one I would love to see it and I may have to ask if a picture would be okay to post. I love that old treehouse and smile every time I drive past it because it is a lot like H's personality. 70.180.237.215 02:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

request for a better picture

the current picture of him, IMO, is not the best quality, and not the greatest shot of him. Does anyone know where a fair use one can be obtained? BadCRC 23:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't use a recent picture, because he's looking so old now.

Seconded. That image is horrible quality. I, unfortunately, wouldn't know where to look to get a good quality fair-use image. Though it seems to me that that image probably hasn't always been the one we've used - maybe we could revert to a previous picture? Arathon 21:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ratatouille

Ratatouille--no credible source confirms it in a google search; not mentioned on the Ratatouille page. If this is true, please source it here and change it (don't revert as IJ4's date was updated too). jj 16:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

antiquarian

Since it appears that wikipedia is no longer a open site where corrections can be made by anybody, I shall post my thoughts here so a "proper" ruling can be done. Indiana Jones is an antiquarian, not an archaeologist. He is focused soley on the material remains of a culture and not the culture or people themselves. This constructs him as solely an antiquarian. Calling him an archaelogist is a mistake and any actual professor of archaelogy would be greatly unsettled for any person to beleive what Indianna Jones does is anything like what they do. This change should be made as it is important to relating a movie's depiction of events and what the real world thoughts are. The differences are there and the change from archaelogist to antiguarian should be made.

An interesting point, but ultimately flawed and incorrect. He is an archeologist. The fact that his adventures (that we have seen) tend to involve the accquisition of actual objects is irrelevant. He is a professor of archeology, as evidenced by ROTLA and IJATLC. Of course he also has a doctorate - in Archeology. He has spent many years on archeological digs - most notably under the tutelage of Abner Ravenwood. Apart from all of this, Lucas and Speilberg clearly intended him to be known as an archeologist, so even if there were any justification for labelling him as something else (there isn't) it would be disingenuous and confusing to the wikipedia reader ;). Mikejstevenson 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal

Removed the following sentence from the Star Wars section because of terrible grammar, failure to be NPOV, and irrelevance to the section topic:

After the great success of Star Wars, Ford appeared in some other great films and work with another great director Francis Coppola, among which were Apocalypse Now and The Conversation.

Soonercary 08:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I just removed this statement which, while amusing, I assume is minor vandalism: "Recently it has been uncovered that Harrison Ford is still an active Blade Runner. He has lead to the 'Retirement' of Jeff Daniels, a well known Replicant". JayKinnis 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate

Some idiot has his birthdate as July 13, 1768. Can someone please find his real birthdate and change this? Ultimen 02:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My dad

My dad, Richard Allen Berg, knew this guy when he was growing up in Park Ridge Illinois in his teens. My dad is 64. My dad also says that Harrison Ford was kind of a bully. I don't have any idea what signifigance this has, but tell me how this could have influenced Harrison. But it's cool, huh? --Homfrog^{Tell me a story!} 21:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• The talk pages of articles have the sole purpose of contributing to and making the articles better. See What is a talk page used for?). Side note: I'm not impressed. My dad (a pilot) talked to him for 2 hours about flying and planes a few years back. I'm sure thousands of common people met him.

Also, the articles have to be solely written off of proven and reliable sources. Discussing about "how could this have influenced Harrison" isn't going to get the article anywhere.Colonel Marksman 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured

Why isn't this article featured? It looks so good! Colonel Marksman 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Han Solo Turn-Down Story is a Fabrication

With verification from TFN(theforce.net)The Han Solo turn down story is a mere fabrication. Needs to be removed for the people confusing it for fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CurlyHayami (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Pictures of him

One of the two lower pictures should replace the blurry top one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.227.110.135 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Family Life

"In 2001, Ford became embroiled in a bitter paternity lawsuit regarding Washington DC area radio talk show host John Auville. DNA testing eventually revealed that Ford is not Auville's biological father."

--I don't know what about these lines catches me, but they sound kinda hokey. Should it be marked with {{cn}}? Can anyone find a source for it?