Indiana Jones 5 officially announced
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Crazy… I can’t comment because I’m afraid of being banned for involving politics lol
Did you see the Marvels thread? Apparently that’s not a rule anymore. Half of the posters there should be insta/permabanned based on that rule.
KramStaar
Sr Member
Disney and I spoke about a poster back in December 2022 but as is their prerogative, they decided to go in another direction
Since I have already done poster art for all of the other Indy movies, I figured I would finish this one too
24 x 34 inches, acrylic paint and polychrome pencils on board
Mark
Since I have already done poster art for all of the other Indy movies, I figured I would finish this one too
24 x 34 inches, acrylic paint and polychrome pencils on board
Mark
Paul Andrew
Master Member
Very reminiscent of the old school posters
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
My… goodness! Awesome doesn’t begin to describe it.
VonMagnum
Sr Member
I finally watched this movie. Yeah, I was in a real hurry after reading all the bad reviews....
I was at a relatives house so it wasn't on my 92" home theater with 19 speaker Atmos, only 5.1, but it did have 4K HDR so details like de-aging probably looked better on a smaller screen.
I didn't think it was quite as bad as some said, but it wasn't exactly gripping either. I would have preferred the whole movie be in the 1940s instead of old Indy. I don't think the device they chose made any sense as we have the entire Antikythera mechanism (such as it is). It was in horrible condition, but not broken into two (perfect condition) pieces and our recreation doesn't look like the movie device at all.
Maybe I missed something in the dialog? Was that shipwreck one supposed to be something else? I suppose the whole thing was in a parallel universe given the bad guy got them to the moon when that was Von Braun (who claimed to be forced to join the SS or be killed and had no love for the nazi political party) not someone named Jurgen Voller who wanted to be the new fuhrer.
It just seems like they could have picked a more legendary object we don't actually have and know what it can do (the Spear of Destiny itself would have been a better choice, for example to be the primary object as few think the one on Austria is the real thing). Knowing it's BS from the start, it completely lacks impact compared to something as mysterious as the Ark of the Covenant or Holy Grail right from the start.
I had a hard time figuring out why the black lady was helping the Nazis as they didn't make it clear who she was, other than apparently working for the President, but putting up with them murdering Americans made her complicit, IMO. It should be no surprise they shot her, however.
I didn't know side-kicks were a common thing. They seemed to be aiming for a Short-Round comparison, but I thought that was a little weird in Temple of Doom too. Oh I just picked up a random kid pick-pocketing me and take him on my adventures.... Then there's the flying a plane when he's never flown one before...in a massive thunderstorm...at night.... Stories like this need to have some level of believability, don't they?
Phoebe's character was reduced to a mere thief. I guess her dad taught her morals well. I guess she wanted to continue her character off of Fleabag?
Sallah and Marion were barely used. No one liked Indy's kid much, but killing him off and breaking up Indy and Marion after Crystal Skull bringing them together seemed a bit like Star Wars breaking up Han Solo and Leia. Harrison just can't catch a break, I guess....
Overall, it felt more like a TV show adventure. The chase in Morocco was inferior to previous movie chases (aren't you supposed to go bigger in sequels so it has something more interesting than newer movies?) I think I'd prefer a proper movie with a de-aged Indy than watching miserable Indy whine about drinking Kalli's blood (which obviously wasn't).
I was at a relatives house so it wasn't on my 92" home theater with 19 speaker Atmos, only 5.1, but it did have 4K HDR so details like de-aging probably looked better on a smaller screen.
I didn't think it was quite as bad as some said, but it wasn't exactly gripping either. I would have preferred the whole movie be in the 1940s instead of old Indy. I don't think the device they chose made any sense as we have the entire Antikythera mechanism (such as it is). It was in horrible condition, but not broken into two (perfect condition) pieces and our recreation doesn't look like the movie device at all.
Maybe I missed something in the dialog? Was that shipwreck one supposed to be something else? I suppose the whole thing was in a parallel universe given the bad guy got them to the moon when that was Von Braun (who claimed to be forced to join the SS or be killed and had no love for the nazi political party) not someone named Jurgen Voller who wanted to be the new fuhrer.
It just seems like they could have picked a more legendary object we don't actually have and know what it can do (the Spear of Destiny itself would have been a better choice, for example to be the primary object as few think the one on Austria is the real thing). Knowing it's BS from the start, it completely lacks impact compared to something as mysterious as the Ark of the Covenant or Holy Grail right from the start.
I had a hard time figuring out why the black lady was helping the Nazis as they didn't make it clear who she was, other than apparently working for the President, but putting up with them murdering Americans made her complicit, IMO. It should be no surprise they shot her, however.
I didn't know side-kicks were a common thing. They seemed to be aiming for a Short-Round comparison, but I thought that was a little weird in Temple of Doom too. Oh I just picked up a random kid pick-pocketing me and take him on my adventures.... Then there's the flying a plane when he's never flown one before...in a massive thunderstorm...at night.... Stories like this need to have some level of believability, don't they?
Phoebe's character was reduced to a mere thief. I guess her dad taught her morals well. I guess she wanted to continue her character off of Fleabag?
Sallah and Marion were barely used. No one liked Indy's kid much, but killing him off and breaking up Indy and Marion after Crystal Skull bringing them together seemed a bit like Star Wars breaking up Han Solo and Leia. Harrison just can't catch a break, I guess....
Overall, it felt more like a TV show adventure. The chase in Morocco was inferior to previous movie chases (aren't you supposed to go bigger in sequels so it has something more interesting than newer movies?) I think I'd prefer a proper movie with a de-aged Indy than watching miserable Indy whine about drinking Kalli's blood (which obviously wasn't).
Unfortunate indeed.
drusselmeyer
Master Member
Hey, I thought there was a rule about spoilers! I haven't seen this one yet! One of these days it will be on TV and I want to be surprised!
Solo4114
Master Member
I think the statute of limitations on spoilers is something like a year post-release. >shrug<
I still haven't seen it (and won't), but the thing about Mutt dying and it breaking up Indy and Marion just feels like "We need a reason to not have Karen in this one. Go write one that adds to the drama." And this gets me back to a point re: all these "legacy sequels" (Star Wars, Indy, etc.).
One of the cardinal rules of writing is that there has to be some kind of dramatic tension, some complication in the story. I tend to think that modern screenwriters take this notion and turn it into "Our heroes must be broken at the start of the film, and it's the adventure that makes them whole again." I don't think this is actually necessary in every case, though. I mean, you can imagine a story in which everything starts out hunky dory for our aged heroes, and then their help is needed because there's a looming threat that compels them into action. BUT you don't necessarily have to have ruined their lives before the story starts just to get them off their butt, ya know? (This is one of the reasons I ultimately fault JJ for the things that irritate people about TLJ rather than RJ, but that's a different discussion.)
The thing is, you know that writers cannot resist the "Oh no, broken hero" trope these days. You know it. It's one of the reasons why I keep saying "You can't go home again" when it comes to these franchises. You know if a modern writer gets their hands on the franchise (whichever one it is), their first move will be "Ok, so, why has nothing happened for this character in the last 20-30 years? Ah, I know. Because they're broken. Because the gang split up. Because they became an alcoholic. Because after the war, society cast them aside instead of treating them as a hero. Because they're traumatized by their past experiences." You get the idea. On and on it goes.
And to be clear, none of this is necessarily bad writing. It's just...common. It's what people do nowadays because they think it makes for a more interesting, nuanced character. And in many cases, yeah, it can. But the thing is, with legacy heroes, I don't think audiences really want the experience of seeing their hero as a broken down embittered wreck of their former selves.
You guys ever hear that Patton Oswalt routine where he talks about going back in time to beat George Lucas to death with a shovel so he never makes the prequels? It's funny in its own right, but it's kind of like the obverse of that. The central joke in the bit is about how Lucas seems obsessed with showing characters that Oswalt loves, but as little kids instead of their super cool adult versions. This trope with legacy sequel heroes seems like the obverse of that because instead of "And you get to see him as a little kid!" it's "And you get to see him as a broken down old man!"
Just...leave it alone. You can't go home again.
I still haven't seen it (and won't), but the thing about Mutt dying and it breaking up Indy and Marion just feels like "We need a reason to not have Karen in this one. Go write one that adds to the drama." And this gets me back to a point re: all these "legacy sequels" (Star Wars, Indy, etc.).
One of the cardinal rules of writing is that there has to be some kind of dramatic tension, some complication in the story. I tend to think that modern screenwriters take this notion and turn it into "Our heroes must be broken at the start of the film, and it's the adventure that makes them whole again." I don't think this is actually necessary in every case, though. I mean, you can imagine a story in which everything starts out hunky dory for our aged heroes, and then their help is needed because there's a looming threat that compels them into action. BUT you don't necessarily have to have ruined their lives before the story starts just to get them off their butt, ya know? (This is one of the reasons I ultimately fault JJ for the things that irritate people about TLJ rather than RJ, but that's a different discussion.)
The thing is, you know that writers cannot resist the "Oh no, broken hero" trope these days. You know it. It's one of the reasons why I keep saying "You can't go home again" when it comes to these franchises. You know if a modern writer gets their hands on the franchise (whichever one it is), their first move will be "Ok, so, why has nothing happened for this character in the last 20-30 years? Ah, I know. Because they're broken. Because the gang split up. Because they became an alcoholic. Because after the war, society cast them aside instead of treating them as a hero. Because they're traumatized by their past experiences." You get the idea. On and on it goes.
And to be clear, none of this is necessarily bad writing. It's just...common. It's what people do nowadays because they think it makes for a more interesting, nuanced character. And in many cases, yeah, it can. But the thing is, with legacy heroes, I don't think audiences really want the experience of seeing their hero as a broken down embittered wreck of their former selves.
You guys ever hear that Patton Oswalt routine where he talks about going back in time to beat George Lucas to death with a shovel so he never makes the prequels? It's funny in its own right, but it's kind of like the obverse of that. The central joke in the bit is about how Lucas seems obsessed with showing characters that Oswalt loves, but as little kids instead of their super cool adult versions. This trope with legacy sequel heroes seems like the obverse of that because instead of "And you get to see him as a little kid!" it's "And you get to see him as a broken down old man!"
Just...leave it alone. You can't go home again.
The conversation probably started with "We need a reason not to have Shia in this one." And then keeping Karen Allen out didn't hurt either, since Indy needed to be all broken so Fleabag could save him (or replace him, or whatever else was in the multiple other endings they shot).
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
They could just as easily had Mutt serving in the war at the time. Indy and Marion happily married, and when he’s called to help, she tells him to “Go ahead and go. Have one last adventure. I’ll be here when you get home.”
I’m tired of the current trend of our heroes being broken and downtrodden in their old age. Or jaded because of what life tossed them.
This is Indiana Jones for crying out loud. Just reflecting on his life would give him reason the be satisfied.
I’m tired of the current trend of our heroes being broken and downtrodden in their old age. Or jaded because of what life tossed them.
This is Indiana Jones for crying out loud. Just reflecting on his life would give him reason the be satisfied.
Solo4114
Master Member
I mean, yeah, probably, or something as simple as "We have to explain Mutt's absence. So....dead in Vietnam" and from there, if you take the characters seriously, you play out what would happen. Well, Marion would be devastated, and Indy, never really a great dad to begin with, would probably be kind of absent or disconnected or whatever, and that'd piss off Marion, which would inevitably lead to divorce.
But, like, this is my core point: the starting point is not simply "Mutt? Oh, he's actually working as a mechanic now. Has nothing to do with adventuring anymore. Goes by 'Hank' these days, except to his old motorcycle buddies." The starting point is instinctively "Something bad must have happened." Why? Because it's more interesting, because it's grist for the drama mill, because it creates character conflict with other characters and even moreso within themselves, and that's inherently interesting to screenwriters. It's good drama, in the abstract.
Like, if you take it outside of the franchise and were just telling a story about an old former treasure-hunting adventurer who comes out of retirement for one last caper, which is more interesting to hook audiences (in theory): (A) he's living his best life, surrounded by a happy family, but something external drags him out of it, or (B) he's living amid the wreckage of the relationships that his former job has wrought, and it takes some younger, pluckier adventurer to reignite the fire in him. In most cases, the writer will dive headfirst into B because it's easier to write. The drama's easier, the arc for the character is easier, etc.
But that's just it. It's easier because it's been done so much. It's easy to write because the archetypes and tropes write themselves in that scenario. You can bang out an "Old man with regrets gets a second chance" story a hell of a lot easier than you can "Happily retired hero steps back into the fight for one last hurrah."
And again, outside of franchise stories, I think the instinct is generally correct that audiences will prefer the "broken guy" narrative. But within franchises, I think enough of the audience rejects them that it's just not worth pursuing. And if that means "Well, then the story would be boring," well...ok. Cool. Maybe that's not a story that needs to be told, then.
Solo4114
Master Member
See, but that'd be boring. Or at least, I suspect that's what a lot of people writing think.
I mean, I've got a theory about how, for example, the Sequel Trilogy for Star Wars could've worked while accommodating the "happily ever after" ending of ROTJ. It's not what they did, though. They set stuff up so that everything was broken right from the outset, because they needed somewhere for the drama to go and they're too myopic about how that occurs. It's never enough for the heroes to be happily married, retired, whatever, and then "Oh s**t," something really bad comes along that forces them into action.
I mean, ultimately, I think that there's a portion of the audience that just doesn't care one way or the other. Broken hero, hero with a good life, whatever. They're just here for the ride, so entertain them and they're good. But there's another portion of the audience that, like yourself, I think is getting tired of the trope of broken heroes who find redemption in their last(?) adventure. So, if part of the audience doesn't care, and part of the audience doesn't want it...maybe stop doing it.
And, again, if that ultimately means "But these stories are gonna be dumb, boring, and pointless to tell," ok, great. Don't tell them, then. Tell a different story about different characters instead of constantly trying to mine legacy content. I think this is a real disconnect between the people making and writing these films and the audience they're trying to sell the films to.
Similar threads
