Indiana Jones 5 officially announced
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
I liked Logan for the most part. I do think the movie is a bit sloppy and dives in quality after the farm sequence (2nd Act), the problem for me is...What does Paul Greengrass offer as a director? I can't really say anything special of anything he's done. 22 July is a serviceable drama, and the Bourne sequels are also just serviceable. I think he's a serviceable hired-gun director. He shoots what studios need and will meet somewhere in the middle with what they require and what the narrative needs.
That's exactly what Disney wants but his films just turn out---I don't know---tepid. It's neither one way or another; never bad but also never truly great. Is that all anyone can hope for at this point? A meddling, luke-warm entry? I'd rather not try at all if it can't be something special.
That's exactly what Disney wants but his films just turn out---I don't know---tepid. It's neither one way or another; never bad but also never truly great. Is that all anyone can hope for at this point? A meddling, luke-warm entry? I'd rather not try at all if it can't be something special.
Prop Collector
Sr Member
I think Indy, just like Star Wars, is fairly limited despite being a globe trotting adventure story and there aren't a lot of stories that could be told without serious repetition. Besides this will likely result in some sort of soft reboot with a younger Indy type taking the mantle. Not that I want it to go that way but these tent poles aren't exactly run by the most imaginative types. I hate to be cynical about it but time has always proven me wrong when I get too optimistic about these.
You get stories by committee or fan boys who want to see their action figures do cool flips where you get nothing of substance, or some ego maniac who thinks they can upend the established mythos so they can put their stamp (ie. blight) on the story.
I want to be excited to see another Indiana Jones movie but some things are best when left alone. Sometimes less really is more.
You get stories by committee or fan boys who want to see their action figures do cool flips where you get nothing of substance, or some ego maniac who thinks they can upend the established mythos so they can put their stamp (ie. blight) on the story.
I want to be excited to see another Indiana Jones movie but some things are best when left alone. Sometimes less really is more.
Hmmmmm….well the supposed reason why Spielberg passed directing duties does not bode well for the story for this film….
Steven Spielberg exited 'Indiana Jones 5' after plot disagreements
These these comments may also indicate where Disney intends to take the franchise, post-Harrison Ford, I suppose:
“… Spielberg also acknowledged that the upcoming Indiana Jones 5—which we want him to know he doesn’t have to make—will be the last one with Harrison Ford. That being said, Spielberg is “pretty sure” the series will go on without its original star.”
Steven Spielberg exited 'Indiana Jones 5' after plot disagreements
These these comments may also indicate where Disney intends to take the franchise, post-Harrison Ford, I suppose:
“… Spielberg also acknowledged that the upcoming Indiana Jones 5—which we want him to know he doesn’t have to make—will be the last one with Harrison Ford. That being said, Spielberg is “pretty sure” the series will go on without its original star.”
Last edited:
Guess it's a good thing that he's not directing this film then. James Mangold is.
Not to derail this into a Logan discussion but when they buried the professor, Logan smashing the truck with the shovel out of despair, and everything after he gets impaled by the log is some great movie making IMO.
Maybe we get lucky on this Indy and Mangold is motivated to make his own and its great?
JPH
Sr Member
How about....
Indy finds out his wife, the one that died in a plane crash, was cheating on him. And after finding out in the first few minutes of the film, we add a murderer..er
or...
Indy becomes president, and terrorist try to take over his plane. Name the movie something cool, like, "President's Jet."
or...
Indy befriends a hairy dude, and becomes like a swashbuckler on the high seas, only to have an emo Shia LeBeuff kill him!
or...
Indy finds out his wife, the one that died in a plane crash, was cheating on him. And after finding out in the first few minutes of the film, we add a murderer..er
or...
Indy becomes president, and terrorist try to take over his plane. Name the movie something cool, like, "President's Jet."
or...
Indy befriends a hairy dude, and becomes like a swashbuckler on the high seas, only to have an emo Shia LeBeuff kill him!
or...
I theorized that maybe Spielberg stepped away so as to avoid having to choose sides between Kennedy/ Marshall and Lucas if the rumors of a strained relationship between the two are to be believed. Though ultimately the movie will either sink or swim so it's not all that important.
Laspector
Master Member
For the life of me I just can't see anything good coming from this. Yeah, I liked Logan, but I don't want a "think piece" about Indy dealing with old age or dementia or death or whatever.
Have they given a timeline for this one yet? Due to Ford's age it is going to have to be in the 1960s or 70s, right? I don't think Indy will work well with Vietnam. Maybe something about a faked moon landing? Kennedy assassination? Or should they just totally ignore what history went on and just concentrate on something like Atlantis or some other fanciful Macguffin?
Have they given a timeline for this one yet? Due to Ford's age it is going to have to be in the 1960s or 70s, right? I don't think Indy will work well with Vietnam. Maybe something about a faked moon landing? Kennedy assassination? Or should they just totally ignore what history went on and just concentrate on something like Atlantis or some other fanciful Macguffin?
matt1
Active Member
I agree with you about a "think piece". That would be my concern as well. Fortune and glory
Riceball
Master Member
That's why I always felt that Indy worked best in the 20s and 30s during the "golden age" of exploration. The world was so much smaller back then, we knew so little about the world outside of North America and Europe. The closer you get to the present day, the less, in my opinion, Indy gets and the less room you have for him to move around.
I know that a lot of people here hate reboots and remakes, but if any series needed a reboot to continue it's Indy. Granted that it probably should have been left alone after Indy 3 but if you had to make an Indy 4, it should have been a reboot with a new (much younger) actor as Indy set back in the '20s or '30s.
I don't want or need to see Indy in space. Are they going to have him tape his fedora to his space helmet? C'mon. It was tough enough seeing him interact with Aliens in Indy 4. I don't want or need to see him punching Soviets while floating in orbit. Space Cowboys was a fun movie but I don't want to see the Indiana Jones version.
I also don't want to see Indy fighting some sort of ideological war either. Plus the closer the character gets to the present time, the entire story loses it's romanticism. Besides, the whole concept was a throw back to the adventure serials which idealized the past. Star Wars and Indiana Jones were both romantic adventures and when you place scenarios from modern day (or similar circumstances) into them, the story feels off balance because it's trying to reconcile the idealism of the past with the cynicism of the present. In the hands of the wrong writer it could feel disjointed.
I can't really see Indy being recast either. The comparison between Indy and Bond is often made but unlike Bond, Indy was created for the cinema so to recast Harrison feels more out of place than doing different interpretations of a character that existed in literature first (which would naturally lend itself to different iterations.) Bond evolved and can continue to evolve because the concept of a spy has the potential to change, whereas Indiana Jones as a concept is rooted in a certain time, which can only evolve so much before it gets stale. The only reason the timeline of the movie has shifted so far into the "future" ie. the 1960's is to account for Harrison's age, which is just more evidence that the character is tied to Harrison Ford alone.
So the only logical answer is that they will reboot the series in some way. Then again if they set it in the past and recast Harrison to tell earlier adventures with the character then they have to navigate the waters of trying to not upset a modern audience with outdated or offensive sentiments from the past. The more I think about it, the more potential I think this idea of cashing in on Indy could fail miserably.
I also don't want to see Indy fighting some sort of ideological war either. Plus the closer the character gets to the present time, the entire story loses it's romanticism. Besides, the whole concept was a throw back to the adventure serials which idealized the past. Star Wars and Indiana Jones were both romantic adventures and when you place scenarios from modern day (or similar circumstances) into them, the story feels off balance because it's trying to reconcile the idealism of the past with the cynicism of the present. In the hands of the wrong writer it could feel disjointed.
I can't really see Indy being recast either. The comparison between Indy and Bond is often made but unlike Bond, Indy was created for the cinema so to recast Harrison feels more out of place than doing different interpretations of a character that existed in literature first (which would naturally lend itself to different iterations.) Bond evolved and can continue to evolve because the concept of a spy has the potential to change, whereas Indiana Jones as a concept is rooted in a certain time, which can only evolve so much before it gets stale. The only reason the timeline of the movie has shifted so far into the "future" ie. the 1960's is to account for Harrison's age, which is just more evidence that the character is tied to Harrison Ford alone.
So the only logical answer is that they will reboot the series in some way. Then again if they set it in the past and recast Harrison to tell earlier adventures with the character then they have to navigate the waters of trying to not upset a modern audience with outdated or offensive sentiments from the past. The more I think about it, the more potential I think this idea of cashing in on Indy could fail miserably.
Last edited:
VonMagnum
Sr Member
Perhaps they're going to use that de-aging stuff to the max on this film. A younger stand-in will do all the stunts and they'll replace his head with younger Harrison Ford de-aged. It'll purposely look slightly fake and at the end Indy wakes up and realizes he's been in something like The Matrix or the 13th Floor all along....
Well, the director has been “teasing” the 1960’s…
‘Indiana Jones 5’: Director James Mangold Teasing A 1960’s Setting?
If they were using Ford’s “true” age, 40 years have lapsed since Raiders so the film SHOULD take place in 1976 and Indy should be around age 79/80.
But, I guess they are going to have us believe that an almost 80 year old actor is portraying a 60 something year old man (given this is supposed to be only 25-30 years after Raiders??)
Drinking from the Holy Grail must have robbed him of a few years of life, I guess.
For context…this is Harrison Ford around the age of 60, at a 2002 film festival:
And here he is today…
The guy is in good shape for his age, but they will really be stretching it to say that he is supposed to be a character in his early-to-mid 60’s.
Last edited:
Lightning
Master Member
Harrison Ford aged really well, he looks way younger than 60 there. Get some good makeup and hair dye on him and he can pass for way younger than he is. I'm not worried about the actor it's the script that matters.
You may have a point there. A generous coat of paint and the application of the miracle hair tonic of Just For Men, and Indy will look like he’s in his early 40’s again, let alone in his 60’s.
Why, just look at Mick Jagger. The man doesn’t look a day over 30!
Last edited:
Exactly. Indy is a character firmly rooted in that era. He even felt out of place to me in the 1950's despite it being relatively close to the '30s.
Rather than rebooting/recasting, how about we just get a new original adventure character for a change? Crazy idea I know. The irony is if today's established franchise mindset had existed back then, there would not have been an Indy.
Lucas/Spielberg: "We have an idea for a movie about a dashing archeologist who fights Nazis and escapes booby trapped tombs. We even have the perfect actor in mind."
Paramount exec: "Nah, let's just remake 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre' instead. Much less risky. Get me Humphrey Bogart!"
Paramount lackey: "Uh, he's no longer alive, sir."
Exec: "Damn! If only we could digitally superimpose his face onto another actor."
Lackey: "Or we could try this new character they're proposing."
Exec: "You're fired."
Last edited:
Similar threads
