Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

[Psab keel]

It'll be a fish out of water story. Indy is too old fashioned and the new cast shows him how out of date and backwards his ideas are. He'll be a grumpy old man who is set in his ways and often depicted as stoddering or outright comedic and the new generation will show him the light. By the end the two will meet somewhere in the middle where they can appreciate the other's perspective and Indy will pass his gear to his successor as a sign of respect.

The franchise will be retitled Indiana Jane with plans for continued adventures with the new female protagonist and when it fails to land with audiences they'll regroup in a year or two citing the failure being the result of sexist trolls. They'll attempt to reboot it again and recast Indy with the "it" actor of the day and set it in the 1940s. Close enough to the original trilogy to get a whiff of the familiar but far enough away to avoid being labeled a soft reboot. Harrison may have a cameo or at the least be given an executive producer credit to appease the fans for his lack of involvement. They'll get Kasdan to write the script or direct and John Williams will score it if he's still around by then.

Fans will be split on the new take and debate endlessly online all the while teenagers will flood to the theater to see the latest Marvel offering only to ignore half of it while they watch themselves on Tik Tok and paying no mind to that Kentucky Jones movie much less the new Marvel movie they paid to see with their friends.

Sounds awesome!! I can't wait for this! Yay Hollywood!

 

[CopperRevan]

The real question is why? Why ressurect a dead actor when you could just tell a whole new story? Are writers and producers that creatively bankrupt that they couldn't conceive of a different idea altogether? There's a sad irony in all of this where some would view the possibilities of this technology as endless, yet it has thus far been used a crutch to not have to think of a story outside the confines of the known. Yeah, it's a neat parlor trick, but the charm isn't as endearing as people make it out to be. There is something truly cold and dead about it and it honestly creeps me out.

I don't think anyone benefits from getting more of the same stories over and over and it certainly taints the credibility of said story to rehash or continue it far past when it should have ended. I know I'm in the minority on this but it's something I've come to feel very strongly about in the last few years. Movies are timeless not because they have endless sequels and reboots but because they were so well constructed that they are self contained classics. If it means a movie is a stand alone, or it's part of a trilogy or what have you, just let it go with dignity.

When I have kids I'll share with them the movies that I loved the most but I have no interest in seeing those films rebooted to fit my children's sensibilities. I want them to have their own stories from totally different places that they can call classics. I really don't understand Gen X's obsession with trying to rewrite pop culture history to fit modern tastes. A story loses it's power and meaning the more you try and rewrite it or continue it too long. Just let it be.

Indy 5 should have never been a thing. Indy 4 should have never been a thing. It should have ended on a high note with Last Crusade. I've never seen it, but I know fans of Firefly were crushed when it was cancelled. Do you honestly think after all this time if they brought it back that it would fare any better than any of these other franchises would? No. It wouldn't. Sometimes you just have to let things be.

i couldn't agree more...all i could picture after reading your response was this:

 

[Axlotl]

"Kentucky Jones". Lol.

Why isn't Hollywood clamoring to reboot those Abbot & Costello and Bob Hope movies that I loved as a kid? You know, the ones where they're wearing pith hats in the jungle and there's a guy in a gorilla suit.

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Passing the torch always seems futile to me. The dumbest ‘passing of the torch’ ever was Star Trek Generations.

Kirk and Picard together on an adventure to ‘officially’ pass the torch to The Next Generation.

Of course, The Next Generation just wrapped a 7 year run on TV and was making movies now.

 

[Psab keel]

I'm all for making genre films. A throwback adventure serial movie or a film noir or a romance, or horror, or sci-fi, or whatever the genre. I just don't think it's really smart to use an existing property to do it. At least if the genre is old but the plot and characters are new I can give it a fair shake. Stranger Things to me is a great example of taking an old idea and trying something new with it. Even if you hate it you have to give them credit for not just doing the same thing Hollywood has been doing for well over a decade now. That's why it feels so refreshing. Stop with the reboots, the sequels, the spin offs, prequels, passing the torch. Just move on with life. For an industry that prides itself on being so progressive, they're creatively stuck in the past.

 

[Laspector]

"Kentucky Jones"........Then just think--48 more reboots to go!

 

[harrisonp]

I think Jungle Cruise did a decent job with the old adventure genre. There’s arguably a female empowerment angle if you really want to split hairs but it’s not the core of the story in my opinion. I don’t think it’s a great movie, for some other story based reasons but it’s decent and it shows that the era can be played in without everything being apologetics. I would like to see more adventure stories set in fictionalized versions of our past.

There’s a great book series “Tales of the Ketty Jay” that does that for me. There are familiar tropes and locations but it isn’t our world.

 

[Psab keel]

I never saw Jungle Cruise but that's an example where there's an attempt to use the genre and tell a totally new story. I have to give credit where it's due and from what I've heard it a was a fun adventure movie. I know the Mrs. wants to check it out at some point.

 

[harrisonp]

It owes much to the things that came before it, but like you said it at least is a solid attempt at telling a new story albeit through a familiar lens. There are some genuine laughs in it for me too which I was kind of surprised by.

 

[HMSwolfe]

I never saw Jungle Cruise but that's an example where there's an attempt to use the genre and tell a totally new story. I have to give credit where it's due and from what I've heard it a was a fun adventure movie. I know the Mrs. wants to check it out at some point.

It’s not worth it…it could have been another Romancing the Stone but it turned out worse than Jewel of the Nile.

 

[Psab keel]

Fair enough. At least I can say that the attempt was there. I'd take that over any reboot of something I actually care about. I'm sure I'll still see it at some point though because my wife has a crush on The Rock. He seems a charming fellow.

As far as I'm concerned Indy rode off into the sunset and that was the end of the story. Crystal Skull was a sort of an anomally and despite not liking the story I do love his gear in that iteration. The only thing about Indy 5 that I'm looking forward to is renewed interest in the gear and props and the deluge of availablity of both for collectors.

 

[Egon Spengler]

Fair enough. At least I can say that the attempt was there. I'd take that over any reboot of something I actually care about. I'm sure I'll still see it at some point though because my wife has a crush on The Rock. He seems a charming fellow.

As far as I'm concerned Indy rode off into the sunset and that was the end of the story. Crystal Skull was a sort of an anomally and despite not liking the story I do love his gear in that iteration. The only thing about Indy 5 that I'm looking forward to is renewed interest in the gear and props and the deluge of availablity of both for collectors.

Yep. It's a Trilogy. Last Crusade ended it perfectly. Everything after is a cash grab soulless pile of uninspired garbage.

 

[Pepperbone]

Yeah and guess who they hired. Phoebe. Waller. Bridge. Yeah...

Myeah.
Nothing against her. It's the casting decision that's questionable.
I don't know, maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Ron]

Forget passing a torch, just put Chris Pratt in the fedora and take the stories back to the 30’s.

I was hoping they would have cast him as Nathan Drake. He would've been perfect. Much better than Tom Holland.

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Indy 5 will be like The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. A five part trilogy.

 

[harrisonp]

Chris Pratt in the fedora will be a HARD sell for me. He has worn out his welcome IMO. Same with Tom Holland. Seems like both those guys get thrown at any role.

 

[batguy]

Recasting Indy -

It's the same principle as recasting Bond. Everyone floats a bunch of names who are 43yo and well-established and expensive. That's what the end of a Bond actor's run is supposed to look like, not the beginning.

Rule of thumb: If you recognize him by name (without googling up his pictures & history), then he's already too old & expensive.


Here's a weird idea. Hollywood used to do it all the time a few generations ago: They could try casting a 30yo. But I mean a 30yo guy who actually looks that age, not one who was still playing teenagers last year. You would get somebody who is cheap, looks the right age for the role, and IS the right age for the role! What a concept!

 

[Pepperbone]

Here's a weird old idea. Hollywood used to do it all the time a few generations ago: They could try casting a 30yo. But I mean a 30yo guy who actually looks that age, not one who was still playing a teenager last year. You would get somebody who is cheap, looks the right age for the role, and IS the right age for the role! What a concept!

In order to do that, Hollywood needs>

 

[Bigdaddy]

Recasting Indy -

It's the same principle as recasting Bond. Everyone floats a bunch of names who are 43yo and well-established and expensive. That's what the end of a Bond actor's run is supposed to look like, not the beginning.

Rule of thumb: If you recognize him by name (without googling up his pictures & history), then he's already too old & expensive.


Here's a weird idea. Hollywood used to do it all the time a few generations ago: They could try casting a 30yo. But I mean a 30yo guy who actually looks that age, not one who was still playing teenagers last year. You would get somebody who is cheap, looks the right age for the role, and IS the right age for the role! What a concept!

Like Pattinson as Batman?

 

[Psab keel]

To me the glaring difference between casting and recasting Bond is that Bond existed in fiction before he was ever committed to film which would naturally lend itself to different interpretations. Adapting a book or series of books is a totally different animal than Indiana Jones which was created for film. A visual medium. Indy on the other hand was created around Harrison Ford. I know Tom Selleck was originally cast, but Harrison made the role of Indy his own. To me casting someone else in the role simply won't work. It didn't work for Solo and no I don't think Anthony Ingruber would have been a good choice either. Plus Harrison to my mind is even more tied to Indiana Jones than Han Solo because it's clear he genuinely loves the character. It might have been a different scenario had Indy been recast every few years but Harrison is the only person who played him on film. I know he was played by two different actors in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicals but I'm just talking the films. It's hard to picture anyone else playing him.