Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

[Pepperbone]

I have a theory that Aliens take our best and brightest when they feel they have peeked and replace them with a copy, hence the copy is not as "sharp."

James Cameron- Obviously taken after Titanic. Then the copy made Dances with Blue Aliens that Sexually Assaults Animals.

George Lucas- Obviously taken after Last Crusade. Prequals, KOTCS. Need I say more.

Spielberg- Taken after Minority Report, escaped with rage after seeing his copy make KOTCS and then the original made Lincoln and then was taken again. Maybe the original made Bridge of Spies and The BFG, but he be gone after that.

J.J. Abrams-To my surprise his Star Trek was great. Then he was obviously taken and I think they made a really bad copy. Star Trek Into Darkness, new Star Wars, etc.

Okay just having some fun after being sick for nearly two months and finally better so no one get all offended, or do.

If by "Aliens you mean "Committees" who have sucked the creativity out of making movies; then yes, you are right

Those directors made New Levels of money for Big Studios.

Studio Execs on the receiving end of that money felt it important (...) to solidify their status as Power Players by allowing marketing departments and test screenings to have more pull in what got greenlit, what didn't, and what needed re-editing.

Add evolving distribution territories and the capacity the send a movie via internet (versus shipping 10 reels at 30 pounds each to as many theaters as possible) and we have a completely different industry. It's like Phone Booth manufacturers vs iPhone manufacturers.

Also, welcome back!

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Indiana Jones and the ambiguous Woke agenda.

 

[Hovinski]

It's a chance to end on a high note. I hope they manage. No Shia please...

I'd take Shia over Phoebe Waller Feminazi every day of the week!
And I fear it will be a complete woke s**tshow. Another one in a long, long list of ruined franchises.

 

[Riceball]

If by "Aliens you mean "Committees" who have sucked the creativity out of making movies; then yes, you are right

Those directors made New Levels of money for Big Studios.

Studio Execs on the receiving end of that money felt it important (...) to solidify their status as Power Players by allowing marketing departments and test screenings to have more pull in what got greenlit, what didn't, and what needed re-editing.

Add evolving distribution territories and the capacity the send a movie via internet (versus shipping 10 reels at 30 pounds each to as many theaters as possible) and we have a completely different industry. It's like Phone Booth manufacturers vs iPhone manufacturers.

Also, welcome back!

I'd also say that as budgets for tent pole productions have sky rocketed the studios (and their execs) have become more cautious. They've become less willing to take risks when it cost 8 - 9 figures to produce a movie these days. So they fall back on what has worked in the past thinking that it would still work today. That and jump on the band wagon whenever one studio decides to take a chance and produce an original hit, all of the other studios (including the one that took the chance) now try to copy that success thinking that's what people want to see. Of course, this has been done for ages since at least the '60s & '70s when disaster movies were all the rage. Then Star Wars came out and every studio wanted to make their own Star Wars movie.

 

[batguy]

This is the crux of the problem with trying to "reinvent" or trying to make endless sequels. We all know about the lack of creativity and that any shred of artistic integrity of a property is not a concern for Hollywood, so setting that argument aside for a moment I think you raise a fair point. I mean if we're talking about the business aspect of all this and the current culture of demand, it's clear this type of movie has long past expired demand from the public. Not as a genre, but as a specific property. Who is honestly clamoring for more Indiana Jones adventures from a marketing perspective? Some die hard fans might, but they aren't the target audience for this. Hollywood is interested in getting young people's money so why try and milk an outdated property to do it? Indy just doesn't sell anymore with kids because it's not the 1980's. They couldn't do it in 2008 with Crystal Skull and those toys languished in bargain bins for years. To a kid alive now, Harrison is ancient. What kid wants to see their grand father running around beating up Nazis? A group of evildoers they have no clue about. We are just too far removed from that era in history and only adults would understand it.

Their hope is to draw in the old audience with the name recognition and the slight hope that they'll drag their children to the theater and garner new interest with their kids. The fickle interest of children and young adults is simply not a smart move to bet on. I find it staggering that this is the gamble that Hollywood wants to make rather than finding new talent in the form of wholly new content. Make new genre films, absolutely. Just don't resurrect old properties and instead invent new ones. This is why I'm always harping on that their system itself is out of date. They're relying on a business model that doesn't even meet their own needs and it's why the streaming services have decimated their box office returns for years now because Hollywood is far behind the curve. I think they've forgotten what a genre is and hold to this idea that a franchise IS a genre rather than finding new story tellers who actually understand the difference.

Sure people will love an adventure movie but as you said, the draw of Indy back in the day was the powerhouse of talent and creative influence in their production. The cast, the director, the music. Those names hold a place of distinction in the minds of my generation but to the new generation they don't and the reason is because back in their heyday they had a wealth of content that delivered entertainment but from a totally different perspective. Young people today don't care whatsoever who George Lucas or Harrison Ford, Steven Spielberg, or John Williams are. Plus think about the movies that surrounded Raiders back in the day. It came only a few years after Star Wars when Harrison was at the peak of his career and was released in the middle of those original films, years before Return of the Jedi was even released.

Star Wars literally wasn't even over yet and riding high on that success only further cemented him as a blockbuster icon when Raiders came out. You had Blade Runner, and Alien, and all of these incredibly well loved films by directors and actors which became iconic because they were taking chances and telling stories no one had seen or heard before. Now Indiana Jones and Star Wars don't stand among the same peers. They stand with Marvel movies and DC movies, and the millions of new types of shows that streaming services offer and by comparison are outdated because their sensibilities are slow paced and quaint from the perspective of the information age. Those offerings from back in my childhood weren't filled with cynicism. They were optimistic and now everyone is jaded and contrarian. They're looking to subvert and send a political message rather than offer an escape from reality. Indiana Jones was created as a respite from all that and seemingly all Hollywood wants to do is mire us in it. Which is exhausting at best and tarnishes the legacy of the property at worst.

Indiana Jones as a film franchise is literally from a different era. Not just narratively but as a movie in the film industry. In the perception of a film producer and a teenager it's a dinosaur. I keep bringing up the analogy of the high school football star who can't do anything but recount their glory days. Sometimes you just have to let it go. That goes for fans as much as it does for Hollywood. That shouldn't diminish your love for it. Letting go just lends it some dignity. Something Hollywood is happy to exploit if you let it.

I totally agree about the whole business model being outdated.

But the franchise itself still carries a ton of weight, whether it should or not. We're quick to point out that a rehashed 'Indy' won't make huge profits anymore . . . but without the Indy name it would probably do even worse.

The franchise is the new version of the star. In the 1990s people would go see anything with Al Pacino or Harrison Ford or Tom Cruise. It wasn't just because of their faces, it was because those actors had established track records of fronting good projects at the time. Their choice to do a movie was a tacit endorsement from them. And their endorsement was an indicator of where the budget & crew & other cast members ranked in the Hollywood pecking order. When a project got an endorsement from one of those heavy-hitting stars in the 1990s, it attracted more resources & good actors & crew like gravity.


Nowadays the franchise is the star. People don't say "Harrison Ford is in this so it's probably not too bad." They say "It's an Indy movie so it's probably not too bad." The studio has "invested" an entry of a valuable franchise on this movie.

 

[Psab keel]

True. It's like that interview of Anthony Mackie that I've posted a few times. He's not famous. The Falcon is famous.

 

[batguy]

True. It's like that interview of Anthony Mackie that I've posted a few times. He's not famous. The Falcon is famous.

Yeah, I've watched that clip. He nails the current environment.

 

[Jamesfett]

Looking at new set photos on The Dailey Mail, I hate to say it but Indy looks old and tired.

As much as I hate KOTCS he looked great. An older Indy for sure but still great.

 

[rockbottom]

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Sadly, that looks like my father trying to cosplay as Indy.

 

[Lightning]

I hate to say it but Indy looks old and tired.

It's not the mileage, it's the years.

 

[Axlotl]

Why is he wearing the exact same clothes in every movie? Those pants and shirt would have been destroyed 20 times over by now. Did he buy 20 pairs of each in 1934? Leather doesn't even hold up that well when you wear it every day. Where is he getting his jackets? It's not even a popular style sold in stores.
Shouldnt he be wearing bellbottoms and butterfly collars by now?

 

[Lightning]

Why is he wearing the exact same clothes in every movie? Those pants and shirt would have been destroyed 20 times over by now. Did he buy 20 pairs of each in 1934? Leather doesn't even hold up that well when you wear it every day. Where is he getting his jackets? It's not even a popular style sold in stores.
Shouldnt he be wearing bellbottoms and butterfly collars by now?

Indy probably buys his clothes bespoke from a tailor. Super easy to do in the 1930s, and still a thing in the 60s. They just pull out his patterns on file and make more. Same with the Jacket, since the jacket details change slightly every movie we know he's buying new ones when the old ones wear out.

edit: his shirt in the 1960s scenes doesn't have the pleats going down the front but the shirt in the WWII flashback does.

 

[Psab keel]

Pecards Leather Dressing. That's how leather lasts a lifetime. Though I imagine he has new ones made every few years as they wear out. Honestly the idea of him changing outfits is less concerning to me than the story. For one the costume is iconic. It's like asking why does Superman wear the same spandex suit all the time? He wears it because it's part of his identity. The same with Darth Vader. The same with Spiderman. The same with Batman. Sure there might be slight variations on the costume, but they are essentially the same because they are easily identifiable. Not just to the audience, but because again, this outfit is a part of his identity as a character. Which is one of the reasons, to my mind, the diminishing role of the bullwhip in the films as they went along is a shame because it's another item in his arsenal that sets him apart from other contemporary action heroes.

Not to mention the fact that one of the signs of aging is that you don't typically wear clothes that are in line with the current fashion trends. How often do you see your grandfather wearing skinny jeans or whatever kids wear these days?

 

[robstyle]

I have an old skool leather jacket from the early 80's that's not even worse for wear. A couple others from the 1950's that show its age in appearance but are solid as can be. The only leather jackets that wore out from cheap materials or shoddy craftsmanship are from the 90's and on. Adding to that I still have Levi's from the 80's I still wear. So yes, technically in five decades time I'm still wearing the same pants and jacket.

 

[Pepperbone]

Sadly, that looks like my father trying to cosplay as Indy.

Yeah. At this point it's more like a costume than just clothing.

 

[rockbottom]

I guess I’m the only one that thinks he really looks fantastic there

 

[Psab keel]

In that shot he looks good. Others not so much.

 

[Axlotl]

I have an old skool leather jacket from the early 80's that's not even worse for wear. A couple others from the 1950's that show its age in appearance but are solid as can be. The only leather jackets that wore out from cheap materials or shoddy craftsmanship are from the 90's and on. Adding to that I still have Levi's from the 80's I still wear. So yes, technically in five decades time I'm still wearing the same pants and jacket.

My equivalent of Indy's jacket is a rodeo jacket I found in a thrift store 20 years ago. It's just a chunk of thick cow leather cut and sewn into a jacket shape. It doesn't even have a liner. It's made for protection, and that's what I've used it for.
It's falling apart.
Indy's jacket doesn't even look like cowhide in Raiders, it looks like lamb. There's no way it would have survived being dragged on the ground behind that truck. It would have protected him, sure, but it would have been destroyed in the process. Even my rodeo jacket would have been destroyed, and that's what it was made for.

I've also got a collection of vintage leather jackets, and the ones I wear regularly all have zippers that are pulling away and need repaired. Leather's tough stuff, but cotton stitching ain't.

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Say what you will about Indy 4, but if we’d never had that move, we’d never have learned that climbing inside a refrigerator is how you survive a nuclear attack!