Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

Spielberg's reasons for dropping out of Indy#5 may have been his own. I get the feeling he knows he is past his prime for directing this kind of movie.

As I've said before, I think Spielberg really believed he had done a good job with 'Crystal Skull' and then it rattled his confidence when the public reaction was mixed.

I disagree. The Adventures of Tin Tin proved he could still make an purely fun adventure movie if he wanted. In many ways, that was the peak of what the Indy movies could be, or rather, the "idea" of them. I certainly don't think it's a great movie with its choices but it was fun and the most fun I had with a movie until Fury Road was released. Crystal Skull, Spielberg has lamented about since and during and there are interviews with him then and now that pretty much says he did it because he likes the Raiders movies, and George, and thought it'd be fun getting the "Indy gang" back together. Fat lot of good that did.

As far as I know about Spielberg leaving the project early on, it was over "creative differences" which to me means that he was told to do something with Indy that was antithetical to his character (again, something Spielberg had direct influence over) and that it was an unshakeable term, he'd rather not be involved at all than do it. Mangold stepping in to helm it seemed like a "make lemonade" situation. The project was going to happen in spite of Spielberg and here's someone who'll play ball and also do his best to make something decent with what he's given. What that "something" will be is what's got all of us worried about.
I'm not arguing that Spielberg couldn't deliver another decent Indy movie. I just think he may be reluctant to try it now.

Personally I would rather have Speilberg in charge than have James Mangold taking orders from Kathleen Kennedy. But it's not up to me.
There's one very simple reason Indiana Jones wears the same costume all the time. It's the same reason Darth Vader, Spiderman, Superman, Batman, and countless other larger than life characters wear basically the same clothes barring a few very minor variations.


If you're a costume designer and you're fortunate to work on a project that becomes part of the culture the way Raiders has, you don't mess with what works. The costume was just about settled upon before they even cast the role. That's how iconic and memorable it was and the reason why even the variations are debated over because it was done best in the first film. The silhoutte is unmistakeable. If you can identify a character just from their shadow, your work has transcended mere fashion by creating a narrative all it's own.

I get that the practicalities of Indy's gear doesn't always match the reality of his adventures, but design work is just as much about conveying ideas or character traits as it is about fitting an actor correctly. You subsciously know something about him just by looking at him. Film is after all, a visual medium and if a costume can eliminate the need for some exposition, all the better.

I think you guys are missing the point. It's not the costume per se... It's an 80 year old wearing the costume.

Imagine Batman still wearing the suit at the age of 80... That's just sad.
I think you guys are missing the point. It's not the costume per se... It's an 80 year old wearing the costume.

Imagine Batman still wearing the suit at the age of 80... That's just sad.
The illustration was comparing identity and the iconic status of Batman, Spiderman and Indiana Jones. When you see them, you know exactly who they are based on the Garb alone. They've ret-conned the super heroes many times over so you want Indy ret-conned? Indy doesn't need ret-conning...many actors have played Batman and Spiderman. One has played Indy in the movies. If you're not changing the actor then don't change the Garb. 80yr olds don't wear Fedora's or tan khakis? He wouldn't look out of place at all. Of course, Spiderman at 80yrs would look stupid...that's why they keep him a certain age. I think you're missing the point. Indy isn't a super hero, he's just a man. My grandfather wore the same type clothes for 40years and had his favorite hat the whole time up until he passed. He didn't look out of place at all. He looked like " Grandpa" . He had an iconic look to me .
I agree...This looks

I'm with _Psab...The Last Crusade was where it ended for me as well but if they are going to keep going they might as well keep him in his iconic look. Sorry, but Harrison Ford will never look sad in a Fedora even if he's 100yrs old. But as the saying goes, if you play with fire you're going to get burned but apparently no one seems to be learning their lesson..ahem...
I don't know Harrison Ford personally but he's already got gobs and gobs of far as we know based on his own words, he didn't like playing Han Solo any more and wanted him killed off before but he did like playing Indiana Jones. I could believe he played Han Solo again for the money but i generally believe he loves acting and to be reunited with the original cast there was a lot of pressure and maybe he wanted to get the band back together one more time. He's 80 years old with more money he can shake a stick at. I tend to believe he loves acting that's who he is. He's really good at it too. How many of us with his kind of money would continue to do what you do for a living at 80years old if you didn't love to do it? IDK, i just don't want to make a false accusation about someone's motives if i don't really know the motives. Your view is plausible though.

I may be wrong but that gobs and gobs of money deal, again I may be wrong, was a four picture deal. And he's now fulfilling that forth film with Marvel. A new deal may well have been negotiated for future marvel appearances as well as alternate and unused footage and digital recreation. Some strange times were in with contracts and such involving digital actors likeness use post mortum.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.