Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

Like Mark Hamill before the release of TLJ, Harrison Ford can't really say anything specific good or bad about how the character of Indiana Jones is written for this movie...the real blockbuster for me is, once it's over, listening to what he has to say afterwards...If it's remotely as honest as Hamill's interviews, it should be riveting. I agree with poopapapapalps...No one wants the movie to fail...especially when it's the last time seeing him don the fedora, and I hate being pessimistic even though I find myself there a lot with films lately. But you have to be honest and call a spade a spade. We wouldn't be in this dilemma if they just " let it go" when they should of ...when they were supposed to. Now, us fans are conflicted because we're loyal to Ford and to the character itself and we're torn whether or not to support the actor or stop paying them to keep ruining characters over and over and over again. We all are accountable to the problem or the solution one way or another so we know a choice has to be made. Watch or not. Most of us will cave which is what they are betting on and once they make their initial lump sum in the first week, they could care less what happens after. We are the junkies and they are more than eager to deal the junk. Idk...I guess we all can just wait for Back to the Future 4...or E.T. 2...lol...sheesh!!
 
Should HAVE.
We say "should've", a contraction of "should have".
It sounds like "should of", but I assure you it's not. It's "should have"
Could have. Would have. Same thing.
Sorry, but I see this everywhere now, like 20 times a day, and it's really starting to infuriate me.
 
Which is why like so many things coming from Lucasfilm, I won't watch this. I've been voting with my wallet for a few years now and as much as I dont want this, or anything from Lucasfilm to suck, I've come to realize no matter how much I love a character or story, I'm not loyal to the brand, but loyal to the quality of the writing. So much so that I don't want the legacy of these things tainted by inferior and unnecessary continuations.

When stories reach a natural conclusion I have a much harder time getting into the idea of, "just when you thought it was over, there was one more adventure!" It's the equivalent of ending an amazing bedtime story that your grandparents told you, only to have your younger brother tell you an alternate story the following night. It may have the same characters and maybe a neat idea or two, but deep down you already know the protagonist rode off into the sunset. I've always stressed the importance of endings and I suppose the older I get the more important they become because they remind us to not take the brevity of life for granted.

For those of you who are still interested in these stories and willing to give them a chance, I hope this delivers what you're after.
 
HMSwolfe said:
I can understand using a CG whip in the shot at the end for safety issues, but that’s about it. Although, Indy’s whip has always been more of a “superpower” than an actual tool. The stunt whip in Temple of Doom that’s like twenty+ feet long comes to mind. But it is a shame Crystal Skull didn’t make better use of Harrison’s skills. There’s a sequence during the opening, in the warehouse, where Indy punches a Russian, pulls his whip off the guy’s shoulder, then pulls away the rifle of another soldier. The editing is horrendous there—a single wide shot featuring Harrison’s skill would have been better.

I don’t want to make excuses for poor filmmaking (should that be the case), but there’s a lot going on here. For one, not every effect in the original three films stands up that well to the passage of time. Temple of Doom has multiple matte paintings, composite shots, and blue screen that feel pretty bad. Another thing to consider is that YouTube’s 1080 compression is awful. Did you see how smeary and artifact-ridden the video gets during the parade? All the streamers and confetti are wreaking havoc on the compression. Then you have the weird shot of Harrison’s head pasted on someone else on the horse. Well, as much as Harrison did himself, there’s always been stunt men to step in when it got too dangerous for the actor. Vic Armstrong is in as many of the stunts in Raiders as Harrison is. Yeah, the shot in this trailer looks bad, but it could be a result of an unfinished effect not mixing well with the YouTube compression. If they don’t address it before the release, though, that is on them.

There are definitely things to be reasonably concerned about in the trailer. John Rhys-Davies more or less passed as Egyptian in the 80s, but here, no. Some of the shots with extensive digital skies and things of that nature are worrisome. And yeah, this trailer isn’t technically as exciting as the Crystal Skull trailer, but that original Crystal Skull trailer leaned on nostalgia way heavier (using footage from the other three films to great effect) and it was also a trailer for Crystal Skull. Trailers can obviously be deceptive.

I want this to be good. I know that the likelihood that even if I enjoy it, that the majority of people here won’t, is high. I just feel like there’s so much riding on this film. One last hurrah for Indiana Jones; one last score by John Williams, in an age where simplistic, non-traditional film scores are the norm; one more attempt at convincing Hollywood that audiences love adventure films when they’re done right. I can’t convince anyone that the movie might be good despite their reservations—but I can hope. They’re long odds, but they can be beaten.

Of course, I had high hopes for the Uncharted film too, and that movie stank.
Click to expand...
That and the over-saturated color grading drives me absolutely bonkers with newer films. It just makes everything look so artificial. I know everyone wants dynamic color and the highest resolution possible but I would argue there's a lot to be said for film grain, realistic color, and never straying above 24 fps. Look at the exchange between Sallah and Indy. It's clearly done on a green screen stage. The lighting is all off and the backgrounds look unnatural. And honestly the takes they used were not good. And another thing...it's getting very tiresome watching actors just stand there, reciting their lines. It used to be actors spoke not only with dialogue but with their body movements. And both of them would be in frame in a long duration shot. I mean compare this exchange to Indy and Sallah in Raiders as they're hearing the translation of the inscription on Ra's headpiece. I'm being a little unfair as we haven't seen the entirety of the scene of the trailer but it's been a lazy trend in modern movies to do simple closeup shots between characters. I also realize Harrison and John are older now and a little slower but still.

Concerning Indy's bullwhip, if it is cgi then I have to ask why exactly are we even here? This is a live-action movie right? Shouldn't practical stunts and effects ALWAYS be the standard unless otherwise impossible? I want to see an actual cracking bullwhip, and actual explosions, and actual cars chasing each other around because THAT'S actual movie magic and not simply a computer simulation. I understand using cgi if you want to show Tony Stark putting on his armor suit in one continuous shot but Indy cracking his whip? THIS IS AN ACTION MOVIE!!! If you're going to take shortcuts on the action, then what the hell is the point? Show me your skills as filmmakers and actors and stuntmen, and not as computer programmers. By the way HMSwolfe , I'm not directing this at you as a rebuttal to what you said but rather a continuation of the topic. These are just my thoughts.
Psab keel said:
The shot where he pulls it from his belt is incredibly muddled. Even if he could get it off his belt in time that space is too narrow to even unroll the whip much less effectively throw it out to crack it. That's likely why it's been computer generated.

Not to mention that shot where he uses it on the train top is also completely ridiculous because he's lying down on his side and he's able to use it like Spiderman's webshooters. Really?

A huge part of the appeal of the originals was that by and large most of the stunts were done in camera, the whip action being all the more impressive because Ford was doing it himself. The effects shots were typically used for the most outlandish stunts or the supernatural elements. Every shot of this looks like it came out of a video game.

If you're interested in seeing what Ford could have done, for real, on camera on a real set/ location check out some YouTube videos of Anthony DeLongis and his whip work. He taught Harrison a number of things they never used for Crystal Skull but I wish they had because it would have been the most incredible whip work committed to film since DeLongis's teaching for Michelle Pfiefer as Catwoman.


Indy typically uses a 10 foot (in reality mostly an 8 ft for camera focusing purposes and filming at close range) but storywise he's supposed to be using a 10 foot. And yes, I know my way around a bullwhip as evidenced below. Note how much space I need to crack my 10 ft Indy whip.

https://flic.kr/p/2o3ErtF
Click to expand...
See, THIS is what I expect. A display of skill. This is why a simple stunt like a guy getting dragged behind a truck will always be more enjoyable to watch than even a 100% realistic looking cgi extravaganza.
 
Psab keel said:
Which is why like so many things coming from Lucasfilm, I won't watch this. I've been voting with my wallet for a few years now and as much as I dont want this, or anything from Lucasfilm to suck, I've come to realize no matter how much I love a character or story, I'm not loyal to the brand, but loyal to the quality of the writing. So much so that I don't want the legacy of these things tainted by inferior and unnecessary continuations.

When stories reach a natural conclusion I have a much harder time getting into the idea of, "just when you thought it was over, there was one more adventure!" It's the equivalent of ending an amazing bedtime story that your grandparents told you, only to have your younger brother tell you an alternate story the following night. It may have the same characters and maybe a neat idea or two, but deep down you already know the protagonist rode off into the sunset. I've always stressed the importance of endings and I suppose the older I get the more important they become because they remind us to not take the brevity of life for granted.

For those of you who are still interested in these stories and willing to give them a chance, I hope this delivers what you're after.
Click to expand...
This.
 
Even as grainy and pixelated as those DeLongis videos are, those skills never fail to impress me. I hope one day I could be as proficient as that, but more importantly I hope a filmmaker utilizes most of his techniques in a movie because it would really enhance a well written action story and be a blast to watch.
 
Ron said:
That and the over-saturated color grading drives me absolutely bonkers with newer films. It just makes everything look so artificial. I know everyone wants dynamic color and the highest resolution possible but I would argue there's a lot to be said for film grain, realistic color, and never straying above 24 fps. Look at the exchange between Sallah and Indy. It's clearly done on a green screen stage. The lighting is all off and the backgrounds look unnatural. And honestly the takes they used were not good. And another thing...it's getting very tiresome watching actors just stand there, reciting their lines. It used to be actors spoke not only with dialogue but with their body movements. And both of them would be in frame in a long duration shot. I mean compare this exchange to Indy and Sallah in Raiders as they're hearing the translation of the inscription on Ra's headpiece. I'm being a little unfair as we haven't seen the entirety of the scene of the trailer but it's been a lazy trend in modern movies to do simple closeup shots between characters. I also realize Harrison and John are older now and a little slower but still.

Concerning Indy's bullwhip, if it is cgi then I have to ask why exactly are we even here? This is a live-action movie right? Shouldn't practical stunts and effects ALWAYS be the standard unless otherwise impossible? I want to see an actual cracking bullwhip, and actual explosions, and actual cars chasing each other around because THAT'S actual movie magic and not simply a computer simulation. I understand using cgi if you want to show Tony Stark putting on his armor suit in one continuous shot but Indy cracking his whip? THIS IS AN ACTION MOVIE!!! If you're going to take shortcuts on the action, then what the hell is the point? Show me your skills as filmmakers and actors and stuntmen, and not as computer programmers. By the way HMSwolfe , I'm not directing this at you as a rebuttal to what you said but rather a continuation of the topic. These are just my thoughts.

See, THIS is what I expect. A display of skill. This is why a simple stunt like a guy getting dragged behind a truck will always be more enjoyable to watch than even a 100% realistic looking cgi extravaganza.
Click to expand...
Trust me, I’m with you. Something’s got to be said for the old imperfections of yesteryear—they’re like brush strokes on a painting. They may not be the most accurate depiction of reality sometimes but they have a beauty to them all the same. Film grain, lower dynamic ranges, less color range. I only defended the CGI whip in that shot specifically because there’s really no safe way to pull off a shot like that practically. If they were shooting it thirty years ago, they probably would have done forced perspective, or covered it with tighter shots to not reveal the whip wasn’t being cracked so close to people’s faces.
 
HMSwolfe said:
Trust me, I’m with you. Something’s got to be said for the old imperfections of yesteryear—they’re like brush strokes on a painting. They may not be the most accurate depiction of reality sometimes but they have a beauty to them all the same. Film grain, lower dynamic ranges, less color range. I only defended the CGI whip in that shot specifically because there’s really no safe way to pull off a shot like that practically. If they were shooting it thirty years ago, they probably would have done forced perspective, or covered it with tighter shots to not reveal the whip wasn’t being cracked so close to people’s faces.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I get it. Whenever I see a difficult shot like that, I ponder if it's better to use cgi or cover it up with tighter shots like you said. My default is to do it practically even if it means more standard angles and camera trickery but that's because I look at it from a traditional standpoint. I certainly understand the value of cgi and how it looks to a general audience that don't see the things we see.
 
Last edited:
ALLEY said:
Holy hilarity…

The rider of this horse looks like he’s wearing a Ben Cooper Indiana Jones mask over his face…

View attachment 1644089
Click to expand...

That blurry pic seems like it would look more like this guy if in focus and higher res.
khan-ricardo-montalbc3a1n.png
 
The thing that seems to be lost on modern Hollywood is it's better to leave the audience wishing they had more than to give them what they think they want. When you give them what they think they want, you end up with The Homer...

02-homer_car.jpeg


This was the end of Indiana Jones's story:
IMG_645769E84932-1.jpeg


...and it was perfect.




Even the name of this movie sounds phoned in. Like, seriously...


"Raiders of the Lost Ark"
"The Temple of Doom"
"The Last Crusade"

Even, "The Fate of Atlantis," and, "The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."

And then..."The Dial of Destiny." That's just...so lame...
 
LTsmash1200 said:
The thing that seems to be lost on modern Hollywood is it's better to leave the audience wishing they had more than to give them what they think they want. When you give them what they think they want, you end up with The Homer...
Click to expand...
Alas the is what society is becoming.Social media has brought with it the second dark age.Hollywood gets away with what people let it,people are settling for stupidy because of “Member Berries” most of the time.

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread: Indy 5
 
LTsmash1200 said:
And then..."The Dial of Destiny." That's just...so lame...
Click to expand...
I had a similar initial reaction to the title, but it's growing on me. I honestly think Temple of Doom and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are cheesier.

And it at least appears that "dial of destiny" was a somewhat familiar phrase, in several different contexts, back around the 1910s-20s (I even find it in an 1857 book "The Golden Age of American Oratory"). So while it sounds kind of goofy today, it might have more historical basis than meets the eye, and maybe it even would've been recognizable to fans of the 30s/40s serials from which Raiders took its influence.
 
Psab keel said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that this will play out like The Force Awakens. Everyone will be on board because of the mixed reactions to Crystal Skull, and the promise of James Mangold directing plus the return of Nazis as the villains, at least in some capacity, but once it's out for a year or more, upon repeat viewing it won't hold up as well as people initially thought.

This trailer really did nothing for me.
Click to expand...


Clownfish discusses possible leaks from a variety of youtubers on this Indy 5 movie and if true, well damn. It does sound like you are on the money and not only that, we get to say goodbye to Dr. Jones for female Jones.

I agree time travel doesnt fit into Indiana Jones, something I also took issue with regarding aliens. The Indy movies were about mysticism and legend so seeking legendary artifacts like the holy grain but even aliens fit better than time travel.

Not going to lie, I dont trust Disney to do Indy justice. I hope Im wrong.
 
Tommy said:
I had a similar initial reaction to the title, but it's growing on me. I honestly think Temple of Doom and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are cheesier.

And it at least appears that "dial of destiny" was a somewhat familiar phrase, in several different contexts, back around the 1910s-20s (I even find it in an 1857 book "The Golden Age of American Oratory"). So while it sounds kind of goofy today, it might have more historical basis than meets the eye, and maybe it even would've been recognizable to fans of the 30s/40s serials from which Raiders took its influence.
Click to expand...
I tried to take a more objective assessment of the title putting myself in the mindset of how it would sound as an obscure old serial episode. While I think it would be okay in that context, as a blockbuster movie title, I don't believe it works at all. The Indy titles have always alluded to something more than just the artifact (when the artifact was part of the title) that gave a sense of something romantic or even fabled if you will:

Raiders of the Lost Ark
The Temple of Doom
The Last Crusade
The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Dial of Destiny, despite having "destiny" in the name, doesn't quite evoke the same sense and sounds clunky. The word "dial" doesn't exactly have a gravitas to it either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tommy
Misleading presentations of Indiana Jones lots by Goldin / Studio Auctions
Replies
7
Views
775
GKvfx
G
Psab keel
Limited Run Indiana Jones Metal Raiders Gunbelt Hardware and Bag Straps
Replies
3
Views
1,505
Psab keel
Psab keel
Sevv
Custom Indiana Jones 'Collectable' figure
Replies
8
Views
2,350
kickman88
kickman88
parfaitelumiere
Interest Indiana Jones raiders pocket knife
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
14,385
Jamesfett
Jamesfett
Sarednab
Interest Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny - Destiny Journal
2
Replies
38
Views
7,937
Sarednab
Sarednab
Back
Top