Indiana Jones 5 officially announced
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Dial of Destiny?
Doesn't it sound like a game show?
Doesn't it sound like a game show?
bwayne64
Master Member
Disney = The Borg !
We are the Borg. Lower your expectations and surrender your movies. We will add your money and time to our bottom line. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is expected, but racist !
Last edited:
joberg
Legendary Member
Well, the secret war against men in general is not so secret anymore; Indy is now the "Old White Man" and has become obsolete. So much so that he's going to be replaced by a woman...of course. Smarter, stronger than him and all others fitting into that "OWA" mold
Perhaps…perhaps not…
Sean
Sean
The donger needs food
bwayne64
Master Member
Yes we've heard this before on other tv shows and movies, and turns out we were right. I hope I'm wrong I really do. I didn't want to see Han Solo go out in the punk a$s way he did. Killed by a little wimpy emo loser, but he did. I don't believe anything these director/producer/show runners say. If it turns out you're right, I'll say thank you after it comes out. There's of course no way, it's not goings to be packed full of other , Wonderful world of woke stuff. Enough to make you regurge your popcorn and milk duds. Both taste great going down, not so much coming back up, ; )
Last edited:
bwayne64
Master Member
Love that movie, couldn't be made today. Not too many movies from my youth could be. There needs to be a revolt in Hollywood. Some new maverick directors and producers that say, up yours wokesters, here's Blazing saddles two. Eat
it !
Did Abrams or one of the producers state that Han Solo wouldn't die, or that he wouldn't go out the way he did?
joberg
Legendary Member
Last edited:
And another tree hugger trying to undermine men
Hold your horses. As is often the case these days, the line is being spread far and wide wholly out of context.
He wasn't talking in a literal, medical sense; he was talking metaphorically about toxic masculinity.
And he wasn't talking about the subjects of his films - at all. Not his characters, not his plots. He was talking about his own behavior behind the scenes - toning down the aggressiveness of his directing style, and moving past "his era of F-bomb-laden shouting matches with executives."
The article is well-worth a read:
Inside James Cameron’s Billion-Dollar Bet on ‘Avatar’
The director on spending a decade of his life — not to mention hundreds of Disney’s millions — to make ‘Avatar: The Way of Water,’ the long-awaited second film in his ambitious and risky franchise: “There’s skepticism in the marketplace. Can anybody even remember the characters' names? We’ll see...
www.hollywoodreporter.com
Funny, coming from Cameron.And another tree hugger trying to undermine men
View attachment 1644918
See above.
Would younger Indy RECOGNIZE Old Indy? If Old Indy said "I'm you, from the future," would not young Indy think "Well, that's impossible. While you do sort-of resemble an aged me (more like my uncle), and your voice is similar, and you have a hat/coat/whip similar to what I prefer, you are NOT older me" ?
Which means, there's got to be some scene when old Indy has to CONVINCE young Indy that they are the same person.
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
I didn't bother with KOTCS. I heard enough bad stuff about it, and was already deeply skeptical of the project, especially after my experiences with the SW Prequels that I just figured...meh. Screw it. I've still never seen it because...well, why bother? Like I said, I heard it was not merely "not good" but actually bad. And while it sounds like there are genuine writing issues with the film, a lot of the surface level stuff sounds pretty irritating as well. Likely magnified by the fact that the core story just...isn't that well told.
Yeah, this is an issue, I think. You could do a series on Indy during WWII, say, working for the OSS or something, but beyond that...nah. Time to hang up the whip and just work as a professor.
I mean, past a certain point? Yeah, they pretty much do, within their ability to do so. Or at least, that's been my observation. Or it's more that they've just developed a personal style and a pretty much good with that. You might see changes at the edges, like, what suits are available, what fashions can be bought, but I think that mostly people stick within a given bandwidth after a certain point, so that doesn't bother me as much.
I suspect I'll give this one a pass unless I hear rave reviews about it. I'm good with Indy being a trilogy.
One other point, though (and this is more just directed generally, not specifically at you): wearing a fedora, as with really any other kind of fashion choice (especially one that isn't necessarily in style) is about a mix of elements, but none more important than your own comfortability with wearing it. If you feel like it's an affectation, it is. Everyone can tell. If you truly, honestly feel like it's just what you wear, then you'll wear it with confidence and carry yourself accordingly. Folks may be like "That looks dumb," but you'll just shrug it off.
All that aside, don't wear a trilby. Wear a proper fedora if you're gonna do it.
So, here's the thing. It can be a narrative advantage. But it can also be...not anything anyone really wants to see. Like, you can tell a compelling story about the character of Henry "Indiana" Jones, Jr., the man-out-of-time, facing his own mortality and perceived irrelevance in the modern era, once a master of adventure, now barely the master of his dentures.
But is that a movie that Indiana Jones fans really want to see? It could be incredibly well done, it could be deeply moving, even, but...I dunno. It's just...not something I'm really interested in. I wouldn't want to watch Indy at Woodstock, either, you know? ("Indiana Jones and Avoiding the Brown Acid")
See, I think they actually are. But I think they are for the reasons you think they aren't, if that makes sense.
This is really one of the chief difficulties with Hollywood, and it's something within our culture that I think we have trouble grappling with, really.
There is a deep-seated desire for nostalgic content, a yearning to forever "go home again," if you will. It permeates our culture. Perhaps it always has, as evidenced by the "20-to-30-year cycle" of fashion/culture reiterating the old in slightly new ways again, but it's not just that. There's this endless desire to revisit the old anew. And yes, I wrote that phrase that way on purpose because it doesn't make sense.
We want to revisit the old...anew. And we can't.
You see this dichotomy within film, especially, in the insistence upon "legacy sequels" and franchises and such. We want it familiar, but fresh. We want it to stick to the original, but also be new. We want Harrison Ford, but we want him frozen in amber somewhere in the 80s, providing us with an endlessly fresh and exciting perpetual series of Indiana Jones films set somewhere in the 1920s-1940s. We don't want him older, but we want him newer.
What I think is ultimately missed in all of this is that what we yearn for is new experiences in ways that feel new, but feel new in a familiar way. And it's why reboots and legacy sequels so often miss the mark or hit close but not quite.
These end up being experiences that just...don't stay with you, because they try to do that "feels familiar" thing by using the most superficial familiarities. And it makes sense, in a way. The fans are often hyper-focused on the superficial details because they think that's what they really want. They'll even tell you (a lot, repeatedly) that what they want is XYZ thing, when, in fact, they don't. And the execs, often being fans themselves, and also being, well, execs and not artists, just want to give them what they say they want, because as execs they don't know any better, either.
But like I said, what people want is the familiarity of the feeling they had when they saw that old thing they loved for the first time, rather than a new take on the old thing itself. And that feeling is a lot harder to manufacture than it is to just, you know, bring back the old actors to say new lines that reference the old ones, or whathaveyou.
Consider the recent Ghostbusters sequel. On paper, it did a ton of what fans said they want. It passed the torch to a new generation. It featured the old guys not as buffoons, but as more of a band that had broken up and got back together for one more reunion show. It let them old crew be heroes alongside the new crew. It featured some baddie that fans had mused about because fans are often horribly myopic in their ideas of what "the next story" should be about. ("Gozer's back, but we find Ivo Shandor, too! And there's a new ghost that's like slimer but not exactly!") And while it's entertaining in the moment, and largely unobjectionable...it also fails to connect the way the first film did; it fails to recapture the feeling you felt when you watched the first film. There were elements of that film that I really liked, but much of the rest of it felt like "Yeah, I've seen this movie already."
As a culture, until we really accept that you can't go home again, I question whether we'll be able to get out of this rut with our entertainment.
It was fundamentally different because it was trying to do something fundamentally different. YIJC was, at its core, a show about history, not the supernatural, and Indy was more of a vehicle to explore moments in history. I have the DVD set and I enjoy it, but I enjoy it for what it is. And what it is is DEFINITELY NOT "Indiana Jones" of the films. It's just totally different, even if it's about ostensibly the same person.
100% agree. The sequel films, as we saw them, were also the necessary result of basic dramatic structure. And audiences' displeasure about it precisely underscores what I talk about above.
If you want a film trilogy with new heroes, fine and dandy. But if you want them alongside the old heroes, then by necessity the old heroes must be diminished in some respect. And the more you want the new heroes to really be seen as capable, independent figures who do not need the old heroes' help, the more you need to diminish the new heroes. Nowhere is this more true than with Luke, and nowhere is the audience reaction to the films more proof of what I'm talking about than when (A) they talk about how they hate Luke in the sequels, and (B) they talk about how what they wanted was the Luke we see in The Mandalorian.
Two things. First, you all are about to get that "Luke" with the new Indy film, and we can already see people saying that it isn't believable. Granted, Mark is I think 7-10 years younger than Harrison, but still. Second, no, you really wouldn't want that even in the sense of what was in the Mandalorian. Why? Because it'd be boring, or at least it would grow boring fairly quickly. Watching Luke beat the asses of Darktroopers was a super cool moment, but stories are not moments. Stories require a great deal more. And watching Luke just be a wandering badass...well, that'd grow dull fast. You'd need him to face real challenges, to face genuine threats, to suffer setbacks, etc. And that's a far cry from "There, that's the Luke I wanted to see! Luke confidently kicking ass!"
That necessarily gets you to the question of "Ok, so if Luke's such a big damn hero...what would actually sideline him? What would keep him out of the action?" And I think they hit on what's actually a really good answer for that (Ben's turn and Luke's contribution to it). It's just not the answer people wanted, because what they really want is something they can't have. At least not with Luke, not with the actors being in their 70s and 80s (and dead).
Yeah, maybe not entirely. But hunting artifacts is a far cry from being an action hero, punching Nazis, etc. I mean, I don't care what kind of shape Harrison Ford is in. It's just not believable to have a septuagenarian doing that kind of stuff. I could see Indy using different techniques to win, but he'd be trending much closer to a Prof. Quatermass than his Nazi-punching days.
"That belongs in a museum!"
I do want to say that, whatever my issues with Indy 5 (or rather, the notion of an Indy sequel, since I know next to nothing about this film specifically), I absolutely agree with Mangold on these points. There is an entire industry of people dedicated to stoking and capitalizing upon folks' frustration with films and ginning up the hate machine. That's not to say that every criticism is or should be easily dismissed with a "Meh, you're just a hater," but all the youtube breakdowns of how this or that film sucks or will suck is still part of an industry that seems designed to only ever foment discontent.
Do you believe after all this time it wasn’t until about 2 years ago I learned temple of doom was a prequel..
Lightning
Master Member
Similar threads
