Master Boda
Sr Member
No he didn’t because if he had it might of hurt ticket sales.Disney uses old familiar faces to sucker people in then kills them off.Like I said nostalgia is good prostitution that works cheap.
Indiana Jones 5 officially announced
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
SickleClaw
Well-Known Member
Why do people seem so determined to listen to 'Doomcock' over the director? The man literally says KK is goign to be fired every other video.
What I'm getting at is that filming plot points that fans don't like vs. directly lying to the fans are two different things.
If people want to assume that Dial of Destiny is going to suck, that's totally understandable; plenty of movies suck. But the degree of assumption that the director is probably lying confuses me.
Where is the lengthy pattern of directors/producers time and time again flat-out denying specific spoiler rumors that turn out to be 100% true?
I understand it's happened on a few occasions - I've heard about "Khan." I'm just having a hard time grasping how this is such a frequent occurrence as to justify such intense distrust of Mangold's word.
Master Boda
Sr Member
I don’t know if it’s so much that people think the directors are lying rather than most studios have jumped on the “culture” bandwagon and most movies are now carbon copies of one another.Regardless of what studio x says most people can now predict how the movie will turn out,they all have the same agenda.And as far as the original IP,most are trying to use the old IP to sell the new watered down IP bs so any director that works for Disney says he is not doing whatever probably is.Follow the bread crumbs.
I don’t know dude just a guess on my part.
And another tree hugger trying to undermine menIronic since Cameron was, generaly, the Director portraying macho men in his movies (Terminators, Aliens, etc)
View attachment 1644918
Well he showed up at climate events in super cars, so, do as as I say, not as I do, etc etc.
Maybe one too many deep dives. LOL
Don't feel bad. I'm 56 and just figured out that the "BEATles" was a play on words for a musical beat.
Thought it was just a funky spelling thing. LOL
I understand what you're saying regarding the predictability of many modern franchise movies; just not sure your final statement follows from that. As far as I'm aware (though anyone by all means correct me if I'm wrong), Mangold has denied a grand total of two plot rumors thus far:
1. another character donning the hat / assuming Indy's role (especially Waller-Bridge)
2. Indy getting "erased" through a contrivance
He's not denying the possibility of time travel. He's not denying that certain actors may have cameo roles. He's said nothing about whether any character lives or dies, and he's said nothing about the MacGuffin. He's left plenty of room for many elements of the rumors to end up being true. I'd love to follow the bread crumbs... but personally, I don't see very many laid out.
Guess he's not aware of the fact that women also have testosterone?And another tree hugger trying to undermine men
View attachment 1644918
robstyle
Master Member
Attachments
As another great (now dead and disgraced by The Mouse ) character once said: "Must've hit pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that, huh kid?"
It's interesting to note the specific wordings in Mangold's denial.
Latest rumors (I can't verify since I'm not a subscriber) say that Paramount+ have edited out "Old Indy" from the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles!
Why do that if not as a way to pave the way for killing off Indy?
Mangold Killed Wolverine and Xavier, two of the most beloved characters Marvel had. Disney must've thought "Hey, the audience didn't mind when he killed those two, let's get him to kill Indy!"
(For the record, I liked Logan as a movie, but in all honesty I didn't need to see Wolverine or Xavier die.)
I am SO damn fed up with this current need of cynical writers and creators to deconstruct and diminish every classic hero we have. It's like they're thinking "The world is so crappy right now, war... inequality... racism... let's make sure all escapist entertainment does everything to remind the audience of that and turn grind the screws of depression even tighter. Let's kill their heroes so they feel just as bad as we do. No respite for the audience! They will pay our wages and smile as we pervert what they love!"
Then they have the gall to attack fans when they react to it. I'm not a huge fan of the Doomcock channel, but the reason he even has an audience is a failure of the caretakers of beloved franchises. (He started up when they began trashing Star Trek, didn't he?)
To hell with them. Enough already.
As a (working) scriptwriter myself (albeit in video games) I see a solemn duty to RESPECT the characters I write, especially when they are from someone else's creation with a fan-base behind it. So far that attitude has served me well.
Last edited:
CadetTK2386
Sr Member
To be fair, the Old Indy bookends were edited out of the series as early as 1996, when George Lucas re-edited the TV Series episodes into 22 individual feature length presentations.
joberg
Legendary Member
Well, coming from a long military/police family myself and can understand the way he sees the World around him: black & white; no greys.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
As a 20 year old full of testosterone he made his battles and now with 20/20 vision (and lower T with age and everything a man growing old has to go through) he has some "regrets"
Again, he's going with the Zeitgeist, that this type of "masculinity" is not acceptable.We live, more and more, in a Feminised World: from our classroom (kindergarten and up) to our institutions and Media (Social or others).
I received a letter from "The Big Brothers and Sisters" organization asking for my help mentoring young boys/adolescents; they had a difficult time recruiting adult men because of the perception that any advice to those younger boys would be perceived as "toxic" by their family/friends
He's mentioning his family and the way he was returning home, after months of absence, to try to reverse some discipline concepts put in place by his spouse for their children. Of course, as any psychologist will tell you, a child needs a Father and a Mother figure to understand the dynamics of life, discipline, respect, decency and other educational tools this child will need when place into the World.
A Mother's discipline is not a Father's one and vice-versa! No wonder that, in the case of children, they saw the "Empathic Discipline" of the Mother as a "better one" than the "B &W Discipline" of the Father. But, in the end, both parents have to be on the same page concerning rules (and how to apply them) in the household.
joberg
Legendary Member
As men have estrogensGuess he's not aware of the fact that women also have testosterone?
joberg
Legendary 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.
THIS!! We cannot go home and, as humans, we're walking backward toward the future (never to see it). Having only the past as a marker for our decisions and our time sliced into presents, we are trapped in the nostalgia of our youth! To feel the same as we fell in love with someone, or a movie, or something else is always trying for the impossible!
Last edited:
From what I've read on here and elsewhere online, I would say certain fans are WAY more riled up than Mangold...
[And while remaining silent might've been more tactful, wouldn't you get riled if thousands of people prematurely assumed you to be a liar?]
Indeed it is. He doesn't deny the possibility of Indy dying (or even emulating Capt. A.) - simply someone else carrying on the flame, or contrived erasure (i.e. retconning).
Last edited:
I dunno... in some instances I think it's possible, though a difficult journey. Top Gun did, and it worked. So did Ghostbusters Afterlife (to a lesser extent).
At the same time (and not that I'm in any way advocating being a d-bag), I have often wondered if some of those battles (where he clearly wasn't being very nice or sensitive to others, like in the Aliens doc) were not part of the reason that he had such success and managed to execute some spectacular ideas.Well, coming from a long military/police family myself and can understand the way he sees the World around him: black & white; no greys.
As a 20 year old full of testosterone he made his battles and now with 20/20 vision (and lower T with age and everything a man growing old has to go through) he has some "regrets"
There's a point in the Aliens making-of where a stage hand is supposed to pull a facehugger towards the camera, but he's being completely inept about it, so Cameron loses patience and kinda dismisses for being an idiot. (Understandable, because that particular sequence of shots is a masterclass in filmmaking, and might be harder to explain to a crew instead of just doing it yourself.)
Design-by-committee almost never works with creative products like movies, TV, video games. They just get watered down and lose their edge. Here in Sweden, it's almost a mortal sin to openly express (honest) criticism of a result. You're not allowed to say "this is not good enough" because it will pretty much always be seen as a deep, personal attack. Instead, you're expected to sugar-coat it like "I wonder if it would perhaps, maybe, if you agree, be a good idea to try something different, just to see what happens?". The kind of maneuvering that is sometimes needed to get something done is exhausting and can slow things down to snail-speed. And it doesn't matter if the product being made is expected (or needs) to be competetive on a global level. (Heh... growing up in the US has gotten me into trouble here a couple times!)
I gotta plead guilty to being one of those who seem 'riled up' there, but it's a conscious decision. I've never used Twitter before, and I usually stay out of discussions like this on social media, but Indy is too important. They've ruined Han, Leia, Luke, Star Trek... and so many more that it feels like he's the last unspoiled hero left standing. So on the chance that they ARE in fact planning on deconstructing or removing him, I'd rather help make a stink of it NOW instead of complaining later.
Harrison Ford also said something worrying in an interview a while back. He said: “If a script came along that I felt gave me a way to extend the character.”
Extend? Hmm...
Never know, but read in context, it seems to me that he was just talking about extending from 4 to 5:
Here's the biggest piece of advice Steven Spielberg gave James Mangold for 'Indiana Jones 5'
Taking over for one of the most beloved directors all time for one of the most beloved franchises of all time can't be an easy task. But it's exactly the position James Mangold (Logan, Ford v Ferrari) found himself in when Lucasfilm tapped him for the currently-untitled fifth (and most likely...
Solo4114
Master Member
Exactly. This has been the case with films for ages now. Ever since the desire to do more branded properties really kicked in around when PotC came out and hit big, Hollywood has been grabbing up everything known IP they can, rebooting every existing franchise or updating them or doing "legacy sequels."
There've been some that have worked well. Others that didn't.
But what I've observed over the last, oh, 20-30 years in fandoms is that people say they want all kinds of stuff from old franchises and then are never really satisfied with what they get. Look at the Star Wars sequels. TFA was too much of a retread of the old films, but TLJ was too much of a departure, and ROS was also crap. They want the old heroes back, but they want new heroes to be heroes. You can't have it both ways. Not effectively, anyway. You can't have new heroes, if the old ones overshadow them. You can't have the old ones because, well, they're old. And even if you could, you'd just end up bored. I mean, as I said, the Darktrooper sequence in Mando was great. But a whole series of that? YAWN.
People want more Indy, but they want Ford to be in it, but they also want Indy doing action hero stuff, but they also find it hard to buy Ford doing that even if he is in great shape for an 80-year-old, etc., etc.
Basically, people want it to be the same, but different, but, you know, the same, but also new and interesting and different, and...
Can it be done? Sure, sometimes. But I think it's more often than not a mistake to try to recapture what came before. And in the instances where they do, it's still...not quite what it was. Ghostbusters: Afterlife was an example. Fine film, entertaining to watch, but...didn't really stay with me. Ultimately, it was pretty disposable. Maybe they'll take these characters and do more with them, but if not, eh, whatever. I still haven't seen Top Gun: Maverick, but it's on my list. Matrix 4 was also interesting, but, again, didn't stay with me.
In my opinion, these kinds of things work better with stuff like Star Wars because, ultimately, Star Wars is a setting, not a story about a specific set of characters (it was that, and it moved on, as it needed to). With modern Star Wars, the stuff that has stayed with me has done so either because of how it altered the existing formulae (e.g., TLJ, Rogue One, Mandolorian, Andor), and when thee stories being told had larger meaning and implications (e.g., TLJ, Andor), or because they explored new, interesting variations of the setting (e.g., Solo). But, TFA I barely think about, and ROS I only have vague impressions from and memories of certain images, but no clear sense of the story. I remember mostly enjoying the roller coaster ride, but as a story? Meh. Not so much.
Again, what I think people want is new experiences that have the ring of familiarity, but they're also unwilling to try stuff that is obviously very different from what they've experienced. Makes for a very constrained, limited framework within which one can find entertainment.
Perhaps. This part gave me pause though:Never know, but read in context, it seems to me that he was just talking about extending from 4 to 5:
Here's the biggest piece of advice Steven Spielberg gave James Mangold for 'Indiana Jones 5'
Taking over for one of the most beloved directors all time for one of the most beloved franchises of all time can't be an easy task. But it's exactly the position James Mangold (Logan, Ford v Ferrari) found himself in when Lucasfilm tapped him for the currently-untitled fifth (and most likely...www.syfy.com
"Long gone are the halcyon days when the students of Marshall College would hang on his every word and blush over his rugged good looks. "In our lecture, all the women aren't going to be writing 'I love you' on their eyelids," Mangold said. "They're going be blowing bubbles and looking out the window."
Under normal circumstances I'd see that as a new, interesting take, or challenge for a character. In the current climate, it feels more like a need to tell the audience "Your old heroes are not that special any longer, and they never were. But hey look, we have some new PROPER heroes to sell you!"
Recently, while searching around for Indy stuff, I happened upon trash-site Screenrant. Seems their entire coverage of the Indy franchise is based around explaining how "problematic" and "toxic" it is, as well as why it "must change" and the problems "be addressed".
I think it's a matter of respecting the old heroes, letting them somehow show that "they still have it" and also let the up-and-coming heroes earn their status. Instead, we're expected to automatically like them from the get-go.
The antics of Han & Chewie in TFA was fantastic fun. They could have made a whole standalone film about them "stealing back the Falcon" or something. Ford had great chemistry with both Ridley and Boyega. All three new main characters had great potential, but they were so incredibly mishandled it still makes my head spin. Tie that to the need to denigrate the old cast instead of honoring them. Then factor in the vapid shallowness of Abrams, and the "I need to subvert and screw with fans" Johnson... well... disaster ensues.
Similar threads
