Indiana Jones 5 officially announced
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
If given the time and resources I would love to see one of us here create our very own IP. I mean these films inspired us all to recreate objects from them and in some cases pursue careers in making because we were so moved by the magic of the movies. Instead of seeing a retread of something that already exists, why aren't any of us making our own? Where are the Speilberg's and Lucas's of our generation? I hold myself to account as well as I should be doing this very thing.
We had one, JetBeetle.
Paul wrote the Disney film Sky High and was married to Carol Shelby’s beautiful daughter, but sadly he died way too young.
I think that a lot too. Had I gotten into filmmaking as I once aspired to, and had I been successful at it as one would hope, I'd like to believe I would've now been in a position to push back against this stale retreading of the movies we grew up with with something original. Sadly, today's Hollywood doesn't allow creative freedom like it once did. Sure, there's always been some studio meddling in the past, but it's gotten to the point now where everything is based on analytics and quotas. Ask yourself this...can you think of any current directors whose name is big enough to be promoted heavily for their movie? Christopher Nolan is the only one (arguably Tarantino as well) and may be the last much like how Tom Cruise may be the last true movie star unless something drastically changes. Otherwise, gone are the days of Spielberg, Lucas, Scott, Coppola, Scorsese, Kubrick, Zemekis, etc.
Joek3rr
Master Member
It's something I've always wanted to do. With the growing amount of garbage out there, I keep thinking about trying to come up with something for my kids to enjoy. But I always have trouble getting my ideas on paper. Plus the few ideas I've ever had, probably aren't exactly kid friendly. Nothing bad, mind you. But a little more on the mature side.
VonMagnum
Sr Member
If Disney keeps removing content, it's Disney+ that's going to run out...of subscribers. Who wants to pay more for less?
I didn't know that. It may have been before my time here on the forums. I really enjoyed that movie from what I recall of it. It was really well done and an original take on the superhero genre. That's a shame he passed away though.
I'll have to revisit that one some time.I fear that too. I can't think of any directors outside of Nolan, Tarantino, or Peter Jackson who really stand out as a distinct voice in the director's chair anymore. I think to even write something original is a good start. You might surprise yourself.
I hear what you mean. There's no reason you couldn't write something for the kids and something for adults too? I'd be curious to see what you come up with if you're willing to share.
Liberance
Well-Known Member
There are lots. Robert Eggers, Ari Aster, Alex Garland, Greta Gerwig, Dennis Villeneuve, Jordan Peele, Bong Joon-ho, David Robert Mitchell, Drew Goddard, David Lowery, Todd Field...
However, in terms of the names themselves carrying a big four-quadrant movie like in the old days while also pushing for original content it's another story.
This happens because brands have replaced names, and people keep consuming subpar franchise flicks one after another regardless of outcome. It's a difficult conversation because, well, I guess some people do like those movies and saying these things feels like looking down on them. But this stuff has been killing commercial cinema for years now. The success of Jurassic Park 8 or The Hulk vs Superman 5 - Part IV is what keeps studios from financing the type of creative-led original content that Raiders of the Lost Ark was back in 1981. And if legacy sequels were stuff like Mad Max: Fury Road or Top Gun: Maverick it'd be one thing, but generally speaking they're broken and soulless. Yet they make millions. How many times does one need to see something like Jurassic World to go "eh, maybe there's no need to keep coming to these"? It makes you feel like all people got out of movies like Jurassic Park or The Empire Strikes Back was "dinosaur chomping" and "lightsaber woosh", while every level of artistry that made those films what they were completely flew over their heads.
Looks like this new Indy will be joining the ranks of the cynical cash grabs soon after all, which will be sad to witness if true. On one hand, it's unsurprising. Again, it's a product of that world and no longer in the hands of its creators. But oh well, there will probably be some leftovers in there from when Lucas and Spielberg were developing it that should make for an interesting watch, academically speaking at least.
Excellent points!
The biggest thing to me is that these franchises are constantly pushing far past the narrative conclusions that suit them best. Toy Story 3 was supposed to be the finale for those characters, but it did so well financially they did a fourth. Granted the fourth was pretty good, a rarity to say the least, but it certainly did feel unnecessary. It was entertaining and didn't betray the integrity of the characters but if you never saw it you'd hardly miss it. It's not like it revealed anything new that hadn't already been explored in the previous three.
We're at a very interesting juncture in cinema and streaming. It seems so much of the way we consume fiction is being examined not just by audiences but also by the industry itself. It makes you wonder what innovations/ creative jolts may be produced in the process. Surely the current model of tentpole blockbusters isn't sustainable forever.
The biggest thing to me is that these franchises are constantly pushing far past the narrative conclusions that suit them best. Toy Story 3 was supposed to be the finale for those characters, but it did so well financially they did a fourth. Granted the fourth was pretty good, a rarity to say the least, but it certainly did feel unnecessary. It was entertaining and didn't betray the integrity of the characters but if you never saw it you'd hardly miss it. It's not like it revealed anything new that hadn't already been explored in the previous three.
We're at a very interesting juncture in cinema and streaming. It seems so much of the way we consume fiction is being examined not just by audiences but also by the industry itself. It makes you wonder what innovations/ creative jolts may be produced in the process. Surely the current model of tentpole blockbusters isn't sustainable forever.
A lot of it is the cost. Terminator 2 was the first film to break the $100 million production barrier, and despite its success Carolco Pictures ultimately closed after the lackluster Cutthroat Island a few years later. And when you have modern publicly traded companies with investors that demand continual stock price increases, "long term" thinking is not usually an option if you want to keep your job as studio head. You need quick, easy profits... now. So, you dive into the well of IP that was successful before, hoping to reap new revenues. I think studios are still trying to figure out how to break the iron triangle of service:
I'll argue against the above a little, at least for entertainment, not engineering... sometimes, rarely but sometimes fast and cheap is good! Think of some B movies or TV shows that were shoe string budget but talent just exploded in them because they had a venue to perform in. Conditions forced creativity.
Of those names, I think Robert Eggers is the most exciting of the bunch. He actually makes the movies I think Ari Aster gets mistaken for making (sorry, Scorsese). The unfortunate thing is that all of those names are lumped in that "A24" sphere of influence, even if it isn't exactly an A24 distributed picture. There's a huge divide in film culture at the moment that really confounds me and, at the same time, I completely understand. The glut of these terrible cash-grabs and genuinely dumb action flicks (and their monetary success) have caused an adverse direction the other way for smaller film companies, like A24, to produce/release films that are more dramatic, quieter, and mature at the best of times; and the worst of times, utter misery, esoteric and languid with the same repetitive film language of singles in shallow focus, things only occupying the middle third of frame, and everything just crushed in darkness with a single light source.
As the old saying goes, "Films don't need to be good, but they better be." That just has so many interpretations that things have just split down the middle where things are either "art-house" or "commercial." There was a time not all that long ago and many members here recall--myself included--where it was more common to see a film that had artistic merit and accessibility to wide audiences, and there'd be good few dozen of them in a decade!
There has always been more bad art than there have been good, and films are no exception. There are still great films out there being made but with the democratization of film-making with the advent of digital, well, everything (which is a definite good) there is therefore more possible exposure for crap. Filtering through them to find that diamond is harder now, especially with all these streaming services out there specializing in this, and that leads to the near-impossibility of the truly talented getting the real name-recognition-levels of notoriety that once existed for a "Tarantino" or a "Spielberg." Those films don't bring in the kind of money that something that can be played safely anywhere without specific context, so those people never get a chance to really shine.
Last edited:
joberg
Legendary Member
Those are the ones who are working with what they have and not with what they don't have
The "good enough" then trumps the so-called "perfection"
Liberance
Well-Known Member
Yep. Everything you're saying is pretty on point. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether the A24 style trend is really a response to the severe dumbing down of mainstream cinema or it simply happened as a natural evolution of what guys like Spielberg were originally doing three decades ago.
When I see films like A Ghost Story, Ex Machina or Dune part of me sees them as the mature versions of stuff like Poltergeist, The Terminator or Star Wars. It's mainly a tonal shift, an approach to storytelling that caters to adults more than teenagers. I mean, when faced with the prospect of making a film with aliens or killer robots, is there anything new to say after E.T. or Terminator 2 by sticking to the kids or young adult route? I can see why modern filmmakers may gravitate towards a more cerebral angle and come up with things like Arrival or Ex Machina. At least those feel fresher and more accomplished than something like Super 8 or the umpteenth corporate sequel of an iconic movie, which are just vapid regurgitations of past hits. Then again, you can also—rarely, but sometimes—find things like Attack the Block, which continues a style of storytelling very much in line with the kid fantasies of yesteryear but with its own voice.
Personally, I think that some of the best newer filmmakers that shared the Spielbergian sensibilities existed in animation. Guys like Brad Bird or Andrew Stanton, who wanted to push studios like Pixar out of the kiddie bubble and more towards a teenage and young adult audience. There's an alternate reality somewhere out there where that happened. Unfortunately, Disney took over that side of the industry and yet again it did what it does best: keep everything stagnant and scare the talent away.
Just bought my tickets. Let the media blackout begin!
SB
SB
oujala
Well-Known Member
This is just super depressing. It cannot be that hard to make an Indiana Jones movie with the resources they have at their disposal. There had to be better ideas that were trashed in favor of this script. Argentina Nazi’s kidnap Shortround’s family so he’ll have to turn to Indy for help to retrieve an artifact they need to blah blah blah. The moment Shortround is introduced by saving Indy from some other adventure he has in progress brings out the feels. There. That was 2 minutes of me making crap up on the spot. No need for any political statements except Nazis suck.
I’m not saying the stuff I said is awesome, but I’d watch it, ha. Not sure I want to watch the movie they made over all the others they could have is my point I guess.
I’m not saying the stuff I said is awesome, but I’d watch it, ha. Not sure I want to watch the movie they made over all the others they could have is my point I guess.
On that note: does that make Indy the Original Whipper-Snapper?
"...with the resources they had at their disposal"
I think you answered your own query. If you let one person alone guide the entire vision for a film, you get the prequels and The Last Jedi. If you have a large group of people responsible for the vision, you get Obi-Wan Kenobi. I don't know where the happy medium is, but I THINK it's more likely a single/focused vision with LIMITED resources that produces the better film.
I fear that the modern film industry falls into the "Wouldn't it be neat if..." fallacy of content creation. There are specific scenes or beats that SOUND great (Hey, let's show Luke and Leia when they were 10 years old. Let's have Vader fight Obi-Wan again, but before ANH. Beru and Owen can fight an Inquisitor. Let's see Qui Gon!") and then you try to construct a threadbare story to string the events together.
Last edited:
Similar threads
