If you watch the making of TFA, that's exactly how the story was written. I bunch of concept art that looked awesome and then the story was constructed around it.
Indiana Jones 5 officially announced
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Solo4114
Master Member
So, first off, I think I'm just gonna give this one a miss. I've still never seen Crystal Skull (or whatever the free coaster was that came with my Indiana Jones Bluray Trilogy set). I'm happy to treat this franchise as a trilogy and leave it at that.
I think the only reason people are surprised with these reviews are (1) it's directed by a guy who has previously been quite good at taking on the concept of the aging hero, and (2) they cut a pretty good trailer.
That said, Harrison Ford is 80 GODDAMN YEARS OLD. And I'm sorry, but my brain simply will not accept him as an action hero. He's in AMAZING shape for an 80-year-old. We should all be so lucky. But "amazing shape for an 80-year-old" is still one slip and fall away from a broken hip. Even if he's supposed to be playing 70, I still don't buy it. There shouldn't be 70-year-old action heroes. It'd be different if he were a wizard or Jedi or whatever, where he doesn't have to rely on brawn, but punchin' Nazis means you gotta be able to do so without worrying about your arthritis.
So, yeah, skipping this one. Was planning to do so originally, thought maybe it'd be ok from the trailer, then read some reviews and decided "Nope. I was right the first time."
You can't go home again, kids. The past is a foreign country. Put it to rest, and embrace the present and the future.
All that said...
Studio execs -- rightly, I'd actually say -- recognize that hardcore fans fall into two categories: (1) the ones who'll watch anything with the brand name on it, and (2) the ones who'll never be satisfied with what you put out because it isn't the thing it was before. Either way, it's a waste of time and resources to try to build your franchise to target them. From a business perspective, you want to target the people who are casual viewers.
As for why there aren't creative types in control at big studios, there are to some degree, but it's worth bearing in mind a few things about the filmmaking business.
First, it's a business. Second, as we've seen in recent years, it's a business that is driven by investment. Even if you have creatives heading a studio, the creatives are funded by investors, and the investors are basically just rich people parking their money somewhere where they think it will grow. And ultimately, that is what is driving all of Hollywood right now. There is a perpetual drive not simply to make profits, ot to show growth (those are different things), but rather to constantly grow profits. It's not enough to make money. You always need to be making more money than you were before, and as soon as that stops being true, the rich investors will shift their money to another industry that they think they can strip-mine for perpetual growth of profits. And for the investor class, any dollar that goes to somewhere other than their pockets is a dollar they lost not a dollar they didn't make.
All of that drives the decisionmaking in Hollywood. It's why writers are getting screwed. It's why AI is so attractive to them (because you don't have to pay it, so more profits can go back to the investors). It's why studios are perfectly willing to make a whole-ass movie and then shelve it forever for "tax benefits." Because it's got zero to do with storytelling or art or moviemaking from a purely mechanical standpoint. It's just about growing profit. Always. Forever.
They're merging Disney and Hulu into a single platform soon, and that'll mean they can retire content that only serves one platform. This is happening elsewhere. HBOMax merged with Discovery and has been removing content and is becoming MAX, a new platform where you can watch Sopranos reruns (for now, anyway) alongside a slew of crappy reality programs. Hell, it's happened in platforms that cater to niche audiences. Funimation, Crunchyroll, and VRV have all merged into Crunchyroll, with VRV's live-action content and licensed stuff from Shout Factory being cut out of the new platform which is going back to focusing on anime stuff. This means VRV original content will either disappear or just go up for sale on VOD sites.
Again, it's aaaaaaall about growth of profits.
Personally, I'll keep a Disney/Hulu subscription because (1) we already subscribe to both, and (2) my kid LOVES Bluey and that's the only place to get it. I've personally very much enjoyed the D+ original Star Wars and Marvel shows (I recognize that puts me in the minority of active posters here...), so I've gotten my money's worth and hope to get more, but I'm cautious about these merges and the dilution of brand identity and what that'll mean for the content.
Bingo. This really all got started with the earliest days of the new comic book films, and the smash success of the Pirates of the Caribbean film. Suddenly, studios realized that it wasn't big star or director names that would bring people in, but rather recognizable brands. So you got the G.I. Joe movie that had sod all to do with the actual franchise material, and you got the Transformers movie which, again, had little to do with the original material. And you got movies like Battleship, which was based on a friggin' boardgame. AND you got more comic book movies.
It's all because the studios recognized that the path of least resistance ran thru recognizable brand names, and that was enough. You could reduce your risk if you could package your film with an easy-to-recognize name. Strip the name out, and now your film is a generic pile of crap. I've said for years that if you simply changed the names of all the characters and renamed G.I. Joe to American Commandos, it would've been totally ignored.
It is that hard because your star is still 80 goddamn years old.
I think the only reason people are surprised with these reviews are (1) it's directed by a guy who has previously been quite good at taking on the concept of the aging hero, and (2) they cut a pretty good trailer.
That said, Harrison Ford is 80 GODDAMN YEARS OLD. And I'm sorry, but my brain simply will not accept him as an action hero. He's in AMAZING shape for an 80-year-old. We should all be so lucky. But "amazing shape for an 80-year-old" is still one slip and fall away from a broken hip. Even if he's supposed to be playing 70, I still don't buy it. There shouldn't be 70-year-old action heroes. It'd be different if he were a wizard or Jedi or whatever, where he doesn't have to rely on brawn, but punchin' Nazis means you gotta be able to do so without worrying about your arthritis.
So, yeah, skipping this one. Was planning to do so originally, thought maybe it'd be ok from the trailer, then read some reviews and decided "Nope. I was right the first time."
You can't go home again, kids. The past is a foreign country. Put it to rest, and embrace the present and the future.
All that said...
We aren't actually the "Core target audience." General moviegoers who don't know what a greeble is are the core audience. People just looking for something to do on the weekend with their kids are the core movie audience.
Studio execs -- rightly, I'd actually say -- recognize that hardcore fans fall into two categories: (1) the ones who'll watch anything with the brand name on it, and (2) the ones who'll never be satisfied with what you put out because it isn't the thing it was before. Either way, it's a waste of time and resources to try to build your franchise to target them. From a business perspective, you want to target the people who are casual viewers.
As for why there aren't creative types in control at big studios, there are to some degree, but it's worth bearing in mind a few things about the filmmaking business.
First, it's a business. Second, as we've seen in recent years, it's a business that is driven by investment. Even if you have creatives heading a studio, the creatives are funded by investors, and the investors are basically just rich people parking their money somewhere where they think it will grow. And ultimately, that is what is driving all of Hollywood right now. There is a perpetual drive not simply to make profits, ot to show growth (those are different things), but rather to constantly grow profits. It's not enough to make money. You always need to be making more money than you were before, and as soon as that stops being true, the rich investors will shift their money to another industry that they think they can strip-mine for perpetual growth of profits. And for the investor class, any dollar that goes to somewhere other than their pockets is a dollar they lost not a dollar they didn't make.
All of that drives the decisionmaking in Hollywood. It's why writers are getting screwed. It's why AI is so attractive to them (because you don't have to pay it, so more profits can go back to the investors). It's why studios are perfectly willing to make a whole-ass movie and then shelve it forever for "tax benefits." Because it's got zero to do with storytelling or art or moviemaking from a purely mechanical standpoint. It's just about growing profit. Always. Forever.
They're merging Disney and Hulu into a single platform soon, and that'll mean they can retire content that only serves one platform. This is happening elsewhere. HBOMax merged with Discovery and has been removing content and is becoming MAX, a new platform where you can watch Sopranos reruns (for now, anyway) alongside a slew of crappy reality programs. Hell, it's happened in platforms that cater to niche audiences. Funimation, Crunchyroll, and VRV have all merged into Crunchyroll, with VRV's live-action content and licensed stuff from Shout Factory being cut out of the new platform which is going back to focusing on anime stuff. This means VRV original content will either disappear or just go up for sale on VOD sites.
Again, it's aaaaaaall about growth of profits.
Personally, I'll keep a Disney/Hulu subscription because (1) we already subscribe to both, and (2) my kid LOVES Bluey and that's the only place to get it. I've personally very much enjoyed the D+ original Star Wars and Marvel shows (I recognize that puts me in the minority of active posters here...), so I've gotten my money's worth and hope to get more, but I'm cautious about these merges and the dilution of brand identity and what that'll mean for the content.
Bingo. This really all got started with the earliest days of the new comic book films, and the smash success of the Pirates of the Caribbean film. Suddenly, studios realized that it wasn't big star or director names that would bring people in, but rather recognizable brands. So you got the G.I. Joe movie that had sod all to do with the actual franchise material, and you got the Transformers movie which, again, had little to do with the original material. And you got movies like Battleship, which was based on a friggin' boardgame. AND you got more comic book movies.
It's all because the studios recognized that the path of least resistance ran thru recognizable brand names, and that was enough. You could reduce your risk if you could package your film with an easy-to-recognize name. Strip the name out, and now your film is a generic pile of crap. I've said for years that if you simply changed the names of all the characters and renamed G.I. Joe to American Commandos, it would've been totally ignored.
It is that hard because your star is still 80 goddamn years old.
Big names attached to a project also mean nothing in terms of quality. I think fans need to abandon this idea like an unwanted STI. I openly laughed when I started seeing people last year saying:
"In Mangold we trust."
As if even the best directors never made a bad film? Anyone remember 1941? I never even heard of it until the Raiders documentary where they talk about how Speilberg's movie flopped so bad that when George suggested Raiders to him, he leapt at the chance to make a hit movie under budget and on time and restore his reputation in Tinseltown.
Even the most well intended movies don't always succeed. I have no doubt that everyone involved in the Dial Soap of Density had every intention to make a fitting send off to the character, but some ideas are best left unexplored. I too never bought the idea of an 80 year old action hero. Sorry, not sorry. I don't care how great he looks for his age, and yes it IS a factor because every article about this film addresses it, but you can only suspend your disbelief so far. People his age do not make believable action heroes, no matter how fit they are.
I'm also not happy to slam on a new Indiana Jones movie. I love Indy dearly as a character. Raiders is easily one of my all time favorites and the greatest action adventure movie in film history. No question in my mind. But you gotta know when to hang up the hat and whip. Last Crusade ended on the perfect note. That's the real send off of the character for me. Yes I would love to meet Harrison in person, even if he told me to @#$% off, I would still count it as a win, but I won't watch this movie only to see another of my cinema heroes go out like a chump.
"In Mangold we trust."
As if even the best directors never made a bad film? Anyone remember 1941? I never even heard of it until the Raiders documentary where they talk about how Speilberg's movie flopped so bad that when George suggested Raiders to him, he leapt at the chance to make a hit movie under budget and on time and restore his reputation in Tinseltown.
Even the most well intended movies don't always succeed. I have no doubt that everyone involved in the Dial Soap of Density had every intention to make a fitting send off to the character, but some ideas are best left unexplored. I too never bought the idea of an 80 year old action hero. Sorry, not sorry. I don't care how great he looks for his age, and yes it IS a factor because every article about this film addresses it, but you can only suspend your disbelief so far. People his age do not make believable action heroes, no matter how fit they are.
I'm also not happy to slam on a new Indiana Jones movie. I love Indy dearly as a character. Raiders is easily one of my all time favorites and the greatest action adventure movie in film history. No question in my mind. But you gotta know when to hang up the hat and whip. Last Crusade ended on the perfect note. That's the real send off of the character for me. Yes I would love to meet Harrison in person, even if he told me to @#$% off, I would still count it as a win, but I won't watch this movie only to see another of my cinema heroes go out like a chump.
Prop Collector
Sr Member
Disney's Lucasfilm failure is complete. How the hell do you destroy 3 beloved franchises?
VonMagnum
Sr Member
It's not hard in these strange daze if you know what I mean. It's almost like the 1960s all over again, except meaner and even less logical. Puff the Magic Dragon is still there, though.
That’s a “Cinematic Failure Hat-Trick”…not an easy feat to pull off and still occupy a desk.
What’s hilarious is that Disney spent much of the 1980’s and 1990’s producing knock-offs of Lucasfilm franchises…
…and they are still producing knock-offs of Lucasfilm franchises.
Strikerkc
Sr Member
It had the intent to become a full-fledged franchise…as it was, it was a “smaller franchise” (sorry, no offense intended Warwick) with a movie, a TV series, books, some merchandise, etc.
Its potential was certainly squandered.
Last edited:
VonMagnum
Sr Member
What an attractive nose she has...reminds me of a horse I once sent to the glue factory....
I have to agree, albeit part of what's happening now seems like a study in contrasts. On one hand, this newest generation of movie makers seems to want to remove the past and introduce their own ideas. on the other hand, they keep revisiting the same old franchises and characters. it's almost as if they're trying to make their own version of the best ideas and stories, and it's not working.
As for Lucas, Spielberg and the other OG filmmakers out there: I think part of their problem is that they're beginning to feel irrelevant to today's culture and scene and want to prove that they can recapture "lightning in a bottle". So they dig up what made these things work, hoping that they still have some "juice left in the old car battery" if you will. I mean, James Cameron made Terminator:
...I think PART of it was also payback to Harrison, for appearing in TFA and his cameo in TROS. I've got a sinking suspicion that in addition to the millions $$$ he was paid for the sequel trilogy, part of the negotiation was also another Indy film for him.
I'll probably see Indy 5 in the theater. The trick is just go in expecting a really bad movie, so you either leave the theater already knowing it, or perhaps you find something you liked and are surprised.
There were plenty of parts I did like about Crystal Skull. Plenty dumb parts of course, but, whatever. I was never a big fan of Doom either, even though it did fit Indy better. First and third will always be my favorite, with the third being the top.
The Indy movies have always had some kind of visual effect, but it was far less back in the 80s. Maybe just some part at the end, at least that was an obvious effect, but it worked.
I think far to many movies are trying to cram in these huge insane type action shots, but they are so completely obvious as an effect, that it takes away from the movie.
I read that someone who has seen this new Indy said there are just way too many fake stunt type shots like that.
I wish they had stuck to the more traditional real stunts.
I've seen so little, I still don't know the context of a younger Indy. From the trailer, it does look good, so if some parts need that for the story, just have ONLY that.
Who knows, its hard to please everyone, but still, Disney is having a hard time pleasing anyone at this point. (like 5% of people)
There were plenty of parts I did like about Crystal Skull. Plenty dumb parts of course, but, whatever. I was never a big fan of Doom either, even though it did fit Indy better. First and third will always be my favorite, with the third being the top.
The Indy movies have always had some kind of visual effect, but it was far less back in the 80s. Maybe just some part at the end, at least that was an obvious effect, but it worked.
I think far to many movies are trying to cram in these huge insane type action shots, but they are so completely obvious as an effect, that it takes away from the movie.
I read that someone who has seen this new Indy said there are just way too many fake stunt type shots like that.
I wish they had stuck to the more traditional real stunts.
I've seen so little, I still don't know the context of a younger Indy. From the trailer, it does look good, so if some parts need that for the story, just have ONLY that.
Who knows, its hard to please everyone, but still, Disney is having a hard time pleasing anyone at this point. (like 5% of people)
Well, at least they're consistent.
Star Wars, Indy, and even Willow all destroyed. Well done Lucasfilm.
I guess Harrison Ford also likes not being a great father as well. He admits he cheated on his first two wives (Not a good father) and all three of his most famous characters are now horrible, and or absentee dads. Life imitating art.
"Very sad life, probably have very sad death,. At least there is symmetry."
Star Wars, Indy, and even Willow all destroyed. Well done Lucasfilm.
I guess Harrison Ford also likes not being a great father as well. He admits he cheated on his first two wives (Not a good father) and all three of his most famous characters are now horrible, and or absentee dads. Life imitating art.
"Very sad life, probably have very sad death,. At least there is symmetry."
Similar threads
