Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

[Lightning]

I think one aspect of Indy is while Indy finds the artifacts and sees the results of their power, he never experiences them first hand. He never sees whats in the ark in Raiders, really use the stones to ward evil, get healed rapidly from drinking from the grail, or gain knowledge from the alien skull. Indy is a third party witness to the artifacts but doesnt experience or use their full power directly.

Disagree. He experiences the power of the ark with his eyes closed, which is as much as any person can do without getting killed. He chants to activates the stones and set them on fire, we see all his face scrapes from the tank chase are healed, the skull communicates directly with him and tells him to return it. Specifying it needs to be "full power" is splitting hairs.

 

[jusdrewit]

Ouch, as of Monday 7/12, Indy is 3rd place in the box office behind #2 Insidious and #1 surprise hit Sound of Freedom. I was hoping it would get longer legs but I think it's going to get buried under once Cruise's movie arrives

 

[Cephus]

Ouch, as of Monday 7/12, Indy is 3rd place in the box office behind #2 Insidious and #1 surprise hit Sound of Freedom. I was hoping it would get longer legs but I think it's going to get buried under once Cruise's movie arrives

This is going to be the worst performing film of all time.

 

[batguy]

This is going to be unpopular but if anything, I think Disney should have taken a big risk and made the movie focus on Helen, marketing it as a new IP. Have her be the main character and start the film with her selling a fake artifact for cash on the black market, then escaping to show her competence. She gets caught by the US government who demand she obtain this artifact, the dial, or get life in prison for selling priceless artifacts so she agrees.

Helen solo adventure for a while learning about the artifact, sees the Nazi team trying to get it so they are in a race to find the dial. Unfortunately, both are pretty incompetent so after both coming to a dead end, Helen says she is going to an expert for advice. She stops by Marshall college and who do we see but Indy, now old but still giving a lecture to students (who are paying attention because this is college, not high school). She asks Indy for advice, he gets all excited and helps solve her problem and figure out the location. Maybe a fun scene where a bad guy attacks and while she fights them off and is about to get killed, Indy shoots him. He says he’ll handle it and Helen continues on her journey to get the dial.

Indy is there in a short scene to pay homage to the character and essentially tie Helen into the Indy universe while already working on making her her own character. With this, we can skip deconstructing Indy and giving him a miserable life (Im no fan of Mutt but killing him off and divorce with Marion isnt something I wanted to see). Helen is already a different character to Indy in her approach to artifact collecting so would be a new character for audiences to latch on to. The story beats can be similar to Indy but with a different protagonist with different reactions to the mystical events that occur.

Also think Helen/Indy should never have gone back in time in this movie. I think one aspect of Indy is while Indy finds the artifacts and sees the results of their power, he never experiences them first hand. He never sees whats in the ark in Raiders, really use the stones to ward evil, get healed rapidly from drinking from the grail, or gain knowledge from the alien skull. Indy is a third party witness to the artifacts but doesnt experience or use their full power directly. Dial changes this by having him go back in time when I feel it would be more Indy to let the Nazis go back. Maybe they go back and get stuck in time or actually get back to WW2 but get shot by fellow Nazis before being able to inform Hitler and actually change things (or actually get killed by younger Indy in a scene from Crusade or Raiders as a background casualty).

It seemed clear that Disney wanted to make a spinoff series with Helen as the lead. Instead of pussyfooting and bringing back Indy, why not just make the Helen movie and see if there is demand for a “female archeologist adventurer”?

Yes that would have been much better IMO.

Give Helena a movie outright and let it sink or swim on its own merits. Let Indy have a smaller supporting role appearance, just enough for a taste of him but not too much so they don't have to start giving him character arcs and stuff. That way everybody walks out of the theater thinking fondly of how Indy was handled whether the Helena movie works or not. And if the Helena movie works then it's a much stronger start for her.

. . . . but this would mean not having an 'INDIANA JONES MOVIE!!!!!' to market. They would have to actually market the product they were selling.

This stuff ends when the public quits buying bait-and-switch movies.

 

[Lightning]

Even a movie with an Indy cameo would have the naysayers screaming they were replacing Indy. The only way it works is if the Indy cameo is a secret. Then they can't be accused of leveraging nostalgia. But they would never do that because marketing.

 

[batguy]

'Creed' had a supporting role for Rocky Balboa and nobody complained of a bait-n-switch.

It's because they marketed the movie honestly.

 

[Zuiun]

This is going to be the worst performing film of all time.

This is categorically a false statement.

 

[Zuiun]

. . . . but this would mean not having an 'INDIANA JONES MOVIE!!!!!' to market. They would have to actually market the product they were selling.

This stuff ends when the public quits buying bait-and-switch movies.

This wasn't a bait and switch movie. This was a no-win scenario movie. With all of the weight put on this film, there was absolutely no way it wasn't going to create divisiveness among the fan base. Especially in our modern era of hyper-critical expectations.

People wanted a new Indiana Jones movie, especially one to hopefully make up for Crystal Skull. The problem is, there was no way in hell we were ever going to get an Indiana Jones movie like the old ones with an 80-year old Harrison Ford. It was an impossible task. But that's what people wanted and expected. Rather than manage their expectations, they are upset that we were given a story fitting of an 80-year old protagonist rather than a 40-year old hero in his prime.

The trailers were not dishonest to the type of film we received. In the trailer, we saw de-aged Indy doing action stuff and modern Indy reluctant to adventure. That's what we got. There was no dishonesty or bait and switch there. If some audience members expected something different, that's on them.

Production interviews with everyone involved referenced Logan and gave strong hints that the story Mangold was going to tell was to be about an aging Indy well past his prime. Again, that's what we got. No bait and switch there. If some audience members expected something different, that's on them.

Despite certain Internet personalities inventing a ridiculous "replacing Indy" plot for clicks, every interview with Harrison Ford, Mangold, Spielberg, etc., insisted that this wasn't a movie intending to replace Indiana Jones. And guess what? Indiana Jones was NOT replaced in the movie. If some audience members believed the Internet and expected something different, that's on them.

I think the movie was pretty fairly marketed for what it is. The problem is that a lot of people out there just believed what they wanted to believe.

 

[batguy]

This wasn't a bait and switch movie. This was a no-win scenario movie. With all of the weight put on this film, there was absolutely no way it wasn't going to create divisiveness among the fan base. Especially in our modern era of hyper-critical expectations.

People wanted a new Indiana Jones movie, especially one to hopefully make up for Crystal Skull. The problem is, there was no way in hell we were ever going to get an Indiana Jones movie like the old ones with an 80-year old Harrison Ford. It was an impossible task. But that's what people wanted and expected. Rather than manage their expectations, they are upset that we were given a story fitting of an 80-year old protagonist rather than a 40-year old hero in his prime.

The trailers were not dishonest to the type of film we received. In the trailer, we saw de-aged Indy doing action stuff and modern Indy reluctant to adventure. That's what we got. There was no dishonesty or bait and switch there. If some audience members expected something different, that's on them.

Production interviews with everyone involved referenced Logan and gave strong hints that the story Mangold was going to tell was to be about an aging Indy well past his prime. Again, that's what we got. No bait and switch there. If some audience members expected something different, that's on them.

Despite certain Internet personalities inventing a ridiculous "replacing Indy" plot for clicks, every interview with Harrison Ford, Mangold, Spielberg, etc., insisted that this wasn't a movie intending to replace Indiana Jones. And guess what? Indiana Jones was NOT replaced in the movie. If some audience members believed the Internet and expected something different, that's on them.

I think the movie was pretty fairly marketed for what it is. The problem is that a lot of people out there just believed what they wanted to believe.

Yeah I should have written that comment better. Indy#5 wasn't a bait-and-switch. There is arguably an element of that because it was a torch-passing movie. Those movies come perilously close to being bait-and-switches depending on how they are handled. But the marketing/presentation of Indy#5 wasn't dishonest. When your action star is 80yo you have to expect him to take a back seat more often than he used to.

I was partly complaining about Hollywood's B-a-S habit in general. I was thinking of that He-Man cartoon revival a couple years ago. That was blatantly a switch for a new Teela show.


Indy#5 was presented honestly and the public didn't show up. Neither side came away thrilled but at least the communication was clear.

IMO they got the wrong balance of the compromises. It probably should have either been more of an Indy movie (with lower expectations & budget) or else more of a Helena movie (make a full-bore attempt to launch her character as a new franchise).

 

[Schlegel]

It's not that he's old. I knew that going in. If he'd been treated with the care and respect that Henry Jones Sr. received the reception would have been quite different. I always expected the hand-to-hand combat to be the young ones, I mean, I do know 80 year old men IRL.

I disagree also that to make a story, he needs to start from a bad place. All that that is required is for someone he cares about to need him badly, and that sets up the story. If you do want him to personally overcome something, entire movies have been made that center on just one of the events like they show in Indy's personal life.

 

[Psab keel]

I've stated for a long time that I'm of the belief that there was no need for more Indiana Jones films and that Harrison is simply too old to be playing an action hero anymore, but for the sake of the discussion, let's address a different approach that could have better served the character we've followed for 42 years and why this latest fad is hurting the integrity of these beloved franchises.

Conflict in fiction can come in many forms. The issue people take with the latest trend in Hollywood is that the conflict has to be catastrophic in nature in order for there to be any character arc but that's not the only way to handle these problems with the writing. The trend is that the lead has to be broken, bitter, and crushed by some personal tragedy and an unlikeable young lead has to show them the way back to their old self. That kind of thing rings hollow though because you're starting the story off with the protagonist already in an unrecognizable state. As stated above, the story could start as simply someone reaching out to Indy for help and that's the catalyst.

It could be him facing an illness that he can't avoid but he wants to go on one last adventure before he's too ill to leave home. It could be any number of things. He could find out he has another child from one of his many exploits and he goes after them. But the one they chose, and Lucasfilm has a habit of choosing, is the broken, old, bitter man trope that is overplayed, and downright depressing. Life is hard enough. Does every blockbuster movie now have to exactly mirror life, and whose to say everybody's life ends tragically in reality? Since when is that the ONLY way older legacy characters can be written? Why are they constantly being stripped of their dignity? Who made that rule? Just because the Dark Knight Trilogy and Logan successfully took some of those cues, it doesn't mean that every summer movie since has to copy them. This is just proof of how dim-witted Hollywood is that they can't even fathom a different way to tell a story. Tone is key. Indiana Jones and Star Wars are mostly upbeat adventure stories. They may get dark at points but they don't wallow in it and good always wins in the end.

In the case of Indy (sadly) he has to be literally dragged back to face his demons and they're resolved without any explanation. Sure there might have been a tender reconciliation with him and Marion, but why did she decide to take him back? It never gets explained and if that's the crux of the conflict in the story you better damn well explain how it gets resolved. If you don't people rightfully call bull#$% and the whole thing falls apart. You might have an emotional reaction, but if you think about it, does your emotion override the logic of the story? If it does then you have a serious problem. You can't ignore the logic set up by the narrative. That's why there are such strong reactions to these things. When the writers violate the rules they establish within their own story, audiences pick up on that and they feel cheated. It's a cheap trick to manipulate your viewers and inadvertently insults their intelligence by assuming they'll overlook the flaws because they'll be too busy getting emotional over a scene despite it not really being warranted.

I don't understand why older characters, especially ones that have been adored and respected for decades, can't be afforded to die off with dignity, if they have to die at all? Even in life, not everyone comes to a sad pathetic end, but for some unexplained reason we need to do this in fiction? Are we that unimaginative as a culture? If so, that's pathetic. I see people talking about how things get bad later in life, but do they always? Is that everyone's experience? I know a lot of people in my life who died with their heads held high. Not every one of them came to a bad end.

The irony is that my response will likely be deemed as negative when I'm actually opposing the negativity this story promotes. Apathy is nothing to be celebrated. In fiction or in life.

 

[HeartBlade]

'Creed' had a supporting role for Rocky Balboa and nobody complained of a bait-n-switch.

It's because they marketed the movie honestly.

Creed is an excellent example of an IP continuing with a new character that swam by itself in a situation, as Solo puts it.

Creed does have Rocky appear but could easily stand on its own as its own boxer "rags to riches" story without Rocky. Being in the Rocky-verse is essential though because the main character is driven not by wealth but by legacy, living up to his name as a Creed so already knowing the legacy helps. I doubt there are Gen Zs scrambling to see Rocky before Creed was released but I do think there is huge demand for Creed (and now curiosity for Rocky) because Creed made a good standalone series while respecting Rocky's legacy. It wasnt Adonis coming in and punching out Rocky saying he is too old but a proper mentor/mentee relationship.

Yeah, if a person's issue is the gender of a character, then that is very sexist. As is a simple gender swap.
For me personally, when I started playing the original Mass Effect game back in 2007(right after my 3rd 360 died, and had to wait two weeks for a replacement FU M$), I started the game with a default male Shepard. Two or three hours into the game I couldn't stand the voice actor any longer. Played the rest of the games with the same "FemShep", fantastic voice actor Jennifer Hale.

Scratch this: "We don't need more representation", instead we need quality representation! Less forced representation. Better writing, new quality characters and not just gender/race swaps. Too shallow, too racist.

I dont want to engage in this too much because "political" but there is a very surface-level understanding of what "equality" and "representation" means imo. There seems to be alot of surface representation (race- and gender-swapping, equal numbers is good) rather than actual meaningful representation (telling good original stories with minorities, delving into their unique circumstances and making their voices heard).

Modern Hollywood at least definitely thinks surface level is sufficient. We can race-swap Ariel and have her save the prince because women, not realizing that these changes completely undermine their own story and make the prince pointless in the movie. Terminator Dark Fate thought lets make the lead a Mexican woman who becomes the savior of mankind, not John Connor because he is a straight white male, not realizing that killing him automatically dooms humanity based on the lore. While there may be some racists who only want white men as the heroes in their favorite movies, I do think a good majority would be fine with a new character as long as they respect the lore they are fans of (for Terminator, just say while John is the leader, he also had key supporters to win the war which Cyberdyne is now targeting like this Mexican woman and go from there).

This wasn't a bait and switch movie. This was a no-win scenario movie. With all of the weight put on this film, there was absolutely no way it wasn't going to create divisiveness among the fan base. Especially in our modern era of hyper-critical expectations.

People wanted a new Indiana Jones movie, especially one to hopefully make up for Crystal Skull. The problem is, there was no way in hell we were ever going to get an Indiana Jones movie like the old ones with an 80-year old Harrison Ford. It was an impossible task. But that's what people wanted and expected. Rather than manage their expectations, they are upset that we were given a story fitting of an 80-year old protagonist rather than a 40-year old hero in his prime.

The trailers were not dishonest to the type of film we received. In the trailer, we saw de-aged Indy doing action stuff and modern Indy reluctant to adventure. That's what we got. There was no dishonesty or bait and switch there. If some audience members expected something different, that's on them.

Production interviews with everyone involved referenced Logan and gave strong hints that the story Mangold was going to tell was to be about an aging Indy well past his prime. Again, that's what we got. No bait and switch there. If some audience members expected something different, that's on them.

Despite certain Internet personalities inventing a ridiculous "replacing Indy" plot for clicks, every interview with Harrison Ford, Mangold, Spielberg, etc., insisted that this wasn't a movie intending to replace Indiana Jones. And guess what? Indiana Jones was NOT replaced in the movie. If some audience members believed the Internet and expected something different, that's on them.

I think the movie was pretty fairly marketed for what it is. The problem is that a lot of people out there just believed what they wanted to believe.

This was a movie that just shouldnt have been made, period. Ford at 80 now (78 or so when filming) is too old to be an action star running around. I dont think there was anywhere close to sufficient demand for a new Indy entry period, especially after Crystal Skull. Personally, I thought Crystal Skull was already pushing it. I dont think people wanted a "new" entry to "replace" Crystal Skull because people know that Ford is of age, hence why the discussion was all about who is Indy going to be recast as (with Pratt being the forerunner).

Sure, the "replace Indy" rumor for clicks was "unfounded" but given that this is a KK movie who has been fond of white female brunettes ultimately taking credit and replacing the protagonist (Rey Skywalker, Jyn Erso, Bo Katan), the fear was not unfounded. Nevermind the fact that KK also stated that she wanted to make a series focused on Helen and Disney would want to milk this cow as well. If this movie had succeeded and the Helen series greenlit, I do think the first entry would have Indy basically give his hat to her.

 

[Psab keel]

Not to mention that fact that if there was enough demand for Indiana Jones we would have seen much more than 5 films in 42 years. The public just isn't clamoring for more. They simply aren't.

 

[Cephus]

It's not that he's old. I knew that going in. If he'd been treated with the care and respect that Henry Jones Sr. received the reception would have been quite different. I always expected the hand-to-hand combat to be the young ones, I mean, I do know 80 year old men IRL.

I disagree also that to make a story, he needs to start from a bad place. All that that is required is for someone he cares about to need him badly, and that sets up the story. If you do want him to personally overcome something, entire movies have been made that center on just one of the events like they show in Indy's personal life.

It would be fine if they started him off in a bad place and he earned his way back by the end. I can see Indy being discredited as an archaeologist and by the end, being held in esteem again.

Of course, that's not what happened. Indy didn't actually DO anything. The stuff they handed him back at the end, none of it was his doing.

 

[batguy]

Not to mention that fact that if there was enough demand for Indiana Jones we would have seen much more than 5 films in 42 years. The public just isn't clamoring for more. They simply aren't.

In the 1990s the public would have gone for more Indy movies. But Lucas & Speilberg didn't wanna do it anymore for a while.

By the 2000s Harrison had aged out of action hero roles. And since he didn't go the Tom Cruise route and use every trick in the book to avoid showing it, he has to play something like his real age. Harrison was 65 when they filmed 'Crystal Skull'. Cruise is 61 now.


Would a 4th Indy movie in 1992 have been as good as the first three? I dunno. I'm glad they stopped at 'Last Crusade' rather than wearing it out.

 

[Usagi Pilgrim]

I said this in another thread & it got tremendously misunderstood, so I'll try to be clearer here...

Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, DC & MARVEL characters are almost ALL over 50 years old, & the IPs aren't valuable because any new stories need to be told. They're valuable because they're what's called in retail, 'EVERGREEN PROPERTIES'. That simply means that you can put product on the shelves with any of those names on the packaging & they're going to sell.

Now granted, you aren't seeing that with certain toys, namely action figures, but even then, people recognize the IP, & you're going to get grandparents, aunts, uncles, & various people that might pick one of those up for a kid because the BUYER recognizes the IP.

Then you have all the other merch that gets released around new content that has relation to the IP, but NOT necessarily the newest content, like when KENOBI was released, alongside those figures of Reva, Second Brother, & various droids, you had anniversary fugues from the previous films that wouldn't stay on the pegs. The new content got shelf space that could be stocked with merch from older content that flew out the door.

That's why we see so many Legacy characters shoehorned into new content. It gives the IP holder reason to put old school content on new merch.

All this I guess is a long-winded way of saying that new, QUALITY stories aren't necessary for a healthy bottom line. It sucks if you don't care about anything but the story, but to them, if they release a turd like say, Book of Boba Fett, & around the same time, Hasbro releases an old school Boba or a SLAVE 1 & we buy it, then that's a win.

From what I've experienced, most IP holders are going to look at the health of the IP as a whole, & THAT'S the spin that the stockholders are going to hear. Modern IPs like the ones I mentioned are going to sell, & what doesn't isn't their concern. They've already been paid for the merch that's warming the shelves & pegs.

Bottom line... If any of those IPs stopped producing new content for the next 10 years, they'd still be making money off the rich legacy they all share.

 

[joberg]

Harrison Ford needs to do a straight up comedy. Shrinking is hilarious and he's incredible in it, but I'd love to see him do some insane comedy. His interviews on Conan are absolutely hysterical.

Absolutely! Dead pan comedy would suits him well

 

[The Terminator]

Harrison Ford needs to do a straight up comedy. Shrinking is hilarious and he's incredible in it, but I'd love to see him do some insane comedy. His interviews on Conan are absolutely hysterical.

If you haven't seen it, "MORNING GLORY" from 2010. Watch without seeing any trailer or anything if you can.

 

[joberg]

I haven't seen the film, so I can't speak from the perspective of a viewer, but what I've heard about the film is that it's not set up in and of itself to have Helena replace Indy. Like, she doesn't pick up the hat or the whip or whatever. It introduces her character, and maybe someone will make "The Adventures of Helena Shaw" or something, but that's not a "replacement" to Indy per se.

That said, I think we're done with Indiana Jones stories now, unless they're animated or computer games. Ford is 80. He's done. So unless you re-cast the role, no more Indy. Therefore, any spinoff from the franchise, whether it's Short Round or Helena or...I dunno...Marcus Brody's 3rd cousin twice removed, is a "replacement" insofar as "It's stories within the Indy universe, but not about Indy himself." But I really kinda doubt we're gonna see any more Indy universe stories. And that's fine. We can just be done with that world.



These two comments kinda highlight the issue I keep bringing up: what the hell else does anyone expect these films to be if not "Our heroes are aged and struggling with it. They've had failures off-screen and now we see the repercussions of that."

It's perhaps less of an issue for Indiana Jones, but certainly for the Star Wars films, you literally cannot tell another story in that series without somehow undoing the victories of the Rebellion in the OT and have the story have any stakes whatsoever. Either it's some nothing, BS minor thing for the characters to deal with, or it's a huge threat and their "happily ever after" ending is undone.

So why the "regrets and failures" angle? Because it doesn't make any sense to have everything be hunky dory and still tell another story. Like, what's the drama? What's the complication? What makes it anything other than a rote, by the numbers, boring formulaic outing with an increasingly aged, increasingly unconvincing-as-an-action-hero star, if you don't also inject that element of melancholy? What exactly is the journey for the character in the film as a character if their life outside of this adventure is all shiny and wonderful? If there's no personal drama, what makes that story compelling, and why would you bother telling it if it isn't compelling?

This is the problem with all of these legacy sequels, especially if you've given your hero a happily-ever-after sendoff in one (or more!) previous entries. Put simply, if you already HAD happily-ever-after than any future story with that character is, by definition, a negation of "happily-ever-after" and becomes "happily-ever-after-except-for-that-time-when..."

I mean, what's the alternate universe version of Dial of Destiny that people expect? Indy is a happily married father and grandfather, tenured at Whatsahoosit University, adored by his students and respected by his peers. Then someone shows up and says "Indy! I've got a line of the Dial of Destiny! We need to go get it!" "The Dial of Destiny?! Why I've been searching for that for 30 years even though I never mentioned it before! Let's go!" Off they go, punchy punchy, car chase, shooty shooty, time-travel shenanigans, badguys defeated, and we're done. "Well, I'm sure glad we stopped those would-be time pirates!" "Me too, Indy! Let's do it again some time!" "Hahahaha!" [freeze frame on them laughing, roll credits]

This is what we want? Some anodyne, by-the-numbers boring romp? This is what people expected to get from James Mangold? Really? I dunno. It just seems to me like once you break the "happily-ever-after" seal and go back to the well, you're just asking for trouble. Either let the heroes have their ending and LEAVE IT ALONE, or be prepared for bummer starting points (at least) and probably a lot of navel gazing and examination of regret and such, the older the actors are.

Lucas did it with ESB; everything is going badly for the rebels...and, at the end, Solo end-up in cryo! There's gotta be some "limits" to the "happy ending"...but we have to count on the hero's character to make it in the end. Now, the hero folds like a crouton at the first sight of stress/challenge/dire situation

 

[HeartBlade]

I've stated for a long time that I'm of the belief that there was no need for more Indiana Jones films and that Harrison is simply too old to be playing an action hero anymore, but for the sake of the discussion, let's address a different approach that could have better served the character we've followed for 42 years and why this latest fad is hurting the integrity of these beloved franchises.

Conflict in fiction can come in many forms. The issue people take with the latest trend in Hollywood is that the conflict has to be catastrophic in nature in order for there to be any character arc but that's not the only way to handle these problems with the writing. The trend is that the lead has to be broken, bitter, and crushed by some personal tragedy and an unlikeable young lead has to show them the way back to their old self. That kind of thing rings hollow though because you're starting the story off with the protagonist already in an unrecognizable state. As stated above, the story could start as simply someone reaching out to Indy for help and that's the catalyst.

It could be him facing an illness that he can't avoid but he wants to go on one last adventure before he's too ill to leave home. It could be any number of things. He could find out he has another child from one of his many exploits and he goes after them. But the one they chose, and Lucasfilm has a habit of choosing, is the broken, old, bitter man trope that is overplayed, and downright depressing. Life is hard enough. Does every blockbuster movie now have to exactly mirror life, and whose to say everybody's life ends tragically in reality? Since when is that the ONLY way older legacy characters can be written? Why are they constantly being stripped of their dignity? Who made that rule? Just because the Dark Knight Trilogy and Logan successfully took some of those cues, it doesn't mean that every summer movie since has to copy them. This is just proof of how dim-witted Hollywood is that they can't even fathom a different way to tell a story. Tone is key. Indiana Jones and Star Wars are mostly upbeat adventure stories. They may get dark at points but they don't wallow in it and good always wins in the end.

In the case of Indy (sadly) he has to be literally dragged back to face his demons and they're resolved without any explanation. Sure there might have been a tender reconciliation with him and Marion, but why did she decide to take him back? It never gets explained and if that's the crux of the conflict in the story you better damn well explain how it gets resolved. If you don't people rightfully call bull#$% and the whole thing falls apart. You might have an emotional reaction, but if you think about it, does your emotion override the logic of the story? If it does then you have a serious problem. You can't ignore the logic set up by the narrative. That's why there are such strong reactions to these things. When the writers violate the rules they establish within their own story, audiences pick up on that and they feel cheated. It's a cheap trick to manipulate your viewers and inadvertently insults their intelligence by assuming they'll overlook the flaws because they'll be too busy getting emotional over a scene despite it not really being warranted.

I don't understand why older characters, especially ones that have been adored and respected for decades, can't be afforded to die off with dignity, if they have to die at all? Even in life, not everyone comes to a sad pathetic end, but for some unexplained reason we need to do this in fiction? Are we that unimaginative as a culture? If so, that's pathetic. I see people talking about how things get bad later in life, but do they always? Is that everyone's experience? I know a lot of people in my life who died with their heads held high. Not every one of them came to a bad end.

I do wonder if the writers want to "destroy" the illusion of the character and the hero with the "there are no such thing as heroes” concept they push. Heroes/aspirational figures are important and while they may not exist in real life, that doesnt mean they cannot exist in fiction.

In the 1990s the public would have gone for more Indy movies. But Lucas & Speilberg didn't wanna do it anymore for a while.

By the 2000s Harrison had aged out of action hero roles. And since he didn't go the Tom Cruise route and use every trick in the book to avoid showing it, he has to play something like his real age. Harrison was 65 when they filmed 'Crystal Skull'. Cruise is 61 now.


Would a 4th Indy movie in 1992 have been as good as the first three? I dunno. I'm glad they stopped at 'Last Crusade' rather than wearing it out.

apparently spielberg and Lucas had a contract for 5 Indy movies with paramount so maybe they had some ideas. I think they knowingly shot themselves in the foot with last crusade though which is just such a fitting ending for Indy that I couldnt imagine a sequel (heck its called the Last crusade, as in the last journey). I had always thought they only wanted 3 films based on the title.

I think if they planned and churned out movies more regularly, there could have been two more films between raiders and crusade. They probably would hold the place they hold now (not as good as raiders or crusade but maybe better than Doom), and with a young Ford, these movies would have been a fun romp. They could have also just been bloat though so I always thought the three movies were great as is with no additional stories being necessary.

I do think its ok and even important for stories to end. Starting another story several decades in the future with a new protagonist may be ok (and will always bring comparisons) but stories should have a conclusion that wraps up the existing threads. The ending is always the highest point of the story in terms of tension (the final battle for middle earth, the final battle for the infinity stones, the last adventure for the holy grail) so any stories that come after it just pale in comparison.