Is SPIELBERG too old for Indy?

[Raiders112390]

For years, people worried that Harry would be too old to play Indy; "How could a 60 year old Harrison Ford play Indiana Jones?" It was thought and worried that his performance might be a little too unbelievable as Dr. Jones. But I think even with the myriad of flaws KOTCS has, Harrison's performance isn't one of them. He's still in good shape and still knows how to play our lovable archaeologist; In fact, I'd go so far as to say that he's the best part of the film.

That said...Is Spielberg too old to be the director of a Bond film? Somewhere along the line, I think Spielberg lost his chops as an action film director. He's grown overly sentimental, he plays it too safe. He's also gone too politically correct, too soft--removing the guns out of ET, for example; Having Indy never fire his gun, draw his whip, or purposely kill anyone in KOTCS is another example. We know it's not Lucas who has gone soft on violence and killing--Look at Revenge of the Sith for evidence. Even in Young Indy, Indy kills purposefully when he needs to. Indiana in KOTCS is made too nice, too politically correct; he doesn't curse or kill. He's Indy for kids.

With Spielberg, we started to see some of this in LC; Indy slowly became a "kindler, gentler" character; the action scenes lacked the kinetic energy and roller-coaster ride feel of the originals. The action in LC feels lazy compared to TOD and Raiders, and in KOTCS it just feels formulaic, laid back. There's also been more and more an emphasis on humor, and on Indy as a hero rather than anti-hero. There's no out of the box ingenius scenes--Nothing like the truck chase or airport fight; nothing like the trap room in TOD; nothing like the motorcycle chase in LC. By '89, Steven said he felt "too old" to film Monkey King; I think at this point, he'd feel too old to even film Raiders again.

He's also too reliant on having the same chereographer for every film, the same team on board; Kaminski gives KOTCS a washed out, dull sort of look, whereas the old films almost at times bordered on technicolor beauty. He's too stuck too his beliefs, his style, his comfort zone. He's no longer willing to take risks. He's gone too politically correct--In one of the Making Of documentaries, he said he WOULDN'T use Nazis as the villains, even if he could.

Personally, if Indy 5 is the final go around for this series, I want Indy to go out with a bang. I want a rollercoaster ride of a film; Something between the rollercoaster ride of TOD with the seriousness of Raiders. The film should be intense--not intense as in overly dark, but the action scenes should be intense. We should fear for Indy's life, which we really didn't in KOTCS.

Indy needs to be an anti-hero again, to kill, to be somewhat dark and mysterious. The grave robber rather than the archaeologist. That dark, Man with No Name character of Raiders.

Maybe have a subplot involve Marion being killed by Indy's enemies--That'd make for one pissed off Indy, with nothing to lose anymore. Have the film take risks, and become a little more modern in FEEL. Don't change the genre and go Sci-Fi, but adapt to a more modern action style. The last film needs to take risks and send Indy off with a bang--a real rollercoaster ride--and I don't think Spielberg is up to it. Maybe have the feel of this be something like Indy meets EC Comics--EC Comics being the pulp fiction of the 1950s.

The problem is, without Spielberg, we're stuck with Lucas. I don't want to see a Lucas directed Indy. My ideal Indy 5 is film with a story by Lucas, perhaps a script by Kasdan (if he can still pull off the old magic), starring Harrisn, something intense and perhaps even revisiting the scary element of TOD, with Indy as the anti-hero, directed by a young, energy filled director who knows how to make an Indy film.

[Darth Vile]

Spielberg has always been overly sentimental and saccharin sweet with his movies... so no change there. However, as I've stated on other threads, it's usually the younger artists who like to shake things up and push the boundaries. Spielberg hasn't changed (in relative terms as a movie maker), it's the way action movies are made and the way we consume them that has. As you indirectly touch upon in your post, this started in the originals i.e. in the mid 80's, other directors started to influence popular style... and by the time of TLC, the way Spielberg directed action was already becoming 'old fashioned'. For a good example of this compare and contrast TLC with Die Hard, Tim Burton's Batman, Lethal Weapon, or Aliens (which were very much the big new action blockbuster movies).

This doesn't stop Spielberg being a class director (as he as), and he obviously went on to direct what can be regarded as more substantial (if not as popular/culturaly significant) movies with The Color Purple, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan etc. etc.

On a side note... it's funny to see so many people remembering Raiders as being some heavy, intense and serious movie with a "dark" leading character. Whilst I'd never want to rip on Raiders (as I love it), it was and still is quite a light-weight, light hearted, silly and fun movie (which many people seem to forget).

So back to the point - Bottom line is Spielberg is never going to direct another Indiana Jones movie that will redefine how action movies are made. If there is another, he'll make it more or less like the others. If you want something that is as significant as Raiders containing the Indy character, I think you'll need to travel back in time to 1981. ;)

Finally - In my opinion, Lucas would never want to direct an Indy movie - so you don't have to worry about that one. :)

[indy4242]

I agree with some of your points, OP, but I don't think Spielberg is to blame for the weaknesses of KOTCS. Yes, Indy and the movie as a whole is more tame: He never fires his gun, never kills anybody (well, except for the cemetery dart dude), etc etc. I think they do need to add a little more TOD-style darkness into a next one, or at least move more towards Raiders (in between TOD and LC) in terms of tone.

but Spielberg isn't the problem. The movie was directed well, the issue with it was the script. The character of Mac and Mutt were still underwritten, and the action lacked the intensity of the first three. As I said in another thread, Indy's entire role in the Jungle Chase is mostly driving. He never even throws a punch after he gets in the driver's seat in the duck. No amount of action direction will help that.

The color scheme of KOTCS is the same as the original trilogy - it's just the times have changed, the image looks cleaner, the effects slicker. As a result, it feels different.

[Montana Smith]

Spielberg is definitely too old. So's Lucas. KOTCS proved just how out of touch they were, and how soft and grandfatherly both the beards have become.

Hand Indy over to Tarantino and Rodriguez and see the old guy go out in style. ;)

[Mickiana]

Well put Montana. Hand Indy over to younger talent for Indy 5 and then keep handing Indy over in the form of a reboot. A younger replacement for Harrison (we might as well since we've already decided on younger replacements for the beards - who isn't replaceable?) and set new adventures in the later 30s and during the WW2 and post war. Imagine the possibilities! Of course I don't care what anyone else wants - this would be entirely for my sake, but if you guys enjoy it then all the better.

[oki9Sedo]

Its arguable that, at 60, Spielberg is likely to have lost some of the "Hey George! You know what'd be REALLY f****** cool?" element he had at 30, which is very important for making an Indiana Jones film. The imagination and energy of youth, if you want to call it that. I prefer my earlier description.

That said, I don't know the man.

[Lance Quazar]

Spielberg is definitely too old. So's Lucas. KOTCS proved just how out of touch they were, and how soft and grandfatherly both the beards have become.

Hand Indy over to Tarantino and Rodriguez and see the old guy go out in style. ;)

Absolutely agree with your first point. But Rodriguez has long since run out of gas creatively and Tarantino, as much as he continues to impress, just feels wrong.

[punisher5150]

I think Spielberg is 100% to blame for KotCS. Technically the film was flawless. But SS's refusal to shoot outside the US really hurt the film's tone. The jungles looked too fake in many of the scenes. SS was known to question GL on many elements of the previous films. If it wasn't for him, Harrison Ford would have been playing Indiana Smith, not Indiana Jones. But I think he just caved to Lucas on this one. I don't think he had a lot of input on the script at all. For the most part, the humor is SS's films went well with the story. In this one it seemed forced and much too over the top. Over the top action is part of an Indy movie, but over the top laughs are not.

I know there are a lot of ToD haters, but I think it was the second best movie because SS found the perfect balance of humor to balance the darker tone of the story.

And finally, put some suspense back in Indy movies, please!

[Indy's brother]

Tarantino, as much as he continues to impress, just feels wrong.

Tarantino would have Indy talking about food for half of the film, and we'd also have to endure some weird scene focusing on Marion's bare feet. No thanks.

Honestly, with George involved (which will be the case as long as there is blood pumping through his veins), Spielberg is the best bet for reigning in the the whimsy of Mr. Lucas. It's not a matter of a new director in Spielberg's place, a new writer/executive producer to replace George Lucas, or even a new actor to replace Ford. It's a matter of what they want to do next, and how they have chosen to take their lumps over the divisive reception of KOTCS. I wonder if any of them would consider another Indy movie if one of them was absent. Aside from being professionals, they are people, after all. The nostalgia we have for Indy is not the same nostalgia that they have. Their nostalgia is in working together. All that said, our best hope is this:

Steven Spielberg: "I think that will depend on if people want more of them... I get asked about this all the time so, certainly, we will keep our ears to the ground and see where we go from here. But I always love to hear about what people think."

(from Moedred's Indy 5 quote collection)
(http://moedred.livejournal.com/6781.html)

Say what you will about how Spielberg's style has changed as he has evolved as an artist and into an older man....he is not a fool. I feel that he genuinely believed that the KOTCS that he shot and edited was a different movie than the KOTCS that we saw. I would like to think that he is not blind, deaf, or crippled by ego enough to ignore what many have had to say about it, and will adjust his approach accordingly. I'm sure that as obsessed fans we will never run out of things to complain about with Indy 5 if it happens, but I am actually more hopeful for a great film this time around.

[Mickiana]

Ib, good point about Tarantulino. He wouldn't be appropriate. He's good for what he does, but not for IJ. If they ever allow younger talent to take over future installments then it would have to be appropriate younger talent. Couldn't guess who at the moment though.

[indy4242]

I too agree that a good way to move forward (after one more fitting swan song for Harrison Ford's Indy) would be handing off the franchise to another group of younger creative forces. And maybe they don't use the Indiana Jones character, but work within the same rules. Only problem is, that usually works out crappy (see: the Mummy).

So yeah. Indiana Jones isn't James Bond, but the series is way to iconic (and profitable) to let die. But there's really no good way to continue it.

[TheIndyOpinion]

Personally, I don't feel that Spielberg is too old for Indy. There's never going to be another Raiders, and a fifth Indy movie simply is not going to please everyone. If they push it too far in a different direction people will complain that it's not staying true to Indy's roots (like everyone complaining about the sci-fi elements in KOTCS and saying they should return to Biblical artifacts). If they try to stay close to the spirit and formula, for lack of a better word, of the previous films then people will complain that they're not trying hard enough and just cashing in on the name. It's an incredibly difficult line for GL and SS to walk.

That being said, I wouldn't want to see anyone else directing Ford as Indy. If they do a reboot, sure, bring on a new director and take a different approach. But for another blast with Harrison, give me Spielberg in the drivers seat. To say that he can't still do action is just foolish, IMO. It was only 9 years ago that Minority Report was made, and the action in it is breathtaking.

Of course, I don't dislike Skull like many others, although I certainly admit it was flawed in many ways. I just wouldn't bet against Spielberg, especially on an Indy movie. Even if he's lost a little off of his fastball I think he can still blow us away if Lucas can give him something worthwhile to work with.

[Mickiana]

re Robisindy, I largely agree with you. With Harry as Indy, Spielberg has to direct. To answer the thread question, no, he isn't too old to direct Indy, he just has to get motivated to do it properly. But the biggest thing is that he has to have a good screenplay to film.

[IAdventurer01]

The main thing I'll grant the argument against Spielberg is his somewhat recent trend of pulling his punches, making things a tad more family friendly. I'm not saying that the original trilogy was particularly dark, but I feel they were significantly less innocent. In Last Crusade, arguably the most light-hearted of the original three, Indy incredulously downs a handful of Nazis with a single bullet, steals a machine gun trained on him and mows down his captors, and smiles despite his father's disapproval at sending a motorcycle (driver included) flying to its destruction. This transitions into Crystal Skull in which probably the most directly lethal think he does is reverse the warrior's dart. (Pretty amazing, but I believe by far the "darkest" thing he does.)

That said, I agree that Spielberg is still the man for the job. His overall directing style is nearly as engrained in the series as the John Williams soundtrack. The only suitable replacement would be someone whose intent is to replicate classic Spielberg.

Also, I agree that if we are hoping for another movie, Ford is a necessity for me, and it is unlikely he would play the role under another director.

[indy4242]

The main thing I'll grant the argument against Spielberg is his somewhat recent trend of pulling his punches, making things a tad more family friendly. I'm not saying that the original trilogy was particularly dark, but I feel they were significantly less innocent. In Last Crusade, arguably the most light-hearted of the original three, Indy incredulously downs a handful of Nazis with a single bullet, steals a machine gun trained on him and mows down his captors, and smiles despite his father's disapproval at sending a motorcycle (driver included) flying to its destruction. This transitions into Crystal Skull in which probably the most directly lethal think he does is reverse the warrior's dart. (Pretty amazing, but I believe by far the "darkest" thing he does.)

That said, I agree that Spielberg is still the man for the job. His overall directing style is nearly as engrained in the series as the John Williams soundtrack. The only suitable replacement would be someone whose intent is to replicate classic Spielberg.

Also, I agree that if we are hoping for another movie, Ford is a necessity for me, and it is unlikely he would play the role under another director.

I agree that Spielberg has become more family friendly over the years, and KOTCS kind of reflects a little more political correctness. However, the man can still direct action. Despite my disappointment by the lack of Indy gunplay, some of the action in KOTCS is still pretty awesome (first half of the Jungle Chase, the Ants fight).

And yeah, Indy doesn't kill that many people in it, but that doesn't stop the body count from being damn high: a bunch of Russians get fried by the rocket sled, a bunch of them get knocked off the cliff by that tree, sucked into the spaceship, etc.

[Montana Smith]

Tarantino would have Indy talking about food for half of the film, and we'd also have to endure some weird scene focusing on Marion's bare feet. No thanks.

Imagine Indy in the Harvey Keitel role in From Dusk Till Dawn (!)

He's due for another showdown with Vlad, and hell, he could even be taking Marion and Mutt on that motorhome holiday, because in Indy V meets Dusk Till Dawn you're not going be sure who's going to bite the dust!

I'm all for shaking things up, because Lucas and Spielberg are looking down a pedestrian highway with Indy.

Honestly, with George involved (which will be the case as long as there is blood pumping through his veins), Spielberg is the best bet for reigning in the the whimsy of Mr. Lucas.

I'm not sure Speilberg is qualified any more for that role. Some of the whimsy in KOTCS was due to him. This is the director who took the guns out of E.T. Just when you thought that E.T. couldn't be any more whimsical.

It's not a matter of a new director in Spielberg's place, a new writer/executive producer to replace George Lucas, or even a new actor to replace Ford. It's a matter of what they want to do next, and how they have chosen to take their lumps over the divisive reception of KOTCS. I wonder if any of them would consider another Indy movie if one of them was absent. Aside from being professionals, they are people, after all. The nostalgia we have for Indy is not the same nostalgia that they have. Their nostalgia is in working together.

Some day somebody will pick up the character and run with him again. Because Indy has the kudos of familiarity and money in his back pocket

That the beards are taking a long time deciding what to do next is a good thing. Better to wait too long (and eventually do nothing), than jump right back in and soil themselves prematurely.

Say what you will about how Spielberg's style has changed as he has evolved as an artist and into an older man....he is not a fool.

He's certainly no fool, even if genius and stupidity sometimes appear to be both sides of a very thin coin.

I feel that he genuinely believed that the KOTCS that he shot and edited was a different movie than the KOTCS that we saw. I would like to think that he is not blind, deaf, or crippled by ego enough to ignore what many have had to say about it, and will adjust his approach accordingly. I'm sure that as obsessed fans we will never run out of things to complain about with Indy 5 if it happens, but I am actually more hopeful for a great film this time around.

I'm not sure that Spielberg thought it would turn out differently, but that KOTCS was the film both he and Lucas wanted to make. That's the big problem that the film presents me with. It was the same with the Star Wars prequels - they also were the films that Lucas wanted to make. I find myself at odds with the visions of the older versions of Spielberg and Lucas. Call me reactionary, but I like the original trilogies of both series much better.

[Rocket Surgeon]

Somewhere along the line, I think Spielberg lost his chops as an action film director.
No. The problem is Lucas. Spielberg still has the hardcore in him, (Munich), but the material has to be better.

Skull is what Phantom Menace would have been if Spielberg and Ford were involved.

By all reports Lucas would not compromise, and the indulgence infected EVERYTHING.

Is he too old? No, but there needs to be balance, compromise and the CG needs to be relegated to cleaning up matte lines, ect. and not producing content.

[Montana Smith]

No. The problem is Lucas. Spielberg still has the hardcore in him, (Munich), but the material has to be better.

Skull is what Phantom Menace would have been if Spielberg and Ford were involved.

By all reports Lucas would not compromise, and the indulgence infected EVERYTHING.

Is he too old? No, but there needs to be balance, compromise and the CG needs to be relegated to cleaning up matte lines, ect. and not producing content.

Just ask Stoo who thought of the prairie dogs... ;)

[Rocket Surgeon]

Just ask Stoo who thought of the prairie dogs... ;)
You see, THAT's a shame. There's NO Gary Kurtz to say: "That's stupid fellas" or "interdimentional beings are as stupid as aliens."

Frank Marshall doesn't rock the boat but you can tell he knows it NEEDS to be rocked.

[Montana Smith]

You see, THAT's a shame. There's NO Gary Kurtz to say: "That's stupid fellas" or "interdimentional beings are as stupid as aliens."

Frank Marshall doesn't rock the boat but you can tell he knows it NEEDS to be rocked.

Maybe it doesn't matter how hard you rock the boat, because Lucas is just too much ballast.

[Darth Vile]

If any particular moment of action/set piece doesn't quite work you can't really blame the producer or even the script. Look at the opening 15/20 mins of Raiders. The tone, the atmosphere, the peril is generated (in the main) from what Spielberg does with the camera (plus the lighting, editing, music and sound effect choices). The dialogue is generic (what there is) and there isn't any underlying narrative underpinning the thing at all. Spielberg takes a basic premise from the page (mysterious man venturing through jungle) and turns it into something quite magical. That's the real qualitative difference (IMHO) between Raiders and KOTCS i.e. a director who is 'on fire' in the 80's and a director who has moved away from directing action movies.

[Montana Smith]

(mysterious man venturing through jungle)

Those words just took me back so strongly to reading the novelization for the first time, before I knew who Indiana Jones was, and could only imagine him as that guy on the cover (who wasn't Harrison Ford).

The film was incredible, and everything fell into place.

That's the real qualitative difference (IMHO) between Raiders and KOTCS i.e. a director who is 'on fire' in the 80's and a director who has moved away from directing action movies.

That works as an analogy. KOTCS looks tired when compared to ROTLA. Whether '80s Spielberg could have made more out of the material, I don't know. So much of KOTCS was lost in the development phase, and that's where the tiredness shows.

[Rocket Surgeon]

So much of KOTCS was lost in the development phase, and that's where the tiredness shows.
A well polished turd, filmed at stark "dramatic" angles.

[Darth Vile]

Those words just took me back so strongly to reading the novelization for the first time, before I knew who Indiana Jones was, and could only imagine him as that guy on the cover (who wasn't Harrison Ford).

The film was incredible, and everything fell into place.

KOTCS looks tired when compared to ROTLA. Whether '80s Spielberg could have made more out of the material, I don't know. So much of KOTCS was lost in the development phase, and that's where the tiredness shows.

I think it was the development of the movie that mired it in the neither one thing or the other camp (which we've discussed before). I think Spielberg could have served the movie better.


A well polished turd, filmed at stark "dramatic" angles.

Harsh. I'd classify the likes of Iron Man (specifically the sequel), Xmen, Fantastic 4, Transformers etc. etc. as "polished turds". KOTCS is positively Shakespearean in comparison.

[Montana Smith]

A well polished turd, filmed at stark "dramatic" angles.

At least it'll look nice on the mantlepiece, next to the Crystal Skull and the tub of toasted ants...

[Stoo]

Somewhere along the line, I think Spielberg lost his chops as an action film director. He's grown overly sentimental, he plays it too safe. He's also gone too politically correct, too soft--Have you ever seen "Saving Private Ryan"?:confused:
a director who is 'on fire' in the 80's and a director who has moved away from directing action movies.You keep going on about this, Darth, and it's hard to figure out why. "Saving Private Ryan" set a new, high standard on how war action can be filmed. MANY war films mimic the way it was shot, cut, colour-graded, etc. so to say that Spielberg's style is outdated (as you have so many times before), conveniently ignores his 1998 achievement.
To say that he can't still do action is just foolish, IMO.Woo-hoo!:up:

[Montana Smith]

"Saving Private Ryan" set a new, high standard on how war action can be filmed. MANY war films mimic the way it was shot, cut, colour-graded, etc. so to say that Spielberg's style is outdated

SPR was an incredible tour de force. There was recently a ludicrous argument over at Sideshow Freaks about SPR upsetting veterans by jumping on a bandwagon and for being "disgusting" in depicting the horrors of war. What a crock!

Spielberg triumphed at depicting the horror, fear and confusion of war. I still maintain that in 2008 it was the material that let KOTCS down. Spielberg didn't fail to ramp up the tension during the Doom Town sequence. He still knows what he's doing in the director's chair. However, before they began filming, certain ideas should have been dropped or tweaked, with an eye on the past. He's as guilty as Lucas.

[Indy's brother]

I think that perhaps adding another dimension of film homage (50's sci-fi), along with an older Indy, and almost two decades hiatus piled too many demands on Spielberg's direction as far as getting back in the saddle. Nobody bats 1,000. No guarantees that he'll nail it on the next one, but I think that the odds are greater that he will. In short: No. I don't think that Spielberg has completely outgrown Indy.

Why isn't there a poll attached to this?

Good point about Private Ryan. Although it's 13 years old (how time flies!) I doubt he's so different since then that he's incapable of visceral imagery in his story-telling. Not that Indy needs to have that level of violence in it, but I certainly think that he's capable of pulling out OT-level violence to give an Indy 5 some teeth.......
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bSk6yN_RU3Q/Sy_SkQGUv8I/AAAAAAAAEqs/OHk9ISF7H60/s400/AbominableSnowman.jpg
rather than the admittedly gummed-down version of Indy that we saw in KOTCS:

http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/232034-bigthumbnail.jpg

....oh snap! That was a little harsh.

[TheIndyOpinion]

Why isn't there a poll attached to this?

Hmm, a poll about this? Not a bad idea...

[Rocket Surgeon]

Harsh. KOTCS is positively Shakespearean in comparison.
Sure. I do think Iron Man stands out from your other examples, comic book as they all may be.

Skull is dumb. A real departure from Indy of old.

I don't think I will EVER get over the way they embraced some new age re-imagining of history.

The skulls, (however cool Indy's Brother) should have been kept to the opener...they didn't have the imagination to support a feature and they weren't compelling enough...

Violence. Munich. Spielberg. Good material. Skull. Resignation. Crap.

[Darth Vile]

You keep going on about this, Darth, and it's hard to figure out why. "Saving Private Ryan" set a new, high standard on how war action can be filmed. MANY war films mimic the way it was shot, cut, colour-graded, etc. so to say that Spielberg's style is outdated (as you have so many times before), conveniently ignores his 1998 achievement.
Woo-hoo!:up:

I don't think you understand the point Stoo. I have stated many times previously that Spielberg aped his own style with KOTCS. It was, to a great extent, a homage to itself/himself. It's the Spielberg of the 1980's that's dated... and if one sets out to make a movie with a very similar look and feel to Raiders, TOD or TLC; it will by default appear old fashioned/passe. If Spielberg wants to direct an Indy movie like Saving Private Ryan, bring it on... but somehow I doubt he ever will.

Also - Saving Private Ryan is much more than a simple action/adventure movie. One can't compare the truck or tank chase to the Omaha beach scenes, as they are both trying to achieve different things from a story telling perspective. I have no doubt that Spielberg has the talent to keep directing great movies. However, what I think is up for debate is wether he is able (or even has the inclination) to redefine the big budget Hollywood blockbuster movie in the way he did with Jaws, Raiders ET. As I stated before, Spielberg's future (hopefully) will be with the more substantial, personal movies rather than Indiana Jones'esque crowd pleasers.

I feel quite confident in stating that I'd wager the next movie to have the impact of Star Wars or Raiders , won't be directed by Spielberg/Lucas, but probably by someone half their age, with a fraction of the personal wealth/estate.

[michael]

First off, I just want to say to Raiders112390, you seem every so often to just 'swell' up with love for Indy and leave it for us to go through....

I like it.

Ok, so, on topic.

Is Spielberg too old for Indy? No. Is he too old for the Indy from the 80s movies. Yes.

Indy's persona in KOTCS was handled really well. He acted like he should at that age. Diner scene and classroom scene point to this specifically. As for the adventuring Indy, he did everything he could with what he had to work with. No matter how amazing or "badass" Indy is, some of that WILL be lost when you have 52 people with him along for the ride. Ok, I exaggerate, but you get what I mean.

For me Spielberg and Lucas and Williams are the only people that should handle an Indy movie WITH Harrison Ford. I still think they are the best for the job too, again, with Harrison Ford.

In the future, a long time in the future, who knows, maybe someone will reboot it. Good luck trying to get that from the Lucas in charge then...

[punisher5150]

that SS caved in to GLs demands for the movie. I mean, SS brought in several people to polish a script about aliens that he said he wasn't too fond of. At one point he said he had done aliens and wasn't keen on revisiting them. This is the Indy movie that GL spent 15 years trying to convince Harrison and Steven to do. They finally caved, feeling a little nostalgic about returning to Indy, but Lucas was pretty resolute in what he wanted. In the end, I think SS did a good job, but because the story wasn't exactly what he wanted, he did not give it his absolute best.

[kongisking]

that SS caved in to GLs demands for the movie. I mean, SS brought in several people to polish a script about aliens that he said he wasn't too fond of. At one point he said he had done aliens and wasn't keen on revisiting them. This is the Indy movie that GL spent 15 years trying to convince Harrison and Steven to do. They finally caved, feeling a little nostalgic about returning to Indy, but Lucas was pretty resolute in what he wanted. In the end, I think SS did a good job, but because the story wasn't exactly what he wanted, he did not give it his absolute best.

I was about to do a long post defending The Berg, but then I read this, and I'm just gonna have to agree. Spielberg was actively trying to avoid doing a fourth film, according to the DVD documentaries, but his love of the character and his friendship with Lucas forced him to give in. Lucas basically twisted his arm into making a film he wasn't enthusiastic about, which is quite despicable of Lucas. That's not how friendship works! And poor Ford, forced to go along with it because he wanted to play the character again, no matter how wacky the final film got...

[Mickiana]

We need a plot - a plot to overthrow George. Put something in his cornflakes to make him docile and compliant and then let Steven, Harry and Larry write the story, screenplay and direct and act in INDY5! George, doped to his eyeballs, will be told that his idea is great and not to worry about anything. After receiving global accolades for Indy5, George's lack of recollection of making anything can be put down to any number of reasons.

[Montana Smith]

I was about to do a long post defending The Berg, but then I read this, and I'm just gonna have to agree. Spielberg was actively trying to avoid doing a fourth film, according to the DVD documentaries, but his love of the character and his friendship with Lucas forced him to give in. Lucas basically twisted his arm into making a film he wasn't enthusiastic about, which is quite despicable of Lucas. That's not how friendship works! And poor Ford, forced to go along with it because he wanted to play the character again, no matter how wacky the final film got...

And could Spielberg be the one stalling on Indy 5? Digging his heels in after being elbowed into KOTCS.

SS: "I told you not to do it! You've made me humiliate myself."

GL: "It was your prairie dogs that pushed it over the edge."

SS: "I've had enough George. Just go busy yourself with those three Star Wars sequels, and don't expect me to cave in again!"

[Darth Vile]

There was nothing wrong with the basic premise/story of KOTCS. Spielberg was not "forced" to direct a movie he didn't want to make. After so much time, they all just wanted to make another one on the notion that it might be fun (plus the economic return of such a venture). If you go to your local multiplex on a Friday night, every other movie (if not the majority) are inferior to each and every Indiana Jones movie. I must say that I don't understand this modern constant quest to find a villain of the piece... for something so insignificant as a movie. There is enough genuine injustices, horror, mayhem and corporate plunder in the world to keep cynical eyes occupied... :(

[Mickiana]

That's true, Darth, but it's easier to look at an insignificant movie and have a whinge.

[replican't]

More to the point: are you, are we, is the world, too old for this kinda crap again? I mean, what's really the point of dreaming of an Indy 5? Watch Raiders if you want to see Indiana Jones do his kicking of anus.

Harrison Ford is almost 70. Get real.

[Stoo]

I don't think you understand the point Stoo. I have stated many times previously that Spielberg aped his own style with KOTCS. It was, to a great extent, a homage to itself/himself. It's the Spielberg of the 1980's that's dated... and if one sets out to make a movie with a very similar look and feel to Raiders, TOD or TLC; it will by default appear old fashioned/passe.What I understand is that you stated in this very thread that Spielberg hasn't changed, essentially saying that his style (even beyond the '80s) of directing action is passé. You also said that he has ALWAYS been sentimental and saccharin sweet with his movies. Not only is this blanket statement not true but "always" is an absolute term and you were recently discouraging people from using absolutes in another thread.

Written by Darth Vile:
"Spielberg hasn't changed (in relative terms as a movie maker), it's the way action movies are made and the way we consume them that has."

Written by Darth Vile:
"Spielberg has always been overly sentimental and saccharin sweet with his movies... so no change there."

Written by Darth Vile:
"That's the real qualitative difference (IMHO) between Raiders and KOTCS i.e. a director who is 'on fire' in the 80's and a director who has moved away from directing action movies."
Also - Saving Private Ryan is much more than a simple action/adventure movie. One can't compare the truck or tank chase to the Omaha beach scenes, as they are both trying to achieve different things from a story telling perspective.One can't compare the truck or tank chase to the Omaha beach scenes?:confused: Why? Because you say so? Your reasoning holds no water. Regardless, the opening sequence of "Saving Private Ryan" is not the only action in the movie. The battle at the end is incredibly well executed and the style in which it's done has been heavily imitated.
However, what I think is up for debate is wether he is able (or even has the inclination) to redefine the big budget Hollywood blockbuster movie in the way he did with Jaws, Raiders ET.
...
I feel quite confident in stating that I'd wager the next movie to have the impact of Star Wars or Raiders , won't be directed by Spielberg/Lucas, but probably by someone half their age, with a fraction of the personal wealth/estate.Whether Spielberg or Lucas are still able to redefine blockbuster movies in the future is not the debate here. Read the thread title.

[punisher5150]

Harrison said GL approached him after filming the cameo for what was later Young Indiana Jones and the Secret of the Blues and said he had the story element for Indy 4: aliens! HF laughed it off, thinking he was joking. When he told HF he was serious, Ford laughed and said basically if he could get SS on board he would do it, but he didn't feel that excited about it (early mid 90s??). SS declined, saying he didn't want to do more alien movies (of which he actually did with War of the Worlds). So SS and HF both weren't very eager with the story. SS got a little more excited with the Frank Marshall draft, and he and HF both wanted to film that version. GL didn't like it (for reasons unknown, possibly because he wanted the son/family element in it). SS hired Koep for a rewrite. It was a compromise that GL liked and the other two felt was filmable.

[punisher5150]

I think all 3 primary creators (GL, SS, and HF) should come back. SS is not too old. I think they'll take the care to knock the next one out of the park. Even if it has aliens/beings from another dimension, or whatever. KotCS served as a bridge to get us into that genre. A great story is there somewhere (I really liked the Infernal Machine video game with hints of other-worldly creatures at the end).

[Montana Smith]

I think all 3 primary creators (GL, SS, and HF) should come back. SS is not too old. I think they'll take the care to knock the next one out of the park. Even if it has aliens/beings from another dimension, or whatever. KotCS served as a bridge to get us into that genre. A great story is there somewhere (I really liked the Infernal Machine video game with hints of other-worldly creatures at the end).

Not only has SS shown that he's moved into GL's line of thinking with regards to Indy, but knocking Indy V out of the park with a septuagenarian Indy is going to be even more of an uphill struggle.

If this film happens, it won't be traditional, by virtue of the age of the leading actor. We will either see Mutt taking on the action, and Indy once more emasculated in the back seat, or we will see a different kind of movie in which an older actor can play the hero without being over-active: a psychological thriller in the Hitchcock mould. And I can't see anyone going for the latter in great numbers, which leaves Mutt, and therefore Indy 5 might as well be called Mutt 1.

[IndyFan89]

I think Darth is speaking truth. "Super 8" is kind of the proof of that. JJ Abrams can do a better "80's SS movie" than SS can himself. If you want something for the fans, you have to get a fan to do it. You need someone who truly cares for the character and franchise as a fan. A Dave Filoni type. :hat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImZIWlvACcU

[Montana Smith]

I think Darth is speaking truth. "Super 8" is kind of the proof of that. JJ Abrams can do a better "80's SS movie" than SS can himself. If you want something for the fans, you have to get a fan to do it. You need someone who truly cares for the character and franchise as a fan. A Dave Filoni type. :hat:

JJ is certainly a very talented and creative individual. With some of the TV series he's been involved in, he's been able to inject a film-like quality on a restrictive budget, balancing CG with live action. The future of Indy may lie not in movies, but in a TV serial (just like the original series that inspired Lucas in the first place). JJ would be the perfect choice to helm such a project, giving us a weekly cliffhanger.

As I've written somewhere, a small-screen Indy with a new actor in the lead may be more acceptable. There is a separation of projects with the Carrier/Flanery Young Indy series and Harrison's big-screen adventures, since neither replaces the other. This may be the chance to see Indy's wartime adventures, and I am warming more to the idea, as long as Harrison remains associated with the cinematic adventures for a long time to come.

[punisher5150]

No Clone Wars CGI-type tho. Traditional animation. Or SPF doing a late 1920s-1930s series that focuses on action would be awesome. There were some great moments in YIJC when SPF had his adventures with the Phantom Train, etc.

[Montana Smith]

No Clone Wars CGI-type tho. Traditional animation.

Definitely not Clone Wars in style anyway.

Or SPF doing a late 1920s-1930s series that focuses on action would be awesome. There were some great moments in YIJC when SPF had his adventures with the Phantom Train, etc.

SPF was born in 1965, Indy's age by the end of the Second World War, so it would likely be a younger actor.

Covering the period from the late 1920s and through the war would make for a long running series, and not a project that the busy Spielberg would likely commit to as a director, so it would fall to someone like JJ.

Rated at '15', like JJ's Lost or Alias would make room for harder storylines and visuals. However, I could foresee George's shadow looming over the creative team, and puilling it back to a '12'.

[indytim]

No. The problem is Lucas. Spielberg still has the hardcore in him, (Munich), but the material has to be better.

Skull is what Phantom Menace would have been if Spielberg and Ford were involved.

By all reports Lucas would not compromise, and the indulgence infected EVERYTHING.

Is he too old? No, but there needs to be balance, compromise and the CG needs to be relegated to cleaning up matte lines, ect. and not producing content.

I've read that George Lucas wanted Indy to have a daughter in Crystal Skull but Spielberg twisted George's arm into switching the character to a son, so I guess (if true) he does compromise when it comes to his old friend Steven. That said, I think a daughter would have made Indy IV far more interesting.

[indytim]

I think if Spielberg had to pass the reins to a younger director his own personal choice would be his protege JJ Abrams. Based on Mr Abrams recent cinematic works he actually wouldn't be a bad choice.

[clintonmills]

I don't think the problems with KOTCS were due to Spielberg. When I watch the film, I see GL's fingerprints all over it. Plus the script was not that great to begin with. I only wish that Spielberg would have stood his ground a little more in some areas.

As far as passing it off to a younger director, I just can't see this ever happening. But if it did, my vote would go to JJ Abrams. I think he is going to be the next generaton of Spielberg, maybe even better. You can tell he has such a passion for filmmaking, plus he is a fanboy.

[Rocket Surgeon]

I've read that George Lucas wanted Indy to have a daughter in Crystal Skull but Spielberg twisted George's arm into switching the character to a son, so I guess (if true) he does compromise when it comes to his old friend Steven. That said, I think a daughter would have made Indy IV far more interesting.

That certainly is an example of compromise.

The compromise in question concerned Aliens/Interdimentional Beings...in which Spielberg compromised his convictions.

An alien by any other name would smell as sour.

[Darth Vile]

What I understand is that you stated in this very thread that Spielberg hasn't changed, essentially saying that his style (even beyond the '80s) of directing action is passé. You also said that he has ALWAYS been sentimental and saccharin sweet with his movies. Not only is this blanket statement not true but "always" is an absolute term and you were recently discouraging people from using absolutes in another thread. That was a disappointing response Stoo. Ok… just for you…

1) Perhaps it’s just that some are less perceptive than others, but I think Spielberg has a very specific style. Of course he has matured as a movie maker, but he’s basically the same man with the same aesthetic taste, the same directors eye. Ergo, I think it’s quite reasonable to state that he’s “basically the same director he was 20 years ago”. It’s not like he’s rejected Hollywood or is now directing small European art house cinema is it??? Personally, I think what he's gained in being able to capture the drama of small moments, he's lost when it comes to nailing 'edge of seat' and exciting action scenes (I personally can't think of anything in War of the Worlds, Minority Report, IA that compares to the tank chase in TLC).

2) Re. Spielberg’s taste for the saccharine. If you prefer… It is my opinion that one of the justifiable critisms of Spielberg is that he often overly sentimental in his movies, to the point where the emotion feels forced and artificial rather than natural/organic. For me, this is evident in many of his movies such as Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park I&II, IA, War of the Worlds, and even Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers List… and more specific to this thread, KOTCS.

3) My point about ‘absolutes’ was in response to a specific point about opinion being used as an empirical fact e.g. I/we think your opinion is wrong. Therefore it’s an absolute fact that you are wrong and ill informed.


One can't compare the truck or tank chase to the Omaha beach scenes?:confused: Why? Because you say so? Your reasoning holds no water. Regardless, the opening sequence of "Saving Private Ryan" is not the only action in the movie. The battle at the end is incredibly well executed and the style in which it's done has been heavily imitated.


I personally wouldn't categorise Saving Private Ryan as an action/adventure movie, just as Schindlers list or Raiders of the Lost Ark aren’t war movies. Therefore comparing an action scene between the two is comparing apples with oranges i.e. just because the Omaha beach scene is a great depiction of the horrors of conflict in WWII doesn’t automatically mean that Spielberg can still direct an action/adventure movie that’s relevant to 2011 (which is what I thought we were sort of discussing???).


Whether Spielberg or Lucas are still able to redefine blockbuster movies in the future is not the debate here. Read the thread title.
That is the essence of the thread, rather than some of the unconstructive sniping you've been revelling in. To reiterate, it appears to me that many people here would like an Indy V to be as a significant a movie (read game changer) as Raiders was (or at least to be attempting something as significant). KOTCS however, provides evidence to suggest that Spielberg may only have the ability to mirror the style of past glories when it comes to action/adventure movies. Perhaps he is then, in terms of where he is as a director, "too old for Indy". Who knows? Perhaps Tintin will be the next Indiana Jones.

[Darth Vile]

That certainly is an example of compromise.

The compromise in question concerned Aliens/Interdimentional Beings...in which Spielberg compromised his convictions.

An alien by any other name would smell as sour.

Of all of KOTCS potential issues/flaws, I thought the fact that the movie contained crystal skulls and aliens to be the least problematic (sans the CGI alien and UFO). Did you really think it was that damaging to the movie, or do you think that the damage was not from UFO's/aliens per se, but from Spielberg losing interest because of the compromise he had to make?

[indy4242]

Couple things:

1) Spielberg hasn't lost it in terms of action. He just hasn't really made a real action movie in a while. (No, Minority Report and War of the Worlds are not action movies... neither is Munich.) The closest would be Saving Private Ryan. Yes, it is a war movie, but the basic concepts of directing action is the same: keep it exciting, kinetic, and keep the audience on the edge of their seat. The direction in SPR did that.

2) A TV Indy would be a good idea. The quality of TV is really close to matching film these days, and in many ways surpassing it now that movies has become mainly sequels, remakes, and the like. Abrams I'm not sure about though. I like the stuff he's been involved with like LOST or the new Star Trek but I can't see him pulling off something as retro as Indy. And let's not go so far to say Super 8 is him "pulling off 80s Spielberg better than Spielberg". We don't even really know what Super 8 is about yet, let's not go calling it the movie of the decade quite yet.

[Montana Smith]

1) Spielberg hasn't lost it in terms of action. He just hasn't really made a real action movie in a while.

I don't think Spielberg's directing credentials are seriously in doubt, but for the remit of this thread, I'm concerned that his association with Indy (as with Lucas') has meandered away from the straight and narrow.

2) A TV Indy would be a good idea. The quality of TV is really close to matching film these days, and in many ways surpassing it now that movies has become mainly sequels, remakes, and the like. Abrams I'm not sure about though.

TV series are mimicking big-budget movies through clever storytelling and employing all the tricks in the book. Abrams is proving adaptable, and if he was up for it, I'm sure he could nail the style of a vintage Indy movie. He certainly knows how to create cliffhangers! Though, as I wrote before, the shadow of Lucas would fall across any such project, overseeing the direction of the story, the level of violence etc.

[Darth Vile]

Couple things:

1) Spielberg hasn't lost it in terms of action. He just hasn't really made a real action movie in a while.


What about KOTCS? Isn't his last action movie representative of the way he directs action movies?

[indy4242]

What about KOTCS? Isn't his last action movie representative of the way he directs action movies?

I thought it could be inferred I meant "other than" KOTCS my bad, I'll be sure to be more obvious next time.

I thought the action in KOTCS was rather good, with one or two main issues: Not enough whip, and not enough gun. Those come down to the script, not the direction. The camera angles, the framing, the shots, pacing, were all done well.

[Darth Vile]

I thought it could be inferred I meant "other than" KOTCS my bad, I'll be sure to be more obvious next time.

I thought the action in KOTCS was rather good, with one or two main issues: Not enough whip, and not enough gun. Those come down to the script, not the direction. The camera angles, the framing, the shots, pacing, were all done well.

I was assuming that you didn't like the action in KOTCS. My bad.

[Stoo]

That was a disappointing response Stoo. Ok… just for you… Debating with you can be a pointless affair because you're often inconsistent in your arguments and flip-flop like a caught fish.
1) Perhaps it’s just that some are less perceptive than others, but I think Spielberg has a very specific style. Of course he has matured as a movie maker, but he’s basically the same man with the same aesthetic taste, the same directors eye. Ergo, I think it’s quite reasonable to state that he’s “basically the same director he was 20 years ago”. It’s not like he’s rejected Hollywood or is now directing small European art house cinema is it??? Personally, I think what he's gained in being able to capture the drama of small moments, he's lost when it comes to nailing 'edge of seat' and exciting action scenes (I personally can't think of anything in War of the Worlds, Minority Report, IA that compares to the tank chase in TLC).Sure he has a certain 'aesthetic taste' but, as you say, he has 'matured'. That is a CHANGE! By your own admission, you think that the action in "Crusade" was outdated when it was released in 1989. The tank chase? Personally, I CAN find an 'edge-of-the-seat-exciting-action-scene' in "War of the Worlds" that compares (and also in "Jurassic Park II", for that matter). I don't find the tank chase in "Crusade" to be very 'edge of the seat' at all...except for one moment....
2) Re. Spielberg’s taste for the saccharine. If you prefer… It is my opinion that one of the justifiable critisms of Spielberg is that he often overly sentimental in his movies, to the point where the emotion feels forced and artificial rather than natural/organic. For me, this is evident in many of his movies such as Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park I&II, IA, War of the Worlds, and even Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers List… and more specific to this thread, KOTCS.Have you ever seen "Duel"? One would be hard-pressed to find sugary sweetness in there...
3) My point about ‘absolutes’ was in response to a specific point about opinion being used as an empirical fact e.g. I/we think your opinion is wrong. Therefore it’s an absolute fact that you are wrong and ill informed. Right...and when supplying personal opinion as fact, the absolutes, "always" and "never", shouldn't be used either.:rolleyes:
I personally wouldn't categorise Saving Private Ryan as an action/adventure movie, just as Schindlers list or Raiders of the Lost Ark aren’t war movies. Therefore comparing an action scene between the two is comparing apples with oranges i.e. just because the Omaha beach scene is a great depiction of the horrors of conflict in WWII doesn’t automatically mean that Spielberg can still direct an action/adventure movie that’s relevant to 2011 (which is what I thought we were sort of discussing???).Action is ACTION, whether it's in an adventure movie, war film, science fiction, western, police story, etc. so there's no need to keep pigeon-holing things into the 'action/adventure' genre simply because it suits your position. If one can't compare Indy-action to "Saving Private Ryan", then why did you compare "War of the Worlds", "Minority Report" or "IA"? They aren't 'adventure' films either. (In this thread, you also compared "LAST CRUSADE" to "Die Hard", "Lethal Weapon", "Batman" and "Aliens"!)

Why are you fixated on the Omaha beach scene? Have you not seen the entire film? There's much more to it than just the opening 30 minutes. That said, the Omaha beach scene is (by definition) an ACTION scene!:gun:
That is the essence of the thread, rather than some of the unconstructive sniping you've been revelling in. To reiterate, it appears to me that many people here would like an Indy V to be as a significant a movie (read game changer) as Raiders was (or at least to be attempting something as significant). KOTCS however, provides evidence to suggest that Spielberg may only have the ability to mirror the style of past glories when it comes to action/adventure movies. Perhaps he is then, in terms of where he is as a director, "too old for Indy".Being 'relevant to 2011' (as you said) does not equate to being a 'game changer'. Bringing a new Indy film up to speed with the times doesn't necessarily mean it has to set a new standard.

'Many people' want Indy 5 to be a 'game changer'??? You and who else?:confused: Montana & IndyFan89 have said that someone new should be at the helm but never expressed that they'd like Indy 5 to redefine cinema. Mickiana was in the same camp as those two but also said that Spielberg is still the man for the job. Rob/TheIndyOpinion is right, this should have been a poll because I did a count and the LARGE MAJORITY (in this thread) believe that Spielberg is capable for a possible next Indy film.

Isn't it fairly common knowledge among fans that Spielberg's direction of "Skull" was a CONCIOUS effort to make it similar to the original 3? You even said to me 'bring it on' for Indy 5 to be done in a "Saving Private Ryan" fashion, so you KNOW he has the ability!
What about KOTCS? Isn't his last action movie representative of the way he directs action movies?Are you for real? Your position keeps switching, Vile. You've been maintaining that Spielberg 'mirrored/payed homage to' his own, outdated, '80s style with "Skull" so, according to you, it's NOT representative of the way he can direct action films. (Also, I thought "Skull" had the distinction of being 'action/adventure' rather than just simply an 'action movie'?)

Spielberg's style HAS changed so the REAL question is the other way around:
IS INDY TOO OLD FOR SPIELBERG?:eek:

[Montana Smith]

'Many people' want Indy 5 to be a 'game changer'??? You and who else?:confused: Montana & IndyFan89 have said that someone new should be at the helm but never expressed that they'd like Indy 5 to redefine cinema.

Quite.

Indy is old-fashioned cinema. That's the charm of the character and the telling. These are tales to be told with as little fast cuts and jiggery pokery as possible.

Spielberg's not likely to lose his ability to direct, but, again I assert my feeling that both he and Lucas have moved on , taking Indy out his comfort zone. If Spielberg directs, he'll be involved in the creative process, as he always has been.I think it's time he hung up the fedora, and if there is to be more Indy, let a fresh team have a go, and breath new life into the old rogue.

I have serious doubts whether this is even a serious prospect, since a new team won't be permitted the freedom it needs. Lucas and the clutches of a '70s or '80s Disney ethos will be breathing heavily over their shoulder. Let there be blood, real suspense, and a powerful story.

[DiscoLad]

I think it's safe to say that Montana hit that nail on the head. :gun:

[Lance Quazar]

I think it's safe to say that Montana hit that nail on the head. :gun:

Yeah, he does that.

[Mickiana]

"blood, real suspense, and a powerful story" and less flippin' family and hangers on.

[kongisking]

Having just finished watching Peter Jackson's King Kong, a masterpiece beyond imagining, I am fully convinced that Jackson should be given a crack at Indiana Jones. I kid you not. He would take Indy into epic, heart-wrenching territory. And yes, I was still devastated by Kong's death even after the billionth viewing. Those who think Jackson's Kong was anything less than stupendous has my great sympathy.

Lord Jackson must inherit Indiana Jones!

[Mickiana]

Good point, Kongisking: Jackson at the helm of Indy5, but the old fashioned way - less CG and more story and stunts.

[punisher5150]

I'm okay with Peter Jackson...AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T GET TO EDIT HIS OWN FILM. My god, man. Kong was great but long....long...long. And unneccessarily so. The dinosaur chase should have been cut in half! The entire skull island part of the movie could have been trimmed, the movie whittled down to about 2 to2.5 hours and then I would call it a masterpiece.

Same with LotR. Too much is too much. He needs to hire an editor and his films will be perfect.

[clintonmills]

I think Jackson would be a great choice. I love King Kong and the LOTR movies. I think the LOTR movies were long but I think it was necessary for them to be that long to give the story justice. Kong could have been short but I still thought it was good.

[punisher5150]

Stoo is right. By Crusade, the Indy films had lost that edge of the seat momentum. The teaser with him as a teen never had my heart pounding like the teasers for either Raiders or Temple. However, storywise it was necessary to establish the father - son relationship. I don't recall a single moment of Crusade that had me gripping the chair arms in the movie theater like the first two movies. I know there is a lot of Temple hate on this board, but when it comes to action, SS knew how to get the heart pounding in that movie.

As for Crusade, there wasn't a moment in the film where he ever recreated that same tension. Same goes for KotCS. I know it can still be done. I think with the earlier movies he was fully committed. I don't know if he's lost his touch or has just become "lazy" when it comes to filming the action.

Is it because I've gotten older and movies don't elicit the same response? I don't think so because there were moments of Peter Jackson's King Kong and LotRs that gave me that same feeling (see above post for my gripes with those films).

[punisher5150]

I think Jackson would be a great choice. I love King Kong and the LOTR movies. I think the LOTR movies were long but I think it was necessary for them to be that long to give the story justice. Kong could have been short but I still thought it was good.

Trying not to get too far off-topic, but LotRs had numerous war sequences that dragged entirely too long. Jackson could have conveyed the turning tides of each battle in a lot less time than he used on film. I think his problem, because he invests so much time and energy planning, establishing, and filming a scene, is that he does not approach the editing process objectively. He is too passionate about what he filmed (the sweat, blood, and tears it took to "get the shot") that he can't see where it detracts from the pace of the movie.

Now, don't take this as Jackson hate. I believe he is one of the most gifted filmmakers around. But he is not perfect. Guillermo del Toro on the other hand...I bet he could smash an Indy movie out of the park. I'd settle for Jackson too, as long as he doesn't get to edit.

[Forbidden Eye]

Well, its why I started this thread (http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=18176&highlight=Spielberg) a while back. If you watch the bonus features on the Kingdom Of the Crystal Skull DVD/Blu-Ray, Spielberg jokes on set that he's going to hire another younger director, he even admits in interviews he was the reason it took Indy 4 so long to get made.

I do think Spielberg has gotten too old for Indy. Frankly, he seems much more interested in being a studio mogul and an executive producer then directing like he did way back when. If a younger more enthusiastic director takes the helm it may make for a more enjoyable product.

I disagree with Jackson. The two problems people had with Indy 4 was its absurdity and overdose of CGI, those being big flaws of his last two films, King Kong and The Lovely Bones, and even Lord of the Rings. As been stated, he also doesn't know how to end his movies, which I don't really want to see happen with Indy. I think if it weren't for Lord of the Rings, people wouldn't be paying attention to Peter Jackson as he isn't particularly special.

I second J.J. Abrams. If that man can reinvigorate Star Trek, he can reinvigorate anything.

[DoomsdayFAN]

For years, people worried that Harry would be too old to play Indy; "How could a 60 year old Harrison Ford play Indiana Jones?" It was thought and worried that his performance might be a little too unbelievable as Dr. Jones. But I think even with the myriad of flaws KOTCS has, Harrison's performance isn't one of them. He's still in good shape and still knows how to play our lovable archaeologist; In fact, I'd go so far as to say that he's the best part of the film.

That said...Is Spielberg too old to be the director of a Bond film? Somewhere along the line, I think Spielberg lost his chops as an action film director. He's grown overly sentimental, he plays it too safe. He's also gone too politically correct, too soft--removing the guns out of ET, for example; Having Indy never fire his gun, draw his whip, or purposely kill anyone in KOTCS is another example. We know it's not Lucas who has gone soft on violence and killing--Look at Revenge of the Sith for evidence. Even in Young Indy, Indy kills purposefully when he needs to. Indiana in KOTCS is made too nice, too politically correct; he doesn't curse or kill. He's Indy for kids.

With Spielberg, we started to see some of this in LC; Indy slowly became a "kindler, gentler" character; the action scenes lacked the kinetic energy and roller-coaster ride feel of the originals. The action in LC feels lazy compared to TOD and Raiders, and in KOTCS it just feels formulaic, laid back. There's also been more and more an emphasis on humor, and on Indy as a hero rather than anti-hero. There's no out of the box ingenius scenes--Nothing like the truck chase or airport fight; nothing like the trap room in TOD; nothing like the motorcycle chase in LC. By '89, Steven said he felt "too old" to film Monkey King; I think at this point, he'd feel too old to even film Raiders again.

He's also too reliant on having the same chereographer for every film, the same team on board; Kaminski gives KOTCS a washed out, dull sort of look, whereas the old films almost at times bordered on technicolor beauty. He's too stuck too his beliefs, his style, his comfort zone. He's no longer willing to take risks. He's gone too politically correct--In one of the Making Of documentaries, he said he WOULDN'T use Nazis as the villains, even if he could.

Personally, if Indy 5 is the final go around for this series, I want Indy to go out with a bang. I want a rollercoaster ride of a film; Something between the rollercoaster ride of TOD with the seriousness of Raiders. The film should be intense--not intense as in overly dark, but the action scenes should be intense. We should fear for Indy's life, which we really didn't in KOTCS.

Indy needs to be an anti-hero again, to kill, to be somewhat dark and mysterious. The grave robber rather than the archaeologist. That dark, Man with No Name character of Raiders.

Maybe have a subplot involve Marion being killed by Indy's enemies--That'd make for one pissed off Indy, with nothing to lose anymore. Have the film take risks, and become a little more modern in FEEL. Don't change the genre and go Sci-Fi, but adapt to a more modern action style. The last film needs to take risks and send Indy off with a bang--a real rollercoaster ride--and I don't think Spielberg is up to it. Maybe have the feel of this be something like Indy meets EC Comics--EC Comics being the pulp fiction of the 1950s.

The problem is, without Spielberg, we're stuck with Lucas. I don't want to see a Lucas directed Indy. My ideal Indy 5 is film with a story by Lucas, perhaps a script by Kasdan (if he can still pull off the old magic), starring Harrisn, something intense and perhaps even revisiting the scary element of TOD, with Indy as the anti-hero, directed by a young, energy filled director who knows how to make an Indy film.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Especially about Spielberg becoming too soft and too politically correct. :down: You make wonderful points. I would love for Indy 5 to be as crazy as TOD, as serious and special as Raiders, and as emotional as LC. :gun:

[Montana Smith]

Having just finished watching Peter Jackson's King Kong, a masterpiece beyond imagining, I am fully convinced that Jackson should be given a crack at Indiana Jones. I kid you not. He would take Indy into epic, heart-wrenching territory. And yes, I was still devastated by Kong's death even after the billionth viewing. Those who think Jackson's Kong was anything less than stupendous has my great sympathy.

Lord Jackson must inherit Indiana Jones!

I don't need to tell you that I'm a major fan of Jackson's King Kong, and his Lord of the Rings trilogy (and all in glorious extended editions - because these are movies to savour and absorb, not to rush through).

However, I don't think the time is right for even Jackson to take on a big screen Indy film. The time is wrong for any director to tackle that task.

Harrison's age is the main issue. They played that factor up in KOTCS, so it will obviously be even more of an issue in Indy 5 (a prequel would be unconvincing, since Harrison isn't getting younger, and the film isn't anywhere imminent). Of course, Indy 5 could be a different style of movie to account for less physical Indy-action, but that won't be what a majority of fans will want to see.

At the same time Harrison Ford will still be the big-screen Indy in many people's minds for years to come. I don't want to see him replaced.

The compromise is that TV serial. A new, younger actor, who we can associate with television, just as many of us can accept Sean Patrick Flanery as Indy without usurping Harrison's quintescential portrayal. Picking up from where the Young Indy series ended, a youthful actor can lead us over the years seamlessly from the 1920s and into the war-years.

And for that task there will be many directors. And the man for bringing them together could well be JJ Abrams. After a sticky patch in season 1, Lost is becoming compulsive viewing, as were all five seasons of Alias. I could definitely see JJ doing justice to Indy with these series that not only include blood, real suspense, and a powerful story, but also fly under Disney's Buena Vista banner.

This could be Indy's safety net, out of the arms of a softening Lucas and Spielberg, and into those of a harder Disney. How's that for potential irony?

I see this as the surest way of getting something

...as crazy as TOD, as serious and special as Raiders, and as emotional as LC.

[Darth Vile]

Debating with you can be a pointless affair because you're often inconsistent in your arguments and flip-flop like a caught fish.
That’s a cheep jibe Stoo. Looks like your argument is faltering somewhat.
I think I’ve been consistent with my view since seeing the movie in 2008… and have been willing to defend and/or critique the movie as the topic allows. You posting contrary and limp wristed responses is just becoming dull. If you want to disagree/challenge, please do it with some level of rationality rather than your automatic fallback position of rancor.

Sure he has a certain 'aesthetic taste' but, as you say, he has 'matured'. That is a CHANGE! By your own admission, you think that the action in "Crusade" was outdated when it was released in 1989. The tank chase? Personally, I CAN find an 'edge-of-the-seat-exciting-action-scene' in "War of the Worlds" that compares (and also in "Jurassic Park II", for that matter). I don't find the tank chase in "Crusade" to be very 'edge of the seat' at all...except for one moment....
Semantics Stoo. I think Spielberg is making more substantial movies, in terms of subject matter. He’s refining his style (as artists usually do) but I don’t think his style has changed as much as you clearly think it has. I personally think the tank chase in TLC is a brilliant set piece and is wonderfully constructed… as such it still remains one of my favorite set pieces within a movie. However, I can still recognize that the set piece was reflecting a style of action that was being usurped in contemporary Hollywood movies/blockbusters. I also still believe that the tank chase from TLC is a far better set piece than anything in War of the Worlds or Jurassic Park II (and I think those are 2 good examples of where Spielberg falls short on the directorial stakes).

Have you ever seen "Duel"? One would be hard-pressed to find sugary sweetness in there...
There are such things as exceptions right? Just because I/others may criticize Spielberg for being over sentimental in his movies, there is no reason for you to get your knickers in a twist about it. I still like Spielberg movies.:rolleyes:

Right...and when supplying personal opinion as fact, the absolutes, "always" and "never", shouldn't be used either.:rolleyes: Not sure what you are stating. Of course one should stand behind ones convictions. :confused:

Action is ACTION, whether it's in an adventure movie, war film, science fiction, western, police story, etc. so there's no need to keep pigeon-holing things into the 'action/adventure' genre simply because it suits your position. If one can't compare Indy-action to "Saving Private Ryan", then why did you compare "War of the Worlds", "Minority Report" or "IA"? They aren't 'adventure' films either. (In this thread, you also compared "LAST CRUSADE" to "Die Hard", "Lethal Weapon", "Batman" and "Aliens"!)
C’mon Stoo – Even you should be able to grasp the notion of context and the use of examples to support/substantiate a position. I was using the likes of Aliens, Batman, Die Hard as examples of big budget, popular event movies (that were contemporary to TLC), in order to illustrate how Indiana Jones’ competition was upping the anti e.g. becoming more violent, darker etc. in comparison (whilst Indiana Jones was going more light-weight). And please, you need to refrain from just arguing semantics. The reason it would be obtuse to have a discussion comparing the action in The Wizard of Oz to Gladiator is that context is very important. They are different types of movies.

Why are you fixated on the Omaha beach scene? Have you not seen the entire film? There's much more to it than just the opening 30 minutes. That said, the Omaha beach scene is (by definition) an ACTION scene!:gun:
I don’t believe it was me who cited Saving Private Ryan in the first instance, rather I was responding to the use of it as a relevant example. You may as well use Schindlers List as a suitable example of action scenes. After all, they both contain “action” and “Action is Action” isn’t it?

Being 'relevant to 2011' (as you said) does not equate to being a 'game changer'. Bringing a new Indy film up to speed with the times doesn't necessarily mean it has to set a new standard. 'Many people' want Indy 5 to be a 'game changer'??? You and who else?:confused: Montana & IndyFan89 have said that someone new should be at the helm but never expressed that they'd like Indy 5 to redefine cinema. Mickiana was in the same camp as those two but also said that Spielberg is still the man for the job. Rob/TheIndyOpinion is right, this should have been a poll because I did a count and the LARGE MAJORITY (in this thread) believe that Spielberg is capable for a possible next Indy film.
I wasn’t aware that there was such a ground swell for Temple of Doom 2 to be made? I thought most of us were clamoring for a movie that had the impact/resonance Raiders had. Something different, something significant… something that would raise the bar? Surely anything less would just give us a variation on KOTCS.

Isn't it fairly common knowledge among fans that Spielberg's direction of "Skull" was a CONCIOUS effort to make it similar to the original 3? You even said to me 'bring it on' for Indy 5 to be done in a "Saving Private Ryan" fashion, so you KNOW he has the ability!
I welcome any movie making that isn’t just aping what’s gone before. I’d rather have a new Indy movie that tried to be different, and failed, than more of the same. Spielberg’s talent as a director isn’t in doubt (not by me anyhow). I was doubting his ability to give us something that would raise the bar re. Indy movies. If that isn’t the consensus here i.e. consensus that we want a movie that will blow other action movies out of the water (or at least have a good attempt at doing so) then I stand corrected.

Are you for real? Your position keeps switching, Vile. You've been maintaining that Spielberg 'mirrored/payed homage to' his own, outdated, '80s style with "Skull" so, according to you, it's NOT representative of the way he can direct action films. (Also, I thought "Skull" had the distinction of being 'action/adventure' rather than just simply an 'action movie'?)
My position doesn’t keep changing… I think it’s your cognitive processes that are in question. Let me write it in crayon for you: -

1) I believe KOTCS mimicked the overall tone/style of the originals exceedingly well (whether that is a plus or a minus is dependant on personal view)
2) By being a homage to itself (IMHO) KOTCS was by definition re-producing an 80’s’esque style of action i.e. dated. I appreciated/enjoyed the homage, but the movie hamstrung itself by attempting to be so similar in style to the previous three. Instead of being a movie that allowed itself to blaze a trail, KOTCS was too focused on looking back (IMHO). It showed.
3) The most logical and relevant example one can use to determine if “Spielberg is too old for Indy” is, like it or not, KOTCS. Not Raiders... and certainly not Saving Private Ryan. If Spielberg is to direct another one, it’s logical to think it's going to be closer in style/technique to KOTCS than it is to Schindlers List or Munich. If you don’t like that idea, then prepare yourself…

P.S. For the sake of the thread, please let us keep any future debate on these specifics to a minimum.

[indy4242]

Well, its why I started this thread (http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=18176&highlight=Spielberg) a while back. If you watch the bonus features on the Kingdom Of the Crystal Skull DVD/Blu-Ray, Spielberg jokes on set that he's going to hire another younger director, he even admits in interviews he was the reason it took Indy 4 so long to get made.

I do think Spielberg has gotten too old for Indy. Frankly, he seems much more interested in being a studio mogul and an executive producer then directing like he did way back when. If a younger more enthusiastic director takes the helm it may make for a more enjoyable product.

I disagree with Jackson. The two problems people had with Indy 4 was its absurdity and overdose of CGI, those being big flaws of his last two films, King Kong and The Lovely Bones, and even Lord of the Rings. As been stated, he also doesn't know how to end his movies, which I don't really want to see happen with Indy. I think if it weren't for Lord of the Rings, people wouldn't be paying attention to Peter Jackson as he isn't particularly special.

I second J.J. Abrams. If that man can reinvigorate Star Trek, he can reinvigorate anything.

Agreed. Jackson wouldn't make a good Indy movie - and claiming he'd make it "traditionally" without CGI is forgetting... well... he turned "The Lovely Bones" into a special effects movie. That says it all. I still like him, but he's wrong for Indy.

JJ Abrams... meh. He's always struck me as being a little too details-oriented instead of story-oriented, a little too based in mystery than adventure. I loved LOST and liked Star Trek, but again, I don't think he's a good fit for Indy.

If you're looking for new directors, though, can I throw Guillermo Del Toro into consideration?

[DoomsdayFAN]

I don't need to tell you that I'm a major fan of Jackson's King Kong, and his Lord of the Rings trilogy (and all in glorious extended editions - because these are movies to savour and absorb, not to rush through).

However, I don't think the time is right for even Jackson to take on a big screen Indy film. The time is wrong for any director to tackle that task.


Oh God! I loath Peter Jackson's King Kong. :down: Jackson would be one of the last people I'd want to take over Indy. HA! The film would be like 95% CGI. :sick:

If this was a perfect world and I could hand pick any director to take over Indy, it would probably be Christopher Nolan. That dude is known for his practical effects and masterful storytelling; which is just what we need... An Indy adventure which uses as many practical effects as possible, while using CGI ONLY to enhance and touch up the practical effects. Not to mention I believe he could bring us the next Raiders. :gun:


But I am still comfortable with Spielberg. I think the main problem with KOTCS was Lucas. He kept pressing for more CGI while Spielberg was pressing for more practical effects. Not only that, but Lucas is the one who kept flubbing up the story and tweaking it with his retarded ass ideas.

Anyway, for Indy 5, I hope Spielberg goes back to his "80s" ways, as far as aesthentics go. If JJ can make Super 8 look like 80s Spielberg, then Spielberg should be able to make Indy 5 look like 80s Spielberg.

As for the story..... I am afraid. As long as Lucas is in charge, it's probably not going to be up to par with the original three. I don't know why they can't be more daring like how they were for TOD. That, and bring back Kasdan to write it.

[Hanselation]

Oh God! I loath Peter Jackson's King Kong. :down: Jackson would be one of the last people I'd want to take over Indy. HA! The film would be like 95% CGI. :sick:

If this was a perfect world and I could hand pick any director to take over Indy, it would probably be Christopher Nolan. That dude is known for his practical effects and masterful storytelling; which is just what we need... An Indy adventure which uses as many practical effects as possible, while using CGI ONLY to enhance and touch up the practical effects. Not to mention I believe he could bring us the next Raiders. :gun:


But I am still comfortable with Spielberg. I think the main problem with KOTCS was Lucas. He kept pressing for more CGI while Spielberg was pressing for more practical effects. Not only that, but Lucas is the one who kept flubbing up the story and tweaking it with his retarded ass ideas.

Anyway, for Indy 5, I hope Spielberg goes back to his "80s" ways, as far as aesthentics go. If JJ can make Super 8 look like 80s Spielberg, then Spielberg should be able to make Indy 5 look like 80s Spielberg.

As for the story..... I am afraid. As long as Lucas is in charge, it's probably not going to be up to par with the original three. I don't know why they can't be more daring like how they were for TOD. That, and bring back Kasdan to write it.

:up: I quite agree with you. :up:

[kongisking]

Oh God! I loath Peter Jackson's King Kong. :down: Jackson would be one of the last people I'd want to take over Indy. HA! The film would be like 95% CGI. :sick:

If this was a perfect world and I could hand pick any director to take over Indy, it would probably be Christopher Nolan. That dude is known for his practical effects and masterful storytelling; which is just what we need... An Indy adventure which uses as many practical effects as possible, while using CGI ONLY to enhance and touch up the practical effects. Not to mention I believe he could bring us the next Raiders. :gun:


But I am still comfortable with Spielberg. I think the main problem with KOTCS was Lucas. He kept pressing for more CGI while Spielberg was pressing for more practical effects. Not only that, but Lucas is the one who kept flubbing up the story and tweaking it with his retarded ass ideas.

Anyway, for Indy 5, I hope Spielberg goes back to his "80s" ways, as far as aesthentics go. If JJ can make Super 8 look like 80s Spielberg, then Spielberg should be able to make Indy 5 look like 80s Spielberg.

As for the story..... I am afraid. As long as Lucas is in charge, it's probably not going to be up to par with the original three. I don't know why they can't be more daring like how they were for TOD. That, and bring back Kasdan to write it.

Um, not to sound like a smart-aleck, dude, but how else would you create a giant gorilla, giant dinosaurs, giant insects, a completely alien jungle, New York in the 1930's, etc.? Sorry, but your argument is flawed. Oh, that AND you insulted the mighty King, so yeah... :p But here's the good news: I think Nolan is a brilliant, brilliant, brilliant man as well. So at least there we can be friends. :hat:

And thanks for agreeing with me, Montana Smith. It's a damn shame you live in the UK, cause I'd totally be down for Extended Edition marathons with you. That swamp sequence was pretty *****in' wasn't it? :cool:

[Montana Smith]

And thanks for agreeing with me, Montana Smith. It's a damn shame you live in the UK, cause I'd totally be down for Extended Edition marathons with you. That swamp sequence was pretty *****in' wasn't it? :cool:

Bah, these MTV kids want everything over in 5 minutes these days! :p

Jackson takes you on a journey, and if you're up for it, and into the subject matter, it's a journey you don't want to end. I wish Spielberg and Lucas had shown that much care and attention in KOTCS...

[Darth Vile]

Bah, these MTV kids want everything over in 5 minutes these days! :p

Jackson takes you on a journey, and if you're up for it, and into the subject matter, it's a journey you don't want to end. I wish Spielberg and Lucas had shown that much care and attention in KOTCS...

You liked Jackson's King Kong Montana???

[Montana Smith]

You liked Jackson's King Kong Montana???

It's one of my favourite movies. It's pretty faithful to the original story and it's sentiment, and what's not to like about a giant gorilla, dinosaurs, and a 1930s tramp steamer heading off to a remote island?

[kongisking]

It's one of my favourite movies. It's pretty faithful to the original story and it's sentiment, and what's not to like about a giant gorilla, dinosaurs, and a 1930s tramp steamer heading off to a remote island?

I could kiss you, Smiffy, you're so correct!

I didn't mean that the way it sounded...:o

[Darth Vile]

It's one of my favourite movies. It's pretty faithful to the original story and it's sentiment, and what's not to like about a giant gorilla, dinosaurs, and a 1930s tramp steamer heading off to a remote island?

Not my cup of tea really. I really like all the the set up stuff prior to Skull Island, but once on the island and Kong is introduced, I find it all quite tedious. Ironically, many of the criticisms levelled at the Indy sequels (more recently KOTCS), I think are more appropriate for King Kong e.g. too many characters, lack of character development, not enough peril, too much CGI etc. etc. Oh well. :)

[Stoo]

That’s a cheep jibe Stoo. Looks like your argument is faltering somewhat.
I think I’ve been consistent with my view since seeing the movie in 2008… and have been willing to defend and/or critique the movie as the topic allows. You posting contrary and limp wristed responses is just becoming dull. If you want to disagree/challenge, please do it with some level of rationality rather than your automatic fallback position of rancor.The phrase, "flip-flop like a fish", is not rancor. It's merely a similie used as a mild euphemism. Sorry if it rubs you the wrong way. Speaking of "limp wristed", "contrary" & "dull", you may think you've been consistent but that's not the case (and there's no point giving a detailed review because the examples are many).
Semantics Stoo. I think Spielberg is making more substantial movies, in terms of subject matter. He’s refining his style (as artists usually do) but I don’t think his style has changed as much as you clearly think it has.Did I ever say to what degree his style has changed? No...but it has, indeed, changed especially in terms of filming action sequences. You said that Spielberg HASN'T changed in regards to making "action movies", even though "Saving Private Ryan" set a new standard. Semantics-Schemantics.
I personally think the tank chase in TLC is a brilliant set piece and is wonderfully constructed… as such it still remains one of my favorite set pieces within a movie. However, I can still recognize that the set piece was reflecting a style of action that was being usurped in contemporary Hollywood movies/blockbusters. I also still believe that the tank chase from TLC is a far better set piece than anything in War of the Worlds or Jurassic Park II (and I think those are 2 good examples of where Spielberg falls short on the directorial stakes).Your opinion entirely. Personally, the cracking glass scene in "Jurassic Park II" was a veritable nail-biter. For me, it's the best scene in the film and Spielberg didn't need dinosaurs to make it happen. In "War of the Worlds", the action scene in the street at the beginning was the first time...in a lo-o-o-ng time, that I actually felt frightened in a cinema.:eek: Back in '89, the tank chase in "Crusade" was fun to watch but it never had me at the edge of my seat save for one, brief part which was resolved with an incongruous & ridiculous cop-out (in true serial fashion). Compared with other Spielberg action, the tank chase in "Crusade" doesn't stand out as his best (in my opinion).
There are such things as exceptions right? Just because I/others may criticize Spielberg for being over sentimental in his movies, there is no reason for you to get your knickers in a twist about it. I still like Spielberg movies.:rolleyes:

Not sure what you are stating. Of course one should stand behind ones convictions. :confused:Sorry, Vile, but my knickers aren't in a twist since I agree that many of his films are a bit sappy and have never stated otherwise. I'm pointing out that the word, "always", is an absolute so your statement, "Spielberg has always been overly sentimental and saccharin sweet with his movies... so no change there", is false. Along with, "Duel", where is the sugar sweet & forced sentimentality in "Raiders" (or even "Jurassic Park II")?:confused:
C’mon Stoo – Even you should be able to grasp the notion of context and the use of examples to support/substantiate a position. I was using the likes of Aliens, Batman, Die Hard as examples of big budget, popular event movies (that were contemporary to TLC), in order to illustrate how Indiana Jones’ competition was upping the anti e.g. becoming more violent, darker etc. in comparison (whilst Indiana Jones was going more light-weight). And please, you need to refrain from just arguing semantics. The reason it would be obtuse to have a discussion comparing the action in The Wizard of Oz to Gladiator is that context is very important. They are different types of movies.C'mon, Vile - Even you should be able to understand that solely adressing a brief quip (written in fine print & parentheses) while avoiding the larger issue is a limp-wristed tactic of deflection. You've completely ignored the real meat of my question. Sure, I can understand what you're getting at re: other 1989 blockbuster films, but your response still doesn't provide any reason for why Indy films CAN'T be compared to "Saving Private Ryan" but it's O.K. (in your book) to compare them to "War of the Worlds", "Minority Report" and "AI".:rolleyes:
I don’t believe it was me who cited Saving Private Ryan in the first instance, rather I was responding to the use of it as a relevant example. You may as well use Schindlers List as a suitable example of action scenes. After all, they both contain “action” and “Action is Action” isn’t it?Please, try to stay on track. No one said it was you who first cited "Saving Private Ryan" in this conversation. It was myself who brought up, "Ryan", and with very good reason. If there is any action in "Schindler's List" then, yes, that is also fair game (been a long time since I've seen it. Is there any action in there?). Action is action. Should comparisons between Indy and other Spielberg-directed-action be strictly limited to his 'action/adventure' films, then all one really has are his 2 "Jurassic Park" movies.
I wasn’t aware that there was such a ground swell for Temple of Doom 2 to be made? I thought most of us were clamoring for a movie that had the impact/resonance Raiders had. Something different, something significant… something that would raise the bar? Surely anything less would just give us a variation on KOTCS.Of course you weren't aware because of a myopic vision. You write, "I thought most of us" and seem to be confusing your personal desire as the general wish. As I said previously, bringing Indy up to speed with contemporary movie-making is not the same thing as breaking new ground/raising the bar.:rolleyes:
I welcome any movie making that isn’t just aping what’s gone before. I’d rather have a new Indy movie that tried to be different, and failed, than more of the same. Spielberg’s talent as a director isn’t in doubt (not by me anyhow). I was doubting his ability to give us something that would raise the bar re. Indy movies. If that isn’t the consensus here i.e. consensus that we want a movie that will blow other action movies out of the water (or at least have a good attempt at doing so) then I stand corrected.Then stand corrected. You want a new Indy movie that hasn't aped what's gone before but "Crusade" aped "Raiders"! More of same with dad thrown in, yet you (and countless others) REVERE the re-tread. Flip-flop...:rolleyes:
My position doesn’t keep changing… I think it’s your cognitive processes that are in question. Let me write it in crayon for you:Oh, but your position does keep changing and I'm not alone in recognizing it. Your position fluctuates according to your ever-changing stance and this discussion is a great example. There's no fooling anyone...Thanks for writing things in crayon but it would've been better if you typed all in upper case because my unfrozen-caveman brain has its limits.
1) I believe KOTCS mimicked the overall tone/style of the originals exceedingly well (whether that is a plus or a minus is dependant on personal view)
2) By being a homage to itself (IMHO) KOTCS was by definition re-producing an 80’s’esque style of action i.e. dated. I appreciated/enjoyed the homage, but the movie hamstrung itself by attempting to be so similar in style to the previous three. Instead of being a movie that allowed itself to blaze a trail, KOTCS was too focused on looking back (IMHO). It showed.
3) The most logical and relevant example one can use to determine if “Spielberg is too old for Indy” is, like it or not, KOTCS. Not Raiders... and certainly not Saving Private Ryan. If Spielberg is to direct another one, it’s logical to think it's going to be closer in style/technique to KOTCS than it is to Schindlers List or Munich. If you don’t like that idea, then prepare yourself…1) I agree with you, somewhat, but not entirely.
2) Flip-Flop. You've made your belief clear that the action in "Crusade" wasn't 'trail-blazing' and was outdated for its time yet it contains one of your most favourite action sequences in filmdom.
3) You're imagining things, Vile. I don't expect to ever see a possible Indy 5 done in a modern style but what I'm saying is that Spielberg *IS* CAPABLE of doing so. Remember, you said he has LOST THE ABILILTY when he hasn't. Get with the program. I would prefer an "old school" style. It is YOU who feels that it's a bad idea.

#2 & 3 is where your position falls to the ground...If Spielberg made "Skull" as an homage to/imitating his own, OLD style of directing action then your argument about him LOSING the ability to make action films is silly. An homage is a CONCIOUS EFFORT to pay tribute to the past. Yet you use "Skull" as an example of this supposed inability simply because it's his latest. This is not logical nor does it make any sense. BIG Flip-flop!

An additional #4
4) You forgot to clarify whether Indy films are 'action' films or 'action/adventure' films. The distinction is quite important because you switch between the two genres whenever it suits your cause.:)

[Mickiana]

Spielberg is not too old for Indy or any movie making. There has been/are capable older directors out there making good pics. Spielberg was over Indiana Jones after the third. He had to be convinced to do a fourth and he was reluctant about the story. But the fourth was generally liked by the public and made lots of money. He is entirely capable of making a good fifth one, but what is the script like that he's given to shoot? The originality of Raiders and the energy they put into it will be difficult to duplicate. Maybe it's not necessary now? Raiders sounded like a trial and a half to make. I wonder if that difficulty brings out a better film? Amongst some of us fans, it was felt there was a "laziness" behind the making of CS. I think the thread question should have been, "Is Spielberg still enthusiastic about Indiana Jones?"

[Darth Vile]

Thanks for writing things in crayon but it would've been better if you typed all in upper case because my unfrozen-caveman brain has its limits.


Lol - At last something we can all agree on. Nice to see that even your hubris has its limits. You may not be the brightest crayon in the pack Stoo, but you have your occasional moments of colour. :)

[punisher5150]

Spielberg is not too old for Indy or any movie making. There has been/are capable older directors out there making good pics. Spielberg was over Indiana Jones after the third. He had to be convinced to do a fourth and he was reluctant about the story. But the fourth was generally liked by the public and made lots of money. He is entirely capable of making a good fifth one, but what is the script like that he's given to shoot? The originality of Raiders and the energy they put into it will be difficult to duplicate. Maybe it's not necessary now? Raiders sounded like a trial and a half to make. I wonder if that difficulty brings out a better film? Amongst some of us fans, it was felt there was a "laziness" behind the making of CS. I think the thread question should have been, "Is Spielberg still enthusiastic about Indiana Jones?"

Laziness was the exact impression I got with SS and Indy IV. Going through the motions.

[Montana Smith]

Laziness was the exact impression I got with SS and Indy IV. Going through the motions.

I'm not sure it showed laziness, but rather that they were going through different motions: that is, a different direction, away from where I wanted Indy to be. They followed this route, and it's that which made KOTCS look negligent. The creative team, in my opinion, gave the movie the wrong treatment. Instead of a shot of adrenaline, for the most part they injected it with some mellowing influence! Beneath the bluster there is an innate blandness folling Doom Town.

[Mickiana]

That's more correct, Montana. The feeling of laziness I think derives from there not being enough suspense. It was supposed to be a cliff hanger type movie and there were people hanging off cliffs and going over cliffs and over waterfalls and racing each other but they didn't quite create the suspense that I was looking for.

[jbonvillain]

:cool: Lol - At last something we can all agree on. Nice to see that even your hubris has its limits. You may not be the brightest crayon in the pack Stoo, but you have your occasional moments of colour. :)i am in colour i am the old indana jones seen a message to me i will wating four you

[Archaeos]

:cool: i am in colour i am the old indana jones seen a message to me i will wating four you

I am in awesome for you contributions and dark in jealous to me for envying yur sharp observations, jbotvillain.