General Indy 5 Thread - rumors and possibilities

Finn said:

I thought the motivation was quite obvious - to stop the Reds from claiming whatever it is that waits at the end of the road. Incidentally, you could argue that the very same reason (to stop the MacGuffin from falling to the hands of the bad guys) has been at least one of the motivators to take the quest in the preceding three films as well.

Also, he's obviously in it for personal glory. As a matter of fact, there's a line stating he almost died of typhus while looking for the city last time - so why should he go home now and suffer another failure? TBH, does he have any higher reasons than self-gratification to go after the MacGuffin in Raiders or ToD either? Not that I recall.

Finally, you could say there are some additional stakes in it as well. They're subtle, but there. Keep in mind that Indy was accused of collaborating with the Soviets after the warehouse scene. Finding the prize and taking it home means clearing his name, while just turning tail and letting Spalko carry on and win would probably spell the opposite. You could say it's a futile exercise because it apparently happens despite him coming home with nothing to show for it. But hey, that's yet another recurring theme when you look at the original trilogy.

As final pointer, which is arguably a bit more meta and thus could be considered apologetic, but does there need to be a motivation? Indy is an established character, and obviously a product of an era when men even in real life, like Sir George Mallory, did not go after something for any other reason than it simply being there. As a matter of fact, you could say it drives some men even this day...

Click to expand...

I've admitted that Indy seemed under-motivated in the film, but your points are quite interesting. But it could be argued that the fact his motivation is not crystal clear (pardon the pun) is the fault of Koepp, and proof the movie wasn't being given the high-caliber writing talent it deserved. I would have loved a brief line of Indy implying his interest in the skull was to get the feds off his back. It would have also helped that subplot not feel as ultimately pointless as it was.

kongisking said:

the fact his motivation is not crystal clear is the fault of Koepp

Click to expand...

Page 43. "Akator. That would be the find of a lifetime. Create a reputation no politician could touch."

Finn said:

I thought the motivation was quite obvious - to stop the Reds from claiming whatever it is that waits at the end of the road. Incidentally, you could argue that the very same reason (to stop the MacGuffin from falling to the hands of the bad guys) has been at least one of the motivators to take the quest in the preceding three films as well.

Also, he's obviously in it for personal glory. As a matter of fact, there's a line stating he almost died of typhus while looking for the city last time - so why should he go home now and suffer another failure?

Click to expand...

The issue is not that any of these things couldn't be argued. The issue is that the film lumbers into its third act when more dramatic and effective options could have been chosen. It's incredibly inert compared to the high stakes setups for the other films in their respective home stretches. I'm not prepared to defend it as "subtle," either. It's just lazy.

Finn said:

TBH, does he have any higher reasons than self-gratification to go after the MacGuffin in Raiders or ToD either? Not that I recall.

Click to expand...

Okay, but we're shifting away from the issue of what's propelling Act III now and talking about Indy's impetus for getting out of dodge early in the movie. The Act III kickstarting moment in Crystal Skull is Indy's "Because it told me to." At the equivalent point in the other movies Indy is far more dramatically invested because Marion is kidnapped (Raiders), Henry Sr. is shot (Last Crusade) and...geeze, where do you even begin with Temple?

It's true, Indy arguably heads to South America in Crystal Skull for similar reasons he starts his journey in Raiders. Here's my problem:

1) In Raiders, Indy's drive in the beginning is singular and well-defined. The weight of the ark is effectively and efficiently established not just in words but because of what the script gives Ford and Elliot to work with performance-wise. No such equivalent in Crystal Skull.
2) Crystal Skull actually proffers a number of potential motives for Indy, but more is not better, at least in the clumsy way the film hands out information. The movie could have clearly portrayed that Indy was heading south to avoid the Feds - but it's not that, because without Mutt intercepting him, Jones was headed for Germany. Is he going down, then, to rescue Oxley, who he apparently knew personally (nevermind our relationship with him)? This isn't clear, either. He isn't doing it to evade the Russians, because he's in fact following them. Maybe he's going to Peru genuinely to help this random kid's mom (the script inanely prevents Marion's identity at this point). Or, as the deleted scene implies, he's headed there to clear his name. There's a bunch of possibilities and none are given any weight or clarity. Yes, I can believe Indy would get on the plane for some or all of the above reasons. But it's weak and muddled, and completely unnecessarily so, and there's no analog to that in the preceding movies.

Finn said:

Finally, you could say there are some additional stakes in it as well. They're subtle, but there. Keep in mind that Indy was accused of collaborating with the Soviets after the warehouse scene. Finding the prize and taking it home means clearing his name, while just turning tail and letting Spalko carry on and win would probably spell the opposite. You could say it's a futile exercise because it apparently happens despite him coming home with nothing to show for it. But hey, that's yet another recurring theme when you look at the original trilogy.

Click to expand...

The problem is that we don't KNOW it means clearing his name - we can only assume it does because the ending tells us so. There's a reason why the Darabont draft, which treated the innocent-man-on-the-run element with far more attention, saw fit to include the state department character in the jungle adventure. How in the hell does finding a lost city ameliorate the Fed situation? Is there proof that Spalko's team or the city ever existed after the valley gets flooded? Again, I don't interpret this as some audience-respecting, fill-in-the-blanks-yourself approach; it's straight-up poor storytelling. It's the path of least effort.

Finn said:

As final pointer, which is arguably a bit more meta and thus could be considered apologetic, but does there need to be a motivation? Indy is an established character, and obviously a product of an era when men even in real life, like Sir George Mallory, did not go after something for any other reason than it simply being there. As a matter of fact, you could say it drives some men even this day...

Click to expand...

Again, this is not about plausibility, this is about providing forward momentum in an action/adventure script when it is makes perfect sense to and would be to the improvement of the experience. Yes, you can absolutely take the auto-pilot approach, as Indy4 did. And I'm absolutely gonna call it the lame missed opportunity it is, even if it "got the job done."

Stoo said:

Abound? For the jungle trek, there was *1* matte painting (palace in the distance) and *1* stage set (the campsite).

Click to expand...

Well, it depends on if you're including the village and arrival at Pankot, I suppose. Was the bit with the gnarly statue (the "vampire bats" prelude) on location? Aren't there at least two mattes of the palace? Okay, we're starting to quibble.

Another point: while most of Temple is in India, the story conspires to keep the characters under ground for most of the second half. Crystal Skull is outside way more, meaning the need to constantly green screen in South American backdrop is greater (i.e. there's a lot more of it), and thus more glaring in overall impression.

Moedred said:

Page 43. "Akator. That would be the find of a lifetime. Create a reputation no politician could touch."

Click to expand...

The editing does do Koepp a slight disservice (what's crucial about this line is its location - it would have come immediately before the tracing red line montage), but you still have to roll with that idea that politicians would give a tinker's dam about finding a lost city. Still, yes - would have been better. But it would have been way better to drop Oxley, the nonsense with the deliberately-allowed-to-be-leaked letter, and obfuscating Marion's name for the sake of it. My overarching argument is toward simplification. It is in that respect where I don't think anyone can point to the trilogy and say, "Well, it's like that here, too!"

Udvarnoky said:

2) Crystal Skull actually proffers a number of potential motives for Indy, but more is not better, at least in the clumsy way the film hands out information. The movie could have clearly portrayed that Indy was heading south to avoid the Feds - but it's not that, because without Mutt intercepting him, Jones was headed for Germany. Is he going down, then, to rescue Oxley, who he apparently knew personally (nevermind our relationship with him)? This isn't clear, either. He isn't doing it to evade the Russians, because he's in fact following them. Maybe he's going to Peru genuinely to help this random kid's mom (the script inanely prevents Marion's identity at this point). Or, as the deleted scene implies, he's headed there to clear his name. There's a bunch of possibilities and none are given any weight or clarity. Yes, I can believe Indy would get on the plane for some or all of the above reasons. But it's weak and muddled, and completely unnecessarily so, and there's no analog to that in the preceding movies.

Click to expand...

What Mutt offers Indy is a shot at making another grand discovery, not to mention one he's been after earlier but which eluded him. The film is actually very clear with this. This should be enough for the audience as well, because at this point we should very well know our hero, the eternal fortune seeker.

Udvarnoky said:

Again, this is not about plausibility, this is about providing forward momentum in an action/adventure script when it is makes perfect sense to and would be to the improvement of the experience. Yes, you can absolutely take the auto-pilot approach, as Indy4 did. And I'm absolutely gonna call it the lame missed opportunity it is, even if it "got the job done."

Click to expand...

You know, I'm not really opposing these points. While I think further motivation is there, its presentation does suffer from playing down its key points.

However, what I am calling out is apparent hypocrisy - because the very same issues plague the original trilogy as well. Only LC offers Indy a proper cause to do what he does, Raiders and ToD take very much the "he does all this because he's hey-ho-hum the hero of the story" route. Of course, this is perfectly acceptable with films that are supposed to emulate old serials.

Finn said:

However, what I am calling out is apparent hypocrisy - because the very same issues plague the original trilogy as well.

Click to expand...

Then we're in disagreement of what the issues actually are, or you just didn't read why I feel Skull distinguishes itself in this particular regard. Whether you think I'm full of beans or not, that should at least rule out hypocrisy, no?

Udvarnoky said:

Then we're in disagreement of what the issues actually are, or you just didn't read why I feel Skull distinguishes itself in this particular regard. Whether you think I'm full of beans or not, that should at least rule out hypocrisy, no?

Click to expand...

Fair enough. But does KotCS really need to present the motivation so clearly in the first place? Indy is not one to turn down a chance to experience yet another grand adventure. And that is his motivation. I think the movie is taking the leap simply because its makers fully expect by now that we know what kind of a man Indy is. You don't really require further establishment with a character already as established as Dr. Jones - just like you don't need further motivation for James Bond than "M said so".

Finn said:

But does KotCS really need to present the motivation so clearly in the first place?

Click to expand...

What you're defending it for and what I'm railing against it for (and let's not mistake the lengths we're going on this particular point to mean that I see it as the single, crucial flaw and not a symptom of a larger issue) are in fact the same thing: no mark is aimed for beyond what was needed. It's functional writing. It's sufficient. It accomplishes the minimum. It moves the puck down court.

No one was looking for that in a new Indy movie. And, since I believe the previous movies, despite their myriad of flaws (yes, some of which can be compared with Crystal Skull) had higher aspirations than the absolute minimum, I maintain that what I'm arguing is not hypocritical in the slightest.

Frankly though, I don't see why it's even necessary to get all that analytical to see my point. When you compare what kickstarts each adventure, Crystal has no ally. In Temple Indy's plane crashes in India. In Last Crusade his father's been kidnapped. Raiders is the only one that compares, and that's conceptually. Indy dropping some line of dialog about almost dying of typhus does not compare, in quality or effect, to the scene where he and Marcus eagerly share the mythology of Tanis and the Staff of Ra with infectious excitement. It's dismissive to reduce that down to, "Well, in both movies he's just the eternal fortune-seeker."

Udvarnoky said:

What you're defending it for and what I'm railing against it for (and let's not mistake the lengths we're going on this particular point to mean that I see it as the single, crucial flaw and not a symptom of a larger issue) are in fact the same thing: no mark is aimed for beyond what was needed. It's functional writing. It's sufficient. It accomplishes the minimum. It moves the puck down court.

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure if presenting some strong motivation would have made it a better film in the slightest. Majority of the audience probably wouldn't have seen it as anything more than what it is - a simple plot device to send our hero careening down to the parts unknown. You could compare it to handling the plot bits in porn - nobody really gives a damn what excuse they use to have people bump the uglies, you're just here for the T&A.

KotCS does suffer from lazy writing and characters that are simply badly established. But I do find it a bit ludicrous that such accusations are made towards Indy himself, who's the last one to require further establishment at this stage.

It's not like I'm saying, "fix this one thing, and a significantly better movie emerges," but I do think it points to a larger issue with the writing.

Consider that what I'm griping about amounts to a desire to streamline things. Let's lose the Oxley character, his blasted letter, and his entire contrived existence, which serves as a lame shorthand for real drama (Indy and him totally go way back) and to contrive a connection between Indy-Marion-Mutt, by way of Abner. Let's identify Marion for real in the diner. (No confusion about why Indy's taking the next plane now.) Let's replace the Russian bruisers with Feds, who've graduated from ransacking offices to taking Indy in on trumped-up charges. It's a more logical development, sustains momentum wonderfully and is a continued shout-out to the paranoia theme.

The steps I would take to amend the seemingly petty issue have cascading impacts, the type that could change the movie significantly enough to maybe, just maybe make a better film.

Moedred said:

Page 43. "Akator. That would be the find of a lifetime. Create a reputation no politician could touch."

Click to expand...

Knowledge is my treasure. Thanks for setting me straight. I never actually read the proper screenplay. Does it also have the deleted moment of the grave collapsing and Mutt hanging out over the Nazca lines?

Yes. All the deleted material you've heard about is in there including Koepp's vision for the portal, which Spielberg changed.

On the subject of the cemetery scene, one thing you might find interesting is Indy and Mutt's dialog when they're discussing the skull in the crypt. They actually changed around the ordering of things in the final movie.

You'll find that the deleted material amounts to very little overall. The movie is faithful to its script.

Udvarnoky said:

Yes. All the deleted material you've heard about is in there including Koepp's vision for the portal, which Spielberg changed.

On the subject of the cemetery scene, one thing you might find interesting is Indy and Mutt's dialog when they're discussing the skull in the crypt. They actually changed around the ordering of things in the final movie.

You'll find that the deleted material amounts to very little overall. The movie is faithful to its script.

Click to expand...

Just looked through it a little. Really, really wish the little things had been kept in, like Charles Stanforth's little speech before leaving Indy's house. I personally think little moments like that are immensely important to a movie, and their absence may have been what made the movie seem kind of generic and not amount to much. In less than what may have been perhaps a minute in the finished movie, Indy's character was given an entire new layer of poignancy. Now I'm inclined to be annoyed at Spielberg for cutting out these bits. Bits that, back in the old days, he would have considered crucial character moments. What the heck, Steven?

Some good lines were lost, but there's not some incredible assembly cut that got ruined by Spielberg and Kahn enforcing a two hour runtime. The movie we saw is right there on the page.

Udvarnoky said:

Well, it depends on if you're including the village and arrival at Pankot, I suppose. Was the bit with the gnarly statue (the "vampire bats" prelude) on location? Aren't there at least two mattes of the palace? Okay, we're starting to quibble.

Another point: while most of Temple is in India, the story conspires to keep the characters under ground for most of the second half. Crystal Skull is outside way more, meaning the need to constantly green screen in South American backdrop is greater (i.e. there's a lot more of it), and thus more glaring in overall impression.

Click to expand...

Y'know, I would love to continue this discussion but would prefer to do it in one of the +2100 threads dedicated to "Crystal Skull".

ON-TOPIC:

Montana Smith said:

All he needs is an eye patch and a bunch of kids prepared to sit through his tall stories and he's good to go for another dozen or so films.

Click to expand...

Without a doubt, Harrison wearing an eyepatch is my top-ranking desire for what I'd like to see in a 5th film. It would be such a satisfying touch to connect with Lucas' intention of the character's later days. Just imagine an opening similar to "Raiders", where his face isn't shown for the first few minutes. Then he eventually steps out from a shadow and?EYEPATCH INDY!

Even more intriguing would be to leave the reason unexplained because it would create some new mystery surrounding the man & his experiences, setting fire to the audience's imagination.

Udvarnoky said:

Some good lines were lost, but there's not some incredible assembly cut that got ruined...

Click to expand...

If Blade Runnerhas taught anything it's that small little details like lines, scenes and moments that can add up to a totally different experience. One such examples is Ford's "Part time" take in the trailer was cooler than the one in movie.

Forbidden Eye said:

If Blade Runnerhas taught anything it's that small little details like lines, scenes and moments that can add up to a totally different experience. One such examples is Ford's "Part time" take in the trailer was cooler than the one in movie.

Click to expand...

Precisely. On both counts.

The trailer version of the line sounded like a truly badass boast. The final line sounded like a shrugged half-hearted quip.

Get Blade Runner in Blu Ray(Director's Cut), holy hell *(minding my verbage) this is a different movie than I saw back in '82 !!! Wow !!! Chiming in , don't hold it against me.

Forbidden Eye said:

If Blade Runnerhas taught anything it's that small little details like lines, scenes and moments that can add up to a totally different experience. One such examples is Ford's "Part time" take in the trailer was cooler than the one in movie.

Click to expand...

You're ascribing powers to the lost (and apparently alternate) footage that I can't personally fathom. I think some of the cut stuff and especially that scene between Mac and Spalko would have been real pluses, but the film can only improved up to a certain point given the script they used.

It would have been the difference between getting a 19% F on your Math test as opposed to an 11% F. The improvement is clear, but pretty irrelevant. Again, this movie is very true to its script as far as that process goes, and I think the script imposed a pretty brutal ceiling on how much the film could achieve. You disagree, but I really don't think Blade Runner is the apt parody situation you're selling it as.

Stoo said:

Y'know, I would love to continue this discussion but would prefer to do it in one of the +2100 threads dedicated to "Crystal Skull".

Click to expand...

I get it, but it's not like Indy 5 discussion wouldn't immediately take over this thread the next time somebody has something worthwhile to say on the subject or big news drops. Given the generally quiet nature of the boards these days, you'd think being *****ly about what sub-forum the elusive activity is taking place would be kinda unnecessary.

Plus, these Indy4 thoughts aren't wholly irrelevant, as people's issues with the latest movie very much relate to what we would and wouldn't like to see in the hopeful fifth installment. This latest tangent was spurred by fairly pertinent thoughts on Spielberg's use of location shooting in his last Indy outing. While this admittedly derailed insightful suggestions about making an Indy musical and the evergreen mockery of Ford's rising age, I should think it's a forgivable faux pas.

EDIT: Today I learned "p-r-i-c-k-l-y" is in fact a curse word. Has anyone proposed pitching the obtrusive swear filter into the round file where it belongs? Let the f-bombs drop freely.

Udvarnoky said:

EDIT: Today I learned "p-r-i-c-k-l-y" is in fact a curse word. Has anyone proposed pitching the obtrusive swear filter into the round file where it belongs? Let the f-bombs drop freely.

Click to expand...

If we wholesale do away with censoring cusswords, this place will become as disgustingly foul-mouthed and childish as an Aint it Cool Talkback. So I'm not for the idea, myself. I'd hate to see an Indiana Jones forum devolve into such a degenerate and pathetic state.