How would you feel about a whole new trilogy...

Supernatural

New member
instead of just part 4?

The way he did it with Star Wars.

All three set in the 50's the way the originals were set in the 30's.

You see, that way, instead of pushing a fourth movie into the original trilogy and upsetting the balance ( :confused: ) it would be a seperate trilogy.

Right?

Right?

McFly?
 

TombReader

New member
temple of john said:
I like the idea alot but...I don't think it will happen. I don't believe that Lucas's idea is that broad to stretch 3 more movies and I don't know if Speilberg or Ford for that matter would be interested.


I agree.I don't really think the idea was to go for another round of 3.Another trilogy seems highly unlikely to me.
 

Supernatural

New member
I know they won't happen...
But how would you feel about it?

If you knew they'd be good?
A) Yes, of course!
B) Leave it alone, the man is getting up there.

If you knew they'd be ok, or maybe worse.
A) Any Indy is good Indy
B) Leave well enough alone.

or any answers you may come up with.
 

indifan101

New member
Harrison Ford is a little old and the year for a fourth movie is way off! They should of made a fourth movie back in 1990. :)
 

roundshort

Active member
Should of would have could have

Remember 1990 was a totally different time. Harrison Ford was bound to put this action stuff behind him and try and play more round charatcers, well that didn't work. We all see that Lucas is a Crazy little midget who let his passion for being a single father and making crap for his kids kill SW I, II, III, and Steven, well who the hell knows what he will pull next, And lets face it a lot of us saw the Original Indy movies when we were kids, and there was not a lot of really good movies for kids in the 80's, the real question is would Star Wars be as great was it was if it came out in the 90's? Doubt it.

I would love to see another Indy more than anyone, but like a loved one in a coma, do you really want them to come out of it if they have brain damage, and how much is too much?

Hopefully Hollywood will be able to make better original movies in the future.

Which begs the question, what movie (or movies) have had an impact like Star Wars IV, V, IV, or the Indy movies and I don't even want to hear Lord of the Rings, its a good book, not a great set of movies, like Harry Potter
 

Brown Fedora

New member
roundshort said:
Should of would have could have

Remember 1990 was a totally different time. Harrison Ford was bound to put this action stuff behind him and try and play more round charatcers, well that didn't work. We all see that Lucas is a Crazy little midget who let his passion for being a single father and making crap for his kids kill SW I, II, III, and Steven, well who the hell knows what he will pull next, And lets face it a lot of us saw the Original Indy movies when we were kids, and there was not a lot of really good movies for kids in the 80's, the real question is would Star Wars be as great was it was if it came out in the 90's? Doubt it.

That's a very good way of putting it, and it encapsulates my feelings about this issue, for the most part, though I would disagree about a lack of really good movies for kids in the 80s.. there were tons of them. Goonies, the Explorers, the Neverending Story, Time Bandits... I could go on. Have had this conversation before.

It's simply that, when most of us were in our younger years, PG meant an entirely different thing, as did the term "kids movie". I have a friend who works in the industry, and she tells me that this all changed beginning in the early 90s for two at least reasons, take it with a grain of salt:

1) Parents from a new generation, the so called "yuppies" (like my older siblings), decided that the way their parents had raised them wasn't good enough, so they tended more toward a "new approach" at parenting. Insert your own opinions here...

2) Children have changed. She told me that they have tested films like the Neverending Story on children of the 90s and the early 21st century. Most of them "don't get it". She says, initially, that this was a great shock, as these films had done so well with that demographic in the 1980s. Apparently the big difference is attention span - kids just don't like movies as much as they used to, and they'd rather see sugar-coated crap like 'Spykids 3D'.

My wife has pointed out that most directors have also learned a third lesson - that it's very easy to make a kid's movie with minimum plot and lots of bright, happy things at a reasonable budget; children will drag their parents, or the parents will drag them, and they'll still make a profit at the end of the day, as opposed to the fact that many of the films we had in the 80s were expensive for the time, and would be even more expensive now...

Then, there's this whole political correctness thing (and both conservatives and liberals are equally guilty of this), and that's taken a chunk out of creativity. And of course, never should forget that many of what we call "kids films" were marketed at adults, too, in those days. Star Wars was never supposed to be for children, and I can remember George Lucas walking off at least one talk show when that suggestion was made.

Anyway...

To get back to the question at hand. No, I wouldn't want another triology set in the 1950s. That isn't in the spirit of the pulps, and it isn't in the spirit of this kind of film. I am not the only one who thinks setting an Indy film in the 1950s is a bad idea.

Yes, I would watch a trilogy set in the same time frame as the first three films... But I love that genre. I loved Sky Captain, I loved the Phantom, I loved the Mummy Films (proof that this time frame in films can still be a blockbuster) and I collect 1930s pulps. The recent news that they've been talking about doing a modern Doc Savage just kills me, so I doubt I'd enjoy any modernisation of Indy...

Off my soapbox and back to the dig,

Fed
:)
 

Grimdiana Bones

New member
Brown Fedora said:
My wife has pointed out that most directors have also learned a third lesson - that it's very easy to make a kid's movie with minimum plot and lots of bright, happy things at a reasonable budget; children will drag their parents, or the parents will drag them, and they'll still make a profit at the end of the day, as opposed to the fact that many of the films we had in the 80s were expensive for the time, and would be even more expensive now...

I couldn't agree more. However I think you could easily say this about 75% of the movies that are put out anymore. Not just childrens movies, but "big summer blockbusters" with a million special effects, but no real plot worth watching. I feel like hollywood just thinks of me as a yokel who will shell out $8.00 to see a bunch of big explosions and horrible one liners. I really, sincerely hope this dosnt happen to indy....
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Wikipedia makes the case for Indy IV, V, & VI...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Jones
Chapter 26: Indiana Jones 4 (2007) (categorized as "in production")
Chapter 27: (unproduced) Originally, George Lucas had signed a deal with Paramount Pictures for four theatrical sequels to Raiders of the Lost Ark. After the first three, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lucas announced he was finished with the theatrical films, leaving two of his promised sequels unmade. He now has announced his work on the third sequel, Indiana Jones IV. He now denies plans for a fourth sequel, claiming he never intended to do beyond three, but that the fourth film was "a brilliant idea he had." In saying he had a deal for four sequels, one could also speculate that he might not have counted The Temple of Doom as a sequel, and instead a prequel, which it was. This would leave room open for yet another sequel that is yet to be produced.
Chapter 28: (unproduced) Based on the fact that The Temple of Doom could be counted as a prequel, rather than a sequel.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
I think a new trilogy would be great. However, I think, as some have already voiced, that it may be too late.

At this point, Indy IV may or may not happen. We're still not guarenteed a fourth film and Harrison is getting older even as we speak and Lucas and Steven are in no apparent hurry. Had they come up with this idea in the 80s or even early 90s, I think it might have worked. Now, unless they use someone different to play Indy, I don't see it happening. Here's what I think they could have done instead:

1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark
1984: Temple of Doom
1986 or 87: Last Crusade OR a different Indy film
1989: Last Crusade or the other unused Indy film
1990-1995: Do another 1 or 2 Indy films

It's purely a theory but perhaps that schedule might have worked better. I think the original three films are great and unless any additional films can't live up to those then I say call it quits and leave us with three great movies.:whip:
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
I'm going to get the hate of Ford purists for this, but how about making another trilogy (or at least couple of films), set in the '20s, with some other actor?

It could work, you have to admit that.











<small>...or then we'll wait 'til Lucas has passed, let some twerpo buy the rights and we'll have a Raiders remake.</small>
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
temple of john said:
Does anyone really think there is any possibility of this happeneing? I sure as hell don't. I mean, IF Indy 4 even gets made it will be barely done and with Harrison as an old man. There is no way in hell that there is another Indy film with Ford.


You all realize, don't you, that they are only 4 weeks away from filming, right?
 

roundshort

Active member
for me it isn't if the movie gets made or not, Christ they made the Dukes of Hazard into a movie and are working ont he A-Team, so clearly anything will be made into a movie, the question is will it be any good> But remember i have seen enough of the scprit to know that it will be good! Really, I helped write it, and I am doing the casting . . .
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:
You all realize, don't you, that they are only 4 weeks away from filming, right?


Am I missing something here?:confused: I figured there would at least be an official announcement about the project before filming. Pale Horse, if it's possible due to legal reasons, could you please enlighten us on what's happening?:)
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
temple of john said:
It's comments liike this that you may make that I don't want to get away from. How do you know this to be true?

Lets just say that when it comes to the six degrees of separation in Hoollywood, I am at a 3 with the associations I have.
 

moondrifter

New member
seriously how do you know this info? IJ films would not be the same without Ford but if he's that old then why bother making a fourth film. we all want more of indy right? but we don't want to ruin the idea. as for a whole new trilogy, we'd be starting the story again but hasn't it already been told elsewhere..................? i think both ideas are as good as each other
 
Top