DiscoLad said:I think it's safe to say that Montana hit that nail on the head.
clintonmills said: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.
Raiders112390 said: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.
kongisking said: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!
DoomsdayFAN said:...as crazy as TOD, as serious and special as Raiders, and as emotional as LC.
That?s a cheep jibe Stoo. Looks like your argument is faltering somewhat.Stoo said:Debating with you can be a pointless affair because you're often inconsistent in your arguments and flip-flop like a caught fish.
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).Stoo said: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....
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.Stoo said:Have you ever seen "Duel"? One would be hard-pressed to find sugary sweetness in there...
Not sure what you are stating. Of course one should stand behind ones convictions.Stoo said:Right...and when supplying personal opinion as fact, the absolutes, "always" and "never", shouldn't be used either.
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.Stoo said: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"!)
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?Stoo said: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!
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.Stoo said: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? 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 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.Stoo said: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!
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: -Stoo said: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'?)
Forbidden Eye said:Well, its why I started this thread 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.
Montana Smith said: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.
DoomsdayFAN said:Oh God! I loath Peter Jackson's King Kong. Jackson would be one of the last people I'd want to take over Indy. HA! The film would be like 95% CGI.
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.
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.
DoomsdayFAN said:Oh God! I loath Peter Jackson's King Kong. Jackson would be one of the last people I'd want to take over Indy. HA! The film would be like 95% CGI.
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.
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.
kongisking said: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?
Montana Smith said:Bah, these MTV kids want everything over in 5 minutes these days!
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 said:You liked Jackson's King Kong Montana???