General Indy 5 Thread - rumors and possibilities

Honestly...will there be another Indy film in the next decade?


  • Total voters
    148

Le Saboteur

Active member
inky_skin said:
Disney must want Indiana Jones to continue to generate income otherwise the purchase seems ill-conceived.

Disney didn't purchase Indiana Jones. Disney didn't buy Lucasfilm either. Disney bought Star Wars, and all this other stuff happened to come along with it.

For the record, Disney will never need to spend a red cent on Dr. Jones in order to recoup their expenses. He is now and forever lagniappe.

inky_skin said:
I'm sad about it - I'm sure we all are -

Nope. Couldn't be happier about it.

Grizzlor said:
Neither TV nor Netflix offer Disney enough $$ to satisfy the production, marketing, and actor costs on a Harrison Ford-Indy project.

Lance Quazar said:
Exactly.

Indy? On Netflix? Absurd. Unless it's animation, forget about it.

Neither does a movie, but Grizzlor seems to still be suffering under the delusion that Paramount banked $600-million after all the receipts were tallied.

That's not why I singled you out, though. The two of you are aware that Netflix dropped $100-million on House of Cards? Yes, 100-million dollars. They're going to drop another hundred million bucks on the forthcoming Marco Polo series, and they want to get to a point where they're doing eight or nine* of these shows a year.

* - Not all of them will be hundred million dollar affairs obviously.

A co-production between Disney & Netflix isn't out of the question. For example, Netflix & Disney split production costs. Netflix keeps the proceeds of new subscribers, because it's "Must See Tee Vee" and Disney retains distribution, syndication, and merchandising rights. Netflix controls it exclusively for, say, four years and Disney can then turn around and sell it elsewhere.

That's just one example of The Way Forward.

AndyLGR said:
...they don't look like they've looked after themselves physically and I think their appearance may come as a shock.

Will you still love me when I'm no longer young & beautiful?
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Le Saboteur said:
That's not why I singled you out, though. The two of you are aware that Netflix dropped $100-million on House of Cards? Yes, 100-million dollars. They're going to drop another hundred million bucks on the forthcoming Marco Polo series, and they want to get to a point where they're doing eight or nine* of these shows a year.

...

A co-production between Disney & Netflix isn't out of the question. For example, Netflix & Disney split production costs. Netflix keeps the proceeds of new subscribers, because it's "Must See Tee Vee" and Disney retains distribution, syndication, and merchandising rights. Netflix controls it exclusively for, say, four years and Disney can then turn around and sell it elsewhere.

That's just one example of The Way Forward.

Apples and oranges. House of Cards is an expensive series, but it's exactly that - a series. A TV series. Heck, most major prime time TV series cost in the neighborhood $50M to produce.

Movies are not TV. Big, event action-adventure movies are not TV, whether they're coming from the networks or the new upstart content providers.

Studios are still very invested in keeping movies as movies. For now, at least.

Bob Iger recently said he wants Disney to be making the kinds of movies you can't wait to see and that demand that you see them on the big screen.

Indy definitely fits that category.

I'm not saying this won't change. Hell, it'll definitely change. It's changing right now. Day-and-date release is on the rise.

It's the wave of the future. It's inevitable.

But, for now, old models are being clung to. At least for the mega-budget spectacle movies.

No one is going to "downgrade" the Indiana Jones franchise to a streaming service. Not when there's still money to be made at the box office (and in streaming services and other ancillaries down the line.)

To quote the good doctor, "Maybe. But not today."
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Le Saboteur said:
Disney didn't purchase Indiana Jones. Disney didn't buy Lucasfilm either. Disney bought Star Wars, and all this other stuff happened to come along with it.

Not entirely accurate. The Star Wars deal came first. They then had to make a separate deal with Paramount in order to gain full control of the Indy franchise.

They could have just left it in legal limbo if they truly didn't care at all.

Not saying this necessarily means another film is on the way. But there have had to have been conversations at least....
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Lance Quazar said:
Not entirely accurate. The Star Wars deal came first. They then had to make a separate deal with Paramount in order to gain full control of the Indy franchise.

It's entirely accurate. For a couple of reasons, but primarily because zero valuation was ascribed to Dr. Jones by Disney in their initial overture. You're otherwise putting too much emphasis on a deal that was rather routine housekeeping. It, as Pale noted, put all of the family jewels in one place.

Lance Quazar said:
They could have just left it in legal limbo...

Not really. It's a potentially lucrative asset, and some stock analyst or three somewhere would complain about Disney not capitalizing on that asset and the stock price would take a tumble. This is why you're finally getting a sequel to Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and why you'll eventually see a sequel to Frozen. Disney doesn't want to see any under performing assets.

Lance Quazar said:
But there have had to have been conversations at least....

A very high-level conversation. Anything more is wishful thinking.

Lance Quazar said:
Bob Iger recently said he wants Disney to be making the kinds of movies you can't wait to see and that demand that you see them on the big screen.

Indy definitely fits that category.

That was Alan Horn and you won't be surprised to learn that The Raven is an echo chamber, but the consensus seems to be "No, we don't want to see another Indiana Jones movie." My favorite quote, amended to be more family friendly, "I wish Gen X-ers would stop fellating Harrison Ford and put [Indiana Jones] to bed already."

I might get around to the rest of your thoughts tomorrow (technically, today), but I don't know. I've been posting too much as it is.
 

IndyForever

Active member

Toht's Arm

Active member

AndyLGR

Active member
IndyForever said:
Let it go Indiana :eek:

Please let this not be true Bradley Cooper as Indy would be terrible only Ford can play him anyone else would be another character Ford is Indy.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/66683
http://latino-review.com/2014/03/exclusive-indiana-jones-taking-james-bond-path/

Also Frank Darabont would be terrible his rejected Indy 4 concept was really poor so keep him far away I hope Lucas veto's him like he vetoed his Indy 4 fanboy effort.
This may sound crazy but I've often thought that Bradley Cooper may be able to make the leap from comic idiot to action star like Bruce Willis did. I think he has the look of Indy.

The idea of anyone else as Indy is difficult to imagine, but I've said many times on here, (as have others too), Indiana Jones is too iconic a character to sit on a shelf with no more films being made and Disney haven't bought it just to do nothing with. It would certainly be interesting to see what they do with the character. I'm intrigued.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
This really isn't a bombshell. We all knew there was a time element tied to the prospect of another Ford installment, and we also knew that either way, a reboot would be happening eventually.

The only part of the rumor that shocks me is Darabont supposedly pitching on the project. After his strong words about the rejection of his draft, you'd think he'd want no further part of this series. On the other hand, it was over ten years ago, and "Mob City" (so underrated) got cancelled after six episodes, so hey.

It goes without saying that I want things to move quickly so we can get a proper Harry farewell. If Disney already wants to talk reboot though, I can't help but think they're looking for an excuse to skip straight to the fresh blood. Why don't they throw a screenwriter at this already? George needs to be either actively working on this or have explicitly withdrawn from process so that it can get movement.

If they fail to meet the deadline, there's still a decent compromise that the internet already pitched: you make the reboot and the fifth Harrison movie one and the same. Have old Indy in the 50s/60s continuing some adventure he began in the 30s that has been renewed for whatever reason. You focus primarily on the old Indy timeline (starring Ford) but occasionally swap back to the young Indy timeline (starring Cooper/whoever), and thus ease the transition to a sixth installment starring the new guy back in the glorious 30s and give Ford a proper close at the same time.

In short, pull a Godfather Part II, but give the Harrison Ford storyline way more material. (Something like 80/20 instead of 50/50.)
 
Last edited:

Blue Jay

Member
I wouldn't mind if IJ gets a reboot treatment. On the other hand, the look is, what makes Indy. I cannot imagine someone else (even Brad Cooper - who seems cool enough) wearing that fedora or leather jacket without it becoming a spoof. It won't feel real.

Just continue the story with someone - maybe a student - who looks up to Indy and steps in his shoes rather than becoming the "next" Indy.
 

bennihana123

New member
Le Saboteur said:
Disney didn't purchase Indiana Jones. Disney didn't buy Lucasfilm either. Disney bought Star Wars, and all this other stuff happened to come along with it.

Disney did in fact buy Lucasfilm, which includes all of their intellectual properties. However, the distribution rights to the Indy franchise were owned by Paramount, so Disney had to purchase those as well - http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-news/press-releases/2012/10/disney-acquire-lucasfilm-ltd

They wouldn't spend money on the rights if they don't plan to use them someday. Whether that's with Ford & Co. or a new cast and crew is ultimately up to them.
 

Grizzlor

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:
Why do you say that? Netflix is killing it with House of Cards...and they have a miniscule budget compared to the House of Mouse.

If Disney spends $100 million on an Indy Netflix movie, do you really expect Netflix to pay them well over $100 million so that Disney profits? Of course not, it's ridiculous.

Le Saboteur said:
Neither does a movie, but Grizzlor seems to still be suffering under the delusion that Paramount banked $600-million after all the receipts were tallied.

Will you STOP SAYING THAT!!!!! When did I say that Paramount made $600 million, but they DID MAKE MONEY. A fair amount. Frankly, whether it's Harrison Ford or Bradley Cooper or whoever, Disney is going to make a new Indy film. If Star Trek and Transformers can make massive money from old, tired franchises, they are going to at least try it.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
AndyLGR said:
This may sound crazy but I've often thought that Bradley Cooper may be able to make the leap from comic idiot to action star like Bruce Willis did. I think he has the look of Indy..

American Hustle
Silver Linings Playbook
Place Beyond the Pines
Case 39

He's hardly typecast as a comic idiot.
 

Henry Jones VII

Active member
BjqBPQKIYAA4yHf.jpg:medium
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Denied is not debunked. Aside from the specific names thrown about (Cooper, Darabont), which I'm definitely taking with a grain of salt, the substance of the rumor is really just common sense: Disney plans to reboot at some point, and the prospect of Ford getting to do another movie before that happens is contingent on a deadline being met.

The project needs a screenwriter, and fast. The announcement that one is at work on it is probably the only one that will matter.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Le Saboteur said:
It's entirely accurate. For a couple of reasons, but primarily because zero valuation was ascribed to Dr. Jones by Disney in their initial overture. You're otherwise putting too much emphasis on a deal that was rather routine housekeeping. It, as Pale noted, put all of the family jewels in one place.



Not really. It's a potentially lucrative asset, and some stock analyst or three somewhere would complain about Disney not capitalizing on that asset and the stock price would take a tumble. This is why you're finally getting a sequel to Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and why you'll eventually see a sequel to Frozen. Disney doesn't want to see any under performing assets.



A very high-level conversation. Anything more is wishful thinking.



That was Alan Horn and you won't be surprised to learn that The Raven is an echo chamber, but the consensus seems to be "No, we don't want to see another Indiana Jones movie." My favorite quote, amended to be more family friendly, "I wish Gen X-ers would stop fellating Harrison Ford and put [Indiana Jones] to bed already."

I might get around to the rest of your thoughts tomorrow (technically, today), but I don't know. I've been posting too much as it is.

Do you know anything about the video game industry?
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Frank Marshall weighs in:

https://twitter.com/LeDoctor/status/448911690315608064
"Due to the ridiculous rumors that keep popping up, like agents pipe dreams, I will stop commenting on our projects until I have real news."
https://twitter.com/LeDoctor/status/448941753060835329
"I can only confirm that Katy Perry will NOT be the new Indiana Jones."
Le Saboteur said:
My favorite quote, amended to be more family friendly, "I wish Gen X-ers would stop fellating Harrison Ford and put [Indiana Jones] to bed already."
Source?
 
Top