Indy 5 news 2017

Raiders90

Well-known member
Forbidden Eye said:
The fact Jumanji, an Indiana Jones-lite film directed by Kasdan’s son, has grossed over $370 million here plus has grossed almost $900 mil worldwide hurts those points. People still want to see a classic adventure tale if done right(also look at the success of the recent Jungle Book), the fact that Indy travels the globe make this series a pretty popular one overseas; take out the US gross, KOTCS made more money than any other film in 2008, even The Dark Knight.

It’s harder to make Indiana Jones an “expanded universe”, sure, but there’s still enough history, interest, and goodwill towards the brand that Indy 5, if done right and gets solid enough reviews, will be plenty profitable at the box office.

I would argue that Jumanji had a nostalgia factor going for it that Indy really doesn't have at this point. If the last film in the Indy series had been LC, you'd have that nostalgia factor. But a subpar last entry is both too recent to still burn and too far away to have the series be relevant (especially to younger people**). Jumanji had the lingering ghost of Robin Williams and the novelty of there being a Jumanji film without him as well, plus the star power of the Rock. It's not a novelty seeing Harrison Ford play one of his golden oldies on screen again anymore (ala Han Solo or Deckard). Jumanji also had an unsullied brand name, whereas KOTCS hurt the Indy brand.

**=The say, 13-18 year old demographic.

Also 2008 was a different time than now. There was like I said, a novelty, to seeing Harrison as an old man replaying one of his most famous leading roles; also the younger audience of 2008 had more of an awareness of Indy than the younger kids now. Ford was an 80s and 90s leading man, so to kids who grew up then, he had nostalgic value. To the kids now he's just the old man who played Han Solo.

As for adventure, people can get their big brand name adventure fix now from the Jurassic World, Star Wars, and Marvel franchises. It's a crowded field compared to 2008 in terms of competition. Remember, Marvel is MULTIPLE franchises in one. They've filled that void that Indy created, and left.

I just think the appeal of an Indy film nowadays is overstated. KOTCS' box office success was built on almost 20 years of hype, rumor, and anticipation as well as really high expectations. You had Gen Xers who grew up with Indy in the 80s excited to see Harrison take the role one last time; there's no hook like that this time. Like I said, seeing Harrison as an old fogie doing his old favorites isn't novel anymore; it was in 2008. It was nostalgic. Now? Meh. His star power couldn't save Blade Runner.

You had younger people interested because of the brand to a degree, and again, because outside of the Mummy movies and to a lesser degree Tomb Raider (both B level franchises) there was no real "adventure" alternatives; there are plety now.

There's also nowhere near the same level of expectation or DESIRE for an Indy 5 that there was for an Indy 4. People actively wanted a fourth Indiana Jones film all throughout the 90s and 2000s, and outside of The Mummy, there was really nothing like Indy on the big screen to point to as an alternative. The Indy films were basically the Marvel films of their era - the fun, good time box office summer smash. The attitude I've seen toward a fifth film in general, outside of this forum, is "meh." KOTCS did a lot to ruin the good will that the previous three had built up, and as Gen Xers have gotten older (I feel) they've become more cynical - they're not going to be fooled again, so to speak.

I can see an Indy film doing at BEST 600-750 mil (total) if we're being generous. Factor in development costs and marketing etc (easily 200 mil between both) and Disney isn't looking at a great return on such an investment.

Again, they need a REALLY good hook to sell this one, and to be honest, given all the factors I've previously mentioned, I don't see it taking off. I don't see any possible hook that could sweep audiences into seats like, say, TFA had. I don't think Indy is just that big of a brand anymore, and as I also mentioned previously, there's a lot of things that could turn off both old school fans, and leave newer fans cold. No Harrison? Harrison only cameoing? You lose a percentage of the audience there. Some new guy? You might gain some new fans who are fans of that actor, but you might at the same time lose some old fans who wanted Harrison. And then it depends on how they characterize Indy. TLJ has turned a lot of old time SW fans off Disney period from what I've seen - if they do a TLJ on Indy's character, expect more backlash and diminished returns.

Also, there's not as much nostalgia for the 1930s-1950s as there was in the 80s, 90s, and 00s. As those eras grow more distant from us, they become less romanticized and nostalgic and more ancient and irrelevant. When Indy started in the 1980s, 1936 was less than 50 years ago. The age of Bogart and Gable was within living memory. Now? The 1970s are as close to us now as 1936 was to 1981.

Also, the rise of social justice movements and such have done a lot to douse any nostalgia for any time period prior to the Civil Rights era. A lot of younger people see anytime prior to the 1970s as just being "racism." In the 1980s, there was a lot of nostalgia for the 1930s - the grandeur of old Hollywood and such - there was a wave of films (like Grease) which cashed in on Americans' nostalgia for times gone by because the early 1980s was a time of recession and malaise here. The 1930s to younger kids is some far away time where men dressed a little spiffier at best, and a time of depression and racism at worst.

You also can't rule out again, the laws of supply and demand. Look at the Solo movie. There was no demand for that film to happen - no one, really, outside of SW diehards, was all that interested in seeing a Han Solo prequel. And now it's expected to underperform. Where is the demand for an Indy 5? Why SHOULD the public want it? What need or space is it filling?

Think about these things from an advertising and marketing perspective. Why should the public at large pay to go see 80 year old Harrison Ford breaking his hip as Indy when they could easily go check out the newest Marvel or Jurassic World flick? In lieu of Harrison, why should audiences care to see some younger guy (even if it's someone with star power like Pratt or Pine) cosplay as Indy?

Indy belongs in a museum.
 
Last edited:

Hanselation

New member
less creative brain

Oh poor Raiders112390, it looks like you think that the Marvel-universe is filling the adventure movie gap. I think you're wrong. I'm mssing some creativity in your vision of how movies could be.
Of course they have to keep in mind the age of Harrison Ford playing Indiana Jones with nearly 80 years, but I'm sure the movie-makers of Disney have creative-power to show us an Indiana Jones movie which will entertain young and old people and also the most of us fans.
Some fans certainly not: Such fans with less creative brains - maybe they belong into a museum. :hat:
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Disney bought the IP because they reckon they can make money with it.

They know their business better than anyone on these boards by several orders of magnitude, and I believe there's every chance they will succeed.
I also credit them with the ability to deliver a good product in the process.

Bring it on. (y)
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
Disney bought the IP because they reckon they can make money with it.

They know their business better than anyone on these boards by several orders of magnitude, and I believe there's every chance they will succeed.
I also credit them with the ability to deliver a good product in the process.

Bring it on. (y)


I've pointed out very real obstacles to the film's success, especially on a level Disney will want. I'm not saying it will bomb but I am confidently predicting right now that it will do no higher than 750 million worldwide.. In today's day and age that is only really a modest success and nothing to write home about considering how much it will likely cost to make (let's say 200 mil, they'll need 400 million just to break even). And unlike Star Wars, I highly doubt there will be much interest in Indy toys on a mass scale (which is where Star Wars has always been a solid money-maker).

And if Disney "knows their business better than anyone", why is Solo expected to underperform? Why a misfire?
 

Hanselation

New member
Did you ever hear about strategy?!? - Maybe the message about Solo will underperfom is right that. Let's wait as it goes!
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
I would argue that Jumanji had a nostalgia factor going for it that Indy really doesn't have at this point. If the last film in the Indy series had been LC, you'd have that nostalgia factor. But a subpar last entry is both too recent to still burn and too far away to have the series be relevant (especially to younger people**). Jumanji had the lingering ghost of Robin Williams and the novelty of there being a Jumanji film without him as well, plus the star power of the Rock. It's not a novelty seeing Harrison Ford play one of his golden oldies on screen again anymore (ala Han Solo or Deckard). Jumanji also had an unsullied brand name, whereas KOTCS hurt the Indy brand.

This makes no sense, either.

The Star Wars prequels were much more hurtful to the Star Wars brand than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ever was.

Yet...did the prequels hurt the success of The Force Awakens? No. Because the film looked good.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was far more positively reviewed critically than any prequel and among general audiences, it fared quite well. It divided die hards - but still - the damage is not irreparable.

By your logic, this new Star Wars trilogy should be a flop because the prequels damaged the Star Wars brand both so badly and so very recently. But it's not. Far from it.

The new Star Wars films marketed to the nostalgic sensibilities of the original three films. Why can't a next Indy? You could argue that card was played with the last one - but the same thing was played when the prequels were marketed. So it's obvious it can work twice.

Your arguments don't make sense once they're actually looked at closely. And this coming from a guy who thinks a 5th film is too little, too late. I should be on your side - but your arguments stink.

Raiders112390 said:
You also can't rule out again, the laws of supply and demand. Look at the Solo movie. There was no demand for that film to happen - no one, really, outside of SW diehards, was all that interested in seeing a Han Solo prequel. And now it's expected to underperform. Where is the demand for an Indy 5? Why SHOULD the public want it? What need or space is it filling?

Star Wars have had at least one major film release for the last 3 years and with Solo, it will be 4 years of major releases in a row.

You can't use Solo: A Star Wars Story as an example of low demand for Indiana Jones.

The lack of enthusiasm for Solo has more to do with the excessive milking of Star Wars and the abundance of product the last 4 or 5 years. Indy has only had one major release since 1989. It's not remotely the same.

Raiders112390 said:
Meh. His star power couldn't save Blade Runner.

Blade Runner was already a niche film, though. It became a cult classic hit eventually. Hardly comparable to Indiana Jones that was a widespread hit out of the gate that demanded two sequels in under 8 years.

Raiders112390 said:
Also, there's not as much nostalgia for the 1930s-1950s as there was in the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

So what? The time period is the setting and the setting is a character. It's not there for nostalgic purposes but for a storytelling purpose.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Dr.Jonesy said:
This makes no sense, either.

The Star Wars prequels were much more hurtful to the Star Wars brand than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ever was.

Yet...did the prequels hurt the success of The Force Awakens? No. Because the film looked good.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was far more positively reviewed critically than any prequel and among general audiences, it fared quite well. It divided die hards - but still - the damage is not irreparable.

By your logic, this new Star Wars trilogy should be a flop because the prequels damaged the Star Wars brand both so badly and so very recently. But it's not. Far from it.

The new Star Wars films marketed to the nostalgic sensibilities of the original three films. Why can't a next Indy? You could argue that card was played with the last one - but the same thing was played when the prequels were marketed. So it's obvious it can work twice.

Your arguments don't make sense once they're actually looked at closely. And this coming from a guy who thinks a 5th film is too little, too late. I should be on your side - but your arguments stink.



Star Wars have had at least one major film release for the last 3 years and with Solo, it will be 4 years of major releases in a row.

You can't use Solo: A Star Wars Story as an example of low demand for Indiana Jones.

The lack of enthusiasm for Solo has more to do with the excessive milking of Star Wars and the abundance of product the last 4 or 5 years. Indy has only had one major release since 1989. It's not remotely the same.



Blade Runner was already a niche film, though. It became a cult classic hit eventually. Hardly comparable to Indiana Jones that was a widespread hit out of the gate that demanded two sequels in under 8 years.



So what? The time period is the setting and the setting is a character. It's not there for nostalgic purposes but for a storytelling purpose.

There's a big difference with TFA, though. TFA was the brainchild of a new creative team (along with one holdover, that being Kasdan, who is beloved by the fans) which helped to inspire hype and hope. The removal of Lucas from the process in totality made fans both hopeful and curious about the project. Indy 5 shares virtually the same team as KOTCS, even down to the screenwriter who gave us the horrid KOTCS script.

Also, TFA was more exciting than the prequels, and more exciting than Indy 5 in that it was something fans had wanted to see for over thirty years: The return of Han, Luke and Leia. The last time anyone had seen them in theaters, most in the audience were either children or not even born. That was a massive sell for that film.

This film will conceivably have Harrison in some way (how much remains to be seen) but that's not really comparable to having three beloved characters that audiences literally grew up with over half a decade back on screen for the first time in 33 years.

You say the prequels used nostalgia - yes, to a degree - but it's nowhere near in the same league as seeing having Han, Luke, and Leia back. Those characters defined the childhoods of millions. I think it was always pretty clear R2 and 3PO would be back in some way in the prequels. Other than easter eggs and seeing Boba Fett as a kid there wasn't all that much pandering to nostalgia in hindsight. TFA had the main cast of the original trilogy, Imperial ships we grew up loving, the Millenium Falcon, storm troopers, and so on; it was soaked in nostalgic elements as much as it was with new things.

So take those two elements and you have a much different hook and hype angle than Indy 5.

KOTCS may have been received better by critics but I think the fanbase and general public responded to it much differently than the critics. This was a film that inspired the whole South Park episode involving Indy being raped. Even the prequels have a sizable fanbase, whereas the ranks of KOTCS' defenders are rather slim in comparison. If we're really going by reviewers' rankings, KOTCS is lower on RT than ROTS. The fact that the prequels, for all their flaws, went out on what is generally considered a strong footing with that film, compared with the whimper that KOTCS went out with, also helped to undo some of the damage from the previous two films.

Also consider that there has been quite a bit of reassessment of those films in the almost 20 years since they've come out - some positive, some negative. They're not met with indifference; KOTCS is. You either love or hate the prequels it seems whereas KOTCS seems to get a general "meh."

Sure, part of Solo's problems stem from Star Wars fatigue - no denying that. But I'm on multiple geeky sort of sites and the consensus I saw regarding the film was basically "Why?" It doesn't seem to me like there was any real hype for Solo, even aside from any SW fatigue - it wasn't a story that really needed to be told or that fans seemed to crave. Compare this to the hype all over the web for a possible Kenobi film.

I mean even on this site, I don't think there's all that much enthusiasm for Indy 5 - certainly not compared to what there was for KOTCS before it came out. And this is a site for diehards who would have more enthusiasm than most for a fifth film; I simply don't see that excitement radiating much elsewhere, either.

The markets and fanbases for Star Wars, as compared to Indy, are simply not comparable. It's like comparing a galaxy to a single star system in terms of size and the makeup of the fanbases.

I'm confident in predicting that it will make around 750 million when all is said and done - give or take ten million or so. Respectable, but not a blockbuster in today's billion dollar world.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
I'll respond more to that later (are you capable of condensing things...?) but to suggest that Revenge of the Sith was good footing is only half-true.

It fared better because of the true awfulness of what came before it that in comparison, it looked great.

That's not a ringing endorsement. Without having two even worse films behind it, it wouldn't look as good.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Dr.Jonesy said:
I'll respond more to that later (are you capable of condensing things...?) but to suggest that Revenge of the Sith was good footing is only half-true.

It fared better because of the true awfulness of what came before it that in comparison, it looked great.

That's not a ringing endorsement. Without having two even worse films behind it, it wouldn't look as good.

That's pretty subjective, though. You went by critics' reviews for KOTCS - well, ROTS averages 79% on RT, which isn't a bad score. I really doubt those critics were blinded by fanboy-ism.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
This was a film that inspired the whole South Park episode involving Indy being raped. Even the prequels have a sizable fanbase, whereas the ranks of KOTCS' defenders are rather slim in comparison.

Also, South Park was parodying the response some fans had, as well. That show is not the be-all-end-all. The "Well, South Park did it so it must be fact" mantra so many like to use for any number of things is silly.

And the Prequels having a sizable fanbase that makes those who like KOTCS (we can throw in TOD in that mix because I had these same debates 15 years ago) seem small is more due to the sheer enormity of Star Wars fandom that even the niche circles are large.

It's more due to how big the fanbase of Star Wars is.

It would be like me saying that there's more Rolling Stones fans that enjoy the album Their Satanic Majesties Request than there are Alice Cooper fans that like Lace and Whiskey.

Well, duh. There's tenfold more Rolling Stones fans than Alice Cooper fans so that would be a given.

Star Wars fans are much more dedicated and numerous that die hard Indiana Jones fans.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
That's pretty subjective, though. You went by critics' reviews for KOTCS - well, ROTS averages 79% on RT, which isn't a bad score. I really doubt those critics were blinded by fanboy-ism.

Or they were so starved for something of quality when Revenge of the Sith rolled around that just by the film not sucking as hard they came in their fan-pants, practically.

And it's possible that nostalgia influenced some of it because that film used more of the original trilogy nostalgia than the previous two films. Heck, they reveal Darth Vader at the end of it - that's bound to get fanboys going. They played that card and it helped.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Dr.Jonesy said:
Or they were so starved for something of quality when Revenge of the Sith rolled around that just by the film not sucking as hard they came in their fan-pants, practically.

And it's possible that nostalgia influenced some of it because that film used more of the original trilogy nostalgia than the previous two films. Heck, they reveal Darth Vader at the end of it - that's bound to get fanboys going. They played that card and it helped.

So the critics only have merit and aren't creaming themselves when they agree with you. I see. I think you're a little too invested (both in your blinding hatred for the prequels, and your blinding optimism for Indy 5).

Also, I suggest you listen to Their Satanic Majesties' Request in full one day.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
I think you're a little too invested (both in your blinding hatred for the prequels, and your blinding optimism for Indy 5).

I'm optimistic about Indy 5?? That's some very significant news to me.

Also, I'm not a Star Wars fan in the slightest so I don't care one way about the Prequels.

Raiders112390 said:
So the critics only have merit and aren't creaming themselves when they agree with you. I see.

Go on, tell us all how The Last Jedi is one of the best Star Wars films then if critics don't sometimes have merit and other times do not.

After all, you used them to defend Revenge of the Sith.

You wouldn't pick and choose when to use critics either, would you?
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Dr.Jonesy said:
I'm optimistic about Indy 5?? That's some very significant news to me.

Also, I'm not a Star Wars fan in the slightest so I don't care one way about the Prequels.



Go on, tell us all how The Last Jedi is one of the best Star Wars films then if critics don't sometimes have merit and other times do not.

After all, you used them to defend Revenge of the Sith.

You wouldn't pick and choose when to use critics either, would you?

You're becoming angry.

You're the one who first brought critics into the discussion, not I. It's pretty clear I was talking about the negative fan reaction to KOTCS and the general sentiment that seemed to follow in its take (IE "nuked the fridge"). Since you brought the critics into the discussion in an attempt to knock down my point, I countered. Your claim was that KOTCS was better reviewed than any prequel film, which I pretty easily debunked. I don't tend to listen to critics; they're human like anyone else and I tend to base my own opinions off of what I myself see and think.
 
There's no way to foresee how good (or bad) the next Indy instalment is going to be. We'll find it out in a couple of years for certain, and there's no point in using bitter tones. I think that Raiders112390's points are quite relevant (perhaps only a bit brutal, but indeed relevant).

For my part, I tend to be (maybe naively) confident that - the objective difficulties notwithstanding - they'll be able to deliver a good movie, and that the time-frame of the '60s-'70s could offer lots of good ideas for a MacGuffin.

I just wonder whether ex-Lucasfilm people read these posts...they could get some really constructive criticism here!
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
For those Raveners who'd prefer to see a digitally rejuvenated Ford to a younger actor in flashback scenes, here is the BR2049 scene with a rejuvenated Sean Young, showing the technology behind it.

I'd prefer a younger actor, and apart from anything else I think this would be very difficult to use for fast moving action scenes.

I guess they could just use Ford's rejuvenated face for close-ups like in the mine cart chase scene in TOD, but would today's audiences buy it?
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
For those Raveners who'd prefer to see a digitally rejuvenated Ford to a younger actor in flashback scenes, here is the BR2049 scene with a rejuvenated Sean Young, showing the technology behind it.

I'd prefer a younger actor, and apart from anything else I think this would be very difficult to use for fast moving action scenes.

I guess they could just use Ford's rejuvenated face for close-ups like in the mine cart chase scene in TOD, but would today's audiences buy it?


That would work if Indy 5 was going to be the final film... but it won?t be. Sooner or later a younger actor will take over the role. They can?t CGI the main character going forward. They need to set up a new actor in flashbacks in this film not a CGI Ford otherwise the franchise won?t last.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
For those Raveners who'd prefer to see a digitally rejuvenated Ford to a younger actor in flashback scenes, here is the BR2049 scene with a rejuvenated Sean Young, showing the technology behind it.

I'd prefer a younger actor, and apart from anything else I think this would be very difficult to use for fast moving action scenes.

I guess they could just use Ford's rejuvenated face for close-ups like in the mine cart chase scene in TOD, but would today's audiences buy it?

I would accept using Ford's face on a younger stunt actor's body for scenes with the caveat that they make Ford look a little younger overall. IE just makeup and slight digital de-aging to make him look say 5-10 years younger (which is very much possible). Keep his hair white (he was already almost salt and pepper in LC anyway) but de-age him otherwise and yes, it could be credible.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Face_Palm said:
That would work if Indy 5 was going to be the final film... but it won’t be. Sooner or later a younger actor will take over the role. They can’t CGI the main character going forward. They need to set up a new actor in flashbacks in this film not a CGI Ford otherwise the franchise won’t last.

Thing is, this could be the final film...of the Ford series.

I don't see why they would necessarily need to introduce a younger actor in this particular film. Let Ford have his grand finale and then wait say, 3-4 years and reboot the whole series with a new guy. Do a soft reboot/remake of Raiders and start from there. Let's be honest - we're never going to get 1920s era Indy films. Disney, after Harrison, will reboot/remake ROTLA as they remade Star Wars with TFA. It's the easier and safer route financially and creatively.

So, let this film be the last in the Ford canon series, and start a whole new universe essentially with a new guy.

As long as Indy 5 is successful commercially, why wouldn't the franchise last if they introduce a new guy at a later date?
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Thing is, this could be the final film...of the Ford series.

I don't see why they would necessarily need to introduce a younger actor in this particular film. Let Ford have his grand finale and then wait say, 3-4 years and reboot the whole series with a new guy. Do a soft reboot/remake of Raiders and start from there. Let's be honest - we're never going to get 1920s era Indy films. Disney, after Harrison, will reboot/remake ROTLA as they remade Star Wars with TFA. It's the easier and safer route financially and creatively.

So, let this film be the last in the Ford canon series, and start a whole new universe essentially with a new guy.

As long as Indy 5 is successful commercially, why wouldn't the franchise last if they introduce a new guy at a later date?

Lucasfilm cares about canon. The new actor will take place in the same continuity as Ford?s films.
 
Top