Indy 5 news 2017

JasonMa

Active member
Udvarnoky said:
Remind me, then, of what the answer to my question is, since I apparently asked it rhetorically.
Because many (including me) feel he can't carry a whole action-adventure movie at his age.
 

IndyForever

Active member
Lambonius said:
That said, I want to see a Ford framing narrative for a younger actor taking on the role of a younger Indy in his prime. It's the best option.
That's a terrible option it would be worse than just making the film with an old Harrison & filming around that like they did on BR2049 + TFA :gun:
 

Lambonius

New member
People are so hung up on the idea that what made the Indy movies good was action and adventure. That's bull****. The movie that had arguably the MOST action (KOTCS) was by far the worst, and it was bad BECAUSE of how much action it had. It went balls-out action at the expense of character development. The original trilogy has attained classic status because of its characters, and how each film builds on their development in fleshed-out, meaningful ways. It's no surprise that the best parts of KOTCS are the quiet moments (Indy contemplating his future after being fired, for example.) The action scenes in the original trilogy were always limited enough to still give the characters room to breathe.

An old-Indy film could work, but it'd need to be a different kind of movie. Far less action (I'd be fine with none at all, frankly, if the story was strong enough,) and more character depth, intrigue, and storytelling. Maybe a few token "he's still got it" moments could be done as reasonable fan service. But no more than that.

If it was a pure old-Indy film, I'd want to see it done as a real archeological detective movie, where Indy uses his wits and lifetime of knowledge and experience to solve a problem/find a MacGuffin/etc. Maybe have him not being pursued by an entire military unit or nation-state (so no nameless soldier enemies,) but by one or two rival archeologists, a la Belloq. Bring the story back to the characters, and leave out the bombastic stuff that would strain the limits of credibility for an actor Ford's age.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
JasonMa said:
Because many (including me) feel he can't carry a whole action-adventure movie at his age.

I strongly disagree, but that wasn't my point. My point is that if this is going to be a fifth Indiana Jones movie, it needs to commit to being that. If you don't buy it, you'll stay home, but having Ford sidelined in his own movie isn't going to satisfy anybody.

The reboot will happen regardless. There's no reason to deliver 50% of an Indiana Jones 5.
 

seasider

Active member
IndyForever said:
Spielberg effectively had an unlimited budget with Lucas as he was paying for everything & Lucas, Spielberg & Ford all took no salary upfront just all the profits on the backend so the budget allowed them to spend $185M on KOTCS which was a massive budget in 2008 even with them paying ILM base cost as Lucas still owned them as well. Disney are different they own the franchise so budgets have to be set & kept to. The last Spielberg directed hit was KOTCS but apart from that his directing track record is very weak since 2008 onwards most of his films are commercial failures as they are mainly vanity projects.

You make it sound like Spielberg is James Cameron is on steroids with his overblown movie budgets. As I've said, it's not like Spielberg is a stranger to working with studios and fixed budgets. My guess is that he and Disney have already agreed on a preliminary budget otherwise they wouldn't have greenlit the movie.

As for Spielberg's post 2008 track record, I don't think it's fair to call his track record weak. I mean most of those movies have gotten him the Oscar attention the studio was wanting and have made a small profit. The BFG is probably the only movie where Disney was banking on a commercial hit and it just flopped. We'll have to see how Ready Player One does but the early buzz is it will probably do well. But my point is, I don't see how any of this has any real bearing on how Disney will treat him with respect to the Indy 5 budget.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Crystal Skull's budget was much larger than Spielberg's average, and huge by the standards of an Indiana Jones movie (even adjusting for inflation), which have gotten bigger budgets as they went along but until Skull pretty much stuck with the principle of being made "down and dirty." It is, I believe, Spielberg's most expensive film.

Apparently one reason Skull cost as much as it did was because of Spielberg's decision to shoot it all in the United States. Lucas has stated that he could have gotten better deals for the production if they'd shot overseas instead of Los Angeles, but Spielberg wanted to stay home. And of course there's a pretty large amount of special effects work in this movie, far more than the previous films had.

And while Spielberg, Lucas and Ford may have all made most of their money on the back-end, I'm sure they got upfront salaries as well. Somehow I doubt it was scale.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Lambonius said:
I want to see a Ford framing narrative for a younger actor taking on the role of a younger Indy in his prime. It's the best option.
Ditto. (y)

Udvarnoky said:
having Ford sidelined in his own movie isn't going to satisfy anybody.
Speak for yourself.

And Ford doesn't own the movie, Disney does.
Udvarnoky said:
There's no reason to deliver 50% of an Indiana Jones 5.
I don't see why having a younger actor play Indy in flashback scenes would necessarily mean damaging the movie.
It worked great in TLC, and nobody felt it wasn't 100% an Indiana Jones instalment.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
I don't see why having a younger actor play Indy in flashback scenes would necessarily mean damaging the movie.
It worked great in TLC, and nobody felt it wasn't 100% an Indiana Jones instalment.

The term "framing narrative" was specifically used. That implies more than a prologue sequence.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
The term "framing narrative" was specifically used. That implies more than a prologue sequence.
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Ford and the new actor get equal screen time.
I don't see how anyone can be sure that it would automatically, de facto damage the movie.

It all depends on how it's done, and of course on how good the new actor is.

But it may well turn out to be a complete success, which satisfies the vast majority of viewers. Why not?
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Ford and the new actor get equal screen time.
I don't see how anyone can be sure that it would automatically, de facto damage the movie.

It all depends on how it's done, and of course on how good the new actor is.

But it may well turn out to be a complete success, which satisfies the vast majority of viewers. Why not?


I think it should be like The Last Crusade. Introduce the new Indy in one scene, have 90% if the film be Ford.

Indy 6 can be more of a 60% Ford, 40% new Indy split.

Indy 7 and onwards Star the new Indy and Harrison reprises the role until his dying day bookending the films.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Ford and the new actor get equal screen time.
I don't see how anyone can be sure that it would automatically, de facto damage the movie.

I never used the word "damage." I was suggesting that it's wasteful to take the final (and shrinking) opportunity to have Ford star in one more Indiana Jones movie and squander it by making the movie half a reboot. You're getting the reboot anyway. Focus on making Indy 5 the best Indy 5 it can be, then focus on the reboot when that time comes.

This project is risky enough without throwing extra qualifiers at it.
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
seasider said:
Spielberg didn't have free reign with Lucas either. If he did, he would've done the movie based on Frank Darabont's script and not have a movie about aliens and Indy climbing into a fridge.

Eh? The Darabont script still had the fridge in it.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Face_Palm said:
Indy 6 can be more of a 60% Ford, 40% new Indy split.

Indy 7 and onwards Star the new Indy and Harrison reprises the role until his dying day bookending the films.
You are not superstitious, clearly.
I wonder what Ford would think about that, though.
Udvarnoky said:
I never used the word "damage." I was suggesting that it's wasteful to take the final (and shrinking) opportunity to have Ford star in one more Indiana Jones movie and squander it by making the movie half a reboot. You're getting the reboot anyway. Focus on making Indy 5 the best Indy 5 it can be, then focus on the reboot when that time comes.

This project is risky enough without throwing extra qualifiers at it.
I actually think that, barring an absolute screenwriting masterpiece, 76+ Ford starring guarantees that it's not really going to look and feel like an Indiana Jones movie.
Not one that I'd get excited about, anyway.

And if there's a risk of them squandering anything, then it's the last chance of introducing a new actor in the context of a "canon" movie.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
I was opposed to Spielberg's Grapes of Wrath and Harvey remakes, but if he keeps making 2 movies a year I have no problems. No way Indy 5 production overlaps with Ster Wars 9 staring in June.
 

Silvor

New member
sigh, I was really hoping Spielberg would tackle Indy 5 next.
He really doesn't seem to be in any kind of rush to get it made.
Then again it could be so many things, like the script not actually being ready yet. Still disappointing.
Maybe there's still a chance it could shoot later this year?
 

DARTH ZOIDBERG

Well-known member
Silvor said:
sigh, I was really hoping Spielberg would tackle Indy 5 next.
He really doesn't seem to be in any kind of rush to get it made.
Then again it could be so many things, like the script not actually being ready yet. Still disappointing.
Maybe there's still a chance it could shoot later this year?
I am disappointed as well but Spielberg usually DOES TWO Films a year and films really fast. Hopefully after West Side Story Indy Is right after?
 

jtmitch

New member
I'm really beginning to wonder if this will ever happen. Maybe the script isn't where it needs to be. On the bright side, maybe they are taking their time because they do not want to rush the movie and sacrifice quality over time.
 

Silvor

New member
curmudgeon said:

That article is prety weird.
It says Spielberg is to shoot Indy 5 next and West Side Story after that but also says:
"Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that Spielberg plans to shoot what would be the fifth Indy installment in 2019 with a goal of having it released in 2020."

So is the website trying to say that Spielberg is actually not shooting West Side Story until late 2019 even though he's already started casting?

EDIT
I see now it states that he's beginning the casting early to be sure he gets the right actors.
Still not that great news for Indy if he's not shooting Indy 5 until 2019.
Why not this year?!
 
Top