Indy 5 news 2017

Z dweller

Well-known member
Silvor said:
I want to see what the character of Indy (which I have loved ever since I was a kid) is up to at the tail end of his life.
And as a long time fan, you have every right of feeling that way.
But you've got to realize that you are part of a tiny minority, a demographic which Disney is not likely to be worried about much, if at all.

They bought the IP to make $$$, period.
It's a business venture for them, no more. Show-business, entertainment, call it what you will, but business nonetheless.

This next movie has got to be make or break for the future of the franchise, surely.
There is no planned trilogy, like when "The Force Awakens" came out.
If they blow it with Indy 5, if it fails to revive the brand with young audiences, that's it.

Their main goal is not to wrap up old Indy's story satisfyingly for older fans - it's to build the foundations for future movies aimed at Disney's typical audiences.
And that's what they'll do, you can bet the house.

Finn said:
To me, it's always been about the character. That's why I think it'd be down right asinine to let it die with the actor.

Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones, but Indiana Jones is not Harrison Ford.


Ford gave the character its best known face, but dozens of talented authors over the years have contributed to making the character what it is today - not just actors, but writers, directors, producers, artists, etc etc. And they've done it across multiple mediums. To give credit of all that to just one man is pretty gosh darn insulting to the rest of them.

And there are plenty more waiting to keep the character alive.
Precisely. (y)
 

TheFedora

Active member
Z dweller said:
And as a long time fan, you have every right of feeling that way.
But you've got to realize that you are part of a tiny minority, a demographic which Disney is not likely to be worried about much, if at all.

They bought the IP to make $$$, period.
It's a business venture for them, no more. Show-business, entertainment, call it what you will, but business nonetheless.

This next movie has got to be make or break for the future of the franchise, surely.
There is no planned trilogy, like when "The Force Awakens" came out.
If they blow it with Indy 5, if it fails to revive the brand with young audiences, that's it.

Their main goal is not to wrap up old Indy's story satisfyingly for older fans - it's to build the foundations for future movies aimed at Disney's typical audiences.
And that's what they'll do, you can bet the house.


Precisely. (y)

Agreed with the above. Disney probably is taking a hard look at how Jurassic World took a dead franchise and revived it into being the #1 movie of the year. And that Superbowl trailer for Fallen Kingdom was the most watched from the Super Bowl too...

If they can repeat that with Indy, revive that brand for young audiences, I can imagine they will try their best to build a foundation for more movies. Get a big name like Pratt or Gosling to carry the franchise further.
 

Nosirrah

New member
JollyGreenSlugg said:
The bull**** "only Harrison can play Indy!" is as bad as "only Heath Ledger can ever play the Joker now".

Consider the Curious Case of Sherlock Holmes. Leaving aside the fact that Holmes originated as a literary creation of Conan Doyle, and was soon brought to the stage by William Gillette, the cinematic Holmes was indelibly associated with Basil Rathbone, who portrayed him in no less than 14 features between 1939 and 1946. Rathbone was Holmes, and that was that. Or so I thought.

And then along came Jeremy Brett, who absolutely nailed the character and made Holmes his own. Until his untimely death in 1995, Brett brought Holmes to life in some 41 productions. Remarkable fidelity to the original texts, fine acting and high production values didn't hurt, either. Brett was Holmes, the canonical works had been definitively produced, and that was that. Or so I thought.

All along, the canon had spawned admirers and imitators. A remarkable fan literature, notably August Derleth's Solar Pons stories, created a parallel alternate universe. George C. Scott's "They Might be Giants" (1971) was the leading edge of a wave that now includes Gene Wilder, Robert Downey, Jr., and most recently and Benedict Cumberbatch. And the diversity of portrayers increases: female, Asian. I would add black, but "A Black Sherlock Holmes" was made in 1918!

It's a flawed analogy, but what I take away is, if the spirit of Indiana Jones refuses to die, it will surface in expected and unexpected ways. Expected: video games (including Lara Croft), theme park attractions, screen imitations (Tales of the Gold Monkey in 1982; Brendan Fraser's Mummy franchise; Lara Croft again). Unexpected (by clueless me): YouTube homages, Lego (a whole category unto itself); a Super Bowl halftime show; a really cool beer ad, and stuff I either don't know about or can't imagine.

The fan literature base is substantial. Forums like this continue to stir the pot (in a good way). Indy scratches the adventure itch, in the same way that Allan Quatermain did (and occasionally still does) a few generations earlier.
At some point, regardless of what happens, or doesn't, to IJ5, the spirit of Indy will be reincarnated. The trick will be recognizing it when it comes along. Kind of like the Dalai Lama.
 

Lambonius

New member
Nosirrah said:
Consider the Curious Case of Sherlock Holmes. Leaving aside the fact that Holmes originated as a literary creation of Conan Doyle, and was soon brought to the stage by William Gillette, the cinematic Holmes was indelibly associated with Basil Rathbone, who portrayed him in no less than 14 features between 1939 and 1946. Rathbone was Holmes, and that was that. Or so I thought.

And then along came Jeremy Brett, who absolutely nailed the character and made Holmes his own. Until his untimely death in 1995, Brett brought Holmes to life in some 41 productions. Remarkable fidelity to the original texts, fine acting and high production values didn't hurt, either. Brett was Holmes, the canonical works had been definitively produced, and that was that. Or so I thought.

All along, the canon had spawned admirers and imitators. A remarkable fan literature, notably August Derleth's Solar Pons stories, created a parallel alternate universe. George C. Scott's "They Might be Giants" (1971) was the leading edge of a wave that now includes Gene Wilder, Robert Downey, Jr., and most recently and Benedict Cumberbatch. And the diversity of portrayers increases: female, Asian. I would add black, but "A Black Sherlock Holmes" was made in 1918!

It's a flawed analogy, but what I take away is, if the spirit of Indiana Jones refuses to die, it will surface in expected and unexpected ways. Expected: video games (including Lara Croft), theme park attractions, screen imitations (Tales of the Gold Monkey in 1982; Brendan Fraser's Mummy franchise; Lara Croft again). Unexpected (by clueless me): YouTube homages, Lego (a whole category unto itself); a Super Bowl halftime show; a really cool beer ad, and stuff I either don't know about or can't imagine.

The fan literature base is substantial. Forums like this continue to stir the pot (in a good way). Indy scratches the adventure itch, in the same way that Allan Quatermain did (and occasionally still does) a few generations earlier.
At some point, regardless of what happens, or doesn't, to IJ5, the spirit of Indy will be reincarnated. The trick will be recognizing it when it comes along. Kind of like the Dalai Lama.

Excellent, excellent post. And now I am craving some classic Holmes movies.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Dr.Jonesy said:
I really, really don't want a fifth film.

As I've probably said here - a fifth film should've been made by 2012-2013 at the very latest and even that was pushing it.

I recall how Spielberg and Lucas say how fun and easy these films are to make but given how much they've dragged their feet with every film past 1984 and especially since 1989 would suggest otherwise.

Harrison is too old - the film is already going to be handicapped at an action-level from the very start due to Harrison's age and the believability factor being something they'll have to watch out for. As much as I love the fourth film, it's evident that with some - the suspension of disbelief was a bit much at times. They have to tone down a fifth film to keep things even for an already potentially skeptical audience.

Plus, I think setting it in the '60s is just too far ahead. It just doesn't feel right.

I think what they should do is maybe do a prequel to Kingdom - de-age Harrison via makeup and digital effects and set it in 1954. The reason for this is simply because it'd be easier to swallow the action set-pieces with Indy not being in his 70s in the canon. Not only that, but Mutt and Marion don't have to be addressed.

A prequel to Kingdom would be ideal for the factor of believable-Indy kicking butt and Harrison does look good for his age, so aging him back 10 years shouldn't be too far a stretch.

I don't know, guys. I think this whole fifth film is a bad idea.

What makes you think a fifth film as a sequel has to be or is going to be in the 1960s? Could easily set the film in 1959. Raiders and LC are only 2 years apart chronologically despite being 8 years apart in filming.

Harrison hasn't aged THAT much (in his face) since KOTCS, so setting a film in 1959 or even 1960 on the head, at worst, wouldn't be implausible.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
JollyGreenSlugg said:
The bull**** "only Harrison can play Indy!" is as bad as "only Heath Ledger can ever play the Joker now".

Really only Harrison should play Indy, but as the person below you said, why does adventure HAVE to be Indiana Jones, anyway?

I would prefer myself that the Jones character exist with Harrison Ford, personally.

That doesn't mean there can't be other films with a similar theme and concept without the Jones character that can't be great.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
JasonMa said:
Except for the 4 other actors who have played Indy on screen...

100957-groundhog-day-bing-gif-ned-rye-wn6x.gif
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
JasonMa said:
Except for the 4 other actors who have played Indy on screen...

Because all of those guys had a massive impact right? So...I'm guessing you thought Sean Patrick Flannery did a better job than that Lucas approved hackfraud Ford, right?
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:

The day you just admit "I really can't wait until Harrison Ford dies" will be great, man. Just admit you hate the guy already. It'll do you some good. I know you watch those lame old 80s Indy films and wish Pratt could be digitally inserted over Harrison.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Lambonius said:
Who do you think cast Sean Patrick Flannery, Corey Carrier, and George Hall? Young Indy was George's baby.

Obviously and they all sucked as casting choices. My point is none of those other guys made any real impact. I don't buy into Harrison Ford hate, though.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Lambonius said:
Who do you think cast Sean Patrick Flannery, Corey Carrier, and George Hall? Young Indy was George's baby.
Don't even bother, the ̶F̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ fetish is strong with this one. :rolleyes:
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
Don't even bother, the ̶F̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ fetish is strong with this one. :rolleyes:

So which of those actors do you think did a better job than Ford? Why can't you just let the series die?

Did Harrison Ford rape your childhood?
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
So which of those actors do you think did a better job than Ford? Why can't you just let the series die?

Did Harrison Ford rape your childhood?
Easy, tiger. :rolleyes:

Ford wasn't even their first choice, as you know perfectly well.
If Selleck had taken the part, you'd be here telling us that Tom is Indy and Indy is Tom.

Dr. Jones is a great character.
Ford did a fantastic job with it and we all love him here, despite your pathetic Pratt ramblings.

But nothing lasts forever. Ford is getting old and soon someone else will pick up the baton.
Deal with it.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
Easy, tiger. :rolleyes:

Ford wasn't even their first choice, as you know perfectly well.
If Selleck had taken the part, you'd be here telling us that Tom is Indy and Indy is Tom.

Dr. Jones is a great character.
Ford did a fantastic job with it and we all love him here, despite your pathetic Pratt ramblings.

But nothing lasts forever. Ford is getting old and soon someone else will pick up the baton.
Deal with it.

Admit you hope he dies soon.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Say deal with it to my face and see the reaction you get. Don't you dare tell me to deal with it, who the hell do you think you are or are talking to?
Go to bed, you brave internet warrior.

Nurse Ratched is gonna switch off the lights in a minute.
 
Last edited:

JasonMa

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
Obviously and they all sucked as casting choices. My point is none of those other guys made any real impact. I don't buy into Harrison Ford hate, though.
Get back to me with a quote of mine that said I hate Ford, then we'll talk.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Well when you have a faction of fans who want to accuse Harrison of having Alzheimer's - basically wishing something worse than death on him - just so he won't be part of the film, it's easy why others would see such as hatred.
 
Top