Indy 5 news 2012

R

replican't

Guest
JediJones said:
I don't think Ford's age matters at all. One of Skull's mistakes was making a big deal out of his age, having Mutt call him "old man" and stuff. Calling attention to it diminished the Indy character unnecessarily. As they said in the promos for the movie, Ford didn't look much different in the costume than he did back in 1989. And when he was doing his (too few) big action scenes, the fights with Dovchenko in particular, they were completely convincing.

Spielberg shot 80% of the Temple of Doom conveyer belt fight with a stuntman because Ford was injured. This is called movie magic. The action Indiana Jones did on screen was always spectacularly impossible to do in real life. There's no reason to hold back on that to try and reflect what a man can "really do" at that age. What he did in the earlier films wasn't what a man could really do at those ages either.

One thing's true about Lucas' films. They have always used state-of-the-art special effects techniques. So to think that CGI is somehow wrong for Indy, it's not. They didn't hold back on possible effects technology in the original films so they shouldn't hold back on the new ones out of some misguided sense of "tradition."

Skull's problems had nothing to do with the actors, the effects, the directing or any of its conceptual ideas, including the aliens. It had everything to do with the final screenplay, which appears to have been the work of David Koepp. The problems with this screenplay are absolutely endless...poor structure with little foreshadowing or callback moments, slow pacing, long stretches of story with no threats or excitement, subplots that go nowhere, too much expository dialogue that doesn't build character, too many characters (especially the awful Mac, ugh), a lack of suspense due to a failure to establish the ground rules of the supernatural artifact, a lack of clever ideas and moments, recycled moments from and gratuitous references to the other films, etc. Koepp has been doing bad screenwriting since at least the first Jurassic Park, a movie that had as much potential as Crystal Skull yet suffered from the same all-around weak writing. With better writing, a new Indy sequel could be a lot better than Crystal Skull. The series needs a "hungry" writer to give it fresh inspiration, not a fat and happy Hollywood hack like Koepp.
Click to expand...

Nah, Ford's too old.
 
Henry Jones VII

Henry Jones VII

Active member
JediJones said:
I don't think Ford's age matters at all. One of Skull's mistakes was making a big deal out of his age, having Mutt call him "old man" and stuff. Calling attention to it diminished the Indy character unnecessarily. As they said in the promos for the movie, Ford didn't look much different in the costume than he did back in 1989. And when he was doing his (too few) big action scenes, the fights with Dovchenko in particular, they were completely convincing.

Spielberg shot 80% of the Temple of Doom conveyer belt fight with a stuntman because Ford was injured. This is called movie magic. The action Indiana Jones did on screen was always spectacularly impossible to do in real life. There's no reason to hold back on that to try and reflect what a man can "really do" at that age. What he did in the earlier films wasn't what a man could really do at those ages either.

One thing's true about Lucas' films. They have always used state-of-the-art special effects techniques. So to think that CGI is somehow wrong for Indy, it's not. They didn't hold back on possible effects technology in the original films so they shouldn't hold back on the new ones out of some misguided sense of "tradition."

Skull's problems had nothing to do with the actors, the effects, the directing or any of its conceptual ideas, including the aliens. It had everything to do with the final screenplay, which appears to have been the work of David Koepp. The problems with this screenplay are absolutely endless...poor structure with little foreshadowing or callback moments, slow pacing, long stretches of story with no threats or excitement, subplots that go nowhere, too much expository dialogue that doesn't build character, too many characters (especially the awful Mac, ugh), a lack of suspense due to a failure to establish the ground rules of the supernatural artifact, a lack of clever ideas and moments, recycled moments from and gratuitous references to the other films, etc. Koepp has been doing bad screenwriting since at least the first Jurassic Park, a movie that had as much potential as Crystal Skull yet suffered from the same all-around weak writing. With better writing, a new Indy sequel could be a lot better than Crystal Skull. The series needs a "hungry" writer to give it fresh inspiration, not a fat and happy Hollywood hack like Koepp.
Click to expand...

great post (y)
 
I

indyjones2131

New member
JediJones said:
I don't think Ford's age matters at all. One of Skull's mistakes was making a big deal out of his age, having Mutt call him "old man" and stuff. Calling attention to it diminished the Indy character unnecessarily. As they said in the promos for the movie, Ford didn't look much different in the costume than he did back in 1989. And when he was doing his (too few) big action scenes, the fights with Dovchenko in particular, they were completely convincing.

Spielberg shot 80% of the Temple of Doom conveyer belt fight with a stuntman because Ford was injured. This is called movie magic. The action Indiana Jones did on screen was always spectacularly impossible to do in real life. There's no reason to hold back on that to try and reflect what a man can "really do" at that age. What he did in the earlier films wasn't what a man could really do at those ages either.

One thing's true about Lucas' films. They have always used state-of-the-art special effects techniques. So to think that CGI is somehow wrong for Indy, it's not. They didn't hold back on possible effects technology in the original films so they shouldn't hold back on the new ones out of some misguided sense of "tradition."

Skull's problems had nothing to do with the actors, the effects, the directing or any of its conceptual ideas, including the aliens. It had everything to do with the final screenplay, which appears to have been the work of David Koepp. The problems with this screenplay are absolutely endless...poor structure with little foreshadowing or callback moments, slow pacing, long stretches of story with no threats or excitement, subplots that go nowhere, too much expository dialogue that doesn't build character, too many characters (especially the awful Mac, ugh), a lack of suspense due to a failure to establish the ground rules of the supernatural artifact, a lack of clever ideas and moments, recycled moments from and gratuitous references to the other films, etc. Koepp has been doing bad screenwriting since at least the first Jurassic Park, a movie that had as much potential as Crystal Skull yet suffered from the same all-around weak writing. With better writing, a new Indy sequel could be a lot better than Crystal Skull. The series needs a "hungry" writer to give it fresh inspiration, not a fat and happy Hollywood hack like Koepp.
Click to expand...

Off Topic Briefly: Let me say quickly that as a screenwriter myself, I have been thinking and talking the problems of KOTCS for 4.25 years now (wow that long?) and I have never seen someone sum it all up better than you did here in this post. Well done. Send this to the beards would ya?

OK Back on Topic: While I do 100% agree with you about the age thing, the OTHER way to go would be let the character age and NOT try to hide it. We love these movies and this character for several reasons, but one of those is the fact that he's human(ish). We've seen him as the young, brash, selfish grave robber, the grown man who finds faith, the middle aged man who finds a family, etc. These themes have been an important part of the series, so why can't he evolve again? Ford at 70-something is still more agile than most, so it's not like he'd be cripple, but hell let's throw a beard on Indy, make him more of a seasoned old adventurer. Let's take some chances with this one. As long as the story and set pieces are focused on HIM and HE is doing the bulk of the badassery, then we're good. After seeing just how much of KOTCS is cowardly and poor and lazy call backs to the OT, I would just love to see some chances taken.
 
Last edited:
BadDates

BadDates

New member
JediJones said:
I don't think Ford's age matters at all. One of Skull's mistakes was making a big deal out of his age, having Mutt call him "old man" and stuff. Calling attention to it diminished the Indy character unnecessarily.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Mutt's initial disrespect to Indy is one of the things that really spoiled KOTCS for me. I would have warmed much more to the character if he'd looked up to Indy from the start. Instead of being a stereotypical rebel, I'd have preferred him to be an arguably equally stereotypical timid, bookish college student whose inner boldness was brought out by his getting to know Indy and adventuring with him.
 
AndyLGR

AndyLGR

Active member
Great post jedijones. Its obvious KOTCS fell well short of the mark. I can't believe they didn't notice whilst they were making it or even for that matter when they reading the screenplay.

However if they ever made Indy 5 then they need to learn from the mistakes of 4 and also look at what made the first 3 work so well, especially ROTLA. Simplicity maybe the key.
 
Olliana

Olliana

New member
Túrin Turambar said:
Yes with todays technology, they could make him look young again or younger would love too see another prequel made. Dreams.
Click to expand...

Of course they could, but it'd still look fake and uncanny. Also, not only Harrison's face but also his body and movements have changed over the years, so they would have to rejuvenate everything. For what?
TRON: Legacy was only two years ago and it didn't look convincing or real either, and they used it just for a few scenes, not for a character we see along the whole movie. Even in 2014 it wouldn't look believable at all.
 
Sakis

Sakis

TR.N Staff Member
Olliana said:
Of course they could, but it'd still look fake and uncanny. Also, not only Harrison's face but also his body and movements have changed over the years, so they would have to rejuvenate everything. For what?
TRON: Legacy was only two years ago and it didn't look convincing or real either, and they used it just for a few scenes, not for a character we see along the whole movie. Even in 2014 it wouldn't look believable at all.
Click to expand...

The use of digital effects we are talking about is reffered to some scenes, mainly flashbacks, that would advance story plot, not the entire film. At least this is what I had in mind when I made my original post.
 
I

Indy's brother

New member
Opening third act for youngified Indy. No flashback sequences though, please. I don't think that device belongs in an Indy flick. My idea was a fountain of youth story that featured the climactic fight to occur in and out of it's water. In the water: Indy in his prime. Out of the water: current Indy. Going back and forth would be awesome.
 
Sakis

Sakis

TR.N Staff Member
Indy's brother said:
Opening third act for youngified Indy. No flashback sequences though, please. I don't think that device belongs in an Indy flick. My idea was a fountain of youth story that featured the climactic fight to occur in and out of it's water. In the water: Indy in his prime. Out of the water: current Indy. Going back and forth would be awesome.
Click to expand...

It worked for Young Indy. But I have to say your idea is very interesting.
 
Henry Jones VII

Henry Jones VII

Active member
Indy's brother said:
Opening third act for youngified Indy. No flashback sequences though, please. I don't think that device belongs in an Indy flick. My idea was a fountain of youth story that featured the climactic fight to occur in and out of it's water. In the water: Indy in his prime. Out of the water: current Indy. Going back and forth would be awesome.
Click to expand...

sounds terrific mate (y)
 
R

replican't

Guest
It sounds rubbish. Why bother doing that - just to have a 'young' Indy again? In which case, that proves the point that Ford is too old now, because you'd be making the thrust of the story about how he's old and it would be tediously self-reflexive.

Indiana Jones & The Indiana Jones.

Awesome.
 
I

Indy's brother

New member
replican't said:
It sounds rubbish. Why bother doing that - just to have a 'young' Indy again? In which case, that proves the point that Ford is too old now, because you'd be making the thrust of the story about how he's old and it would be tediously self-reflexive.

Indiana Jones & The Indiana Jones.

Awesome.
Click to expand...

Just an opportunity to please everyone. Except you. Of course.
 
Indy Jones

Indy Jones

Active member
You can't please everyone with an Indiana Jones film. Not at this point, especially.

Many people that hated KOTCS want a near-replica of ROTLA. We already had that with LC. I don't want that. I want to see Indy do some new things. Many people don't want to see him as old. I want that. It evolves the character.

It's an uphill battle, and I think it was wise of George to realize people were going to hate KOTCS. He learned that over the prequels. People just are ready and willing to hate his material anymore, so if I were him I wouldn't care. I mean, why should he? It ain't ceasing the money train, so it's obviously working.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
JediJones said:
I don't think Ford's age matters at all. One of Skull's mistakes was making a big deal out of his age, having Mutt call him "old man" and stuff. Calling attention to it diminished the Indy character unnecessarily. As they said in the promos for the movie, Ford didn't look much different in the costume than he did back in 1989. And when he was doing his (too few) big action scenes, the fights with Dovchenko in particular, they were completely convincing.

Spielberg shot 80% of the Temple of Doom conveyer belt fight with a stuntman because Ford was injured. This is called movie magic. The action Indiana Jones did on screen was always spectacularly impossible to do in real life. There's no reason to hold back on that to try and reflect what a man can "really do" at that age. What he did in the earlier films wasn't what a man could really do at those ages either.

One thing's true about Lucas' films. They have always used state-of-the-art special effects techniques. So to think that CGI is somehow wrong for Indy, it's not. They didn't hold back on possible effects technology in the original films so they shouldn't hold back on the new ones out of some misguided sense of "tradition."

Skull's problems had nothing to do with the actors, the effects, the directing or any of its conceptual ideas, including the aliens. It had everything to do with the final screenplay, which appears to have been the work of David Koepp. The problems with this screenplay are absolutely endless...poor structure with little foreshadowing or callback moments, slow pacing, long stretches of story with no threats or excitement, subplots that go nowhere, too much expository dialogue that doesn't build character, too many characters (especially the awful Mac, ugh), a lack of suspense due to a failure to establish the ground rules of the supernatural artifact, a lack of clever ideas and moments, recycled moments from and gratuitous references to the other films, etc. Koepp has been doing bad screenwriting since at least the first Jurassic Park, a movie that had as much potential as Crystal Skull yet suffered from the same all-around weak writing. With better writing, a new Indy sequel could be a lot better than Crystal Skull. The series needs a "hungry" writer to give it fresh inspiration, not a fat and happy Hollywood hack like Koepp.
Click to expand...

There's 2 seperate things here. I think one has to ask why so many kids still gravitate towards Star Wars (either the prequels or the cartoons) whilst having no connection to Indiana Jones. It really isn't a script thing, it's because the whole concept/tonality of it is no longer contemporary and has little relevance to anyone under 35. It's like asking the general movie going audience which they'd prefer to see on screen... Rio Bravo or The Avengers Assemble.

Ford is as good now as he has been for a few years... and you can certainly believe he can punch his weight. However, he does represent (visually) that this isn't a contemporary take on action/adventure movies. It's a franchise that's had its day unless they re-boot the character.

That being said - yes... of course they could make a better Indy V with a better script, more practical effects etc. etc. However, they will never make a movie as significant as Raiders unless they re-invent the formula with new movie makers and a new cast... and even then, it's probably something we (the older generation of fans) would'nt fully appreciate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top