Indy 5 news 2018

Z dweller

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
What is the hook?
You and I had this discussion before.

And I'll say it again: good movies and TV series create their own demand.
That's how stuff like "Stranger Things" or even "Mad Men" became a global phenomenon.

Also you're way too hung up on generational fears.
Entire generations of gamers have grown up playing Uncharted, and it's still going strong.
Apart from anything else, there's definitely an appetite for Indy's particular flavor of adventure.

Have faith, it can be a success.
But we need new blood to lead the project, the old crew is spent.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Trafficking in nostalgia is just as valid for INDY 5 marketing as it was for INDY 4. There are some issues, namely that CRYSTAL SKULL is far less fondly remembered than LAST CRUSADE, but they also are going to be able to pump up the idea of this being the finale.
 

FordFan

Well-known member
"Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome" came out in 1985. A tepid ending to the series. There was nothing Mad Max-related that came out over the next 30 years.

"Mad Max: Fury Road" had a troubled shoot. But it was marketed with awesome trailers and reviews were through the roof. The film won six Oscars and was directed by George Miller at 75.

To the young man talking about marketability and "lack" thereof in the Indiana Jones series: would you have greenlit "Fury Road"?
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
You and I had this discussion before.

And I'll say it again: good movies and TV series create their own demand.
That's how stuff like "Stranger Things" or even "Mad Men" became a global phenomenon.

Also you're way too hung up on generational fears.
Entire generations of gamers have grown up playing Uncharted, and it's still going strong.
Apart from anything else, there's definitely an appetite for Indy's particular flavor of adventure.

Have faith, it can be a success.
But we need new blood to lead the project, the old crew is spent.

Here's where I disagree. Take those examples you gave. There's a lot of nostalgia for the 80s among all age groups and Stranger Things tapped into that. Mad Men was set in an era very close to Camelot and all of that mythology with a handsome debonair leading man and a beautiful elegant leading lady. They created their own demand, but there was a foundation for it.

Why did Solo do poorly? Mummy? Tomb Raider?

I can't force myself to have faith to be honest. Especially as long as Spielberg is at the helm. I've made my POV clear in that I find SS to be the weak link, even moreso than Harrison. A sentimental old man is not going to give us an exciting movie even if you had a young lead. If I had to choose between the two I would want a final Harrison Ford helmed by a younger director with SS and Lucas as creative consultants.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
There's a lot of nostalgia for the 80s among all age groups
Well, that works in Indy's favor, does it not? Indirectly?
Raiders112390 said:
Why did Solo do poorly? Mummy? Tomb Raider?
'Cause they're not very good?
Raiders112390 said:
I can't force myself to have faith to be honest. Especially as long as Spielberg is at the helm.
On this we agree.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
FordFan said:
"Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome" came out in 1985. A tepid ending to the series. There was nothing Mad Max-related that came out over the next 30 years.

"Mad Max: Fury Road" had a troubled shoot. But it was marketed with awesome trailers and reviews were through the roof. The film won six Oscars and was directed by George Miller at 75.

To the young man talking about marketability and "lack" thereof in the Indiana Jones series: would you have greenlit "Fury Road"?

Yes. Fury Road was a reboot and enough time had passed from the last lackluster movie to present to erase the bad taste and let nostalgia set in. That sailed on pure nostalgia and it was also so long that it was also like a new thing, attracting non-fans of the originals even. Indy 4 came out only ten years ago, had a despised final outing, and we're mostly talking about either a sequel starring the same guy or a prequel in the same continuity. Waiting another half decade or decade and doing a full reboot is probably the best course.

The safest course is a full reboot with a new creative team IMO. Jurassic World being an example of this.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Why did Solo do poorly? Mummy? Tomb Raider?

Having not seen any of these three movies, I'll try:

Who the hell was clamoring for a TOMB RAIDER movie? It's an adaptation of a video game franchise that was itself an Indiana Jones knockoff.

THE MUMMY, besides being by all accounts not particularly good, was a reboot of a series that had already gone soft at the box office.

SOLO is something like the tenth Star Wars movie to date. There's a point where audiences get fatigued, and at that point a workmanlike movie isn't going to be enough to make a seismic impact.

It should also be noted that all three of these movies still earned hundreds of millions of dollars. Nobody forced the studios to adopt an unsustainable business model where movies have to make $500 million to break even. In the case of SOLO it didn't help that Disney spent the money of two movies thanks to the reshoots.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
The safest course is a full reboot with a new creative team IMO. Jurassic World being an example of this.

The safest course for Indy is what's been announced: another installment starring Ford and directed by Spielberg. I won't call it a sure thing because that doesn't exist, but there's at least evidence that elderly Harrison Ford is still a box office draw. I'm not going to go to bat for the quality of CRYSTAL SKULL or THE FORCE AWAKENS, but the audience showed up. There is a precedent.

What is the precedent for people showing up to see someone replace Ford in one of his iconic roles? SOLO didn't send a promising signal on that front. The Jurassic Park series isn't a useful comparison because the franchise isn't bound to a specific actor the way Indiana Jones is. The draw is the dinosaurs. The draw for Indy, at least for 37 years, has been Indy.

The reboot is the riskier proposition, in my opinion.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
The draw for Indy, at least for 37 years, has been Indy.
Wow, I hadn't realized you were one of the IndyIsFordAndFordIsIndy brigade.
Udvarnoky said:
What is the precedent for people showing up to see someone replace Ford in one of his iconic roles?
Why do we need a precedent?

As it's been pointed out before, the way a movie is marketed is hugely important these days for its success at the box office*.
Do you doubt Disney's ability to market a recast?



*Incidentally, and sadly, that's why BR2049 bombed, despite rave reviews.
 

FordFan

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Yes. Fury Road was a reboot and enough time had passed from the last lackluster movie to present to erase the bad taste and let nostalgia set in. That sailed on pure nostalgia and it was also so long that it was also like a new thing, attracting non-fans of the originals even. Indy 4 came out only ten years ago, had a despised final outing, and we're mostly talking about either a sequel starring the same guy or a prequel in the same continuity. Waiting another half decade or decade and doing a full reboot is probably the best course.

The safest course is a full reboot with a new creative team IMO. Jurassic World being an example of this.

That "despised" entry you are talking about grossed $786 million. Everyday people thought it was "meh". People on the internet hated it. And you'll find there isn't a whole lot they universally love.

"The Jurassic World" template is the last thing I want to see happen to Indiana Jones. A heartless retread that promises little more than set piece after set piece, with the added plus of keeping you cool during the summer.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
FordFan said:
That "despised" entry you are talking about grossed $786 million. Everyday people thought it was "meh". People on the internet hated it. And you'll find there isn't a whole lot they universally love.

"The Jurassic World" template is the last thing I want to see happen to Indiana Jones. A heartless retread that promises little more than set piece after set piece, with the added plus of keeping you cool during the summer.

In Disney's hands, that is all you will get, Ford or not.
 

FordFan

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
In Disney's hands, that is all you will get, Ford or not.

Spielberg and Disney.

You're advocating Disney without Spielberg. So that's what you're advocating for.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
FordFan said:
Spielberg and Disney.

You're advocating Disney without Spielberg. So that's what you're advocating for.

My ideal situation would be Indy, with Lucas limited to writing the basic story, a mid 1960s setting, Spielberg producing and some young director directing, without Disney. Since that is impossible I am forced to pick the lesser of two evils. If Steven was the man he was in 1989 or even 1997 I would not question him being involved. I haven't seen a film by him I have enjoyed outside of KOTCS since The Last World and even that one felt a bit phoned in. He has lacked the old magic for a long time.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
Wow, I hadn't realized you were one of the IndyIsFordAndFordIsIndy brigade.

Why do we need a precedent?

We don't, but executives tend to rely on them, and I thought we were arguing through their eyes.

Z dweller said:
Do you doubt Disney's ability to market a recast?

Yes.

Z dweller said:
*Incidentally, and sadly, that's why BR2049 bombed, despite rave reviews.

It bombed because it was a substantial, serious sci-fi movie that ran 164 minutes and needed half a million dollars to be considered successful. I loved the movie - and was impressed at the business it did manage to do - but the result was inevitable. Also, the original BLADE RUNNER was a flop as well.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
We don't, but executives tend to rely on them, and I thought we were arguing through their eyes.
Clearly, I credit Disney execs with a lot more vision than you do.
Udvarnoky said:
Ditto.
Udvarnoky said:
I loved the movie - and was impressed at the business it did manage to do - but the result was inevitable.
That makes two of us.
But the consensus is that Villeneuve's decision to reveal as little as possible in trailers, while effectively gagging critics ahead of the release, doomed the movie with younger audiences.
 
Last edited:

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I just don't think it had commercial prospects, regardless of how it was marketed. I'll forever be pinching myself that we got it, because goodness knows we don't get hard sci-fi aimed at grownups in the cinema these days, let alone with a significant budget, but what happened was foreseeable.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
It was never going to be the best performing movie of the year, granted.
But the cryptic marketing did not help, no doubt about it.

Anyway, back to Indy 5.
I'm convinced that a smart marketing campaign would make it possible for a recast to be commercially successful.
We shall see.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Well, first they have to actually announce that they are doing a recast. They are still towing the line that this will be a Spielberg/Ford joint. If we take the skeptic's position that the latest delay has collapsed that, how long until they admit it?
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Oh sure, at this stage it's just speculation on my part.

I'd suggest we need confirmation that a script has been approved by year end.
Failing that, it's just not going to happen.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Since the Variety scoop is technically rumor, it would be nice if Disney or Spielberg could confirm the intention to push back the release date, though there's no rule that says they have to. Spielberg's not shooting anything at the moment, so he's not going to be promoting anything this year. It could be a while before we get a quote from anybody. I feel like if there was something fundamentally inaccurate about the report, though, Disney would have gainsaid it by now.
 
Top