Indy 5 news 2018

Z dweller

Well-known member
TheFirebird1 said:
A good actor doesn't equal a good performance, or a good box office run for that matter.
I agree with you, but now you are contradicting yourself.
In the previous post you said "the success of a film with alternating storylines will depend on how good the new actor is. If he isn't good, the movie will tank."

All I'm saying is: without a young actor, it's going to be incredibly hard to engage younger audiences.
Should Disney go for an established star, or a new name?
That's a different discussion though, not the one you and I have had so far.

TheFirebird1 said:
My view is that Indy 5--if they go the route of alternating storylines--should focus more on Ford, with the new actor receiving a fair amount, though slightly less than Ford's, of screentime. From your posts, it seems that you think the opposite (spend most of the time on new guy, with 40 minutes of Ford).
I'd be happy with 50/50 screen time.
What the heck, even 60% Ford, 40% new actor.
 

TheFirebird1

Active member
Z dweller said:
I agree with you, but now you are contradicting yourself.
In the previous post you said "the success of a film with alternating storylines will depend on how good the new actor is. If he isn't good, the movie will tank."

All I'm saying is: without a young actor, it's going to be incredibly hard to engage younger audiences.
Should Disney go for an established star, or a new name?
That's a different discussion though, not the one you and I have had so far.
Without getting into another muddled debate, let me clarify my sentiment in the post prior. Good, from my point of view, simply is the extent to how well (or not) the actor portrays the character. I'm not asking for a Ford impersonation, I want something unique. My point about Ehrenreich was to note that even though I thought he put on an excellent performance, that wasn't enough to save the movie. Put in an actor with a mediocre performance, and, well, that could make the situation even more dire.
As to your second point, I can see where you're coming from. I belong to the "digital generation", and with action movies in particular it's cool to see some fresh faces (for example, Tom Holland's performance as Spider-Man has attracted a whole new wave of fans to the Marvel Universe), but that doesn't mean someone like Harrison can't engage with people like that. A lot of "new viewers" (i.e. people who never saw the originals in theaters, so on and so forth) still like Harrison, and still enjoy seeing him onscreen. I know this from a lot of personal interactions I had with others around the time of TFA's release.
As for whether Disney should go for an established star or someone unknown, I'd say be safe. Guys like Gosling or Pratt are generally well known (hell, more so than Alden or Ingruber) and can help net the profits that this franchise wants (and NEEDS) to survive.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
And I'm only happy if Z dweller is happy.
I'm fully aware that my personal preferences count for zilch in the great scheme of things, thank you. The same goes for everyone else.

I was just clarifying my position.
 

TheFirebird1

Active member
Z dweller said:
I'm fully aware that my personal preferences count for zilch in the great scheme of things, thank you. The same goes for everyone else.

I was just clarifying my position.
tenor.gif

Aw, come on, tiger! I don't think he meant anything by it. :whip:
If it makes you feel any better though, your preferences do matter, because you're going to be the one deciding whether you fork over your money to the Disney machine on July 10th, 2021--and no one else.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
TheFirebird1 said:
Put in an actor with a mediocre performance, and, well, that could make the situation even more dire.
Sure, but it's a risk that has to be taken, IMO.

Spielberg's casting choices in his prime were fantastic: Ke Quan, Phoenix and Connery were perfect for their roles, and each added his own touch, just like you said.

Did the 'Berg drop the ball with LaBeuf? As far as I'm concerned, yes - let's hope he chooses wisely again this time.
'Cause even if Indy 5 doesn't features parallel stories, Old Indy will definitely get a young sideckick or two, you can bet the house.
 

TheFirebird1

Active member
Z dweller said:
Did the 'Berg drop the ball with LaBeuf? As far as I'm concerned, yes - let's hope he chooses wisely again this time.
As far as I'm concerned...NO. Just look at the well of talent for teen/early twenties actors at that time. About as empty as it is now. Say what you want about KotCS, but Shia and Harrison definitely had great chemistry up until the part where somebody decided "hey, why don't we just cram a lot of uninteresting characters into the last half of the movie.
And this is from someone who likes Kingdom.
Z dweller said:
'Cause even if Indy 5 doesn't features parallel stories, Old Indy will definitely get a young sidekick or two, you can bet the house.
giphy.gif

The house doesn't always win. A good enough gambler can send it tumbling down. I don't want to see Harrison marching along with some of his tween grandchildren for two and a half hours.
But hey, like I mentioned before, maybe Idris Elba could work. He's a fantastic actor, and I could see him operating as a roguish ally in the Indyverse. Now that would be interesting.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Is there any chance Harrison and the new actor get 50/50 screentime, or should I resign myself to Harrison being only given around 10-35 mins?
If an Indy film is roughly 2 hours, is it too much to expect one hour of Harrison and one hour of the new guy?
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
If they split two stories (one in say 1927, one in say 1967) clean 50/50, I could go for that. All I ask is that Harrison's Indy be an active participant in his own story. Give us some things we didn't get in CS - a little whip play, one last gun battle (we haven't had a proper gunfight since TOD), let him punch a few people, let us see him kill a few bad guys. If Harrison's only role is gonna be him in a rocking chair telling a story, I don't want him in it.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
There is zero excuse for the delay between Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and a final sequel. Zero.

A sequel could've been done by 2013 at the latest. Everyone involved in these films always laments how quick and fun it is to make these films. Well..?!

We're 10 years on and nothing solid has materialized and is supposedly only going to come to fruition 13 years after the fourth film.

That's only 6 years less than the delay between the third and fourth films.

The Indy franchise will always be the red-headed step-child of Lucas' properties, it seems. Never getting any video games, merch or proper traction on actual films.

What a waste.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Dr.Jonesy said:
There is zero excuse for the delay between Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and a final sequel. Zero.

A sequel could've been done by 2013 at the latest. Everyone involved in these films always laments how quick and fun it is to make these films. Well..?!

We're 10 years on and nothing solid has materialized and is supposedly only going to come to fruition 13 years after the fourth film.

That's only 6 years less than the delay between the third and fourth films.

The Indy franchise will always be the red-headed step-child of Lucas' properties, it seems. Never getting any video games, merch or proper traction on actual films.

What a waste.

To be fair, if Spielberg had agreed to Lucas' alien Indy idea in 96, we could've had a new film around then. This was at the same time that Indy novels and comics and games were coming out regularly and the YIJC was winding down. Say Spielberg says yes to alien Indy in 96, they would probably have done another closer in tone to the first three around 00 and who knows from there. All he had to do was say "Okay George, we'll do this alien Indy movie, but in return, we're gonna do one after this which is done in a way I want."

After Spielberg said no to Saucermen, Lucas went ahead with the SW prequels.

Both of the Beards are to blame, really. Spielberg felt washed up on Indy after LC, and I feel that was a mistake; there was a lot more they could've done. Lucas could've given some ground on the alien idea. Either George should've yielded, or forged ahead with a new director, or Spielberg should've folded but made demands for a next film after Saucermen.

The one party consistently interested has been Harrison it seems.
 

TheFirebird1

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
Both of the Beards are to blame, really. Spielberg felt washed up on Indy after LC, and I feel that was a mistake; there was a lot more they could've done. Lucas could've given some ground on the alien idea. Either George should've yielded, or forged ahead with a new director, or Spielberg should've folded but made demands for a next film after Saucermen.
I don't think Spielberg was necessarily "washed up", as you say, but rather felt that he had finished his work with the trilogy, and by further extent, all the blockbuster-type films he was known for. In fact, that probably explains his reticence while making Crystal Skull, and why he didn't get back into the blockbuster game until this year with Ready Player One. As for Lucas, I agree. He should've definitely allowed for some work with the alien idea, and his stubbornness with it caused the possibility of at least one or two Indy films in the early 90s to 2000s to be made.
Raiders112390 said:
The one party consistently interested has been Harrison it seems.
Yup. Since the nineties he's been rooting for more Indy films, and now he's supposedly pushing for them. As for the Beards, Steven seems pretty excited, but I'm not so sure about George. I think he's accepted the sale of Lucasfilm and the realization that he's mostly done with these films, and he's started to move on. More power to him, of course, as he's doing a lot of good with his money in the Cali region.
 

seasider

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
To be fair, if Spielberg had agreed to Lucas' alien Indy idea in 96, we could've had a new film around then. This was at the same time that Indy novels and comics and games were coming out regularly and the YIJC was winding down. Say Spielberg says yes to alien Indy in 96, they would probably have done another closer in tone to the first three around 00 and who knows from there. All he had to do was say "Okay George, we'll do this alien Indy movie, but in return, we're gonna do one after this which is done in a way I want."

After Spielberg said no to Saucermen, Lucas went ahead with the SW prequels.

Both of the Beards are to blame, really. Spielberg felt washed up on Indy after LC, and I feel that was a mistake; there was a lot more they could've done. Lucas could've given some ground on the alien idea. Either George should've yielded, or forged ahead with a new director, or Spielberg should've folded but made demands for a next film after Saucermen.

The one party consistently interested has been Harrison it seems.

According to Speilberg, it was the release of 1996 film Independence Day that also played a role in the film getting shelved. Spielberg used that film as leverage in his case to George that it's not a good time to make a movie about aliens cause it will look like they're just trying to piggyback on that movie's success. Lucas of course turned his attention to the Star Wars special edition releases and the upcoming prequels.

In my opinion, 1998 probably would've been the best time to make Indy 4. Harrison Ford was coming off hit movies like Clear and Present Danger and Air Force One and he still looked sort of young-ish at the time. Lucas was also basking the success of the special editions. The prequels had not yet come out and there wasn't huge backlash yet (That stuff would come later) so Lucas was still "cool" with fans. We were still also in the period where movies could use a lot of CGI in movies without fear of fanboy backlash. I actually think if we even had the KOTCS movie we got in 2008, it probably would've been much better received back then by the general public.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
TheFirebird1 said:
I don't think Spielberg was necessarily "washed up", as you say, but rather felt that he had finished his work with the trilogy, and by further extent, all the blockbuster-type films he was known for. In fact, that probably explains his reticence while making Crystal Skull, and why he didn't get back into the blockbuster game until this year with Ready Player One. As for Lucas, I agree. He should've definitely allowed for some work with the alien idea, and his stubbornness with it caused the possibility of at least one or two Indy films in the early 90s to 2000s to be made.

Yup. Since the nineties he's been rooting for more Indy films, and now he's supposedly pushing for them. As for the Beards, Steven seems pretty excited, but I'm not so sure about George. I think he's accepted the sale of Lucasfilm and the realization that he's mostly done with these films, and he's started to move on. More power to him, of course, as he's doing a lot of good with his money in the Cali region.

I've never completely bought the "Spielberg wanted to make mature films" line. I mean, Jurassic Park was a blockbuster. Lost World and War of the Worlds were B movie summer fare. I think it was just an excuse to be done with Indy. I honestly think he lost interest. Even LC was done not because Steven necessarily wanted to do a third film but because he felt he needed to atone for TOD. As early as 85 he turned down the Monkey King script because the action in it was too much for him and made "feel old."

You have to remember Indy was conceived of as sort of "Bond, but better." The initial contact was for five or six films. There is absolutely no reason we couldn't have met that number:

Indy IV (1996)

Indy V (1998)

Indy VI (2000)

The Beards royally screwed the pooch and really did waste the potential of a character and franchise which is in my opinion just as cool as Bond.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
seasider said:
According to Speilberg, it was the release of 1996 film Independence Day that also played a role in the film getting shelved. Spielberg used that film as leverage in his case to George that it's not a good time to make a movie about aliens cause it will look like they're just trying to piggyback on that movie's success. Lucas of course turned his attention to the Star Wars special edition releases and the upcoming prequels.

In my opinion, 1998 probably would've been the best time to make Indy 4. Harrison Ford was coming off hit movies like Clear and Present Danger and Air Force One and he still looked sort of young-ish at the time. Lucas was also basking the success of the special editions. The prequels had not yet come out and there wasn't huge backlash yet (That stuff would come later) so Lucas was still "cool" with fans. We were still also in the period where movies could use a lot of CGI in movies without fear of fanboy backlash. I actually think if we even had the KOTCS movie we got in 2008, it probably would've been much better received back then by the general public.

The 90s were a much more accepting time. If KOTCS was released as is in 1996 or 1998, it would be viewed as a lesser entry but it would not be hated. I mean this is the era where Batman Forever was a massive success.

I believe anywhere from 95-98 was the the right time. Alas.
 

Olliana

New member
I agree people were a lot less cynical pre-internet and you could get away with almost anything back then. If Indy 4 was a product of the 90's, it would have looked vastly different anyways, being set in 40's and all. It's an interesting what if-scenario. When you watch 'SIX DAYS SEVEN NIGHTS' (1998) you get an idea of how Harrison Ford looked like around that time:

giphy.gif

giphy.gif
 

TheFirebird1

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
I've never completely bought the "Spielberg wanted to make mature films" line. I mean, Jurassic Park was a blockbuster. Lost World and War of the Worlds were B movie summer fare. I think it was just an excuse to be done with Indy. I honestly think he lost interest.
Look at his filmography during that era, though. After he was finished with JP, he had started to move on. Spielberg wasn't the guy who had done Jaws and Raiders, he was the one who did Schindler's List and Minority Report. Granted, you can say he lost interest, and that's true, because he wanted to move into a new era for himself.

Raiders112390 said:
You have to remember Indy was conceived of as sort of "Bond, but better." The initial contact was for five or six films. There is absolutely no reason we couldn't have met that number:

Indy IV (1996)

Indy V (1998)

Indy VI (2000)

The Beards royally screwed the pooch and really did waste the potential of a character and franchise which is in my opinion just as cool as Bond.
There were five in the original contract, and yes, there could have been two films easily in the nineties. I don't blame the Beards for not making films then, but they certainly allowed the dilemmas with Indy 5's ongoing production to occur.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
And now there really is no excuse for it. Lucas has no power to demand what he wants anymore. Spielberg can easily say thanks but no thanks and forge ahead with a script he likes. We know Harrison wants to do it and I honestly think at this stage of his life the script isn't an issue so long as he feels it leaves him on a good note. If Disney isn't to blame, than its Spielberg. Maybe it's a fear that no matter how good the script, fans won't be happy so why bother anyway? Maybe it's some sort of perfectionist thing at this point. Combine that with halfhearted interest.
 
Top