Is Spielberg too old for Indy?

Aliens/Indy 4

Harrison said GL approached him after filming the cameo for what was later Young Indiana Jones and the Secret of the Blues and said he had the story element for Indy 4: aliens! HF laughed it off, thinking he was joking. When he told HF he was serious, Ford laughed and said basically if he could get SS on board he would do it, but he didn't feel that excited about it (early mid 90s??). SS declined, saying he didn't want to do more alien movies (of which he actually did with War of the Worlds). So SS and HF both weren't very eager with the story. SS got a little more excited with the Frank Marshall draft, and he and HF both wanted to film that version. GL didn't like it (for reasons unknown, possibly because he wanted the son/family element in it). SS hired Koep for a rewrite. It was a compromise that GL liked and the other two felt was filmable.

Actually to come back on-topic

I think all 3 primary creators (GL, SS, and HF) should come back. SS is not too old. I think they'll take the care to knock the next one out of the park. Even if it has aliens/beings from another dimension, or whatever. KotCS served as a bridge to get us into that genre. A great story is there somewhere (I really liked the Infernal Machine video game with hints of other-worldly creatures at the end).

punisher5150 said:

I think all 3 primary creators (GL, SS, and HF) should come back. SS is not too old. I think they'll take the care to knock the next one out of the park. Even if it has aliens/beings from another dimension, or whatever. KotCS served as a bridge to get us into that genre. A great story is there somewhere (I really liked the Infernal Machine video game with hints of other-worldly creatures at the end).

Click to expand...

Not only has SS shown that he's moved into GL's line of thinking with regards to Indy, but knocking Indy V out of the park with a septuagenarian Indy is going to be even more of an uphill struggle.

If this film happens, it won't be traditional, by virtue of the age of the leading actor. We will either see Mutt taking on the action, and Indy once more emasculated in the back seat, or we will see a different kind of movie in which an older actor can play the hero without being over-active: a psychological thriller in the Hitchcock mould. And I can't see anyone going for the latter in great numbers, which leaves Mutt, and therefore Indy 5 might as well be called Mutt 1.

I think Darth is speaking truth. "Super 8" is kind of the proof of that. JJ Abrams can do a better "80's SS movie" than SS can himself. If you want something for the fans, you have to get a fan to do it. You need someone who truly cares for the character and franchise as a fan. A Dave Filoni type.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImZIWlvACcU

IndyFan89 said:

I think Darth is speaking truth. "Super 8" is kind of the proof of that. JJ Abrams can do a better "80's SS movie" than SS can himself. If you want something for the fans, you have to get a fan to do it. You need someone who truly cares for the character and franchise as a fan. A Dave Filoni type.

Click to expand...

JJ is certainly a very talented and creative individual. With some of the TV series he's been involved in, he's been able to inject a film-like quality on a restrictive budget, balancing CG with live action. The future of Indy may lie not in movies, but in a TV serial (just like the original series that inspired Lucas in the first place). JJ would be the perfect choice to helm such a project, giving us a weekly cliffhanger.

As I've written somewhere, a small-screen Indy with a new actor in the lead may be more acceptable. There is a separation of projects with the Carrier/Flanery Young Indy series and Harrison's big-screen adventures, since neither replaces the other. This may be the chance to see Indy's wartime adventures, and I am warming more to the idea, as long as Harrison remains associated with the cinematic adventures for a long time to come.

Montana I'm game for a TV live-action or animated series

No Clone Wars CGI-type tho. Traditional animation. Or SPF doing a late 1920s-1930s series that focuses on action would be awesome. There were some great moments in YIJC when SPF had his adventures with the Phantom Train, etc.

punisher5150 said:

No Clone Wars CGI-type tho. Traditional animation.

Click to expand...

Definitely not Clone Wars in style anyway.

punisher5150 said:

Or SPF doing a late 1920s-1930s series that focuses on action would be awesome. There were some great moments in YIJC when SPF had his adventures with the Phantom Train, etc.

Click to expand...

SPF was born in 1965, Indy's age by the end of the Second World War, so it would likely be a younger actor.

Covering the period from the late 1920s and through the war would make for a long running series, and not a project that the busy Spielberg would likely commit to as a director, so it would fall to someone like JJ.

Rated at '15', like JJ's Lost or Alias would make room for harder storylines and visuals. However, I could foresee George's shadow looming over the creative team, and puilling it back to a '12'.

Rocket Surgeon said:

No. The problem is Lucas. Spielberg still has the hardcore in him, (Munich), but the material has to be better.

Skull is what Phantom Menace would have been if Spielberg and Ford were involved.

By all reports Lucas would not compromise, and the indulgence infected EVERYTHING.

Is he too old? No, but there needs to be balance, compromise and the CG needs to be relegated to cleaning up matte lines, ect. and not producing content.

Click to expand...

I've read that George Lucas wanted Indy to have a daughter in Crystal Skull but Spielberg twisted George's arm into switching the character to a son, so I guess (if true) he does compromise when it comes to his old friend Steven. That said, I think a daughter would have made Indy IV far more interesting.

I think if Spielberg had to pass the reins to a younger director his own personal choice would be his protege JJ Abrams. Based on Mr Abrams recent cinematic works he actually wouldn't be a bad choice.

I don't think the problems with KOTCS were due to Spielberg. When I watch the film, I see GL's fingerprints all over it. Plus the script was not that great to begin with. I only wish that Spielberg would have stood his ground a little more in some areas.

As far as passing it off to a younger director, I just can't see this ever happening. But if it did, my vote would go to JJ Abrams. I think he is going to be the next generaton of Spielberg, maybe even better. You can tell he has such a passion for filmmaking, plus he is a fanboy.

indytim said:

I've read that George Lucas wanted Indy to have a daughter in Crystal Skull but Spielberg twisted George's arm into switching the character to a son, so I guess (if true) he does compromise when it comes to his old friend Steven. That said, I think a daughter would have made Indy IV far more interesting.

Click to expand...

That certainly is an example of compromise.

The compromise in question concerned Aliens/Interdimentional Beings...in which Spielberg compromised his convictions.

An alien by any other name would smell as sour.

Stoo said:

What I understand is that you stated in this very thread that Spielberg hasn't changed, essentially saying that his style (even beyond the '80s) of directing action is passé. You also said that he has ALWAYS been sentimental and saccharin sweet with his movies. Not only is this blanket statement not true but "always" is an absolute term and you were recently discouraging people from using absolutes in another thread.

Click to expand...

That was a disappointing response Stoo. Ok? just for you?

1) Perhaps it?s just that some are less perceptive than others, but I think Spielberg has a very specific style. Of course he has matured as a movie maker, but he?s basically the same man with the same aesthetic taste, the same directors eye. Ergo, I think it?s quite reasonable to state that he?s ?basically the same director he was 20 years ago?. It?s not like he?s rejected Hollywood or is now directing small European art house cinema is it??? Personally, I think what he's gained in being able to capture the drama of small moments, he's lost when it comes to nailing 'edge of seat' and exciting action scenes (I personally can't think of anything in War of the Worlds, Minority Report, IA that compares to the tank chase in TLC).

2) Re. Spielberg?s taste for the saccharine. If you prefer? It is my opinion that one of the justifiable critisms of Spielberg is that he often overly sentimental in his movies, to the point where the emotion feels forced and artificial rather than natural/organic. For me, this is evident in many of his movies such as Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park I&II, IA, War of the Worlds, and even Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers List? and more specific to this thread, KOTCS.

3) My point about ?absolutes? was in response to a specific point about opinion being used as an empirical fact e.g. I/we think your opinion is wrong. Therefore it?s an absolute fact that you are wrong and ill informed.

Stoo said:

One can't compare the truck or tank chase to the Omaha beach scenes? Why? Because you say so? Your reasoning holds no water. Regardless, the opening sequence of "Saving Private Ryan" is not the only action in the movie. The battle at the end is incredibly well executed and the style in which it's done has been heavily imitated.

Click to expand...

I personally wouldn't categorise Saving Private Ryan as an action/adventure movie, just as Schindlers list or Raiders of the Lost Ark aren?t war movies. Therefore comparing an action scene between the two is comparing apples with oranges i.e. just because the Omaha beach scene is a great depiction of the horrors of conflict in WWII doesn?t automatically mean that Spielberg can still direct an action/adventure movie that?s relevant to 2011 (which is what I thought we were sort of discussing???).

Stoo said:

Whether Spielberg or Lucas are still able to redefine blockbuster movies in the future is not the debate here. Read the thread title.

Click to expand...

That is the essence of the thread, rather than some of the unconstructive sniping you've been revelling in. To reiterate, it appears to me that many people here would like an Indy V to be as a significant a movie (read game changer) as Raiders was (or at least to be attempting something as significant). KOTCS however, provides evidence to suggest that Spielberg may only have the ability to mirror the style of past glories when it comes to action/adventure movies. Perhaps he is then, in terms of where he is as a director, "too old for Indy". Who knows? Perhaps Tintin will be the next Indiana Jones.

Rocket Surgeon said:

That certainly is an example of compromise.

The compromise in question concerned Aliens/Interdimentional Beings...in which Spielberg compromised his convictions.

An alien by any other name would smell as sour.

Click to expand...

Of all of KOTCS potential issues/flaws, I thought the fact that the movie contained crystal skulls and aliens to be the least problematic (sans the CGI alien and UFO). Did you really think it was that damaging to the movie, or do you think that the damage was not from UFO's/aliens per se, but from Spielberg losing interest because of the compromise he had to make?

Couple things:

1) Spielberg hasn't lost it in terms of action. He just hasn't really made a real action movie in a while. (No, Minority Report and War of the Worlds are not action movies... neither is Munich.) The closest would be Saving Private Ryan. Yes, it is a war movie, but the basic concepts of directing action is the same: keep it exciting, kinetic, and keep the audience on the edge of their seat. The direction in SPR did that.

2) A TV Indy would be a good idea. The quality of TV is really close to matching film these days, and in many ways surpassing it now that movies has become mainly sequels, remakes, and the like. Abrams I'm not sure about though. I like the stuff he's been involved with like LOST or the new Star Trek but I can't see him pulling off something as retro as Indy. And let's not go so far to say Super 8 is him "pulling off 80s Spielberg better than Spielberg". We don't even really know what Super 8 is about yet, let's not go calling it the movie of the decade quite yet.

indy4242 said:

1) Spielberg hasn't lost it in terms of action. He just hasn't really made a real action movie in a while.

Click to expand...

I don't think Spielberg's directing credentials are seriously in doubt, but for the remit of this thread, I'm concerned that his association with Indy (as with Lucas') has meandered away from the straight and narrow.

indy4242 said:

2) A TV Indy would be a good idea. The quality of TV is really close to matching film these days, and in many ways surpassing it now that movies has become mainly sequels, remakes, and the like. Abrams I'm not sure about though.

Click to expand...

TV series are mimicking big-budget movies through clever storytelling and employing all the tricks in the book. Abrams is proving adaptable, and if he was up for it, I'm sure he could nail the style of a vintage Indy movie. He certainly knows how to create cliffhangers! Though, as I wrote before, the shadow of Lucas would fall across any such project, overseeing the direction of the story, the level of violence etc.

indy4242 said:

Couple things:

1) Spielberg hasn't lost it in terms of action. He just hasn't really made a real action movie in a while.

Click to expand...

What about KOTCS? Isn't his last action movie representative of the way he directs action movies?

Darth Vile said:

What about KOTCS? Isn't his last action movie representative of the way he directs action movies?

Click to expand...

I thought it could be inferred I meant "other than" KOTCS my bad, I'll be sure to be more obvious next time.

I thought the action in KOTCS was rather good, with one or two main issues: Not enough whip, and not enough gun. Those come down to the script, not the direction. The camera angles, the framing, the shots, pacing, were all done well.

indy4242 said:

I thought it could be inferred I meant "other than" KOTCS my bad, I'll be sure to be more obvious next time.

I thought the action in KOTCS was rather good, with one or two main issues: Not enough whip, and not enough gun. Those come down to the script, not the direction. The camera angles, the framing, the shots, pacing, were all done well.

Click to expand...

I was assuming that you didn't like the action in KOTCS. My bad.

Darth Vile said:

That was a disappointing response Stoo. Ok… just for you…

Click to expand...

Debating with you can be a pointless affair because you're often inconsistent in your arguments and flip-flop like a caught fish.

Darth Vile said:

1) Perhaps it’s just that some are less perceptive than others, but I think Spielberg has a very specific style. Of course he has matured as a movie maker, but he’s basically the same man with the same aesthetic taste, the same directors eye. Ergo, I think it’s quite reasonable to state that he’s “basically the same director he was 20 years ago”. It’s not like he’s rejected Hollywood or is now directing small European art house cinema is it??? Personally, I think what he's gained in being able to capture the drama of small moments, he's lost when it comes to nailing 'edge of seat' and exciting action scenes (I personally can't think of anything in War of the Worlds, Minority Report, IA that compares to the tank chase in TLC).

Click to expand...

Sure he has a certain 'aesthetic taste' but, as you say, he has 'matured'. That is a CHANGE! By your own admission, you think that the action in "Crusade" was outdated when it was released in 1989. The tank chase? Personally, I CAN find an 'edge-of-the-seat-exciting-action-scene' in "War of the Worlds" that compares (and also in "Jurassic Park II", for that matter). I don't find the tank chase in "Crusade" to be very 'edge of the seat' at all...except for one moment....

Darth Vile said:

2) Re. Spielberg’s taste for the saccharine. If you prefer… It is my opinion that one of the justifiable critisms of Spielberg is that he often overly sentimental in his movies, to the point where the emotion feels forced and artificial rather than natural/organic. For me, this is evident in many of his movies such as Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park I&II, IA, War of the Worlds, and even Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers List… and more specific to this thread, KOTCS.

Click to expand...

Have you ever seen "Duel"? One would be hard-pressed to find sugary sweetness in there...

Darth Vile said:

3) My point about ‘absolutes’ was in response to a specific point about opinion being used as an empirical fact e.g. I/we think your opinion is wrong. Therefore it’s an absolute fact that you are wrong and ill informed.

Click to expand...

Right...and when supplying personal opinion as fact, the absolutes, "always" and "never", shouldn't be used either.

Darth Vile said:

I personally wouldn't categorise Saving Private Ryan as an action/adventure movie, just as Schindlers list or Raiders of the Lost Ark aren’t war movies. Therefore comparing an action scene between the two is comparing apples with oranges i.e. just because the Omaha beach scene is a great depiction of the horrors of conflict in WWII doesn’t automatically mean that Spielberg can still direct an action/adventure movie that’s relevant to 2011 (which is what I thought we were sort of discussing???).

Click to expand...

Action is ACTION, whether it's in an adventure movie, war film, science fiction, western, police story, etc. so there's no need to keep pigeon-holing things into the 'action/adventure' genre simply because it suits your position. If one can't compare Indy-action to "Saving Private Ryan", then why did you compare "War of the Worlds", "Minority Report" or "IA"? They aren't 'adventure' films either. (In this thread, you also compared "LAST CRUSADE" to "Die Hard", "Lethal Weapon", "Batman" and "Aliens"!)

Why are you fixated on the Omaha beach scene? Have you not seen the entire film? There's much more to it than just the opening 30 minutes. That said, the Omaha beach scene is (by definition) an ACTION scene!

Darth Vile said:

That is the essence of the thread, rather than some of the unconstructive sniping you've been revelling in. To reiterate, it appears to me that many people here would like an Indy V to be as a significant a movie (read game changer) as Raiders was (or at least to be attempting something as significant). KOTCS however, provides evidence to suggest that Spielberg may only have the ability to mirror the style of past glories when it comes to action/adventure movies. Perhaps he is then, in terms of where he is as a director, "too old for Indy".

Click to expand...

Being 'relevant to 2011' (as you said) does not equate to being a 'game changer'. Bringing a new Indy film up to speed with the times doesn't necessarily mean it has to set a new standard.

'Many people' want Indy 5 to be a 'game changer'??? You and who else? Montana & IndyFan89 have said that someone new should be at the helm but never expressed that they'd like Indy 5 to redefine cinema. Mickiana was in the same camp as those two but also said that Spielberg is still the man for the job. Rob/TheIndyOpinion is right, this should have been a poll because I did a count and the LARGE MAJORITY (in this thread) believe that Spielberg is capable for a possible next Indy film.

Isn't it fairly common knowledge among fans that Spielberg's direction of "Skull" was a CONCIOUS effort to make it similar to the original 3? You even said to me 'bring it on' for Indy 5 to be done in a "Saving Private Ryan" fashion, so you KNOW he has the ability!

Darth Vile said:

What about KOTCS? Isn't his last action movie representative of the way he directs action movies?

Click to expand...

Are you for real? Your position keeps switching, Vile. You've been maintaining that Spielberg 'mirrored/payed homage to' his own, outdated, '80s style with "Skull" so, according to you, it's NOT representative of the way he can direct action films. (Also, I thought "Skull" had the distinction of being 'action/adventure' rather than just simply an 'action movie'?)

Spielberg's style HAS changed so the REAL question is the other way around:
IS INDY TOO OLD FOR SPIELBERG?

Stoo said:

'Many people' want Indy 5 to be a 'game changer'??? You and who else? Montana & IndyFan89 have said that someone new should be at the helm but never expressed that they'd like Indy 5 to redefine cinema.

Click to expand...

Quite.

Indy is old-fashioned cinema. That's the charm of the character and the telling. These are tales to be told with as little fast cuts and jiggery pokery as possible.

Spielberg's not likely to lose his ability to direct, but, again I assert my feeling that both he and Lucas have moved on , taking Indy out his comfort zone. If Spielberg directs, he'll be involved in the creative process, as he always has been.I think it's time he hung up the fedora, and if there is to be more Indy, let a fresh team have a go, and breath new life into the old rogue.

I have serious doubts whether this is even a serious prospect, since a new team won't be permitted the freedom it needs. Lucas and the clutches of a '70s or '80s Disney ethos will be breathing heavily over their shoulder. Let there be blood, real suspense, and a powerful story.