TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Indiana Jones 5
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-14-2018, 06:14 AM   #451
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
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.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2018, 03:19 PM   #452
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 805
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.
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2018, 05:49 PM   #453
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Jonesy
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.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2018, 08:59 PM   #454
TheFirebird1
IndyFan
 
TheFirebird1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Tannhäuser Gate, former resident of Tanis.
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
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.
TheFirebird1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2018, 10:01 PM   #455
seasider
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
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.
seasider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2018, 12:52 AM   #456
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFirebird1
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.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2018, 12:55 AM   #457
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by seasider
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.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2018, 06:51 AM   #458
Olliana
IndyFan
 
Olliana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 251
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:


Olliana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2018, 07:48 AM   #459
TheFirebird1
IndyFan
 
TheFirebird1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Tannhäuser Gate, former resident of Tanis.
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
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.
TheFirebird1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2018, 08:37 AM   #460
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
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.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2018, 08:44 AM   #461
Olliana
IndyFan
 
Olliana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 251
Heck, even if they churned out a new movie only every ten years since Crusade, which is a bunch of time, we would be at Indy 6 by next year.
Olliana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2018, 09:00 AM   #462
TheFirebird1
IndyFan
 
TheFirebird1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Tannhäuser Gate, former resident of Tanis.
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olliana
Heck, even if they churned out a new movie only every ten years since Crusade, which is a bunch of time, we would be at Indy 6 by next year.
Sad, isn't it? Especially since we were supposed to get a movie by July of next year when it was first announced.
Three years is a long way to go. I just hope that they can deliver with a good film.
TheFirebird1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2018, 04:05 PM   #463
IndyForever
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Jonesy
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.
Spielberg & Lucas were both always & still are very stubborn is the waste of time!

If one disagrees on franchise direction the other agrees to start again on a new concept. Lucas will still be involved on Indy 5 if he hated the Koepp screenplay then that is why Spielberg has asked Kasdan to have a go instead.

Also I think Spielberg is very sensitive to fan criticism on Indy more than anything as its a personal franchise to him not just another movie. I hope the extra time is used to make 5 as good as TLC but as Disney are involved in paying all the bills I fear they will force broom boy from the end of TLJ on Indy at some point!

I would rather they cancel Indy 5 altogether than inflict broom boy from The Last Jedi on us poor starved of new material fans
IndyForever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2018, 11:53 AM   #464
Randy_Flagg
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyForever
as Disney are involved in paying all the bills I fear they will force broom boy from the end of TLJ on Indy at some point!

I would rather they cancel Indy 5 altogether than inflict broom boy from The Last Jedi on us poor starved of new material fans

Your fear of Broom Boy is a odd. He only appeared in one film during the Disney era, and only had a very brief moment of screen-time in it.
Randy_Flagg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2018, 01:02 PM   #465
Silvor
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern Norway
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy_Flagg
Your fear of Broom Boy is a odd. He only appeared in one film during the Disney era, and only had a very brief moment of screen-time in it.
Yeah I agree, it was just a sweet little moment at the very end, showing that Luke's sacrifice actually had a powerful positive influence. Yet people are so up in arms I can't do anything except shake my head.
Silvor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2018, 02:04 PM   #466
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvor
Yeah I agree, it was just a sweet little moment at the very end, showing that Luke's sacrifice actually had a powerful positive influence. Yet people are so up in arms I can't do anything except shake my head.

I throw you no shade, Silvor, but that scene presupposes a LOT.

With one casual shot, we are asked to believe that the events on Ahch-To were known to the Galaxy in almost real time (the same aged boy is shown when Rose and Finn are on holiday in Canto Bight), when it's been previously established that Ahch-To was invisible for a long time. If no one was answering the call of distress from Crait, then why do need to establish that there is still hope out there.

It'd be a much better story, to take those last scenes with the children and use them as an expositional throwaway scene at the beginning of IX. Same exact scene, just cut away from the previous events to allow for a better suspension of disbelief.

_____

And remember, I love the Last Jedi. (but know it has flaws)
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2018, 02:06 PM   #467
Face_Palm
IndyFan
 
Face_Palm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
I throw you no shade, Silvor, but that scene presupposes a LOT.

With one casual shot, we are asked to believe that the events on Ahch-To were known to the Galaxy in almost real time (the same aged boy is shown when Rose and Finn are on holiday in Canto Bight), when it's been previously established that Ahch-To was invisible for a long time. If no one was answering the call of distress from Crait, then why do need to establish that there is still hope out there.

It'd be a much better story, to take those last scenes with the children and use them as an expositional throwaway scene at the beginning of IX. Same exact scene, just cut away from the previous events to allow for a better suspension of disbelief.

I never took that scene to take place right away, I took it to take place “sometime” after. Essentially after news of what had happened had spead through the galaxy, which wouldn’t have taken longer than days or weeks presumably.
Face_Palm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2018, 03:05 PM   #468
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
TLJ sucked and was an abomination even outside of SW.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2018, 03:37 PM   #469
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 805
I still think they've wasted the last 25 years of this series.

It's a crying shame.
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2018, 04:09 PM   #470
Face_Palm
IndyFan
 
Face_Palm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
TLJ sucked and was an abomination even outside of SW.


All actual verified reviews say differently. And no, IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes user/audience ratings are not verified reviews.

The verified scores are:
Rotten Tomatoes 91% critic approval
Metacritic 85 critic approval
Cinemascore “A” letter grade by audiences.

Again it’s fine if you personally don’t like the film, but to say it’s bad when it has that much actual verified acclaim is silly...they pleased the vast majority.

TLJ isn’t the prequel trilogy.
Face_Palm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2018, 04:21 PM   #471
JasonMa
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Face_Palm
All actual verified reviews say differently. And no, IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes user/audience ratings are not verified reviews.
But movies aren't made (just) for reviewers. They're generally made for the public. A great critically successful movie can still be a flop and somehow things like Skyscraper and The Meg keep getting made when nobody would suggest they were "good" movies.

That's probably why most years I look at the Oscar nominations and say "Wow, I've seen/want to see one of those and I haven't even heard of one of them". That doesn't make them bad movies, but it also doesn't mean they're successful movies either.

I question the idea that Star Wars can be successful by being critically "good" if the fanbase considers them "bad" movies. Star Wars was never those type of movies.

(And I also grant the online polling like RottenTomatoes leads to a vocal minority being able to tip the scales but I don't think you can look at the sheer number of people, including me, who had issues with TLJ and just chalk it up to that misogynistic sexist minority that has made the loudest noise.)
JasonMa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2018, 04:27 PM   #472
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Face_Palm
All actual verified reviews say differently. And no, IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes user/audience ratings are not verified reviews.

The verified scores are:
Rotten Tomatoes 91% critic approval
Metacritic 85 critic approval
Cinemascore “A” letter grade by audiences.

Again it’s fine if you personally don’t like the film, but to say it’s bad when it has that much actual verified acclaim is silly...they pleased the vast majority.

TLJ isn’t the prequel trilogy.

Reviewers are human and also paid

You're right; TLJ is worse.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2018, 04:29 PM   #473
Face_Palm
IndyFan
 
Face_Palm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonMa
But movies aren't made (just) for reviewers. They're generally made for the public. A great critically successful movie can still be a flop and somehow things like Skyscraper and The Meg keep getting made when nobody would suggest they were "good" movies.

That's probably why most years I look at the Oscar nominations and say "Wow, I've seen/want to see one of those and I haven't even heard of one of them". That doesn't make them bad movies, but it also doesn't mean they're successful movies either.

I question the idea that Star Wars can be successful by being critically "good" if the fanbase considers them "bad" movies. Star Wars was never those type of movies.

(And I also grant the online polling like RottenTomatoes leads to a vocal minority being able to tip the scales but I don't think you can look at the sheer number of people, including me, who had issues with TLJ and just chalk it up to that misogynistic sexist minority that has made the loudest noise.)


Hence why I included verified critic AND audience scores. Look again.
Face_Palm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2018, 04:31 PM   #474
Face_Palm
IndyFan
 
Face_Palm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
Reviewers are human and also paid

You're right; TLJ is worse.


Not one critic has ever stepped forward and claimed to have been bribed to review a film. That’s a defense online trolls use for a positively reviewed film that they didn’t enjoy.

I follow many critics who bashed a wrinkle in time and iron man 3 and were still invited to the next Disney movie premiere.

TLJ is a well made and more importantly well acted film. The prequels are far from that.
Face_Palm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2018, 04:37 PM   #475
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 805
The Last Jedi - no matter how you slice it - has been slammed by the majority of fans/audiences. It's definitely over half.

The disparity between critics and audiences is staggering.

The negative reception was much so that it hurt Solo's success. Merchandise sales are also way down. Kathleen Kennedy may be going, soon.

The film had way too many standard, avoidable film making flaws that I have a hard time believing all these critics didn't notice them. It smells fishy.
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:12 PM.