Indy 5
- Thread starter indyrcks
- Start date
Darth Vile said:
I really have to say that I completely disagree with this. You say that Ford's age wasn't an issue per se, but then go on to describe a very specific reason why you think his age is an issue. The lack of energy in Indy4 compared to the others was purely in the scripting and execution. To say that the energy of Ford's "performance and portrayal" is undermined by his age is unfair, especially in light of the work he put in for Indy4, which I consider one of the film's highlights. You probably can't have Indy barechested and playboying throughout the movie again a la Temple of Doom, but that has zero to do with energy or momentum, and I submit that the the physicality and drive from the previous movies was still there - at least for Ford's part. If Indy4 lost some of the "energetic drive" of the originals, I'm more inclined to point the finger at forces behind the camera.
There are definitely things that have to be adapted to the notion of an older Indiana Jones, but they have to do with the character's personality and attitude (things which, ironically, I thought Indy4 handled well, though it's really a credit to Ford more than anyone else). I have to call bull on the suggestion that the excitement that the series was (once) synonymous with is somehow tied to that. It sounds like an apologist's words. Indy was punching and kicking and falling off motorcycles and crashing into windshields and jumping across moving cars in Indy4 like he always was. For me, it was that familiar spark that was noticeably missing. I think it's incredibly possible for an Indy5 to be far less physical and action-packed than Indy4, yet be substantially more exciting.
Indyfan4ever
Member
Udvarnoky said:
No, your right...instead we got a completely nude Ford for KOTCS....I think he can look like the Temple Jones again (All rugged/shirt open) the opening scene in the warehouse was the best because Indy was beaten up and gritty....he was too clean throught the rest of the film...he needs that grittyness for IndyV!
Texas said:
He surely is just refering to some fan talk about whether or not Indy should die or (like I said at various points) that Marion might die for forging a cool & dark-themed story.
Don't worry matt black, all talk about a major character dieing in Indy 5 ist only wild guessing by excited fans and has no serious footing of any kind.
indyartist
New member
NO death scene. Indy should not die in a film.... ever. Definitely less cgi. Keep it simple and to the basics like the first one. More kick butt action and more use of Indy's pistol by Indy. It should be funny and should have a strong emotional meaning in it somehow. Never knew of anyone crying in an Indy film, perhaps maybe in this one they will have reason.
Darth Vile
New member
Udvarnoky said:
Nope... That’s not what I was getting it. I wasn't talking about the momentum of narrative or pace of direction/editing. The "lack of energy" I'm talking about was physical performance and much more subtle (that’s not to say that Spielberg’s directing physicality hasn’t lessened over the years).
Harrison Ford may be in better shape than many people half is age, and he can clearly still get around, but to suggest he is in the same shape or looks as young as he did in the originals would be misplaced... Indiana Jones is, after all, a physical role. It may not/should not be an impossible obstacle perhaps (as I mentioned in my previous post), but the character/actor being 20 years older is a fundamental change to what went before… and to ignore it, or underplay it belies its significance...
For example, if one could cut and paste Daniel Craig into For Your Eyes Only, the physical energy he would automatically bring, from being circa 25 years younger, would make that a much better movie IMHO. Instead we have the much older Roger Moore (bless him), which quite subtly, hinders and chips away at the credibility of the movie and stops it from ever being “good”. Alternatively, imagine how Raiders youthful physicality/energy would be diminished if played by Ford as he is today (with Sallah being cast as some 25 year old Hollywood star).
Harrison Ford does not look like a young man any more (even if he doesn’t quite look his age). As much as I love him in the role, some credibility has to be sacrificed by seeing a circa 65 year old man leaping from vehicle to vehicle, swinging on a whip etc. etc. His physical performance just doesn’t (and how could it?) quite match what went before. And as much as some may not like to recognize it, you can’t shoe horn a circa 65 year old Harrison into that circa 35 year old (and in his physical prime) performer of the originals. I think, to an extent, that was taken into account when making KOTCS e.g. some long expositional scenes to transition Indy into a more intellectual character… and perhaps one of the reasons for the inclusion of a much younger Shia in a supporting role.
There is clearly still life in the ole' dog yet (if we get an Indy V), but for me the Indiana Jones I always imagine is a man in his prime. An old Indy, as a concept (or piece of iconography), will always be inferior to the Indy of Raiders (or even TOD).
Last edited:
Darth Vile
New member
caats said:
Oh yes I'd agree - Indiana Jones definitely has legs as an older character (that's one of the reasons I like KOTCS). I just think that a substantially older actor understandably puts limitations/constraints on an action movie… be that in the willing suspension of disbelief required, the story involved and the actual physicality of the lead part. If not a constraint, one may ask, “Would Raiders be better with a significantly older lead playing Indy”? My answer would be a resounding "no". That's not to say it can't work, but just that the original concept was always for a younger character and the scope that brings
Hanselation
New member
The Fitness of Harrison
On YouTube we saw Harrsion himself how he did the stunt by jumping on a driving motorbike - very, very fit for a 65 years old man.
I think many people even Koepp underrate the fitness of Harrsion Ford.
Physical performance is part of the Indiana Jones movies and part of Harrisons kind of acting.
The script writers should consider Harrions age but they shouldn't see him as an old fragile man, instead of they should recognize his surprising fitness.
Jump and Run!
On YouTube we saw Harrsion himself how he did the stunt by jumping on a driving motorbike - very, very fit for a 65 years old man.
I think many people even Koepp underrate the fitness of Harrsion Ford.
Physical performance is part of the Indiana Jones movies and part of Harrisons kind of acting.
The script writers should consider Harrions age but they shouldn't see him as an old fragile man, instead of they should recognize his surprising fitness.
Jump and Run!
emtiem
Well-known member
He is very capable; I was actually surprised how much he did- in the film you can see it's him swinging down on the whip to the cars, and also he does a full drop of a couple of storeys hanging onto those chains to the ground, then lets go and gets tackled. He does far less in Temple of Doom, even- that's mainly stuntmen (obviously because of his back injury). So yes, I'd agree: write him physically as he always was, write his character as an older guy.
Possibly they slipped up slightly by having him beat up Dovchenko; it's a little hard to swallow this old guy besting such a young, fit fella. I think they should have had him win through luck or cleverness rather than brute strength, which to be honest is how he usually wins the big fights and would have been more 'Indy', anyway. I know he found a log, but if perhaps had scooped up some ants in his hat and thrown them in Dov's face or something I think that would have been a little easier to accept. Indy beating up a car full of grunts, however, I find totally acceptable: Indy's an excellent brawler until he meets bad guys big enough to be his match.
But what Darth is saying is that we can't really expect a film of the quality of Raiders again, not least because there are certain compromises which have to be made when you're making a sequel: an example of one of these is the old age of the star, which if you were making Raiders from scratch you wouldn't choose to do- it's a compromise that you have to make. I'm fine with that, though- I'm not expecting another classic of the quality of Raiders; I just want a really fun and witty Indiana Jones sequel.
I don't want the Last Indy Adventure, though: that sort of thing goes against the spirit, I think. I like the way there was no grand fanfare as Indy went back into action and dusted off his leather jacket as if he's putting the Batsuit back on; we just discovered him in the boot of a car being Indiana Jones just as he always was. I don't want them to start treating him as bigger than the films: he's the star but I don't them to be about him, if you know what I mean- they're about his adventures; they're not there to celebrate him as a person.
Possibly they slipped up slightly by having him beat up Dovchenko; it's a little hard to swallow this old guy besting such a young, fit fella. I think they should have had him win through luck or cleverness rather than brute strength, which to be honest is how he usually wins the big fights and would have been more 'Indy', anyway. I know he found a log, but if perhaps had scooped up some ants in his hat and thrown them in Dov's face or something I think that would have been a little easier to accept. Indy beating up a car full of grunts, however, I find totally acceptable: Indy's an excellent brawler until he meets bad guys big enough to be his match.
But what Darth is saying is that we can't really expect a film of the quality of Raiders again, not least because there are certain compromises which have to be made when you're making a sequel: an example of one of these is the old age of the star, which if you were making Raiders from scratch you wouldn't choose to do- it's a compromise that you have to make. I'm fine with that, though- I'm not expecting another classic of the quality of Raiders; I just want a really fun and witty Indiana Jones sequel.
I don't want the Last Indy Adventure, though: that sort of thing goes against the spirit, I think. I like the way there was no grand fanfare as Indy went back into action and dusted off his leather jacket as if he's putting the Batsuit back on; we just discovered him in the boot of a car being Indiana Jones just as he always was. I don't want them to start treating him as bigger than the films: he's the star but I don't them to be about him, if you know what I mean- they're about his adventures; they're not there to celebrate him as a person.
Last edited:
Laserschwert
Active member
What I wonder most is, do the big three realize the criticism that came up about KOTCS? I mean, without the flaws of too many main characters, not enough focus on Indy, a better paced second half (the first half was very well paced, imho) and the misuse of CGI, the movie would've been considerably better.
I'm a little afraid that with the huge financial success that KOTCS was, Spielberg and Lucas take this as a signal that they did everything right... which of course they didn't.
I'm a little afraid that with the huge financial success that KOTCS was, Spielberg and Lucas take this as a signal that they did everything right... which of course they didn't.
matt black said:
(crosses fingers and whispers hopes that it is Mutt Williams)
Laserschwert said:
This is a great concern...and I think the answer is yes and no.
I seem to remember two different interviews coming shortly after the release of "Crystal Skull". One was with Harrison Ford and the interviewer asked him something like if he thought "Crystal Skull" was as good as the others or maybe it was if he liked it more than the others. Ford's response was something along the lines of "I'd be crazy to answer that" and I took that to mean he knew about a lot of the negative response to the film by some Indy die-hards and wouldn't shoot himself in the foot in the eyes of those particular fans and say that he did.
The other interview was with Lucas...and he said, "Yet we still have the issues about the direction we’d like to take. I’m in the future; Steven’s in the past. He’s trying to drag it back to the way they were, I’m trying to push it to a whole different place. So, still we have a sort of tension. This recent one came out of that. It’s kind of a hybrid of our own two ideas, so we’ll see where we are able to take the next one..."
So, I think Spielberg is more inclined to "get it"... He knows they have to have a "return to form" of sorts on the next one in order to really get back to not only the way the films looked, but also the way they're made (remember, Lucas was pushing Spielberg to shoot on digital but Steven refused)/ Lucas, on the other hand, doesn't seem to "get it" at all. And since he's the one in charge of script approval and such, that might not bode well for the next one. Or it might mean further strain on the relationship between George and Steven...because Speilberg could always flat-out refuse to do some things and tick off Lucas. Who knows...this is all speculation. We can only hope...
Last edited:
Darth Vile
New member
drwynn said:
To be honest, I think Lucas gets it completely... in that he understands progression and knows what to do to ensure an Indy movie is still relevant. It seems that everyone here, who had an issue with KOTCS, had issue not with aliens/UFO's or an older Indy, but in some of Spielberg?s decisions e.g. direction, cinematography etc. (not that I necessarily agree).
I for one think that if Indy has a future (outside of Indy V), its future isn't going to be found in the past (as in the past movies).
TheIndyOpinion
Member
This is a great thread! I'm really enjoying all of the great ideas (and no flame wars!).
Here's one of my main hopes: I just hope that Lucas and Spielberg are more focused on really making the best movie they possibly can from start to finish this time. I'm glad everyone had so much fun working on KOTCS, but I sort of hope that this one's a little more of a grind. You know, that they'll push more for the best possible take. They'll look for more ways to do a practical effect rather than just saying "we can just CGI this and it will work good enough" (ala Spielberg's comments about wanting to actually have a fridge land and roll to a stop but then deciding to go CGI because it would be easier then getting the fridge to land right). In short, I want them to take more pride in pushing themselves to do something special rather than just trying to have a good time, follow a formula, and then sit back and count their money.
Most of my other hopes for Indy V are already discussed above (darker, more Indy, more booby traps, great locales, etc.).
Isn't it interesting that no one is suggesting using Mutt in a lead role like all these idiot bloggers and columnists keep doing?
Here's one of my main hopes: I just hope that Lucas and Spielberg are more focused on really making the best movie they possibly can from start to finish this time. I'm glad everyone had so much fun working on KOTCS, but I sort of hope that this one's a little more of a grind. You know, that they'll push more for the best possible take. They'll look for more ways to do a practical effect rather than just saying "we can just CGI this and it will work good enough" (ala Spielberg's comments about wanting to actually have a fridge land and roll to a stop but then deciding to go CGI because it would be easier then getting the fridge to land right). In short, I want them to take more pride in pushing themselves to do something special rather than just trying to have a good time, follow a formula, and then sit back and count their money.
Most of my other hopes for Indy V are already discussed above (darker, more Indy, more booby traps, great locales, etc.).
Isn't it interesting that no one is suggesting using Mutt in a lead role like all these idiot bloggers and columnists keep doing?
Darth Vile
New member
robisindy said:
I think something that is apparent (for me anyhow) is that they seemed to be trying too hard with KOTCS. It seemed they were trying to take the best elements from each movie in order to make something close to the quality of the originals (in both look and feel). But now, unhindered by the trepidation of bringing the character back after a circa 25 years hiatus, I think Indy V (if made) has a better chance of being its own thing. The less respect it pays to the previous movies, and the less concerned Spielberg/Lucas are about pleasing "the Fans", the better chance it has of getting closer to the quality/originality of Raiders (IMHO).
emtiem
Well-known member
robisindy said:
I know this is only a small part of your post, but I just wanted to address this bit. I don't think CGI is a problem at all, and they certainly seemed to try to use practical stunts wherever they could (warehouse, for example) and CGI enhances things well in many aspects (again, the expansion of the warehouse is great); and in your example I don't think CGI-ing the fridge effects the quality of the shot: I certainly can't tell it's CGI. Is it obvious or distracting? I can't think what they would have gained from doing it for real.
TheIndyOpinion
Member
Darth Vile said:I think something that is apparent (for me anyhow) is that they seemed to be trying too hard with KOTCS. It seemed they were trying to take the best elements from each movie in order to make something close to the quality of the originals (in both look and feel). But now, unhindered by the trepidation of bringing the character back after a circa 25 years hiatus, I think Indy V (if made) has a better chance of being its own thing. The less respect it pays to the previous movies, and the less concerned Spielberg/Lucas are about pleasing "the Fans", the better chance it has of getting closer to the quality/originality of Raiders (IMHO).
Hmmm, that's interesting. I can see what you're saying there. They definitely tried too hard to come up with the perfect story (it took 19 years!
). Maybe they did put extra effort in and it was just misplaced. Of course, they can't completey ignore the story arc of the previous films, so they have a line to walk there. But the focus should definitely be on making THIS movie as great as it can be, even if it means going away from the "formula" and tone of the originals.TheIndyOpinion
Member
emtiem said:
I agree that in that particular instance the use of CGI didn't particularly affect the final product that much. CGI can be a great tool, but it really can be a trap for fimmakers. At times it allows for too much imagination, and then at others it could tend to make them less imaginative.
When they wanted to do a big stunt in the orignal trilogy, they really had to be imaginative to make it work. And that leads to some incredible moments because they had to do practical stuntwork and effects. Now it's easy to just say screw it, we'll just CGI it. And I just don't want it to be CGI unless it's necessary or unobtrusive.
For example, the CGI where Indy's duck is being pushed to edge of the cliff by Spalko's was necessary and I think it looked great. That scene would be incredible because of the way CGI enhanced the imagination of the filmmakers, if it weren't for the fact that we cut away from this great chase to shots of Mutt swinging through a CGI jungle with CGI monkeys. There, it enabled them to go too far.
I don't know, I don't feel like my thoughts are really being expressed very well in my writing, but I hope you can see what I mean.
Darth Vile said:
And yet there are just as many fans out there (myself NOT being one of them) who have the exact opposite reaction to "Skull" as the one you're referencing by talking about the people "here"; they DIDN'T like the UFO/aliens angle but DID like what Spielberg did in keeping the look/tone similar to previous entries. These people consider themselves to also be big Indy fans (although probably not as "die-hard" as the ones like us who post on Indy forums) and blame Lucas almost entirely for the faults of the last film.
Like I said, I personally know a lot of people who ADORE Indy but were upset by seeing him "chase aliens". They'd rather see a return to the "religious quest". I always take up the argument of, "Why is it so difficult for people to swallow the idea of Indy chasing 'little green men' from outer space but SO easy for them to believe in the idea of Indy following clues that were essentially laid out by the big, invisible man in the sky?!" This usually causes them to pause and say, "I don't know..." I personally think it's because one concept is obviously more universally "accepted" than the other. The irony is, if you look at it from a "scientific" stance...the possibility of "little green men" seems a heck of a lot more credible than the "invisible man/presence in the heavens". But, that's a whole other debate...
Whatever the case, it's going to be interesting to see where the story goes (I think a lot of the "mainstream" fans would like to see Indy back on the religious path). Then, it'll be just as interesting to see what tools and methods Spielberg employs... Stay tuned.