Is Spielberg too old for Indy?

If any particular moment of action/set piece doesn't quite work you can't really blame the producer or even the script. Look at the opening 15/20 mins of Raiders. The tone, the atmosphere, the peril is generated (in the main) from what Spielberg does with the camera (plus the lighting, editing, music and sound effect choices). The dialogue is generic (what there is) and there isn't any underlying narrative underpinning the thing at all. Spielberg takes a basic premise from the page (mysterious man venturing through jungle) and turns it into something quite magical. That's the real qualitative difference (IMHO) between Raiders and KOTCS i.e. a director who is 'on fire' in the 80's and a director who has moved away from directing action movies.

Darth Vile said:

(mysterious man venturing through jungle)

Click to expand...

Those words just took me back so strongly to reading the novelization for the first time, before I knew who Indiana Jones was, and could only imagine him as that guy on the cover (who wasn't Harrison Ford).

The film was incredible, and everything fell into place.

Darth Vile said:

That's the real qualitative difference (IMHO) between Raiders and KOTCS i.e. a director who is 'on fire' in the 80's and a director who has moved away from directing action movies.

Click to expand...

That works as an analogy. KOTCS looks tired when compared to ROTLA. Whether '80s Spielberg could have made more out of the material, I don't know. So much of KOTCS was lost in the development phase, and that's where the tiredness shows.

Montana Smith said:

So much of KOTCS was lost in the development phase, and that's where the tiredness shows.

Click to expand...

A well polished turd, filmed at stark "dramatic" angles.

Montana Smith said:

Those words just took me back so strongly to reading the novelization for the first time, before I knew who Indiana Jones was, and could only imagine him as that guy on the cover (who wasn't Harrison Ford).

The film was incredible, and everything fell into place.

KOTCS looks tired when compared to ROTLA. Whether '80s Spielberg could have made more out of the material, I don't know. So much of KOTCS was lost in the development phase, and that's where the tiredness shows.

Click to expand...

I think it was the development of the movie that mired it in the neither one thing or the other camp (which we've discussed before). I think Spielberg could have served the movie better.

Rocket Surgeon said:

A well polished turd, filmed at stark "dramatic" angles.

Click to expand...

Harsh. I'd classify the likes of Iron Man (specifically the sequel), Xmen, Fantastic 4, Transformers etc. etc. as "polished turds". KOTCS is positively Shakespearean in comparison.

Rocket Surgeon said:

A well polished turd, filmed at stark "dramatic" angles.

Click to expand...

At least it'll look nice on the mantlepiece, next to the Crystal Skull and the tub of toasted ants...

Raiders112390 said:

Somewhere along the line, I think Spielberg lost his chops as an action film director. He's grown overly sentimental, he plays it too safe. He's also gone too politically correct, too soft--

Click to expand...

Have you ever seen "Saving Private Ryan"?

Darth Vile said:

a director who is 'on fire' in the 80's and a director who has moved away from directing action movies.

Click to expand...

You keep going on about this, Darth, and it's hard to figure out why. "Saving Private Ryan" set a new, high standard on how war action can be filmed. MANY war films mimic the way it was shot, cut, colour-graded, etc. so to say that Spielberg's style is outdated (as you have so many times before), conveniently ignores his 1998 achievement.

robisindy said:

To say that he can't still do action is just foolish, IMO.

Click to expand...

Woo-hoo!

Stoo said:

"Saving Private Ryan" set a new, high standard on how war action can be filmed. MANY war films mimic the way it was shot, cut, colour-graded, etc. so to say that Spielberg's style is outdated

Click to expand...

SPR was an incredible tour de force. There was recently a ludicrous argument over at Sideshow Freaks about SPR upsetting veterans by jumping on a bandwagon and for being "disgusting" in depicting the horrors of war. What a crock!

Spielberg triumphed at depicting the horror, fear and confusion of war. I still maintain that in 2008 it was the material that let KOTCS down. Spielberg didn't fail to ramp up the tension during the Doom Town sequence. He still knows what he's doing in the director's chair. However, before they began filming, certain ideas should have been dropped or tweaked, with an eye on the past. He's as guilty as Lucas.

I think that perhaps adding another dimension of film homage (50's sci-fi), along with an older Indy, and almost two decades hiatus piled too many demands on Spielberg's direction as far as getting back in the saddle. Nobody bats 1,000. No guarantees that he'll nail it on the next one, but I think that the odds are greater that he will. In short: No. I don't think that Spielberg has completely outgrown Indy.

Why isn't there a poll attached to this?

Good point about Private Ryan. Although it's 13 years old (how time flies!) I doubt he's so different since then that he's incapable of visceral imagery in his story-telling. Not that Indy needs to have that level of violence in it, but I certainly think that he's capable of pulling out OT-level violence to give an Indy 5 some teeth.......

rather than the admittedly gummed-down version of Indy that we saw in KOTCS:



....oh snap! That was a little harsh.

Indy's brother said:

Why isn't there a poll attached to this?

Click to expand...

Hmm, a poll about this? Not a bad idea...

Darth Vile said:

Harsh. KOTCS is positively Shakespearean in comparison.

Click to expand...

Sure. I do think Iron Man stands out from your other examples, comic book as they all may be.

Skull is dumb. A real departure from Indy of old.

I don't think I will EVER get over the way they embraced some new age re-imagining of history.

The skulls, (however cool Indy's Brother) should have been kept to the opener...they didn't have the imagination to support a feature and they weren't compelling enough...

Violence. Munich. Spielberg. Good material. Skull. Resignation. Crap.

Stoo said:

You keep going on about this, Darth, and it's hard to figure out why. "Saving Private Ryan" set a new, high standard on how war action can be filmed. MANY war films mimic the way it was shot, cut, colour-graded, etc. so to say that Spielberg's style is outdated (as you have so many times before), conveniently ignores his 1998 achievement.
Woo-hoo!

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the point Stoo. I have stated many times previously that Spielberg aped his own style with KOTCS. It was, to a great extent, a homage to itself/himself. It's the Spielberg of the 1980's that's dated... and if one sets out to make a movie with a very similar look and feel to Raiders, TOD or TLC; it will by default appear old fashioned/passe. If Spielberg wants to direct an Indy movie like Saving Private Ryan, bring it on... but somehow I doubt he ever will.

Also - Saving Private Ryan is much more than a simple action/adventure movie. One can't compare the truck or tank chase to the Omaha beach scenes, as they are both trying to achieve different things from a story telling perspective. I have no doubt that Spielberg has the talent to keep directing great movies. However, what I think is up for debate is wether he is able (or even has the inclination) to redefine the big budget Hollywood blockbuster movie in the way he did with Jaws, Raiders ET. As I stated before, Spielberg's future (hopefully) will be with the more substantial, personal movies rather than Indiana Jones'esque crowd pleasers.

I feel quite confident in stating that I'd wager the next movie to have the impact of Star Wars or Raiders , won't be directed by Spielberg/Lucas, but probably by someone half their age, with a fraction of the personal wealth/estate.

First off, I just want to say to Raiders112390, you seem every so often to just 'swell' up with love for Indy and leave it for us to go through....

I like it.

Ok, so, on topic.

Is Spielberg too old for Indy? No. Is he too old for the Indy from the 80s movies. Yes.

Indy's persona in KOTCS was handled really well. He acted like he should at that age. Diner scene and classroom scene point to this specifically. As for the adventuring Indy, he did everything he could with what he had to work with. No matter how amazing or "badass" Indy is, some of that WILL be lost when you have 52 people with him along for the ride. Ok, I exaggerate, but you get what I mean.

For me Spielberg and Lucas and Williams are the only people that should handle an Indy movie WITH Harrison Ford. I still think they are the best for the job too, again, with Harrison Ford.

In the future, a long time in the future, who knows, maybe someone will reboot it. Good luck trying to get that from the Lucas in charge then...

I got the feeling

that SS caved in to GLs demands for the movie. I mean, SS brought in several people to polish a script about aliens that he said he wasn't too fond of. At one point he said he had done aliens and wasn't keen on revisiting them. This is the Indy movie that GL spent 15 years trying to convince Harrison and Steven to do. They finally caved, feeling a little nostalgic about returning to Indy, but Lucas was pretty resolute in what he wanted. In the end, I think SS did a good job, but because the story wasn't exactly what he wanted, he did not give it his absolute best.

punisher5150 said:

that SS caved in to GLs demands for the movie. I mean, SS brought in several people to polish a script about aliens that he said he wasn't too fond of. At one point he said he had done aliens and wasn't keen on revisiting them. This is the Indy movie that GL spent 15 years trying to convince Harrison and Steven to do. They finally caved, feeling a little nostalgic about returning to Indy, but Lucas was pretty resolute in what he wanted. In the end, I think SS did a good job, but because the story wasn't exactly what he wanted, he did not give it his absolute best.

Click to expand...

I was about to do a long post defending The Berg, but then I read this, and I'm just gonna have to agree. Spielberg was actively trying to avoid doing a fourth film, according to the DVD documentaries, but his love of the character and his friendship with Lucas forced him to give in. Lucas basically twisted his arm into making a film he wasn't enthusiastic about, which is quite despicable of Lucas. That's not how friendship works! And poor Ford, forced to go along with it because he wanted to play the character again, no matter how wacky the final film got...

We need a plot - a plot to overthrow George. Put something in his cornflakes to make him docile and compliant and then let Steven, Harry and Larry write the story, screenplay and direct and act in INDY5! George, doped to his eyeballs, will be told that his idea is great and not to worry about anything. After receiving global accolades for Indy5, George's lack of recollection of making anything can be put down to any number of reasons.

kongisking said:

I was about to do a long post defending The Berg, but then I read this, and I'm just gonna have to agree. Spielberg was actively trying to avoid doing a fourth film, according to the DVD documentaries, but his love of the character and his friendship with Lucas forced him to give in. Lucas basically twisted his arm into making a film he wasn't enthusiastic about, which is quite despicable of Lucas. That's not how friendship works! And poor Ford, forced to go along with it because he wanted to play the character again, no matter how wacky the final film got...

Click to expand...

And could Spielberg be the one stalling on Indy 5? Digging his heels in after being elbowed into KOTCS.

SS: "I told you not to do it! You've made me humiliate myself."

GL: "It was your prairie dogs that pushed it over the edge."

SS: "I've had enough George. Just go busy yourself with those three Star Wars sequels, and don't expect me to cave in again!"

There was nothing wrong with the basic premise/story of KOTCS. Spielberg was not "forced" to direct a movie he didn't want to make. After so much time, they all just wanted to make another one on the notion that it might be fun (plus the economic return of such a venture). If you go to your local multiplex on a Friday night, every other movie (if not the majority) are inferior to each and every Indiana Jones movie. I must say that I don't understand this modern constant quest to find a villain of the piece... for something so insignificant as a movie. There is enough genuine injustices, horror, mayhem and corporate plunder in the world to keep cynical eyes occupied...

That's true, Darth, but it's easier to look at an insignificant movie and have a whinge.

More to the point: are you, are we, is the world, too old for this kinda crap again? I mean, what's really the point of dreaming of an Indy 5? Watch Raiders if you want to see Indiana Jones do his kicking of anus.

Harrison Ford is almost 70. Get real.

Darth Vile said:

I don't think you understand the point Stoo. I have stated many times previously that Spielberg aped his own style with KOTCS. It was, to a great extent, a homage to itself/himself. It's the Spielberg of the 1980's that's dated... and if one sets out to make a movie with a very similar look and feel to Raiders, TOD or TLC; it will by default appear old fashioned/passe.

Click to expand...

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.

Written by Darth Vile:
"Spielberg hasn't changed (in relative terms as a movie maker), it's the way action movies are made and the way we consume them that has."

Written by Darth Vile:
"Spielberg has always been overly sentimental and saccharin sweet with his movies... so no change there."

Written by Darth Vile:
"That's the real qualitative difference (IMHO) between Raiders and KOTCS i.e. a director who is 'on fire' in the 80's and a director who has moved away from directing action movies."

Darth Vile said:

Also - Saving Private Ryan is much more than a simple action/adventure movie. One can't compare the truck or tank chase to the Omaha beach scenes, as they are both trying to achieve different things from a story telling perspective.

Click to expand...

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.

Darth Vile said:

However, what I think is up for debate is wether he is able (or even has the inclination) to redefine the big budget Hollywood blockbuster movie in the way he did with Jaws, Raiders ET.
...
I feel quite confident in stating that I'd wager the next movie to have the impact of Star Wars or Raiders , won't be directed by Spielberg/Lucas, but probably by someone half their age, with a fraction of the personal wealth/estate.

Click to expand...

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