General Indy 5 Thread - rumors and possibilities

Indy's brother · Aug 1, 2013

Montana Smith said:
your last paragraph and sentence seem at odds with the direction of KOTCS.

That was intentional. I was attempting to show that the only way to salvage a Ford-helmed addition to the franchise would be to not just go back to basics, but give MORE of a sense of danger for the character than previous installments, make us wonder if this is the end of the Indy. Whether or not that is the case. That's what it would take now to get this thing back on the rails. Not with crazy set pieces, or unbelievable circumstances, just show us Indy getting hurt for crying out loud. Ford is really good at that. It's a big part of why we identify with Indiana Jones. I hurt my foot the other day, and I don't even know how I did it. It's human to get scuffed up when doing things, and this guy really rolls up his sleeves, you know?

As far as the ark? It doesn't necessarily need to be worked in. If it does, though, it wouldn't take much. A quick shot of the headpiece to the staff of Ra in a museum, or his curio case. A shot of Indy on the cover of a back issue of National Geographic, featuring the ark. Anything. It's not a big deal to me. Of course, if another film would actually emerge and there was ANY tie to christianity, it would be even that much easier. Flipping through reference material and a sketch of the ark is on a page.

EDIT: It would actually be cooler to reference the Sankara Stones instead. Keeping with the self-referential thing, but you're right. The Ark has kind of been done to death.

Montana Smith · Aug 1, 2013

Indy's brother said:
That was intentional. I was attempting to show that the only way to salvage a Ford-helmed addition to the franchise would be to not just go back to basics, but give MORE of a sense of danger for the character than previous installments, make us wonder if this is the end of the Indy. Whether or not that is the case. That's what it would take now to get this thing back on the rails. Not with crazy set pieces, or unbelievable circumstances, just show us Indy getting hurt for crying out loud. Ford is really good at that. It's a big part of why we identify with Indiana Jones. I hurt my foot the other day, and I don't even know how I did it. It's human to get scuffed up when doing things, and this guy really rolls up his sleeves, you know?

I get ya!

Indy's brother said:
As far as the ark? It doesn't necessarily need to be worked in. If it does, though, it wouldn't take much. A quick shot of the headpiece to the staff of Ra in a museum, or his curio case. A shot of Indy on the cover of a back issue of National Geographic, featuring the ark. Anything. It's not a big deal to me. Of course, if another film would actually emerge and there was ANY tie to christianity, it would be even that much easier. Flipping through reference material and a sketch of the ark is on a page.

EDIT: It would actually be cooler to reference the Sankara Stones instead. Keeping with the self-referential thing, but you're right. The Ark has kind of been done to death.

I only dropped the Ark in as an example of the self-referential nod to the audience. Since the Ark he's done the fridge, and that's arguably his greatest escape of all time, and something I expect would be referred to in some way in a possible fifth film. I doubt Indy could ever look at another fridge without thinking about that time!

If so, then the fridge and all within KOTCS are embraced and accepted as part of the character, which colours audience expectations about the character, his abilities and his resilience.

How will they return Ford's Indy to the level of the lucky everyman, and yet explain the refrigerator?

Alien anti-gravitational braking device?

Ford was the perfect Indy, but I think going back to basics at this stage means a younger actor reprising the role and having a more traditional high adventure set in the 1930s.

Though, why reprise Indy? To me Indy is Harrison Ford.

There could be a new unrelated character with similar roguish traits and characteristics having adventures in the 1930s without the baggage of Indy's own history. However, it's easier to promote Indy because his name is already well known. As such, they'd likely keep the name.

All they need to do is repeat what Lucas was working on in the 1970s: re-introducing pulp serial and film adventures on a big budget. It would be best to do so in a film set in the '30s or '40s.

Finn · Aug 1, 2013

Indy's brother said:
The waterfalls, again, show a little injury. Some reason to think that there is some peril involved, like showing a log go over first and get broken into splinters. Or a boat with some russians go over first and they don't survive. Something ANYTHING. Of course, by that point, it didn't matter anyway.

So. In summation. With some restraint, and some common sense considering the previous films, another one could be made as long as we are given the idea from the get-go that nothing is sacred when it comes to Indy's mortality, or at least his well-being. And that is what it would take at this point.

You know, the stuff you described would probably have made the scene worse. The scene in itself is pointless and does nothing but emphasize that not only Indy, but the whole party with him are wearing the famous Plot Armor of Invincibility at the time. By having something go over first and not survive it would have only emphasized said fact even more, further breaking away the willing suspension of disbelief (of course, it was pretty much hacked to pieces as it was, but still).

Most of the time over the trilogy, when we see Indy do something potentially harmful or down right suicidal is because it's still got better odds of survival than the greater threat looming immediately over him. Even the bit with the fridge follows that logic (no, not THAT logic), because stuffing himself in it sure beats just standing around and waiting for the blast.

There is no such threat with the waterfalls, no Russian attack chopper or a big hunking pterodactyl looming over them. No, the waterfalls are the threat, and the party does nothing to try and avoid it. They just go over, and not only once, but thrice - and in the end all we get out of it is a throwaway gag of Marion holding the wheel.

There is no narrow escape associated to the falls, and no other point in having them go over either. There is no point at all. Okay one might say that they narrowly escaped with their lives by surviving the ordeal, but there is no such element here. Quite the opposite, the film treats the whole event with a lighthearted tone - so yeah, no sense whatsoever. I'm almost willing to swear that the beards were simply trolling us with that one.

Montana Smith · Aug 2, 2013

Finn said:
You know, the stuff you described would probably have made the scene worse. The scene in itself is pointless and does nothing but emphasize that not only Indy, but the whole party with him are wearing the famous Plot Armor of Invincibility at the time. By having something go over first and not survive it would have only emphasized said fact even more, further breaking away the willing suspension of disbelief (of course, it was pretty much hacked to pieces as it was, but still).

Most of the time over the trilogy, when we see Indy do something potentially harmful or down right suicidal is because it's still got better odds of survival than the greater threat looming immediately over him. Even the bit with the fridge follows that logic (no, not THAT logic), because stuffing himself in it sure beats just standing around and waiting for the blast.

There is no such threat with the waterfalls, no Russian attack chopper or a big hunking pterodactyl looming over them. No, the waterfalls are the threat, and the party does nothing to try and avoid it. They just go over, and not only once, but thrice - and in the end all we get out of it is a throwaway gag of Marion holding the wheel.

There is no narrow escape associated to the falls, and no other point in having them go over either. There is no point at all. Okay one might say that they narrowly escaped with their lives by surviving the ordeal, but there is no such element here. Quite the opposite, the film treats the whole event with a lighthearted tone - so yeah, no sense whatsoever. I'm almost willing to swear that the beards were simply trolling us with that one.

You hit the nail on the head with what was wrong with KOTCS.

The beards gave us so little to invest in with any of the characters that nothing is of consequence. After Doom Town there is no peril, just Wile E. Coyote/Roadrunner gags - such as

Finn said:
...a throwaway gag of Marion holding the wheel.

It's as though Lucas and Spielberg were intentionally holding back to protect the younger age group from the harsher 'realities' of Indy's adventures.

Yet, every now and then Lucas and Spielberg give each other a wicked grin, and show us Russians mowing down US guards and natives, or Spalko's eyes burning out.

TOD combined horror, comedy and peril. For the most part KOTCS removes the peril, even though Indy himself is older and admitting that things aren't as easy as they used to be.

Raiders90 · Aug 2, 2013

Can we agree on something?

That KOTCS wasn't a BAD film objectively or overall, just a lesser Indy entry? What I mean is, let's say Raiders is A+, TOD is say A-, and LC is A...Then KOTCS is maybe a C?

Also...Can I get anyone else on the "adapt the Bantam novels into movies" bandwagon?

It serves two purposes: The Bantam novels fit perfectly in the canon/continuity established by the Ford films. In the Bantam novels, Indy is still the rogue who hasn't seen the light yet--thus we could have an anti-hero Indy back. Third, they're set in the 20s-30s--the best time for Indy. Fourth, since they're set with a younger Indy, a new actor would be needed, which people are considering anyway....

It'd be a way to bring the films back to Earth, return to the old badass Indy, continue the series without rebooting it, and return us to the 1920s-1930s, again, without erasing Ford's Indy films from the continuity.

It'd have all the benefits of a reboot...Without actually rebooting the continuity.

DOOMSTOWNFRIDGE · Aug 2, 2013

It's also hard to capture the time period of when the first three were made,the eighties and early nineties is when you could make anything believable and it would go down as a classic by todays standards. Skull had modern 2007/8 'thinking' going into it from a lot of new comers to the indy scene,a lot of people who worked on the previous 3 films were no longer with us or retired,so it's worth remembering this.

Stoo · Aug 2, 2013

Raiders112390 said:
Also...Can I get anyone else on the "adapt the Bantam novels into movies" bandwagon?

112390, I'm with you there because a shift in time periods is the only way that I would accept a new actor in the role. (Anyway, there a loads of "reboot" threads. Isn't this one supposed to be about a 5th film with Harrison Ford?

)

If Indy 5 with Harry ever gets made, let's hope it will be a 'B' grade or higher because 'C' is not a good grade.

Indy's brother said:
Open Indy 5 with Indy getting clipped with a bullet. Viscerally. With him slamming into the camera with a bit of blood on the lens. THEN we know that he's like us again. Especially with all of the talk of him dying in another installment, it would make us, as an audience wonder for the first time since LC if he's gonna make it.

If Indy 5 opened that way, there wouldn't be any wonder if he is going to survive because there'd still be 2 hours remaining. Something like that should be towards the end of the movie, in my opinion.

Hanselation said:
I wouldn't wonder seeing something like this for Indy 5 as opener

Yeah, Goodeknight proposed the same idea in this thread: Things Sleeping Beauty's Castle could fade into

The Drifter · Aug 2, 2013

Stoo said:
If Indy 5 opened that way, there wouldn't be any wonder if he is going to survive because there'd still be 2 hours remaining. Something like that should be towards the end of the movie, in my opinion.

I think IB was alluding to how it would come across that Indiana Jones isn't above getting life-threatening wounds, and it shows his mortality straight away. Gone would be the super-hero who can survive anything, and in it's place a man who can die at any moment just like any of us.
Doing that at the beginning would show that straight away, and make the watcher wonder if Indy will indeed survive this adventure.

Stoo · Aug 2, 2013

The Drifter said:
I think IB was alluding to how it would come across that Indiana Jones isn't above getting life-threatening wounds, and it shows his mortality straight away. Gone would be the super-hero who can survive anything, and in it's place a man who can die at any moment just like any of us.
Doing that at the beginning would show that straight away, and make the watcher wonder if Indy will indeed survive this adventure.

O.K. Gotcha. You are a perceptive & wise soul, Mr. Drifter. :hat:

Indy's brother said:
Bring on the eye-patch for Indy 5.

YES!!!

I want to see something like this:

Originally posted by Me (Stoo)

Finn · Aug 2, 2013

Raiders112390 said:
Can we agree on something?

That KOTCS wasn't a BAD film objectively or overall, just a lesser Indy entry? What I mean is, let's say Raiders is A+, TOD is say A-, and LC is A...Then KOTCS is maybe a C?

No, we really can't. And there is no point in agreeing.

People are entitled to their opinions. Some of them will think that ToD is a bad film. (There are plenty of records on me back in the history that I'm not one of them, though.) And it's not their opinion you should shun anyway. It's the way they express it.

A civilized discussion where you elaborately criticisize the film's lower points is perfectly fine. In fact, you can like the film and still do that. It's actually the very thing that is happening here. Now, coming down all high and almighty, calling the film a giant turd, not bothering to say why and perhaps insulting the other conversationalists in the process... is not.

If the former kind bother you, you're perhaps in the wrong place. The good news are though that you won't find any latter in here... because we banned 'em all.

Túrin Turambar · Aug 2, 2013

yes Make it gritty raw and dark, like Raiders, Skull was way to kid friendly, we need more blood.

WilliamBoyd8 · Aug 2, 2013

There is a film coming out called "Monuments Men" with George Clooney
which might feature that castle.

It was used during World War II by the Nazis to store stolen art and treasure.

Túrin Turambar · Aug 3, 2013

WilliamBoyd8 said:
There is a film coming out called "Monuments Men" with George Clooney
which might feature that castle.

It was used during World War II by the Nazis to store stolen art and treasure.

yes perfect for indy 5, yes Harry do star wars 7, soon as your done on that wake lucas up and get started on indy 5..This is intolerable.

Indy's brother · Aug 3, 2013

The Drifter said:
I think IB was alluding to how it would come across that Indiana Jones isn't above getting life-threatening wounds, and it shows his mortality straight away. Gone would be the super-hero who can survive anything, and in it's place a man who can die at any moment just like any of us.
Doing that at the beginning would show that straight away, and make the watcher wonder if Indy will indeed survive this adventure.

Túrin Turambar · Aug 3, 2013

exactly he got hurt in Raiders in the truck chase, and got whiped in temple, he had the tank chase in crusade, but in skull it was like he wasnt even in danger he couldnt be hurt. if there is a next time he needs to get hurt and really beat up, he could even loose his eye like what we saw in the young indy series.

Stoo · Aug 4, 2013

Indy's brother said:
The major problem with KOTCS is that for a franchise that is based on cliffhangers, the movie presents an Indy that is impervious to damage.

Túrin Turambar said:
exactly he got hurt in Raiders in the truck chase, and got whiped in temple, he had the tank chase in crusade, but in skull it was like he wasnt even in danger he couldnt be hurt.

Indy's brother, in the cliffhangers the main heroes don't get hurt. They walk away from all kinds of things without any injury at all!

Anyway, guys, Indy is not "impervious to damage" in Indy 4 because he does get hurt & he bleeds. Although his wounds are not much, compared to getting shot in the arm, they are on par with his sufferings in "Crusade"and are just as lightweight:

However, I agree that it would be good to see him getting seriously hurt in a potential 5th film. That's why I want to see Indy's face get split open!

Not only would it make the audience worry about his survival, it'd be a perfect link to the eye patch.

Túrin Turambar said:
he could even loose his eye like what we saw in the young indy series.

Hmmm, "we saw"?

If you watched the TV series when it aired, then I'll eat my hat.

Henry W Jones · Aug 4, 2013

Stoo said:
Indy's brother, in the cliffhangers the main heroes don't get hurt. They walk away from all kinds of things without any injury at all!

Anyway, guys, Indy is not "impervious to damage" in Indy 4 because he does get hurt & he bleeds. Although his wounds are not much, compared to getting shot in the arm, they are on par with his sufferings in "Crusade"and are just as lightweight:

However, I agree that it would be good to see him getting seriously hurt in a potential 5th film. That's why I want to see Indy's face get split open! Not only would it make the audience worry about his survival, it'd be a perfect link to the eye patch.
Hmmm, "we saw"? If you watched the TV series when it aired, then I'll eat my hat.

I did! Do I count? Also, having lost an eye, I don't want to see that happen to Indy on film. I mean seeing him lose it. I also believe that would be something that would be considered too harsh to happen on film to Indiana Jones and too graphic for this series. Is he going to run around half the film with popped eye ball? Talk about being unbelievable.

Montana Smith · Aug 4, 2013

Henry W Jones said:
I did! Do I count? Also, having lost an eye, I don't want to see that happen to Indy on film. I mean seeing him lose it. I also believe that would be something that would be considered too harsh to happen on film to Indiana Jones and too graphic for this series. Is he going to run around half the film with popped eye ball? Talk about being unbelievable.

I'm just watching Transformers: Dark of the Moon. A '12' certificate movie with two f***s, a panty-raiding robot, a near miss in a toilet cubicle, an assisted suicide, and I don't know what else because there's still an another hour-and-three-quarters to go.

So bring on Indy's plucked eyeball!

We won't see it happen, and there's always the eyepatch to conceal the wound:

Henry W Jones · Aug 4, 2013

Montana Smith said:
I'm just watching Transformers: Dark of the Moon. A '12' certificate movie with two f***s, a panty-raiding robot, a near miss in a toilet cubicle, an assisted suicide, and I don't know what else because there's still an another hour-and-three-quarters to go.

So bring on Indy's plucked eyeball!

We won't see it happen, and there's always the eyepatch to conceal the wound:

In the middle of an adventure wouldn't work. Especially in Indys era. You are telling me just throw on an eye patch? That will make an injury like that tolerable. That is a hospital required injury. I know.
P.S. Transformers 3 is crap.

Montana Smith · Aug 4, 2013

Henry W Jones said:
In the middle of an adventure wouldn't work. Especially in Indys era. You are telling me just throw on an eye patch? That will make an injury like that tolerable. That is a hospital required injury. I know.

It'll happen at the end after he's had the crap already beaten out of him. The eyepatch will be seen in the epilogue.

Are old Indy's actual legs seen in the YIJC? If not we could have him lose at least one in #5 as well.

Henry W Jones said:
P.S. Transformers 3 is crap.

So far it's the best of the three, with the funniest situations and dialogue. Even Shia LaHam is bearable in it!

I know I could watch this several times more than KOTCS without having to use fast forward!

General Indy 5 Thread - rumors and possibilities

Honestly...will there be another Indy film in the next decade?

Absolutely!!! I'm in lala land

Maybe...but not today.

No, not with any of the current creators and members.

Heck no, no denial issues here.

I may not like it, but a Re-boot is possible within the decade

New member

Active member

Moderator

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Moderator

Guest

Active member

Guest

New member

Guest

Well-known member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member