Indiana Jones 5: July 19, 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.

IndyBuff

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
We were going to have one in the 90s - probably 1997. Jeffrey Boam did the final draft of Saucermen from Mars around early 1996 and Spielberg accepted it enough to agree to do it, but then Independence Day came out and Spielberg backed off - as he felt releasing an Indy film with aliens so soon after ID4 would make them look like bandwagon jumpers. After that, Lucas turned his full attention to the Special Editions (1997), and fully committing to the idea of the Star Wars prequels (Which were shot in 1999, 2002, and 2004). Between the SW commitment, Ford's projects and Spielberg's, 2008 was the earliest we could get a new film after 1996 (especially if you take into account that the script phase probably took a year or so - so, pre-production in truth probably began in 2005/2006 and full shooting started in 2007).

So you can blame Independence Day for us not getting an Indy 4 circa 1997.

I'm fine with that, as I never cared for the full Saucermen idea anyway. If they had gone with another story then maybe things would have been different.

In any case, we're getting another one now and that has me excited.(y)
 

Johnny Nys

Member
Okay, so they didn't want to jump on the alien bandwagon, but then after two more decades of movies and TV shows featuring aliens they decided to do a story involving aliens anyway? Oh, wait, interdimensional beings. My bad.
 

Lambonius

New member
Johnny Nys said:
Okay, so they didn't want to jump on the alien bandwagon, but then after two more decades of movies and TV shows featuring aliens they decided to do a story involving aliens anyway? Oh, wait, interdimensional beings. My bad.

That's because George Lucas is a pick-up-his-ball-and-go-home type.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
It was always going to be aliens, because George insisted, but after the collapse of "Saucer Men" the idea was to ground the idea with a lost civilization angle. For my money Darabont nailed this approach by making the nature of the beings creepy and vague, but I guess Lucas needed it to be more overt and we got a version with a Close Encounters body right in the teaser. Shame the coherence of the script became secondary to satisfying this arbitrary requirement.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
It was always going to be aliens, because George insisted, but after the collapse of "Saucer Men" the idea was to ground the idea with a lost civilization angle. For my money Darabont nailed this approach by making the nature of the beings creepy and vague, but I guess Lucas needed it to be more overt and we got a version with a Close Encounters body right in the teaser. Shame the coherence of the script became secondary to satisfying this arbitrary requirement.

That was one of the big issues I had. Lucas was so determined to use aliens that he allowed other (and better) ideas to fall by the wayside in favor of his concept.
 

micsteam

New member
I'm still a big George Lucas fan but over the last 20 some odd years he's been quite a control freak, to his detriment. His best works, I feel, have been projects with other people contributing to his main ideas. IMHO :hat:
 

Grizzlor

Well-known member
In defense of George, his vision was to make an homage to 50's SciFi B-movies. Those films largely dealt with space men, as well as creature films. Would a "monster" have made more sense in an IJ movie? I think not. I think the premise was well and good. Ancient Alien-mythos has only grown in popularity, even since KOTCS. Execution was the issue, and on that count, Spielberg blew it.
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
Announcing the film many years ahead is pretty much Disney MO right now though, yeah? You only need to look at their Marvel and Star Wars stuff to see that, which is locked in years in advance (even if the movies themselves shift around a bit, as with Marvel.)

I think it's got to do with the crowded big budget schedule these days. More gazillion dollar movies that need the space to dominate the box office for a couple of weeks, so they get booked further and further ahead...
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Yeah, sensible or not, coming up with the release date before the movie is very common practice these days. The optimistic view would be that they're giving themselves at least as much time to write this movie as the other ones except for Crystal Skull.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Toht's Arm said:
Announcing the film many years ahead is pretty much Disney MO right now though, yeah? You only need to look at their Marvel and Star Wars stuff to see that, which is locked in years in advance (even if the movies themselves shift around a bit, as with Marvel.)

I think it's got to do with the crowded big budget schedule these days. More gazillion dollar movies that need the space to dominate the box office for a couple of weeks, so they get booked further and further ahead...

True it's their MO. If the leading man wasn't 73 years old, with the way older stars are dropping like flies as of late, I wouldn't be as nervous. I'd like Harry to survive to 2018 and be in fit enough shape to lead the film or at least split 50/50 with a younger actor and give his Indy a truly worthy sendoff. It's superstition, but I think making such long term plans with such a volatile element - Harry's age/health - is like asking for trouble.
 

DoomsdayFAN

Member
I really hope they ignore Indy's age and just go for broke with the action. I don't care how old Ford is, I want to Indy going through the level of adventure he did in the OT. Indy is the type of character that that's totally believable with. How freaking depressing would that be to have an Indy film where they cut way back on the action just because Indy is older now. :(
 

Walecs

Active member
DoomsdayFAN said:
I really hope they ignore Indy's age and just go for broke with the action. I don't care how old Ford is, I want to Indy going through the level of adventure he did in the OT. Indy is the type of character that that's totally believable with. How freaking depressing would that be to have an Indy film where they cut way back on the action just because Indy is older now. :(

Agreed with this.
 

DoomsdayFAN

Member
Man, I'm not sure how I feel about Indy 5. Of course I want another one, but I don't know if Spielberg at this stage of his career can pull it off. KOTCS was nearly unwatchable compared to the OT, so I don't see how he can improve on it that much. Even if the story is good this time, the direction and all the CGI wasn't really up to par.
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
KOTCS has a 78% approval rating. Sure it wasn't as good as "the original trilogy" but it was a HELL of a lot better than the garbage for blockbusters we get these days. In comparison Avengers Age of Ultron has a 72% approval rating and Jurassic World has a 71%. Most blockbusters wish they could be as good as KOTCS these days.
 

DoomsdayFAN

Member
Face_Palm said:
KOTCS has a 78% approval rating. Sure it wasn't as good as "the original trilogy" but it was a HELL of a lot better than the garbage for blockbusters we get these days. In comparison Avengers Age of Ultron has a 72% approval rating and Jurassic World has a 71%. Most blockbusters wish they could be as good as KOTCS these days.

I absolutely hated Jurassic World and Age of Ultron. Both were terrible beyond words. That being said, I popped in KOTCS the other day just to check it out, and holy crap was it bad. I literally cannot believe one of, if not the, greatest filmmakers in the history of film put out such garbage. It felt like everyone was going through the motions, most especially John Williams. It was just mind numbingly bad and it's a major embarrassment to the OT. I've made up my mind that I will literally never watch it in conjunction with the OT because it will ruin the experience. If I ever watch it again (probably will but it'll be several years before I go there again) it'll be on it's own. Ironically, that's exactly what I did this time (I haven't seen the OT in probably 2 years) and KOTCS was still awful, even on its own.

Jurassic World: 0/10 - It was utterly abysmal
Age of Ultron: 0/10 - Abject farce
KOTCS: 2 or 3/10. It was definitely not a good movie at all.
 

Walecs

Active member
Face_Palm said:
KOTCS has a 78% approval rating. Sure it wasn't as good as "the original trilogy" but it was a HELL of a lot better than the garbage for blockbusters we get these days. In comparison Avengers Age of Ultron has a 72% approval rating and Jurassic World has a 71%. Most blockbusters wish they could be as good as KOTCS these days.

The truth has been spoken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top