General Indy 5 Thread - rumors and possibilities

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


  • Total voters
    148
Ah get a grip man - I posted the same thing twice, once in a thread on Spalko and once here. Both times have relevence, so whats the issue?

And anyway, its a discussion about Indiana Jones, not the future of the global economy - no need to be so prissy and serious about it. After all, nobody really cares about this stuff.
 

Crack that whip

New member
replican't said:
Ah get a grip man - I posted the same thing twice, once in a thread on Spalko and once here. Both times have relevence, so whats the issue?

And anyway, its a discussion about Indiana Jones, not the future of the global economy - no need to be so prissy and serious about it. After all, nobody really cares about this stuff.

If that's the case, then what the heck are we all doing here?

(For the record, I also have to disagree about Spalko. I don't understand why you apparently think a woman can't make a compelling villain on general principle, and I also think that with particular regard to Spalko, she's actually a fairly strong, compelling antagonist - at least compared to the villains in the previous movie, anyway. She does come up short when measured against the terrific baddies in the first two movies, but then so do so many others.)
 

kongisking

Active member
Crack that whip said:
If that's the case, then what the heck are we all doing here?

(For the record, I also have to disagree about Spalko. I don't understand why you apparently think a woman can't make a compelling villain on general principle, and I also think that with particular regard to Spalko, she's actually a fairly strong, compelling antagonist - at least compared to the villains in the previous movie, anyway. She does come up short when measured against the terrific baddies in the first two movies, but then so do so many others.)

I interpreted Spalko as being a morally ambiguous villain, one of those baddies who isn't necessarily bad---they just are determined and passionate, and happen to be on the heroes' opposite side. They even can be sophisticated and charismatic at times, and possibly have a sense of honor and fair play. There's a term for this type of villain, called Affably Evil.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil

But Spalko could also be this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil-Spalko is likely Type 2

Does anyone agree with me?

P.S. Replican't, I respect you as a human being, so let's just make that clear up front. But to be frank, you're sorta being really mean-spirited, and it's killing your credibility as an objective Anti-KOTCSer. Just letting you know...:eek:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
kongisking said:
I interpreted Spalko as being a morally ambiguous villain, one of those baddies who isn't necessarily bad---they just are determined and passionate, and happen to be on the heroes' opposite side. They even can be sophisticated and charismatic at times, and possibly have a sense of honor and fair play. There's a term for this type of villain, called Affably Evil.

...

Does anyone agree with me?

I have no idea whether this is on topic any more (!), but yes, I agree. She's the equivalent of Elsa, and as such should have been a rival with Marion for Indy's attentions. Big mistake, I think, in not employing her as a femme fatale. After all, Mutt could have been "the next man" this time around. That would have been funny.

If there is an Indy 5, then maybe we'll see the return of Indy the womanizer. Wouldn't be too hard finding a younger woman to attract his attentions away from Marion.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
If there is an Indy 5, then maybe we'll see the return of Indy the womanizer. Wouldn't be too hard finding a younger woman to attract his attentions away from Marion.

Here's my list. Candice Bergen, Tina Turner, Susan Sarandon, Lauren Hutton, Helen Mirren, and my favorite, that would make the 'can't-believe-this-topic-is-still-relevant-Indy-V-Film' a contender for an Oscar...

Meryl Streep
meryl-streep_2.jpg



Hint: THEY'RE ALL YOUNGER THAN HARRISON FORD
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Pale Horse said:
Hint: THEY'RE ALL YOUNGER THAN HARRISON FORD

Precisely. By the time Lucas decides on a story it'll be hard finding anybody who isn't younger than Indy.

And Meryl Streep would please Rocket. The Devil wears Prada.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Indy's brother said:
Re: Pale Horse's list:

Less "Star Power", more script power.

Indiana Jones and the Film of Redemption.

I had been hopeful when Ford had been pulling for Virginia Madsen after Firewall, even if it was some of the usual promotional palaver.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Pale Horse said:
'can't-believe-this-topic-is-still-relevant-'

Attila, may I bring you to the stand as a witness in the forthcoming trial?

Attila the Professor said:
...a diagnostic parlor game? Perhaps. But I find it worthwhile and fun.

I think there's merit and mileage in both dreams and nightmares. They're all possibilities.

:)
 
Last edited:

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
Attila, may I bring you to the stand as a witness in the forthcoming trial?

Naturally, but I don't think it's any news that I have a rather different approach to this issue than my esteemed friend and colleague.
 
kongisking said:
P.S. Replican't, I respect you as a human being, so let's just make that clear up front. But to be frank, you're sorta being really mean-spirited, and it's killing your credibility as an objective Anti-KOTCSer. Just letting you know...:eek:

Objectivity? Who wants to be objective? Sitting on the fence just leads to splinters in your arse.

I'm not being mean to anyone in here - you're all as weird and twisted as me and its kinda cool in a non-cool way that we all like Indiana Jones so much we go online and talk to each other about our sordid hobby - so don't get me wrong please. I just have very strong opinions about things I like and why I like them, and the opposite. No point pussyfooting around others when life is short is there? Internet forums do make me laugh though - with all their rules and treading on eggshell politics, its funny to watch people act in ways they wouldn't in real life.

I mean - if I met you down the pub, the first thing I'd say about the possibility of Indy 5 happening is it doesnt stand a snowball in hell's chance. And if it does by some miracel get made, it'll be even more of a crock of shit than the last one. And then when you disagreed, I'd ask you to stick a tenner on the table and put your money where your mouth is.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
replican't said:
Objectivity? Who wants to be objective? Sitting on the fence just leads to splinters in your arse.

I'm not being mean to anyone in here - you're all as weird and twisted as me and its kinda cool in a non-cool way that we all like Indiana Jones so much we go online and talk to each other about our sordid hobby - so don't get me wrong please. I just have very strong opinions about things I like and why I like them, and the opposite. No point pussyfooting around others when life is short is there? Internet forums do make me laugh though - with all their rules and treading on eggshell politics, its funny to watch people act in ways they wouldn't in real life.

I mean - if I met you down the pub, the first thing I'd say about the possibility of Indy 5 happening is it doesnt stand a snowball in hell's chance. And if it does by some miracel get made, it'll be even more of a crock of shit than the last one. And then when you disagreed, I'd ask you to stick a tenner on the table and put your money where your mouth is.

You must be referring to that crazy old concept of social etiquette.

But there's also an issue about feeling you have to pick a side, even though you don't really belong there. Maybe this is answering that other thread.

Few things are entirely one thing or another.

Halfway down the stairs
Is a stair where I sit:
There isn't any other stair quite like it.
I'm not at the bottom,
I'm not at the top:
So this is the stair where I always stop.

Halfway up the stairs
Isn't up, and isn't down.
It isn't in the nursery, it isn't in the town:
And all sorts of funny thoughts
Run round my head:
"It isn't really anywhere! It's somewhere else instead!"

A. A. Milne​
 
Montana Smith said:
You must be referring to that crazy old concept of social etiquette.

But there's also an issue about feeling you have to pick a side, even though you don't really belong there. Maybe this is answering that other thread.

Few things are entirely one thing or another.


Things are always something. To contradict the old folk song 'Eileen Aroon', Truth may not be a fixed star in the communal sky, but it does exist for the individual in the moment of thought.

Express a view, even if you change it the next minute - thats my, um, view.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
replican't said:
Things are always something. To contradict the old folk song 'Eileen Aroon', Truth may not be a fixed star in the communal sky, but it does exist for the individual in the moment of thought.

Express a view, even if you change it the next minute - thats my, um, view.

Not when that something is constructed of complex and varied parts.
 
Montana Smith said:
Not when that something is constructed of complex and varied parts.

Not really - there's not really anything complicated about Indiana Jones. It's punching, whipping, jumping and falling over, right?

Seems pretty simple to me, and pretty obvious that Indy 4 was a dropped ball.

It's not quantum mechanics, its the impression you have when you leave a film. And when leaving Crystal Skull, my overriding thought - even though I liked some bits - was "Well, that was a big pile of crap on toast".

I think that's the stunt they have to pull off if they do another one - they have to swing right over that pit of steaming poo they created when they made Crystal Skull. The public won't be even a fraction as excited or forgiving as last time if they do announce Indy 5. And the press will be gunning for it from the off.

Just seems like nothing points to it happening, and if it does, the odds are stacked against it being any cop. A pointless endeavour if you ask me. Let Indy die.
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
replican't said:
Not really - there's not really anything complicated about Indiana Jones. It's punching, whipping, jumping and falling over, right?

Seems pretty simple to me, and pretty obvious that Indy 4 was a dropped ball.

It's not quantum mechanics, its the impression you have when you leave a film. And when leaving Crystal Skull, my overriding thought - even though I liked some bits - was "Well, that was a big pile of crap on toast".

I think that's the stunt they have to pull off if they do another one - they have to swing right over that pit of steaming poo they created when they made Crystal Skull. The public won't be even a fraction as excited or forgiving as last time if they do announce Indy 5. And the press will be gunning for it from the off.

Just seems like nothing points to it happening, and if it does, the odds are stacked against it being any cop. A pointless endeavour if you ask me. Let Indy die.
Well... as mentioned previously... I actually agree your simplistic view. I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions, but I do concur that Indiana Jones is not a complex conceit in itself.

I've always felt that an Indy movie is only as good as the actions sequences, and if they don't quite hit the mark (for whatever reason)... everything else will suffer as a consequence. I've always believed TOD to be the least intelligent, most obvious Indy "cash in" movie to date. However, most of the action sequences (even the more ridiculous/outlandish) have a certain originality and kinetic energy that made (still makes) the movie stand apart - something Spielberg could not emulate in KOTCS... and whilst I believe KOTCS to be a more intelligent and considered movie (and more enjoyable for me) than TOD, I'd concede that TOD is the better action movie.... and after all the over intellectualisation about dialogue, narrative structure etc. etc. it's the direction/editing of the action sequences that counts more than anything I think.

On a more positive note... That does present some optimism as an Indy V could allow Spielberg to be more adventurous with direction after trying to find the groove with KOTCS. If nothing else, the action may be better...
 

Crack that whip

New member
Darth Vile said:
I've always felt that an Indy movie is only as good as the actions sequences, and if they don't quite hit the mark (for whatever reason)... everything else will suffer as a consequence. I've always believed TOD to be the least intelligent, most obvious Indy "cash in" movie to date. However, most of the action sequences (even the more ridiculous/outlandish) have a certain originality and kinetic energy that made (still makes) the movie stand apart - something Spielberg could not emulate in KOTCS... and whilst I believe KOTCS to be a more intelligent and considered movie (and more enjoyable for me) than TOD, I'd concede that TOD is the better action movie.... and after all the over intellectualisation about dialogue, narrative structure etc. etc. it's the direction/editing of the action sequences that counts more than anything I think.

This reminds me of a couple points that had occurred to me in different contexts - well, one opinion and one question, really. First, it seems to me that one way in which the two theatrical installments of this series that are generally regarded as the "lesser" ones differ from one another is that Temple of Doom pretty much succeeds at doing exactly what it sets out to do, but wasn't particularly narratively ambitious to start with, whereas Kingdom of the Crystal Skull aspires to and doesn't quite hit a somewhat loftier set of aspirations. If so, do we credit Doom and decry Skull for squarely hitting and not quite hitting their respective marks, or do we credit Skull and decry Doom for setting out greater and lesser goals to begin with? Personally, I'm fine with enjoying both for what they are, but then I'm kind of easygoing and forgiving that way (and inclined to be more so in the case of this series, I freely admit, since I just want to enjoy as much Indy as I can).

The other is a question I was thinking of giving its own thread (and probably will later), but I'll go ahead and mention it here since I think it's relevant to this line of discussion: what do we (and more general audiences) want or need from an Indy movie? Might we enjoy or appreciate a totally different sort of story - one that differed in style and tone not in the relatively limited way that the four extant movies differ from one another, but more along the lines of how very different some episodes of the TV show are from the movie series? What would people think of, say, a contemplative drama built around the character, as opposed to the pulp action-adventure we generally associate with him?
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I'm too lazy

...someone find me the last post in this thread with any credible rumors, or we'll have to shut it down.

Tear gas is loaded, plastic sheilds are up, it's time to find something else.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Pale Horse said:
...someone find me the last post in this thread with any credible rumors, or we'll have to shut it down.

Tear gas is loaded, plastic sheilds are up, it's time to find something else.

There's still "possibilities"...

Oh, crud, the end is nigh.

Attila the Professor said:
Naturally, but I don't think it's any news that I have a rather different approach to this issue than my esteemed friend and colleague.

Looks like we won't get as far as the courthouse. Gonna have to shoot our way out of this one.


...which is actually a strong possibility for Indy V. The old guy's going to have to rely more on his side arm...
 
Top