Fourth Installment or Third Wheel?

crowmagnumman

New member
Right now it could go either way. Until now it seems like Stallone is the only one who's had enough integrity to make good sequels to his 80s movies. Rocky Balboa and Rambo were both pretty damn good. Everything else has been really lame so far.
 

Indy4fan

New member
I really hate this article. (n)

Rambo IV pleased audiences?

Phantom Menace aged terribly?

He doesn't know what he's writing!
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Of course the Jack Ryan "series had nowhere interesting left to go" after 4. Paramount is trying to keep him young forever. But the book that follows Sum of All Fears gives us (spoiler) President Ryan and it's Clancy's best. It's still doable with Affleck and they should.
 

deckard24

New member
crowmagnumman said:
Right now it could go either way. Until now it seems like Stallone is the only one who's had enough integrity to make good sequels to his 80s movies. Rocky Balboa and Rambo were both pretty damn good. Everything else has been really lame so far.
It's true, it could go either way!

As for Stallone's success, I do think a large part of that has to with how crappy the films preceding his "comeback" sequels were! Rocky V and Rambo III were pretty bad, so he really had nowhere to go but up.

LC ended on a great high note, as opposed to most of the trilogies mentioned which had so-so third acts. This only ups the stakes for KOTCS and its potential for disaster and disappointment.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Adamwankenobi said:
They should bring back Ford so he can get in his second term.
I think Ford should play the spy just once more and get his trilogy. Cardinal of the Kremlin, set in the 1980's (and obviously some alternate universe... the timeline is hosed already). Noirish art flick. Clancy wrote in 1997:
I have the script, done by a husband-wife team, and done very well, I think, though some rewrites and changes are necessary because that is the way Hollywood does business. I am happy with it. Harrison Ford has suggested a few changes which will be examined and/or incorporated into ther shooting script. Ford and I met some weeks ago to discuss this. It was a Sunday. He joined me at a baseball game. He's a very nice gentleman, by the way.
 

deckard24

New member
Moedred said:
I think Ford should play the spy just once more and get his trilogy. Clear and Present Danger, set in the 1980's (and obviously some alternate universe... the timeline is hosed already). Noirish art flick. Clancy wrote in 1997:
I'd love to see Ford play Ryan again! They should never have cast Affleck in the role, and it's not because he was terrible, it's just that once Ford took over for Baldwin he owned that role.:gun:
 

Agent Z

Active member
deckard24 said:
As for Stallone's success, I do think a large part of that has to with how crappy the films preceding his "comeback" sequels were! Rocky V and Rambo III were pretty bad, so he really had nowhere to go but up.

Great point. I do think that Rambo was a solid film with or without expectations, although it's now being piped that Stallone is threatening to spoil that great ending by making a fifth Rambo film. :(
 

crowmagnumman

New member
Rocky Balboa was a perfect ending to the series. Rambo was slightly flawed, but I really respect what Stallone did with it. He did an R-rated hardcore action movie that goes over the top with gore. There's no teenage sidekick. There's almost no CG. It was a hundred times better than most supposed action movies today. And on top of that Stallone filmed it guerilla style in Burma and got real Karen rebels to act in the movie. Quite frankly, Stallone is pretty much the only real action hero left today. Bruce Willis sold himself out to the pg-13 crowd. Stallone made a controversial and edgy action/war film that takes things to the next level. It wasn't always exactly what I'd wanted it to be, but I'm still much more satisfied with it than Live Free or Die Hard.

That said, I don't think Rambo 4 ended the saga as perfectly as Rocky Balboa ended the Rocky series. Rambo 4 didn't provide as much closure as I'd like. It was a great way to re-introduce the character into the modern world, and I think he pulled it off as well as he could have. I have a lot of respect for Stallone after Rocky Balboa and Rambo 4. If he wanted to make a Rambo 5, I'd have faith that it wouldn't just be an unnecessary sequel and would be a great film.
 

Way of the dodo

New member
As it is, Indy is already a very loose trilogy. There happen to be 3 movies, but it seems to me like Spielberg took great pains to give each movie its own personality. Raiders is a very badass serious action movie, Doom is a great over the top cartoon, and Crusade is a more sentimental Butch and Sundance buddy/road flick. The new one is already going to be its own thing just by virtue of the time that's passed. (which is a good thing, despite every lame lunchroom comedian joking about Indy's age)
 

Primo

New member
Doubting Spielberg?

In the final paragraph the author of this article seems to suggest that the quality of Mr. Spielberg's recent offerings do not bode well for the newest installment of the Indiana Jones series. This is patently ridiculous. In this decade alone Mr. Spielberg has made 3 films that have grossed over 300 million dollars (with "Minority Report" being listed as Roger Ebert's best film of 2002 and "Catch Me if You Can" earning Academy Award nominations for Christopher Walken and John Williams). Mr. Spielberg's latest directorial effort, "Munich", (which the author seems so ready to dismiss, lumping it in the same category as "Phantom Menace" and "Firewall") garnered five Academy Awards nominations, including Best Picture, Film Editing (Michael Kahn), Original Music Score (by John Williams), and Best Director. Yeah, bro, Spielberg is really struggling right now, huh?

Mr. Spielberg has made gem after gem year in and year out. The man is a well oiled machine. He is the best at what he does- plain and simple. The man knows the language of cinema and speaks it better than anybody. I have unshakable faith in Mr. Spielberg's skill and taste as a filmmaker. Indiana Jones 4 is in his capable hands. So, until May 22 I'll reserve my judgement and so should you.
 

scifiwolf

Member
He doesn't say or imply Steven's movies have been bad lately. The implication is that he hasn't made anything in the same genre or vein Indy in a very long time (since The Lost World, really). It has nothing to do with quality.
 
Primo said:
In the final paragraph the author of this article seems to suggest that the quality of Mr. Spielberg's recent offerings do not bode well for the newest installment of the Indiana Jones series. This is patently ridiculous. In this decade alone Mr. Spielberg has made 3 films that have grossed over 300 million dollars (with "Minority Report" being listed as Roger Ebert's best film of 2002 and "Catch Me if You Can" earning Academy Award nominations for Christopher Walken and John Williams). Mr. Spielberg's latest directorial effort, "Munich", (which the author seems so ready to dismiss, lumping it in the same category as "Phantom Menace" and "Firewall") garnered five Academy Awards nominations, including Best Picture, Film Editing (Michael Kahn), Original Music Score (by John Williams), and Best Director. Yeah, bro, Spielberg is really struggling right now, huh?

And blah, blah, blah, blah.


Ugh. Nothing I hate more than that sort of nonsense. Box office gross and the feelings of the academy are not in any way representative of the quality of a film.

It's amazing to me how fixated people have become on box office gross. It means NOTHING to anyone but the studio heads and popular pull doesn't illustrate quality of a film. The gross is all in the marketing. A well-marketed film will almost always have large opening weekends. And big budget ****-fests will nearly always have long-sustained grosses. Doesn't mean a damn thing to anyone but the studio.

We've become conditioned into being armchair executives, babbling off grosses as if that's the only important part of a film. It's just money, folks.
 

seasider

Active member
I thought it was a well meaning write-up in serious need of proof-reading and structure. It seemed like he kept changing his mind throughout the essay on what the definition of a sequel or 4th film is and what is the criteria for a successful 4th film. Some of his examples were good but others were weak.

His assessment of the Jack Ryan saga is way off in my opinion. There are plenty of directions for that series to go but for whatever reason, Paramount has not made anymore. The Sum of All Fears had about 59% of critics endorsing the film and a modest domestic box office take of $118 million in 2002. It did well enough to merit more movies. You could argue that it was the weakest Jack Ryan movie but I wouldn't call it a franchise killer.

I'm not even sure what exactly was his point of bringing up Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. It was a waste of a paragraph.

His attempt at trying to justify Star Trek IV as really a 3rd movie was seriously reaching. If it's the 4th movie in a franchise then it is the 4th movie! End of story (no pun itendned).

The bottom line is that sequels are risky business with a spotty history no matter what number in the series you're on. The writer would've been better off narrowing his focus on franchises where there has been a long layoff between movies. That's basically what we're up against here with Indy 4.
 

deckard24

New member
Primo said:
In the final paragraph the author of this article seems to suggest that the quality of Mr. Spielberg's recent offerings do not bode well for the newest installment of the Indiana Jones series. This is patently ridiculous. In this decade alone Mr. Spielberg has made 3 films that have grossed over 300 million dollars (with "Minority Report" being listed as Roger Ebert's best film of 2002 and "Catch Me if You Can" earning Academy Award nominations for Christopher Walken and John Williams). Mr. Spielberg's latest directorial effort, "Munich", (which the author seems so ready to dismiss, lumping it in the same category as "Phantom Menace" and "Firewall") garnered five Academy Awards nominations, including Best Picture, Film Editing (Michael Kahn), Original Music Score (by John Williams), and Best Director. Yeah, bro, Spielberg is really struggling right now, huh?

Mr. Spielberg has made gem after gem year in and year out. The man is a well oiled machine. He is the best at what he does- plain and simple. The man knows the language of cinema and speaks it better than anybody. I have unshakable faith in Mr. Spielberg's skill and taste as a filmmaker. Indiana Jones 4 is in his capable hands. So, until May 22 I'll reserve my judgement and so should you.
I have to agree with R.A. here, box office grosses and the praise of the academy doesn't necessarily indicate a great film! The 3 films of Spielberg's mentioned were good films, but not amazing! Both Minority Report and Munich wrapped up the final acts with his usual sentimental/syrupy finish! Also let's not forget about War of the Worlds, another more recent film then Munich, and that one fell apart halfway through!

When Spielberg is on, there's no denying his abilities. But, he also has plenty of off moments ie. Always, Hook, The Lost World, A.I., and The Terminal, not to mention films that don't hold together well especially in the endings ie. War of the Worlds and the others above mentioned.
 

Nurhachi1991

Well-known member
Rocky IV was a great movie anyone that thought otherwise wasnt watching the right movie



and Indy 4 will do just fine you gotta have faith............ only the penitent movie will pass
 

Darth Vile

New member
Hmmm - it's difficult not to get drawn into conversation when people are classifying Rocky IV and Rambo IV as great movies...

But anyway... KOTCS has every chance of being a really good movie. Similar to the James Bond franchise, the Indy movies are self-contained... which means there is no specific story arc to keep going/resurrect. This at least gives Spielberg and Lucas a better chance of creating a movie with a linear story and that is easy to engage with.

IMHO - I think the story will be there, the music will be there, the direction will be there, Harrison will be there. Ultimately whether it works or not will all come down to if... A) An older Indy works on screen (the trailer seems to show this won't be a problem). B) It doesn't feel like we've seen it all before.
 

blueseattle

New member
crowmagnumman said:
Right now it could go either way. Until now it seems like Stallone is the only one who's had enough integrity to make good sequels to his 80s movies. Rocky Balboa and Rambo were both pretty damn good. Everything else has been really lame so far.


Well, despite everyone disagreeing, I loved the fourth Die Hard film. I saw it three times in theaters and bought it on DVD the day it came out. I think there's a sense of awareness that needs to take place when walking and seeing these movies, whether it be a notion that this will never be as integral to a series as you'd imagine it or as eye opening as the originals.

Then, you are thoroughly impressed if anything does come out of it.. which for me, so far in every fourth adventure lately, has hit that mark. Rambo 4, Die Hard 4... all good, to me.
 
Top