Contract with Paramount for five Indiana Jones films

It is somewhat common knowledge that supposedly in the late 1970's when they were first planning Raider's that Speilberg and Lucas signed a contract with Paramount for five Indiana Jones films.

However sometimes I wonder if this rumor is like the "nine episode Star Wars saga" that is just an urban myth and/or vague doublespeak on the part of Lucas. However in any event a fifth Indiana Jones movie is far more realistic and doable than three more Star Wars movies where the sage is already wrapped up. With Indy there can always be another story.

What is interesting though is that it is often stated that the five Indy films is part of a "contract" with Paramount. A contract usually implies an obligation on somebody's part. Now I don't know if the obligation was just on Paramount's part to make the films if Speilberg and Lucas wanted to or if it is a mutual contract meaning Speilberg and Lucas are obligated to make five films and complete the contract. Also I wonder if there was a contract was it altered after the Last Crusade perhaps in favor of the Young Indiana Jones series in lieu of future films?

Does anyone have any concrete information on this supposed contract? If it is true a real world document would have to exist somewhere and supposedly somebody could demand that a fifth film be made. I mean a contract even an old one that just happens to involve one of the most profitable film franchises in history is not the kind of thing people would just let collect dust.

It is because of this alleged contract that I have always been optimistic about a fifth Indiana Jones film because then the series as originally envisioned would be complete.

I'm sorry I can't offer any copy of a contract, I can offer this much;

Based on what I've heard from various people, the way the initial contract with Paramount went is that, since Lucasfilm would own the Indy franchise (Lucas already tightening things up with owning all Star Wars intellectual property rights), Paramount simply had the right to distribute the first five films of this series. *If* Lucasfilm went to make a *sixth* Indy (wouldn't that be nice), they could renegotiate with Paramount at that point, and possibly distribute through someone else, or renew their contract, or whatever.

However, they did only sign Ford for three films, so I'm guessing Lucas never really intended to make five, or foresaw it going that far. It was probably just a high-end number meant to appease the studio so they'd get the funding and distribution they wanted for Raiders.

Certainly over time that "five" bit has grown in legend, in hope, that we'd get five films. I think it's more hope-driven than contract-driven, though. Sad to say.

That is kind of what I suspected all along, something like that. So its an obligation on the part of Lucas to allow Paramount to distrubute it "if" the series even went as far as five films. Maybe Lucas did originally envision at least five films but in the late 1970's he probably assumed they would be made within much shorter intervals and nobody imagined that in 2010 people would be talking about making the fifth film.

Still the five film legend could be what gets Indy5 made because with a fifth film at least this psychological need will be fullfilled. What brings hope is that Indy5 has been talked about by Lucas since the release of KOTCS wheras with the release of LC in 1989 they were contemplating that being the end of the movies. It is still hard for me to get the number five out of my head with Indiana Jones because of this the series is still not complete to me without Indy5.

I also think that, back in 1980, Lucas and Spielberg still say Indy as "their James Bond", and thus saw it as having a new movie every two or three years, with different actors if needs be. What they didn't count on was catching lightning in a bottle with Harrison, who made it impossible to truly "Bond-ize" their series, meaning they couldn't have anyone else play the role of Indy. This complicated matters, having to plan around a third partner, which slowed things down (nobody's fault -- schedules in the movie biz are simply just hell to coordinate).

Matt deMille said:

What they didn't count on was catching lightning in a bottle with Harrison, who made it impossible to truly "Bond-ize" their series, meaning they couldn't have anyone else play the role of Indy. This complicated matters, having to plan around a third partner, which slowed things down (nobody's fault -- schedules in the movie biz are simply just hell to coordinate).

Click to expand...

Many would say that Sean Connery is irreplaceable as Bond. Even MORE irreplaceable than Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. But given that, they still went on with other Bond actors and found success. Lucas and Spielberg had other projects. So while IJ is great, 4 movies doesn't make their franchise "better than Bond."

IIRC I first heard about the "five film" thing back in 1989 at the time of the release of Last Crusade. Granted I was only 8 years old then but I think I heard it on TV, they were talking about LC possibly being the last one and sombody pointed out that "no, George Lucas said there are supposed to be five so there will be two more after Last Crusade".

Then shortly afterwards I remember playing with my friends in a park with a creek a made up story for Indiana Jones 5 as we knew that would be the last one. I can't remember what exactly we pretended but I think it had something to do with a river and a cave. So this idea has been imbeded in me for a long time, its not just my desire for one more after the release of KOTCS.

Contract for 5 pictures?

Never heard that myself.

Adolf Hitler said:

Contract for 5 pictures?

Never heard that myself.

Click to expand...

Apparently it just gives Paramount the right to distribute five films if that many are made and not an obligation on the part of Lucas and Speilburg to make five. Nevertheless I think it creates a psychological need to make a fifth and final film.

DeepSixFix said:

Many would say that Sean Connery is irreplaceable as Bond. Even MORE irreplaceable than Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. But given that, they still went on with other Bond actors and found success. Lucas and Spielberg had other projects. So while IJ is great, 4 movies doesn't make their franchise "better than Bond."

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone can argue Sean Connery as James Bond is more irreplaceable than Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. Raiders is on the AFI Top 100 and was chosen to be preserved by the National Film Registry for starters. No James Bond film is as highly regarded.