Indy 5 news 2018

Raiders90

Well-known member
I wanna see Indy in 1968 with the Stones.
mainRSTONES.jpg
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
You know, I always thought Lucasfilm should give Han his own movie.

Wu Han, that is.

He was made famous for "going first" at the beginning of TEMPLE OF DOOM, and we think he'll make you want you want to go first, too. First in line, to see his hilarious hi-jinks in THAT'S NOT A WAITER!, a joint production from Disney and Happy Madison.

Wu Han means well, but boy howdy is he inept at posing as someone in the service industry. Thrill as the lovable goof gets basic orders wrong, pratfalls his way to a lousy tip, and fails to note peanut allergies when it comes time for dessert. Come for "an old friend," but be prepared to make new ones in this hilarious, family-friendly romp that'll make you feel more at home than the remains of Nurhaci.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Variety: Harrison, isn't it ironic that, after an entire career spent as an action hero,you conclude your Indiana Jones run playing dead for most of the movie?

Ford: Look, as I've always said, it's about serving a good story.
Everyone loves a happy ending, and my check was stapled to the last page of the script when George and Steve sent it over.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
<
Great idea!
Don Draper hires him to bring them in, afted his own failed attempt at the NY gig.

You know, even though he's a little older, I wouldn't mind Jon Hamm as Indy. What do you think? He's got that old school actor Cary Grant vibe where I could see him portraying both the Adventurer and Professor sides of Indy well. Like, my main issue with Chris Pratt is I CANNOT see him in front of a classroom or being an "expert on the occult." He's too goofy. You'd have to go for a more comedic, irreverent approach with him. Whereas Hamm for me has the deep voice, the no BSness....
 

FordFan

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
I've said this before, and no one believed me, but LF is waiting for Harrison to die. KK dislikes him for ideological reasons, and they see him as an obstacle for filmmaking reasons. They view him as an albatross, his presence in the film a Catch 22. What better way to relaunch Indy than on the back of the public's memory of Harrison? They will capitalize on Gen X's grief and such. I will say it now: You will not see an Indy film until Harrison Ford passes away.
[/I]."

I call bullcrap. Speculation run amok.

Ford did "The Force Awakens", which was huge for Kennedy. She needed that movie to do well, and it did, in some part because of Ford.

She decided to make a standalone of "Solo" and Ford didn't badmouth it at all. He even praised Ehrenreich's performance, even if he secretly could've not liked it at all.

Spielberg wants an Indy 5 with Ford in it. I wouldn't bet against him.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
FordFan said:
I call bullcrap. Speculation run amok.

Ford did "The Force Awakens", which was huge for Kennedy. She needed that movie to do well, and it did, in some part because of Ford.

She decided to make a standalone of "Solo" and Ford didn't badmouth it at all. He even praised Ehrenreich's performance, even if he secretly could've not liked it at all.

Spielberg wants an Indy 5 with Ford in it. I wouldn't bet against him.

KK is a rabid ideologue and I believe, for her, her ideology, and what she wants to show in her movies, goes beyond whatever personal feelings she has for actors. She might be Harrison's best friend behind the scenes but the ideology comes first. She, and the studio, needed Ford to push SW. But I don't know that they feel they need Ford for Indy, or that they're even all that interested in Indy. Studios today seem to be only interested in IPs which are billion dollar babies and which have the potential to be expanded into cinematic universes. I don't think Indy really ticks those boxes. I also believe after Solo, Disney is going to be very cautious with what they invest in as far as LucasFilm.

What audience is there for Indy now? How do you sell a fifth Indy film in 2020 with or without Harrison Ford? I mean, Tomb Raider should've been a hit and it bombed. The Mummy bombed. Solo, another adventure type of film, bombed. You don't think Disney is taking notes and going "Hmm...Is this a good idea?"

I also disagree with your belief that Spielberg wants an Indy 5. He didn't even want an Indy 4. He had to be dragged into that, and a lot of it had to do with fan demand. Outside of this forum there is no real demand for a new Indy film. Not like there was from 92 to 07, anyway; From what I have seen most seem apathetic or opposed to the idea. Fan demand is a big reason we got Indy 4. Steven has stated many times that he wanted to leave Indy back in 1989 and do more "mature" work...And I really doubt that his view has changed much in the past 29 years.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
You know, even though he's a little older, I wouldn't mind Jon Hamm as Indy. What do you think? He's got that old school actor Cary Grant vibe where I could see him portraying both the Adventurer and Professor sides of Indy well. Like, my main issue with Chris Pratt is I CANNOT see him in front of a classroom or being an "expert on the occult." He's too goofy. You'd have to go for a more comedic, irreverent approach with him. Whereas Hamm for me has the deep voice, the no BSness....
Yes, I think it would have worked a few years ago.
But at 47 he's too old to make more than one movie, particularly if Disney plan to do prequels.
 

FordFan

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
You know, even though he's a little older, I wouldn't mind Jon Hamm as Indy. What do you think? He's got that old school actor Cary Grant vibe where I could see him portraying both the Adventurer and Professor sides of Indy well. Like, my main issue with Chris Pratt is I CANNOT see him in front of a classroom or being an "expert on the occult." He's too goofy. You'd have to go for a more comedic, irreverent approach with him. Whereas Hamm for me has the deep voice, the no BSness....

Pratt is Seann William Scott with a better agent. I love the guy, he seems really cool, but he needs to stop emerging as the heir apparent to beloved franchises.

I enjoyed Hamm as Don Draper, but I think he's a very limited actor.

If we're going to talk about a new actor to replace Harrison Ford, can we talk about how difficult it is to choose anyone with any actual grit?
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
Yes, I think it would have worked a few years ago.
But at 47 he's too old to make more than one movie, particularly if Disney plan to do prequels.

He is a young looking 47, though, he has that in his favor. I don't know if they'd wanna do prequels or what but the 40s is more fitting for Indy, at least to me, than the 20s...Hamm could do a great job doing a WWII era Indy.

I don't want to touch the 20s because you get into "the lore": Ravenwood, Marion...It runs the risk of being like the SW prequels and not being what we imagined it to be. Like, I have a certain idea in my mind of who Abner Ravenwood was, what he looked like, was like...Disney's would probably differ.

I think in general, if they go forward with a new actor, it should be a total reboot.

But if Disney is going to continue in the same continuity, it should either take place earlier in the 30s, or, more ideally in the 40s. Doing prequels never works. Hamm would work in the 30s or 40s.
 

FordFan

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
What audience is there for Indy now? How do you sell a fifth Indy film in 2020 with or without Harrison Ford? I mean, Tomb Raider should've been a hit and it bombed. The Mummy bombed. Solo, another adventure type of film, bombed. You don't think Disney is taking notes and going "Hmm...Is this a good idea?"

I also disagree with your belief that Spielberg wants an Indy 5. He didn't even want an Indy 4. He had to be dragged into that, and a lot of it had to do with fan demand. Outside of this forum there is no real demand for a new Indy film. Not like there was from 92 to 07, anyway; From what I have seen most seem apathetic or opposed to the idea. Fan demand is a big reason we got Indy 4. Steven has stated many times that he wanted to leave Indy back in 1989 and do more "mature" work...And I really doubt that his view has changed much in the past 29 years.

Why should Tomb Raider, The Mummy, and Solo have been hits?

Spielberg has his pick of whatever film he wants to make. He wanted an Indy 4, but he didn't want conflict with his best friend. So we got a compromised Indy 4.

Spielberg has done a lot of "mature work", as you put it... his last film was also "Ready Player One". No one is forcing him to make Indy 5. But my $.02 is this: he knows he screwed the pooch with Indy 4 and wants to right it with this one.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Steven has stated many times that he wanted to leave Indy back in 1989 and do more "mature" work...And I really doubt that his view has changed much in the past 29 years.
Variety: Steven, "Weekend at Indy's" is quite a departure from the type of movie we've come to expect of you. What convinced you to make it?

Spielberg: You know, after the disastrous "Temple of Doom" I realized that only abundant lashings of goofy comedy could rescue the series.
The problem with both "Crusade" and "Skull" was that there wasn't quite enough of it.
But with this last episode I think we redressed the balance.

And we were able to shoot the entire movie in my living room, which is nice.
Not to mention the savings on Harrison's insurance!
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
FordFan said:
Pratt is Seann William Scott with a better agent. I love the guy, he seems really cool, but he needs to stop emerging as the heir apparent to beloved franchises.

I enjoyed Hamm as Don Draper, but I think he's a very limited actor.

If we're going to talk about a new actor to replace Harrison Ford, can we talk about how difficult it is to choose anyone with any actual grit?

Hamm carried Don Draper well and IMO Draper is a more nuanced and complex character than Indy. Ford himself is a pretty wooden actor if we're being honest. He is not bad, but, he pretty much plays the same sort of character in almost all his movies.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
Variety: Steven, "Weekend at Indy's" is quite a departure from the type of movie we've come to expect of you. What convinced you to make it?

Spielberg: You know, after the disastrous "Temple of Doom" I realized that only abundant lashings of goofy comedy could rescue the series.
The problem with both "Crusade" and "Skull" was that there wasn't quite enough of it.
But with this last episode I think we redresed the balance.

And we were able to shoot the entire movie in my living room, which is nice.
Not to mention the savings on Harrison's insurance!

You know, honestly as greedy as I am for more Indy a part of me has begun to feel that Indy (or perhaps Steven) ran out of gas after TOD. LC for me is saved only by River Phoenix's amazing intro and by the interplay between Harrison and Connery. Take away Connery and you have a film which has all the problems of Skull (including assassination of established characters, goofy humor, a listless Indy by numbers feel, a certain sense of fatigue that comes through in the direction....). Do you agree?
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Hamm carried Don Draper well and IMO Draper is a more nuanced and complex character than Indy. Ford himself is a pretty wooden actor if we're being honest. He is not bad, but, he pretty much plays the same sort of character in almost all his movies.
Yes, Hamm would definitely be good enough for Indy, and I agree that a 40s setting would fit his persona very well.
But as I said, realistically that would only work for one movie, and then?

Prequels are more viable commercially as you can choose a guy in his early 30s and go on for several movies.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
You know, honestly as greedy as I am for more Indy a part of me has begun to feel that Indy (or perhaps Steven) ran out of gas after TOD. LC for me is saved only by River Phoenix's amazing intro and by the interplay between Harrison and Connery. Take away Connery and you have a film which has all the problems of Skull (including assassination of established characters, goofy humor, a listless Indy by numbers feel, a certain sense of fatigue that comes through in the direction....). Do you agree?
No, I cannot agree with that, sorry.

While not perfect (no movie ever is), Crusade is fantastic, a worthy conclusion for the Trilogy.
And Spielberg's committment shines through from beginning to end.
I actually believe it's his personal favorite in the series.

Skull? His heart was never in it.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
Yes, Hamm would definitely be good enough for Indy, and I agree that a 40s setting would fit his persona very well.
But as I said, realistically that would only work for one movie, and then?

Prequels are more viable commercially as you can choose a guy in his early 30s and go on for several movies.

If Disney couldn't sell a prequel showing Han Solo's youth, I don't think they can do it with Indy. And I think Solo failing is what's put the breaks on Indy.

Like I asked the other guy: How do you sell Indiana Jones, w/ or w/out Harrison in 2018? What is the hook?

Indy is a guy in a hat who only works in a relatively narrow period of time (20s to 40s), a stretch of time which now isn't romanticized as it once was but considered "problematic" by that vital 18-24 y/o market. How do you work with that? Wonder Woman only worked in that time period because you had a non-white female lead.
 

FordFan

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Hamm carried Don Draper well and IMO Draper is a more nuanced and complex character than Indy. Ford himself is a pretty wooden actor if we're being honest. He is not bad, but, he pretty much plays the same sort of character in almost all his movies.

You've got too many hot takes in here. One being that KK has a grievance against Ford. The other being that he's a wooden actor. He's got far more range than Hamm.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
What was the hook in 2008?

Several hooks:
-Harrison Ford playing a character Gen Xers and Millenials grew up with for the first time in over a decade. That was novel then. It is not now.

-Over a decade's worth of hype (both by fans and in the media), speculation, curiosity, rumor and anticipation on the part of the fans and the media. The general non hardcore audience wanted another film ever since 1992.

-Nostalgia. LC left a great taste in most people's mouth. People who were too young to see the original films in theaters also were excited by the ability to see Indy on the big screen.

Today, you have none of that. Seeing Harrison Ford don an old costume from his cherished past is no longer novel or exciting. There is no hype or real demand for fifth film. CS left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths and divided the hardcore fanbase down the middle. Gen Z has no nostalgia for Indy the way Gen X and the Millenials did. He is a non-entity to them.

Also, in 2008, there was no Marvel cinematic universe to fill the needs of adventure film fans. There was no SW film being pumped out yearly. Indy existed in a vacuum of sorts; Batman was his only real competition.

Adding to this, the Indy brand was kept alive between 89 and 2008 by the YIJC, the novels, the comics, the video and computer games and such. Indy as a brand has been dead since 2008. There has not been much supporting it or keeping it in the public's mind since Skull. The public's last taste of Indy in any form was a divisive film that is considered subpar.

2008 might as well be a different world from today.
 
Top