Indiana Jones 5: July 19, 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.

seasider

Active member
My wishful thinking for the 3 year delay is that they're actually gonna do 2 Indy movies back to back ( Lord of the Rings style) so they need the time to shoot for all that.

But the most likely explanation is that Speilberg wants time to devote his full attention to the movie and he's gonna be busy with Ready Player One this year and into next year.
 

James

Well-known member
I assume the 3 year delay is simply the result of a crowded release schedule. Gone are the days when a studio could announce a big summer release on short notice. Now everyone is staking out real estate 3 or 4 years in advance.

In 2018, the prime months of May, June, and July are already booked solid. Even 2019 is largely taken, which is likely why Disney settled on a late July date.
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
seasider said:
My wishful thinking for the 3 year delay is that they're actually gonna do 2 Indy movies back to back ( Lord of the Rings style) so they need the time to shoot for all that.

But the most likely explanation is that Speilberg wants time to devote his full attention to the movie and he's gonna be busy with Ready Player One this year and into next year.

James said:
I assume the 3 year delay is simply the result of a crowded release schedule. Gone are the days when a studio could announce a big summer release on short notice. Now everyone is staking out real estate 3 or 4 years in advance.

In 2018, the prime months of May, June, and July are already booked solid. Even 2019 is largely taken, which is likely why Disney settled on a late July date.

While some of the above points are ones to be duly noted,
I assumed y'all knew that from inception to release 2-3 years is actually the norm in Hollywood...
I mean especially for a BLOCKBUSTER ...it just is. There is NO DELAY as such.

If memory serves "The Force Awakens" was announced in 2012...
It premiered in December 2015.

While some of you guys probably believe writing a FINISHED screenplay doesn't take very long,
it is indeed a PROCESS that takes MONTHS [maybe even a year(s)]
-- then after a screenplay is completed it goes into prep...
which also takes a number of months...

I'm not gonna run through the whole "making a film timeline" (especially for a tent pole studio film what a god damned nightmare) but it is no small task!
This timeline is normal for a big studio film of this size.
 

James

Well-known member
Dr. Gonzo said:
This timeline is normal for a big studio film of this size.

Yes, there's really nothing unusual about the timeline for this project. However, I suspect many fans- especially those who grew up with Indy in the 80s or 90s- still think in terms of tentpole sequels being able to go from script to screen in about two years.

After all, while it's taking Indy 11 years to get back into theaters, Tony Stark was able to do it in only 2. (Of course I realize that may also be a decent argument for why it's no longer advisable to try such an approach any more.)
 

Walecs

Active member
Dr. Gonzo said:
While some of the above points are ones to be duly noted,
I assumed y'all knew that from inception to release 2-3 years is actually the norm in Hollywood...
I mean especially for a BLOCKBUSTER ...it just is. There is NO DELAY as such.

If memory serves "The Force Awakens" was announced in 2012...
It premiered in December 2015.

While some of you guys probably believe writing a FINISHED screenplay doesn't take very long,
it is indeed a PROCESS that takes MONTHS [maybe even a year(s)]
-- then after a screenplay is completed it goes into prep...
which also takes a number of months...

I'm not gonna run through the whole "making a film timeline" (especially for a tent pole studio film what a god damned nightmare) but it is no small task!
This timeline is normal for a big studio film of this size.

Exactly. Look at SPECTRE. It came out 3 years after Skyfall, yet the script was unfinished by the time they started filming and it had costant rewrites during filming, and the end product was some kind of a mess.
 

DARTH ZOIDBERG

Well-known member
seasider said:
My wishful thinking for the 3 year delay is that they're actually gonna do 2 Indy movies back to back ( Lord of the Rings style) so they need the time to shoot for all that.

But the most likely explanation is that Speilberg wants time to devote his full attention to the movie and he's gonna be busy with Ready Player One this year and into next year.
I think Like Star Wars TFA back when Disney acquired the rights they have to still wright the script, that could take some time, consider Us in Pre Production phase at this stage of the Game...:whip:


one question I have do we still get a paramount logo, I know Paramount has a share of the Indy franchise but it is a small share compared to what Lucasfilm/Disney have. I would assume the movie will open with a Lucasfilm logo like TFA or maybe they get creative and have the Disney castle morph into something like a real castle in the movie;)
 
Last edited:

seasider

Active member
DARTH ZOIDBERG said:
I think Like Star Wars TFA back when Disney acquired the rights they have to still wright the script, that could take some time, consider Us in Pre Production phase at this stage of the Game...:whip:


one question I have do we still get a paramount logo, I know Paramount has a share of the Indy franchise but it is a small share compared to what Lucasfilm/Disney have. I would assume the movie will open with a Lucasfilm logo like TFA or maybe they get creative and have the Disney castle morph into something like a real castle in the movie;)


That is good question. With TFA Disney opted to just have the Lucasfilm logo but I think a lot of that was because they were trying hard to bring back Star Wars fans who felt burned by the prequels back into the fold which meant they had make the movie feel like the original trilogy as much as possible and by having a Disney logo show up would've felt wrong. That's my theory anyway.

In the case of Indiana Jones, they probably want a mountain blending into something but I don't think Disney will want Paramount's logo on their film.
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
seasider said:
That is good question. With TFA Disney opted to just have the Lucasfilm logo but I think a lot of that was because they were trying hard to bring back Star Wars fans who felt burned by the prequels back into the fold which meant they had make the movie feel like the original trilogy as much as possible and by having a Disney logo show up would've felt wrong. That's my theory anyway.

In the case of Indiana Jones, they probably want a mountain blending into something but I don't think Disney will want Paramount's logo on their film.


No it will just be the Lucasfilm logo. It's the same as all of the Marvel films with Disney - only the Marvel logo is shown. No Disney. Looks like they kept that same practice with Lucasfilm.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Duaner said:
I've argued this before on here (and it bugs me to see it come up again) so won't go beyond this one post about it, but "bringing Indy back to the place where the original inspiration comes from" means taking him back to the 1930s and the old cliffhanger serials popular at the time - not a 1960s spy setting. I don't deny there is James Bond influence in the Indiana Jones films, but they were not the "original inspiration."
I agree. Although I suppose the film doesn't necessarily have to look like a 1960s Man from Uncle film though. They could set the majority of the film in locations that aren't as stylised as we expect the 60's to look. It could be set in places like China or Istanbul. But what will be interesting is if they show as much as they did with KOTCS, which arguably has the most period set scene with the 50's diner fight.
 
Last edited:

indy4242

New member
AndyLGR said:
I agree. Although I suppose the film doesn't necessarily have to look like a 1960s Man from Uncle film though. They could set the majority of the film in locations that aren't as stylised as we expect the 60's to look. It could be set in places like China or Istanbul. But what will be interesting is if they show as much as they did with KOTCS, which arguably has the most period set scene with the 50's diner fight.

Some of the best stuff in KOTCS was the 50s scenes. It felt like it brought something fresh to the series, unlike a lot of the other aspects of that movie. The diner fight, the nuclear bomb test town, the red scare plotline.

But I don't think the 1960s has as much to offer to an Indiana Jones movie as the 50s did. Not a clear cinematic homage direction to go in. If the movie is set in the 60s, it'd probably be wisest to return to a more direct adventure serial vibe.
 

Johnny Nys

Member
Why does it have to be the 60's, though? The late 50's could still work for the new movie. After all, why does the time frame in the stories have to move forward as much as real time? There were 8 real time years between Raiders and Crusade as well, yet in the Indy timeline the stories are only two years apart.
 

OldIndy2323

Active member
Do people out there really miss the point of the settings of the films mirroring the popular genre of the decade they're set in? It was the whole reason for Raiders in the first place: set a movie in the 30's that has the feel of the 30's serials, set a movie in the 50's that has the feel of the sci-fi / hot-rod genre and set a movie in the 60's that has the feel of a late 60's spy-thriller
 

seasider

Active member
In KOTCS, it is established that Indy had been doing spy work on the Russians at some point and I can see that aspect of his character in a 60's setting and I think will be an interesting opportunity to see how much Indy is affected by the cold war.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Catch him if you can

Not all 60's movies are spy-thrillers.

Spielberg will attest to that:
170.gif
 
Last edited:
I'm sure he will...

They should really film two films back to back. It would be a far more powerful impact for Harrison's Legacy. First film as a prequel maybe...

Film back to back Steven if he visits this place? Which I doubt. Then everyone can say Harrison Ford did six Indiana Jones films. He's not aged really since Skull, he's still tough and his robustness showed through in The Force Awakens.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
indy4242 said:
Some of the best stuff in KOTCS was the 50s scenes. It felt like it brought something fresh to the series, unlike a lot of the other aspects of that movie. The diner fight, the nuclear bomb test town, the red scare plotline. But I don't think the 1960s has as much to offer to an Indiana Jones movie as the 50s did. Not a clear cinematic homage direction to go in. If the movie is set in the 60s, it'd probably be wisest to return to a more direct adventure serial vibe.
I think some of the 50?s scenes were the best in the film too, it went downhill when they left for South America for me. But when I mentioned the 50?s aspect of KOTCS, it was because it seemed some people were assuming that Indy 5 would maybe try to incorporate some of the 60?s culture and kitsch maybe. When my point was that they didn?t necessarily have to use that aspect of the decade if they set the film in certain locations instead. It can still look and feel like almost like a biblical or historical epic like Raiders did without trying to look like Indy is walking around in an old Man from Uncle movie.
OldIndy2323 said:
Do people out there really miss the point of the settings of the films mirroring the popular genre of the decade they're set in? It was the whole reason for Raiders in the first place: set a movie in the 30's that has the feel of the 30's serials, set a movie in the 50's that has the feel of the sci-fi / hot-rod genre and set a movie in the 60's that has the feel of a late 60's spy-thriller
I don?t think anyone is missing that at all. Arguably KOTCS didn?t work because it didn?t mesh with 50?s sc-fi b-movies, it certainly didn?t for me anyway.
Johnny Nys said:
Why does it have to be the 60's, though? The late 50's could still work for the new movie. After all, why does the time frame in the stories have to move forward as much as real time? There were 8 real time years between Raiders and Crusade as well, yet in the Indy timeline the stories are only two years apart.
I agree, they could still set it in the 50?s if they wished.
 

Randy_Flagg

Well-known member
OldIndy2323 said:
Do people out there really miss the point of the settings of the films mirroring the popular genre of the decade they're set in? It was the whole reason for Raiders in the first place: set a movie in the 30's that has the feel of the 30's serials, set a movie in the 50's that has the feel of the sci-fi / hot-rod genre and set a movie in the 60's that has the feel of a late 60's spy-thriller

KOTCS really didn't have a 50s sci-fi feel at all, though. If that's what they were trying to achieve, they would have needed lots of scenes in science labs, and people in a panic over a possible alien invasion, etc. There was an Indy 4 draft that did that, actually, but I forget whose it was.
KOTCS mainly stuck to the same 30s serial feel as the previous three films, with just a few 50s references shoved in at the beginning of the film.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top