Is Spielberg too old for Indy?

kongisking

Active member
Having just finished watching Peter Jackson's King Kong, a masterpiece beyond imagining, I am fully convinced that Jackson should be given a crack at Indiana Jones. I kid you not. He would take Indy into epic, heart-wrenching territory. And yes, I was still devastated by Kong's death even after the billionth viewing. Those who think Jackson's Kong was anything less than stupendous has my great sympathy.

Lord Jackson must inherit Indiana Jones!
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Good point, Kongisking: Jackson at the helm of Indy5, but the old fashioned way - less CG and more story and stunts.
 
Peter Jackson

I'm okay with Peter Jackson...AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T GET TO EDIT HIS OWN FILM. My god, man. Kong was great but long....long...long. And unneccessarily so. The dinosaur chase should have been cut in half! The entire skull island part of the movie could have been trimmed, the movie whittled down to about 2 to2.5 hours and then I would call it a masterpiece.

Same with LotR. Too much is too much. He needs to hire an editor and his films will be perfect.
 
I think Jackson would be a great choice. I love King Kong and the LOTR movies. I think the LOTR movies were long but I think it was necessary for them to be that long to give the story justice. Kong could have been short but I still thought it was good.
 
Edge of the seat

Stoo is right. By Crusade, the Indy films had lost that edge of the seat momentum. The teaser with him as a teen never had my heart pounding like the teasers for either Raiders or Temple. However, storywise it was necessary to establish the father - son relationship. I don't recall a single moment of Crusade that had me gripping the chair arms in the movie theater like the first two movies. I know there is a lot of Temple hate on this board, but when it comes to action, SS knew how to get the heart pounding in that movie.

As for Crusade, there wasn't a moment in the film where he ever recreated that same tension. Same goes for KotCS. I know it can still be done. I think with the earlier movies he was fully committed. I don't know if he's lost his touch or has just become "lazy" when it comes to filming the action.

Is it because I've gotten older and movies don't elicit the same response? I don't think so because there were moments of Peter Jackson's King Kong and LotRs that gave me that same feeling (see above post for my gripes with those films).
 
LotRs length

clintonmills said:
I think Jackson would be a great choice. I love King Kong and the LOTR movies. I think the LOTR movies were long but I think it was necessary for them to be that long to give the story justice. Kong could have been short but I still thought it was good.

Trying not to get too far off-topic, but LotRs had numerous war sequences that dragged entirely too long. Jackson could have conveyed the turning tides of each battle in a lot less time than he used on film. I think his problem, because he invests so much time and energy planning, establishing, and filming a scene, is that he does not approach the editing process objectively. He is too passionate about what he filmed (the sweat, blood, and tears it took to "get the shot") that he can't see where it detracts from the pace of the movie.

Now, don't take this as Jackson hate. I believe he is one of the most gifted filmmakers around. But he is not perfect. Guillermo del Toro on the other hand...I bet he could smash an Indy movie out of the park. I'd settle for Jackson too, as long as he doesn't get to edit.
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Well, its why I started this thread a while back. If you watch the bonus features on the Kingdom Of the Crystal Skull DVD/Blu-Ray, Spielberg jokes on set that he's going to hire another younger director, he even admits in interviews he was the reason it took Indy 4 so long to get made.

I do think Spielberg has gotten too old for Indy. Frankly, he seems much more interested in being a studio mogul and an executive producer then directing like he did way back when. If a younger more enthusiastic director takes the helm it may make for a more enjoyable product.

I disagree with Jackson. The two problems people had with Indy 4 was its absurdity and overdose of CGI, those being big flaws of his last two films, King Kong and The Lovely Bones, and even Lord of the Rings. As been stated, he also doesn't know how to end his movies, which I don't really want to see happen with Indy. I think if it weren't for Lord of the Rings, people wouldn't be paying attention to Peter Jackson as he isn't particularly special.

I second J.J. Abrams. If that man can reinvigorate Star Trek, he can reinvigorate anything.
 

DoomsdayFAN

Member
Raiders112390 said:
For years, people worried that Harry would be too old to play Indy; "How could a 60 year old Harrison Ford play Indiana Jones?" It was thought and worried that his performance might be a little too unbelievable as Dr. Jones. But I think even with the myriad of flaws KOTCS has, Harrison's performance isn't one of them. He's still in good shape and still knows how to play our lovable archaeologist; In fact, I'd go so far as to say that he's the best part of the film.

That said...Is Spielberg too old to be the director of a Bond film? Somewhere along the line, I think Spielberg lost his chops as an action film director. He's grown overly sentimental, he plays it too safe. He's also gone too politically correct, too soft--removing the guns out of ET, for example; Having Indy never fire his gun, draw his whip, or purposely kill anyone in KOTCS is another example. We know it's not Lucas who has gone soft on violence and killing--Look at Revenge of the Sith for evidence. Even in Young Indy, Indy kills purposefully when he needs to. Indiana in KOTCS is made too nice, too politically correct; he doesn't curse or kill. He's Indy for kids.

With Spielberg, we started to see some of this in LC; Indy slowly became a "kindler, gentler" character; the action scenes lacked the kinetic energy and roller-coaster ride feel of the originals. The action in LC feels lazy compared to TOD and Raiders, and in KOTCS it just feels formulaic, laid back. There's also been more and more an emphasis on humor, and on Indy as a hero rather than anti-hero. There's no out of the box ingenius scenes--Nothing like the truck chase or airport fight; nothing like the trap room in TOD; nothing like the motorcycle chase in LC. By '89, Steven said he felt "too old" to film Monkey King; I think at this point, he'd feel too old to even film Raiders again.

He's also too reliant on having the same chereographer for every film, the same team on board; Kaminski gives KOTCS a washed out, dull sort of look, whereas the old films almost at times bordered on technicolor beauty. He's too stuck too his beliefs, his style, his comfort zone. He's no longer willing to take risks. He's gone too politically correct--In one of the Making Of documentaries, he said he WOULDN'T use Nazis as the villains, even if he could.

Personally, if Indy 5 is the final go around for this series, I want Indy to go out with a bang. I want a rollercoaster ride of a film; Something between the rollercoaster ride of TOD with the seriousness of Raiders. The film should be intense--not intense as in overly dark, but the action scenes should be intense. We should fear for Indy's life, which we really didn't in KOTCS.

Indy needs to be an anti-hero again, to kill, to be somewhat dark and mysterious. The grave robber rather than the archaeologist. That dark, Man with No Name character of Raiders.

Maybe have a subplot involve Marion being killed by Indy's enemies--That'd make for one pissed off Indy, with nothing to lose anymore. Have the film take risks, and become a little more modern in FEEL. Don't change the genre and go Sci-Fi, but adapt to a more modern action style. The last film needs to take risks and send Indy off with a bang--a real rollercoaster ride--and I don't think Spielberg is up to it. Maybe have the feel of this be something like Indy meets EC Comics--EC Comics being the pulp fiction of the 1950s.

The problem is, without Spielberg, we're stuck with Lucas. I don't want to see a Lucas directed Indy. My ideal Indy 5 is film with a story by Lucas, perhaps a script by Kasdan (if he can still pull off the old magic), starring Harrisn, something intense and perhaps even revisiting the scary element of TOD, with Indy as the anti-hero, directed by a young, energy filled director who knows how to make an Indy film.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Especially about Spielberg becoming too soft and too politically correct. (n) You make wonderful points. I would love for Indy 5 to be as crazy as TOD, as serious and special as Raiders, and as emotional as LC. :gun:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
kongisking said:
Having just finished watching Peter Jackson's King Kong, a masterpiece beyond imagining, I am fully convinced that Jackson should be given a crack at Indiana Jones. I kid you not. He would take Indy into epic, heart-wrenching territory. And yes, I was still devastated by Kong's death even after the billionth viewing. Those who think Jackson's Kong was anything less than stupendous has my great sympathy.

Lord Jackson must inherit Indiana Jones!

I don't need to tell you that I'm a major fan of Jackson's King Kong, and his Lord of the Rings trilogy (and all in glorious extended editions - because these are movies to savour and absorb, not to rush through).

However, I don't think the time is right for even Jackson to take on a big screen Indy film. The time is wrong for any director to tackle that task.

Harrison's age is the main issue. They played that factor up in KOTCS, so it will obviously be even more of an issue in Indy 5 (a prequel would be unconvincing, since Harrison isn't getting younger, and the film isn't anywhere imminent). Of course, Indy 5 could be a different style of movie to account for less physical Indy-action, but that won't be what a majority of fans will want to see.

At the same time Harrison Ford will still be the big-screen Indy in many people's minds for years to come. I don't want to see him replaced.

The compromise is that TV serial. A new, younger actor, who we can associate with television, just as many of us can accept Sean Patrick Flanery as Indy without usurping Harrison's quintescential portrayal. Picking up from where the Young Indy series ended, a youthful actor can lead us over the years seamlessly from the 1920s and into the war-years.

And for that task there will be many directors. And the man for bringing them together could well be JJ Abrams. After a sticky patch in season 1, Lost is becoming compulsive viewing, as were all five seasons of Alias. I could definitely see JJ doing justice to Indy with these series that not only include blood, real suspense, and a powerful story, but also fly under Disney's Buena Vista banner.

This could be Indy's safety net, out of the arms of a softening Lucas and Spielberg, and into those of a harder Disney. How's that for potential irony?

I see this as the surest way of getting something

DoomsdayFAN said:
...as crazy as TOD, as serious and special as Raiders, and as emotional as LC.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Stoo said:
Debating with you can be a pointless affair because you're often inconsistent in your arguments and flip-flop like a caught fish.
That?s a cheep jibe Stoo. Looks like your argument is faltering somewhat.
I think I?ve been consistent with my view since seeing the movie in 2008? and have been willing to defend and/or critique the movie as the topic allows. You posting contrary and limp wristed responses is just becoming dull. If you want to disagree/challenge, please do it with some level of rationality rather than your automatic fallback position of rancor.

Stoo said:
Sure he has a certain 'aesthetic taste' but, as you say, he has 'matured'. That is a CHANGE! By your own admission, you think that the action in "Crusade" was outdated when it was released in 1989. The tank chase? Personally, I CAN find an 'edge-of-the-seat-exciting-action-scene' in "War of the Worlds" that compares (and also in "Jurassic Park II", for that matter). I don't find the tank chase in "Crusade" to be very 'edge of the seat' at all...except for one moment....
Semantics Stoo. I think Spielberg is making more substantial movies, in terms of subject matter. He?s refining his style (as artists usually do) but I don?t think his style has changed as much as you clearly think it has. I personally think the tank chase in TLC is a brilliant set piece and is wonderfully constructed? as such it still remains one of my favorite set pieces within a movie. However, I can still recognize that the set piece was reflecting a style of action that was being usurped in contemporary Hollywood movies/blockbusters. I also still believe that the tank chase from TLC is a far better set piece than anything in War of the Worlds or Jurassic Park II (and I think those are 2 good examples of where Spielberg falls short on the directorial stakes).

Stoo said:
Have you ever seen "Duel"? One would be hard-pressed to find sugary sweetness in there...
There are such things as exceptions right? Just because I/others may criticize Spielberg for being over sentimental in his movies, there is no reason for you to get your knickers in a twist about it. I still like Spielberg movies.:rolleyes:

Stoo said:
Right...and when supplying personal opinion as fact, the absolutes, "always" and "never", shouldn't be used either.:rolleyes:
Not sure what you are stating. Of course one should stand behind ones convictions. :confused:

Stoo said:
Action is ACTION, whether it's in an adventure movie, war film, science fiction, western, police story, etc. so there's no need to keep pigeon-holing things into the 'action/adventure' genre simply because it suits your position. If one can't compare Indy-action to "Saving Private Ryan", then why did you compare "War of the Worlds", "Minority Report" or "IA"? They aren't 'adventure' films either. (In this thread, you also compared "LAST CRUSADE" to "Die Hard", "Lethal Weapon", "Batman" and "Aliens"!)
C?mon Stoo ? Even you should be able to grasp the notion of context and the use of examples to support/substantiate a position. I was using the likes of Aliens, Batman, Die Hard as examples of big budget, popular event movies (that were contemporary to TLC), in order to illustrate how Indiana Jones? competition was upping the anti e.g. becoming more violent, darker etc. in comparison (whilst Indiana Jones was going more light-weight). And please, you need to refrain from just arguing semantics. The reason it would be obtuse to have a discussion comparing the action in The Wizard of Oz to Gladiator is that context is very important. They are different types of movies.

Stoo said:
Why are you fixated on the Omaha beach scene? Have you not seen the entire film? There's much more to it than just the opening 30 minutes. That said, the Omaha beach scene is (by definition) an ACTION scene!:gun:
I don?t believe it was me who cited Saving Private Ryan in the first instance, rather I was responding to the use of it as a relevant example. You may as well use Schindlers List as a suitable example of action scenes. After all, they both contain ?action? and ?Action is Action? isn?t it?

Stoo said:
Being 'relevant to 2011' (as you said) does not equate to being a 'game changer'. Bringing a new Indy film up to speed with the times doesn't necessarily mean it has to set a new standard. 'Many people' want Indy 5 to be a 'game changer'??? You and who else?:confused: Montana & IndyFan89 have said that someone new should be at the helm but never expressed that they'd like Indy 5 to redefine cinema. Mickiana was in the same camp as those two but also said that Spielberg is still the man for the job. Rob/TheIndyOpinion is right, this should have been a poll because I did a count and the LARGE MAJORITY (in this thread) believe that Spielberg is capable for a possible next Indy film.
I wasn?t aware that there was such a ground swell for Temple of Doom 2 to be made? I thought most of us were clamoring for a movie that had the impact/resonance Raiders had. Something different, something significant? something that would raise the bar? Surely anything less would just give us a variation on KOTCS.

Stoo said:
Isn't it fairly common knowledge among fans that Spielberg's direction of "Skull" was a CONCIOUS effort to make it similar to the original 3? You even said to me 'bring it on' for Indy 5 to be done in a "Saving Private Ryan" fashion, so you KNOW he has the ability!
I welcome any movie making that isn?t just aping what?s gone before. I?d rather have a new Indy movie that tried to be different, and failed, than more of the same. Spielberg?s talent as a director isn?t in doubt (not by me anyhow). I was doubting his ability to give us something that would raise the bar re. Indy movies. If that isn?t the consensus here i.e. consensus that we want a movie that will blow other action movies out of the water (or at least have a good attempt at doing so) then I stand corrected.

Stoo said:
Are you for real? Your position keeps switching, Vile. You've been maintaining that Spielberg 'mirrored/payed homage to' his own, outdated, '80s style with "Skull" so, according to you, it's NOT representative of the way he can direct action films. (Also, I thought "Skull" had the distinction of being 'action/adventure' rather than just simply an 'action movie'?)
My position doesn?t keep changing? I think it?s your cognitive processes that are in question. Let me write it in crayon for you: -

1) I believe KOTCS mimicked the overall tone/style of the originals exceedingly well (whether that is a plus or a minus is dependant on personal view)
2) By being a homage to itself (IMHO) KOTCS was by definition re-producing an 80?s?esque style of action i.e. dated. I appreciated/enjoyed the homage, but the movie hamstrung itself by attempting to be so similar in style to the previous three. Instead of being a movie that allowed itself to blaze a trail, KOTCS was too focused on looking back (IMHO). It showed.
3) The most logical and relevant example one can use to determine if ?Spielberg is too old for Indy? is, like it or not, KOTCS. Not Raiders... and certainly not Saving Private Ryan. If Spielberg is to direct another one, it?s logical to think it's going to be closer in style/technique to KOTCS than it is to Schindlers List or Munich. If you don?t like that idea, then prepare yourself?

P.S. For the sake of the thread, please let us keep any future debate on these specifics to a minimum.
 

indy4242

New member
Forbidden Eye said:
Well, its why I started this thread a while back. If you watch the bonus features on the Kingdom Of the Crystal Skull DVD/Blu-Ray, Spielberg jokes on set that he's going to hire another younger director, he even admits in interviews he was the reason it took Indy 4 so long to get made.

I do think Spielberg has gotten too old for Indy. Frankly, he seems much more interested in being a studio mogul and an executive producer then directing like he did way back when. If a younger more enthusiastic director takes the helm it may make for a more enjoyable product.

I disagree with Jackson. The two problems people had with Indy 4 was its absurdity and overdose of CGI, those being big flaws of his last two films, King Kong and The Lovely Bones, and even Lord of the Rings. As been stated, he also doesn't know how to end his movies, which I don't really want to see happen with Indy. I think if it weren't for Lord of the Rings, people wouldn't be paying attention to Peter Jackson as he isn't particularly special.

I second J.J. Abrams. If that man can reinvigorate Star Trek, he can reinvigorate anything.

Agreed. Jackson wouldn't make a good Indy movie - and claiming he'd make it "traditionally" without CGI is forgetting... well... he turned "The Lovely Bones" into a special effects movie. That says it all. I still like him, but he's wrong for Indy.

JJ Abrams... meh. He's always struck me as being a little too details-oriented instead of story-oriented, a little too based in mystery than adventure. I loved LOST and liked Star Trek, but again, I don't think he's a good fit for Indy.

If you're looking for new directors, though, can I throw Guillermo Del Toro into consideration?
 

DoomsdayFAN

Member
Montana Smith said:
I don't need to tell you that I'm a major fan of Jackson's King Kong, and his Lord of the Rings trilogy (and all in glorious extended editions - because these are movies to savour and absorb, not to rush through).

However, I don't think the time is right for even Jackson to take on a big screen Indy film. The time is wrong for any director to tackle that task.

Oh God! I loath Peter Jackson's King Kong. (n) Jackson would be one of the last people I'd want to take over Indy. HA! The film would be like 95% CGI. :sick:

If this was a perfect world and I could hand pick any director to take over Indy, it would probably be Christopher Nolan. That dude is known for his practical effects and masterful storytelling; which is just what we need... An Indy adventure which uses as many practical effects as possible, while using CGI ONLY to enhance and touch up the practical effects. Not to mention I believe he could bring us the next Raiders. :gun:


But I am still comfortable with Spielberg. I think the main problem with KOTCS was Lucas. He kept pressing for more CGI while Spielberg was pressing for more practical effects. Not only that, but Lucas is the one who kept flubbing up the story and tweaking it with his retarded ass ideas.

Anyway, for Indy 5, I hope Spielberg goes back to his "80s" ways, as far as aesthentics go. If JJ can make Super 8 look like 80s Spielberg, then Spielberg should be able to make Indy 5 look like 80s Spielberg.

As for the story..... I am afraid. As long as Lucas is in charge, it's probably not going to be up to par with the original three. I don't know why they can't be more daring like how they were for TOD. That, and bring back Kasdan to write it.
 
Last edited:

Hanselation

New member
DoomsdayFAN said:
Oh God! I loath Peter Jackson's King Kong. (n) Jackson would be one of the last people I'd want to take over Indy. HA! The film would be like 95% CGI. :sick:

If this was a perfect world and I could hand pick any director to take over Indy, it would probably be Christopher Nolan. That dude is known for his practical effects and masterful storytelling; which is just what we need... An Indy adventure which uses as many practical effects as possible, while using CGI ONLY to enhance and touch up the practical effects. Not to mention I believe he could bring us the next Raiders. :gun:


But I am still comfortable with Spielberg. I think the main problem with KOTCS was Lucas. He kept pressing for more CGI while Spielberg was pressing for more practical effects. Not only that, but Lucas is the one who kept flubbing up the story and tweaking it with his retarded ass ideas.

Anyway, for Indy 5, I hope Spielberg goes back to his "80s" ways, as far as aesthentics go. If JJ can make Super 8 look like 80s Spielberg, then Spielberg should be able to make Indy 5 look like 80s Spielberg.

As for the story..... I am afraid. As long as Lucas is in charge, it's probably not going to be up to par with the original three. I don't know why they can't be more daring like how they were for TOD. That, and bring back Kasdan to write it.

(y) I quite agree with you. (y)
 

kongisking

Active member
DoomsdayFAN said:
Oh God! I loath Peter Jackson's King Kong. (n) Jackson would be one of the last people I'd want to take over Indy. HA! The film would be like 95% CGI. :sick:

If this was a perfect world and I could hand pick any director to take over Indy, it would probably be Christopher Nolan. That dude is known for his practical effects and masterful storytelling; which is just what we need... An Indy adventure which uses as many practical effects as possible, while using CGI ONLY to enhance and touch up the practical effects. Not to mention I believe he could bring us the next Raiders. :gun:


But I am still comfortable with Spielberg. I think the main problem with KOTCS was Lucas. He kept pressing for more CGI while Spielberg was pressing for more practical effects. Not only that, but Lucas is the one who kept flubbing up the story and tweaking it with his retarded ass ideas.

Anyway, for Indy 5, I hope Spielberg goes back to his "80s" ways, as far as aesthentics go. If JJ can make Super 8 look like 80s Spielberg, then Spielberg should be able to make Indy 5 look like 80s Spielberg.

As for the story..... I am afraid. As long as Lucas is in charge, it's probably not going to be up to par with the original three. I don't know why they can't be more daring like how they were for TOD. That, and bring back Kasdan to write it.

Um, not to sound like a smart-aleck, dude, but how else would you create a giant gorilla, giant dinosaurs, giant insects, a completely alien jungle, New York in the 1930's, etc.? Sorry, but your argument is flawed. Oh, that AND you insulted the mighty King, so yeah... :p But here's the good news: I think Nolan is a brilliant, brilliant, brilliant man as well. So at least there we can be friends. :hat:

And thanks for agreeing with me, Montana Smith. It's a damn shame you live in the UK, cause I'd totally be down for Extended Edition marathons with you. That swamp sequence was pretty *****in' wasn't it? :cool:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
kongisking said:
And thanks for agreeing with me, Montana Smith. It's a damn shame you live in the UK, cause I'd totally be down for Extended Edition marathons with you. That swamp sequence was pretty *****in' wasn't it? :cool:

Bah, these MTV kids want everything over in 5 minutes these days! :p

Jackson takes you on a journey, and if you're up for it, and into the subject matter, it's a journey you don't want to end. I wish Spielberg and Lucas had shown that much care and attention in KOTCS...
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
Bah, these MTV kids want everything over in 5 minutes these days! :p

Jackson takes you on a journey, and if you're up for it, and into the subject matter, it's a journey you don't want to end. I wish Spielberg and Lucas had shown that much care and attention in KOTCS...

You liked Jackson's King Kong Montana???
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
You liked Jackson's King Kong Montana???

It's one of my favourite movies. It's pretty faithful to the original story and it's sentiment, and what's not to like about a giant gorilla, dinosaurs, and a 1930s tramp steamer heading off to a remote island?
 
Top