Montana Smith
Active member
Nurhachi1991 said:
At this point I would rather just work through my seven-and-a-half-foot mountain of discs still to watch.
Indy 5 news 2012
- Thread starter Moedred
- Start date
At this point I would rather just work through my seven-and-a-half-foot mountain of discs still to watch.
Henry Jones VII
Active member
Pale Horse said:
Indy's brother
New member
replican't
Guest
Mickiana said:
So, two hours of Indy trying to retrieve the Sacred Biscuit of The Hobnobs that he mistakenly dunks in his tea while watching Countdown?
Hey George - I got a great McGuffin for ya!
Montana Smith
Active member
replican't said:
Hobnobs don't dunk well.
They make a hell of mess.
But then so did George and Bib Fortuna the last time they took Indy out to play.
Hobnobs must therefore be quite high on the possible MCGuffin list.
Hanselation
New member
Chase Sequence Stunts
Anyway - if Indiana Jones 5 with Harrison ever will be realized, I will watch it in any case.
- and I believe much more than one time.
Not any stunt needs to have an young actor.
For instance let's talk about a boat chase: The suspense does inevitable not depend on the physical fitness of the actors, but on how the sequence will be filmed. Indy should be able to walk, to talk, to grip and to do a punch, but with Steven Spielbergs talent to turn these kind of stunts into thrilling sequences, this shouldn't be a problem.
Anyway - if Indiana Jones 5 with Harrison ever will be realized, I will watch it in any case.
- and I believe much more than one time.
Not any stunt needs to have an young actor.
For instance let's talk about a boat chase: The suspense does inevitable not depend on the physical fitness of the actors, but on how the sequence will be filmed. Indy should be able to walk, to talk, to grip and to do a punch, but with Steven Spielbergs talent to turn these kind of stunts into thrilling sequences, this shouldn't be a problem.
Montana Smith
Active member
Hanselation said:
Lucas would, of course, be counting on the rubber neckers again for ticket sales. If it's a really big accident he'll catch them looking twice.
Dr Bones
New member
Frank Marshall's comment is the last piece of "news" we've seen in a couple of months, so that's all we can go on for now.
?I say, for me, [Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is] the last hurrah. I know that yes, we talk about it, but there?s no idea, there?s no MacGuffin.?
I'd say given the general response to the last movie and Harrison's age (and the fanbase age) Indy 5 is dead in the water.
My nephews lap up new star wars etc but Indy doesn't interest them.
The movie industry is still pandering to kids, teens and tweens, so we get more Twilight, Hunger Games etc.
A franchise that has barely made a peep in 20 years.....too much of a gamble after the last one.
I also don't think there is anyone with enough talent, capability or interest in this old genre to make a decent Indy 5 today. Speilberg and Lucas have lost their youthful edge IMO.
They don't make em like they used to, and never will.
Out with a wimper I'm afraid.
But I'd love to be wrong on this.
?I say, for me, [Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is] the last hurrah. I know that yes, we talk about it, but there?s no idea, there?s no MacGuffin.?
I'd say given the general response to the last movie and Harrison's age (and the fanbase age) Indy 5 is dead in the water.
My nephews lap up new star wars etc but Indy doesn't interest them.
The movie industry is still pandering to kids, teens and tweens, so we get more Twilight, Hunger Games etc.
A franchise that has barely made a peep in 20 years.....too much of a gamble after the last one.
I also don't think there is anyone with enough talent, capability or interest in this old genre to make a decent Indy 5 today. Speilberg and Lucas have lost their youthful edge IMO.
They don't make em like they used to, and never will.
Out with a wimper I'm afraid.
But I'd love to be wrong on this.
replican't
Guest
Moedred said:
If only he'd been true to his word back then.
Montana Smith
Active member
Dr Bones said:
Nothing since 1989.
And even the ones he did have were pastiche/parody/homage because he couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon.
However, while there's very little that isn't inspired by something already existing, what Lucas did do in the '70s and '80s, he did it well.
Come the '90s and noughties he's reworking his own output and producing bland and uninspired work.
It's no surprise he decided to move away from 'blockbusters' to concentrate on smaller projects.
The name he made for himself in the '70s and '80s when working with smaller budgets or limited resources (i.e. without today's level of CGI) forced him to be more creative and discerning.
The Star Wars prequels were bland exercises driven by digital capabilities, largely at the expense of dialogue, character and emotion.
The onus of creating 'Indy 5' invariably calls for something bigger and more expansive. Yet Indy (and Star Wars) was more interesting when confined by the limits of film-making, and processes that existed in more than just the virtual world.
For me a blockbuster should be more than a series of pretty pictures, to which character is a mere intrusion amid the spectacle.
Lucas showed his hand in 1997 when he began chipping away at his 'classics'. KOTCS was a poor retread/pastiche of the previous three films.
To paraphrase Grand Moff Tarkin, "the fire has gone out of George's universe". To preserve the embers that remain, it's best he leaves Indy well alone.
Unless poor parody is enough to satisfy the addicts. A temporary fix.
A Faustian pact.
Not that I really care what George does with Indy. It doesn't have to be seen, but its existence (as with KOTCS) will no doubt diminish the integrity and intention of the original trilogy.
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
Mickiana said:
Haven't agreed with anyone or anything so completely since I said I Do.
I think the Digital IMAX reviews support this idea as well.
Usually the cartoon comes first! I'm curious how the others fare after the Marathon...and after Raiders.
Montana Smith
Active member
Mickiana said:
"Bastard children" was a very apt analogy, Mick, for it was Mutt who I associate with sullying the name of Indiana Jones.
Any more bastard children and the old man will pluck out an eye to prevent himself bearing witness to the travesty!
Rocket Surgeon said:
Eric Solo said:
A casualty of association?
I can only wonder why there were only 5 people watching Raiders on the IMAX screen. Was it because it was dinner time? Has CS stunted expectations on Indiana Jones at least from a younger audience? Have the generation who grew up with Indy just seen it enough times on DVD or Blueray at home to not warrant an excursion to the cinema to see an old favourite, albeit wonderfully restored?
We have an IMAX screen in my home town, Brisbane, that is not used for the IMAX 3D format anymore, but seeing movies on that whopping screen is fantastic, especially good movies. If Raiders were to be shown on it, in all its restoration glory, I would be there like a shot. But I'm not sure what size audience it might draw.
I haven't asked any young people what they thought of CS and Indiana Jones in general, but I can't see that CS would have impacted a younger (or older) generation like Raiders did when it first burst on the silver screen in '81. Raiders beautifully rode the line of believability and thus created great suspense. CS broke the cardinal rule of portraying believability, among other things, and did not have the same suspense.
CS made squillions anyway and I believe an Indy 5, no matter how bad, would still make money because the name 'Indiana Jones' still has plenty of box office clout. The mimicry of Raiders and references to by its own descendants only says the makers will not put in the same effort and aspire to the same quality that produced Raiders.
We don't want the same movie, we want the same quality. But, if an Indy 5 is made, I can only expect a continuation in the tradition of descending effort (psychological, not physical) and quality. I would love my expectations to be shattered!
We have an IMAX screen in my home town, Brisbane, that is not used for the IMAX 3D format anymore, but seeing movies on that whopping screen is fantastic, especially good movies. If Raiders were to be shown on it, in all its restoration glory, I would be there like a shot. But I'm not sure what size audience it might draw.
I haven't asked any young people what they thought of CS and Indiana Jones in general, but I can't see that CS would have impacted a younger (or older) generation like Raiders did when it first burst on the silver screen in '81. Raiders beautifully rode the line of believability and thus created great suspense. CS broke the cardinal rule of portraying believability, among other things, and did not have the same suspense.
CS made squillions anyway and I believe an Indy 5, no matter how bad, would still make money because the name 'Indiana Jones' still has plenty of box office clout. The mimicry of Raiders and references to by its own descendants only says the makers will not put in the same effort and aspire to the same quality that produced Raiders.
We don't want the same movie, we want the same quality. But, if an Indy 5 is made, I can only expect a continuation in the tradition of descending effort (psychological, not physical) and quality. I would love my expectations to be shattered!
I don't think Ford's age matters at all. One of Skull's mistakes was making a big deal out of his age, having Mutt call him "old man" and stuff. Calling attention to it diminished the Indy character unnecessarily. As they said in the promos for the movie, Ford didn't look much different in the costume than he did back in 1989. And when he was doing his (too few) big action scenes, the fights with Dovchenko in particular, they were completely convincing.
Spielberg shot 80% of the Temple of Doom conveyer belt fight with a stuntman because Ford was injured. This is called movie magic. The action Indiana Jones did on screen was always spectacularly impossible to do in real life. There's no reason to hold back on that to try and reflect what a man can "really do" at that age. What he did in the earlier films wasn't what a man could really do at those ages either.
One thing's true about Lucas' films. They have always used state-of-the-art special effects techniques. So to think that CGI is somehow wrong for Indy, it's not. They didn't hold back on possible effects technology in the original films so they shouldn't hold back on the new ones out of some misguided sense of "tradition."
Skull's problems had nothing to do with the actors, the effects, the directing or any of its conceptual ideas, including the aliens. It had everything to do with the final screenplay, which appears to have been the work of David Koepp. The problems with this screenplay are absolutely endless...poor structure with little foreshadowing or callback moments, slow pacing, long stretches of story with no threats or excitement, subplots that go nowhere, too much expository dialogue that doesn't build character, too many characters (especially the awful Mac, ugh), a lack of suspense due to a failure to establish the ground rules of the supernatural artifact, a lack of clever ideas and moments, recycled moments from and gratuitous references to the other films, etc. Koepp has been doing bad screenwriting since at least the first Jurassic Park, a movie that had as much potential as Crystal Skull yet suffered from the same all-around weak writing. With better writing, a new Indy sequel could be a lot better than Crystal Skull. The series needs a "hungry" writer to give it fresh inspiration, not a fat and happy Hollywood hack like Koepp.
Spielberg shot 80% of the Temple of Doom conveyer belt fight with a stuntman because Ford was injured. This is called movie magic. The action Indiana Jones did on screen was always spectacularly impossible to do in real life. There's no reason to hold back on that to try and reflect what a man can "really do" at that age. What he did in the earlier films wasn't what a man could really do at those ages either.
One thing's true about Lucas' films. They have always used state-of-the-art special effects techniques. So to think that CGI is somehow wrong for Indy, it's not. They didn't hold back on possible effects technology in the original films so they shouldn't hold back on the new ones out of some misguided sense of "tradition."
Skull's problems had nothing to do with the actors, the effects, the directing or any of its conceptual ideas, including the aliens. It had everything to do with the final screenplay, which appears to have been the work of David Koepp. The problems with this screenplay are absolutely endless...poor structure with little foreshadowing or callback moments, slow pacing, long stretches of story with no threats or excitement, subplots that go nowhere, too much expository dialogue that doesn't build character, too many characters (especially the awful Mac, ugh), a lack of suspense due to a failure to establish the ground rules of the supernatural artifact, a lack of clever ideas and moments, recycled moments from and gratuitous references to the other films, etc. Koepp has been doing bad screenwriting since at least the first Jurassic Park, a movie that had as much potential as Crystal Skull yet suffered from the same all-around weak writing. With better writing, a new Indy sequel could be a lot better than Crystal Skull. The series needs a "hungry" writer to give it fresh inspiration, not a fat and happy Hollywood hack like Koepp.