A radically different idea for Indy Five.

gabbagabbahey

New member
Well, yes & no. Yes, because it would be radically different because as far as I know nobody has tried this before with a major release, but no because it would be based on the classic pulp formula.

They shoot the whole thing at once, but break it down into four, one hour "mini movies", then, release them one week apart in chronological order. Of course, each "episode" leaves you hanging so you come back & watch the next one to see what happens. Because in the end you have a 4 hour long movie they could pretty much pull out all the stops for the final Indiana Jones release.

The movies would have special admission pricing, say, $4.99, so that you don't turn people off too much because they have to keep coming back to see what happens. In the end though, the producers/theaters are bringing in $20 for the release instead of the usual $8 (or whatever).

Is it a risk? Hell yeah. Could it work? Hell yeah. Sometimes you have to think outside the box & blaze some trails. If any series could pull it off it would be the Indy series, which was practically born to be released this way.

Remember, you heard it hear first. : )

Thoughts?
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
I think it's a really good idea but I don't think the market place will be amenable to it, only because of the format used so far. I think a week apart is too close. Maybe two weeks or a month to allow for a long enough season for each installment. The critics will be cynical and suspicious as to this new approach before it hits the screen. But I do agree with you that someone should be a trailblazer and try it. The more I think about it, the more I like it. It would have advantages everywhere.
 
The inherent problem is the audience capping with the first film. Lucasfilm would no doubt make theatres sign up for all four films, and, even with word of mouth, films 2-4 would only draw the same amount as did film one, and if that installment didn't do well they'd be handcuffed into three more underperforming flicks.
 

gabbagabbahey

New member
neverAcquiesce said:
The inherent problem is the audience capping with the first film. Lucasfilm would no doubt make theatres sign up for all four films, and, even with word of mouth, films 2-4 would only draw the same amount as did film one, and if that installment didn't do well they'd be handcuffed into three more underperforming flicks.


Yes, it's a gamble. But it has potentially big payoffs for everyone & let's be real, this Indy we're talking about. The appeal of the character & series goes way beyond this forum.
 

The Drifter

New member
I think that is a damn good idea!
It would be a very ballsy move, but one that I could see working. But, instead of a week apart, make it more like two.
But what of the person who missed the first sequence and lost his chance to see it when the second rolled around? That would be a lost viewer. I wonder how they could handle that dilemma?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
1) Like Indy's brother said, your screen name is brilliant, gabbagabbahey. The RAMONES!(y)

2) Your 4-chapter Indy 5 idea is less than brilliant because it would be finished within one, brief month.

Splitting up a new, 4 hour Indy movie into *15 minute* segments would be the way to go. Think of the dollar$ that could earned if placed before these future classics:

Chapter 01: shown before "The Dark Knob Rises"
Chapter 02: shown before "Lara Croft Sucks"
Chapter 03: shown before "Avengers 2: Spandex Champions"
Chapter 04: shown before "Iron Man 7: Stark Naked"
Chapter 05: shown before "Miss Congeniality 5"
Chapter 06: shown before "Wall-E Three"
Chapter 07: shown before "Winnie the Pooh, too."
Chapter 08: shown before "Thor 4: Lord of Bore"
Chapter 09: shown before "Avengers 3: Master Baiters"
Chapter 10: shown before "The Dark Knight Sucks"
Chapter 11: shown before "Fantasic Foursome"
Chapter 12: shown before "Disney Does Everyone!"
Chapter 13: shown before "Toy Story 6: Ken Loves Ken"
Chapter 14: shown before "Lara Croft Sucks Again"
Chapter 15: shown before "The Dark Knight Always Sucks"
Chapter 16: shown before "Captain America 3: Tulip Tiptoe"

At 15 minutes each, this would equal 4 hours of Indy...and generate lot$ and lot$ of ca$h.:p
 

gabbagabbahey

New member
The Drifter said:
But what of the person who missed the first sequence and lost his chance to see it when the second rolled around? That would be a lost viewer. I wonder how they could handle that dilemma?


Anymore most cinemas are multiplex's. Have one of the theaters rotating between the already released segments so people could catch up.
 

The Drifter

New member
gabbagabbahey said:
Anymore most cinemas are multiplex's. Have one of the theaters rotating between the already released segments so people could catch up.

I'm sure there would be other films to already fill those screens, however.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
It is a radical idea, in terms of today's cinema, and it does go back to the original premise.

Since Stewie started the Cliffhanger thread I've been wondering about the practicalities of visiting a cinema 15 weeks in a row at any time during the 1930s-50s, with consideration to economics, travel and timing (which are the three factors would still apply today).

Did the original serials play on their own, or as a lead-in to a feature? Today if they did so, there would be films that people weren't interested in, so they'd have to pay the full exhorbitant price just to see the serial part.

In today's market a film split into cliffhanger parts would find itself more at home on DVD than in a cinema.
 

gabbagabbahey

New member
A couple more thoughts. The first three are stand alone stories but they all interconnect in some clever way in #4. Think Pulp Fiction (the movie).

Secondly, theaters would pre-sell tickets for all four parts as a package, say, $20.00 in advance (start selling tickets 6 months before it comes out) that would come with a special limited edition promotional item (Tee Shirt/poster/faux prop whatever). That way they've presold x number of tickets before the first one even shows. That eliminates the potential "The first one sucked so I'm not going to buy tickets to the other three." problem. Cut the theaters in on that & they'd be happy.

I really believe in this concept. How do I pitch it to the powers that be? Seriously.
 
Last edited:

gabbagabbahey

New member
Montana Smith said:
It is a radical idea, in terms of today's cinema, and it does go back to the original premise.

Since Stewie started the Cliffhanger thread I've been wondering about the practicalities of visiting a cinema 15 weeks in a row at any time during the 1930s-50s, with consideration to economics, travel and timing (which are the three factors would still apply today).

Did the original serials play on their own, or as a lead-in to a feature? Today if they did so, there would be films that people weren't interested in, so they'd have to pay the full exhorbitant price just to see the serial part.

In today's market a film split into cliffhanger parts would find itself more at home on DVD than in a cinema.

I think 15 parts is a non starter. But four, stand alone short (1 hour) pictures that have a special, reduced price? And released close enough ( 1 or 2 weeks) apart to keep the interest up? Like I said, I really believe in this. It's radical, it's old, it's new, it's something different. They'd either walk out of this as heros or zeros & I'm saying if the films are good they're heros.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
gabbagabbahey said:
I think 15 parts is a non starter. But four, stand alone short (1 hour) pictures that have a special, reduced price? And released close enough ( 1 or 2 weeks) apart to keep the interest up? Like I said, I really believe in this. It's radical, it's old, it's new, it's something different. They'd either walk out of this as heros or zeros & I'm saying if the films are good they're heros.

Four parts would be a reasonable limit, and it would also be a great selling point.

gabbagabbahey said:
The first three are stand alone stories but they all interconnect in some clever way in #4. Think Pulp Fiction (the movie).

To be true to the original serial concept, the first three would need cliffhanger endings. But in the age of the internet, keeping the escapes secret before you see them will be difficult.

gabbagabbahey said:
I really believe in this concept. How do I pitch it to the powers that be? Seriously.

You'd have to get to Lucas and Spielberg before they hand Indy over to Disney who'll release back-to-back two hour movies entitled Indiana Jones: The Prairie Dogs' Story and Indiana Jones: The Monkeys' Story.


Stoo said:
Chapter 01: shown before "The Dark Knob Rises"

Blaxploitation?

Stoo said:
Chapter 02: shown before "Lara Croft Sucks"

Sexploitation?


:D
 

gabbagabbahey

New member
Montana Smith said:
To be true to the original serial concept, the first three would need cliffhanger endings. But in the age of the internet, keeping the escapes secret before you see them will be difficult.


Good point. It would be hard to have them be both cliff hangers and stand alone films at the same time. Now, they need to each be enjoyable viewed seperately but yes, they need to stay connected to tell one, whole story.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
gabbagabbahey said:
Good point. It would be hard to have them be both cliff hangers and stand alone films at the same time. Now, they need to each be enjoyable viewed seperately but yes, they need to stay connected to tell one, whole story.

The selling point, then and now, is that you're compelled to see all the parts. A four-ticket package bought in advance at a reduced price, as you suggested, would be the way to go.
 

Crack that whip

New member
It's a lovely idea, it really is, and I hate to throw a wet blanket on a lovely idea, but I think the reality is that this probably couldn't happen, even if Lucas and Spielberg got hold of the idea and really wanted to do it themselves. For it to happen would require cooperation across the entire industry - not just Lucasfilm and Paramount, but all the theater companies and all the individual theaters - on a restructuring of their current standard exhibition practices, for a single project. I'd dearly love to be wrong, but I don't think this would work, alas.
:(
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
re Crackthatwhip, I think it would be a simple logistical extension of how movies are currently distributed and scheduled. Do it ahead of time, which they do anyway, and they could easily organise it. It's only time slots and meshing them with other new releases. Because it will go over an extended amount of time, release over a holiday period would be the way to go.
 

gabbagabbahey

New member
Yes, also you have to consider because these would be just 1 hr pics the theaters may well be willing to sign up because they can get a showing in, out & over in an hour & a half, which means they could have an extra showing or two a day.
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
I think this is a really interesting idea, but surely it's one crying out for a legit digital download system? I know the studios continue to be reluctant to keep up with technology, but this kind of episodic filmmaking would be perfectly suited for video on demand?
 
Top