General Indy 5 Thread - rumors and possibilities

Honestly...will there be another Indy film in the next decade?


  • Total voters
    148

Darth Vile

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Well said...

I don't expect them to be the films, but with the name Indiana Jones I seem to expect more then what I've seen. I'm cutting to the chase and should be getting the Masks of Evil disk from Netflix soon. I figure put two things, maybe three, I obsess over together and I might be more amenable!

Just to set your expectations... I thought Masks of Evil was one of the most disappointing episodes. Sort of reminds me of that early Indy III draft involving the haunted Scottish castle.
 

JP Jones

New member
Darth Vile said:
Just to set your expectations... I thought Masks of Evil was one of the most disappointing episodes. Sort of reminds me of that early Indy III draft involving the haunted Scottish castle.
Your absoloutly right that one was pretty bad
 
Darth Vile said:
Just to set your expectations... I thought Masks of Evil was one of the most disappointing episodes. Sort of reminds me of that early Indy III draft involving the haunted Scottish castle.

What do you recommend?

mr.kotcs said:
Your absoloutly right that one was pretty bad

Yeah, you too...what do YOU recommend...?
 

Darth Vile

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
What do you recommend?


I?m not a big connoisseur of TYIJC, and it?s been a couple of years since I last saw them? So forgive me if I get titles mixed up etc. For a couple that don?t look and feel like Indiana Jones at all, but stand up on their own right as something different? Mystery of the Blues, Tales of Innocence and Love?s Sweet Song are quite good. For something a little more ?Indy?, Daredevils of the Desert, Phantom Train of Doom and Treasure of the Peacock's Eye.
 
Stoo said:
:confused: ??? The abundance of Go-Motion in "Doom" is a well-documented fact. (Do you really need reference for that?)
Yes. Provide the documentation Stoo, please! If it's SO Well Documented it should be easy. right?

Stoo said:
Don't blow things out of proportion, Rocket. I am not "marginalizing" the ENTIRE book.
I'm not, but is it better that you're just marginalizing the part the debunks your claim?

Stoo said:
Remember, you asked me to "interpret" the statements on those 2 pages and that's precisely what I did.
...and as I feared it seems you're lost in translation!:p

Stoo said:
Re: Rocket Surgeon, "Your fandom seems to blind your reason"
---
Fandom of Starlog?
No, your fandom period.


Stoo said:
The issue had quotes from an animator and is not the only source of info regarding pre-"Dragonslayer" Go-Motion. (It's just the only one I can remember clearly and can pinpoint.)
What ever you say is the truth, it only goes to reason that your memories are enough to refute a text book!:rolleyes:

Stoo said:
Re: Rocket Surgeon, "Induced blur is NOT Go-Motion. It's a technique unto itself,"
---
I never claimed that it was. Please read again:

Induced blur is not a "technique" (as you called it). It's an "effect" and there are various "techniques" that can be used to achieve it. (Honestly, Rocket, if you're trying to educate me about animation then you can save your breath.);)
No, but I can see, with the way you parse things, how you would think so.

Stoo said:
And...so...what? This is extremely weak. There are other "tasks" missing from the list, too (which is another example of simplification in the text of the ILM book). So according to you, if the "task" is not in that short paragraph, then it was never done?
No, please do not put "words in my posts" so to say. It's a fruitless task to try and prove a negative, why do you persist in asking me to?

Stoo said:
The brief list on this page is NOT complete so it can't be treated as gospel. Doing so only limits your view of the larger picture.
I never proported that it was all inclusive, yet for the sake of economy in writing it would have been simple and easy to note the beginnings of go-motion...which they did, Dragonslayer.

Really Stoo, the book plainly says, (and as you like to obsess...kiddiefied, so a child should be able to understand it) that at the time they were filming ESB Go-Motion was a thing of the future. You can recall whatever you choose, but it does NOT change that line of text.

Stoo said:
I was hoping this would be a sane and rational conversation but instead you type this garbage? (FYI, I don't even own "Off the Beaten Path".) Be real and not Herman Munster!
It was meant as an attempt at levity, I don't presume to know what you own...the shot was aimed squarely at the book and it's flaws.

Stoo said:
:confused:??? It proves that Go-Motion started with "Empire". Your reply proves that you'll spin anything to discredit the evidence and suit yourself .
...and Space Ghost proves there are Ghosts in Space.

I'm not spinning any thing...I'm quoting a book by and about the artists who created the effects. I'm affraid it's you who are spinning. You have no proof, just hearsay and recollections.


Stoo said:
The invention of Go-Mo was not an accidental "discovery" by ILM. The process was an intentional solution for creating blur with the latest technology (hence, "modern trick").
Provide a source that proves it was used in Raiders. You got that remote Indy fine, come on!

Stoo said:
To repeat, the method was already ESTABLISHED and had THE NAME, "go-motion", BEFORE the device for "Dragonslayer" was even built . The DEVICE was built in order to perfect the process and use it in a more controlled manner. Why is this so hard for someone of your intelligence to understand? It's not rocket science, Rocket Surgeon.
No it's not. It's simple lines from a text book, not some mish mashed collection of memories all stirred up in a stew, stoo!

Stoo said:
Wow. Rocket did some googling and gave himself a crash-course on animation blur. Nice try but you've excluded some other methods (which I guess DON'T EXIST because, according to your logic, they weren't mentioned in your internet search.) If you're feeling so Google Happy, why not do a search for Go-Motion in "Empire"?
Again I'm not tring to be inclusive but to at LEAST provide some basis other then foggy memories for my assertions!

Stoo said:
Now you've completely lost scope. Creating a blur effect with the use of a motion-control system (designed by ILM) is the VERY BASIS of Go-Motion! If you're going to dismiss the relevant quotes from your own ILM book with cheap shots about my ability to "walk before running", then it's quite clear you still have a lot to learn.
Yes, the VERY basis...ahem The walk before the run.

Stoo said:
I run quite well, thanks, but you're either still crawling or your legs have failed and you've nothing left to stand on.
You're taking this VERY personally, but simply saying this means you've simply said things. Talk is cheap...provide a reference and proof other then interpretations and memories.

Stoo said:
There's no "redefining" going on. The problem here is your misunderstanding & definition of what Go-Motion actually is. (Have you reviewed the jeep shot with an objective eye, as suggested?)

Have you found ANY shred of proof to support your game of Jenga?


Stoo said:
Re: Remote controlled periscope Indy
---
Erm...You said "I've NEVER read that before. Where did you get that one?" but now it has become "I didn't remember that..." Talk about revisionist...:rolleyes:
Uh, they're not mutually exclusive statement sweetheart. Instead of picking a point of concession, why don't you try to prove you irrational statements!

Stoo said:
Your whole post doesn't provide anything other than disparaging comments and a completely pointless "lesson" on known, motion-blur techniques of the past. It's a mystery as to why you choose to ignore & disrespect what I've presented, all the while displaying unabashed belligerence.
Well, you're taking things the wrong way, which is to be expected they way you "interpret" the text of the book.

Stoo said:
You want to "fight" but you have nothing to "fight" with other than 2 skimpy sentences from the ILM book
...and you're coming to this gun fight with a knife, a plasic one at that which has been left in the heat too long and is quite limp.

:gun:



Hmmm, your "memories" or an ILM book, hmmmm...Stoo's opinion or a documented fact? Hmmmm...

Stoo said:
and a repetative barrage of condescending insults. Way to go, Rocket...
(singing) "If you don't know me by now..."

Really, you should lighten up!

Stoo said:
Until you realize/acknowledge that Go-Motion began with "Empire", continuing this conversation about the "Raiders" shot is futile. I can't believe you're actually arguing about this.

Sorry, I'm just not going to take your word on something that a ILM book refutes.

Stoo said:
As for the "Starlog" quotes, I can't provide them because they're sitting in a box in storage very far away. (However, I did point out the exact issue, #37, so go buy it off ebay and read it.):whip:

I did my research...not going to do yours sweetheart!
 

Stoo

Well-known member
:confused: Oy, you're still on this? If it were anybody else doing the same, you'd tell them it was a "cold meal", etc. but you've no shame in regurgitating a subject we were politely asked to abandon.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Yes. Provide the documentation Stoo, please! If it's SO Well Documented it should be easy. right?
If you can't find information about Go-Motion in "Doom" on your own (especially on one of the pages you asked me to look at) then there's a job waiting at a cuckoo clock store just down the street.:rolleyes:

You've dissected my entire post in order to demand the same thing, over & over. You NEED written evidence. Why? Because of this below?
Rocket Surgeon said:
I so wanted to use Go-Motion for a trivia question,but really felt after reading this a few times and others dashing my dreams,I could find NO positive link to anything but Dragonslayer and Jedi.
Allow me to explain something: For most of the year, I live in another country and do not have access to all my personal belongings at the drop of a hat. (Do you require proof of that, too?) Please, don't expect me to fly home in order to rifle through my library and do the legwork for one of your trivia questions. "You no nuts. You cwazy!" It's clear that you don't fully understand the evolution of this ILM techinque or what exactly constitutes Go-Motion because, otherwise, you would not be perpetuating this debate. I could give a detailed explanation but it would fall on deaf ears, therefore, I have neither the energy nor the desire to do so.

Tomorrow, I'm off to Italy for a week so in the meantime, brush up on your knowledge, read the passages I quoted, watch the "Raiders" shot closely...and use your brain.
 

Zorg

New member
mr.kotcs said:
if steven and george want to make a movie for the fans they need to bring short round back. since this is around the time of the start of the vietnam war this could be a possibility.

I like the possibilities here. Maybe Indy could team up with his old friend to rescue something valuable from falling into the hands of... communists! It's perfect, it keeps the commies as villains -approach of KOTCS, with a new twist.

And as you'll see from the history books (and/or Wikipedia :) ) the Vietnam War began as early as 1959. Of course the U.S. got involved later, but hey, that doesn't matter.

Earlier the idea of bringing Indy to the sixties seemed a little too much, but maybe this could be the way. Just set the story in the very end of the fifties or the early sixties.
 
Stoo said:
:confused: Oy, you're still on this? If it were anybody else doing the same, you'd tell them it was a "cold meal", etc. but you've no shame in regurgitating a subject we were politely asked to abandon.
Shame? Interesting choice. Unless you ask any more questions, this should be my last...(maybe).

Stoo said:
If you can't find information about Go-Motion in "Doom" on your own (especially on one of the pages you asked me to look at) then there's a job waiting at a cuckoo clock store just down the street.:rolleyes:
I've found definitive proof, of the contrary. I'm just asking you to provide support for your claims.

Stoo said:
You've dissected my entire post in order to demand the same thing, over & over.
No, to clarify your "misinterpretations?, and get to the point at hand.

Stoo said:
You NEED written evidence.
Yes.
Stoo said:
Why? Because of this below?
No. As you're so fond of recalling Starlog entries from over twenty five years ago, it?s merely another example of how your memory can't be trusted, (not that I'd value a Starlog entry more than an ILM book anyway!) I WANTED, (past tense) to use it as a question. A statement which goes to support my RESEARCH into the subject. You brazenly state it's WELL DOCUMENTED, yet can provide nothing. I could find no support for your claims either...but welcomed your references, (plural).

Stoo said:
Allow me to explain something: For most of the year, I live in another country and do not have access to all my personal belongings at the drop of a hat. (Do you require proof of that, too?)
Why not...I'm willing to bet it's well documented.;) I bet you can prove that!

Stoo said:
Please, don't expect me to fly home in order to rifle through my library and do the legwork for one of your trivia questions.
Again you're providing me with a WEALTH of insight into your approach and comprehension of the written word, (which is why I NEED written proof). I think I've clarified my response to your silly proposition already.

Stoo said:
"You no nuts. You cwazy!" It's clear that you don't fully understand the evolution of this ILM techinque or what exactly constitutes Go-Motion because, otherwise, you would not be perpetuating this debate.
What is clear is that you would rather obfuscate the discussion then admit even the possibility of being wrong. Again it boils down to your word against ILM's. Hmmmm.

Stoo said:
I could give a detailed explanation but it would fall on deaf ears, therefore, I have neither the energy nor the desire to do so.
Besides Starlog it's WELL DOCUMENTED! Just cite these sources. By the way Starlog is the nerds "Teen" magazine and I believe the veracity of the content should be considered so,(since you enjoy the kidddie-fied stuff!). Did you have the "pull-out posters" tacked to your walls? At least the ILM book had the 18 year old's tri-fold. :eek:
Is it so hard to understand I've read your explanations and now only ask you to provide proof as I've done. I don't want more of YOUR explanations. It's wholly unnecessary!

Stoo said:
Tomorrow, I'm off to Italy for a week so in the meantime, brush up on your knowledge, read the passages I quoted, watch the "Raiders" shot closely...and use your brain.

Have a safe trip and use some of that flight time to study the differences in these two words: opinion and fact.:hat:

So far still no modern tricks in Raiders...
I hope they stop relying on them for Indy V!
 
Aww, Stoo!

Don't go! I'm a wee man, you're a wee woman, lets make wee ones together and be...wee-ful! :p

Sorry if you're getting bent, you truly seem like a decent person.

CRAZY! but decent.:hat:
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
A few pages back HJJNR mentions Indy 5 at IMDB, where it says it is in development. Is that information dependable or is it no better than a rumor?
 

Johnny Nys

Member
Technically speaking, if they're still thinking of a story they are in development, but that doesn't mean the movie will get made automatically. Also, everyone can alter IMDb information ...
 

HJJNR

New member
Mickiana said:
A few pages back HJJNR mentions Indy 5 at IMDB, where it says it is in development. Is that information dependable or is it no better than a rumor?

Yeah I did, I was just responding to an earlier post which listed all of Spielbergs projects for the next few years on IMDB so I thought I'd look how reliable that information was by searching for Indy 5and thats what came up... How reliable is it? Not very I guess!
:)
 

caats

New member
well it being there means something. it isn't wikipedia. all that stuff has to be approved by someone i think. and it's falling under "IMDB Pro only" which means you have to pay to see any info. usually a good sign even if nothing is there.
 

HJJNR

New member
caats said:
well it being there means something. it isn't wikipedia. all that stuff has to be approved by someone i think. and it's falling under "IMDB Pro only" which means you have to pay to see any info. usually a good sign even if nothing is there.

Has anyone got paid membership that can give us 'more info'?
 

Cole

New member
I'm just entering this convo, so forgive me if I'm repeating....

Fairly shortly after 'Skull' was released, Lucas was reported being in "think mode." Then in October around the time when the DVD came out, Ford said Lucas had a "crazy" idea, but also said it was "great." Ford also added something interesting to note - he said only Indy's family (and Ox) witness what he saw at the end of 'Skull.'

Then everything was pretty quiet on the western front until this past June when Shia LaBoeuf said that Spielberg had "cracked" the story for an Indy 5. Spielberg has since confirmed and said they certainly won't wait another 20 years (obviously).

You would think the next step that they are currently working on would be to get a script together.

At this point, from all accounts, an Indy V seems entirely possible.
 

Cole

New member
Beings how much I loved 'Skull,' of course I'm looking forward to an Indy V.........and I think it has the potential to be better than 'Skull.'

One, it wouldn't have to deal with all the baggage of "Indy's back after 20 years."

Two, it probably won't have aliens, much to the delight of many.

Three, I'm very anxious to see this "crazy, but great" idea of Lucas's. And if Ford and Spielberg have jumped on board so quickly, they must be seeing eye-to-eye pretty closely. 'Crystal Skull' had a plotline that was generally pretty similar to the first 3, so I'm all for something new to the series.
 

James

Well-known member
Cole said:
I'm very anxious to see this "crazy, but great" idea of Lucas's.

Unfortunately, I think Ford may have been referring to the idea of making another film at his age- rather than any specific storyline. (As in, "Yes, we're actually thinking about doing another. I realize it's a crazy idea to be considering, but it's also a lot of fun.")

However, I do agree with you that Indy 5 seems to have a good chance of happening. For one, it's a rumor that was largely started by Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford way back at Cannes. Most fans weren't even thinking that far ahead yet, and naturally assumed Indy 4 would be the last installment.

My own theory is that any potential sequel(s) was discussed whenever they sat down to agree upon Indy 4. We know they had considered more than one idea over the past 15 years. So it wouldn't be unusual for them to have asked each other, "If we're really going to start this whole thing up again, should we consider doing more than one?"
 
Top