Steven Spielberg has said that he stayed interested in Indiana Jones because of the inclusion of the father-son relationships in Last Crusade and KotCS. If there were to be a hypothetical reboot, or a fifth film without Spielberg directing, who would you pick? My money's on JJ Abrams. M:I:III and Star Trek both seemed to have an adventurous and Spielbergy(?) feel to them.
Even though I felt KOTCS was a letdown in a lot of ways, an Indy movie without Spielberg is the same as an Indy film without Ford in my opinion. Along with Lucas and the music of John Williams, Ford and Spielberg are the necessary ingredients for an Indiana Jones film. A removal of one would throw the whole thing off!
If you're talking a reboot, yeah Abrams could be a possibility. But as much as I like to discuss what if scenarios, I've come to the conclusion that the series should end with Ford. And if that means KOTCS is he last we see of Indy, so be it!
Steven Spielberg has said that he stayed interested in Indiana Jones because of the inclusion of the father-son relationships in Last Crusade and KotCS. If there were to be a hypothetical reboot, or a fifth film without Spielberg directing, who would you pick? My money's on JJ Abrams. M:I:III and Star Trek both seemed to have an adventurous and Spielbergy(?) feel to them.
I don't see any theatrical Indy features sans Spielberg happening anytime in the foreseeable future (and I don't know that I'd want to), but if it absolutely had to and was going to happen, I'd like someone who's already part of the Lucas / Spielberg "circles," such as the aforementioned Bob Zemeckis and Joe Johnston. There's enough in their directorial styles that seems informed by Steve's own style that I think either could make a movie that meshes well with the other four.
Possibly better yet, how about Frank Darabont? He's done terrific work, and he's even worked on Indy already (and not just on his version of Indy IV). I don't think it's likely, particularly given his displeasure over how his involvement on the fourth movie turned out, but I'm talking more about who I'd want, if I absolutely had to pick someone other than Steven (besides, getting to not just write but direct might be just the sort of offer that could entice Frank back to work for George again - who knows?).
Though it was much different in tone and style from any of the movies than any of the movies are from each other, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles is full of great storytelling, and Frank Darabont's contributions rank among the show's finest, IMO. Even if I'm not altogether sold on parts of his Indy IV script, I'd love for him to get a shot at Indy V - and what better way to entice Frank back to writing Indy again than by letting him direct as well? He's done great work in both capacities, after all...
(That said, I want to reiterate that Steven Spielberg really should be the one to direct all the Indy movies.)
I agree that Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford have all been integral to shaping the series. I also think it's more interesting to see the same creative group return to a franchise over a significant amount of time and installments.
Yes, definitely- Spielberg will always be my first choice, but if he decides to get someone else it's fun thinking who could do a good job. How about Sam Raimi? He's good at action and humour and can make a hero look both heroic and goofy at the same time.
Sam Raimi? He's good at action and humour and can make a hero look both heroic and goofy at the same time.
Oh God NO!
I like Raimi for what he does, but I'd rather see Indy go back to his roots instead of stepping into clown shoes.
We need a young mind, not afraid of action violence. Someone with something to prove. Who's a fan of Raiders! Someone who still dates, and has no kids.
Yes, definitely- Spielberg will always be my first choice, but if he decides to get someone else it's fun thinking who could do a good job. How about Sam Raimi? He's good at action and humour and can make a hero look both heroic and goofy at the same time.
LOL. I actually think that may be a different enough take on Indiana Jones worth watching.
...of Steven Spielberg's Directors Chair lying around here somewhere. I haven't 'played' it in years, but one thing that Herr Spielberg mentioned in it has always stuck out in my mind: If it's not on the page, it's not on the stage.
To me, this has always meant that the play's the thing. And nobody's above it, not even a director of Spielberg's stature. While he's shown a remarkable ability to maintain this standard, it doesn't seem to apply to Indy. I don't know if he's ever had it considering some of his comments, but I find him to be beyond the material. He's not interested. Somebody who's actually interested in the material is required.
Towards that end, I would propose Stephen Sommers. "The Mummy" was wildly entertaining, and his stab at "The Jungle Book" (the 1994 live-action version) was quite memorable, and hinted at far darker things. He could probably handle it, especially considering he appears set to direct the newest Tarzan picture.
Luc Besson should also be considered. He's an action director par-excellence, and he's dabbling in Indy-like territory with his newest picture Les Aventures extraordinaires d'Adèle Blanc-Sec
