BTW, just a strange odd thought, but I think it'd be fun to have Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan cameo or appear in someway if Indy 5 gets made, given the Indy-Bond connection. Maybe a subplot or part of the plt could involve something Henry, Sr had delved into--some artifact or something before he died--and Roger Moore would cameo as an old friend of Henry's from Henry's young, Oxford years.
Yeah. They all--Harrison included--have some personal feelings on what an Indy film and isn't. Harrison isn't the kind of actor who just says, "Ok. Whatever the script is, I'll do it." He himself was against Indy and aliens being mixed back in the '90s and refused to do a "a Steven Spielberg movie like that." Now, whether he just isn't into Sci Fi movies, or Sci Fi mixed with Indy, I don't know--but my point is he has or had certain standards, at least when it comes to Indy. He actually seems to care about Indy--likes the character, likes playing him. He's said in the past, for example, he never really was interested by the Han Solo character. But Indy is different.
Then you take Steven into account, who also seems to have a certain rubric for what an Indy film should and shouldn't include or concern. He also seems to actually care about the fans and their opinions--At least, I think/hope he does. And I'm sure he at least indirectly keeps his eye on the media/the media's reaction to KOTCS/fan reaction. I mean hell, this is the same guy who made LC to "apologize" to the fans for TOD. He's a sentimental, perhaps even somewhat sensitive guy. Imagine how he must feel now, if he felt he had to apologize for TOD.
And Lucas is probably unperturbed by how the fans feel, and seems to have this need to rape his own movies. I truly think it's some kind of need to destroy the films that made him big--Maybe he feels they're actually failures, just stupid American commercial films he regrets making (when he could've been making art films like THX) and as such, needs to bury them. Needs to kill them. Because they're reminders of how he betrayed what he originally wanted to be: An Art Film director, an indie avant garde guy. And in his mind, he probably sold out, or gave into what the dumb American public wanted, and Indy like Star Wars is a prime reminder of that ''failure.''
I don't think Lucas cares about anything or even anybody except for his his vision. I don't know when he became such a jerk, but he's an egomaniac who seems to just see people as tools to making his vision a reality and a success. And I don't think he really likes his fans. At all.
This is a REAL Lucas quote, on his audience:
"Popcorn pictures have always ruled. Why do people go and see these popcorn pictures when they're not good? Why is the public so stupid? That's not my fault. I just understood what people liked to go see, and Steven [Spielberg] has too, and we go for that."
He thinks we, who made him his millions and billions, and his films which also helped make him a rich man, are stupid.
The thing is, Spielberg, Ford and Lucas all signed up to make KOTCS... so whatever misgivings they had (if any/whatever they were), were not enough to stop them wanting to make it. Look at the movies Harrison Ford has made over the past 10 years. He may hold Indy close to his heart, but if I were him I'd concede all the major ideas to Lucas/Spielberg (flaws and all), because I don't think ole' Harrison has brilliant critical faculties himself.
Also, if true, I'm glad Lucas doesn't give a f**k about "fans". He should be mindful of the "audience" in that they need to make a movie that people want to see... but never waste your time making something for "fans". Look at us...
Location: In the Map Room playing with a laser pointer
Posts: 2,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
He should be mindful of the "audience" in that they need to make a movie that people want to see... but never waste your time making something for "fans". Look at us...
Brilliant point. Though our opinions should matter (and I hope that in a general sense they do), to truly make us happy there would have to be different versions of every film, to appease each of our individual definitions of what Indy means to us. Which in itself would be impossible, because then we would all bicker about which version is the right one! Fan service is an unenviable and tough facet of a franchise.
Now hang on, why doesn't he let us fans make it?! I mean, a bunch of us from the Raven, COW and the Indy Lounge and a few other places could produce a doozy of a sequel. Why not a movie that is both a prequel and a sequel? It could span decades. And some of it has to be set in Australia, after all, Indy has never been here as far as I know. What about Indy on the moon? Now there's an idea...
Also, if true, I'm glad Lucas doesn't give a f**k about "fans". He should be mindful of the "audience" in that they need to make a movie that people want to see... but never waste your time making something for "fans". Look at us...
Being mindful of the audience was the real, and unavoidable problem with KOTCS. They were trying to cater for everyone: from those who grew up with the originals, to those who weren't even born when LC was released. This, I think, is why KOTCS is the mixed bag it is.
On top of that Lucas and Spielberg are much more mindful of the effect of their work on the younger members of the 'family' audience. So KOTCS sometimes pulls punches, it inserts childish humour, and goes overboard with the spectacle. It may even be argued that the poor dialogue was also an attempt to make things understandable for the youngest viewers (but that would be overly generous to the writers).
Last edited by Montana Smith : 03-19-2011 at 02:45 AM.
Being mindful of the audience was the real, and unavoidable problem with KOTCS. They were trying to cater for everyone: from those who grew up with the originals, to those who weren't even born when LC was released. This, I think, is why KOTCS is the mixed bag it is.
On top of that Lucas and Spielberg are much more mindful of the effect of their work on the younger members of the 'family' audience. So KOTCS sometimes pulls punches, it inserts childish humour, and goes overboard with the spectacle. It may even be argued that the poor dialogue was also an attempt to make things understandable for the youngest viewers (but that would be overly generous to the writers).
I totally agree with you (although I've always believed that the original 3 are "childish" and went "overboard with the spectacle" too). Like I mentioned elsewhere, KOTCS is very much a movie that's looking to the past; its own history... and it shows. As you say, it's like they were trying to cater for everyone and make the "perfect" Indy movie. Of course, it rarely pans out that way. Can't fault them for intent... more the application. Ultimately (IMHO) KOTCS is a good homage to what they did in the 80's... but my preference would have been for something that was looking forward, less reverential to its past and something more willing to take a risk (in cinematic terms).
I totally agree with you (although I've always believed that the original 3 are "childish" and went "overboard with the spectacle" too).
But for going overboard, KOTCS knocks the others out of the park. Whether that's to do with the natural progression of sequels, that there's an expectation for something more each time, or whether it signals a drought of creativity, is debatable.
The film is frustrating for me because it had the opportunity to be as engaging as it's predecessors, but after Doom Town it fails to captivate. In place of characterization and engaging dialogue, there is instead yet more overblown spectacle. For much of the time it appears that actors are delivering their lines without much feeling or self-belief, punctuating the period until the next cliffhanger.
It's not often that John Hurt or Ray Winstone will deliver a perfromance that doesn't demand your attention, but here neither seem to know what they were supposed to be doing. As though they were as confused about the material as Alec Guiness was with the genre of science fiction - though he managed to pull of an entirely professional and riveting performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi.
If the actors can't muster the belief, it's just as hard for the attentive viewer to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Ultimately (IMHO) KOTCS is a good homage to what they did in the 80's... but my preference would have been for something that was looking forward, less reverential to its past and something more willing to take a risk (in cinematic terms).
The movie looks tired, and I don't think it's because it's a homage to the earlier parts of the series, as all Indy movies are a homage to the past. By their nature they are backwards looking.
Could the division between Lucas and Spielberg over the subject of aliens have spilled over into the production? Could this uneasiness have filtered down through the team?
Maybe this was totally the wrong storyline to use when re-introducing Indy to the public imagination? The themes of aging, fatherhood and responsibility might have been better served by a more down-to-earth, or more familiar artifact. And a journey in which Indy was in control, despite his maturing years. Indy 4 wasn't the time to play dangerously - as that could have been reserved for an Indy 5, which would realistically have been Harrison's last blast as the character.
As it is, KOTCS has already written the series into a corner. Where can they go now after surviving an atomic bomb in a flying fridge, plunging over three waterfalls in succession and meeting with aliens?
I would be happy with a calmer Indy 5, but it's going to look odd to a lot of viewers after KOTCS. This is likely a big part of the delay and uncertainty hanging over the project.
Last edited by Montana Smith : 03-19-2011 at 09:19 AM.
But for going overboard, KOTCS knocks the others out of the park. Whether that's to do with the natural progression of sequels, that there's an expectation for something more each time, or whether it signals a drought of creativity, is debatable.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on cause (even though we may agree about the effect). I personally find TOD to be the most overblown… it always has, and still does (IMHO), feel like a series of Indy sketches cobbled together rather than having any real narrative structure holding the action in place. The mine cart sequence still remains the most ludicrous substantial set piece of all the Indy movies to me. I think it works better than the jungle chase due to better technical implementation, but it’s still an utterly preposterous set piece nonetheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
The film is frustrating for me because it had the opportunity to be as engaging as it's predecessors, but after Doom Town it fails to captivate. In place of characterization and engaging dialogue, there is instead yet more overblown spectacle. For much of the time it appears that actors are delivering their lines without much feeling or self-belief, punctuating the period until the next cliffhanger.
Ironically, I feel that the dialogue driven elements of KOTCS are one of its strengths… be that the scenes between Indy and Dean Stanforth, the diner, the market place, Oxley’s cell, Orellana’s tomb and even the Russian camp scenes. I think those scenes are spot on and, for the most part, at least as successful (if not better) to similar scenes within the other Indy sequels. The problem for me is that there are no real significant/standout action sequences to underpin the quieter/expositional scenes e.g. the jungle chase felt somewhat inferior to the tank/truck chase, there was nothing comparable in terms of imagination/execution to the rope bridge scene from TOD etc. etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
It's not often that John Hurt or Ray Winstone will deliver a perfromance that doesn't demand your attention, but here neither seem to know what they were supposed to be doing. As though they were as confused about the material as Alec Guiness was with the genre of science fiction - though he managed to pull of an entirely professional and riveting performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Not taking anything away from Hurt or Winstone, but they are jobbing actors. I don’t think they took their respective parts because they believed it would stretch them as actors… rather it was to do with the ££££’s and kudos from being in an Indiana Jones movie. Prior to KOTCS, there were similar discussions around Denholm Elliot and John Rhys-Davies in TLC... so this criticism isn't something new. Whilst I completely agree that there were too many characters in KOTCS, and that the characters of Ox and Mac were annoyingly under written, I think it is completely in keeping with the other sequels (unfortunately).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
The movie looks tired, and I don't think it's because it's homage to the earlier parts of the series, as all Indy movies are homage to the past. By their nature they are backwards looking.
I think the key difference is that KOTCS was paying homage to itself (stylistically) and not necessarily to the serials that inspired the original concept. I can’t think of a comparable movie, at the time, to Raiders and TOD (other than old black and white Hollywood movies/Republic serials). In 2008 KOTCS looks like a plethora of other contemporary movies (including the earlier Indy movies as well as those that had copied Indiana Jones e.g. The Mummy etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
Could the division between Lucas and Spielberg over the subject of aliens have spilled over into the production? Could this uneasiness have filtered down through the team?
Quite possibly... probably likely. Unfortunately, moving events to the 1950’s and incorporating UFO’s/aliens was the most progressive/adventurous element of the movie for me. I like movies that take a risk, and I think Lucas was probably the only one willing to mix the formula up a bit (rightly or wrongly).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
Maybe this was totally the wrong storyline to use when re-introducing Indy to the public imagination? The themes of aging, fatherhood and responsibility might have been better served by a more down-to-earth, or more familiar artifact. And a journey in which Indy was in control, despite his maturing years. Indy 4 wasn't the time to play dangerously - as that could have been reserved for an Indy 5, which would realistically have been Harrison's last blast as the character.
I agree. I think it comes back to KOTCS being neither one thing nor other. I think they took the most sensible/logical decision in making a hybrid (to ensure a safe return)… However, that doesn’t necessarily equate to the best movie. Personally, I thought that after such a long absence, they could have been more radical with KOTCS in terms of style and approach. But clearly they wanted a safe bet (or as safe as it could be).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
As it is, KOTCS has already written the series into a corner. Where can they go now after surviving an atomic bomb in a flying fridge, plunging over three waterfalls in succession and meeting with aliens?
I would be happy with a calmer Indy 5, but it's going to look odd to a lot of viewers after KOTCS. This is likely a big part of the delay and uncertainty hanging over the project.
What movies such as James Bond, Batman and Star Trek show us is there is no such thing as a point of no return… I’m pretty sure the world would be receptive to another Indy movie with Ford as the eponymous hero. Spielberg and Lucas have the advantage of having something as close to “a sure thing” as one can get with a movie… which means that they could go serious, darker, smaller and more personal if they wanted to. We’ll hold our breath with anticipation…
As it is, KOTCS has already written the series into a corner. Where can they go now after surviving an atomic bomb in a flying fridge, plunging over three waterfalls in succession and meeting with aliens?
I would be happy with a calmer Indy 5, but it's going to look odd to a lot of viewers after KOTCS. This is likely a big part of the delay and uncertainty hanging over the project.
I disagree. Just look at the Bond movies. After the over the top You Only Live Twice we got the back to basics On Her Majesty's Secret Service. And after Moonraker we got For Your Eyes Only. Both successfully went from the absurd to more down to earth.
What movies such as James Bond, Batman and Star Trek show us is there is no such thing as a point of no return… I’m pretty sure the world would be receptive to another Indy movie with Ford as the eponymous hero. Spielberg and Lucas have the advantage of having something as close to “a sure thing” as one can get with a movie… which means that they could go serious, darker, smaller and more personal if they wanted to. We’ll hold our breath with anticipation…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sartorius
I disagree. Just look at the Bond movies. After the over the top You Only Live Twice we got the back to basics On Her Majesty's Secret Service. And after Moonraker we got For Your Eyes Only. Both successfully went from the absurd to more down to earth.
I like to think of Indiana Jones as a special case. While Bond goes from actor to actor and never really ages (his chronology is an impossibility), Indiana Jones has virtually aged in real time. Bond is a character who is rejuvinated so that he remains contemporary. It's essentiually a running reboot.
I hope that a mass audience would accept a "serious, darker, smaller and more personal" Indy story, but there must be a brand new audience to whom KOTCS introduced Indy, who will be expecting something more like Transformers 2 (The horror! The horror!) This is where Lucas and Spielberg may have reached an impasse. Which way to jump? Who to please? And this is why I think the safest option is to do that "serious, darker, smaller and more personal" Indy story for the small screen. This may be the truest expression of the character and his world, and beginning long before the '57 atom bomb, there wouldn't be the issue of trying to top that cliffhanger.
I like to think of Indiana Jones as a special case. While Bond goes from actor to actor and never really ages (his chronology is an impossibility), Indiana Jones has virtually aged in real time. Bond is a character who is rejuvinated so that he remains contemporary. It's essentiually a running reboot.
Right but Moonraker and FYEO both had Moore. Granted Indy 4 to Indy 5 will be a 4+ year wait versus 2 years for Bond.
i find that i really disagree with a lot of you over what the next indy should be. i don't want a smaller, darker, calmer, introspective indy. i want a rip roaring adventuring indy going after some fortune and glory. but that just might be me.
Didn't see this posted, but on ABC's Greatest Movies of Our Time, Ford said there is ambition to do another if they get the right script. He'd love to play the character again.
Same ol same. But it is nice to here they want a good SCRIPT and not a good IDEA. Hopefully they have the idea already...
Didn't see this posted, but on ABC's Greatest Movies of Our Time, Ford said there is ambition to do another if they get the right script. He'd love to play the character again.
Same ol same. But it is nice to here they want a good SCRIPT and not a good IDEA. Hopefully they have the idea already...
Oy vey. It's been almost three years, it's never gonna happen ... at least with all three Ford, Lucas, and Spielberg. After all, they don't own Indy, Paramount does.
Location: In the Map Room playing with a laser pointer
Posts: 2,919
You can't take the "if we can get/agree on an idea/script" quips at face value. They have something they've been tinkering with for almost 2 years now:
Quote:
June 15, 2009
Shia LaBeouf: "Steven just said that he cracked a story on it before I left and I think they're gearing that up."
Quote:
June 18, 2009
Frank Marshall: "It's really about the script. Once we see that, we'll see. We're not going to wait another 20 years. We'd all love to make another one. I'm anxious to hear the idea! We had a great time making the last one and, as Harrison said, we need to make this one soon. We're not getting any younger. Until there's a script, nothing's definite. I haven't heard the idea."
June 18, 2009
Frank Marshall: "The story for Indy5 is progressing. It is still in the research phase."
Quote:
September 14, 2009
Harrison Ford: "The story for the new Indiana Jones is in the process of taking form. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and myself are agreed on what the fifth adventure will concern, and George is actively at work. If the script is good, I'll be very happy to put the costume on again."
As far as that last one, sure the part about "if the script is good". Who knows what that means coming from Ford. I love him as Indy, but when was the last time he's proved that he knows what a good script looked like? The biggest hurdle with getting KOTCS made was convincing Spielberg to get over his hangup about doing aliens. Once he said ok to it, it got made. (my interpretation of the events, anyway) Steven is on board for doing a 5th, as are Lucas and Ford, they've got their idea, it's just a matter of whether they can get it into shape before Ford keels over of old age.
What I wish they did for the fifth film would make a contest out of it.Let the fans write a story or a script and the winner who has his/her script/story chosen for the film get to be on set during the making and be apart of the creative process.
What I wish they did for the fifth film would make a contest out of it.Let the fans write a story or a script and the winner who has his/her script/story chosen for the film get to be on set during the making and be apart of the creative process.
Letting those guys anywhere near Indy again is another bad idea!
Yes,but they wouldn't be the only ones choosing a winner.
I agree the last movie was a little crazy.Even though it had some good scenes,but the alien thing was horrible and some characters they didn't need.I could have written a better Indy story than them.
What does aliens have to do with archaeology any way(nothing)?
Yes,but they wouldn't be the only ones choosing a winner.
I agree the last movie was a little crazy.Even though it had some good scenes,but the alien thing was horrible and some characters they didn't need.I could have written a better Indy story than them.
What does aliens have to do with archaeology any way(nothing)?
If Aliens did have an influence setting up an ancient civilization thousands of years ago, who do you think would be doing the research and studying it? Your Dentist?
Of course an archeologist would be. Aliens or no Aliens.
I think your missing the point that the entire movie wasnt just about Aliens.
Akator: A mythical lost city (archeology) The Crystal Skull: A mysterious artifact with unknown origins (archeology)
You cant figure that out and yet you claim you can write a better script... wow!
A competition for the fans to write a story/script isn't a bad idea. It would be akin to when they reeled out the ideas for Raiders - ideas flowing, creativity unchecked by all the worries associated with making a good sequel. Fans are the one group that haven't forgotten what Indiana Jones is all about. The more I think about it, the more I reckon a fan-written script is going to be the only way to get near what Raiders achieved. Let's admit it, if we got to see the CS script before filming started and were asked for our critique, there would have been some changes made and for the better. A fan will not have the imposed limitations that a writer of a big Hollywood blockbuster has to work under.
A competition for the fans to write a story/script isn't a bad idea. It would be akin to when they reeled out the ideas for Raiders - ideas flowing, creativity unchecked by all the worries associated with making a good sequel. Fans are the one group that haven't forgotten what Indiana Jones is all about. The more I think about it, the more I reckon a fan-written script is going to be the only way to get near what Raiders achieved. Let's admit it, if we got to see the CS script before filming started and were asked for our critique, there would have been some changes made and for the better. A fan will not have the imposed limitations that a writer of a big Hollywood blockbuster has to work under.
I agree. That was what I was trying to get across.
... at least with all three Ford, Lucas, and Spielberg. After all, they don't own Indy, Paramount does.
