Here's a question that I've actually been pondering for for quite some time. Thought it would merit a thread.
If you look back at the interviews of the Big 3(Lucas, Spielberg, Ford) Spielberg constantly admits he was the one who was holding Indy 4 from getting made because he had "moved on" while Lucas and Ford were ready to return.
If you also take a look at the bonus features on the KOTCS DVD, Spielberg even jokes around by saying stuff like "I'm just going to retire and let some young new director take over".
When I heard that, I immediately started to think, "Should Spielberg had let a new director take over and he just get a producing credit?"
I know, I know, Spielberg is THE guy who directed all three Indiana Jones movies, and it just wouldn't be an Indy film with some else in the director's chair, but think, if Spielberg had decided to had let another director take over, could we have Indy 4 released sooner(and less complaints and criticisms)?
After Harrison Ford returning to play the role, it was the most important thing, I think.
Just to add, Steven Spielberg films have a "feel" that is uniquely him and that is present in the first three Indy movies and could never have been present in the fourth if anybody else had worked their hardest to imitate him.
Spielberg is one of the creators - he should be in the director's chair. His consistent vision is one of the things that make the films fit together so well.
The ONLY other director I could see in his place is Peter Jackson. His take on King Kong was great. It had that kind of "Indy feel" to it. Even some of the characters had an Indy feel. Unlike many other "knockoff" movies like The Mummy, Nat'l Treasure, etc. King Kong had the Spielberg kind of directing.
I wouldn't mind if a another director took a shot at Indy. Plenty of others directed the TV series. Indy is more Lucas than Spielberg. Spielberg has always said he's a director-for-hire on Indy.
Spielberg felt this way about all the Indy sequels, so his comments were nothing new. If we're going to take everything at face value, then Ford would never have made the film without Spielberg anyway.
Does anyone think that if a new director made an Indy movie it might help breath new life into the series? I feel that too often Lucas & Spielberg try to "copy" what they have do before rather than branch out. All too often I get the feeling of "been there, done that" especially from Lucas the King of Recycling movie scenes.
I would have liked to have seen some fresh blood brought in before Indy III actually. As much as I like LC and think that it belongs up on the shelf as part of the original trilogy... it just took a turn along the way down a road that I thought the character should have never gone... I didn't want to know his issues with his dad... I didn't want his life story explained to me. I thought some things were best left up to the audiences' imagination. If it wasn't for Connery... I don't know. Its a road that Lucas continued down with the YIJC, and ultimately gave us KotCS, but I think it was Spielberg who turned the franchise in that direction in the first place... So anyway... no, I think I could have lived without him directing Indy 4.
Location: The Host City of the 2018 Commonwealth Games, Australia
Posts: 3,158
After Indy 4, I've been asking the same question. There's part of me that says yes, just because he did the others and attempting to maintain consistency in the fourth to the other three.
The part of me that says no... To me, there were a lot of things in Indy 4 that were overused because it's been done before and there were times that I felt certain things that fall within Spielberg's department were efforts that needed more attention (eg. tension, what tension?). Of course, that is not to say, that Spielberg has lost his touch, I'm saying that he didn't really seem to take his role as seriously or as carefully as he had previously.
Admittedly, before KOTCS, I had my concerns over how he would direct the film considering his cured Peter Pan sydrome (by changing over into darker, more serious films, though those films are generally quite good as well). IIt didn't turn out as bad as I had feared, but my problems with KOTCS are more in the script and cinematography (it just didn't match very well with the others, I know that it is hard to be your own artist and trying to imitate someone else's work at the same time, can't help but feel it could have been closer) than anything else.
Like many things in this series of movies that happens to be my favorite, this is a psychological thing to me. I'm sure I could have gotten the exact same movie, and if Steven wasn't the director it wouldn't have felt the same. Oh well..
It really depends on how you view KOTCS and what you'd want from another movie. If you want a movie that basically looks and feels just like the previous four, Spielberg is your man. If you're wanting the movie to go in a different direction... perhaps for it to be somehwhat modernized, in terms of technique and tone (which is no gurantee of improved quality), then the directors chair should probably go to someone else.
After Indy 4, I've been asking the same question. There's part of me that says yes, just because he did the others and attempting to maintain consistency in the fourth to the other three.
Before I engaged in the above mentioned thread, I was in a similar boat with the thought of seriously replacing Spielberg. There is something attractive and almost essential about keeping a winning team together. When it works there's a verifiable camaraderie behind the scenes and in the finished product.
It was almost taboo to think of moving Spielberg or Lucas aside. To quote you, Violet, "The part of me that says no..."
However, like you, and I don't know if you're still of the same thought, I have this exact impression of KOTCS:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violet
To me, there were a lot of things in Indy 4 that were overused because it's been done before and there were times that I felt certain things that fall within Spielberg's department were efforts that needed more attention (eg. tension, what tension?). Of course, that is not to say, that Spielberg has lost his touch, I'm saying that he didn't really seem to take his role as seriously or as carefully as he had previously.
What was once unthinkable, is now possibly the only means for preserving Indy before he wanders off into a strange new future. Much of the impact of KOTCS was lost in the creative process, and Spielberg was as much a part of that as Lucas. Story creates tension, and Spielberg was limited by the material, which you also mention:
Quote:
...my problems with KOTCS are more in the script and cinematography (it just didn't match very well with the others, I know that it is hard to be your own artist and trying to imitate someone else's work at the same time, can't help but feel it could have been closer) than anything else.
Even though it's still taboo, I don't trust the road that Spielberg and Lucas may be continuing to take Indy along. Though moving George aside, along with his buddy, Steven, is no simple matter, since Indy has Lucasfilm stamped on his butt (or under the soles of his Aldens as with the action figures).
However, like you, and I don't know if you're still of the same thought, I have this exact impression of KOTCS:
What was once unthinkable, is now possibly the only means for preserving Indy before he wanders off into a strange new future. Much of the impact of KOTCS was lost in the creative process, and Spielberg was as much a part of that as Lucas. Story creates tension, and Spielberg was limited by the material, which you also mention:
Montana - As mentioned in the other thread, I agree with your overall stance. However, I'm still very much of the opinion that peril/tension in an action movie is 99% application of technique rather than quality of the written material. If you compare many of the standout scenes in Jaws, for example, to how it was written, it's Spielberg who builds the tension with his angles, sound, music etc. e.g. the death of 'Chrissie' or 'Alex Kinter'. That palpable tension within the movie is still there today... however on the page it's all rather generic. I'm very much of the opinion that the success of Jaws (as a movie) was down to Spielberg's brilliance as a director. So why, some 35 years later, can't Spielberg seem to achieve that same level of suspense/peril??? Is it he's lost something or is it that we've just seen it all before?
I am of the mind that if we want something fresh from Indiana Jones, it needs fresh blood within the creative process... and at the highest level (which I'm assuming is where you're coming from).
Montana - As mentioned in the other thread, I agree with your overall stance. However, I'm still very much of the opinion that peril/tension in an action movie is 99% application of technique rather than quality of the written material.
This may be true for some films, but in KOTCS I don't think that Spielberg intended to create as much tension. For me, the scene with the most tensione scene was the build-up to the Doom Town detonation, but when you see how that concluded, it became obvious to me that tension through danger wasn't going to be the over-riding sensation for the remainder of the movie. There was nothing as tense as realizing that you're in the lair of a mad man who plucks out hearts, and yet TOD was also a movie that was about having fun.
Too much fun was written into KOTCS, and coupled with the poor dialogue it isn't gripping, to the point where I don't care for some of the characters, such as Mac, Oxley and Mutt. And the characters I did care about, such as Spalko and Dovchenko, didn't get enough opportunity to create their own tension.
Spielberg's involvement with KOTCS was a package. He wasn't simply a hired director, but a big part of the creative process. He and Lucas were making the film they intended to, and that's where they lose my confidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
If you compare many of the standout scenes in Jaws, for example, to how it was written, it's Spielberg who builds the tension with his angles, sound, music etc. e.g. the death of 'Chrissie' or 'Alex Kinter'. That palpable tension within the movie is still there today... however on the page it's all rather generic. I'm very much of the opinion that the success of Jaws (as a movie) was down to Spielberg's brilliance as a director.
The tension created by a great white shark is probably something that's been with man shortly after he first dipped his toe in the sea. The only thing as dangerous in KOTCS was the atom bomb, and Spielberg tackled it with the skill and intensity with which he tackled Jaws. Only this time, the material called for a pulled punch. There were no severed limbs or expanding pools of blood. Indy crawled out and walked out to watch the spectacle of the mushroom cloud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
So why, some 35 years later, can't Spielberg seem to achieve that same level of suspense/peril??? Is it he's lost something or is it that we've just seen it all before?
Spielberg can still do it if he wants to, but with KOTCS he didn't want to. It was a completely different kind of film to either Jaws or Duel. It was also a long way from the brutality of the fight in the German convoy truck in Raiders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I am of the mind that if we want something fresh from Indiana Jones, it needs fresh blood within the creative process... and at the highest level (which I'm assuming is where you're coming from).
Yes, exactly.
I see the faults at the level of "the creative process", and not in Steven's ability to direct high-tension action-adventure. While he's a masterful director, in this series he is also part-creator, and this is where we may need that "fresh blood".
