Does anyone else get upset??

[Kyle]

I was just watching a recent interview with Harrison Ford and for some reason I get angry and I don't know why. So I sit there and think about it. I really enjoyed Indy 4, but I get upset thinking about all the time they "wasted" when they could've been making more. I understand that they didn't want anything rushed and didn't want to make a movie just to make it. But I feel that with all the talking they did about making another one, we could've had one in the early 2000s or something...idk. I don't want to sound ungrateful...I just wish I could get more Indy.

Let me hear your opinions.

 

[DocWhiskey]

I get where you're coming from.

Even though I enjoy KOTCS, I've learned that many fans have sort of "settled" for it. A lot didn't necessarily love it unconditionally when it was first released.

And when you read or watch interviews with Ford or Spielberg, they really chose their words beautifully, because they truly make you think it's going to be the best film in the series (even now over a year later lol) when it really...isn't. Which is only natural. I mean, they do want you to go see it.

But, yeah, Ford always said how they were trying to find the right story and how "this is it". And then when I seen KOTCS for the first time it made me ask, "Really? It took them 20 years to write this?".

KOTCS's downfall is that it took simply too long to get made. If it was released, say, 1994 or 95, I'm sure it would've gotten a bit better reception.

So all in all KOTCS basically made us ask, "You made us wait 20 years for something a bit underwhelming. So why did it take you so long and couldn't you've made it sooner so we get some more redeeming Indy films in the future?"

 

[Mickiana]

I'm glad they made an Indy movie at all, but it could have been better (for me). I wish they had made at least three movies per decade since they started. It could have been a series never to be equalled. The 80s, the 90s and the 00s. KotCS should have been the 10th installment. Talk about wishing, I'm entertaining too much regret here over something that probably never would have happened anyway.

 

[Darth Vile]

You ask an interesting question…. Do I get upset that no more movies have been made? On reflection, no not really… life is far too short. Besides, being objective about it, how much more can you progress/evolve the character and story? KOTCS (or other) could have come out 10 or 15 years ago, but ultimately would still have been struggling to do something new with the format… And there in lies the crux of the problem. There is no overriding story arc that connects the movies ala Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings, or even Harry Potter. Therefore, to some extent, each subsequent Indy movie is basically a reinvention of the first; with a slightly different angle e.g. father/son etc. And that is why (although some will disagree), by and large, each subsequent movie seems less original.

The only other comparable movie character I can think of to Indiana Jones is James Bond. There have been circa 22 James Bond movies to date. But how many are true classics that surpass the genre? About two or three at the most (IMHO). In fact, the only progression the producers of James Bond can achieve is to re-cast the lead role and “go back to basics”… which they do every 5 years (which is a great marketing gimmick). This “going back to basics” and re-cast has become cyclical, tedious and quite predictable… to the extent that after just 2 movies, Daniel Craig is already in danger of becoming passé. Would I like to see Indiana Jones subjected to more of the same? Not really. Another movie would be great as a swan song for the character and for Harrison Ford, but after that it would just be the invariable re-invention and imitation ad infinitum. I’d be happy if they made an Indy V, but after that… do something else.

DocWhiskey,

I'm not sure it took them 20 years to write KOTCS. I think it's more that it took them circa 15 years to get back around the table and start discussing another movie.

 

[deckard24]

Well to be honest, when watching films like Six Days and Seven Nights, K-19: The Widowmaker, or Random Hearts, it does make me a bit disappointed to see Ford's potential wasted, at a point in his life and career that would have been perfect for another Indy film. Back in the late 90's Ford still had that youthful spark, which is not to say he didn't impress in KOTCS, but there was so much more they could have done with him at that age.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YI3KMMvPa9U&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YI3KMMvPa9U&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Sadly Indy got shelved, and in my opinion Lucas and Spielberg squandered what could have been a great chance to make more Indy films with a younger Ford. Just think, we could have had 6 films, three with young Indy, 2 with middle aged Indy, and 1 with an older Indy. Not to mention, it would have been a much less abrupt way of watching Indy grow old, as opposed to a 20 year jump in age.

 

[Darth Vile]

Well to be honest, when watching films like Six Days and Seven Nights, K-19: The Widowmaker, or Random Hearts, it does make me a bit disappointed to see Ford's potential wasted, at a point in his life and career that would have been perfect for another Indy film. Back in the late 90's Ford still had that youthful spark, which is not to say he didn't impress in KOTCS, but there was so much more they could have done with him at that age.



Sadly Indy got shelved, and in my opinion Lucas and Spielberg squandered what could have been a great chance to make more Indy films with a younger Ford. Just think, we could have had 6 films, three with young Indy, 2 with middle aged Indy, and 1 with an older Indy. Not to mention, it would have been a much less abrupt way of watching Indy grow old, as opposed to a 20 year jump in age.

It's Harrison Ford who probably should have been making better movies... can't blame Lucas and Spielberg for that. With a couple of exceptions, noteably Witness, Working Girl, Presumed Innocent and What Lies Beneath, his best movies remain Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Although that's just my opinion.

 

[AndyLGR]

Its disappointing that there was such a long gap between the movies. It would have been good to see Ford making another Indy instead of the other poor films he made. Plus Indy is such an iconic and likeable character that its natural for fans to want to see more of him.

It ends up with KOTCS being unable to live up to that 19 year hype. But, how much of that is down to the film being the poorest in the series is debatable. It almost seems like they didnt spend much time on the story and it was all too rushed, with a flimsy plot line and too many lead characters at the end. Its then open to the interpretation that 'they spent 19 years thinking of this story'?

As it stands I find it difficult to think of KOTCS in the same breath as the other 3, it doesnt live up to them and the huge gap seems to make it too detached from them.

I actually hope they make another one to give the series a good ending.

It's Harrison Ford who probably should have been making better movies... can't blame Lucas and Spielberg for that. With a couple of exceptions, noteably Witness, Working Girl, Presumed Innocent and What Lies Beneath, his best movies remain Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Although that's just my opinion.

I'd add The Fugitive and Air Force One to that list too. But as with any actor, they each have their most iconic role for which they will forever be remembered and for Ford its as you mentioned - Han & Indy.

 

[deckard24]

It's Harrison Ford who probably should have been making better movies... can't blame Lucas and Spielberg for that. With a couple of exceptions, noteably Witness, Working Girl, Presumed Innocent and What Lies Beneath, his best movies remain Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Although that's just my opinion.

Yeah you can"t blame Lucas and Spielberg for Ford's choice in roles over the years, but you can blame them for dragging their heels for so damn long, and not getting a new Indy project off the ground. Ford was ready years ago, and at the end of the day, he just has to show up and don the fedora to get to work, unlike Lucas and the Berg who have to create the film from scratch.

Outside of Indy and Star Wars (well at least A New Hope and Empire), Ford has had some pretty great roles over the years, but I'd say they peaked by around 1993. Blade Runner, Witness, The Mosquito Coast, Frantic, Presumed Innocent, Regarding Henry, Working Girl, and The Fugitive remain his best work in my opinion.

 

[Dewy9]

Well, in hindsight, it is a shame that they didn't do any during the 90's or early 2000's. I've heard Steven Spielberg express similar feelings once, he said that KOTCS should have been the 7th or 8th one they've done by now.

Of course, I'm just thankful that we got a new one at all.

 

[Crack that whip]

You ask an interesting question?. Do I get upset that no more movies have been made? On reflection, no not really? life is far too short. Besides, being objective about it, how much more can you progress/evolve the character and story? KOTCS (or other) could have come out 10 or 15 years ago, but ultimately would still have been struggling to do something new with the format? And there in lies the crux of the problem. There is no overriding story arc that connects the movies ala Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings, or even Harry Potter. Therefore, to some extent, each subsequent Indy movie is basically a reinvention of the first; with a slightly different angle e.g. father/son etc. And that is why (although some will disagree), by and large, each subsequent movie seems less original.

I don't know about that. To me, it started out that way, but with the introduction of the TV show it turned into more of a real ongoing story, with Indy (and other characters) really evolving and developing over time. I do perceive a real arc now, and a surprisingly well-defined one at that, considering the character wasn't originally intended for that sort of development at all.

 

[James]

All good points, and I think every fan feels a sense of regret that we never got a 90s Indy film set during the 40s. It's easy to place the blame on Lucas, but Spielberg is just as much at fault. After Schindler's List, he made it quite clear he didn't want to go back to "cartoon Nazis".

KOTCS's downfall is that it took simply too long to get made. If it was released, say, 1994 or 95, I'm sure it would've gotten a bit better reception.

I do think it would've received a better response back in the early- or even late- 90s. Just compare the Batman and Bond films of 1995 to the ones that were released in 2008. It's a perfect example of how much audience tastes (specifically fanboy's) have changed. The attempt to make an Indy film as light-hearted as the previous sequels was never going to be a perfect fit.

The only other comparable movie character I can think of to Indiana Jones is James Bond.

Good point, as these are essentially just formula movies. Ironically, I think KOTCS' switch to "B movie homage" will be viewed more favorably in the long run. It's still one more trip to the well, but at least you can see a new creative direction behind it.

 

[Darth Vile]

Yeah you can"t blame Lucas and Spielberg for Ford's choice in roles over the years, but you can blame them for dragging their heels for so damn long, and not getting a new Indy project off the ground. Ford was ready years ago, and at the end of the day, he just has to show up and don the fedora to get to work, unlike Lucas and the Berg who have to create the film from scratch.

Outside of Indy and Star Wars (well at least A New Hope and Empire), Ford has had some pretty great roles over the years, but I'd say they peaked by around 1993. Blade Runner, Witness, The Mosquito Coast, Frantic, Presumed Innocent, Regarding Henry, Working Girl, and The Fugitive remain his best work in my opinion.

LOL - This is sounding like Monty Pythons "what have the Romans ever done for us?" sketch.

You rightly mention some other very good movies/performances. Being über critical, what I meant was that Harrison Ford had the potential, more so than any other recent movie star, to surpass his earlier work and perhaps outdo his Solo and Jones characters (although Ford's still got a few years in him yet to do that).

Re. "Spielberg and Lucas dragging their heels". I was actually positing that regardless of when Indy IV was made, be it 10, 15 years ago... its probably one movie too many (IMHO). So for me, timelines are largely academic. That's not of course to say I don't enjoy Kingdom and wouldn't enjoy a possible Indy V.

I don't know about that. To me, it started out that way, but with the introduction of the TV show it turned into more of a real ongoing story, with Indy (and other characters) really evolving and developing over time. I do perceive a real arc now, and a surprisingly well-defined one at that, considering the character wasn't originally intended for that sort of development at all.

Can't see it myself... but yes, I'd agree that the TV series tried to dig a little deeper with the character (although that's not really applicable to the movies)

I do think it would've received a better response back in the early- or even late- 90s. Just compare the Batman and Bond films of 1995 to the ones that were released in 2008. It's a perfect example of how much audience tastes (specifically fanboy's) have changed. The attempt to make an Indy film as light-hearted as the previous sequels was never going to be a perfect fit.

Ironically, I think KOTCS' switch to "B movie homage" will be viewed more favorably in the long run. It's still one more trip to the well, but at least you can see a new creative direction behind it.

Agree 100% with both those points James.

 

[Lance Quazar]

I am not at all disappointed or frustrated that we didn't get any other Indiana Jones films after "Last Crusade." They told us in 1989 that it was going to be the last film in the series. I was cool with it then and I was cool with it during the long gap before KOTCS came along.

When plans for Indy IV were announced, I was definitely skeptical. Having seen the recent output of Lucas and Spielberg, not to mention their respective meddling with their older films, I had little faith that they were capable of delivering a new Indiana Jones film which could stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the previous entries.

How right I was.

I would rather have no Indiana Jones product than crappy Indiana Jones product.

I am sorry that KOTCS was made.* I honestly wish it wasn't. I don't lament the decades where no Indy films saw the light of day, I lament the crappy film we got and the fact that it tarnished the legacy of what was one of the most beloved franchises in film history and, of course, a personal favorite of mine.

Though it is too late to do anything about that now, I really do wish everyone would walk away from the franchise rather than churning out another mediocre-to-lousy film.

Some things aren't meant to go on forever. Some things should end. Preferably while they're on top.

In 1989, Roger Ebert wrote, "...perhaps it is just as well that "Last Crusade" will indeed be Indy's last film. It would be too sad to see the series grow old and thin, like the James Bond movies.

We don't need five, six, seven, ten Indiana Jones films. Few franchises have that much life in them.

Yes, James Bond has been around for 20+ films, but as others have pointed out, how many of those are truly great? And that franchise has the luxury of re-inventing itself to at least try to keep it current. Not only do they re-cast the lead, but the series itself has wild, schizophrenic shifts in tone. "Moonraker" and 2006' "Casino Royale" have almost nothing in common.

Sure, there have been many screen incarnations of Batman, but again, their sensibilities are wildly divergent.

I don't want to see the same kind of reinvention applied to Indy. I can accept that the film series has run its course and that its glory days are far, far behind us.

I think we need to take a page from Henry Sr. and just "let it go."




*The single benefit, which is not insignificant to me, to the existence of KOTCS was the creation of the wonderful, if short-lived, Hasbro Indiana Jones figure line. Watching KOTCS was a very high price to pay for that, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't happy to get those figures. And the possibility of getting more figures is the only reason why I would have even the slightest interest in seeing an Indy V get made.

 

[Darth Vile]

Lance Quazar,

Good post - even if I don't agree with your actual assessment of KOTCS (no surprise I?m sure), I think we share the same underlying sentiment re. the requirement/validity of infinite sequels.

 

[Forbidden Eye]

I've said it once before I'm sure, and I'll say it again: The ONLY reason Indy 4 has haters is because of the 19-year gap. It was suppose to excite the new generation and live-up to everyone's expectations who grew up with it, so as Lucas predicted, it was expected to get detractors. If Indy 4 was the exact the same movie but Indy 6 and we had Indy 4 and Indy 5, all the haters would've liked the film more.

I do wish we had more Indiana Jones represented in the late 90's and the first half of this decade, with Harrison being much younger and Spielberg being closer to the top of his game, but still, Indy 4 did get made, and I'm glad we had at least another film made by the people who invented it instead of just constant speculating if it'll ever get made. Hopefully if Indy 5 does get made, people will have lower expectations and will come out praise-worthy.

 

[Lance Quazar]

I've said it once before I'm sure, and I'll say it again: The ONLY reason Indy 4 has haters is because of the 19-year gap.

Uh, no. The movie has detractors because it's not a good movie.

There's a wide spectrum of opinion about the movie, but at least I can acknowledge that everyone doesn't share my point of view without trying to come up with half-assed and utterly inaccurate psychoanalysis for why people may think differently.

I don't like the film because it's not a good film. The release date is irrelevant.

It was suppose to excite the new generation and live-up to everyone's expectations who grew up with it, so as Lucas predicted, it was expected to get detractors. If Indy 4 was the exact the same movie but Indy 6 and we had Indy 4 and Indy 5, all the haters would've liked the film more.

The movie could have come out in 1990 and I still would have hated it, based solely on the content of the movie. You're making ridiculous, entirely unsupported suppositions.

If KOTCS had been made instead of LC, I would have hated it then, too. Context is irrelevant.

By your formula, I should have hated "Revenge of the Sith", having come nearly 30 years after the first film and having followed two fairly lousy sequels. But I enjoyed that film on its own merits, despite the context in which it came.

No one wanted to like Indy IV more than me, despite my nervousness and skepticism going into it.

But crap is crap.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

Not upset, as much as dissappointed. It's a shame they only came back to the well once they needed something only a "sure thing" could provide.

 

[Mickiana]

I want them to have made 10 Indy movies, each and every one of them a real fantastic rip snorter! And when the beards and Ford and all the others get too old to make anymore, then some other totally capable crew can take over and keep Indy alive forever!!! Hang on, gee, it's a lovely day outside. I might go out and get a life.

 

[James]

Even if they did continue on with a 5th (or even 6th) entry, it would be entirely fitting for a franchise intended to homage genre flicks.

-Basil Rathbone made 14 Sherlock Holmes mysteries between 1939 and 1946.

-A new Tarzan was rolled out pretty steadily from 1932 to 1968 (28 films total).

-Charlie Chan graced screens a whopping 44(!) times over a span of just 18 years in the 1930s and 40s. (To say nothing of the number of cliffhanger serials that were churned out around this time.)

Movies have become so integral to our everyday lives, it's given rise to the mindset that they should all be taken very seriously. It's not uncommon to see remarks like "They shouldn't make it unless it will be great"- a philosophy that wasn't quite as prevalent when Indy first appeared onscreen. (And, thankfully, wasn't around when Lucas and Spielberg were being inspired themselves.)

Indy also has the advantage of being the work of a single group of filmmakers...over a period of 30 years. This too is somewhat unique when looking at franchises. Most sequels decline in quality because the original talent- on both sides of the camera- walks away. What is left is a name, and a studio hoping to cash in. This is simply not the case with the Indy franchise.

So even if we do get Indiana Jones and the Further Attempts, it's unlikely to "tarnish" the series' legacy. If anything, film historians will likely view it as a franchise that not only maintained its high production standards, but also rather cleverly mimicked the very culture it was seeking to emulate all along.

 

[Forbidden Eye]

Uh, no. The movie has detractors because it's not a good movie.

Well, by that account, Temple of Doom also has detractors because it's not a good movie.

The release date is irrelevant.

Actually it is relevant. At least when what's in question is a film series, one with a brand name that is largely associated with the 1980's. No matter what you say, you can not try to pretend you were the same person you were in 1989. In two decades, you've changed, and so has your anticipation and expectations for something.

If KOTCS had been made instead of LC, I would have hated it then, too. Context is irrelevant.

By your formula, I should have hated "Revenge of the Sith", having come nearly 30 years after the first film and having followed two fairly lousy sequels. But I enjoyed that film on its own merits, despite the context in which it came.

And it seems you completely missed my point. I said if Indy 4 and 5 were made as completely SEPARATE adventures and Indy 6 was Kingdom, it would've been more loved by the general public. But since Indy 4 took 2 decades, it was never going to please no matter what it was.

You also didn't read my last statement on Indy 5 it seems, as I think it has the potential to be the Revenge of the Sith of the franchise, where people have low expectations due to previous installments and then come out surprised. Indy 4 is best comparable to Phantom Menace.

And I'd sure take Indy over Phantom Menace any day.