Source here.

??? Does this mean that Nathanson has been on the project since this date ???

And isn't this the guy who wrote Rush Hour 2 and Speed 2: Cruise Control? His track record on writing action movie sequels is not the greatest IMHO.


Wooohooo... my total posts = my registered user #. Next thing to crack is that "1% of board posts".

Wow. That's a fascinating page for SO MANY reasons.

The Odyssey, huh? I'm thinking... hmmmm... SEAN BEAN????

Silent Hill?! Wolverine?!

-s.

This sounds a bit like The Sons of Katie Elder, no?

Oh, yeah. You didn't know about those two films?

Apparently Jackman has already signed on to star in the Wolverine spin off film.

Hmmm som interesting titles. Odysseus & A new version of Jason and the Arganauts confirms the Epic's comeback. The A team & He-man are both cashing in on the 80snostalghia Gen X buck, sure to be with different results (although both will suck, the A-team will never be better than the original, whereas He-Man can't fail on that score - particularly anyone who witnesses the Dolph Lungren film as well) Oh and actually Miami Vice and Dallas too?

Goodbye Dali sounds interesting, and All you need is love is sure to have the most expensive soundtrack ever one would imagine.

And um Hip Hop Nanny? ::vomit::

Matt

Nathanson is a fairly recent addition to this process, the first draft was written by Frank Darabond. Spielberg liked it, Lucas didn't. Let's just thank our lucky stars that Lucas didn't decide to rewrite it himself...

Phil.

Part of my confusion over this is that the linked site that Jason provided seems to indicate that Nathanson's script has been completed, perhaps going through a polishing process... while other sources yesterday are running the story as if Nathanson had just been hired, and is only now writing the new Indy story.

AFP story here.

E! Online story here.

Nope--Done Deal merely cites properties that have been sold.

You can sell a spec script when it comes down to it. It's likely Nathanson completed a treatment that they (Lucas et al.) finally agreed upon and is in the writing process.

Other scripts on there have been floating around for years (hence the 'First Set Up' clause) and only now are being greenlighted for production, whether due to revisions, new writers, or 'timing'--it's anybody's guess.

Nothing to do with Indy IV, but other script sales and developments were being mentioned on this thread.

Now here's a screen credit that would elicit a huge laugh from me if I ever saw it... "Loosely Based on a Book Proposal by..." Read on...

Spielberg... and finally, LUCAS... have signed off.

So why I am filled with dread?

The renewed interest in this thread got me browsing scriptsales.com again. Aside from a ton of terrible-sounding movies (one starring Fred Durst?!) and a couple interesting ones, I found this:



Interesting.

Edit: And another interesting one....


An alternate take on Before Sunrise I guess. Sorry this is all so offtopic, but it's so interesting!

I've been reading about this one in recent weeks. It's really happening. Here's the Coming Soon blurb, and it was announced at The Hollywood Reporter as well.

Link to the Firewall discussion, where some talk of the relative merits of the IJ films (and the IJ4 project) are discussed.

Link to the thread on the Indiana Jones trilogy.

Time out has an interview with Harrison Ford here.

'Indiana Jones is going to be older' Ford explained, 'And the story will therefore take place in a different historical period of time. We are not going back to World War II and the Nazis but I think that it will be relatively the same type of tale - George's special mix of Saturday matinee western serial and crypto-spiritual sort of stuff.'

Denholm Elliott (aka Marcus Brody) died a few years after the Last Crusade, so--despite how good this film may be--it'll have something missing, I think.

The writing at Cinematical sucks -- far too many items begin with the writer talking all about me, me, me -- but there are still some interesting rumours here, gleaned from a recent NYC screening of Raiders at which Karen Allen did a Q&A.

Interesting indeed. FWIW, I'm more interested in the potential for Allen to return than Capshaw or even the appearance of Portman. She (Allan) was the only Indy girl that seemed really to connect with Indy himself.

(I trust since none of this is confirmed, the potentialities do not count as spoilers? If they do, I shall dutifully black 'em out).

George Lucas says, "We're basically going to do The Phantom Menace."

So . . . does that mean that they'll need to get to Indiana Jones: Part 6 before they get it right?

Well, that just lets him off the hook then, doesn't it? Maybe we'll have a completely CG, obnoxious character in Indy 4. Hmmm... what could it be? Oh, yeah -- Harrison Ford.

Okay... my Google News Alert just sent me a link to a site called SoFeminine.

And it says there ...



I googled that title, and found that it shows up on a French site as well.

OKAY. So, you read it here first!

You read that prepostrous title, which probably isn't anything close to the truth, here first!

Frank Darabont reminds me of why I decided years ago that I could never ever be a screenwriter.

- - -

INDIANA JONES AND THE WASTED SCREENPLAY
Q: How difficult is it when someone takes a script of yours and then never makes it? I'm thinking of the whole Indiana Jones thing.
Darabont: That was the most frustrating of all, and that was the straw that broke the back of me wanting to continue in that line of work. That was terrifically frustrating. I worked for over a year on that; I worked very close with Steven Spielberg. He was ecstatic with the result and was ready to shoot it two years ago. He was very, very happy with the script and said it was the best draft of anything since Raiders of the Lost Ark. That's really high praise and gave me a real sense of accomplishment, especially when you love the material you're working on as much as I love the Indiana Jones films.
And then you have George Lucas read it and say, 'Yeah, I don't think so, I don't like it.' And then he resets it to zero when Spielberg is ready to shoot it that coming year, [which] is a real kick to the nuts. You can only waste so much time and so many years of your life on experiences like that, you can only get so emotionally invested and have the rug pulled out from under you before you say enough of that.
CHUD.com, November 6

Surprised no one has mentioned the news yet. Here's my take on it.

Latest tidbits: Screenplay by David Koepp (Jurassic Park 1 and 2, Spider-Man 1, Mission: Impossible 1, War of the Worlds, Secret Window, etc.), shooting begins June 2007, set for release May 2008.

Forgive me if I have already made these points in this or other threads, but I just sent this e-mail to a few people, in response to the question of whether Harrison Ford might be too old for the role, and figured it was worth re-posting here:

- - -

It's not just the *age* of Indy that complicates matters; it's also the question of *when* the movie will take place. The first three films, made between 1981 and 1989, all take place between 1935 and 1938 (although, to complicate matters even further, this does not mean that the actor aged 8 years while the character aged 3 years, because Temple of Doom is a prequel! -- so the actor aged only 5 years between the 1935 movie and the 1938 movie; but I digress). So if Indy is roughly 20 years older, then this film must take place in the 1950s. And the world of the 1950s is a very, very different place than the world of the 1930s; the Nazis are gone, the British Empire (seen in Temple of Doom) is gone.

FWIW, I have never seen The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, but according to the timeline below, one of the episodes there revealed that Indy was born on July 1, 1899. This would make him 13 in 1912, which is when the Last Crusade prologue (in which he is played by the 18-year-old River Phoenix) takes place. (Hey, if 13-year-old Edward Furlong can play 10-year-old John Connor...) It would also mean that Indy was about 36 when Temple of Doom took place (Harrison Ford turned 41 during filming), 37 when Raiders of the Lost Ark took place (Ford turned 38 during filming, which is just about right), and 39 when Last Crusade took place (Ford turned 46 around the time principal photography was completed).

http://www.innermind.com/youngindy/info/indy.htm

Harrison Ford has played Indiana Jones on one other occasion, in 1993, for the framing narrative in an episode of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. (In all the other episodes, the framing narratives basically take place "today", i.e. 1992-1993, and concern a much older version of Indiana Jones, who was played by George Hall, who was born in 1916.)

The age and timing issues surrounding Ford's appearance in the TV show are a bit tricky. The IMDB says he played Indiana Jones at the age of 50, which was Ford's real-life age at that time; however the timeline I linked to above says the framing narrative for this episode takes place in 1951, which would be the year Indy turned 52, according to that timeline.

At any rate, if this new film is going to take place when Indiana Jones is the same age that Harrison Ford is now -- and if Harrison Ford turns 65 this summer, around the time that shooting begins -- then this film would *actually* seem to take place in the mid-1960s. The mid-1960s!

The original movies were nostalgia trips to the days of Saturday-matinee serials. What could this new film *possibly* have in common with that!?

That, to me, is the crucial issue here, much more than Ford's age.

Oh well, maybe this film will show us how Indy got that eye-patch that he has in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. Or how he got that daughter whose family he is apparently living with in the early 1990s.

It might not be 20 years later if they can make Ford look, say, only 10-15 years older than the last film...

I think it'd be cool to see Indy go to a place like Estonia, 1949, and have to take on the Russian Bear in order to find whatever architectural desirable he'd be after. That would at least make him a decade older, too.

-s.

stef wrote:
: I think it'd be cool to see Indy . . . take on the Russian Bear . . .

But does the Soviet Union really inspire the same mythic, archetypal, good-vs-evil sentiments that the Nazis (and to a lesser extent the Thugees) did? Maybe the Soviet Union is far enough in the past that we can begin to treat them like cartoon villains again, but I don't think they've ever had anything remotely resembling the sort of MYSTICAL villainy that the Nazis, with their interest in the occult, had ("Hitler's a nut on the subject!").

The Indiana Jones movies have always been primarily mythical, not political. So who in the 1960s (or 1950s; I can't believe they'd keep it as early as 1949, what with Harrison Ford being 14 years older than he was when he played "Indiana Jones - age 50" in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles) would make a decent villain of that sort?

Hm... mystical institution who've survived into the post-WWII world; whom Hollywood is more than comfortable with turning into cartoon villains?

I hope the Catholic Church is ready for its closeup.

And as if there wasn't already enough reason to fear this would be a dreary Da Vinci Code ripoff.

ThePersistanceofWaffles wrote:
: I hope the Catholic Church is ready for its closeup.

Oh! oh! oh! If this film has to take place in the early- to mid-1960s, how about it takes place during Vatican II!! Maybe Mel Gibson can be a consultant!!

Should Indiana Jones have a child?

Should the child be a girl (or a woman, as she was on the TV show) or a boy?

Should the boy be played by Shia LaBeouf?

Perhaps he had a boy who turned out to be transexual.

Peter T Chattaway wrote:
: Should Indiana Jones have a child?
: Should the child be a girl (or a woman, as she was on the TV show) or a boy?
: Should the boy be played by Shia LaBeouf?

Hmmm.

- - -

Rising son shines on 'Indy'
Indy, you're a dad. Shia LaBeouf is in final talks to star in Steven Spielberg's "Indiana Jones 4" as the son of the adventuresome archaeologist to be played once again by Harrison Ford.
Variety, March 7

To quote another Harrison Ford/George Lucas character, "I have a very bad feeling about this."

Shia LaBeouf denies the report!

Well, she's not Karen Allen, but I guess she'll do...

Um. Isn't she a little young for Grandpa Indy?

So, let's see.

Karen Allen (b. 1951) was about 30 in Raiders (1981). Harrison Ford (1942) was about 40, a difference of about a decade.

Kate Capshaw (b. 1953) was about 30 in Temple of Doom (1984). Ford was about 43, a difference of about a dozen years.

Alison Doody (b. 1966) was about 22 in Last Crusade (1989). Ford was about 47, more than twice her age, a difference of about a quarter century. Of course, Doody wasn't a "real" love interest the same way as the other two (their relationship lasted only part of the film; she was a Nazi spy seducing him for her mission; she also slept with his father, played by Sean Connery, even though Connery is only about a dozen years older than Ford).

At 37, Cate Blanchett would certainly be Indy's oldest leading lady -- but only by seven years or so, while Ford, at 62, is now twice the age of his first two costars, and once again about a quarter century older than his leading lady.

I'm sure Peter will take all this and run with it, providing lots more specifics, analysis and connections....

Actually, given that Shia LaBeouf has said he ISN'T playing Indy's son, my first thought on hearing this news was that maybe Blanchett would be playing the daughter that Indy has in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. But then I remembered that this movie must take place in the 1950s or 1960s, whereas that TV series took place in the early 1990s. So hmmm, maybe Blanchett will play the MOTHER of that daughter ...

SDG wrote:
: . . . his father, played by Sean Connery, even though Connery is only about a dozen years older than Ford).

Very true -- but then, Last Crusade takes place only 2 years after Raiders, so even though Ford was 8 years older, Indy was only 2 years older, meaning Connery at the time of filming Last Crusade would have been about 18 years older than Ford would have been if he had aged only 2 years since filming Raiders. Which isn't quite perfect, but it's certainly more plausible.

Incidentally, speaking of Sean Connery's age ...

Hmm...

That's an interesting notion - to have Blanchett play the daughter. she could definitely hold her own opposite Ford the way Ford does opposide Connery!

If that's the direction they go, I sincerely hope she ends up being Marion's daughter. Blanchett would be better at playing the daughter of the willful tomboy (Allen) than the daughter of airhead Willie (Capshaw). And Indy's romance with Marion was the most convincing and endearing of the three, IMHO.

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: Indy's romance with Marion was the most convincing and endearing of the three, IMHO.

Well, given the competition, that's not saying much -- but even if the competition had been a fair bit stronger, I daresay Marion would still beat them all.

And part of the reason for that is the fact that Marion and Indiana have a HISTORY. Indy was, IIRC, a grad student under Marion's father -- and of course Indy had some sort of affair or relationship with Marion before they parted ways.

Given all this talk of actresses' ages, I find myself wondering: Does Raiders ever say how much time had passed since Indy last saw Marion and her father? I do recall that Marion says "I was a child! I was in love!" and Indy replies "You knew what you were doing," implying that Marion was at least somewhat mature at the time but perhaps not mature enough -- you might say she was, um, not a girl but not yet a woman.

Harrison Ford turned 38 and Karen Allen turned 29 during the shoot, so there's a 9-year gap there. It's not too hard to imagine that, at the time of the affair, Indy was a grad student in his 20s who was having a fling with his prof's teenaged daughter.

...

Hmmm, some online copies of the screenplay quote Indy as saying, "We haven't spoken in ten years. I'm afraid we had a bit of a falling out." So Indy would have been about 27 and Marion about 18 when the fling happened?

That's the line in the film, at least in substance and probably word for word.

You know, there is a rumour on the web that Clint Eastwood has been offered a role in the film. (has that been mentioned here?) The internet buzz is that he would be playing Professor Ravenwood, Marion's father. Although she says he is dead in Raiders, it would be an interesting twist to have that have been Marion's lie, and Blanchett somehow mixed up in it as Marion and Indy's daughter.

Don't you just love this sort of speculation?

FWIW, my post on the Blanchett casting rumour. I'm afraid I've been noodling this one off-and-on over the afternoon, and might noodle it some more. My first draft seemed, on reflection, to be badly written, and it seemed like I hadn't stated certain points as clearly as I could have. And then other things occurred to me, like the age gap with Marion that I mentioned here, and I felt I should add that to the post too. Anyhoo.

sadida wrote:
: You know, there is a rumour on the web that Clint Eastwood has been offered a
: role in the film. (has that been mentioned here?) The internet buzz is that he
: would be playing Professor Ravenwood, Marion's father.

Yikes. No, that has not been mentioned here, though Karen Allen did say some months ago that she might be in the new film (as might the Kate Capshaw character).

: Although she says he is dead in Raiders, it would be an interesting twist to have
: that have been Marion's lie . . .

But... but... why would she lie about that? What purpose would it serve? (And how would that relate to anything regarding the possibility of Marion bearing Indy's child? Do you mean the child would have been born BEFORE Raiders-- and Marion neglected to TELL Indy about this?)

I just had a weird thought. If Indy DOES have a child in this film, is the movie gonna go all Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan on us, and do the Kirk-and-David-Marcus thing, where the hero has a mid-life crisis and confronts his loneliness when he comes into contact with the child he barely knew / didn't know he had?

BTW, has it been confirmed yet that Justin Long is playing Bruce Willis's son in Die Hard 4.0? Or is he just playing some kid-like sidekick? I'm getting this weird sense that all our '80s heroes are coming back with families in tow. Well, maybe Rambo won't. Beware Beverly Hills Cop IV, though. (And yes, apparently such a film is in development.)

: . . . and Blanchett somehow mixed up in it as Marion and Indy's daughter.

Frankly, at this point, I'm beginning to hope that Short Round turns out to be the mother.

It might just be the double-latte I just gulped down, but when I read this I felt the first sparks of fanboy giddiness. I think I could get excited about this idea.

Maybe Marion wasn't lying. Maybe she thought he was dead. Or he disappeared, and she gave up. Or he wanted her to think he was dead. Or something.

If I find out there are any all-CGI characters in this film, all fanboy sparks will be immediately doused.

I hate to keep beating this drum, but Grandpa Ford (who FWIW is more than 10 years older than William Shatner in TWOK) is several years past "midlife" crisis.

Besides, if the last 15 years or so of his movie career haven't sparked a crisis, nothing will.