Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: Maybe Marion wasn't lying. Maybe she thought he was dead. Or he disappeared, and she gave up.

FWIW, according to one of those scripts I dug up, Marion was originally going to tell Indy that her father had died two years earlier in an avalanche -- BUT HIS BODY WAS NEVER FOUND:

INDY
What happened?

MARION
Avalanche. Up there. He was digging.
What else? He spent his whole life
digging. Dragging me all over this
rotten earth. For what?

INDY
Do you find him?

MARION
Hell no. He's buried where he was
working. Probably preserved real
good, too. In the snow.

FWIW, I'm NOT a fan of Clint Eastwood (or anybody else) doing a celebrity cameo. Sean Connery worked, because Lucas and Spielberg had always said that Indiana Jones was sort-of based on James Bond. But I have never heard anyone compare him to any of Clint Eastwood's characters. (Did Dan Aykroyd work, when he appeared in Temple of Doom as a sort of "payback" for Spielberg's cameo in The Blues Brothers? Not sure. The movie he was in stunk so bad, though, that his cameo was low on the list of any possible complaints I might have had with that film.)

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

The fact that Lucas and Ford are making it, at THIS point in their careers, is enough to douse any sparks on my part. Spielberg's iffy too, but he at least has talent still -- even if his talents seem to run to a very different kind of movie nowadays. The first remotely positive feelings I had about this film came to me when I heard Cate Blanchett's name ...

SDG wrote:
: 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.

Well, we know from the TV show that Indy will live to be about 30 years older than Ford is now, so "midlife" doesn't seem like such an odd term to me. But yeah, Indy at 65 shouldn't KNOW that he has another 30 years to live.

BTW, I just looked up Shatner's birthdate, and he was actually 50 when ST2:TWOK was filmed -- so he was 15 years younger in that film than Ford will be by the time he finishes shooting this film. (Which means Shatner was 62 or 63 when he played Kirk for the very last time, in Star Trek: Generations -- which is still younger than Ford, who will apparently be turning 65 in the middle of trying to revive this character.)

Incidentally, if you click the Sean Connery link I posted a few posts up, you will see that the only actor who EVER starred in an "official" James Bond movie in his 50s was Roger Moore. Connery, Dalton, and Brosnan all bade farewell to the character in their 40s. (Lazenby, bizarrely, played the character when he was 29 -- younger than ANY of the other actors. And Connery, admittedly, returned to the role for the "unofficial" James Bond film Never Say Never Again when he was 52.) And none of them came anywhere close to playing the character in their 60s.

Not sure what I'm trying to say here. Ford created Indiana Jones in his 30s, and played him into his 40s, and he could have quit then just like Dalton and Brosnan. I mean, if Bond was the role model they were trying to follow and all. But no.

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

Well, ditching his second wife, getting an ear-ring, hooking up with a babe half his age... all these things spoke "mid-life crisis" to me at the time.

Okay, SDG, you got me curious. Shatner was born in 1931, and I got curious to find out when Merritt Butrick, the actor who played his son, was born. Turns out he was born in 1959. So he would have been about 22 when the movie was shot, and about 6 when the original series began. And Shatner would have been about 27 when he was conceived. Which kinda fits, more or less. Unless you believe that Carol Marcus was the blonde lab technician that Kirk almost married during his Academy days, in which case David Marcus would have to be older. But to be honest, I always thought of him as older than 22 anyway. I mean, he's DOCTOR Marcus. Who gets a doctorate in terraforming planets before his 22nd birthday?

Oh, and Bibi Besch, who played Carol Marcus, was born in 1940. So she would have been 18 when David was conceived. And even younger when Kirk was in the Academy. Hmmm.

Jeffrey Wells has a hunch that Gong Li may end up in the film.

I forget where I first heard this, but there's a rumour going around that the title for this film will be Indiana Jones and the City of Gods. Any thoughts on this? Lucas has hinted in the past that the original idea for this film had "offensive" elements that needed to be "taken out", so I assume the title doesn't just refer to the Greco-Roman gods or to the deities of any other dead religious milieu.

In that same interview, Lucas also said the premise was "a little too 'connected' for the others" when he first proposed it to them. So now I have this weird idea that the film might go in a Stargate direction, and reveal that all the faiths and all the gods come from some single common source. Heck, just as Last Crusade fleshed out Indy's roots, maybe this film will flesh out the roots of all those supernatural beings he has encountered.

Just speculating here.

With Lucas's interest in Joseph Campbell, I can see a lot of potential for a "hero with a thousand faces" kind of focus. Just so long as they don't say, "all religions are the same, and it's really all about the divine in each of us."

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: Just so long as they don't say, "all religions are the same, and it's really all about the divine in each of us."

Too late. Marcus Brody already said, in Last Crusade, "The search for the Grail is the search for the divine in all of us."

Okay, now they really have my attention.

First, Blanchett. Now, Winstone?!

This thread is making me want to watch Raiders again....

Believe it or not, I've never seen the other two. Should I?

Well, I'm kind of in the same boat as you, except that I've seen both of the other ones, and not Raiders. Perhaps I started with the wrong one (Temple of Doom), and perhaps it WAS during finals week, but the one time I've seen both, I fell asleep through them. There, that's my shocking confession for the week.

Is Raiders worth it?

Joel C wrote:
: Is Raiders worth it?

You should check (and contribute to!) the thread we have on the "trilogy" (the link's somewhere above). But my hasty response would be that Raiders is the only film in the series worth talking about, really. However, if you want to make heads or tails of this new movie, you will probably have to watch at least Last Crusade as well -- and possibly Temple of Doom, if there is any substance to the rumours that Kate Capshaw might return to the series (she IS the director's wife, after all!). And, as I mention on the "trilogy" thread, it is fun to look at how all three films together, seen in chronological order, make a progression from Hindu paganism to Judaism to Christianity.

Joel, Joel, Joel... Raiders is still in my top five favorite films of all time. Yes, you should see it.

I don't have an official top 10... but if I did, I suspect Raiders would make the cut.

Ok, I'll try it out. I've got some good movie nights coming up, in which I think I'll be more awake.

Probably starting a movie at 11:30PM, after writing three papers, wasn't giving Mr. Jones a very good chance at convincing me. Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak, eh?

I suspect that seeing Raiders now, since it has become one of the most imitated films (and most-poorly imitated films) ever made, will be a very different experience. But I encourage you to see it on the biggest screen you can, with surround-sound if you can manage. It was one of those films where every five or ten minutes gave us something we'd never seen before... or at least something we'd never seen executed so well before.

It's the dustiest and grittiest of the Indy films, and the third film in the trilogy is basically a shinier, funnier version of the same story, following the same patterns and trying to duplicate what worked the first time around.

Shia can undeny the rumours now. But who will he play?

Apparently USA Today scooped everyone on the Shia confirmation late last night (i.e. Thursday night) -- and get a load of this: Shia hasn't even read the script yet!

I quote:

"Up until about two weeks ago, it was little more than a rumor," he says. "Literally, when I was saying, 'I don't know anything,' I didn't know anything. It was an act of faith. I have not read a script. I don't think anybody has." . . .

Online fans are guessing Indiana Jones will have a son for this go-round, but LaBeouf says he can't confirm such plot points. Even the time-setting for the movie is a secret. "I can tell you I'm sort of the sidekick character, obviously," he says. "I'm sure there are a lot of laughs at my expense, and some kind of creature crawling on me." . . .

When he met Lucas recently at Spielberg's offices on the Universal lot, LaBeouf says he brimmed with questions but hit a wall of secrecy, even about the relic Jones will be pursuing.

"Lucas looks at you and says simply, 'I can't tell you that,' " LaBeouf says. "Then when he thinks he is supposed to tell you something but isn't sure, he gets up and leaves the room, goes in to talk with Spielberg and comes back and says, 'Nope. Sorry.' "

Gadzooks. Spielberg has veto power over Lucas now?

Good!

A car chase will be set on the outskirts of Yale University in the 1950s ...

CHUD.com's insider says this film will be inspired by Chariots of the Gods. My initial reaction to the rumour.

That sounds incredibly lame.

CHUD.com (or, rather, CHUD.com's insider) now says Karen Allen is on board.

The year is 1957, when Indy would be 58 and Marion would be about 50, according to the New Haven Independent. And the villain, according to IESB.net, is ...

One of the Usual Suspects has jumped ship. Sean Connery won't be coming out of retirement to play Indy's dad.

Story here.

New Mexico is doubling for Morocco ... and perhaps for Nevada (i.e. Area 51), as well?

Baal T'shuvah wrote:
: One of the Usual Suspects has jumped ship.

Is appearing in just one film enough to make someone a "usual suspect"?

Yes.... if you are Gabriel Byrne, Kevin Spacey, Benicio Del Toro, Stephen Baldwin, and Kevin Pollak.

Broadbent joins the adventure with 'Indiana Jones'
"I'm doing a good cameo in the next 'Indiana Jones', so working with Mr.Spielberg should be an experience. I'm going to Yale -- I'm a professor."
BritFilms, June 15

- - -

Broadbent, Blanchett, Winstone, Hurt, etc.... If this movie sucks, it won't be because of the cast!

I am suddenly wondering if any of the other Indiana Jones films had this many Oscar winners on board. Broadbent and Blanchett both have Oscars (he for Iris, she for The Aviator), and of course Spielberg has two directing awards now, both of which he earned in the 1990s; the only Oscar winner I can think of in the earlier movies is Sean Connery, who won a supporting-acting Oscar for The Untouchables just one year before Last Crusade came out in 1989. (Though I guess John Williams had already won three awards for his film scores by the time Raiders came out in 1981; he has won two more awards since then.)

I agree... that's by far the best cast in any Indiana Jones film.

I've just seen Evening, which has Claire Danes, Meryl Streep, Glen Close, Toni Collette, Eileen Atkins, Natasha Richardson, and Vanessa Redgrave.

And it really, really sucked.

Great casting fails to give me much hope anymore. And there are very few directors who give me much hope anymore. I'm learning to watch for the writers and the cinematographers, and to trust them even more than the directors and actors.


Hmmm... let's think about this:

Raiders of the Lost Ark / Die Hard
Standard-setting action movies of undeniable brilliance, beginning to end.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom / Die Hard 2: Die Harder
Misguided sequels that go way, way, way too far with the violence and grimness and gore. Both leave me feeling like I need to wash out my eyes and my mind.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade / Die Hard with a Vengeance
Unexpectedly comical sequels, with some inspired sequences and even more inspired casting. Still a far cry from the original's brilliance, but surprisingly satisfying.

Indiana Jones IV / Live Free or Die Hard
Hmmmmmmmmm. Either the franchises will part ways here, or we should take the early glimpses of Live Free as a sign that the Indy franchise is in big, big trouble.

I don't know if I'd agree with that summation of the two franchises (and based on a post of SDG's earlier in this thread, I'm guessing I'm not the only one!).

The third Die Hard has always annoyed me because it loses what was absolutely key to the first two films, which was the marriage of the McClanes. This is, of course, far more important in the first film, where the marriage is in trouble, than the second film, but one thing I always liked about the second film was that it gave us a chance to see the McClanes as a functioning, happy, reconciled couple, rather than the dysfunctional, unhappy, separated couple of the first film. You know how fairy tales always end with a wedding but never show us the marriage? The second Die Hard gives us a taste of the marriage.

The third Die Hard, OTOH, had no use for the wife, and so it dropped her. (Did the filmmakers even TRY to get Bonnie Bedelia back? I dunno.) Indeed, the third film has pretty much nothing in common with the first film, except for Bruce Willis. (I say Willis, not McClane, because I'm not even sure it's the same character in both films.) I know that that's what happens when you try to shoehorn a completely unrelated story into a pre-existing franchise -- see the discussion about the "sop to continuity" in the first scene of Evan Almighty -- but still, the third film misses out on what Die Hard is all about.

Does anyone know if there's any truth to the rumor that Die Hard with a Vengence was originally intended to be Lethal Weapon IV? This may be why the McClane family was left out of the film, although I don't see how they would have worked in the Murtaugh family if this had become part of the Lethal Weapon franchise.

And would anyone like to toss in the Lethal Weapon series for comparisons to the Indiana Jones/Die Hard debate?

Baal_T'shuvah wrote:
: Does anyone know if there's any truth to the rumor that Die Hard with a Vengence was
: originally intended to be Lethal Weapon IV?

First I've heard of it. As you can see above, Die Hard 3 began as a spec script called "Simon Says", and then Fox decided to turn it into a Die Hard sequel. I was first made aware of this when I read the press kit in 1995 (I had been the entertainment editor at a campus newspaper for about a year by then), and I believe they talk about this on the two-disc DVD as well. On the DVD commentary, I believe the writer says the first 30-40 minutes is pretty much exactly what he wrote in the spec script, and then the rest of it is the result of rewrites to make it a "John McClane movie".

: And would anyone like to toss in the Lethal Weapon series for comparisons to the
: Indiana Jones/Die Hard debate?

Man, I haven't seen any of those movies more than once, and I saw them all pretty much when they were new (though I had to wait for VHS for the first movie, being under-age and all). So my memories of those films are pretty hazy. But I vaguely recall thinking the first film was too serious, weighted down by all the Vietnam War references (which are completely absent from the sequels, right?); the second film was more out-and-out fun; the third film made no narrative sense whatsoever; and the fourth film... huh, the only thing I remember about it is that Mel Gibson couldn't even be bothered to grow his hair out for that one. And without the hair, he just ain't Martin Riggs.

Indiana Jones on the Big Island
While secrecy has surrounded the project, the fourth installment of the Indiana Jones adventure series will film here for three weeks in August. Location shooting will take place along the Hamakua Coast and Lucasfilm has opened a production office in Hilo. There is no word yet on any casting call or other local production hires.
Hawaii Tribune-Herald, June 21

- - -

'Course, this doesn't mean the movie TAKES PLACE there. If memory serves, the South American sequence at the beginning of Raiders was shot in Hawaii, too.

Hmmm, rumour has it that Indiana Jones and the City of Gods is supposed to take place in South America, doesn't it?

Photo by Steven Spielberg.

You know how John McClane is supposed to be an "analogue" man in a "digital" world? I wonder if they're going to come up with something similar here. The fashions are still 1930s, but the setting is 1957, so...

Hmmm, how should we fill the blank: "Indiana Jones: a _____ man in a nuclear world"?

(And yes, rumour has it there WILL be a nuclear explosion in this film. Who have they got directing this thing, James Cameron?)

Or wait, 1957 was the year Sputnik was launched, right? Hmmm, "Indiana Jones: a _____ man in a space-age world."

Jazz Age?

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Learning: Aging Action Franchise Invades the Ivy League
Filming of the four-quel, tentatively titled Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods and directed by Steven Spielberg, begins June 28. "It's the opening scene of the movie," Ms. Dunn burbled excitedly. "[Harrison Ford] is teaching a class and he hears some noise outside, which turns out to be an anti-Communist rally, and he goes out to investigate and he recognizes one of his old rivals from one of the other movies and he jumps on a motorcycle and ends up being chased by some guys in a car." That's not all. "I've heard rumors that the archeological artifact that they're looking for is the fountain of youth," Ms. Dunn said. "But I don't know."
New York Observer, June 26

They're impinging on potential Pirates of the Caribbean sequels...

A very, very interesting rumor. Just a rumor, and probably bogus, but wow... when I read it I felt an electrical jolt. I thought "Wow" and then "Wait, no no no... that's sacred ground!"

From AICN: "The Russians are trying to find it in order to one-up the American military might."

If that doesn't sound like a rumored plot development from the Temple of Doom era, I don't know what does. Can we really take seriously a rumor about a film with the Russians as villains? I know Putin has gone half-mad, but still.

Christian said:


Probably not. But this idea is almost appealing compared to the Indiana Jones' Close Encounters of the Third Kind direction that more rumors seem to support.

Christian wrote:
: Can we really take seriously a rumor about a film with the Russians as villains?

If it takes place in the 1950s? Absolutely! I, for one, will applaud if Spielberg treats the Commies as every bit as villainous as he treated the Nazis. That ain't the way it normally happens in Hollywood.

Personally, I'm beginning to wonder if at least one of these rumour mills is a Blue Harvest-style diversion set up by Lucasfilm itself to distract us from what's really going on. (Y'all remember what Blue Harvest was, right?)

Surely, you're joking...

Yeah, the on location, deflection name for Revenge of the Jedi (and all that that title implied). But then its name was changed too... and look at what we were left with.

Alan Thomas wrote:
: Surely, you're joking...

No, I'm not. Spielberg is a particularly interesting case in point, given how he gladly demonized Nazis in all the Indiana Jones films and in Schindler's List (and arguably in Saving Private Ryan, too), whereas he pushed things in a more sort of moral-equivalence direction when he had to deal with the (Marxist-influenced?) Palestinian terrorists in Munich. So I would be genuinely surprised -- pleased, but surprised -- if he treated the Commies in Indiana Jones IV the same way he treated the Nazis in the first and third films.

And what examples do we have of anti-Communism in mainstream films? Not a whole lot. Even the James Bond films went out of their way to tone down the anti-Communism of Ian Fleming's books, at the height of the Cold War. (Those early films with Sean Connery? Russia acted alone in the books, but in the films, SPECTRE was the culprit and using Russians as a front. Would anyone even DREAM of creating an alternate imaginary villainous organization to deflect audience antipathy away from the Nazis??)

OK, so you're just wrong...

Whatever "softening" of communism there has been is likely more attributable to (1) a backlash against McCarthyism or (2) market forces [e.g. to make Bond sexier or more contemporary]. Spielberg's "neglect" of the Marxist influences upon Palestinian terror groups in Munich hardly amounts to a softening. Is that really material? Would that have added to the film?

For some reason, in my mind, Hollywood's portrayal of commies is represented by things like The Last King of Scotland, Die Hard 2, The Hunt for Red October, The Sum of All Fears, Dr. Strangelove, Gorky Park, etc. That is, unless you're basing your analysis on films such as Spies Like Us.

It will be more interesting, if produced, to see how Spielberg handles communism in a TinTin movie.

Alan Thomas wrote:
: Whatever "softening" of communism there has been is likely more attributable to (1) a backlash against McCarthyism . . .

And of course, McCarthyism itself was a response to the fact that there were pro-Communist sympathies in Hollywood to a degree that there were never pro-Nazi sympathies. (Emphasis on "to a degree"; I'm sure Hollywood had its Lindberghs, too.)

: For some reason, in my mind, Hollywood's portrayal of commies is represented by things like The Last King of Scotland, Die Hard 2, The Hunt for Red October, The Sum of All Fears, Dr. Strangelove . . .

Hmmm. The first two examples don't concern Russians, so they are not quite in the same league as this Indiana Jones movie -- and in any case, I think everyone recognizes that Idi Amin was in a class all his own. The next two examples are Tom Clancy films, one of which actually REPLACED the book's villains with neo-Nazis! (And by the time the film came out, the Russians in the story weren't Soviets any more.) And Dr. Strangelove, of course, mocked EVERYONE mercilessly.

: . . . Gorky Park, etc. That is, unless you're basing your analysis on films such as Spies Like Us.

Never seen those ones.

: It will be more interesting, if produced, to see how Spielberg handles communism in a TinTin movie.

True, though rumour has it Spielberg might be basing his film on one of the more "escapist" stories.

Not related to Indy 4, but to the entire existing trilogy, comes this survey, which includes a related question -- with numerous responses from online film writers. Bound to get certain A&Fers all fired up! :

20) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom-- yes or no?

JIM EMERSON: YES! It's the best one, by far! Scarier, creepier, and captures more of the faux-exotic b-movie serial atmosphere. And it has that meta-rollercoaster ride through the mine.

SETH: Best of the three, by far. The first has a better co-star (big time), but neither of the others can compete with the purity of the chase at the end of Temple of Doom. Racist? Yup. Stupid? Beyond belief. But it manages somehow to top the first, which is a major accomplishment. The less said about the third, the better.

PAUL C: Yes, although with one big reservations. Simply put, Willie is a terrible match for Indy. After Marion, an adventuress in her own right who could fight alongside the boys, Willie has little to do but scream and grate on the nerves with every line she utters. But the scenes between Indy and Short Round make up for this, and I can’t help but wonder why Spielberg and Lucas didn’t ditch the girl altogether, besides the fact that Spielberg got a wife out of the deal. And while the villains may seem racist, I don’t read them that way, any more than I interpret Indiana Jones to be a realistic representation of an archeologist. Plus the last 20 minutes are exciting as hell.

AARON: Wasn’t Lucas going through a divorce at the time? I’ve read a number of reports that claim that’s why it’s so dark and vicious. So, yes, if only because I don’t think either Spielberg or Lucas could make the film today, what with the extraction of the heart by hand and other gross-out scenes, and it remains an interesting showcase for some of their personalities’ more sickly humorous qualities.

Hmmmmm.

Um, no.

It would make a great triple bill with Young Sherlock Holmes and The Goonies. The theme: Even great filmmakers like Spielberg have periods of making bad, derivative films ... but Spielberg made bad, derivative films that ripped off his own bad, derivative films ...

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: Hmmmmm.

Lucasfilm is prepared to deny everything.

Some people think the image on the IndianaJones.com home page -- also available as a wallpaper -- is hinting something:



Oh, yeah, and then there's this: