Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Peter T Chattaway

Indiana Jones 5

27 posts in this topic

Links to our threads on Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), the first three Indiana Jones movies (1981-1989), The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles (1992-1993), Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) and Raiders! (2015).
 

Say goodbye to the Paramount logo in-jokes.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Paramount can continue to distribute the first four movies, while Disney gets to make new ones (and Paramount gets a kickback from that). So I guess it's goodbye to matching sets as well (not that it bothers me--I only own Raiders, though I've enjoyed all the others).

EDIT: This is really an interesting move, since--unlike even Star Wars--Indiana Jones has a certain limited quality. By which I mean, it's easy to imagine Star Wars morphing into an open-ended franchise, even continuing indefinitely in some ways, since all you need to do is find a way to rotate out the aging cast and bring on fresh faces. Indiana Jones, on the other hand, is about Indiana Jones--unless Mutt takes over, in which case it's Mutt Jones. A couple of options:

1. One more legacy film.

2. One more legacy film before cycling Ford into support for...Shia, I guess.

2. Prequels. Which would present another set of problems (I guess Paramount kept the rights to Young Indiana Jones, though it isn't explicitly said anywhere--and what about the spin-off novels? Did Disney get those as part of the LucasArts package?).

--thing is, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that if Disney makes one more movie, they'll want to make two more to form a complete trilogy (with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull forming the awkward middle entry)

Edit edit: there's also the fact that IJ simply isn't as big a franchise as Star Wars. So it's limited in that way as well.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth wrote:
: 2. One more legacy film before cycling Ford into support for...Shia, I guess.

 

I don't see that happening. Shia used to be a protege of Spielberg's -- starring roles in the first three Transformers films and a major role in Indiana Jones 4, etc. -- but I get the impression there was a bit of a split between them when Shia publicly dissed the Indiana Jones movie and said he'd have to talk to Steven about that.

 

Of course, the Indiana Jones franchise belongs -- or, rather, belonged -- to Lucas, not Spielberg, so it's possible that *another* director could make an Indy film with Shia. Especially if the franchise now belongs more-or-less exclusively to Disney, which bought Lucasfilm outright not too long ago.

 

But Shia himself just doesn't seem to be interested in mainstream tentpoles of this sort any more, so there's that, too.

: 2. Prequels. Which would present another set of problems (I guess Paramount kept the rights to Young Indiana Jones, though it isn't explicitly said anywhere--and what about the spin-off novels? Did Disney get those as part of the LucasArts package?).

 

I'm not sure that Paramount actually owns any of those franchise elements. It *could* be that Lucas kept ownership of those things, the same way he kept ownership of sequels and merchandising when he made the original Star Wars, and that he *let* Paramount release the series on DVD the same way he let Fox release the first five Star Wars sequels and prequels.

 

Then again, the IMDb says the TV series was produced (and not merely distributed by) Lucasfilm *and* Paramount *and* Amblin (Spielberg's production company). So who knows.

 

One of *my* questions is whether Disney will really release these films under the Disney name or perhaps under one of their other names, like Touchstone. I mean, it makes sense for a series like Star Wars, which always skewed young, to end up at the Mouse House, but Raiders was almost rated R, and Temple of Doom was responsible for the rise of the PG-13 rating, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Ford is the driving force behind this film (that is, if the rumors are true), I suspect we'll see Mutt sidelined a bit just so Ford can have the spotlight to himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another option, though I am loath to point it out, is (gulp!) a reboot... with recasting... (ducks) HEY! I didn't say it was a GOOD option, but really, would you put it past Disney?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another option, though I am loath to point it out, is (gulp!) a reboot... with recasting... (ducks) HEY! I didn't say it was a GOOD option, but really, would you put it past Disney?

Unlikely, at least at this juncture. Rumors suggest Disney is doing this to appease Ford and secure his involvement in the STAR WARS films. Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another option, though I am loath to point it out, is (gulp!) a reboot... with recasting... (ducks) HEY! I didn't say it was a GOOD option, but really, would you put it past Disney?

Unlikely, at least at this juncture. Rumors suggest Disney is doing this to appease Ford and secure his involvement in the STAR WARS films.

 

 

Besides which, a reboot/recast strikes me as inherently more risky than any other option. If [a] the franchise were more broadly popular (I mean, in the sense of still being a dominant force), or if the franchise were less popular (not so tied to the person of Harrison Ford--though it's also tied to Spielberg, and there's no knowing if he would be directing these sequels), or if [c] the franchise were based on a pre-existing property (like Bond or Bourne or Jack Ryan)--in any of those cases, reboot/recast would be a viable option. An attractive option, even. But as it is, Disney has a franchise that is popular but not a marketing force, one tied closely to its leading man and not based on books. It's the Murder, She Wrote of movie franchises. 

 

--not to say they won't do it at some point. Or to say it can't/won't be brilliant. But it would be a pretty big risk on their part, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and Murder, She Wrote would never be recast. You're right. :)

 

Hey, I didn't say it was likely or advisable, just that I wouldn't put it past them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and Murder, She Wrote would never be recast. You're right. smile.png

 

Hey, I didn't say it was likely or advisable, just that I wouldn't put it past them.

 

Heh. I explicitly chose Murder, She Wrote because of the recasting stuff (though even there, the most recent stuff I've seen suggests that it's not just recasting--it's a in-title-only remake). I wasn't saying it won't happen--only that, of all the options available to them, reboot/recast strikes me as the most risky of the lot.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...and Murder, She Wrote would never be recast. You're right. smile.png

 

Hey, I didn't say it was likely or advisable, just that I wouldn't put it past them.

 

Heh. I explicitly chose Murder, She Wrote because of the recasting stuff (though even there, the most recent stuff I've seen suggests that it's not just recasting--it's a in-title-only remake). I wasn't saying it won't happen--only that, of all the options available to them, reboot/recast strikes me as the most risky of the lot.

 

 

After reading a few of your (semi-)recent Facebook posts on Murder, She Wrote, I dare say that's a splendid analogy.

Edited by Darryl A. Armstrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a Variety story about Janusz Kaminski's online cinematography course:

 

 

Kaminski has made more than a dozen films with Steven Spielberg, earning two Oscars along the way. His credits include “Schindler’s List,” “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Diving Bell & the Butterfly.” His next project is the upcoming fifth Indiana Jones movie.

 

H/T to Dan Seitz from Uproxx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spielberg may direct.

 

I can't help thinking that Spielberg wants to make a Raiders movie without having to deal with George Lucas and Harrison Ford (but especially Lucas). When Crystal Skull came out, everyone was pretty clear about the fact that *all three* of them had to agree on the concept before they made the movie, and they were *also* pretty clear about the fact that Lucas was absolutely adamant that the movie had to be about aliens etc. By the time Crystal Skull went into production, Ford was at a point in his career where he kind of *needed* a hit, but I'm not exactly sure why Spielberg signed on. Unless maybe he just wanted to work with certain people again. In any case, *this* time, Spielberg could call all the shots.

 

Also interesting to see how Chris Pratt is kind of the new Shia LaBeouf (and Shia LaBeouf was the new Haley Joel Osment, etc.). It's especially interesting in light of the fact that Pratt kind of became a leading man by playing a Han Solo type (in Guardians of the Galaxy), and he's currently starring in the newest sequel to Jurassic Park (and Spielberg wanted Ford for the Sam Neill role in the original film; instead, Ford starred in The Fugitive, so that was kind of a win-win for everybody, I think).

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If anything, I'm less enthused about the prospect of an Indiana Jones sequel coming out of the Disney factory than I am about a spate of new Star Wars movies. I can't put my finger on why, exactly, without devolving into clichés about "hand-made," etc etc etc. It's not even that they're more idiosyncratic than Star Wars--I've argued elsewhere on social media that the Prequels are the weirdest blockbusters of the past decade-and-a-half. I think it's more that the Indiana Jones machine has, for the extent of my lifetime, felt smaller than Star Wars; the Expanded Universe stuff is [a] less extensive, and far more personal-feeling, with only a handful of authors contributing to the not-at-all-canon adventures (and focusing on the development of a single character). 

 

Now, if they decided to do a new Willow movie, I'd be all over that.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2015 at 6:25 PM, Peter T Chattaway said:

2019. With Ford returning.

With Lucas out of the picture, it's a safe bet the more sci-fi elements of KotCS will get dialed back, which I think is a pity. Then again, I'm in the distinct minority in my regard for Indy IV. So the question is--what Macguffin can they chase this time? Atlantis would be cool, and would fit with the time period--iirc, there was a huge boom in Atlantean stuff in the late 50s through the 60s. Indy's already done Atlantis in Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, but that was a LucasArts game, and so not really canon. 

My private wish is that they go small-scale, slow-boil horror and send Indiana to Arkham for some Lovecraftian adventures. But that won't happen in a million years.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope when I'm 73 I'm retired and not in need of $20 Million paychecks.  Yowsers.  After Indy watched the Angel of the Lord, Kali's demonic might, Christ's cup, and space aliens rocketing off once they found their Illudium Phosdex, what's he gonna find next?  God(s) and Monsters, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, my post on the news.

NBooth wrote:
: With Lucas out of the picture, it's a safe bet the more sci-fi elements of KotCS will get dialed back, which I think is a pity. Then again, I'm in the distinct minority in my regard for Indy IV. So the question is--what Macguffin can they chase this time? Atlantis would be cool, and would fit with the time period--iirc, there was a huge boom in Atlantean stuff in the late 50s through the 60s.

Hmmm. Yeah, one of *my* questions concerns the setting: the first three films were made in the '80s and set in the '30s, and the fourth film was made in '08 and set in '57, so if the next film comes out in '19 (the same year Blade Runner happens!), it would presumably have to take place in '68 or somewhere thenabouts.

I realize that Lucas is out of the picture now, but consider this: Lucas said one of the reasons for going UFO in the fourth film was that the first three films were patterned after the adventure serials of the 1930s, and he felt that a film set in the 1950s should be patterned after the dominant genre of that era (and there *were* a lot of flying-saucer movies then). So what's the dominant SF/adventure/fantasy genre of the late 1960s or early 1970s? If Lucas were still kicking around, he might have some interesting ideas here, and if JJ Abrams were in charge of this film, you just know he'd find some way to turn it into a 1930s lovefest (the age of the characters be damned!), but with Spielberg still in charge, I have no idea what to expect. (Spielberg *has* made "serious" films set around this era -- Bridge of Spies set in the early 1960s, Munich set in the early 1970s -- but would he necessarily want to "go there" with Indy?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The late sixties/early seventies offer all kinds of interesting possibilities. I'd be interested in seeing them continue the Judeo-Christian thread of RAIDERS and CRUSADE but take a different angle by evoking the Satanic horror films of that period. You could also draw from the legacy of Hammer films (INDIANA JONES AND THE GOLDEN VAMPIRES, perhaps?).

That said, I don't think Spielberg would go for another horror-inflected Indy flick. But that's kinda what I'd be interested in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm up for anything Indy that involves Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg. Excited! = me. Back in 2008, I watched Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull three times in theaters when I was living in DC. I don't think I've ever seen a movie in theaters three times before or since. I absolutely adored it; the film was a great comfort to me at that point in my life. All Indy movies are. So excited for this news! 

Edited by Tyler Beane Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

July 19, 2019

No mention of LaBeouf, of course. No mention, either, of Lucas--which, honestly, worries me a bit (then again, I'm one of those folks who thinks KotCS is an underrated gem). With Spielberg at the helm, I should hope Disney will be able to resist (or he'll be able to resist them) Marvel-izing at least this movie (but, y'know, if they continue the franchise in some way with a new lead, then all bets are off).

Then again, looking over the thread, I see I've said all this already, said it all.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 75 year old Harrison Ford beating up commies while hunting antiquities?  Without Mutt in tow?  Movie magic at its finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0