Jump to content


Photo

Indy on DVD


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#21 Anders

Anders

    Globe-trotting special agent

  • Member
  • 2,849 posts

Posted 17 October 2003 - 05:01 PM

In fact, I think I even saw a making-of-Star Wars special once in which George Lucas said he got the idea for creating Chewbacca the Wookiee from his dog, "Indiana".



Yep, you're right on this one too. (Always handy to have a Star Wars geek to verify these things).

But I think you're all being far to harsh on Temple of Doom. The mine cart chase, the opening Club Obi-Wan number, and the character of Short Round easily make it a worthwhile chapter in the saga. However, Raiders is still the best.

#22 movielover71

movielover71

    Member

  • New User
  • 31 posts

Posted 19 October 2003 - 06:49 AM

In fact, I think I even saw a making-of-Star Wars special once in which George Lucas said he got the idea for creating Chewbacca the Wookiee from his dog, "Indiana".



So in the words of Princess Leia. Did George Lucus's dog look like a "big walking carpet?"

#23 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 28,882 posts

Posted 22 October 2003 - 11:14 AM

movielover71 wrote:

: : In fact, I think I even saw a making-of-Star Wars special once in which
: : George Lucas said he got the idea for creating Chewbacca the Wookiee
: : from his dog, "Indiana".
:
: So in the words of Princess Leia. Did George Lucus's dog look like a "big
: walking carpet?"

Don't know about that, but apparently the dog was big and it used to sit in Lucas's passenger seat all the time.

Just finished watching the 'feature-length documentary' (actually three shorter documentaries on the individual films, each between 35 and 50 minutes, which you can watch together by selecting 'play all'). I had never before seen the screen test with Tom Selleck and Sean Young (who ended up co-starring with Harrison Ford in Blade Runner), or with Tim Matheson and Karen Allen. How weird it was to see these actors interpret a scene that I have pretty much known by heart for over 20 years. I almost said 're-interpret', but the fact is, the even weirder thing about watching these screen tests was knowing that the men wearing the hat (apparently the costume was in place long before the actor was!) were trying to INVENT the character from scratch, and could not possibly be accused of mimicking Harrison Ford or revising his work or impinging on his territory, because the role had not even been cast yet.

And did Spielberg REALLY want to cast Danny DeVito as Sallah!? Yikes. I guess DeVito got his turn in this genre when Romancing the Stone (directed by Spielberg protegé Robert Zemeckis, whose earlier films I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Used Cars had been executive-produced by Spielberg, and who went on to do Back to the Future and Who Framed Roger Rabbit with Spielberg's imprimatur) came out a few years later.

#24 movielover71

movielover71

    Member

  • New User
  • 31 posts

Posted 22 October 2003 - 05:08 PM

I don't have time to read all the previous posts, so I apologise if this has already been mentioned. But Peter Coyote (who played Keys in E.T.) also audition for the part of Indiana Jones. However, as he said in the interview, he walked in with the Indiana hat on his head and tripped over (can't remember what on). Needless to say he didn't get the part, but was remembered by Spielberg, who cast him in E.T.

I'm going to guess that most people knew this. But still it's something to post. smile.gif

#25 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 28,882 posts

Posted 25 October 2003 - 07:19 PM

One other point or two of trivia regarding this set. Those of you who love the MPAA ratings system as much as I may recall that the controversy over the PG-rated Temple of Doom was largely responsible for the invention of the PG-13 rating -- a fact that is acknowledged in the making-of documentary in this set. (I believe the PG-rated Gremlins, which Spielberg produced at that time, was also partly responsible for this development, but they don't say anything about that here; the first film to actually GET the PG-13 rating was Red Dawn.)

I remember finding this controversy rather interesting at the time, partly because British Columbia's film classification board had introduced a '14 Years' rating at least one year previously -- just a year or two before I turned 14 myself, in fact. (And the fact that I had skipped grades meant that my classmates could see movies that I could not.) So it was interesting to see the American system catch up to us, as it were.

And now, I see that the DVD boxed set carries different Canadian home-video ratings for the three films. (These ratings are for video only; theatrically, each province has its own classification board, and opinions sometimes vary, as when Ontario gave The Fighting Temptations a PG and B.C. gave it a G.) And while Temple of Doom and Last Crusade both have PG ratings, Raiders is 14-A!

What is also interesting is Spielberg's assertion that, when Belloq's head explodes at the end of Raiders, he had to put the wall of fire in front of the exploding face in order to get a PG rating -- otherwise it would have been an R. This is interesting, to me, because I saw the film with my dad when I was 11, and I don't remember really noticing WHAT was going on with Belloq's face until I read the illustrated screenplay some months later and saw the storyboard picture of Belloq's face exploding. So I guess the fire obscured the image precisely the way it was supposed to! And the glimpse we get of the fire-less shot actually looks kind of phony to me -- I think they almost needed the fire there to make the shot work.

Maybe one of these days we can discuss what we make of the idea that God would put beautiful/horrible ghosts into the Ark of the Covenant and cause Nazis' faces to melt and explode in the first place. smile.gif

#26 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 28,882 posts

Posted 26 October 2003 - 10:47 PM

Sigh. And now comes word that, if you buy the boxed set at Best Buy, it comes with a bonus fifth disc which, I think, contains a 10-minute featurette produced back in 1981. Something like that, anyway. Arrgh. Not that we have Best Buy in Canada to begin with ...

#27 Anders

Anders

    Globe-trotting special agent

  • Member
  • 2,849 posts

Posted 27 October 2003 - 10:15 AM

Sigh. And now comes word that, if you buy the boxed set at Best Buy, it comes with a bonus fifth disc which, I think, contains a 10-minute featurette produced back in 1981. Something like that, anyway. Arrgh. Not that we have Best Buy in Canada to begin with ...



Actually they do have Best Buy in Canada. There's a really big one in South Edmonton. Though, I wasn't really impressed with it.

Go to Future Shop (which is affiliated with Best Buy). I pre-ordered my copy of Indy there so I could get this fifth bonus disc (which isn't really much, but as a completist I'm sure it's bugging you). They said they were only giving it away with pre-orders, but I'm sure if you asked really, really nicely...

#28 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 28,882 posts

Posted 27 October 2003 - 11:26 AM

Anders wrote:
: Actually they do have Best Buy in Canada. There's a really big one in
: South Edmonton. Though, I wasn't really impressed with it.

Ah. Way over there in another province. I see.

: Go to Future Shop (which is affiliated with Best Buy). I pre-ordered my
: copy of Indy there so I could get this fifth bonus disc (which isn't really
: much, but as a completist I'm sure it's bugging you).

Hmmm. But I already bought the boxed set at A&B Sound (cuz, like, they almost always have the cheapest prices, etc.).

I'm impressed, though, that the bonus disc made its way to Canada at all. I had to get an American friend to buy Sam Phillips' Fan Dance with the bonus track for me, and I had to buy a used copy of the Wal-Mart Prince of Egypt CD from an American e-pal because the Canadian Wal-Marts just didn't have that disc.

#29 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 28,882 posts

Posted 11 November 2003 - 11:02 PM

The girlfriend and I have been talking about seeing all three movies in chronological order, so today -- recognizing that we would probably never find a six-hour-plus block of time worth devoting to this project -- we decided to get Temple of Doom out of the way, as well as the prologue from Last Crusade (but in the reverse order, of course).

And hoo-boy, is Temple of Doom bad. We weren't half-way through the film before the girlfriend said she was tempted to just let me watch the rest of the film on my own. There are so many gaps in the film's narrative logic, it's pretty much pointless to complain about them -- the film's a complete write-off, on that level -- and yet complain I shall.

For starters, that opening sequence at Club Obi Wan makes no sense. Doesn't Indy wonder WHY the bad guy's son has, for no particular reason, placed a drink for him on the lazy susan? Why does Indy DRINK it? And why does the bad guy make a point of bringing the antidote with him, and showing it to Indy, when he plans to let Indy die anyway?

And why does Indy take that shrill woman with him on the plane, when he was only interested in her as a hostage and/or as the person who had tucked the antidote into her dress? Once Indy has made it to the airfield in one piece, there is simply no reason for him to bring Willie along with him -- none whatsoever -- and the complete lack of chemistry between the two of them makes it unbearable whenever Willie declares that Indy is crazy about her. I mean, really, when they're on the plane and she says, "Ever since you came into my club, you haven't been able to take your eyes off of me," or words to that effect, she comes across as the worst kind of narcissist -- to anyone with a brain and a pair of eyes, it's clear that Indy had no interest in her at that point beyond her usefulness. And for that matter, the only reason Indy has any interest in her AFTER that point is her usefulness -- the whole time they're stranded in India, she's the only potential lay around. (BTW, re: that hostage bit, have we ever seen Indiana Jones take an innocent bystander hostage in any of the OTHER films? Somehow that does not seem very, oh, heroic, does it?)

Then there's the fact that the film is both extremely cheesy yet way too serious. Extremely cheesy: I suspect that neither of the other films goes as far out of its way as this one does to have Indy and the others act in such impossibly cartoonish ways (e.g. the bit where the assassin stands against a mural depicting lots of people, and is therefore somehow invisible, or the bit at the end where Indy stops Willie dead in her tracks by lashing his whip around her waist, and she apparently doesn't feel any pain AT ALL). Way too serious: unlike the other films, this one does not deal in grand mythic ideas about sacred objects being responsible for the rise and fall of empires, but gives us a devastated village straight out of National Geographic and dozens of slave children who need to be rescued; the scene where the villains whip both Indy AND Short Round also crosses the line into this-isn't-fun-any-more territory, methinks.

I was 13 when I saw this film in theatres, and I remember my dad talking to me afterwards about the cost of these films and how that sort of money could have been put to so many better uses. I was too young at the time to really notice just how bad this film was, but now, I cannot help but wonder just how disappointing this film must have been to all the Lucas and Spielberg fans, given that this was Lucas's first film since wrapping up his other trilogy with Return of the Jedi, and given that this was Spielberg's first film since E.T. (unless you count his contribution to the Twilight Zone movie, which, BTW, I have never seen).

Seeing this film so soon after the Last Crusade prologue was interesting on a few levels. When Indy asks Willie if her name is short for something, she says it's her "professional" name, and then she mocks his name; Short Round interjects that she must call him "Dr. Jones", and Indy replies, "That's MY professional name." Ironically, of course, Last Crusade reveals that "Indiana" itself is, if not a "professional" name, a name that Indy has adopted in place of his own given name, too.

Similarly, Willie compares Indy to a "lion tamer" and Short Round talks about taking an elephant back to the "circus", and Last Crusade reveals that Indy acquired most of his distinctive characteristics while being chased through a circus train -- he even learned how to use a whip while trapped in a car with a lion!

Finally, the young Indy's recurring refrain in Last Crusade is "It belongs in a museum!", but in Temple of Doom, Indy says he's leaving the Shankara Stone with the village, and not taking it back to America for his own "fortune and glory", because "They'd probably just put it in a museum, and it would be just another rock collecting dust," or words to that effect. Of course, a key difference here is that the Shankara Stone belongs to the village, which somehow depends on it, whereas the Cross of Coronado is a 400-year-old artifact whose original owner passed away centuries ago ("Coronado's dead, and so are his grandchildren!").

#30 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 28,882 posts

Posted 22 November 2003 - 03:27 AM

So, last night, the girlfriend and I gave Raiders a go. And gosh, what memories came flooding back to me.

I have always thought of Raiders of the Lost Ark as more of a George Lucas film than a Steven Spielberg film, perhaps because, when I first saw this film at the tender age of 11 (on a weekend trip to the States with my dad; he also took me to see my first James Bond movie, For Your Eyes Only, on that trip), I had never seen a Spielberg movie before (at that point, his only other feature films had been The Sugarland Express, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and, um, 1941), but I had definitely seen the first two Star Wars movies; plus, of course, Raiders starred Harrison Ford. But now that I have seen countless other Spielberg films, and now that I know more about auteurs and whatnot, I was finally able to appreciate Raiders as a Spielberg film -- the action, the humor, the perfectly framed compositions, the flair for arresting visuals, the fluid editing, the willingness to let music and image (and not dialogue) tell the story (esp. in the Map Room sequence), the works.

If the Star Wars films were for children, then I think Raiders was for adolescents, what with all the blood spurting this way and that, the fleshy skeletons, the melting faces, the woman taking her shirt off (though all we get to see is a tantalizing glimpse of her bare back), and so on -- when I was 11, at any rate, I had the profound sense that I was getting a taste of things that were supposed to be for people slightly older than myself. But the funny thing was, because this is a story built around the Ark of the Covenant, there was something 'okay' about the film; after seeing it with my father, I saw it again with my Sunday school class, and I know that I, for one, was motivated by the film to do more reading on the Bible and archaeology and so on.

Speaking of which, do we ever see Indiana Jones do anything remotely archaeological in the other films? Sure, he knows as many languages as C-3PO and he grabs precious objects whenever he can, but watching Raiders, it struck me that this may be the only film in which we see him carefully brushing dirt off of an artifact or working with regular surveying tools or taking part in a dig. I'll have to pay attention for this sort of thing when I get around to watching the third film.

Another thing that struck me was just what a loser Indiana Jones is -- for a hero, at any rate. On the bonus DVD, Lucas talks about how Indy was supposed to be kind of like the studly heroes of Saturday-matinee fare, except that he always found himself getting in way over his head; and at a screenwriting seminar I attended at Greenbelt several years ago, Bart Gavigan said that this film had a very poor ending because, rather than show the hero making a choice that saved the day, the film ended with the Ark taking matters into its own hands (at the time, I challenged Gavigan on this and argued that the whole POINT of the story was that the Ark was not something that could be pushed around like a typical archaeological object -- to use a Hitchcockian term, the Ark reveals itself at the end to be no mere MacGuffin). But what struck me last night was that Indy almost NEVER gives his scenes a satisfactory heroic conclusion. This insight hit me while I was watching the scene where he fights the big Nazi soldier by the airplane; Indy does not defeat the Nazi, per se, but simply turns his eyes away when he realizes that the plane's propeller is about to sneak up on the Nazi from behind and kill him; and the fact that Indy covers his eyes reminded me of the scene at the end of the film, where the ghosts come out of the Ark and Indy tells Marion to close her eyes and not look at what's happening around them. I started thinking about some of the other scenes and realized that there were very few which ended with Indy on top -- either Belloq showed up at the last minute to steal Indy's artifact (and this happens twice!), or an exploding truck tricked Indy into thinking he had killed his girlfriend (BTW, did he never check the wreckage for, oh, a body or anything?), or Marion fired the bullet that saved Indy from getting shot in the bar, or something like that. I think the only fight/chase scene that ends with Indy on top, as it were, and through his own efforts, is the sequence that begins with Indy chasing the Nazi truck on horseback.

Just a few other random thoughts. This film takes place in 1936, one year after Temple of Doom (1935) and 24 years after the prologue to Last Crusade (1912), and there are references to an affair that Indy had with Marion ten years before (presumably around 1926), and how Marion's father had pegged Indy as the sort of guy who never settles down; of course, in Temple of Doom, Indy is DEFINITELY the kind of guy who loves 'em and leaves 'em, but Raiders ends on a note which suggests that he and Marion will stick together a little longer; alas, in the third film, which takes place two years later (1938), there will be no reference to Marion at all.

It is also interesting to see that Indy spends most of the film doubting in the supernatural -- it is the villain, Belloq, who truly believes in the Ark as something more than a political or academic trophy! -- yet of course, if Temple of Doom is to be believed, Indy has already had direct first-hand experience with some sort of supernatural power. And when Marcus Brody expresses concern over the Ark, Indy says, "You sound like my mother," which is interesting, given that Last Crusade might lead us to think that Indy hasn't HAD a mother since, perhaps, his teens.

Oh, and thanks to the magic of zooming and freeze-framing, we were able to get a very, very good look at the hieroglyphics of C-3PO and R2-D2 on the wall behind Indy in the Well of the Souls!

#31 Alvy

Alvy

    Musical Thinker

  • New User
  • 485 posts

Posted 22 November 2003 - 04:25 AM

I must confess, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the only one of the series I have consistently enjoyed. In Temple of Doom, I only ever switch channels in time for the cart chase, and Raiders of the Lost Ark just never really grabbed me.

But then, I have little interest in LOTR, so I think I must just have some sort of deficiency when it comes to some genres.

#32 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 28,882 posts

Posted 22 November 2003 - 02:48 PM

In response to my line that "there are very few [scenes] which end with Indy on top," someone in another forum reminded me about the love scene, to which I replied:

- - -

: Not even in the, ahem, romantic department ;-). The big chase scene
: gets him so tuckered out that he falls asleep as Marion is trying to kiss
: him better....

Ha! And now that you mention it, that was another thing I realized I have always liked about this film, the way that love scene starts off as an argument ("Well goddammit Indy, where DOES it hurt?" "Here!") and very quickly segues into something rather vulnerable and tender (when Indy points to his mouth and says, almost hesitantly, "Here?"). Of course, it then segues again into that Indy-falls-asleep punchline, but oh well. (Don't get me wrong, I like the punchline, but, well, still.)

: James Bond he's not, which is what makes the movie so charming in that
: area, and the other movies somewhat disappointing...

Exactly. Of course, this is partly because he and Marion have an actual history together, whereas Bond girls are generally supposed to be people that Bond just met for the first time. (The one exception I can think of, Teri Hatcher's "did I get too close?" character in Tomorrow Never Dies, bugged me precisely because it seemed like the writers were trying to shoehorn a bit of revisionist character development into the franchise.)

#33 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 28,882 posts

Posted 05 December 2003 - 01:58 AM

And so, tonight, the girlfriend and I completed the "trilogy".

Actually, this series isn't really a "trilogy" in any significant way, despite that brilliant theory to the effect that we can see Indy follow a Charles Williams-like progression from paganism through Judaism to Christianity if we watch the series in chronological order -- instead, each film begins with Indiana Jones as a skeptic and ends with him becoming a believer of some sort, and the way he always seems to revert to his original default mode (the same way he promptly forgets his girlfriends from the previous films) doesn't really allow for the sort of narrative arc that we might expect of a proper "trilogy".

You could say that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- which, as I recall, was just one of several sequels clogging the multiplex in the summer of 1989, along with Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Ghostbusters 2, all of which were overshadowed by the original Batman -- was a "necessary" film, if only because it simply wouldn't have done to let Temple of Doom have the last word on this franchise. It was also "necessary" because director Steven Spielberg's efforts to win respect and an Oscar with "serious" films like 1985's The Color Purple and 1987's Empire of the Sun had been fruitless, while producer George Lucas's most recent films, including 1986's Howard the Duck and 1987's Willow, had been flops; both of these film-makers needed to re-establish themselves as box-office forces to be reckoned with. But seeing this film right after Raiders of the Lost Ark, you cannot help but notice what a pale copy of that film this one is: like the earlier film, it too features a biblical relic, Nazis trudging through the desert, tunnels curtained in cobwebs, a life-threatening propeller, etc., etc.

Much to my surprise, I have actually heard some people argue that Last Crusade has more "character development" than Raiders, simply because of the repartee between Indy and his father, who is played by Sean Connery. (Connery was obviously picked because of his connection to the then-struggling James Bond franchise, which Lucas and Spielberg had always cited as one of the inspirations for Indiana Jones, and which pretty much died in 1989 with License to Kill; six years would pass before Pierce Brosnan revived that character. Connery was also at the peak of his post-Bond popularity when this film came out; he had just won an Oscar for 1987's The Untouchables, and he was on the verge of appearing in 1990's The Hunt for Red October). Now, credit where credit is due -- Harrison Ford and Sean Connery make an effective and amusing comedy team. But there is almost nothing in the way of actual character development here; like the dialogue between Indy and Elsa (A View to a Kill's Alison Doody) in their big love scene, the dialogue between Indy and his dad has a staged, artificial, contrived air about it. It feels perfunctory, like it was designed to push us from Point A to Point B, and rarely like a genuine conversation. This is a far cry from the character, romance and comedy in Raiders, which were grounded in something more serious and real.

In keeping with its comic but superficial portrayal of father-son (and male-female) relations, Last Crusade also has the cartoonish sensibility of Temple of Doom, rather than the more serious or mystical sensibility of Raiders; I guess this film gets away with the cartoonishness because it isn't as dark and nasty as Temple of Doom, but me, I would like films about the supernatural to retain some sort of awe, and I just don't get that here. The tests that Indy must face at the end all have naturalistic explanations and are easily thwarted; and the fact that the filmmakers must pull a deliberate bait-and-switch on us (just before the third test, we see Indy's feet cast a shadow on the wall below the cave; but when he steps forward, it turns out there was a stone bridge there all along) just adds to that feeling that we have been cheated, that the filmmakers haven't played fair with us. (Compare that with the sheer awesomeness of the collapsing cavern and the giant boulder at the beginning of Raiders, or the mysterious nature of that one trap that is somehow triggered by a break in a ray of light.) And when Indy meets the Knight at the end, the Knight feebly raises his sword and then collapses under its weight -- our first impression of him is a comical one. Lame.

Even that scene with Hitler is part of the problem, part of that tendency towards trivialization -- these films work precisely because they mythologize history, and in order not to break the spell, we have to keep REAL history at some distance; but when we see Hitler up-close, handing Indy his autograph, well, it just breaks that spell, and as executed here, it becomes just one more contrivance in a film full of contrivances. Of course, Lucas would soon have Indy meeting LOTS of famous historical figures in the Young Indiana Jones TV series. But Spielberg made Schindler's List just four years later, and he went on to say that he could never go back to treating Nazis as cartoonish villains again.

Oh well. Just a few random final thoughts. I still do not like the way the film reduces Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliot) to a joke, and I still do not like the character's line to the effect that the search for the Grail is the seach for "the divine within us all." There is a point during the tank sequence when someone fires a gun at Indy, and when I saw that, it suddenly occured to me that no bullet would penetrate Indy's skin in this film; the fight scenes in Last Crusade just do not have the edgy, scrappy character of the fight scenes in Raiders. As my girlfriend pointed out, the film begins with Indy saying that an artifact dating to the early colonization of the Americas "belongs in a museum", even though the "bad guy" who owns it found it buried in a cave back in 1912 and the authorities were apparently okay with this; on what basis does Indy justify risking his life and killing people over this trinket? Given that my girlfriend is Orthodox, the line about the church in Venice being built with items plundered in Byzantium during the Crusades jumped out at me in a way that it never had before. One character (one of the "cruciform" warriors, I think) says something about the cup of Christ bringing death to the "unrighteous" who drink from it -- but wait a minute, the main bad guy in this film is killed NOT because he drinks from the RIGHT cup with an evil heart, but because he drinks from the WRONG cup, period; hmmm, what sort of ending might this film have had, I wonder, if he had drunk from the right cup after all, but had been judged and killed by it; and in what sense, I wonder, are we supposed to think of Indiana Jones or his father as "righteous", given their, um, un-Christian behaviour elsewhere in the film. And it wasn't exactly clear to me whether Indy and his father were supposed to have eternal life at the end of the film, now that they had drunk from the Grail, or if, in order to have said life, they had to stay with the Grail inside the cavern; judging from the fact that, on the TV series, Indy grows old and his body falls apart, even to the extent that he even wears an eyepatch, I'm guessing the latter.

#34 SDG

SDG

    Catholic deflector shield

  • Moderator
  • 8,791 posts

Posted 05 December 2003 - 09:08 AM

Peter, your analyses are brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. I agree with every syllable, I think.

#35 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 28,882 posts

Posted 05 December 2003 - 10:56 AM

SDG wrote:
: I agree with every syllable, I think.

I shall treasure this moment. smile.gif

#36 Overstreet

Overstreet

    Sometimes, there's a man.

  • Member
  • 16,808 posts

Posted 09 February 2004 - 10:04 PM

And now, the latest rumors on Indy IV.

Seems we're in no danger of a lousy sequel any time soon.

#37 Overstreet

Overstreet

    Sometimes, there's a man.

  • Member
  • 16,808 posts

Posted 16 February 2004 - 09:43 PM

Apparently, Darabont wrote a script he loved. Spielberg loved it. Lucas... well, no...

Here it is, from Darabont himself.

#38 Overstreet

Overstreet

    Sometimes, there's a man.

  • Member
  • 16,808 posts

Posted 29 March 2004 - 05:42 PM

And now the guy who wrote the Pirates story is on board:
QUOTE

Aussie working on Indiana Jones 4
Posted on Sun, 28-Mar-2004

Australian screenwriter Stuart Beattie has been hired to rework the fourth \"Indiana Jones\" movie.  

According to loyal scooper 'Accountant', The \"Pirates of the Caribbean\" writer - he penned the screen story - was hired by Lucasfilm pretty much based on the success of that film. He's currently at work on a re-write of the newest script, with suggestions the film still might be ready for a release sometime in 2005.  

Earlier this year, Frank Darabont was let go from the production after turning in a sequel script that didn't meet up \"to either of the uber-beard's standards\".  

\"With Beattie now attached to re-write and everything looking a lot better everyone's trying to clear their dates again - Ford, Lucas, Spielberg, Connery. Karen Allen and Kate Capshaw are part of the storyline too. Lots of reshuffling going on\".  

Beattie is currently also working on Mikael Håfström's \"Derailed\".  

Update : A reader named 'Graeme' contacted us to say that Beattie did an interview with the filmmakers magazine 'IF' and confirmed that he is indeed doing a re-write on the film. Whether he did that when Darabont was attached, or is working on it now - wasn't specified.


#39 Overstreet

Overstreet

    Sometimes, there's a man.

  • Member
  • 16,808 posts

Posted 25 May 2004 - 10:50 AM

And NOW they're talking about Young Indy feature films...

#40 Peter T Chattaway

Peter T Chattaway

    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.

  • Member
  • 28,882 posts

Posted 27 August 2007 - 07:40 PM

Link to the thread on Indiana Jones IV ("and the City of Gods" or whatever it ends up being called).

Let me guess: By "feature-length movies", we mean that the original episodes have been stripped of their framing devices (in which Indiana Jones is in his early 90s and wearing an eyepatch and living with his daughter -- except for that one episode where Harrison Ford played Indiana Jones at the age of 50) and edited together, right?

- - -

Update: Young Indy Announcement
As we reported back in July - on October 23, 2007, Paramount Home Entertainment will release The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles - Volume One on DVD. . . . Three volumes will hit by the time the Chronicles unfold with the second volume dropping on December 18, 2007 and the third sometime in the spring of 2008. Today, the offical announcement hit the airwaves and we've got the word on what viewers can expect to dig up on this massive seven-episode, twelve-disc DVD set. . . . The complete, epic-sized three-volume collection will contain 22 feature-length movies and 94 documentaries in total.
IGN.com, August 27