Jump to content

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull


Recommended Posts

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.

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 423
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Kent Brockman: Now, here are the results from our phone-in poll. 95% of the people think Homer Simpson is guilty. Of course, this is just a television poll, which is not legally binding. Unless Proposition 304 passes, and we all pray it will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!

:lol:

Kent Brockman: Now, here are the results from our phone-in poll. 95% of the people think Homer Simpson is guilty. Of course, this is just a television poll, which is not legally binding. Unless Proposition 304 passes, and we all pray it will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

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?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

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

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ...

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an interesting notion - to have Blanchett play the daughter.

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.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

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

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites

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? ;)

Edited by sadida
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...