Indiana Jones V

[Tiki Tom]

Article Quote: “According to Disney CEO Bob Iger, the intention with the studio’s new Indiana Jones movie is to set up something sustainable to keep the movies coming. He said that the fifth film “won’t be just a one-off.” Harrison Ford is getting pretty old, but Iger suggested that his involvement with the fifth movie was unclear. So, somehow, the movie has to please fans, have a really old Indy, and set up future films. …Hopefully, this doesn’t mean setting up a cinematic universe that will attack the multiplex with a barrage of unnecessary Indy-related projects like Sallah: An Indiana Jones Story, because nobody wants that.”

https://screenrant.com/indiana-jones-5-facts-confirmed/

Hmmm. Sustainable, eh? How about, In EJ5, an elderly Doctor Jones is out to recover his own diary, which has been stolen by [insert appropriate bad guys]. The movie cuts back and forth between that narrative and the action described in one of the chapters/stories in his magnificent, thick, diary. Thus: you have Harrison Ford in the movie, you have flashbacks to a golden-era adventure, and you have the hook for future movies: i.e., more stories from that stolen diary.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

INDIANA JONES® AND THE SEQUEL THAT NEVER WAS !

Coming to a theatre near you, maybe, prehaps, who knows ?

 

[The Jackal]

Article Quote: “According to Disney CEO Bob Iger, the intention with the studio’s new Indiana Jones movie is to set up something sustainable to keep the movies coming. He said that the fifth film “won’t be just a one-off.” Harrison Ford is getting pretty old, but Iger suggested that his involvement with the fifth movie was unclear. So, somehow, the movie has to please fans, have a really old Indy, and set up future films. …Hopefully, this doesn’t mean setting up a cinematic universe that will attack the multiplex with a barrage of unnecessary Indy-related projects like Sallah: An Indiana Jones Story, because nobody wants that.”

https://screenrant.com/indiana-jones-5-facts-confirmed/

Hmmm. Sustainable, eh? How about, In EJ5, an elderly Doctor Jones is out to recover his own diary, which has been stolen by [insert appropriate bad guys]. The movie cuts back and forth between that narrative and the action described in one of the chapters/stories in his magnificent, thick, diary. Thus: you have Harrison Ford in the movie, you have flashbacks to a golden-era adventure, and you have the hook for future movies: i.e., more stories from that stolen diary.

That would be a decent way to smooth people into the idea of someone else playing Indiana Jones. I think people would accept the idea of a younger actor playing the character in flashback scenes. Then if they accept the younger actor, there won't be as much issue when he returns for following movies, even without Ford.

 

[scottyrocks]

Did Star Trek fans have this much trouble before the first new Star Trek (2009) was introduced?

 

[The Jackal]

Did Star Trek fans have this much trouble before the first new Star Trek (2009) was introduced?

I would say they probably did. Trekkies had a tendency to pitch a fit at each new tv show that was released because it wasn't exactly like whichever their favorite series prior to that was. And heaven forbid when they cast a female captain on Voyager.

 

[Edward]

That would be a decent way to smooth people into the idea of someone else playing Indiana Jones. I think people would accept the idea of a younger actor playing the character in flashback scenes. Then if they accept the younger actor, there won't be as much issue when he returns for following movies, even without Ford.

IT's an expansion of the Star Trek: Generations approach. Not that they had two actors play the same person, but they did use an established favourite of the franchise to ease in a new cast.

Did Star Trek fans have this much trouble before the first new Star Trek (2009) was introduced?

Yes... in parts. I think most went with it, though, and it captured a whole new generation who didn't grw up with the originals either, and so wre more open to it as well. The loud antis weren't as big a proportion by far as the naysayers over the Star Wars prequels, for instance... and, to be fair, many of tose who didn't like it had fair enough opinions that weren't to do with other actors. (Much like how Solo was objectively awful for reasons other than someone other than Ford playing the role (though it would have helped a lot if that replacement had been able to act..)).

I would say they probably did. Trekkies had a tendency to pitch a fit at each new tv show that was released because it wasn't exactly like whichever their favorite series prior to that was. And heaven forbid when they cast a female captain on Voyager.

The incel population of a lot of Trek fandom is.... high.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Article Quote: “According to Disney CEO Bob Iger, the intention with the studio’s new Indiana Jones movie is to set up something sustainable to keep the movies coming. He said that the fifth film “won’t be just a one-off.” Harrison Ford is getting pretty old, but Iger suggested that his involvement with the fifth movie was unclear. So, somehow, the movie has to please fans, have a really old Indy, and set up future films. …Hopefully, this doesn’t mean setting up a cinematic universe that will attack the multiplex with a barrage of unnecessary Indy-related projects like Sallah: An Indiana Jones Story, because nobody wants that.”

https://screenrant.com/indiana-jones-5-facts-confirmed/

Hmmm. Sustainable, eh? How about, In EJ5, an elderly Doctor Jones is out to recover his own diary, which has been stolen by [insert appropriate bad guys]. The movie cuts back and forth between that narrative and the action described in one of the chapters/stories in his magnificent, thick, diary. Thus: you have Harrison Ford in the movie, you have flashbacks to a golden-era adventure, and you have the hook for future movies: i.e., more stories from that stolen diary.

I think Edward suggested exactly this kind of obvious device for using an older Ford a while back. The chances of them making this work are pretty slim.

 

[Zombie_61]

I think the chances of them making any of their reboot ideas work are non-existent until Mr. Ford is willing to permanently and publicly relinquish the role to a younger actor. Maybe that's the deal they've made with him. "Okay, you'll play Indy in the lead role one last time, but after this you have to help us set up the 'new' Indy...whoever that'll be."

 

[Seb Lucas]

I think the chances of them making any of their reboot ideas work are non-existent until Mr. Ford is willing to permanently and publicly relinquish the role to a younger actor. Maybe that's the deal they've made with him. "Okay, you'll play Indy in the lead role one last time, but after this you have to help us set up the 'new' Indy...whoever that'll be."

I agree. But how attached is Ford to this? It strikes me that at this stage of his career Ford wouldn't care too much if he stayed right out of it.

All that running around and staring at non extant CGI stuff is surely tedious to this septuagenarian star?

And how lame would it be to use the flash back device in the movie! Is this an episode of The Brady Bunch? "I remember the summer of '33, the Nazis were getting ready to take over..." shimmer transition shot to 30 year-old Indy lecturing in a classroom. I shudder.

 

[Zombie_61]

I agree. But how attached is Ford to this? It strikes me that at this stage of his career Ford wouldn't care too much if he stayed right out of it.

All that running around and staring at non extant CGI stuff is surely tedious to this septuagenarian star?

The people involved have been very outspoken in the press about how Ford enjoys playing Indy and is looking forward to doing it again. How true that is probably depends on who you're talking to at any given moment.

...And how lame would it be to use the flash back device in the movie! Is this an episode of The Brady Bunch? "I remember the summer of '33, the Nazis were getting ready to take over..." shimmer transition shot to 30 year-old Indy lecturing in a classroom. I shudder.

If they can cook up interdimensional beings for the last movie, they can surely figure out an equally pathetic way to "transport" Indy back to his younger days. I'd rather they stop trying to be clever and simply reboot the franchise, but they're going to do what they're going to do.

 

[scottyrocks]

Here's what I'd like to see . . .

You know they're redoing The Lion King, but this time in CGI instead of 2D animation? There will be new shots, as well as almost exact duplicates of some shots. Some characters will look very close to their 2D counterparts and some will not (Scar and possibly Rafiki, afaik). The characters will be voiced by different actors, except Mufasa, who will again have James Earl Jones supplying his voice.

The same thing could be done with Raiders. Remake the movie. Stay true to the story and the scenes, for the most part. Altered shots, different actors, different director, altered pacing.

It worked for Star Trek, it will work for The Lion King, and could very well work for Raiders. I know I would be glued to it.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Sotty, Raiders is a masterpiece (or near enough) remaking it is surely as pointless as the remake of Psycho by Van Sant. Besides, a remake will simply exaggerate the quality difference between them. The comparison being irresistible and fatal.

The other three films are dreadful IMO - maybe they could try remaking them.

Maybe Ford can play Henry Senior.

Surely there are better and fresh Indy stories?

 

[Benny Holiday]

Hey Disney, just bloodywell hire Anthony Ingruber and get on with it, huh?

 

[Edward]

Here's what I'd like to see . . .

You know they're redoing The Lion King, but this time in CGI instead of 2D animation? There will be new shots, as well as almost exact duplicates of some shots. Some characters will look very close to their 2D counterparts and some will not (Scar and possibly Rafiki, afaik). The characters will be voiced by different actors, except Mufasa, who will again have James Earl Jones supplying his voice.

The same thing could be done with Raiders. Remake the movie. Stay true to the story and the scenes, for the most part. Altered shots, different actors, different director, altered pacing.

It worked for Star Trek, it will work for The Lion King, and could very well work for Raiders. I know I would be glued to it.

The 2009 Star Trek was a reboot with new actors playing the same parts, but it was a wholly new story - they even carefully applied the alternate timeline deviced so that they were neither hemmed in by canon, nor riding roguhshod over it and pretending it wasn't there. Some liked that and some didn't, nonetheless it was far from being a remake of any prior story.

I don't see the point in remaking Raiders - or any of the Indy films at that, certainly not as movies (though the expanded-detail of a Netflix type series might be arguably interesting; I'm thinking here of how Robert rodriguez remade From Dusk Til Dawn as a Netflix series, with much mored depth and expansion of the mythology of that world than he'd had time for with the original picture). Of course they could do it, bearing in mind that we won't be Disney's primary target market, and there are a couple of generations of kids that have mostly likely never seen Raiders. At least George Lucas never found the time to both butcher the original and prevent us from enjoying it unmolested as he did with Star Wars (dead to me since 1997).

One thing I have never seen reported is whether the Mouse agreed to any restrictive clauses re Indy. Lucas penned them in hard with Star Wars - nothing new to take place in the same timeframe as his stories (Rogue One took that to literal extremes), notihng to contradict his canon (hence the clever subversion of the Jedi cult in #8, dismissing all that midichlorian crap at a stroke), and such. I don't know if he cared enougth about Indy to do that; however some howled with outrage about Skull, it certainly never met with the deserved mauling George's Rubbish Prequels and "Special" Editions took, so perhaps he didn't feel the need to throw the same hissy fit about it.

Sotty, Raiders is a masterpiece (or near enough) remaking it is surely as pointless as the remake of Psycho by Van Sant. Besides, a remake will simply exaggerate the quality difference between them. The comparison being irresistible and fatal.

The other three films are dreadful IMO - maybe they could try remaking them.

Maybe Ford can play Henry Senior.

Surely there are better and fresh Indy stories?

The Van Sant Psycho is exactly what springs to mind. I like all of the Indy pictures myself, but I totally agree that there are so many other stories to tell about Indy. TBH, I'd increasingly rather see Indy rebooted as a tv-series (there might even be some fun to be had with that, given long-runing seriels were ultimately the original inspiration for Raiders). Even if it means having to wait for it on DVD because Disney will want to put it on their own streaming service that I can't imagine buying into.

Hey Disney, just bloodywell hire Anthony Ingruber and get on with it, huh?

I had to google him. I'm not familiar with his work, but he certainly looks the part. Can't possibly be as bad as that fella they hire for Solo, which already puts him one-up...

 

[scottyrocks]

I never claimed it was a popular idea. I know that I would enjoy seeing it, though. haha

 

[Doctor Damage]

...but I totally agree that there are so many other stories to tell about Indy. TBH, I'd increasingly rather see Indy rebooted as a tv-series (there might even be some fun to be had with that, given long-runing seriels were ultimately the original inspiration for Raiders). Even if it means having to wait for it on DVD because Disney will want to put it on their own streaming service that I can't imagine buying into.

Yeah, I'm kinda surprised that there hasn't been a TV series, one perhaps happening timeline-wise after the Young Indy Jones series and before Raiders. It seems the obvious approach given how popular and apparently profitable boutique/high-end TV series are these days. And you can get a new actor who is young and you won't be stepping on existing depictions.

 

[Edward]

Yeah, I'm kinda surprised that there hasn't been a TV series, one perhaps happening timeline-wise after the Young Indy Jones series and before Raiders. It seems the obvious approach given how popular and apparently profitable boutique/high-end TV series are these days. And you can get a new actor who is young and you won't be stepping on existing depictions.

And when they're done with that, there's endless fun to be had covering Indy's war years....

 

[Tiki Tom]

I really, sincerely, wish that someone at Disney is reading this thread.

 

[Zombie_61]

And when they're done with that, there's endless fun to be had covering Indy's war years....

I don't know about "endless"; after all, WWII was only six years long (officially). But then, the Korean war was only a little over three years long and M*A*S*H was on television for 11 years, so what do I know?

 

[Doctor Damage]

I really, sincerely, wish that someone at Disney is reading this thread.

They live in a bubble world!