Indiana Jones V

[Edward]

I hope they make it a musical.

If the guys who wrote Evil Dead: The Musical are hired to write it, I'm in. I'll play the big, bald guy Indy fights at the plane - we'll square up to each other, then do a song and dance number along the lines of "let's call the whole thing off", then I'll accidentally be killed when the plane swoops right into the kickline...

The only reason Disney bought the Indy franchise was so that no one else could use it. They never seriously planned on making an Indy V & have just been stringing along the Indy nerds with promesses & false starts to keep them intersted enough so they continue to buy Indy merchandizing.
Besides, with this coronacircus, both Ford & many of the fans around in the 80s, will be long under ground before a new film can be made & those still standing won't even know who the hell he is anyway.

I wouldn't rule it out from going ahead at this point. For years I believed that Crystal Skull was just a way of keeping the brand selling, but no, it happened. Personally, I like it - not a much as Raiders or Crusade, maybe on a par with Temple, but there was a lot I liked in it. I very much enjoyed seeing Ford play Indy as an older man, with physical limitations - not something you see often in Hollywood, despite the aging nature of the actual performers coughtomcruisebigoffendercough.

I'd be very surprised indeed if Disney didn't intend to do something with it.

Yep, I can't imagine too many people under 50 being the slightest bit interested in 1930's style adventures, Nazi's or no Nazis. In movie form Indy has so few places to go that aren't laborious cliches. Maybe a TV series that can open up the ideas and characters somewhat, with the benefit of additional time and a more nuanced narrative.

I don't know, WW2 is still a big seller in pop culture. These things come in waves anyhow - WW2, vampires, zombies... round and round....

AS I've said many times, I don't believe Disney would buy a brand like that intended just to let it slide. I still believe that if Solo hadn't turned out to be so awful and so badly received that the two contracted sequels were cancelled, there's a fair chance we'd have seen then hawk that guy as Indy too. Ford is even harder to replace in the Jones context. That said, if they were to redo Indy for a new generation, it'll be a different audience. They don't have to work around George Lucas' idea of canon, afaik (as distinct from the widely reported clause that stops them changing anything Lucas did in the Star Wars universe). Personally, I still believe they'll compromise, and have Ford appear as Really Old Indy and tell the story in flashbacks if they can find a credible young Indy stand-in. Someone who can do as good a Ford as Karl Urban did Deforrest Kelley, or Chris Pine a Kirk. (Some folks had issues with the plot of the Star Trek redux, but it is undeniable that the cast did a very credible job of realising those characters.) I am fast leaning to the view that this will be more likely to be evolved into a TV show these days, and I agree that would be a more interesting format for Jones V2.0. Sadly, it'll probably be on Disneyflix, which I'm not prepared to sign up to, so hopefully they will also put it out on disc at some point once their streaming market peaks....

 

[Frunobulax]

If the guys who wrote Evil Dead: The Musical are hired to write it, I'm in. I'll play the big, bald guy Indy fights at the plane - we'll square up to each other, then do a song and dance number along the lines of "let's call the whole thing off", then I'll accidentally be killed when the plane swoops right into the kickline...

I'd buy a ticket for that.

 

[Seb Lucas]

If the guys who wrote Evil Dead: The Musical are hired to write it, I'm in. I'll play the big, bald guy Indy fights at the plane - we'll square up to each other, then do a song and dance number along the lines of "let's call the whole thing off", then I'll accidentally be killed when the plane swoops right into the kickline...



I wouldn't rule it out from going ahead at this point. For years I believed that Crystal Skull was just a way of keeping the brand selling, but no, it happened. Personally, I like it - not a much as Raiders or Crusade, maybe on a par with Temple, but there was a lot I liked in it. I very much enjoyed seeing Ford play Indy as an older man, with physical limitations - not something you see often in Hollywood, despite the aging nature of the actual performers coughtomcruisebigoffendercough.

I'd be very surprised indeed if Disney didn't intend to do something with it.



I don't know, WW2 is still a big seller in pop culture. These things come in waves anyhow - WW2, vampires, zombies... round and round....

AS I've said many times, I don't believe Disney would buy a brand like that intended just to let it slide. I still believe that if Solo hadn't turned out to be so awful and so badly received that the two contracted sequels were cancelled, there's a fair chance we'd have seen then hawk that guy as Indy too. Ford is even harder to replace in the Jones context. That said, if they were to redo Indy for a new generation, it'll be a different audience. They don't have to work around George Lucas' idea of canon, afaik (as distinct from the widely reported clause that stops them changing anything Lucas did in the Star Wars universe). Personally, I still believe they'll compromise, and have Ford appear as Really Old Indy and tell the story in flashbacks if they can find a credible young Indy stand-in. Someone who can do as good a Ford as Karl Urban did Deforrest Kelley, or Chris Pine a Kirk. (Some folks had issues with the plot of the Star Trek redux, but it is undeniable that the cast did a very credible job of realising those characters.) I am fast leaning to the view that this will be more likely to be evolved into a TV show these days, and I agree that would be a more interesting format for Jones V2.0. Sadly, it'll probably be on Disneyflix, which I'm not prepared to sign up to, so hopefully they will also put it out on disc at some point once their streaming market peaks....

Yep. TV Indy is the only way I can see this working. Who knows what Disney was thinking? Maybe it was wait until Harrison is dead then reboot with some former boy band lead and set it in the present day like Tomb Raider? Maybe they just bought it to build rides. Maybe they were speculating on it and now they regret it...

I enjoyed Solo about as much as I enjoyed Indy 4 which is to say moderately. I dislike the Star Wars universe so maybe that's why I got through it partially amused. Also one of the only Ron Howard films I have watched without a little bit of vomit coming up. I hated Last Crusade, from the moment the fat kid with the bugle arrived and demonstrated to my regretful satisfaction that Spielberg had totally forgotten what made Raiders great. It was now a low comedy with daddy issues and too much Joseph Campbell. But taste is subjective. That is, I hope taste is subjective, because if it isn't, there are a lot of people that should be locked up for the artistic choices they have made.

 

[Edward]

I think it's most likely TV as that's where the money is nowadays. Alas, it'll probably be something else I'll never see because I'm not prepared to pay for a third streaming service ,and most of what Disney has to offer is of no interest to me.

 

[Tiki Tom]

Meh. If the article is correct and they are eyeing a Disney Channel streaming show, then, yes, it will most likely be a reboot of the “young Indiana Jones” series. For what it was, it wasn’t too bad... tried a bit too hard to be educational perhaps, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/disney-reportedly-harrison-ford-indiana-jones-disney-show/

I wish they would take a look at Indy’s WWII years, but that won’t happen while Harrison Ford is still with us. (May he enjoy a very long and healthy life.)

 

[Zombie_61]

I think it's most likely TV as that's where the money is nowadays. Alas, it'll probably be something else I'll never see because I'm not prepared to pay for a third streaming service ,and most of what Disney has to offer is of no interest to me.

"That's where the money is" for the various companies that offer, or will be offering, streaming services. For us customers, by the time we get all of the streaming services we want/need we'll be paying two to three times what we were previously paying for cable/satellite for a seriously flawed replacement service (especially for those of us willing/able to pay more for the "higher tier" services). "Oh, you want to watch 'Your Favorite Show/Movie'? Yeah, that's gonna' cost you because it's only available if you subscribe to our 'Super Duper Milk The Customer For Everything They're Worth' package..."

 

[Seb Lucas]

"That's where the money is" for the various companies that offer, or will be offering, streaming services. For us customers, by the time we get all of the streaming services we want/need we'll be paying two to three times what we were previously paying for cable/satellite for a seriously flawed replacement service (especially for those of us willing/able to pay more for the "higher tier" services). "Oh, you want to watch 'Your Favorite Show/Movie'? Yeah, that's gonna' cost you because it's only available if you subscribe to our 'Super Duper Milk The Customer For Everything They're Worth' package..."

My problem is I have 2 streaming services I barely use - once every 2-3 weeks, maybe. The older I get the less I care to watch.

 

[Zombie_61]

My problem is I have 2 streaming services I barely use - once every 2-3 weeks, maybe. The older I get the less I care to watch.

Similar situation here. We have Netflix, pay somewhere around $9 a month for it, and I don't think we've watched anything there in the last two or three months. 90% of what they "host" we have no interest in watching, and we've pretty much seen what we need to see of the other 10%.

 

[Tiki Tom]

Rumor mill churns on:

• Chris Pratt for prequel?
• Cartoon in the works?
• Indy show on Disney Plus?

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/lucasfilm-reportedly-chris-pratt-play-young-indiana-jones/

 

[Seb Lucas]

Chris Pratt is older than Ford when he did Raiders. Chris Pratt can be the 'not so young' Indiana Jones.

 

[Zombie_61]

Chris Pratt is older than Ford when he did Raiders. Chris Pratt can be the 'not so young' Indiana Jones.

Yeah, but only by a couple of years. Of course, at the rate they've been making the Indiana Jones movies Mr. Pratt would be Mr. Ford's current age before he ever gets near the Fedora and jacket, so...

 

[M Brown]

Similar to the demise of Han Solo, I foresee Indiana Jones falling from a dilapidated foot bridge spanning a 2,000 ft gorge.

 

[Edward]

Ha! Pratt would be pretty cool in the role, I think. He has that charisma and sense of fun that Ford had back in the early eighties. Chris Hemsworth would be good too, potentially.

 

[Edward]

Meh. If the article is correct and they are eyeing a Disney Channel streaming show, then, yes, it will most likely be a reboot of the “young Indiana Jones” series. For what it was, it wasn’t too bad... tried a bit too hard to be educational perhaps, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/disney-reportedly-harrison-ford-indiana-jones-disney-show/

I wish they would take a look at Indy’s WWII years, but that won’t happen while Harrison Ford is still with us. (May he enjoy a very long and healthy life.)

Disney will be the killer if they refuse to release it on disc. That aside, though, Young Indy is probably much easier to reboot as I think there's much more openness towards another actor playing Indy at an age at which Ford never could have. Maybe that will let them try out a new player or two who might eventually graduate to playing 36-yr-old plus Indy from 1935 onwards....

The other option would be to use the same de-aging technique for Ford as employed in The Irishman, though that can only go so far if he's past doing much in the way of action.

 

[scottyrocks]

Disney will be the killer if they refuse to release it on disc. That aside, though, Young Indy is probably much easier to reboot as I think there's much more openness towards another actor playing Indy at an age at which Ford never could have. Maybe that will let them try out a new player or two who might eventually graduate to playing 36-yr-old plus Indy from 1935 onwards....

The other option would be to use the same de-aging technique for Ford as employed in The Irishman, though that can only go so far if he's past doing much in the way of action.

What ya do, ya see, is have Pratt do the action, and then layer Ford's de-aged face on top of it.

Scary.

 

[MikeKardec]

If The Mandalorian is any evidence Disney simply can't make themselves think straight when it comes to features. They maybe contractually stuck with the wrong people and unable to extricate the properties. My concern is that even Lucas never really knew what he wanted to do with the series. Raiders was great. Young Indy was leaden. The theatrical sequels were silly, even though I really enjoyed seeing Connery and a couple of deleted sequences from the original Raiders script show up in them. For some weird reason Lucas tended to lose track of what he did right. He never made another film like the magnificent and ground breaking American Graffiti, he did squeeze 2.5 movies out of Star Wars before it ran off the rails and then there was Raiders, light, crisp and full of life, then the concept sort of wandered off into the desert ... still fun, but lost. My take is that, while I'm not in love with The Mandalorian, it is a series that "gets it." It understands the fundamentals of it's genre and it's audience. We have accepted less because we like these concepts, or we react to them nostalgically, but there is clearly no reason why a certain minimum can't be achieved ... we have an example of it.

 

[Seb Lucas]

If The Mandalorian is any evidence Disney simply can't make themselves think straight when it comes to features. They maybe contractually stuck with the wrong people and unable to extricate the properties. My concern is that even Lucas never really knew what he wanted to do with the series. Raiders was great. Young Indy was leaden. The theatrical sequels were silly, even though I really enjoyed seeing Connery and a couple of deleted sequences from the original Raiders script show up in them. For some weird reason Lucas tended to lose track of what he did right. He never made another film like the magnificent and ground breaking American Graffiti, he did squeeze 2.5 movies out of Star Wars before it ran off the rails and then there was Raiders, light, crisp and full of life, then the concept sort of wandered off into the desert ... still fun, but lost. My take is that, while I'm not in love with The Mandalorian, it is a series that "gets it." It understands the fundamentals of it's genre and it's audience. We have accepted less because we like these concepts, or we react to them nostalgically, but there is clearly no reason why a certain minimum can't be achieved ... we have an example of it.

That is exactly right and well put. I personally came to the view that Raiders worked despite Lucas and was a kind of mistake. Lucas (and co) accidentally made a masterpiece and could never come near it again. Lucas is like the most successful unsuccessful person in the biz.

 

[MikeKardec]

That is exactly right and well put. I personally came to the view that Raiders worked despite Lucas and was a kind of mistake. Lucas (and co) accidentally made a masterpiece and could never come near it again. Lucas is like the most successful unsuccessful person in the biz.

It really seems that Lawrence Kasdan did the work we all love on Raiders. And, when you figure he'd just worked on Empire Strikes Back AND Body Heat and then Silverado you can kind of figure he kind of knew what he was doing. BUT Phillip Kaufman ALSO worked on Raiders. I really wonder what his contributions were? From my own work experience I also know that everyone who works on a script is in a mad scramble to use the WGA rules to cement their own credit. There are often people who work on a film who you never know about because others obliterated their work. Story structure is valued over the content of a scene and the scene content over dialog in an arbitration. With Raiders it's magic wasn't so much what it did, it's what it didn't do, the sillier territory that the sequels strayed into.

 

[Edward]

TBH, I'm always kind of bemused at the idea of finding the Holy Grail, a UFO or whatever crossing the line as compared to locating and opening the Ark of the Covenant, but hey ho. At least Indy IV taught me what it must have been like to be a George Lucas fan in 1999 versus caring about Star Was.

If The Mandalorian is any evidence Disney simply can't make themselves think straight when it comes to features. They maybe contractually stuck with the wrong people and unable to extricate the properties. My concern is that even Lucas never really knew what he wanted to do with the series. Raiders was great. Young Indy was leaden. The theatrical sequels were silly, even though I really enjoyed seeing Connery and a couple of deleted sequences from the original Raiders script show up in them. For some weird reason Lucas tended to lose track of what he did right. He never made another film like the magnificent and ground breaking American Graffiti, he did squeeze 2.5 movies out of Star Wars before it ran off the rails and then there was Raiders, light, crisp and full of life, then the concept sort of wandered off into the desert ... still fun, but lost. My take is that, while I'm not in love with The Mandalorian, it is a series that "gets it." It understands the fundamentals of it's genre and it's audience. We have accepted less because we like these concepts, or we react to them nostalgically, but there is clearly no reason why a certain minimum can't be achieved ... we have an example of it.

The Mandalorian I've not seen. I'll give it a go, likely, if it comes on one of the services I have but if I never see it, I'm perfectly fine with that. Not that I don't want to, it's more just.... indifference. I lost faith in Star Wars with the butchered "special editions" in 1997 (I'm still annoyed about Greedo shooting first), and have described myself as an "ex-fan" ever since. Saw the first two of the prequels - I think of every film I've ever seen only Top Gun, the American Pie series or The Hangover films could come close for the title of worst film ever (honourable mention in this category: La La Land). I've actually seen Plan 9 From Outer Space on the big screen, and it was a thousand times better in plot, point, character development.... you name it. Star Wars films seem to improve exponentially in inverse proportion to the amount of involvement George Lucas has. He's a hack, pure and simple. Disney did a grand job of reviving the brand (for me, the stand out was Rouge One) with just a couple of missteps - the clumsy retconning of the last in the sequel trilogy to serve the whiny crybabies who couldn't cope with strong female leads, PoC and Luke Skywalker being actually interesting - oh, and it not all being about everyone being related to some famous Jedi / Sith.... though it could have been much worse. The only Lucas-level, massive mistake they've made was the truly execrable Solo; I think they seem to have realised that as the planned two sequels to that one have been quietly dropped.

The biggest problem they might encounter with rebooting Jones is if Lucas put the sort of restrictions into the IP sale that he supposedly did with Star Wars re converging timelines and conflicting mythologies.

I never cared for American Graffiti, though that may be down to it being a nostalgia piece for a culture alien to me.

That is exactly right and well put. I personally came to the view that Raiders worked despite Lucas and was a kind of mistake. Lucas (and co) accidentally made a masterpiece and could never come near it again. Lucas is like the most successful unsuccessful person in the biz.

Yeah. Monkeys / Typewriters / Shakespeare.

 

[Zombie_61]

...At least Indy IV taught me what it must have been like to be a George Lucas fan in 1999 versus caring about Star Was. ...

I'm not sure if I've ever agreed more with a post written by someone who wasn't me. George Lucas is/was an "idea man". He's good at letting his imagination run wild and coming up with all kinds of stories, characters, environments, etc., but he doesn't seem to actually know how to do anything with that information. Back in the days before Star Wars Lucas was an impressionable college student who had friends like Francis Ford Coppola giving him notes on his scripts. So he makes a few movies, somehow manages to create a couple that strike a chord with audiences and make a lot of money, and he's suddenly expected to duplicate what essentially amounted to dumb luck. He tried, but even he quickly realized he's far better at "delegating" than "doing". (It also gave him someone to place blame on when things didn't go exactly as he wanted, but that's another discussion for another time.) So he becomes the king of his own hill.

I'm convinced the only reason he made the "Prequel Trilogy" Star Wars movies was to stop the fans from asking him, "When are you going to make another Star Wars movie?" He never intended Star Wars to become his entire career, but that's how things worked out for him because his fans didn't seem to care about anything else he did.

Well, except for his participation in the Indiana Jones franchise. Even then, as I understand it, he's the "story guy". He, Steven Spielberg, and Harrison Ford, come up with story ideas, Lucas hires someone to write the script, Spielberg directs, Ford stars. It must be nice to get paid so much for doing so little.