Indiana Jones V

[MikeKardec]

It's been awhile since I've checked in on the technology but, you are right, the "dots" seem like those used for "attaching" a CGI face or elements of one. This is either a very simplified or superficial version of what I'm familiar with or the technology has vastly improved. It is possible that a younger Harrison composite made up from appearances in earlier films, or simply created from whole cloth by CGI artists, is a fairly easy overlay onto the man himself. The musculature is the same, the impulses firing the expressions are the same, so maybe it takes fewer location points than I thought. On the other hand this may be simply what they do for a long shot. If you notice the jacket locators are only on one side. Personally, I'd say that posture is just as great an issue when de-aging someone. If I were working on this film I'd be sure to have a massage therapist on staff!

It's possible that HF was one of the actors who had himself "scanned" 20 years or so ago. I'm guessing that technology has improved greatly since then but even the older version might form an excellent "base layer" for a CGI artist to work with. These days it seems like a wise investment for an actor to get scanned as they reach different ages and to do the same if they beef up or lose weight to a great extent. Having those scans (owning them) might also be a useful precedent should anyone try to use your image in the future. It's a weird world but that doesn't mean we don't have to be prepared for it.

 

[Edward Reed]

It's been awhile since I've checked in on the technology but, you are right, the "dots" seem like those used for "attaching" a CGI face or elements of one. This is either a very simplified or superficial version of what I'm familiar with or the technology has vastly improved. It is possible that a younger Harrison composite made up from appearances in earlier films, or simply created from whole cloth by CGI artists, is a fairly easy overlay onto the man himself. The musculature is the same, the impulses firing the expressions are the same, so maybe it takes fewer location points than I thought. On the other hand this may be simply what they do for a long shot. If you notice the jacket locators are only on one side. Personally, I'd say that posture is just as great an issue when de-aging someone. If I were working on this film I'd be sure to have a massage therapist on staff!

It's possible that HF was one of the actors who had himself "scanned" 20 years or so ago. I'm guessing that technology has improved greatly since then but even the older version might form an excellent "base layer" for a CGI artist to work with. These days it seems like a wise investment for an actor to get scanned as they reach different ages and to do the same if they beef up or lose weight to a great extent. Having those scans (owning them) might also be a useful precedent should anyone try to use your image in the future. It's a weird world but that doesn't mean we don't have to be prepared for it.

indeed there is some money left on the table for A listers if they don't have scans and are willing to sell usage rights to their image. some actors find it creepy but some estates are okay with this. James Dean is set to be recreated in CGI for the upcoming live-action Vietnam war movie Finding Jack. (I believe its currently on hiatus however) they got the rights to his likeness and he will "live again". Same with Peter Cushing. his estate allowed his likeness to be used for Rogue One A Star Wars Story. Carrie Fisher allowed de-aging for Rogue One as well as did Mark Hamill for the Madalorean. Its possible someone like Harrison Ford will only allow it while he is alive but may not want to live on in films he has no control or say over in the future after his death. I read Lucasfilm also tried to get rights from the Alec Guinness estate at the same time as Peter Cushing but were declined. They may have wanted an Obi Wan cameo in Rogue One as well. I think a lot of actors are okay with it in current projects while they are living and involved but maybe not so much post mortem.

 

[MikeKardec]

For a popular or distinctive actor it may eventually be a hedge against disfigurement or crippling accident. It would be easy enough these days to allow someone to voice-over their CGI facsimile. Allowing a corporation, unless it was owned by myself or my heirs, to "own" my image would be a non starter but, of course, there can be vast amounts of money involved.

I actually do this sort of thing for a living in the literary world where it's a LOT simpler to "clone" the artist ... you just smack their name on a book and attempt to recreate their style. One thing that was very important for us was creating a set of rules for how to do what we do and when to do it. The second was being forthright about admitting what we were doing and if you are going to change the rules, saying so clearly. Times change as do market forces, you want to stay as consistent as possible but you can't be afraid to update when necessary. I've always approached this issue with as light a hand as I could get away with ... I'm sure I've passed up a lot of opportunities to make additional money by not being utterly exploitative but I can also sleep at night. Luckily, publishers generally do not "own" the copyright or the underlying work the way a film company does!

 

[Edward]

indeed there is some money left on the table for A listers if they don't have scans and are willing to sell usage rights to their image. some actors find it creepy but some estates are okay with this. James Dean is set to be recreated in CGI for the upcoming live-action Vietnam war movie Finding Jack. (I believe its currently on hiatus however) they got the rights to his likeness and he will "live again". Same with Peter Cushing. his estate allowed his likeness to be used for Rogue One A Star Wars Story. Carrie Fisher allowed de-aging for Rogue One as well as did Mark Hamill for the Madalorean. Its possible someone like Harrison Ford will only allow it while he is alive but may not want to live on in films he has no control or say over in the future after his death. I read Lucasfilm also tried to get rights from the Alec Guinness estate at the same time as Peter Cushing but were declined. They may have wanted an Obi Wan cameo in Rogue One as well. I think a lot of actors are okay with it in current projects while they are living and involved but maybe not so much post mortem.

As with any technology, developments open up a whole world of new ethical considerations. Would Audrey Hepburn have been happy about being put into a Cadburys ad? And what about the inevitability of it being used - pirated or otherwise - for porn purposes? Porno fakes are already out there. They're not fully convincing YET, but it's only a matter of time...

For a popular or distinctive actor it may eventually be a hedge against disfigurement or crippling accident. It would be easy enough these days to allow someone to voice-over their CGI facsimile. Allowing a corporation, unless it was owned by myself or my heirs, to "own" my image would be a non starter but, of course, there can be vast amounts of money involved.

Easier than creating a Hoth Wampa, anyhow!

 

[Tiki Tom]

1. Less than a year until its release!
2. Phoebe Waller-Bridge set to pick up the whip and fedora? Part of the “big, bold changes” that will be brought to the franchise? Yawn.
3. Antonio Banderas has a roll? Maybe I’ll buy a ticket after all.

https://www.cbr.com/indiana-jones-5-harrison-ford-replaced-by-phoebe-waller-bridge/

 

[Herb Roflcopter]

2. Phoebe Waller-Bridge set to pick up the whip and fedora? Part of the “big, bold changes” that will be brought to the franchise? Yawn.

https://www.cbr.com/indiana-jones-5-harrison-ford-replaced-by-phoebe-waller-bridge/

I don't understand this strategy at all. I've heard rumors that Disney would reboot the series and set it back in the 1930's again, possibly starring Chris Pratt as a possible contender- I could go for that. But telling me they're going to continue the adventures of a globe-trotting archaeologist, except it's starring a random female assistant and it takes place in the 1960's is not a recipe that's going to get my butt in a theater seat.

 

[Edward]

I don't understand this strategy at all. I've heard rumors that Disney would reboot the series and set it back in the 1930's again, possibly starring Chris Pratt as a possible contender- I could go for that. But telling me they're going to continue the adventures of a globe-trotting archaeologist, except it's starring a random female assistant and it takes place in the 1960's is not a recipe that's going to get my butt in a theater seat.

In many ways I'd have more faith in the notion of a new set of adventures with a different character than have someone else play Indy. Waller-Bridge is a proven talent and I'd be well up for seeing her in the lead. That said, if they put her in the Sixties, I'm less interested in that. Indy's world is really coming to a close at that point: he's a man of another time, just like the Nazis in Operation Paperclip he seems likely to be after here.

I'll be interested to see if they do reboot, though. The logical move here - which they seem to have ruled out - was to have Ford bookend a flashback story with someone else playing young Indy. Bring in the new Indy for the kids with Ford to pull in the old fans. Much as Star Trek: Generations used Shatner as a lure to get mainstream cinema goers who might have gone to see the original Trek films but had never bothered with the TV shows to turn out for Stewart and the Next Generation crew.

The other unknown, of course, is whether Lucas signed Disney into a limiting agreement as he did with Star Wars where they can't contradict his canon directly, remake the originals, or set a new film during the same continuity period as his (hence Rogue One's very carefully set timeline, between the Lucas trilogies). Personally, I'd much rather see someone else playing Indy with the original stories remaining canon rather than an all-out reboot, but I'm more than likely not Disney's target market.

I'm sure I've suggested animation before. There's a new, animated series on Netflix at present based on the Resident Evil franchise. The animation is almost mistakeable for 'real' at first glance. I'd be perfectly happy with Ford's voice (or a top imitation thereof) over that.

That said, wary as I am of Disney, I'm not ready to write them off without seeing them. While there were a lot of let-downs in the last of their recent Star Wars trilogy as they buckled in a number of ways to the howls from the incel wing of the fandom, out of the five they've made the only true stinker was Solo, and even that was merely rubbish, not utterly laughable in the manner of Lucas' prequel trilogy. Rogue One was probably the single best film of the franchise imo.

 

[Herb Roflcopter]

In many ways I'd have more faith in the notion of a new set of adventures with a different character than have someone else play Indy. Waller-Bridge is a proven talent and I'd be well up for seeing her in the lead. That said, if they put her in the Sixties, I'm less interested in that. Indy's world is really coming to a close at that point: he's a man of another time, just like the Nazis in Operation Paperclip he seems likely to be after here.

I'm sure I've suggested animation before. There's a new, animated series on Netflix at present based on the Resident Evil franchise. The animation is almost mistakeable for 'real' at first glance. I'd be perfectly happy with Ford's voice (or a top imitation thereof) over that.

That said, wary as I am of Disney, I'm not ready to write them off without seeing them. While there were a lot of let-downs in the last of their recent Star Wars trilogy as they buckled in a number of ways to the howls from the incel wing of the fandom, out of the five they've made the only true stinker was Solo, and even that was merely rubbish, not utterly laughable in the manner of Lucas' prequel trilogy. Rogue One was probably the single best film of the franchise imo.

I've never heard of Waller-Bridge until this, but I'm not going to be dismissive; I'll see the film first before judging. I would watch a completely different series if I liked the character...

...which brings me to a point I've mentioned on other boards- when Lucas said he wanted the fourth Indy movie to pay homage to films of the 50's, I thought it would have been a better idea to create an entirely new franchise starring a younger man (or woman) and go from there.

I read the screenplay Indiana Jones and the Saucermen From Mars and I admit that it's a decent script, but not a great Indy story. It reads more like a Die Hard movie- which further convinced me that a new character would have worked, instead of transplanting Indy to a timeframe way out of his element. We could have had a new trilogy already with this character by now!

I'd watch an animated Indy series, if Ford was doing the voice. Also, if Ben Burtt contributed to the sound department.

I am far more forgiving of Disney's Star Wars efforts, but that is because my only stipulation was that the films be better than Lucas' prequel trilogy, so the bar was set fairly low.

 

[GHT]

In many ways I'd have more faith in the notion of a new set of adventures with a different character than have someone else play Indy. Waller-Bridge is a proven talent and I'd be well up for seeing her in the lead. That said, if they put her in the Sixties, I'm less interested in that. Indy's world is really coming to a close at that point: he's a man of another time, just like the Nazis in Operation Paperclip he seems likely to be after here.

That is how I thought Bond should have been played. Double O Seven was a character of the cold war, when Connery went on to pastures new, Bond should have been retired. Not that it matters, Poor old Bond makes a lot of money so he'll be around for quite a while yet.

 

[Edward]

That is how I thought Bond should have been played. Double O Seven was a character of the cold war, when Connery went on to pastures new, Bond should have been retired. Not that it matters, Poor old Bond makes a lot of money so he'll be around for quite a while yet.

I like to think of James Bond 007 as a mantle that different individuals - all orphans, raised for the role -take on. When one dies, a new one arises. Bond as The Phantom, in essence. I like Connery; for me, Craig was the first replacement who came close to being a credible substitute. The problem with Bond, of course, was that they always wanted to keep him contemporary, but he became more and more of a dinosaur, especially with Dalton's second outing, Licence to Kill, when the old Soviet Union collapsed, and the dinosaur lost even his cold war context. It is perhaps no coincidence that LTK was also the first Bond film not to be at least loosely based around one of the original books; it really wasn't until they rebuilt Bond in the Bourne mould (with Casino Royale) that they started to find their way again, and with Skyfall that they managed to marry BourneBond to ActualBond. Be interesting to see the new one when it filters down to streaming; I liked Craig's first and third; his second was a narrative mess, tried to watch it twice and couldn't make head nor tail of it, and Spectre was passably entertaining but no great shakes. Goldfinger, by comparison, totally holds up.

As you note, though, all of these things are not art but rather product. It's what I've been saying all along: whether we oldies like it or not, there will be a new Indy because the Mouse didn't spend all that money buying Lucasfilm not to make maximum profit from its properties.

 

[Edward]

I've never heard of Waller-Bridge until this, but I'm not going to be dismissive; I'll see the film first before judging. I would watch a completely different series if I liked the character...

...which brings me to a point I've mentioned on other boards- when Lucas said he wanted the fourth Indy movie to pay homage to films of the 50's, I thought it would have been a better idea to create an entirely new franchise starring a younger man (or woman) and go from there.

That seems to be the main bone of contention, really. I liked the fourth one and I liked that it moved on in time and pastiched the films of the era in which it was set, but I know a lot of folks didn't. Which is fair enough: what winds me up are the people who sneered at a UFO as unrealistic and unbelievable... but a centuries old Grail Knight? Yeah, no problem. Right.

I'd watch an animated Indy series, if Ford was doing the voice. Also, if Ben Burtt contributed to the sound department.

It seems the 'easier' option for sure than trying to recast, though to be fair if somebody can 'do' Ford like the way Karl Urban did Deforrest Kelley, that could be viable. Again, though, I'm working on the notion of New Indy being a continuation rather than a total reimagining... In one way, this would make more sense, while in another, aside from the fact they're playing to a whole new generation of kids, there's also the fact kids today are well used to 'multiverses' with multiple different takes on the same character, so perhaps target audiences of the 20s have different expectations than those of us who just want somebody to invent a rejuvenation process that takes Ford back to his late 30s again.... ha. With any recasting of Jones, I expect we'll see someone younger - 30s at most - so they can keep them going for a bit (or at least the obligatory trilogy that everything has to be nowadays.....), which probably rules out the guy that did Young Indy - Sean Patrick Flannery(?). He must be in his mid-50s now.

Aside from animation vs 'real', though, the idea of a series would be interesting. With something that has as rich a world as Indy, it would be fantastic imo to have more room to explore more adventures. As well as the obvious war years, a series in themselves, if well written it would be cool to see fleshed out some of the adventures that we saw glimpses of in the original films. Disney did very well with Rogue One (imo arguably the best of all the Star Wars films) as an immediate prequel to Star Wars (NOT 'A New Hope'. This new hope nonsense is George Lucas bullpoo revisionism of which I shall have no part). It could be fun to have a new adventure that overlaps the start of Raiders, the logical endpoint being Indy taking off in the plane and freaking out about the snake...

Thinking about series takes me back to another film I very much liked: From Dusk Til Dawn. Came out in 1995, a Robert Rodriguez picture based on a script he'd written year previously with Quentin Tarantino. In 2014, Rodriguez remade the film as a series. Two seasons - the first was the film over, the second a continuation of the show. Two young actors in the lead roles that had been played by Clooney and Tarantino in the original. Clearly hired as looky-likeys but good actors and played them well. Some bits weren't as strong as the original (Harvey Keitel's preacher was a standout performance not equalled in the series imo), but overall it was an interesting take on the same material. Like the same guy telling you a great story over again with the time to retell it all in more depth, with aspects of the vampire culture fleshed out more and so on. Makes me think we could see something like that with Indy. Who knows? I would hope Disney will have learned from Solo being a relatively flop. Had that been a monster hit, I suspect they'd have tried that guy out for Indy too, but given that they've already cancelled the planned second and third parts of a Solo trilogy, I imagine that's him crossed off the list. Pratt I've seen as a potential Indy since Jurassic World. He has the charm and charisma for it. Ryan Reynolds, actually, could also be a serious option, if a more leftfield idea.

I am far more forgiving of Disney's Star Wars efforts, but that is because my only stipulation was that the films be better than Lucas' prequel trilogy, so the bar was set fairly low.

Ha, yes... it was hardly a risk. On balance, with only one, true stinker in their run and also arguably a franchise best there too, across their five films to date Disney have had a better hit rate by far than George Lucas, who made six Star Wars pictures - two and a half of them being good, but later heavily compromise by him not only messing with the original versions, but petulantly keeping the original versions out of circulation out of spite at the unpopularity of some of his choices. Full disclosure, I've been referring to myself as an "ex-Star Wars fan" since July 1999 (and I was an extremely disillusioned one much after May 1997 already), but even though I'll never jump on the bandwagon again, Disney made me interested in going to see Star Wars pictures again, and - Solo aside - I enjoyed them. I've still never seen Revenge of the Sith (beyond a couple of scenes on Youtube), as the first two prequels were so mind-bogglingly awful I just couldn't be bothered. And that's with a cinema five minutes from my front door where I could have seen it for free at the time, and multiple opportunities on streaming and television....

 

[Zombie_61]

...With any recasting of Jones, I expect we'll see someone younger - 30s at most - so they can keep them going for a bit (or at least the obligatory trilogy that everything has to be nowadays.....), which probably rules out the guy that did Young Indy - Sean Patrick Flannery(?). He must be in his mid-50s now...

Sean Patrick Flanery will be 56 on October 11 of this year, so good guess. I've only seen him in the Boondock Saints (1999, 2009) movies and Suicide Kings (1997), so I can't comment on whether or not he was a good choice for TV Indy or might be a good choice to replace Ford in the movie franchise.

...Disney did very well with Rogue One (imo arguably the best of all the Star Wars films) as an immediate prequel to Star Wars (NOT 'A New Hope'. This new hope nonsense is George Lucas bullpoo revisionism of which I shall have no part)...

I make that distinction with Lucas' Not-So-Special-Editions of the Star Wars movies. The subtitles--"A New Hope", "The Empire Strikes Back", and so on, were added because Star Wars (1977) was deemed a success, and subsequent movies were greenlit, and Georgie had to then indicate that each movie was a separate part of a larger story. Initially that was the only change to what is now known as "Episode IV: A New Hope"; then he couldn't help but make a few minor tweaks while "Empire" was in pre-production and new prints of "A New Hope" were being produced, and once that boulder got rolling... I wonder if he knows he has become the thing he held in such contempt all those years ago?

 

[Edward]

I wonder if he knows he has become the thing he held in such contempt all those years ago?

"And I believe in this, and it's been tested by research:
He who ***** nuns will later join the church"

The Clash, "Death or Glory".

I've seen it put more politely, but there's a lot to be said for Marx's notion that every revolutionary eventually becomes the establishment.

 

[Herb Roflcopter]

That seems to be the main bone of contention, really. I liked the fourth one and I liked that it moved on in time and pastiched the films of the era in which it was set, but I know a lot of folks didn't. Which is fair enough: what winds me up are the people who sneered at a UFO as unrealistic and unbelievable... but a centuries old Grail Knight? Yeah, no problem. Right.

I've still never seen Revenge of the Sith (beyond a couple of scenes on Youtube), as the first two prequels were so mind-bogglingly awful I just couldn't be bothered. And that's with a cinema five minutes from my front door where I could have seen it for free at the time, and multiple opportunities on streaming and television....

The fourth film was a mixed bag for me; I enjoyed the first half, and the second half seemed to get a bit nebulous and Indy had way too many people following him around with not much for them to do. (Karen Allen returning was wonderful, though.) The aliens & skulls didn't bother me; they were a refreshing change from yet another religious artifact. (Although I did raise an eyebrow at the Grail Knight being still alive when I first saw Last Crusade in the theater all those years ago.)

If you haven't seen Sith, you aren't missing anything. I usually tell people that Attack of the Clones is the worst Star Wars prequel in existence and there is no movie out there that can beat its utter banality... except of course, Revenge of the Sith.

 

[Bugguy]

I don't understand this strategy at all. I've heard rumors that Disney would reboot the series and set it back in the 1930's again, he 1960's is not a recipe that's going to get my butt in a theater seat.

I'll just be happy if it doesn't turn out to be a knock-off like Romancing the Stone... what a waste of a ticket back then.

 

[Edward]

The fourth film was a mixed bag for me; I enjoyed the first half, and the second half seemed to get a bit nebulous and Indy had way too many people following him around with not much for them to do. (Karen Allen returning was wonderful, though.) The aliens & skulls didn't bother me; they were a refreshing change from yet another religious artifact. (Although I did raise an eyebrow at the Grail Knight being still alive when I first saw Last Crusade in the theater all those years ago.)

I really liked how they wrote her back into Indy's story. It was a break from the original, Bond-concept that there should be a new leading lady every film, but it made sense. (Interestingly, because Temple is set before Raiders, the only "other woman" we see Indy with after Marion is Elsa Schneider... though Willie and - if you follow the outtakes - that undergraduate were also between stints with Marion if you follow the backstory. I wonder if and how she'll feature in 5. Aside from the quality of story, it was also nice to see an A lister like Ford play opposite a woman close to his own age. I remember rolling my eyes at Entrapment in the regard - and then, of course, Zeta Jones went off and married Michael Douglas, somewhat undermining my point!

If you haven't seen Sith, you aren't missing anything. I usually tell people that Attack of the Clones is the worst Star Wars prequel in existence and there is no movie out there that can beat its utter banality... except of course, Revenge of the Sith.

I youtubed the 'becoming Darth Vader' sequence. I'm prepared to accept it was poor direction and editing to blame rather than necessarily the acting, but.... That was enough for me (and at that it was the only really relevant scene in a story that never needed telling in the first place).

I saw Phantom Menace twice, both times in the cinema. The first time, it was a huge disappointment. I grudgingly went to the second screening only because I had pre-booked the ticket (cinema is not cheap in London). I wish I hadn't - it was worse second time around. Afterwards, I was preceded out of the auditorium by a bunch of kids in their late teens, one of whom was still insisting it "wasn't that bad". He looked about to cry as his pals assured him yes, yes it was. I vowed I'd never go and see another Star Wars picture again, until a friend of a then-girlfriend wanted to see Clones as a birthday outing and it would have been rude to decline. (In retrospect, I'd have been far better off not only being rude, but also getting out of that relationship then and there, but you live and learn!) If anything, it was even worse. I recall the appalling "nightmare scene" where, well, I'll not repeat in polite company what everyone in the cinema thought he was doing, thus causing them to laugh uproariously (I could barely hear the screen for a minute or two when he said "I was thinking of my mother"), but that was about the highlight. Truly awful. Lucas is a great ideas man, but he should never have been let loose on anything more than that!

 

[Edward]

I'll just be happy if it doesn't turn out to be a knock-off like Romancing the Stone... what a waste of a ticket back then.

I remember seeing that advertised, though I didn't see it until later - after, actually, I'd seen the sequel on video. I've seen a lot worse, but my problem really was Michael Douglas. Just can't warm to him in any role, and if they have him playing a male lead who is supposed to be attractive, urgh. Comes across - in character, I stress, I have no basis on which to comment on the man in real life - a total sleaze. Oddly enough, I have the same gut reaction to Robert Redford on screen, though I hear he really is a lovely fella off it. I may have been unduly influenced by Indecent Proposal (which I hated; Honeymoon in Vegas does the same basic story much better....).

 

[Brettafett]

Just like Star Wars, Disney seems intent on 'killing' fan-franchises...

OK, Star Wars is getting better after KK, thank goodness... but now she has her paws (claws) in Dr Jones, its all over folks.
I'm going to ignore Disney's nonsense and rewatch good ol' Raiders and Temple with the real Dr Jones.

ps They could have created an original franchise with Chris Pratt that could have been epic.
How about a re-imagining of Tales of the Golden Monkey... the misadventures and an ex-AVG pilot

 

[Herb Roflcopter]

I really liked how they wrote her back into Indy's story. It was a break from the original, Bond-concept that there should be a new leading lady every film, but it made sense. I wonder if and how she'll feature in 5. Aside from the quality of story, it was also nice to see an A lister like Ford play opposite a woman close to his own age. I remember rolling my eyes at Entrapment in the regard - and then, of course, Zeta Jones went off and married Michael Douglas, somewhat undermining my point!

I saw Phantom Menace twice, both times in the cinema. The first time, it was a huge disappointment. I grudgingly went to the second screening only because I had pre-booked the ticket (cinema is not cheap in London). I wish I hadn't - it was worse second time around. Afterwards, I was preceded out of the auditorium by a bunch of kids in their late teens, one of whom was still insisting it "wasn't that bad". He looked about to cry as his pals assured him yes, yes it was. I vowed I'd never go and see another Star Wars picture again, until a friend of a then-girlfriend wanted to see Clones as a birthday outing and it would have been rude to decline. (In retrospect, I'd have been far better off not only being rude, but also getting out of that relationship then and there, but you live and learn!) If anything, it was even worse. I recall the appalling "nightmare scene" where, well, I'll not repeat in polite company what everyone in the cinema thought he was doing, thus causing them to laugh uproariously (I could barely hear the screen for a minute or two when he said "I was thinking of my mother"), but that was about the highlight. Truly awful. Lucas is a great ideas man, but he should never have been let loose on anything more than that!

I do hope Ms. Allen will be in Indy 5, even as a cameo. I don't want to hear her mentioned as having passed away, or having left Jones some time ago. At this stage of his life, I think Indy deserves a bit of happiness, otherwise it undermines the point of the fourth film.

Revenge of the Sith is the only Star Wars film I did not bother seeing in the theater. I only saw Clones once in the theater, but I must admit I saw Phantom Menace three times- but that was because someone gave me tickets to a midnight premiere, and I wanted to see what the crowd was like. My second viewing was with a buddy who I'd planned to see it with originally, and my final outing was with my father, who was suitably unimpressed.

Phantom Menace isn't good, but I admit I do enjoy a few things about it. Seeing R2D2, C3P0 and Yoda on the big screen again was like meeting up with old friends. John Williams' score was top notch in my book, and that lightsaber fight at the end took my breath away. But the rest? Meh...

I introduced my daughter to Star Wars years ago and she devoured the original trilogy. I tried to show her Phantom Menace and she got bored pretty quickly, and this is coming from a 4 year old!

 

[Edward]

Just like Star Wars, Disney seems intent on 'killing' fan-franchises...

OK, Star Wars is getting better after KK, thank goodness... but now she has her paws (claws) in Dr Jones, its all over folks.
I'm going to ignore Disney's nonsense and rewatch good ol' Raiders and Temple with the real Dr Jones.

I'm going to give it a go first. Disney did well with Star Wars for me - not that there was any real risk, given how badly Lucas had messed it up from 1997 onwards. The only real misstep were the desperate incel-fan service in the last one (the treatment of Rose especially was appalling) and, of course, Solo. And at least Solo served the purpose of ensuring they won't make the mistake of casting that guy as Indy!

ps They could have created an original franchise with Chris Pratt that could have been epic.
How about a re-imagining of Tales of the Golden Monkey... the misadventures and an ex-AVG pilot

That would be excellent. I'd be perfectly happy to see that set within Indy's universe, too.