Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Indiana Jones 5

11213141517

Comments

  • #2


    Indiana Jones needed the darker type version of the series, the same they done with films like Superman, or Batman, or Rocky, Joker .
    Trying to copy the Jones movies of the 80's won't work


  • #2


    Placing the blame upon the shoulders of Kennedy for how the Star Wars sequels turned out is indeed a bit silly. There's plenty of people involved to share the blame for the mess those rubbish movies became.

    But I'd still maintain that while she is, probably, a good bean counter, a creative she is not and the further in the background she remains the better. If what I heard about her insistence on that stupid flying Leia scene from 'The Last Jedi' is correct, then the less she has to say about the creative side of a project is more than likely a good thing.

    But you're right, the "suits" have always been largely a scourge on film makers at some level. But these days it appears, with all the umph given to focus groups and data driven "analysis", they are even more likely to become involved to the detriment of the movie. It's different to yesteryear, where you have a single mogul interfering with a director's vision. Nowadays, there's armies of "producers" all vying to have their input, mostly in an effort to keep their jobs.

    I can't recall who said it, but some director once remarked that you could eliminate half the names on the credits of most movies and still get them made.


  • #2


    Indiana Jones needed the darker type version of the series, the same they done with films like Superman, or Batman, or Rocky, Joker .
    Trying to copy the Jones movies of the 80's won't work

    The first two movies are pretty dark. It's the third one that turned it into Monty Python.


  • #2


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Placing the blame upon the shoulders of Kennedy for how the Star Wars sequels turned out is indeed a bit silly. There's plenty of people involved to share the blame for the mess those rubbish movies became.

    But I'd still maintain that while she is, probably, a good bean counter, a creative she is not and the further in the background she remains the better. If what I heard about her insistence on that stupid flying Leia scene from 'The Last Jedi' is correct, then the less she has to say about the creative side of a project is more than likely a good thing.

    A good producer can be more than a "bean counter" though, often as much a people manager as the director - especially with the more mercurial of either - and both usually have a close working relationship in terms of the day-to-days (especially if the producer is also the star, ala Tom Cruise and the MI films). Plus, I daresay before Episode VII the vast majority of Star Wars fans had never even heard of Kennedy. I'm not going to pretend I did, or that I know her particular methods across the decades she has work - but equally I'm not going to single her out either for an apparent choice to extend "space wizard magic" to include Mary Poppins powers. It was a bit hokey but ... yeah. Star Wars.

    And in any case, the fact we're even (still) talking about her is because of this continued demented obsession as Kennedy being some kind of creative millstone - or mark of death on a production. When the reality is so far from the truth as to be laughable. Especially given Star Wars was sullied enough by its own Father, one Mr. George Midichlorian Lucas, and yet Kennedy's the pariah? Id' certainly trust her to know more about what works than the average podcaster. Anyone who brought Who Framed Roger Rabbit into this world gets a lifetime pass IMO.


  • #2


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Anyone who brought Who Framed Roger Rabbit into this world gets a lifetime pass IMO.




    She gets a truck full of good grace for this alone


  • #2


    pixelburp wrote: »
    A good producer can be more than a "bean counter" though, often as much a people manager as the director - especially with the more mercurial of either - and both usually have a close working relationship in terms of the day-to-days (especially if the producer is also the star, ala Tom Cruise and the MI films). Plus, I daresay before Episode VII the vast majority of Star Wars fans had never even heard of Kennedy. I'm not going to pretend I did, or that I know her particular methods across the decades she has work - but equally I'm not going to single her out either for an apparent choice to extend "space wizard magic" to include Mary Poppins powers. It was a bit hokey but ... yeah. Star Wars.

    And in any case, the fact we're even (still) talking about her is because of this continued demented obsession as Kennedy being some kind of creative millstone - or mark of death on a production. When the reality is so far from the truth as to be laughable. Especially given Star Wars was sullied enough by its own Father, one Mr. George Midichlorian Lucas, and yet Kennedy's the pariah? Id' certainly trust her to know more about what works than the average podcaster. Anyone who brought Who Framed Roger Rabbit into this world gets a lifetime pass IMO.

    For sure, a good or bad producer can make or break a film. I get the impression, though, that these days there's more "producers" than are needed and, more often than not, interfere in a film project in a bad way rather than a good way. Careerist types looking to move up a ladder of some sort.

    "Producer" is a much varied term though as you know. It can mean anything from Howard Hawks or Roger Corman to some faceless exec who's been given more power than they deserve.

    Not to labour on Kathleen Kennedy, but I think her problem was that she became so front an centre that she was the obvious aiming point for a lot of the criticism (just and unjust) fired at the Star Wars sequels, while the likes of Abrams ducked for cover and let her take the shots. In my mind she certainly has her part to play, but as said earlier there's loads more people involved.

    As for "still talking about her", she's still the head of Lucasfilm. So she'll still be a topic of conversation, even if that conversation includes unreasonable hair pullers using her as a reason to issue a click bait rant on YouTube.


  • #2


    Kathleen deserves a lot of credit for her involvement in those classics mentioned from 20-30 years ago. However, she does seem to have pandered to recent trends in relation to feminism and wokeism etc, if some of the commentators are correct.


  • #2


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Placing the blame upon the shoulders of Kennedy for how the Star Wars sequels turned out is indeed a bit silly. There's plenty of people involved to share the blame for the mess those rubbish movies became.

    But I'd still maintain that while she is, probably, a good bean counter, a creative she is not and the further in the background she remains the better. If what I heard about her insistence on that stupid flying Leia scene from 'The Last Jedi' is correct, then the less she has to say about the creative side of a project is more than likely a good thing.

    But you're right, the "suits" have always been largely a scourge on film makers at some level. But these days it appears, with all the umph given to focus groups and data driven "analysis", they are even more likely to become involved to the detriment of the movie. It's different to yesteryear, where you have a single mogul interfering with a director's vision. Nowadays, there's armies of "producers" all vying to have their input, mostly in an effort to keep their jobs.

    I can't recall who said it, but some director once remarked that you could eliminate half the names on the credits of most movies and still get them made.


    She may be a fine producer, but she's a dreadful head of Lucasfilm, objectively.
    Any studio boss that hires and fires directors from projects in production, reshoots entire films, thus making one film for the price of two and divides the audience with creative decisions because they don't understand the IP is the wrong person to be in charge.

    I've seen some insiders refer to Kennedy as 'Spielberg's set wife', and no, that does not imply she is where she is because 'you know', it's a reference to the fact that her role on his productions was largely limited making sure the meals were on the table, the ironing done and the kids got off to school. In other words, she looked after the nuts and bolts of production so that the creative side of the production could operate without concerning themselves with them.
    She was never a 'creatively involved producer' like say, Saul Zaentz for example, those kind of old school producers have gone the way of the Dodo. As head of Lucasfilm she has however inserted herself into the creative process and that's an area of expertise that she's clearly not suited to.

    Disney hasn't been run by creative producers in a very long time now, it's run by corporate suits with marketing degrees and Kennedy still has her job because she aligns with that current Disney ethos.

    As for Indy 5. Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my all-time favourite movies but I have no interest in seeing this latest outing, the last one was bad enough and I've never cared for Mangold's movies.
    Indy, like Bond or McClain are action architypes brought to life by the actors. I don't think anybody is interested in watching a near 80yr old Harrison Ford doff the fedora again.
    I suspect aged Indy is going to be little more than a framing device (like in The Young Indiana Jones Cornicles) for a soft reboot introducing the *shudder* 'new generation', something I'm also utterly disinterested in.


    This is just another member-berry cash grab and that's a trend that can't die soon enough.


  • #2


    pixelburp wrote: »
    How do we know there's a de-aged Indy? Was there an actor walking around with some mo-cap dots on his face? Just curious as that seems like a big enough swing.


    Title leak: Indiana Jones and the Uncanny Valley of Doom!

    It's hard to say, it could just be a picture of a young stunt double, but surely he would have grey hair if that was the case, not brown.
    None of this is helped by the fact that Indy apparently hasn't changed his clothes in 40yrs.....


  • #2


    Without checking the stats, the only Star Wars release we can say was a definite flop was Solo, and even then it's unclear just how much, given the final budget remains a rumour (though tattle says it was upwards of $350 million[!!]).

    The circular blather industry of YouTube might have ripped the new films to shreds, but that wasn't manifest in the box office IMO - where success was quite admirable really, given China has consistently given all things Star Wars a big 'aul shrug of indifference. Financial success without that bulwark reads all the more impressive.


  • #2


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Without checking the stats, the only Star Wars release we can say was a definite flop was Solo, and even then it's unclear just how much, given the final budget remains a rumour (though tattle says it was upwards of $350 million[!!]).

    The circular blather industry of YouTube might have ripped the new films to shreds, but that wasn't manifest in the box office IMO - where success was quite admirable really, given China has consistently given all things Star Wars a big 'aul shrug of indifference. Financial success without that bulwark reads all the more impressive.

    You have to remember Disney ponied up the price of a couple of aircraft carriers to acquire this. The film side of Disney seems relatively dead going forward so any films they do make will be pricey but not likely to be billion dollar films.
    Their theme parks didn't capture the imagination as Disney I believe moved away from the old characters, and outside of some adult children that will pay 200$ for a lightsaber , their toys Im guessing didnt do great either.


  • #2


    silverharp wrote: »
    You have to remember Disney ponied up the price of a couple of aircraft carriers to acquire this. The film side of Disney seems relatively dead going forward so any films they do make will be pricey but not likely to be billion dollar films.
    Their theme parks didn't capture the imagination as Disney I believe moved away from the old characters, and outside of some adult children that will pay 200$ for a lightsaber , their toys Im guessing didnt do great either.

    They paid a sheer fortune, but like I said the films did well financially, despite the lack of Chinese money, while TV coupled with Disney+ could be where the IP does the best work. At which point "success" is rolled into the overall goals of Disney+ (presumably driven by subscribers than eyeballs watching). I'd be inclined to think so too 'cos the goodwill towards and success of The Mandalorian must surely turn heads that audiences mightn't necessarily want brainless cinematic blockbusters anymore. Smaller overheads, with less on the line too.

    Can't speak to their parks' success, especially the Star Wars one wasn't open that long 'til they all shut down due to CoVid. And given Avatar is apparently getting its own section, I'd question just how critical to the profit margin the theme parks are these days.


  • #2


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Without checking the stats, the only Star Wars release we can say was a definite flop was Solo, and even then it's unclear just how much, given the final budget remains a rumour (though tattle says it was upwards of $350 million[!!]).

    The circular blather industry of YouTube might have ripped the new films to shreds, but that wasn't manifest in the box office IMO - where success was quite admirable really, given China has consistently given all things Star Wars a big 'aul shrug of indifference. Financial success without that bulwark reads all the more impressive.

    Ah come on Pix. BO has nothing to do with quality and that's what the films will be ultimately remembered for. Into the bargain, there's very much a downward trend, moneywise, for the new Star Wars movies from 'The Force Awakens' onwards and the qualitative agreement is only apparent with 'Rogue One', which has been the single Disney Star Wars movie to have achieved any kind of positive consensus among fans and non-fans alike.

    Plus 'Solo' flopped and flopped hard. There's no point in pretending otherwise. Disney certainly aren't trying to make it out that it did even ok money.

    Sure, the silly YouTube stuff that only offer clickbait dancing in the graves of certain movies becomes tiresome after a very short while. But Disney Star Wars movies aren't in a good place either, irrespective of the YouTube blather.


  • #2


    the third Star Wars film had half the box office of the first of the 3, contrast with MCU that batted it out of the park on their finale. Or Hunger Games where the third film was in the ball park of the first film. They cant have been happy


  • #2


    If only there was precedent for the second and third films in a Star Wars trilogy earning substantially less than the first... if only...


  • #2


    If only there was precedent for the second and third films in a Star Wars trilogy earning substantially less than the first... if only...

    The fact that 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi' made less money than 'Star Wars' doesn't really mean that it's ordained that the Disney Star Wars movies would do the same.


  • #2


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Ah come on Pix. BO has nothing to do with quality and that's what the films will be ultimately remembered for. Into the bargain, there's very much a downward trend, moneywise, for the new Star Wars movies from 'The Force Awakens' onwards and the qualitative agreement is only apparent with 'Rogue One', which has been the single Disney Star Wars movie to have achieved any kind of positive consensus among fans and non-fans alike.

    Plus 'Solo' flopped and flopped hard. There's no point in pretending otherwise. Disney certainly aren't trying to make it out that it did even ok money.

    Sure, the silly YouTube stuff that only offer clickbait dancing in the graves of certain movies becomes tiresome after a very short while. But Disney Star Wars movies aren't in a good place either, irrespective of the YouTube blather.

    I never said Solo didn't flop, I said we don't know the final budget so can't know just how much of a failure it was in dollar terms.

    And as Johnny already eluded to, it's pretty standard behaviour where diminishing returns applies with trilogies, the last part often showing a drop-off from the original's success. Interest wanes, audiences attention moves elsewhere, it's just how it goes. In fact I'd be so bold as to say the average trilogy trends downward or holds steady, not upward. Ignoring the parallel, internal expectation of exponential growth as budgets increase.

    I'm sure the new trilogy will be debated many years from now; and once the dust settles it'll be very interesting to see where the critical / popular consensus lies with ̵Last Jedi in particular. IT wouldn't be the first film, or series of films, that find itself having revised appraisals.


  • #2


    Tony EH wrote: »
    The fact that 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi' made less money than 'Star Wars' doesn't really mean that it's ordained that the Disney Star Wars movies would do the same.

    Nor would I suggest it does. I just think it's a striking fact very conveniently ignored when people fallaciously cite box office returns as some sort of 'gotcha!' when discussing the successes and/or failures of modern Star Wars :) We are both in absolute agreement that box office is in no way, shape or form indicative of the actual quality of a film.

    (Also somewhat applies to the prequels as well, incidentally, although Episode III leap-frogged Episode II - which if anything suggests quality of a predecessor does not directly correlate with success of its sequel :pac:)


  • #2


    If only there was precedent for the second and third films in a Star Wars trilogy earning substantially less than the first... if only...

    Return of the Jedi did nearly twice as well as the first of that trilogy. So Ill guess you are talking about the second trilogy which my only memory was they were highly criticised at the time, erm so yeah if you are saying they messed up relatively speaking in 2 of the 3 trilogies, I cant argue with that.


  • #2


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I never said Solo didn't flop, I said we don't know the final budget so can't know just how much of a failure it was in dollar terms.

    Ok. Well, it failed and failed hard so. :D
    pixelburp wrote: »
    And as Johnny already eluded to, it's pretty standard behaviour where diminishing returns applies with trilogies, the last part often showing a drop-off from the original's success. Interest wanes, audiences attention moves elsewhere, it's just how it goes. In fact I'd be so bold as to say the average trilogy trends downward or holds steady, not upward. Ignoring the parallel, internal expectation of exponential growth as budgets increase.

    And I'll repeat that nothing is ordained in that respect.

    I'll add, too, that the film series at the heart of the thread bucks that idea. Last Crusade made more than Temple and Crystal Skull beat them all.
    pixelburp wrote: »
    I'm sure the new trilogy will be debated many years from now; and once the dust settles it'll be very interesting to see where the critical / popular consensus lies with ̵Last Jedi in particular. IT wouldn't be the first film, or series of films, that find itself having revised appraisals.

    I'm sure it will. But right now, I'd lay bets that the overwhelming consensus is that the sequel trilogy was, at best, disappointing to the vast majority of viewers.


  • #2


    silverharp wrote: »
    Return of the Jedi did nearly twice as well as the first of that trilogy.

    It didn't though.

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchise/fr3125251845/

    (Worldwide TESB comfortably overtakes ROTJ)


  • #2


    Yeah, the final Hunger Games also saw a drop-off with their (greed induced) split of the final part in the trilogy:

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchise/fr239570693/?ref_=bo_frs_table_17

    (sidebar, are those totals adjusted for inflation? Cos that would also tell some interesting, contextual tales)

    Trilogies taper off, by and large. Audiences move on. That's not to undermine or ignore the qualities - or lack thereof - of the Star Wars films of late, but it's a broad truism that blockbuster trilogies slowly decline in interest and box-office. the MCU is an exception IMO because it's formatted as a Long Term Story, season climax n' all.

    I'd also argue that Rise of Skywalker did more damage to the brand than Last Jedi: as there's at least _something_ to debate about the merits of the former (and no doubt will do so as the years tick on); the latter was such a panicked & low-quality attempt at fan masturbation and course correction, what remained of fan goodwill likely died quick enough upon realisation Abrams helmed a total piece of shít. At least the prequels were earnest attempts to carry the story forward (or backwards, technically)


  • #2


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Ah come on. BO has nothing to do with quality and that's what the films will be ultimately remembered for
    This quote sums it up but having said that out of the 8 Harry Potter movies the last one is deemed the best :confused:


  • #2


    Probably going against the tide here, but I’m looking forward to Indy 5. I also have confidence that Mangold knows what he’s doing and will give Harrison Ford a decent send off as Indy. It looks like there’ll be young Indy flashbacks interwoven with old Indy pieces, so the action scenes will be age appropriate.

    Regarding Ford’s age, well, he’s doing daily 40 mile cycles as he’s filming this, so he’s fitter than most people are in their 50’s, so his age is really just a number. Everyone knows this will be Ford’s final outing as Indy, so you can be sure the pressure is on to make sure he goes out on a high note.

    Also, if you haven’t already, have a look at his last movie ‘Call of the Wild’, Ford gave a great performance and showed how he can still deliver age appropriate action scenes.


  • #2


    Yeah I wouldn’t be Mangold’s biggest fan - most of his recent films are fairly bland, albeit watchable - but he’s not a bad choice for this. I think his more old-school, down-to-Earth (relatively speaking) storytelling sensibilities are a decent fit for the series. I would not trust Spielberg with another Indy, as he’s repeatedly shown an ability to scale back on the weightless, excessive CG. Much better to hand the whip to somebody else - ironic that it’s Spielberg, the veteran filmmaker, who can’t be trusted to not indulge in modern excess!

    It’s still a project weighed down by inherent redundancy and corporate cynicism - there’s a very good chance it’ll be ****e. But there’s enough vaguely encouraging signs to not write it off completely for now.


  • #2


    Wedwood wrote: »
    Probably going against the tide here, but I’m looking forward to Indy 5. I also have confidence that Mangold knows what he’s doing and will give Harrison Ford a decent send off as Indy. It looks like there’ll be young Indy flashbacks interwoven with old Indy pieces, so the action scenes will be age appropriate.

    Regarding Ford’s age, well, he’s doing daily 40 mile cycles as he’s filming this, so he’s fitter than most people are in their 50’s, so his age is really just a number. Everyone knows this will be Ford’s final outing as Indy, so you can be sure the pressure is on to make sure he goes out on a high note.

    Also, if you haven’t already, have a look at his last movie ‘Call of the Wild’, Ford gave a great performance and showed how he can still deliver age appropriate action scenes.

    I think there's potential for a solid movie here, and if <name pending> is decent, B-grade material that's not too bad. My optimism is mostly because unlike Johnny above, I rate Mangold quite highly - precisely because I appreciate his workmanlike output as a positive, not a negative. There's an underappreciated value in a good tradesperson IMO, and Mangold has shown a knack for unfussy competence that's a very rare talent in an industry of shameless hacks like John Moore or Len Wiseman, or hyperactive theme park directors like Justin Lin. Doing the basics well should always be applauded, not sniffed at IMO.

    There were so many ways this production could have started wrong with the directorial choice, and James Mangold was a point where I went "huh, yeah OK. That's the right guy, let's see where this goes". And parallel to the directing, the casting so far has been excellent; she's obviously big target for those with chips on their shoulder but Waller-Bridge could be an excellent comedic foil to Ford.

    Do agree with Johnny in that ironically, Spielberg would have been the worst choice, given his headspace is so far past blockbuster filmmaking, when he has tried it lately, it has dramatically flatlined.

    There is no getting away from what this is though: Disney's acquisition of the Fox & Lucasarts stable of IPs means we can expect our nostalgia pockets to be picked pretty ruthlessly, while any given franchise is deemed of value. Hence Indy 5, or that Aliens TV series; but then if they continue to hire interesting people to helm them (such as Fargo's NOah Hawley with that Aliens show[!!]), I'll at least give it a shake.


  • #2


    I feel like my nostalgia pocket is inside out and freed of the last vestiges of lint. While I consider Mangold a moderately positive choice too and Waller-Bridge doesn't bother me any, with projects like this I consciously steel myself to wait for reviews. Most of these rehashings of 80s IP are mediocre-to-bad, and often surrounded by an utterly boring toxic argument of one kind or another; it's notable that your go-tos for "shameless hacks" are the last two Die Hard directors.


  • #2


    mikhail wrote: »
    I feel like my nostalgia pocket is inside out and freed of the last vestiges of lint. While I consider Mangold a moderately positive choice too and Waller-Bridge doesn't bother me any, with projects like this I consciously steel myself to wait for reviews. Most of these rehashings of 80s IP are mediocre-to-bad, and often surrounded by an utterly boring toxic argument of one kind or another; it's notable that your go-tos for "shameless hacks" are the last two Die Hard directors.

    Holy shít, you're right. That was total fluke, but, yeah. Those last couple of movies were farted out by total jobsworths. And, of course, yet another IP now owned by Disney, so presumably somewhere in the Mouse House there's a report speculating about the viability of Die Hard 6. Wonder who the action equivalent of James Mangold is...


  • #2


    pixelburp wrote: »

    Can't speak to their parks' success, especially the Star Wars one wasn't open that long 'til they all shut down due to CoVid. And given Avatar is apparently getting its own section, I'd question just how critical to the profit margin the theme parks are these days.

    I stand to be corrected but my understanding was Disney lost money on all their theme parks - even before COVID.


  • #2


    Disney's Galaxy's Edge theme park was an unmitigated disaster. But the main reason, as I understand it, was the Star Wars "period" they chose to set it in. They found that few people were actually interested in visiting a Star Wars theme park that didn't include the most popular parts of it, like the original stuff.

    If you go to a Star Wars theme park, you'd be expecting to find Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader at least knocking about somewhere.

    The simple fact is that "old" Star Wars has an enduring appeal that the "new" stuff sorely lacks. The original Star Wars elements have stood the test of time, while the Diswars is a flash in the pan. It's telling that Disney's biggest successes, in terms of positive feedback, are 'Rogue One' and 'The Mandalorian', both of which draw very heavily from the original movies.


Leave a Comment

Rich Text Editor. To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph. An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu. Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.