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

2456718

Comments

  • #2


    A man in his mid 70s can't be a convincing action man even with the best will in the world. There's a physicality required to portray the character effectively that Ford doesn't have anymore. In Crystal Skull which was years ago you could see his range of movement wasnt great what will he be like in a couple of years time?

    Either reboot the thing or just let the franchise die. Nothing will ever touch the originals anyway


  • #2


    I could see Chris Pratt doing it justice. Playing the stuffy academic might be a stretch, Ford had a quirkiness that really suited the character, but I think Pratt could do a decent imitation of that. The thing is I don't really want to see anyone else play this role.


  • #2


    Agricola wrote: »
    I could see Chris Pratt doing it justice. Playing the stuffy academic might be a stretch, Ford had a quirkiness that really suited the character, but I think Pratt could do a decent imitation of that. The thing is I don't really want to see anyone else play this role.


    I think people read a bit too much into the professor thing - Pratt could be a perfectly fine Indy as long as he tones down the goofy aspect he normally brings to his roles. I think he'd be the best fit - can't really think of anybody else.

    Agree with with your last point - Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. If he can't play the role anymore id nearly prefer they leave it alone. This is Hollywood though - they're obsessed with wrecking great movies


  • #2


    sonic85 wrote: »
    A man in his mid 70s can't be a convincing action man even with the best will in the world. There's a physicality required to portray the character effectively that Ford doesn't have anymore. In Crystal Skull which was years ago you could see his range of movement wasnt great what will he be like in a couple of years time?

    Either reboot the thing or just let the franchise die. Nothing will ever touch the originals anyway

    He did a Han Solo pretty well...


  • #2


    py2006 wrote: »
    He did a Han Solo pretty well...


    i cant comment on star wars because I didn't see it but ill take your word for it. im only going on the last Indy movie and he was poor enough in that


  • #2


    sonic85 wrote: »
    i cant comment on star wars because I didn't see it but ill take your word for it. im only going on the last Indy movie and he was poor enough in that

    Nobody will disagree with you there and I think that is why another is being made.


  • #2


    Steven Spielberg Enlists a Familiar Writer for 'Indiana Jones 5'

    David Koepp.

    If "real artists ship" can be applied to screenwriting, then Koepp is the master. This is good news for anyone expecting the film this decade and suggests Disney are serious about meeting the 2019 release date.

    It's not clear if there's a story that Koepp is working off.


  • #2


    Disney are serious about meeting the 2019 release date.
    I'd say they're serious about getting it done while Ford is still alive more than anything.


  • #2


    Ford has a couple movies to do in between too. One of which is a Blade Runner Sequel.


  • #2


    sonic85 wrote: »
    I think people read a bit too much into the professor thing - Pratt could be a perfectly fine Indy as long as he tones down the goofy aspect he normally brings to his roles. I think he'd be the best fit - can't really think of anybody else.

    Agree with with your last point - Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. If he can't play the role anymore id nearly prefer they leave it alone. This is Hollywood though - they're obsessed with wrecking great movies

    Fillion


  • #2


    Cork_exile wrote: »
    Fillion

    10 years/kilos ago maybe.


  • #2


    10 years/kilos ago maybe.

    Age of Ford doing first Indy?
    Size of Pratt doing Parks&Rec?


  • #2


    Cork_exile wrote: »
    Age of Ford doing first Indy?
    Size of Pratt doing Parks&Rec?

    Ford was 38 when he made Raiders. Fillon will be 46 by the time the next Indy goes into production and that's being optimistic.


  • #2


    Ford was 38 when he made Raiders. Fillon will be 46 by the time the next Indy goes into production and that's being optimistic.

    Yeah, so it can easily be set after Raiders (hell slight rejig and it's after Crusade) and continue the story. OR reboot

    Pratt would be a reboot or prequel setting only, I also don't know if he can pull of the more serious/academic side of Indy. Would it be Peter Quill in a sable fedora and whip? (he already has a satchel to be honest)


  • #2


    I like Pratt a lot, but I don't think he's right for the role either. However, let's not pretend that the more "serious/academic side of Indy" required an acting masterclass from Ford. They basically slapped him in a bow-tie and spectacles.


  • #2


    Dair76 wrote: »
    I like Pratt a lot, but I don't think he's right for the role either. However, let's not pretend that the more "serious/academic side of Indy" required an acting masterclass from Ford. They basically slapped him in a bow-tie and spectacles.

    True but it suited his awkwardish acting


  • #2


    This will be simply awful. Ford is too old now. It'll look ridiculous. Frankly, he just about scraped by in 'The Force Awakens' there are some real cringy moments in that.

    Indiana Jones is a prime example of a franchise that should have been locked away in 1984 in the same warehouse as the Ark.

    Raiders and Temple of Doom...that's all. The others are rubbish.


  • #2


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Raiders and Temple of Doom...that's all. The others are rubbish.

    Most people (including Spielberg) seem to thing Temple of Doom was a miss, and Last Crusade was a hit.

    I think everyone agrees the Crystal Skull was a miss, but Harrison Ford being too old was not the problem there - Lucas and Spielberg were the problem. Fridge nuking, interdimensional aliens, Mutt as a greaser, CGI gophers - this stuff is all the fault of Spielberg and Lucas.Per wikipedia: Screenwriters Jeb Stuart, Jeffrey Boam, Frank Darabont, and Jeff Nathanson wrote drafts before David Koepp's script satisfied the producers.That's the same Koepp Disney have announced for this one.Not getting my hopes up.


  • #2


    Most people (including Spielberg) seem to thing Temple of Doom was a miss, and Last Crusade was a hit.

    I've never been big on aligning my views to what most people think. :D

    To me 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' is the far superior picture and the only reason Speilberg says it isn't, is because a few cotton wool parents and their mardy arse kids got a bit upset by some of the visuals. If the situation was reversed, so would his words be.

    Spielberg fucked it up though in 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' and tried to insert comedy instead of (mild) horror on the back of that. Comedy which falls flat on its face every single time and sends the film too far down stupid street.

    Until the fourth one came along 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' was easily the weakest entry in the series. It's just a parody. Some stuff works well, like the dad/son stuff between Ford and Connery and there are some good sequences, like the tank set piece. But, it's littered with the most unffunny attempts at laughs that I find it unwatchable and coupled with a story that's just bloody awful, the whole thing becomes a no for me.

    There's a certain likeable grit in the first two films that add immensely to the over all feel. A grit that's abandoned in the third film, much to its detriment.

    In the end, though, there's really only one truly great Indiana Jones film and that's the first one.


  • #2


    Wasn't Doom widely criticised for various reasons? I think Speilberg did the 3rd one in response to that. I enjoyed the third one.


  • #2


    Probably would have grown up to be the ideal replacement...




  • #2


    Tony EH wrote: »
    To me 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' is the far superior picture and the only reason Speilberg says it isn't, is because a few cotton wool parents and their mardy arse kids got a bit upset by some of the visuals.

    I don't think the mild horror element is the problem. I think that the addition of the superfluous annoying comedy kid sidekick and the swap in of a screaming damsel in distress for the heroine are the start of it.

    The second problem is that the Ark of the Covenant and Holy Grail are well known big deals, the Nazis well known to have mystical/occult interests, and the plots involving them have real power and high stakes.

    The bad guys in Temple of Doom are an extinct cult, and no-one ever heard of their McGuffins before, and the connection between the magic rocks and bad things happening is not at all clear. Unlike the Nazis, the bad guys are apparently wiped out by 20 British soldiers in the finish. The plot has no weight.


  • #2


    I don't think the mild horror element is the problem. I think that the addition of the superfluous annoying comedy kid sidekick and the swap in of a screaming damsel in distress for the heroine are the start of it.

    The horror parts of both 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' and 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' were a "problem" for some people, especially in America. Younger kids couldn't handle melting Germans or ripping peoples hearts out of their chests. In fact, I think the latter was cut from the cinema releases in the UK and here. It certainly was in the video releases.

    And, yes, while Shortround was annoying (in a typical Speilberg way), it was the reaction to nastier elements that spiked most people. Temple is a pretty dark picture.

    As for Willie Scott, I liked her. She's supposed to be a fish out of water type. An annoying, spoilt brat. More interested in sequin dresses, hair, makeup, finger nails and her nightclub career than poncing around the Raj with some (handsome) bozo.
    The second problem is that the Ark of the Covenant and Holy Grail are well known big deals, the Nazis well known to have mystical/occult interests, and the plots involving them have real power and high stakes.

    The nazis interest in the occult is a myth in itself. But that's another thread. Sure, the Shankara stones aren't the holy grail, but to me that's good. The holy grail is a terrible McGuffin and paired with the ever lasting crusader knight, it's just too much, TBH.
    The bad guys in Temple of Doom are an extinct cult, and no-one ever heard of their McGuffins before, and the connection between the magic rocks and bad things happening is not at all clear. Unlike the Nazis, the bad guys are apparently wiped out by 20 British soldiers in the finish. The plot has no weight.

    The Thuggee cult existed though, but they are as real in Temple of Doom as the the Germans are in Raiders and Last Crusade, i.e. not really. But, I found them to be a refreshing turn. Dragging out the Germans again would have been tiresome as it was in Last Crusade and in the Last Crusade, they are pretty ineffectual. Doody is nice looking, but meh and Julian Glover doesn't have any of the menace that Ronald Lacey does in Raiders. In fact, none of the bad guys comes close to their counter parts in the first film, or Mola Ram for that matter.

    But Last Crusade's biggest and most unforgivable sin is the terribly unfunny "comedy" that plagues the whole film. The guy franking papers in the church that thinks the loud bangs caused by Jones bashing his way through a concrete floor is actually him? That's not funny. It's just stupid. Or Indy throwing a guy off of the Zeppelin and saying he hadn't got a ticket? Again, not funny. Just stupid.


  • #2


    I couldn't disagree more. The Last Crusade is by far and away my favourite of the "trilogy" (I'm not even counting the 4th one). I loved the comedy, I thought it worked very well and the Father/Son relationship was great imo.

    I'm not one for silly farcical comedy either, but for me, the Last Crusade is the one that stands up to repeated viewing.

    Different strokes obviously!


  • #2


    The Raiders trilogy followed a similar arc to the Star Wars trilogy. Strong first movie, darker second and the third being a rehash of sorts of the first movie.

    The humour was right for the time they were made, today's more 'serious' movies make the older movies look lighter.

    Still, when you look at the ripoff movies made at the time like Romancing the Stone and King Solomans Mines, all the Indy movies are light years ahead.

    Just to add, despite its detractors, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was miles better than most of its contemporaries like Tomb Raider, Sahara and The Mummy sequels. (I'd give the first of those Mummy pictures the nod ahead of KOTCS)


  • #2


    Raiders is perfect.

    Temple is dark and demented fun and is underrated generally. But it mixes a dollop of cheese with a touch of racism. Problematic! It also contains the worst love interest in the entire series - Crystal Skull included. I know that her character is supposed to be that of the damsel in distress, but did she have to be so bloody annoying?- INNNNNDEEEEE.

    The Last Crusade does itself an injustice by travelling ever further towards the realm of somewhat cheesy light comedy. Wry humour should been the order of the day, not lowly aiming for yucks. It's also the most uninspired of the trilogy, being basically a rehash of Raiders. The prologue and it's mythologising - this is how he got the whip, this is how he got the scar and this, ladies and gentleman, is why he fears snakes - is unnecessary fan service and pandering; you can see the series losing balls, wit and grit before your very eyes here. BUT - Sean Connery. I thoroughly enjoy every minute him and Ford are on screen together. I also think the action is superb in this film: it's grand, imaginative and exciting. Also at some level I prefer the fact that he's up against the dirty Nazis in this movie. Yeah, it's something we've seen before, but something about him fighting The Reich rings right. Right? He's on a mission from God, against villains we all can get worked up about; An Indian death cult doesn't have the same allure to it.

    So score draw between the sequels!


  • #2


    I think most trilogies are like Star Wars. The first film is a hit, so they take risks on the second which even if they pay off tend to be coolly received by audiences at the time, so they play it safe with the third. There's also the fact that directors usually don't hold back anything for the third film and when they do you end you end up with the "difficult middle act".

    Personally I love Doom almost as much as Raiders. I also find it hilariously funny which I know most people don't. It's like a silent comedy. You could turn the sound off and still get nearly all the jokes. I dunno but Spielberg's slapstick has always worked for me, except perhaps for when he does it in an otherwise fairly serious film. Like Tom Cruise chasing after his bouncing eye balls in Minority Report, which is awesome but belongs in a different movie.

    As for Raiders rip-offs, King Solomans Mines, yes, but Romancing no way. It was actually written before Raiders and probably rode its slipstream into production, but it's a very different and in my view greatly underrated film.

    I keep meaning to re-vist Crystal Skull. I always thought at the time that it would work a lot better for me if I could just appreciate it on its own merits instead of comparing it to the previous films. But even at the time, my biggest issue was the CGI and the overly glossy A-movie look of the thing. The aliens and the fridge stuff didn't bother me that much. Aliens were a good idea but making them inter-dimensional aliens was probably too much (I believe it was Spielberg who pushed Lucas in this direction). And the fridge scene is actually another piece of inspired slapstick by Spielberg, but the effects are all wrong. Imagine the same scene with some restrained b-movie-ish effects from the '80s and it would have worked a lot better.


  • #2


    Imagine the same scene with some restrained b-movie-ish effects from the '80s and it would have worked a lot better.

    This sentence applies to about 80+% of CGI drenched films.


  • #2


    Most people (including Spielberg) seem to thing Temple of Doom was a miss, and Last Crusade was a hit.

    I think everyone agrees the Crystal Skull was a miss, but Harrison Ford being too old was not the problem there - Lucas and Spielberg were the problem. Fridge nuking, interdimensional aliens, Mutt as a greaser, CGI gophers - this stuff is all the fault of Spielberg and Lucas.Per wikipedia: Screenwriters Jeb Stuart, Jeffrey Boam, Frank Darabont, and Jeff Nathanson wrote drafts before David Koepp's script satisfied the producers.That's the same Koepp Disney have announced for this one.Not getting my hopes up.

    Supposedly Spielberg was happy with Darabont's screenplay but Lucas said no.
    INDY
    Willie Scott.

    MARION
    Yeah, her. Still in touch?

    INDY
    On and off. She moved out to
    Hollywood to be a star. Last I heard,
    she fell in love and married some
    bigshot director.


  • #2


    I watched the Last Crusade last night with the aul fella and we both thoroughly enjoyed it. He particularly thought Connery was great. He saw it with me back in the day but couldn't remember it.

    It has some very funny moments and a great throwback action movie.


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.