Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

BuilderPlumber

pixelburp wrote: »

Clicking into this thread, unexpected news of either a new Harrison Ford helmed sequel, or a reboot. Both possibilities depress me.

There definitely will be a reboot of Indiana Jones at some stage. Is it one of the only franchises not to rebooted or reimagined. Batman, Bond, Mad Max, Star Wars, Superman, Blade Runner, Miami Vice, The A Team and others have got rebooted and/or reimagined. The quality of reboots has varied. Some have been really good while others have been major disappointments. I would love to see future quality Indy films but not half baked attempts that are poor remakes of the original classics. For later tonight, I will stick on Raiders to keep the last few days of Christmas festive.

Tony EH

You just cannot have Indiana Jones without Ford and he's just too old now.

It'll suck balls.

As far as reboots are concerned, the majority are utter failures. Best to leave the originals alone.

BTW, 'Blade Runner 2049' was a straight sequel, not really a reboot - and it's something a lot of fans have been asking for for ages, unlike reboots of other stuff. Although, I spose that there's someone at Sony gagging to turn it into a franchise of sorts.

EPAndlee

If they did a reboot than Indiana Jones would have to be female incase someone got offended. Why can't Hollywood leave these classics in the past for us to enjoy. I'm surprised Hollywood hasn't tried to reboot Goonies yet

SimonTemplar

I could very easily see Charlize Theron as an Indiana Jones type character in fun entertaining 1930s adventures. She could have the same character and spirit as Indy just make it a different franchise and don't attempt a gender swap.

Indy = Ford. Hope they don't reboot even if it means the franchise ending.

nix

Jack Black for the next indy in my opinion

conorhal

nix wrote: »

Jack Black for the next indy in my opinion

I'm sold!



But only if we can have The Rock as short round. :cool:

nix

conorhal wrote: »

I'm sold!



But only if we can have The Rock as short round. :cool:

Brilliant, or he can play Shia Labeouf's character :pac:

BuilderPlumber

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I could very easily see Charlize Theron as an Indiana Jones type character in fun entertaining 1930s adventures. She could have the same character and spirit as Indy just make it a different franchise and don't attempt a gender swap.

Indy = Ford. Hope they don't reboot even if it means the franchise ending.

Indy = Ford for sure and would be hard to replace. It is a pity he didn't do a few more of them in the 1980s or 1990s.

I feel that this drive to try and drastically reboot franchises can seriously backfire. Charlize Theron would be good in that type of role but as a different character. She could even be Indy's similar companion in an Indiana Jones film akin to how she was in Mad Max Fury Road.

I feel another serious way of ruining Indiana Jones would be to have it set in the present day. The 1930s setting of the originals added to them greatly and differentiated them from other action films of the times. An Indiana Jones film set in the current times would feel more like a Bond or Jason Bourne type film. And if they had him set in space, you are entering Star Wars territory (as the Star Wars films are made by the same team, this is unlikely but there could be a space themed plot). Crystal Skull kind of went into that direction and has been criticised for it by some.

The best way to do an Indy film would it seems to have the plot about an ancient relic or place of religious significance like the ark or grail and have a set of baddies vying with Indy to locate it. Something like Jesus' tomb or something.

Wedwood

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is 10 years old this year, that decade went by very quickly.

Like The Last Jedi currently, Crystal Skull remains a divisive film among fans. It got good critical reviews (77% on RT), while the fans gave it 53%.

It made almost $790m at the box office in 2008, allowing for inflation, would break €1 billion at today's rates.

There's a lot of parallels between Last Jedi and Crystal Skull.

Avatar MIA

Wedwood wrote: »

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is 10 years old this year, that decade went by very quickly.

Like The Last Jedi currently, Crystal Skull remains a divisive film among fans. It got good critical reviews (77% on RT), while the fans gave it 53%.

It made almost $790m at the box office in 2008, allowing for inflation, would break €1 billion at today's rates.

There's a lot of parallels between Last Jedi and Crystal Skull.

Considering the HUGE and possibly fanatical fan base the revenue generated cannot be a gauge of its quality.

Tony EH

Wedwood wrote: »

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is 10 years old this year

Wait, what?

*checks Google*


Jesus wept...

BuilderPlumber

Wedwood wrote: »

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is 10 years old this year, that decade went by very quickly.

Like The Last Jedi currently, Crystal Skull remains a divisive film among fans. It got good critical reviews (77% on RT), while the fans gave it 53%.

It made almost $790m at the box office in 2008, allowing for inflation, would break €1 billion at today's rates.

There's a lot of parallels between Last Jedi and Crystal Skull.

I find Crystal Skull good and relived a lot of the magic of the earlier films. I know many though who hate it but love the original 3. The only issue I had with CS is that its ending was too similar to that of Last Crusade and so was the female Russian character too like Dr Snyder.

I enjoy Star Wars too and the original 3 and The Force Awakens are excellent. Will get to see Last Jedi on DVD. Again, many fans love it while others don't.

Indiana Jones and Star Wars are two franchises that produced decent to excellent sequels. I wish I could say the same about others such as Police Academy, First Blood/Rambo, and especially The Karate Kid.

valoren

Tony EH wrote: »

Wait, what?

*checks Google*


Jesus wept...

What was interesting in 2008 was that the year promised an Indy movie, a Batman movie and Bond movie. That hadn't happened since 1989. I think a lot of the bad rep Crystal Skull get's is that after watching it in cinema's while those who didn't like it as being the same old same plotting and simply didn't like it while other's would resolve to reconsider it in time at a future point, say, when the DVD was released. Then The Dark Knight came out a couple of months later which was a major success and those who had resolved to reconsider the Indy movie perhaps did watch again and found it to be actually completely derivative whereas the Batman film at a bare minimum had tried to do something different and new and had some interesting ideas. Essentially, for established franchises, the Indy film was just more of the same with an older Indy, the Batman film had meat on the bones and the Bond film was a quickie cash in that seemed to have been express lined into production after the well received Casino Royale.

For me there was a precedence there in 1999 when the Phantom Menace was released. Went to see it with all the hype and came away unsure, parts were good, a lot of it was disappointing. Then weeks later, The Matrix came out and it was a fulsome sci-fi experience all the way and as a subjective experience was far superior to the turgidness of the Phantom Menace.

BuilderPlumber

valoren wrote: »

What was interesting in 2008 was that the year promised an Indy movie, a Batman movie and Bond movie. That hadn't happened since 1989. I think a lot of the bad rep Crystal Skull get's is that after watching it in cinema's while those who didn't like it as being the same old same plotting and simply didn't like it while other's would resolve to reconsider it in time at a future point, say, when the DVD was released. Then The Dark Knight came out a couple of months later which was a major success and those who had resolved to reconsider the Indy movie perhaps did watch again and found it to be actually completely derivative whereas the Batman film at a bare minimum had tried to do something different and new and had some interesting ideas. Essentially, for established franchises, the Indy film was just more of the same with an older Indy, the Batman film had meat on the bones and the Bond film was a quickie cash in that seemed to have been express lined into production after the well received Casino Royale.

For me there was a precedence there in 1999 when the Phantom Menace was released. Went to see it with all the hype and came away unsure, parts were good, a lot of it was disappointing. Then weeks later, The Matrix came out and it was a fulsome sci-fi experience all the way and as a subjective experience was far superior to the turgidness of the Phantom Menace.

Indeed. 2008 had Batman, Bond and Indy and a lot of promise. The Bond and Batman films were both the second in a new updated reboot of both. The Bond seen as a disappointment and the Batman as the best Batman film ever. The Indy film was the only one of them to be a sequel to the original and so far only incarnation.

In 1989, I recall the Bond film was overshadowed both by Batman and Indy. The 1989 Indy film played it safe and followed Raiders in approach after going down a different route in Temple. The Batman film then was a massive difference to the Adam West series while the Bond film of that year was the most different to date and underrated. The world was not yet ready for a serious Bond so I feel Bond fans got more out both Batman and Indy that year as they delivered more of what they also expected from Bond.

What will the 5th Indy film bring? Will it follow the format of 1, 3 and 4 or will it try something different like 2? And what if this thing about teaming up 2 major franchises continues? E.g. Batman and Superman in the one film. Would Indy and Bond in one film be an option? How would it do at the box office?

w/s/p/c/

They should have Ford in the new movie, although make him be the narrator, where Indy is telling the story of an old adventure, with a younger actor playing the role that can carry the franchise going forward.  I have never seen the show but that is probably how the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles were done on TV?!

Failing that call the new movie "Indiana Jones and the Escape from the Retirement Home"!

kunst nugget

valoren wrote: »

I think a lot of the bad rep Crystal Skull get's is that after watching it in cinema's while those who didn't like it as being the same old same plotting and simply didn't like it while other's would resolve to reconsider it in time at a future point, say, when the DVD was released. Then The Dark Knight came out a couple of months later which was a major success and those who had resolved to reconsider the Indy movie perhaps did watch again and found it to be actually completely derivative whereas the Batman film at a bare minimum had tried to do something different and new and had some interesting ideas.

I think a lot the bad rep is down to the fact that the Crystal Skull is pure and unadulterated scutter.

seamus

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Indy = Ford for sure and would be hard to replace. It is a pity he didn't do a few more of them in the 1980s or 1990s.

The Indy "attitude" is really the key. Sarcastic, aloof, brave to the point of foolhardy, and very lucky.
Ryan Reynolds could nail it, but I think that's almost too obvious.

So I think it is possible, but the casting is the important bit. Get that wrong and it's finished.

Avatar MIA

seamus wrote: »

The Indy "attitude" is really the key. Sarcastic, aloof, brave to the point of foolhardy, and very lucky.
Ryan Reynolds could nail it, but I think that's almost too obvious.

So I think it is possible, but the casting is the important bit. Get that wrong and it's finished.

This guy would be very similar to Ford I think.

Tony EH

No thanks to either.

And no to an Indy reboot. It'll be a disaster.

Make new stuff please.

pixelburp

It'd be an interesting experiment if franchises like this and Alien, ones that have perhaps grown too large & too ... 'blockbuster'y & merchandise friendly, went back to their roots and got made as deliberately low-mid range budget action/horror features. Not that I'm an expert in what constitutes 'mid budget' these days, but you look at something like the Jumanji sequel, a pittance at 90 million yet is raking in the cash and turning a healthy profit. Jason Blum is laughing all the way to the bank with a tactic of low-balling competent horror flicks.

But I just know that if Indiana Jones got rebooted, it'd "go big" and be churned out as a mega-blockbuster with a $250 million dollar budget.

py2006

Spielberg and Harrison Ford will be teaming up again for this new film, as of course Ford reprises his role as Indiana Jones. The release date is set for July 20th, 2020.

He made the disclosure Sunday night at the Rakuten TV Empire Awards, where he was on stage to receive a Legend of Our Lifetime award and spoke about his collaborators from the British film industry. The event was held at the Roundhouse in London.

“It’s always worth the trip when I get to work with this deep bench of talent coming out of the UK. The actors, and the crew, the chippies, the sparks, the drivers — everybody who has helped me make my movies here, and will continue helping me make my movies here when I come back in April 2019 to make the fifth Indiana Jones movie right here,” Spielberg said while on stage.

Sad Professor

According to Deadline, Jonathan Kasdan, hot off of Solo, is re-writing David Koepp's script.

Oh and the film has been delayed again and will miss its July 2020 release date. By months, maybe years. Spielberg has two other films he wants to make first.

https://deadline.com/2018/06/indiana-jones-5-delayed-1202419190/

I think Spielberg is just killing time until either Ford or himself dies so he doesn't have to do it.

Wedwood

Sad Professor wrote: »

According to Deadline, Jonathan Kasdan, hot off of Solo, is re-writing David Koepp's script.

Oh and the film has been delayed again and will miss its July 2020 release date. By months, maybe years. Spielberg has two other films he wants to make first.

https://deadline.com/2018/06/indiana-jones-5-delayed-1202419190/

I think Spielberg is just killing time until either Ford or himself dies so he doesn't have to do it.

They've probably looked at the carry on since Last Jedi and decided they don't need any of that crap from the whingefans. They're still whinging about Crystal Skull 10 years later.

Tony EH

Because it was absolute shite.

Look, these things had their day. They're done. Let them die with a bit of dignity.

Make new stuff and stop trying to rob the graves of long dead movie heroes.

Oasis1974

Tony EH wrote: »

Because it was absolute shite.

Look, these things had their day. They're done. Let them die with a bit of dignity.

Make new stuff and stop trying to rob the graves of long dead movie heroes.

That's the problem there is no new stuff to make any of these dubious sequels or remakes are calculated to put some bums on seats just out of curiosity.

Chev_Chelios

Agent Coulson

It has now been bumped to July 2021.

pixelburp

In and around Harrison Ford's 78th birthday; OK he won't be that age when shooting, but you gotta imagine this film either ain't happening, or will morph into a reboot. I suppose they could recast Shia LeBeouf and keep the Indiana moniker, given he played Henry Jones III, but just wish at this stage they'd move on from trying to keep this franchise going.

Let the past die; kill it if you have to.

*gets coat*

SimonTemplar

Like Solo, I don't think anyone really wants this. I'd be fine with the franchise if it continued into the 90s but once the turn of the century happened, Ford is simply too old to play Indy. The dynamic just isn't the same anymore. Han Solo in The Force Awakens isn't comparable because that character isn't as physical as Indy in his prime.

And I really don't want to see a reboot either. I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons Solo disappointed at the box office is because a large portion of the audience associates Solo with Ford and can't truly see any other actor playing him. As good as Alden Ehrenreich was, I never really got the sense I was watching the same person that Ford played. I think the same would be said of an Indy recast. If Paramount wants to make a Chris Pratt Indy film, introduce him in the same universe but as a different character (maybe one who looks up to Indy) but don't recast Indy himself.

py2006

pixelburp wrote: »

*gets coat*

In this weather?!?