Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

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

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

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

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

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.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

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.

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

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

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)

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.