It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I wonder why, :D It would take almost a decade for Spielberg to scratch that itch, but he probably was already in discussions about the feasibility of it.
Three! I love that movie, although it's quite different from the novel in places.
Which made him the perfect choice to complete Kubrick's A.I. given that the ending, which is actually cruel rather than bittersweet, implies a simulacre of David's real-life "mother" being now kind to him (while she was the one who had abandoned him), before David goes "to that place… where dreams are born", i.e. gets terminated by the modern units who wanted to study him interacting with "humans" to get an idea of what this long-gone species was like.
I know that some people theorized that the story of Kubrick trusting Spielberg with directing A.I. while he would have taken a backseat by being the producer, was fabricated by his brother-in-law, but if you know a thing of two about the making of Eyes Wide Shut, even Kubrick would have realized that he was not in a capacity to direct a film starring a young child in the part of a robot who doesn't age, as Haley Joel Osment could have grown something like three inches and reached puberty during the fifteen months or the two years of shooting.
And Spielberg had the right sensibility, given his own emphasis on the bound between mother and child and dysfunctional families, to execute that supposedly cute epilogue and give to the audience some glimpses of what's actually taking place.
Can't entirely disagree; I think I'd push it a bit earlier though- once Indy is cured of the black sleep and turns good again, it's full power right to the climax.
Indy vs dinosaurs would have been pretty spot on, I think. Very 'Lost World'.
I think Indy and Dinosaurs were made for each other...😁
Something tells me Spielberg would not have balked at the idea. ;)
Just rewatched Indy 4 trailer it is pretty good, as time has passed Ford's age in this seems less apparent. There is the possibility that if Indy 5 is not that great it coukd elevate Indy 4...
This reminds me I still need to buy these films in 4K, I may as well wait for the five film boxset.
---
Amusing review from Calvin, he is spot on when discussing Karen Allen.
Edited: I will take my previous comment back, it's unlikely Indy 5 will elevate Indy 4 😂
This lends credence to the leaks being real and getting extremely negative responses.
Leaks are generally just a load of misinformation
I'd like to think you are right but in this case......................................
No it doesn't. 2 + 2 does not equal 5.
It just means they're still working on the film, as films usually get worked on. Even Raiders had its ending added in a reshoot; does that mean that Raiders was received extremely negatively?
Notice the guy who started the rumours has just made a video about this possible reshoot. Don't you think if he was so clued in about what's going on with the film then he'd have known about this before John Williams mentioned it at a public event? And when he saw it on YouTube many hours later along with everyone else? He hasn't got any sources at all, clearly. Which lends credence to the leaks being entirely made-up.
They ran out of money and were forced to use real people the second time, who sacrificed their lives in the name of legendary cinema.
No, Marion disappeared after the island and they realised they needed that moment on the steps in Washington with her.
Glad I'm not the only one who won't take the bait.
People crave "bombs", something that can cathartically dispel their anger. They can then blame the "woke" system of Hollywood, or "modern" films and why they suck, or Kathleen Kennedy who "ruins everything". They have become the very people who complained about Star Wars in 1977 and who hadn't seen a "good film" since Steamboat Bill Jr. in 1928. ;-)
She allegedly kicked the rough masculinity out of Star Wars -- a masculinity in SW which I never got.
It's because of what she did to Star Wars.
Except that she didn't. 😊
Lets remember that the last trilogy was all under Kathleen Kennedy's watch. We got TFA and people said it was a copy of Star Wars. Then we get the LJ where Luke's character undergoes a complete transformation and not in a good way. Then we have ROS where Rey is suddenly taking the mantle of Skywalker, even though she isn't one.
Kathleen must have had say in these and other choices. Oh and whose bright idea was it to not have Ford, Fisher and Hamill appear together in at least one scene? Squandered opportunity. I hope she is making better choices within Indy's world. I fear based on track record that we might see some similarly bad choices play out. But I am misogynistic fan! LOL