Indiana Jones

13132343637201

Comments

  • Posts: 16,226
    Considering how many times this film has been pushed back an extra year by the time they get around to filming it could be set in the 1980's.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,426
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Considering how many times this film has been pushed back an extra year by the time they get around to filming it could be set in the 1980's.

    Indy may stumble upon the filming of Raiders of the Lost Ark
  • ToTheRight wrote: »
    Considering how many times this film has been pushed back an extra year by the time they get around to filming it could be set in the 1980's.

    Indy may stumble upon the filming of Raiders of the Lost Ark

    :) :) :)
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,930
    Or inspires the Spielberg child in the 1960s.
  • Posts: 5,767
    In any case, he has to met at least one of the McFlys.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,700
    boldfinger wrote: »
    In any case, he has to met at least one of the McFlys.

    Haha!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    If they use the original films as a starting date and take into account the actual time passage and Fords age, doesn’t that put the next film somewhere in the late 70s early 80s?

    Now I realize this could be fudged a bit, but I can’t see anything prior to the early 70s.

    How about Indy reading a newspaper where a side headline reports of a series of shark attacks off of Amity? :D
  • Henry Jones Jr. was born in 1899.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    Mack_Bolan wrote: »
    Henry Jones Jr. was born in 1899.

    Ford will be 78 during filming, so that would be 1977 if we transpose his actual age to Indy in the 5th film.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,700
    Mack_Bolan wrote: »
    Henry Jones Jr. was born in 1899.

    Ford will be 78 during filming, so that would be 1977 if we transpose his actual age to Indy in the 5th film.

    He'll see himself making Star Wars.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,454
    That could actually make for a cute wink wink reference if Indie passed a sign that says Star Wars, and says "the kids will watch anything these days".
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,700
    That could actually make for a cute wink wink reference if Indie passed a sign that says Star Wars, and says "the kids will watch anything these days".

    I can see that working.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 377
    If he was born in 1899, then Indy was 37 in 1936, when Raiders of the Lost Ark is set. Ford was 38 when Raiders was filmed, so he is a year older than the character. So Indy 5 would be 1976. Hopefully Indy doesn’t talk about any Harrison Ford film, that would be incredibly silly and stupid.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    Clint did it in Dirty Harry, with Play Misty For Me on a marquee and there are other examples. It can be done cleverly, as long as it’s too heavy handed.
    Aren’t R2 and C3P0 on the walls of a temple in Raiders?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    talos7 wrote: »
    Clint did it in Dirty Harry, with Play Misty For Me on a marquee and there are other examples. It can be done cleverly, as long as it’s too heavy handed.
    Aren’t R2 and C3P0 on the walls of a temple in Raiders?

    You also have Club Obi-Wan in Temple Of Doom.
  • Harry Callahan didn’t stop and say “Play Misty for Me? What the hell is that?” Likewise, Indiana Jones saying something about Star Wars playing at the local theatre would be ridiculous.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,255
    Mack_Bolan wrote: »
    Harry Callahan didn’t stop and say “Play Misty for Me? What the hell is that?” Likewise, Indiana Jones saying something about Star Wars playing at the local theatre would be ridiculous.

    You’re completely missing the point of the overall conversation.

  • edited February 2019 Posts: 377
    Did you ever read Mendes4Lyfe’s comment? I thought you said any reference shouldn’t be “heavy-handed”. There’s nothing more “heavy-handed” than Indiana Jones actually talking about Star Wars. You probably thought the inclusion of CGI gophers in the fourth movie was also “clever”.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,454
    It's crazy how popular and world known Indiana Jones is, and yet there are still only 4 movies throughout history.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Spielberg said the movie would be set in the 60s.
    I think much of the problem with Skull is that it is a fourquel. If Last Crusade had never happened, people would be much happier to accept Kingdom as an ending to Indie's story.


    I disagree. Skull is nowhere nearly as bad as people say - when I first watched it at the theatres I even loved it, but as the time passed I realize it really is rather bland. The whole movie feels like it's about to rocket but it never does, as if they always held themselves and didn't want to push things too far. I'm not in the slightest bit bothered by the fridge scene or by the aliens (though I think the concept of ancient astronauts could have been explored much better), I don't even dislike the character of Mutt at all. The CGI, on the other hand, bothers me.

    It's just that Indy never really feels in danger and the screen is too crowded with characters. I don't think Indy should be alone (he pretty much never is), but the scooby gang here was made of Indy, Marion, Mutt, Oxley and Mac. Also Marion feels like a cheaper version than the character she was in Raiders.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited February 2019 Posts: 8,255
    Mack_Bolan wrote: »
    Did you ever read Mendes4Lyfe’s comment? I thought you said any reference shouldn’t be “heavy-handed”. There’s nothing more “heavy-handed” than Indiana Jones actually talking about Star Wars. You probably thought the inclusion of CGI gophers in the fourth movie was also “clever”.

    Well , it’s all subjective; one person clever is another’s stupid

    What does CG gophers have to do with this? you’re veering off course, and being snippy at the same time; when someone does that I move on. ;)

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,454
    Walecs wrote: »
    Spielberg said the movie would be set in the 60s.
    I think much of the problem with Skull is that it is a fourquel. If Last Crusade had never happened, people would be much happier to accept Kingdom as an ending to Indie's story.


    I disagree. Skull is nowhere nearly as bad as people say - when I first watched it at the theatres I even loved it, but as the time passed I realize it really is rather bland. The whole movie feels like it's about to rocket but it never does, as if they always held themselves and didn't want to push things too far. I'm not in the slightest bit bothered by the fridge scene or by the aliens (though I think the concept of ancient astronauts could have been explored much better), I don't even dislike the character of Mutt at all. The CGI, on the other hand, bothers me.

    It's just that Indy never really feels in danger and the screen is too crowded with characters. I don't think Indy should be alone (he pretty much never is), but the scooby gang here was made of Indy, Marion, Mutt, Oxley and Mac. Also Marion feels like a cheaper version than the character she was in Raiders.

    Its interesting you mentioned the CGI, as I find some of the specisl effects in Last Crusade to be really ropey.

    I think the worst part of Skull was the drive through the forest and the vine swinging. That all looking incredibly fake.

    On the other hand the motorcycle chase was very cool, and done for real.

    I also think Indie hitching with Marion was the right way to go, as she always seemed the one he had the most in common with. So much so thats its hard to think what the plot of the fifh film will involve.
  • In Crystal Skull Ford was 65, but Indy was only 56, so Indy 5 doesn’t technically have to be in the 70’s.

    I say have it set in the early 60’s and throw in a clever Bond reference. (Example, he sees a Dr.No poster and says to himself, ‘wow he looks like my dad...’ or something quick like that)
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,700
    In Crystal Skull Ford was 65, but Indy was only 56, so Indy 5 doesn’t technically have to be in the 70’s.

    I say have it set in the early 60’s and throw in a clever Bond reference. (Example, he sees a Dr.No poster and says to himself, ‘wow he looks like my dad...’ or something quick like that)

    Steven Spielberg is a James Bond fan, so maybe.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 377
    Hey, maybe Indy can then walk past a poster of West Side Story and remark “I hope they never remake that movie, hahahahahahahahaha!”
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    Unlikely to happen, but I'd really like this next film to have a more serious tone. Temple of Doom might be the scariest film of the series, but it, like the other two sequels, is lighthearted compared to the original. Raiders has a more grown-up, less goofy feel to it (relatively speaking). Something else that I really like is how in the first two films, there are moments in which Indiana Jones has a crazy look in his eyes, as if he was insane with greed. Look at him when they're opening the Well of the Souls in Raiders, and when he's reading the parchment on the legend of the Sankara stones in Temple. He's the hero but there is an edge to him. Make the film too lighthearted and it inevitably affects that aspect of the character.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Unlikely to happen, but I'd really like this next film to have a more serious tone. Temple of Doom might be the scariest film of the series, but it, like the other two sequels, is lighthearted compared to the original. Raiders has a more grown-up, less goofy feel to it (relatively speaking). Something else that I really like is how in the first two films, there are moments in which Indiana Jones has a crazy look in his eyes, as if he was insane with greed. Look at him when they're opening the Well of the Souls in Raiders, and when he's reading the parchment on the legend of the Sankara stones in Temple. He's the hero but there is an edge to him. Make the film too lighthearted and it inevitably affects that aspect of the character.

    +1. Good observation about Indy's crazed eyes.
  • Posts: 1,165
    Anyone else think Disney are prolonging the production on this until Ford can no longer play the role?
    The Indy franchise would benefit massively from a full on Disney reboot. Kids don’t want to see a 70 year old hero on the big screen. They need a clean slate.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Unlikely to happen, but I'd really like this next film to have a more serious tone. Temple of Doom might be the scariest film of the series, but it, like the other two sequels, is lighthearted compared to the original. Raiders has a more grown-up, less goofy feel to it (relatively speaking). Something else that I really like is how in the first two films, there are moments in which Indiana Jones has a crazy look in his eyes, as if he was insane with greed. Look at him when they're opening the Well of the Souls in Raiders, and when he's reading the parchment on the legend of the Sankara stones in Temple. He's the hero but there is an edge to him. Make the film too lighthearted and it inevitably affects that aspect of the character.

    I was in the process of editing the post above to add more thoughts, but now I better place this in a separate post:

    (...) Indiana Jones is the hero but there is an edge, a darkness to him-- he has regrets, shortcomings and is mercenary to some extent. Also, he hits the bottle when he thinks Marion is dead. Even if the viewer suspects she's still alive, it's quite the sad moment because of how he feels, especially with their history together-- after all, he got into an impromptu adventure with her, and just when things were starting to heal between the two of them, she dies.

    Make things too lighthearted and it inevitably affects these aspects of the character, which are the most interesting part of these films. In Crystal Skull, they brought Marion back but failed to explore the potential of her fractured relationship with Indiana, something which should have been even more poignant than before, given the passage of time. (That film has too many characters to develop and use them properly.)
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 755
    TR007 wrote: »
    Anyone else think Disney are prolonging the production on this until Ford can no longer play the role?
    The Indy franchise would benefit massively from a full on Disney reboot. Kids don’t want to see a 70 year old hero on the big screen. They need a clean slate.
    It seems given the continual push back that both Spielberg and Disney would rather it not happen... or with Disney, not with Ford and clean reboot... but I think Ford remains tenacious (in Spielberg’s words) and it may still happen. I hope it’s well written and honestly without Lucas, that’s a positive. I would also jettison Spielberg because I don’t think he really cares...it needs youthful reboot energy, even with Ford in the role.
Sign In or Register to comment.