Indiana Jones

15051535556199

Comments

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,592
    I wonder if Phoebe Waller-Bridge will do some script writing herself. I also thought that they would announce the cast in one big press announcement, just before filming. I can see Karen Allen and John Rhys-Davies coming back, if it is a big finale.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited April 2021 Posts: 8,194
    That doesn’t touch being thrown a mile , and then some, hopping out, dusting off and continuing on.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    I didn't actually mind the refrigerator scene in Crystal Skull. Most of what follows it is pretty rubbish, but that scene gets over its ridiculousness by being legitimately funny.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2021 Posts: 16,309
    talos7 wrote: »
    The refrigerator bit still irritates me. It made the character into a Warner Brothers cartoon character. I know that Lucas was the guiding hand and Spielberg was “ just directing “ but how this was allowed in the film amazes me. The amphibious vehicle down the waterfalls is a close second.

    The Indiana Jones films are adventure fantasies, I get that, but they work best when the stunts and action , while fantastic, appear plausible; hopefully the new film will go back to the roots of the first three.

    You could argue the cartoonish angle gradually became a thing in each succeeding sequel.

    I think that's true; doesn't upset me though.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I like Crystal Skull but it's the weakest of the four films. Every time I watch it, I almost want to go back in time, sneak into someone's office and make some changes to the script. Not even huge changes, but meaningful ones.

    The strangest script moment to me is when Indy meets Spalko in warehouse scene, is told her name, addresses her by that name, and yet when he's being debriefed by Jim Robinson at the airbase he has to describe her physically and then the Americans identify her and tell Indy her name again! :D
  • DrunkIrishPoetDrunkIrishPoet The Amber Coast
    Posts: 156
    The strangest script moment to me is when Indy meets Spalko in warehouse scene, is told her name, addresses her by that name, and yet when he's being debriefed by Jim Robinson at the airbase he has to describe her physically and then the Americans identify her and tell Indy her name again!

    Agree! And when he describes her, he says, “She had some kind of sword, possibly a rapier.”

    I almost expected Robinson to say, “That sounds a lot like Spalko, except she carries an epee. Must be some other sword-slinging Russian chick.”
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    Sounds like the result of cobbling up together all those different scripts that had been written over the years.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,957
    I still can't muster up much excitement or optimism for this one but I hope it manages to be something special, or at least good. Mangold's a great director so that should help.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    Without Spielberg and Lucas, it has a better chance of being good.
  • Without Spielberg and Lucas, it has a better chance of being good.
    True. I'm also relieved they didn't ask J.J. Abrams to direct. :-SS
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    Oh god. With Abrams it would have all been about chasing the Ark again with a bunch of neo Nazis.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,592
    Oh god. With Abrams it would have all been about chasing the Ark again with a bunch of neo Nazis.

    With Belloq or Elsa behind everything!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,309
    I think he would have made a solid movie, but Mangold is a more interesting choice.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,194
    mtm wrote: »
    I think he would have made a solid movie, but Mangold is a more interesting choice.

    I am as well; he is a strong choice.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I still can't muster up much excitement or optimism for this one but I hope it manages to be something special, or at least good. Mangold's a great director so that should help.

    My thoughts too. I'm not super-excited about it. But I'm looking forward to it. If it can best Ark, Temple and Crusade, then we're in for a good Indy film.
  • Posts: 669
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I still can't muster up much excitement or optimism for this one but I hope it manages to be something special, or at least good. Mangold's a great director so that should help.

    My thoughts too. I'm not super-excited about it. But I'm looking forward to it. If it can best Ark, Temple and Crusade, then we're in for a good Indy film.

    Nothing will best Ark. It's one of the great adventure films of all time, if not the greatest. So let's not get our hopes that high, haha. If it could be on par with Temple and Crusade, then that would be phenomenal, given the circumstances. I'm not expecting, or even hoping for, great. I'm just hoping for "solid."
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I still can't muster up much excitement or optimism for this one but I hope it manages to be something special, or at least good. Mangold's a great director so that should help.

    My thoughts too. I'm not super-excited about it. But I'm looking forward to it. If it can best Ark, Temple and Crusade, then we're in for a good Indy film.

    Nothing will best Ark. It's one of the great adventure films of all time, if not the greatest. So let's not get our hopes that high, haha. If it could be on par with Temple and Crusade, then that would be phenomenal, given the circumstances. I'm not expecting, or even hoping for, great. I'm just hoping for "solid."

    Lol. Yeah. I agree.
  • Posts: 1,490
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I still can't muster up much excitement or optimism for this one but I hope it manages to be something special, or at least good. Mangold's a great director so that should help.

    My thoughts too. I'm not super-excited about it. But I'm looking forward to it. If it can best Ark, Temple and Crusade, then we're in for a good Indy film.

    Nothing will best Ark. It's one of the great adventure films of all time, if not the greatest. So let's not get our hopes that high, haha. If it could be on par with Temple and Crusade, then that would be phenomenal, given the circumstances. I'm not expecting, or even hoping for, great. I'm just hoping for "solid."

    Lol. Yeah. I agree.

    Raiders of the Lost Ark is a self contained story. If there was never any sequels, it would still be a classic. I can't see anything ever besting Raiders, but Mangold can certainly beat the half-baked Crystal Skull. I am very certain he can and will do that.

  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I still can't muster up much excitement or optimism for this one but I hope it manages to be something special, or at least good. Mangold's a great director so that should help.

    My thoughts too. I'm not super-excited about it. But I'm looking forward to it. If it can best Ark, Temple and Crusade, then we're in for a good Indy film.

    Nothing will best Ark. It's one of the great adventure films of all time, if not the greatest. So let's not get our hopes that high, haha. If it could be on par with Temple and Crusade, then that would be phenomenal, given the circumstances. I'm not expecting, or even hoping for, great. I'm just hoping for "solid."

    Lol. Yeah. I agree.

    Raiders of the Lost Ark is a self contained story. If there was never any sequels, it would still be a classic. I can't see anything ever besting Raiders, but Mangold can certainly beat the half-baked Crystal Skull. I am very certain he can and will do that.

    Yeah. Even without seeing Mangold's Indy, it's all but certain it would beat Skull. It's almost a no-brainer. But still, something in the vein of Ark, Temple and Crusade would suffice, not just something a notch above Skull. But let's hope Mangold delivers something great as he usually does.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2021 Posts: 16,309
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I still can't muster up much excitement or optimism for this one but I hope it manages to be something special, or at least good. Mangold's a great director so that should help.

    My thoughts too. I'm not super-excited about it. But I'm looking forward to it. If it can best Ark, Temple and Crusade, then we're in for a good Indy film.

    Nothing will best Ark. It's one of the great adventure films of all time, if not the greatest. So let's not get our hopes that high, haha. If it could be on par with Temple and Crusade, then that would be phenomenal, given the circumstances. I'm not expecting, or even hoping for, great. I'm just hoping for "solid."

    I want solid, yes. I feel hopeful it will be that: from the people who made Ford vs. Ferrari I think there's a strong chance.

    What I also want is for it not to be another remake of Raiders, as Crusade and Skull were. Temple showed this character can fit in any number of adventure plots, he doesn't have to have the same one over and over.
    I also want for Indy to be the hero. Skull had him increasingly sidelined as the film went on, and that was a real mistake. He ended up just being the driver in the jungle chase sequence when he should have been the one hanging from vines and fighting people standing on jeeps- yes he's old, but he's only as old as his stuntmen! :)
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I still can't muster up much excitement or optimism for this one but I hope it manages to be something special, or at least good. Mangold's a great director so that should help.

    My thoughts too. I'm not super-excited about it. But I'm looking forward to it. If it can best Ark, Temple and Crusade, then we're in for a good Indy film.

    Nothing will best Ark. It's one of the great adventure films of all time, if not the greatest. So let's not get our hopes that high, haha. If it could be on par with Temple and Crusade, then that would be phenomenal, given the circumstances. I'm not expecting, or even hoping for, great. I'm just hoping for "solid."

    Lol. Yeah. I agree.

    Raiders of the Lost Ark is a self contained story. If there was never any sequels, it would still be a classic. I can't see anything ever besting Raiders, but Mangold can certainly beat the half-baked Crystal Skull. I am very certain he can and will do that.

    It will be better, yes. What will be interesting to see is if it still feels like Indy without Spielberg and Lucas.

    What I don't get is why it's taken so long to make this. Disney made five Star Wars movies before they made one Indy movie (they bought Lucasfilm nine years ago- when Harrison Ford was a boy of only 69 years old), and people are clearly interested in this: it makes headlines. Crystal Skull made a shedload of money- about $200 million more than Iron Man and Quantum of Solace which both came out in the same year. What is the logic for not making an Indy movie?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,592
    mtm wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I still can't muster up much excitement or optimism for this one but I hope it manages to be something special, or at least good. Mangold's a great director so that should help.

    My thoughts too. I'm not super-excited about it. But I'm looking forward to it. If it can best Ark, Temple and Crusade, then we're in for a good Indy film.

    Nothing will best Ark. It's one of the great adventure films of all time, if not the greatest. So let's not get our hopes that high, haha. If it could be on par with Temple and Crusade, then that would be phenomenal, given the circumstances. I'm not expecting, or even hoping for, great. I'm just hoping for "solid."

    I want solid, yes. I feel hopeful it will be that: from the people who made Ford vs. Ferrari I think there's a strong chance.

    What I also want is for it not to be another remake of Raiders, as Crusade and Skull were. Temple showed this character can fit in any number of adventure plots, he doesn't have to have the same one over and over.
    I also want for Indy to be the hero. Skull had him increasingly sidelined as the film went on, and that was a real mistake. He ended up just being the driver in the jungle chase sequence when he should have been the one hanging from vines and fighting people standing on jeeps- yes he's old, but he's only as old as his stuntmen! :)
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I still can't muster up much excitement or optimism for this one but I hope it manages to be something special, or at least good. Mangold's a great director so that should help.

    My thoughts too. I'm not super-excited about it. But I'm looking forward to it. If it can best Ark, Temple and Crusade, then we're in for a good Indy film.

    Nothing will best Ark. It's one of the great adventure films of all time, if not the greatest. So let's not get our hopes that high, haha. If it could be on par with Temple and Crusade, then that would be phenomenal, given the circumstances. I'm not expecting, or even hoping for, great. I'm just hoping for "solid."

    Lol. Yeah. I agree.

    Raiders of the Lost Ark is a self contained story. If there was never any sequels, it would still be a classic. I can't see anything ever besting Raiders, but Mangold can certainly beat the half-baked Crystal Skull. I am very certain he can and will do that.

    It will be better, yes. What will be interesting to see is if it still feels like Indy without Spielberg and Lucas.

    What I don't get is why it's taken so long to make this. Disney made five Star Wars movies before they made one Indy movie (they bought Lucasfilm nine years ago- when Harrison Ford was a boy of only 69 years old), and people are clearly interested in this: it makes headlines. Crystal Skull made a shedload of money- about $200 million more than Iron Man and Quantum of Solace which both came out in the same year. What is the logic for not making an Indy movie?

    George Lucas wanting things done his way only. Shia’s multiple meltdowns and bad talking about the project and people attached to it. Too much polarized reviews from fans. That’s just a few ideas as to why it’s taken so long. Above all, they want to get it done right.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    I always thought Shia was fine in the role. He may be a douche in real life, but I don’t factor that in an actor’s performance, just as I don’t judge Tom Cruise’s acting based on his douchiness in real life.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,309
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I still can't muster up much excitement or optimism for this one but I hope it manages to be something special, or at least good. Mangold's a great director so that should help.

    My thoughts too. I'm not super-excited about it. But I'm looking forward to it. If it can best Ark, Temple and Crusade, then we're in for a good Indy film.

    Nothing will best Ark. It's one of the great adventure films of all time, if not the greatest. So let's not get our hopes that high, haha. If it could be on par with Temple and Crusade, then that would be phenomenal, given the circumstances. I'm not expecting, or even hoping for, great. I'm just hoping for "solid."

    I want solid, yes. I feel hopeful it will be that: from the people who made Ford vs. Ferrari I think there's a strong chance.

    What I also want is for it not to be another remake of Raiders, as Crusade and Skull were. Temple showed this character can fit in any number of adventure plots, he doesn't have to have the same one over and over.
    I also want for Indy to be the hero. Skull had him increasingly sidelined as the film went on, and that was a real mistake. He ended up just being the driver in the jungle chase sequence when he should have been the one hanging from vines and fighting people standing on jeeps- yes he's old, but he's only as old as his stuntmen! :)
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I still can't muster up much excitement or optimism for this one but I hope it manages to be something special, or at least good. Mangold's a great director so that should help.

    My thoughts too. I'm not super-excited about it. But I'm looking forward to it. If it can best Ark, Temple and Crusade, then we're in for a good Indy film.

    Nothing will best Ark. It's one of the great adventure films of all time, if not the greatest. So let's not get our hopes that high, haha. If it could be on par with Temple and Crusade, then that would be phenomenal, given the circumstances. I'm not expecting, or even hoping for, great. I'm just hoping for "solid."

    Lol. Yeah. I agree.

    Raiders of the Lost Ark is a self contained story. If there was never any sequels, it would still be a classic. I can't see anything ever besting Raiders, but Mangold can certainly beat the half-baked Crystal Skull. I am very certain he can and will do that.

    It will be better, yes. What will be interesting to see is if it still feels like Indy without Spielberg and Lucas.

    What I don't get is why it's taken so long to make this. Disney made five Star Wars movies before they made one Indy movie (they bought Lucasfilm nine years ago- when Harrison Ford was a boy of only 69 years old), and people are clearly interested in this: it makes headlines. Crystal Skull made a shedload of money- about $200 million more than Iron Man and Quantum of Solace which both came out in the same year. What is the logic for not making an Indy movie?

    George Lucas wanting things done his way only. Shia’s multiple meltdowns and bad talking about the project and people attached to it. Too much polarized reviews from fans. That’s just a few ideas as to why it’s taken so long. Above all, they want to get it done right.

    George Lucas hasn't been part of the equation for those nine years though. And there's never been any need to involve LaBoeuf. Polarized reviews from fans of the prequels didn't put them off making more Star Wars. So no, for me those don't really work as good reasons for Disney to not get around to making films which make loads of cash.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,309
    I always thought Shia was fine in the role. He may be a douche in real life, but I don’t factor that in an actor’s performance, just as I don’t judge Tom Cruise’s acting based on his douchiness in real life.

    Yep, as I said earlier, I actually think he did a good job for not making that role really annoying. He wasn't hugely interesting, but he wasn't distractingly bad in a role which, on paper, could have been.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    I get the sense people hated Mutt because of the slight implication that he might “replace” Indy. But that was never going to happen. The movie even makes a joke about it with Indy snatching his hat back from Mutt as if to tell audiences “not happening!” especially with that smirk Ford gives.
  • Posts: 669
    I get the sense people hated Mutt because of the slight implication that he might “replace” Indy. But that was never going to happen. The movie even makes a joke about it with Indy snatching his hat back from Mutt as if to tell audiences “not happening!” especially with that smirk Ford gives.

    Agreed. I think Shia was as good as anyone else would or could have been in that role. I'm not a fan of him as a person but I thought he was actually quite good in Skull.
  • edited April 2021 Posts: 12,837
    I didn’t think the fourth film was dire. It’s the worst of the four by far, and a completely unnecessary film, but I thought it was a decent enough bit of fun.

    Can’t bring myself to get excited for this one though. I’m not really sold on the idea of a Logan esque film, because there’s just not that much there to deconstruct with Indy imo, and I’m not sure he’d suit a 70s setting. It’s a pulpy, old school adventure film series, and Harrison Ford is just far too old for that at this point. I guess they could have him in a similar role to Connery in The Last Crusade, using his wits while Waller-Bridge handles the action, but that doesn’t sound very appealing to me.

    And personally I’d trust Speilberg and Lucas a lot more than I’d trust Disney. Mangold’s a good director, but will that matter? Ryan Coogler is brilliant, but if it wasn’t for the cast and setting, I don’t think anyone would’ve been able to tell he directed Black Panther. I saw it because I’m a fan of his, but I was disappointed in how standard Marvel most of it felt. Disney’s blockbusters are pretty bland and soulless imo. Indy had genuine heart, soul, and an emotional sincerity to it that I’m not sure I trust them to recreate.

    I’ll probably be too curious to not watch it, but personally I’d rather they just left it alone.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,309
    I don't see him going Logan on it: he's already made that film. I'm sure there will be a bit of heart to it, but beyond that Indy doesn't really go too deep.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,194
    I’m hopping for a mid 60’s setting even if it involves mild de-aging.
  • Posts: 1,629
    "Douchiness" ? Hmm...douchiosity ? Douchiousness ? Douchiation ? I think you nailed it with "douchiness."
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,309
    talos7 wrote: »
    I’m hopping for a mid 60’s setting even if it involves mild de-aging.

    My total guess is 1969. Maybe we should all pick a year as a (no cash) sweepstake! :D
Sign In or Register to comment.