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 think that's true; doesn't upset me though.
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
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.”
With Belloq or Elsa behind everything!
I am as well; he is a strong choice.
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.
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! :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
My total guess is 1969. Maybe we should all pick a year as a (no cash) sweepstake! :D