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
"Almost like a science fiction tale of archaeologists finding a wristwatch buried deep in an Egyptian pyramid or motorcar under the foundations of Stonehenge, we do have an example of a scientific computer that was built between 150 and 100 BC. It was so advanced, nothing as complex would be developed again until the 14th century.
The Antikythera mechanism was lost to the world for centuries. The device was salvaged in 1900 from a ship that sank en route to Rome, in the 1st century BC, between Crete and the island of Antikythera in the Mediterranean. When one of the fragments was discovered to contain a bronze gear wheel, the idea that this was some kind of astronomical clock was dismissed as too fantastic an anachronism. It was not until 1951 that the investigation was picked up by a British science historian Derek J. de Solla Price."
Indy is supernatural. Not convenient science tropes
Yeah I'm not turned off by the idea at all, it depends on how it would be done. I want to see something new.
I agree, I thought it was a really logical path for a story about a comic-book archeologist who investigates all-powerful treasures to go down: ancient astronauts and 'Chariots of the Gods' ideas have been around so long, and to tie it in with the flying saucer craze of the 50s just makes too much sense not to do. I never had a problem with it.
Yes, particularly since the prior Indy films were set in the 1930s and 1940s. It was appropriate to move it up to - Soviets instead of Nazis, 1950s, as time had gone by, and the aliens craze was in full swing by the 50s. Similarly, it makes sense that the new one (apparently ?) be set in the 1960s, though it might have portions relating back to prior years or timeframes, time-travel or no.
Borderline Conspiracy theories like aliens and time travel don’t have the same gravitas imo
There were Soviets in the fourth film, because Spielberg, since he directed Schindler's List, doesn't want to caricature Nazis anymore or to use them for fun. However, while the Nazis do have some mystical element at heart, some idea of blind obedience to evil, Soviets, with their materialist ideology, aren't that fascinating for what is mostly a fantasy movie.
OK, good points, but for a villain in the 50s, the Soviets were the way to go. Everyone has their line, and while time travel is over the line for me, perhaps not for others. Aliens I thought were OK for Indy 4, but the execution was not up to their higher earlier standards. Time-travel crosses the line for me - like when dead people can somehow be brought back and it reduces the drama and impact of a loss of a character. With time travel, well, then so many things could be changed by going back and "fixing" something. But that does not seem to happen. I can see it being a macguffin for Indy 5, but not one that actually works out. Problem is - in every Indy movie, the things which Indy finds not credible or possible DO work out...
But what if the film ends with a time travel "accident" and a recast young indy?
Of course I could be wrong but I don’t see that happening; this will be the Harrison Ford show.
Besides, Kathleen Kennedy has lately been vocal about not recasting lightly some major parts for Star Wars anymore. As Indy (outside of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles) never had any actor recast with a younger version, it would make even less sense to bring a new actor for sequels.
On the other hand I can kind of see the logic: Indy is a kind of a spoof of classic pulp adventure characters, who got dropped into films which kind of aped the Bond movies in tone- there's little in there which is actually very original. But he was made iconic by the meeting of the three huge talents of Spielberg, Lucas and Ford (and Williams too). If you take all of them away, is it even Indy any more?
You could say the same thing about Bond. He survived while slowly losing Fleming, Hunt, Connery, Saltzman, Moore, Cubby and ton of talent post LTK. Indy is a fun character like him. It should be able to survive without its creators, like Bond. They aren’t all that different. Take care of him, be careful of Kathleen Kennedy and her unique style of filming and Indy can easily survive.
I’m not sure: Bond was never a director’s vision like Indy was. And right from the start the key roles like writers, composer etc were established as being interchangeable into the second movie. The producers were the key talent there really, along with Connery too; but even that changes within a few years.
"It's a great story, it's a great character, and I think you're going to be very happy with this movie. It's everything I think that everybody wants out of an Indiana Jones movie."
https://screenrant.com/indiana-jones-5-frank-marshall-movie-quality-response/
https://www.moviefanatic.com/2007/12/producer-comments-on-indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull/
https://movieweb.com/producer-frank-marshall-talks-indiana-jones-4-details/
Anyway, the poor reception to this film may be a huge factor in Ford and other people wanting to close the franchise on an high note. Whether they have the skills to achieve this (Ford had never really played a big role behind the scenes on an Indy film or any other project) or to equal the skills of Spielberg in his prime is a different issue.
Yes, given that Ford vs Ferrari was one of the most perfectly-judged big movies of recent years, I do think this film stands a decent chance of actually being pretty good.
With Harrison Ferrari.
Okay, okay, I'm leaving!
"Get outta my car!"
All right, I'm done now too.
For Creed 2, Stallone basically assumed again creative control, as he was back in charge of the script, and Creed became a supporting character in some kind of follow-up to Rocky IV focused on the Rocky-Drago backstory. It made for a less effective movie.
It will be interesting to see how much this fifth Indy film gets accepted by the audiences and fans. Will it be regarded as a heartless cash grab that adds nothing to the 80s trilogy, a more satisfying conclusion to the entire series than Crystal Skulls, an harmless retread of brighter glories, an entry distinctive and divisive with a tone of its own?