Spieler Eins
Member
It would have been very good without two of the most obnoxious sidekicks imaginable dominating the movie.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Indiana Jones 5 for July 19th, 2019 with Spielberg and Harrison Ford
- Thread starter icespide
- Start date
- Status
It would have been very good without two of the most obnoxious sidekicks imaginable dominating the movie.
brandonh83
Banned
When they reboot and recast it's terrible
When they have the same actor back it's terrible
All I can surmise is that everything is, in fact, terrible.
Can Crusher
Banned
Indiana Jones is tailor made for rebooting and recasting. Not every franchise is, but this is one of them.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
Too bad Harrison Ford has waited until he was an old man to start reprising all of his old roles.
90s Harrison Ford reprising Han Solo, Deckard, and Indiana Jones (x2) would have been a lot more appealing.
90s Harrison Ford reprising Han Solo, Deckard, and Indiana Jones (x2) would have been a lot more appealing.
brandonh83
Banned
So was Ghostbusters, and yet everyone hated it because it wasn't going to be Ghostbusters 3 with the same cast before Feig could even lay a finger on the script.
Just about every direction they go in is going to be bad to some people. It's damned near impossible to avoid. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying in fact, but I think this will be a pass the torch movie; they want to bring in Ford for one more and it be his last one while using this film to jumpstart a new actor in the role or a similar role.
you have to realize that different people have different opinions, some people are always going to hate one approach or hate a different approach. really though the only way to make this a good movie....is to make it a good movie either approach could fail or be great
this is why the "this is neogaf.gif" is so overused and annoying
Melon Husk
Member
If this means Indy shoots some nazis, I'm in. And Indy 4 never happened, like the SW prequels.
CrunchyFrog
Member
/thread
Unless like others have said they do some kind of Last Crusade type deal with Ford more being dragged along for the ride, I don't see how he can have any kind of engaging role in this. He was pushing it even in TFA.
brandonh83
Banned
You're not wrong at all. It's just funny how you seemingly see so many people against rebooting/recasting but when they don't, it leads to about the same amount of it.
Discotheque
Banned
They should just recast mutt. Who really gives a shit about crystal skull to be outraged at the decision anyways
I think Pratt would be a terrible indy. But a great son of Indiana Jones
I think Pratt would be a terrible indy. But a great son of Indiana Jones
The Last Crusade not being a very good movie? lol
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Time to make use of that performance capture tech and give us young Indy.
Anyway, most important part is that Lucas isn't listed as a producer.
Anyway, most important part is that Lucas isn't listed as a producer.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
And what about Marion?
Discotheque
Banned
It's the most middling film in the trilogy. Like Raiders greatest hits or some shit.
Temple of Doom is better and Raiders is the actual masterpiece of the 3
Recast marion too for all I care. There's plenty of good old actresses who can't get much roles
notjackbauer
Member
This should begin to make things right.
Or not at all, we'll see. Crystal Skull was so hated that I feel like this can't not be a serious course correction.
I fully agree with people saying they should James Bond this shit. Cast a new Indy, reset to the 1930s and start cranking out movies. There's no reason we should have twenty Indiana Jones movies fifty years from now.
Or not at all, we'll see. Crystal Skull was so hated that I feel like this can't not be a serious course correction.
I fully agree with people saying they should James Bond this shit. Cast a new Indy, reset to the 1930s and start cranking out movies. There's no reason we should have twenty Indiana Jones movies fifty years from now.
brandonh83
Banned
Then they would have to call the next one Mutt Jones and the Biker Gang of Madagascar or something. I figure they want to bring Ford back so that people aren't complaining about recasting (too late it seems) yet use this film to introduce a new Indiana Jones. Where the name is a nickname anyway I feel like they could probably get away with that somehow.
Disney will want this to be a fresh new franchise, so they may either keep bringing Ford back to keep the Indiana Jones title but as a mentor/professor that the stories still center around, but accompanied by a younger cast of characters that participate in the action, or kill him off/have him retire for good but pass things onto a different person.
That way the new Indiana Jones wouldn't have to be a Ford copy. It'd be a different character so if it were indeed Pratt, Pratt wouldn't need to emulate Harrison.
Can Crusher
Banned
Ghostbusters is a terrible comparison. It only worked because of those 3 guys, without them there's no ghostbusters.
Indiana Jones is like James Bond. And there will come a time when finally they can't bring these old farts back and start over and realize what they've been missing. Unless Disney tries to go the family route again. That will just kill the franchise.
brandonh83
Banned
Uh yeah... not really. You can do Ghostbusters with different characters. It's called Ghostbusters, not Peter Venkman. Those two films that came out decades ago had that cast, but you can tell other stories and have other people be Ghostbusters.
MHWilliams
Member
Wait, what's the reasoning behind this statement?
brandonh83
Banned
no it's fucking not
it's made to be what it was and be left the fuck alone
in fact, it's the opposite of a franchise "made for rebooting and recasting", it's iconic as fuck and it completely relies on the original actor playing the character. basically the tentpoles of something you should not mess with
what are you even saying
Can Crusher
Banned
Who gives a shit about other stories? The concept is b-level, cheesy as hell. The characters themselves aren't even that interesting. But the way they were played, the chemistry they had... it was lightning in a bottle.
Take them way and you get a lame concept. It's not the "can" that is in question, is the "should". Rebooting and recasting Ghostbusters is failing to get what made the original work.
I'm saying the character and the structure are fucking templates. They are a mold for a male fantasy, exactly like James Bond.
Yes, Ford kills it. So did Connery.
True Savior
Member
Why not cast Jackie Chan and make an Indy vs Armour of God?
This is a Gold idea. Pure Gold.
This is a Gold idea. Pure Gold.
Discotheque
Banned
Not that I disagree with how irreplaceable ford really is here but you know ppl said the exact same thing about bond and Connery
Melon Husk
Member
Shit, 11 years after Crystal Skull would be 1968....
TRIGGERED BY THE MOON MISSION, THEALIENS INTER-DIMENSIONAL BEINGS RETURN
I hope not. Let the nazis make him drink from the wrong cup. Indy doesn't turn to dust because he already had a sip from the holy grail, but he ages like 50 years instead.
TRIGGERED BY THE MOON MISSION, THE
I hope not. Let the nazis make him drink from the wrong cup. Indy doesn't turn to dust because he already had a sip from the holy grail, but he ages like 50 years instead.
I think it's different when you're making films out of many books, bond was bound to become what it did
and also, I really think the series lost a lot of fucking steam a while ago so I dont think it's a good example of something that "got better" since Connery
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
Technically they've wanted to do 5 since before the original trio of films. The plan was always to do 5 movies, but Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford could never agree on a story for 4.
Lilalaunebaer
Member
Not excited, mostly just really curious about this. Lucas gone so that´s a plus.
Hopefully they killed shia off screen. Like they did with connery (though that was stupid, since he drank from the holy grail.......)
Whatever, i´ll probably watch it.
Hopefully they killed shia off screen. Like they did with connery (though that was stupid, since he drank from the holy grail.......)
Whatever, i´ll probably watch it.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
Indiana Jones was born in 1899 according to the Indiana Jones wiki.
So this movie would take place in the 70s if he's indys real age.
So this movie would take place in the 70s if he's indys real age.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Why not cast Jackie Chan and make an Indy vs Armour of God?
This is a Gold idea. Pure Gold.
God, seeing prime Jackie in action is a thing of beauty.
Jackie as Short Round, please.
I'm not really sure what's left of Indiana Jones if you take out Ford's character and Spielberg's direction. The "archeologist hunting artifacts and dodging nazis and some supernatural stuff" is a really cheesy concept (on purpose) and so easy to do wrong.
BassForever
Member
Should have gone with the Chris Pratt reboot
QuicheFontaine
Member
Just don't go see it. There, I've solved your calamity.
You don't understand. It will still exist!
Ugh
Melon Husk
Member
Why not cast Jackie Chan and make an Indy vs Armour of God?
This is a Gold idea. Pure Gold.
Yes to older Short Round, no to more biblical stuff before Atlantis. So much potential:
Just add wrinkles.
I didn't get my wish 10 years ago, maybe now's the time...?
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was fucking awful, what makes them think it would be a good idea to make another one 10 years later?
Harrison Ford will be like 75 years old when they film this shit... how... why?
I'm not saying this shouldn't exist. I'm just shocked they're even entertaining the idea of making another one after the horrible fourth flick a decade later.
Harrison Ford will be like 75 years old when they film this shit... how... why?
I'm not saying this shouldn't exist. I'm just shocked they're even entertaining the idea of making another one after the horrible fourth flick a decade later.
George Lucas is no longer involved.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
Plus we already have alternate takes on the basic premise anyway, with Tomb Raider (getting rebooted soon, possibly with Daisy Ridley) and Uncharted (which has a film in development). Doing "Indiana Jones" without the star, director, or creator would basically just be another "completely new take", which means using the Indiana Jones name to begin with is really just branding.
And the thing is, Indiana Jones is already a love letter to a specific genre of old Hollywood serials. Indiana Jones isn't just loved be caused it's a solid basic idea, it's loved because of the combination of the actor, the director, and the character and concepts Lucas spun out. That all IS what Indiana Jones is. You can take out parts and it still works, but take out the whole and do a "new Jones" with a new writer and a new director and you just have a reboot of a knock-off of 80-year-old serials. Woo. And what's worse, like I said, we already have two fresh takes on Jones coming to theatres anyway.
plasmawave
Banned
Just let it rest.
Who's asking for another Indie at this point?
Who's asking for another Indie at this point?
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
Bob Iger gave an interview last December saying it was coming, but still good to see. No aliens, please.
I like Crystal Skull, but that wrung about the last bits of "action star" from Harrison Ford. And it already did the whole "make Indy the father role from Last Crusade" thing. If they're dead set on making this, then I demand they finally give us the glory that is Indiana Jones and the Saucermen from Mars, a real, honest-to-god attempt at Indy 4.
I guess the difference between Bond and Indy is that Bond is based on a book. All actors playing Bond are interpretations of an established character, while Indiana Jones is Harrison Ford.
Brainfreeze
Member
Wow, really? So is this likely a story they planned out a while ago then, meant to close out a 5 movie arc, or was 5 a sort of arbitrary number?
Yeah, I agree with this. Without Ford/ Spielberg the concept is generic and not super enticing on its own. Not sure why people would prefer a movie that would surely just become mimicing the original style over one more attempt to recapture the magic.
Indiana Jones is one of the absolute least rebootable series to me. It's like Austin Powers without Mike Myers or something. It's got potential, but I'd prefer something new and preserving the legacy over trotting out the name for no reason.
Ghostbusters is totally rebootable though, the concept has a lot more unique potential and character independent iconography (Indy just has the whip and hat, which firmly belong to Ford, as Crystal Skull pointed out).
A reboot without Ford could just as easily be like The Goonies 2 or something, just without the Indy score and a less religious focus (which it already moved away from). So, whatever. If you're gonna do Indy 5, you mine as well use Indy while he's around.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked