The Trouble City Forums
INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Printable Version

+- The Trouble City Forums (http://citizens.trouble.city)
+-- Forum: Main Street (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Focused Film Discussion (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=94)
+--- Thread: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion (/showthread.php?tid=155331)



RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - atomtastic - 02-29-2020

Jensen Ackles can play Patrick O'Malley.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - simbob - 02-29-2020

Jensen Ackles as Dakota Evans. 

It is a little weird we don't get more pulpy action adventure movies in a similar vein as Indiana Jones. Or really all that many pulpy movies in general since Indiana Jones.

Given how Universal was thinking about doing a shared Universal Monsters universe before '99s The Mummy, I'm a little surprised they never springboarded his Indiana Jones character into other non-related Mummy movies with the other stuff. That Mummy movie was huge when it came out, people really seemed to love it, it would have been so easy. Instead they just had him fight the Mummy again, and then a different Mummy a little over half a decade later. Although they were all big movies.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - hammerhead - 03-01-2020

(02-29-2020, 10:32 PM)simbob Wrote: Jensen Ackles as Dakota Evans. 

It is a little weird we don't get more pulpy action adventure movies in a similar vein as Indiana Jones. Or really all that many pulpy movies in general since Indiana Jones.

It's not like people haven't tried. But getting the mix right is harder than it looks.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - farsight - 03-01-2020

Sahara!

Is a movie that I sahaw!


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - MichaelM - 03-01-2020

(02-29-2020, 04:54 PM)hammerhead Wrote: What about an interesting actor as an original character?

CRAZY TALK!

We need a proven IP with decades of brand recognition. It worked for CAR 54 WHERE YOU ARE, right?


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - bradito - 03-01-2020

I know, it's so strange. Star Wars and Indiana Jones have countless influences but they're still original properties. Now there's so little innovation put towards finding the *new* Star Wars or Indiana Jones because people apparently don't like new things. But half the time, remakes and reboots and sequels underperform or outright bomb. So there are no guarantees.

You're taking a chance either way.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - hammerhead - 03-01-2020

Perhaps the difference is that Star Wars and Indy drew (initially, before they started cannibalizing themselves) from a kind of homogeneous popular culture that we don't really have anymore. Nobody just "goes to the movies" or "watches the news" when they can drop into a media bubble defined by what they already know.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - fatherdude - 03-01-2020

There was an attempt to make a Jimgrim movie in the 80s.  For those not familiar with the character, he comes from a literary pulp adventure series circa the 20s-30s, and he is pretty much Indiana Jones.  I don't mean vaguely.  The same array of locations (India, the Middle East), similar kinds of villains and sidekicks, and an occult flavor to the quests.

Philip Kaufman certainly introduced George Lucas to Talbot Mundy's books when they were developing the original conception of Indy together in the 70s.  Kaufman eventually wrote a screenplay for a direct Jimgrim adaptation, but the studio it was set up for pulled out after THE RIGHT STUFF bombed.  The script is floating around somewhere.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - rexbanner - 03-01-2020

(02-29-2020, 10:32 PM)simbob Wrote: It is a little weird we don't get more pulpy action adventure movies in a similar vein as Indiana Jones. Or really all that many pulpy movies in general since Indiana Jones.

I feel that whenever studios try to make a 'fun, swashbuckling adventure' nowadays the movies always verve into this smug realm where everyone quips all the time and what emotion's there is slathered on and very 'written'. Indiana Jones cracks wise a couple of times, but his jokes are always realistic for the moment, and none - absolutely none - of the emotional scenes are overplayed. Indiana's also allowed to be serious and intellectually invested in something in a way the likes of Lara Croft, Rick O'Donnell, Jack Sparrow, and umpteen others aren't.

(02-29-2020, 02:58 PM)hammerhead Wrote: It goes against human instinct, but still worth remembering that  "This is the way it's always been" is not a supportable or sustainable argument against change.

This is fair when it comes to society, laws, ways of thinking, and a lot of issues within art and stories. I don't know if it applies to the casting of an iconic film character whose story was perfectly wrapped up 30 years ago.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - arjen rudd - 03-01-2020

I always thought Neil Marshall was exactly the guy to make a new Indy movie.

But Hellboy kinda ruined that for me. I don’t fully blame him for it, but it’s the closest he’s come to making such a film and it’s a giant whiff.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - commodorejohn - 03-01-2020

(03-01-2020, 02:31 PM)hammerhead Wrote: Perhaps the difference is that Star Wars and Indy drew (initially, before they started cannaballizing themselves) from a kind of homogeneous popular culture that we don't really have anymore. Nobody just "goes to the movies" or "watches the news" when they can drop into a media bubble defined by what they already know.
There's a fair amount of truth to this. I think it's also a big part of the reason that '80s-early '90s nostalgia chic has been such a major and long-lasting boom (cripes, that started in, what, twelve years ago?) That was about the last era where we had even a partly homogenous pop culture serving as a common point of reference, before the terminal phase of the cable explosion and the eventual rise of streaming services completely fragmented the TV world and the general endemic risk aversion in mainstream popular culture made more and more new stuff not even worth bothering with.

By the time the dust settled from all that, the Lucasfilm-Amblin canon and contemporary works ('80s-'90s Disney, WB Animation's brief but brilliant resurgence) had pretty much taken over as the common frame of reference for what I'm sure boone could categorize as "an entire swath of microgenerations," and now the snake is busy chowing down on its own tail.

(03-01-2020, 03:41 PM)rexbanner Wrote: I feel that whenever studios try to make a 'fun, swashbuckling adventure' nowadays the movies always verve into this smug realm where everyone quips all the time and what emotion's there is slathered on and very 'written'. Indiana Jones cracks wise a couple of times, but his jokes are always realistic for the moment, and none - absolutely none - of the emotional scenes are overplayed. Indiana's also allowed to be serious and intellectually invested in something in a way the likes of Lara Croft, Rick O'Donnell, Jack Sparrow, and umpteen others aren't.
Absolutely. The inability of post-'90s popular culture to break out of compulsive winking, self-referential smarminess is a pox on our society.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Nooj - 03-01-2020

I blame simpsons and scream!


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - bradito - 03-01-2020

Nobody wants to be a campy lame-o!


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - mr. stockslivevan - 03-02-2020

So we basically blame Joss Whedon?


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Nooj - 03-02-2020

blame the 90s


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - mr. stockslivevan - 03-02-2020

(03-01-2020, 07:05 PM)commodorejohn Wrote:
(03-01-2020, 02:31 PM)hammerhead Wrote: Perhaps the difference is that Star Wars and Indy drew (initially, before they started cannaballizing themselves) from a kind of homogeneous popular culture that we don't really have anymore. Nobody just "goes to the movies" or "watches the news" when they can drop into a media bubble defined by what they already know.
There's a fair amount of truth to this. I think it's also a big part of the reason that '80s-early '90s nostalgia chic has been such a major and long-lasting boom (cripes, that started in, what, twelve years ago?)

To be fair we're always looking back 20-30 years ago with nostalgia, and the media knows and exploits it! I remember growing up as a kid in the 90s there was this big thing for everything 60s and 70s. I only really noticed that the fetishization for all things 80s started happening in the early 00s with tons of internet memes being obsessed over 80s pop culture, before Hollywood acted on it with movies like TRANSFORMERS. Then like clockwork 90s nostalgia hit on the last decade and continues. STRANGER THINGS will at some point fade out very soon much like AUSTIN POWERS did.

In a sense, CRYSTAL SKULL came out at a perfect time in 2008, when nostalgia for Indy and pre-Schindler's List Spielberg was at an all time high.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Richard Dickson - 03-02-2020

(03-01-2020, 01:42 AM)hammerhead Wrote:
(02-29-2020, 10:32 PM)simbob Wrote: Jensen Ackles as Dakota Evans. 

It is a little weird we don't get more pulpy action adventure movies in a similar vein as Indiana Jones. Or really all that many pulpy movies in general since Indiana Jones.

It's not like people haven't tried. But getting the mix right is harder than it looks.

Yeah, they tried, and it got us High Road to China, Nate and Hayes, Treasure of the Four Crowns, Jake Speed, Tales of the Gold Monkey, Bring 'Em Back Alive, and Richard Chamberlain's King Solomon's Mines.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - simbob - 03-02-2020

Those are all '80s movies though, and mostly between Raiders of the Lost Ark and Temple of Doom. I'm talking about the last 30 years. The last 30 years there really having been many stabs taken at that particular formula, which seems weird because most shots at it in the last thirty years have been successful.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - arjen rudd - 03-02-2020

[quote pid='4679110' dateline='1583148761']

Yeah, they tried, and it got us High Road to China, Nate and Hayes, Treasure of the Four Crowns, Jake Speed, Tales of the Gold Monkey, Bring 'Em Back Alive, and Richard Chamberlain's King Solomon's Mines.
[/quote]

Any of these any good? I know the Chamberlain ones are embarrassing, but I’ve always been curious about High Road to China and Nate and Hayes.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - MichaelM - 03-02-2020

Two of those were TV series (Tales of the Gold Monkey and Bring "em Back Alive), not films, though Richard is quite correct in including them in Hollywood's attempt to do more pulp.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - scottieferguson - 03-02-2020

I've never heard of any of those, except for the Chamberlain ones, which were terrible, with one exception. Jerry Goldsmith always delivered.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - first class 782 - 03-02-2020

I watched High Road to China in theaters, and a dozen or so times on HBO. At least it had the original Indy in Tom Selleck. I don’t remember much, except for Bess Armstrong and his biplane. I’d love to see it again, though.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Evi - 03-02-2020

It's interesting to me that people are saying replacing Spielberg with Mangold has killed their enthusiasm for the film. For me (and I say this as someone who used to LOVE Spielberg's adventure films), it's the only way of guaranteeing the film won't be terrible. Adventure just isn't his thing anymore, so rather give it to someone who's operating at his peak. Mangold might be an odd choice but I can see it working.

If it happens.

Which it probably won't.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - MichaelM - 03-02-2020

Mangold's made two films I really, really like (bordering on love): 3:10 to Yuma and Logan. But I have a hard time seeing him as a good match for Indy.

But this doesn't happen. We get a reboot with a younger actor within 5 years.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - call me roy - 03-02-2020

Michael, thoughts on Copland?


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - atomtastic - 03-02-2020

Copland is the only good film Mangold has made. Logan is great until they get to the farm then shits the bed faster than any movie I've ever seen.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Overlord - 03-02-2020

(03-02-2020, 04:43 PM)atomtastic Wrote: Copland is the only good film Mangold has made. Logan is great until they get to the farm then shits the bed faster than any movie I've ever seen.

He's got some big-time duds on his resume (Kate & Leopold ... really?) but I'd definitely go to bat for Copland, The Wolverine, and Logan.  I barely remember 3:10 to Yuma, Walk the Line, and Knight and Day, but I remember all those being decent, as well.

**Haven't seen Ford v. Ferrari yet.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - mr. stockslivevan - 03-02-2020

Of course you savages don’t bring up GIRL, INTERRUPTED.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Nooj - 03-02-2020

you philistines don’t bring up HEAVY either


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Overlord - 03-02-2020

(03-02-2020, 08:51 AM)MichaelM Wrote: Two of those were TV series (Tales of the Gold Monkey and Bring "em Back Alive), not films, though Richard is quite correct in including them in Hollywood's attempt to do more pulp.

I loved Tales of the Golden Monkey as a kid!  Finally tracked it down as an adult ... not as good as I remembered. 

(03-02-2020, 09:35 AM)first class 782 Wrote: I watched High Road to China in theaters, and a dozen or so times on HBO ...  I’d love to see it again, though.

Really?  I don't recall it that fondly.

**Hollywood seems to have always struggled with consistently putting out even a couple of good pulp adventure films a year.  I have no fucking idea why, especially considering how many of them have entered our pop culture consciousness.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - kyle reese 2 - 03-02-2020

He wears a purple costume, but Billy Zane in THE PHANTOM is a very fun adventure that has all the hallmarks of the formula. It's up there with Rocketeer in the 90s category.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - engineer - 03-02-2020

"Inspired by Indiana..."

KING SOLOMON'S MINES (1985): Not good.
ALLAN QUARTERMAIN AND THE LOST CITY OF GOLD (1987): Also not good.
JAKE SPEED: Not good.
FIREWALKER: Slightly better in a b-movie way.
GWENDOLINE (aka The Perils of Gwendoline in the Land of the Yik-Yak): More campy fun and lots of nakedness but not great.
ROMANCING THE STONE: Excellent
THE JEWEL OF THE NILE: Has a few moments.
SHANGHAI SURPRISE: Not as horrible as I remembered but still not great.
THE ROCKETEER: Love it.
THE SHADOW: Always want to love it, can't quite get there.
THE PHANTOM: Not for me.
THE MUMMY: It's Mehmmy.
THE MUMMY RETURNS: Kung fu? Okay, whatever!
LARA CROFT: TOMB RAIDER: A big mess but visually interesting.
LARA CROFT: TOMB RAIDER - THE CRADLE OF LIFE: I liked it more (De Bont!), but still not top-shelf.
ARMOUR OF GOD and ARMOUR OF GOD 2: Love them.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Evi - 03-02-2020

I’d say the Pirates movies and the Zorro movies were also very indebted to Indiana Jones, they’re just not carbon copies the way Romancing the Stone or Alan Quartermain were. That’s part of what makes them so good.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Dent6084 - 03-02-2020

(03-02-2020, 04:55 PM)Overlord Wrote:
(03-02-2020, 04:43 PM)atomtastic Wrote: Copland is the only good film Mangold has made. Logan is great until they get to the farm then shits the bed faster than any movie I've ever seen.

He's got some big-time duds on his resume (Kate & Leopold ... really?) but I'd definitely go to bat for Copland, The Wolverine, and Logan.  I barely remember 3:10 to Yuma, Walk the Line, and Knight and Day, but I remember all those being decent, as well.  

**Haven't seen Ford v. Ferrari yet.

It's only just occurred to me that Kate & Leopold almost certainly played a role in getting him The Wolverine.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Evi - 03-02-2020

Kate and Leopold is sweet! Jackman is so charming in it.