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)



- agentsands77 - 03-22-2016

AHe'll look as good as he can for the film. That said, 75 years old is still 75 years old. He shouldn't be running across warehouse rafters in INDY V.


- fatherdude - 03-22-2016

Can I just say that I've been enjoying the hell out of re-reading the first few pages of the CRYSTAL SKULL Post-Release thread?  It brings me back to a wonderful time in CHUD history when Paul McCartney was still around.  Although I'm glad Arjen Rudd is known as Arjen Rudd now.




- user_32 - 03-22-2016

Ford's actually gotten 110% better in interviews. Or at least the ones with Jimmy Kimmel.



I think he should actually keep the beard for Indy V.






- fatherdude - 03-22-2016

Conan is the talk show host that Ford excels with.  Their anti-chemistry is a thing of beauty.




- Belloq87 - 03-22-2016

Whatever Ford's physical limitations end up being (or not), I have total confidence he'll still be fully the Indiana Jones we know.  He wasn't the problem with CRYSTAL SKULL, and if anything, Ford seems to be having more fun at this stage of his career than he was back in '07 - '08.  The rest of INDY 5 may end up being subpar, but he won't be, I'm sure.




- Stale Elvis - 03-22-2016

AFord looks great in that Kimmel interview.


- agentsands77 - 03-22-2016

AFord is certainly doing his best in KINGDOM. You can see him trying to bring that classic sparkle to all that shitty dialogue. He's best in the diner scene with Mutt, which is the one time where Indy feels absolutely right.

TFA doesn't do everything perfectly with Solo, but it throws Ford some softballs and he knocks 'em out of the park.


- carnotaur3 - 03-22-2016

AJust a little less scruff and Ford is Indy again.


- damndirtyape - 03-22-2016

I do appreciate that he genuinely loves, and loves playing, the character of Indiana Jones. I find it refreshing to listen to actors talk about loving a character, ala Ford as Indy/Jackman as Wolverine/Weaver as Ripley, vs actors who can't seem to hide their disdain for their iconic roles, ala Craig as Bond/Maguire as Spider-Man.



I know I'm just an average joe, but it seems like it would be a blast to create/play these iconic characters that are known throughout the world, and get paid quite handsomely for it.




- agentsands77 - 03-22-2016

AFord mingles his affection for the character with doses of reality. His acknowledgment that he's excited about the contract in the Kimmel interview is a nice indication of that. He does his best to remind us all that Hollywood is a business, not a magic factory, even as he makes his commitment to the character clear.

That's a balance I wish Craig could strike. I think that's the balance Craig wants to achieve in interviews, but he rarely has the warmth to pull it off (some recent talk show interviews came close, though).


- Stale Elvis - 03-22-2016

AMy ex loved loved loved Craig for years prior to his Bond work - he was always this great actor on the edge of stardom. Then he became mainstream via Bond and started appearing in interviews and chatshows - her desire for him immediately plummeted - as craggily good-looking he is and no matter how great a physique he has, there's simply no denying he's as dull as fuck.

No matter how dull or detached an interview Ford may give from time to time, occasionally there'll be a little Ford sparkle and he makes you grin and you realise that's why he's a movie star.


- fraid uh noman - 03-22-2016

AWhen's this taking place? The 60s? The 70s?

Indiana Jones and the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test


- Nooj - 03-22-2016

aw that Kimmel appearance is so sweet




- agentsands77 - 03-22-2016

AFord has really been killing it on the late night circuit lately. I'm glad he's loosened up.

Anyway, back to this movie. Given Disney's involvement and comments from Marshall in the not-too-recent past, it seems somewhat likely that we'll see Indy pass the torch to some other fella to open the door to future installments. At the very least, Indy will need a sidekick off some kind.

Shia LeBeouf was clearly going to be that guy before his meltdown. Pratt seems too obvious, though he's the fan favorite. Whoever it ends up being, I think is going to be a tricky transition.


- fatherdude - 03-22-2016

What's the point of passing the torch to a character in the Old Indy timeline?  When Disney reboots, they'll want to go back to Indy in the 30s, his prime era.  If they go THE GODFATHER PART II route, flashbacks would be a way of introducing the new Indy actor, but I don't see them spinning off a franchise via a new character introduced in the fifth movie.  It's the same reason I never completely bought the idea that Mutt Williams was meant to carry his own series.




- agentsands77 - 03-22-2016

A[quote name="FatherDude" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/360#post_4035371"]What's the point of passing the torch to a character in the Old Indy timeline?  When Disney reboots, they'll want to go back to Indy in the 30s, his prime era.  If they go THE GODFATHER PART II route, flashbacks would be a way of introducing the new Indy actor, but I don't see them spinning off a franchise via a new character introduced in the fifth movie.  It's the same reason I never completely bought the idea that Mutt Williams was meant to carry his own series.
[/quote]
Well, Marshall said that they wouldn't consider recasting Jones, but that they might pass the torch. So I'm just going by that.

To me, recasting makes more sense.


- fatherdude - 03-22-2016

Marshall may feel that way, but I find it hard to believe Disney does.  They dropped a ton of money for this franchise, and they're going to want to milk it for decades to come.  What's there to milk without the iconography of the name, the whip, the hat, and the 30s?  Yes, they're moving up the era to accommodate Ford, but keeping Ford's the only reason you would want to attempt an Indy movie set after the pulp era.  And if you're going to make an action/adventure movie about another character, what differentiates it from THE MUMMY or ROMANCING THE STONE or whatever?  Disney wants to use the name.



My preference is for there not to be any reboot seeds planted in the fifth movie and just let it be the fifth movie.  Setting up the next iteration is baggage that Spielberg shouldn't have to deal with.




- agentsands77 - 03-22-2016

AWe'll just have to see.

I agree with everything you've said. If it was up to me this would be Indy's ROCKY BALBOA, a stripped-down final hurrah.

But I don't see that happening. They'll give Indy a younger sidekick. Assuming Marshall's POV holds, I can see them trying to make this into a TFA-style "transition" film.

But Disney owns the character. So maybe this is just the last hurrah for Ford/Spielberg before Disney reboots it all and goes back to the 30s with a new actor. Maybe they'll even use the young Solo actor from the Star Wars anthology film.


- fatherdude - 03-22-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

But I don't see that happening. They'll give Indy a younger sidekick. Assuming Marshall's POV holds, I can see them trying to make this into a TFA-style "transition" film.


But again, what would you transition into?  A saga set in the 60s and 70s?  Getting Indy there is a stretch with Ford involved; with him not involved it seems pointless.



The only way I could think of for them to set up the new Indy is for Ford to literally hang up his hat at the end, and we get as the final image a young Indy wearing it.  In essence, the same idea as the transition that ends the prologue of LAST CRUSADE, but the other way around (and of course to a 30s Indy rather than a teenager).  We'd just get the new guy's face and then cut to credits.



I think I'd prefer letting Spielberg tell one last story with Harrison with absolutely no strings attached.  The reboot is inevitable and there's no need to make Ford, in his finale, share screentime with his replacement.




- agentsands77 - 03-22-2016

A[quote name="FatherDude" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/360#post_4035389"]
But again, what would you transition into?  A saga set in the 60s and 70s?
[/quote]
Maybe. It could be an interesting way for the series to evolve rather than remake RAIDERS over and over again.


- Stale Elvis - 03-22-2016

AThis will be the last hurrah for Ford and Speilberg in the Indyverse.

A reboot could follow (Seann William Scott!!!) - but equally likely is that Disney branches out into other mediums, either animated serials with Ford's voice or ultra-realisticground-breaking video games with Ford's likeness scanned and de-aged.

The reboot can simply follow the Bond path - each actor bringing his own to the role using Ford as the template as each new Bond actor uses various elements of Bond from the books. There were several personality types of Indy presented by Ford throughout the movies - from the bookish professor, the action hero, the romantic, the bumbling pratfaller - each new actor could take any one of these as a starting point and go from there. Sure there'd be gnashing of teeth and wailing from us original fans, but this new movie will also be a final hurrah for us and a new reinvigorated franchise for the next generation. In a few years we'll be irrelevant to the conversation and in 10 or 15 years time there'll be arguments about why Indy can't be black or be a woman.


- commodorejohn - 03-22-2016

ABy "reinvigorated," you mean "zombified," right? Because otherwise, no. Nope. Nuh-uh.


- fatherdude - 03-22-2016

It'll be so weird when some day we're inevitably looking back at the Ford era as the equivalent of the Connery era of the Bond franchise, and throwing shade all over the Roger Moore Indy movies that the punks are watching.




- mr. stockslivevan - 03-22-2016

AWe'd be incredibly lucky to get the Roger Moore equivalent of Indy.


- fraid uh noman - 03-22-2016

AJust because it's set in the 60s or 70s doesn't mean that the story has to be OF that era. It could still be anything that would be cool to involve Indy with.
Excalibur
Atlantis
Bermuda Triangle
Easter Island
whatevs..

Just as long as it's good and Indy..


- Stale Elvis - 03-22-2016

ACatacombs, haunted houses, castles in Bavaria, hidden desert cities still existed in the 60s and 70s - you can drop Indy in any of those and it becomes timeless.

Thing is though, Indy really does belong in the 30s and 40s - a world that still held wonder in exotic travel. A world full of dusty brass and leather travel bags where gentlemen wore hats and women wore classy dresses. Indy was already out of his optimum element in the late 50s - you can't really have a 1970s Disco Indy.


- fatherdude - 03-22-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

Catacombs, haunted houses, castles in Bavaria, hidden desert cities still existed in the 60s and 70s - you can drop Indy in any of those and it becomes timeless.

Thing is though, Indy really does belong in the 30s and 40s - a world that still held wonder in exotic travel. A world full of dusty brass and leather travel bags where gentlemen wore hats and women wore classy dresses. Indy was already out of his optimum element in the late 50s - you can't really have a 1970s Disco Indy.


That's my feeling too.  You can definitely pull off another adventure with Ford using locations like that, but once you recast with a younger guy why deal with the extra asterisk when you have the freedom to go right back to the 30s?  Indy is far more married to his time period than other action heroes.  Even CRYSTAL SKULL, which embraced the 50s in many non-subtle ways, was ultimately about finding an artifact in an ancient cemetery and using it to get to a lost city in the jungle.  You can only veer so far from the mothership before it becomes something else entirely.




- Belloq87 - 03-22-2016

As has been said by others in here, I don't think there's any way that Disney - post Ford and Spielberg's departure - is going to want to have a series of films set in the 1960s and 1970s that are tangentially connected to Indiana Jones and starring a character not named Indiana Jones.  They didn't buy the rights to the franchise to do that.  They're going to want Indy back in the '30s because - frankly - that's just a much cooler and more intriguing decade for all-ages action/adventure yarns, both in terms of visuals and storytelling options.  The setting also gives the movies a sense of distance, of history and lore, that gets diluted the closer you bring the character (be it actually Indy or his spinoff surrogate) to the modern era.




- mr. stockslivevan - 03-22-2016

AMy rule for an Indy film is that it keeps a distance of 50 years from the present. It's not too long ago, yet distant enough to be distinctive from the modern world.


- user_32 - 03-22-2016

We had three perfect adventures in the 1930s. I don't mind seeing Indy (as played by Ford) in the 50s, 60s or 70s. Bring it on. After that (they obviously won't) retire the series. The last thing we need is inferior Indy films Harrison Ford-less set in the 1930s. I mean, we already had The Mummy movies.




- agentsands77 - 03-22-2016

ABut we could have a JJ Abrams Indy movie with Chris Pratt and Nazis and faux Marion and faux Belloq! People will love it, just like they loved THE FORCE AWAKENS! It'll establish the character for a whole new generation. Then we can bring Rian Johnson to do a weirder follow-up, and Colin Trevorrow can deliver a super-safe third film to satisfy anyone who didn't like the second movie!

All the while we'll expand theme parks and merchandising! Video games, TV shows, spin-offs! Every year we can release a new film in the Indiana Jones universe!


- commodorejohn - 03-22-2016

ADear God, shoot me now.


- mr. stockslivevan - 03-22-2016

AIndiana Jones in the 90s, with attitude and pouches.


- Belloq87 - 03-22-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

But we could have a JJ Abrams Indy movie with Chris Pratt and Nazis and faux Marion and faux Belloq! People will love it, just like they loved THE FORCE AWAKENS! It'll establish the character for a whole new generation. Then we can bring Rian Johnson to do a weirder follow-up, and Colin Trevorrow can deliver a super-safe third film to satisfy anyone who didn't like the second movie!

All the while we'll expand theme parks and merchandising! Video games, TV shows, spin-offs! Every year we can release a new film in the Indiana Jones universe!

That all sounds fine to me...




- chaz - 03-23-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

Indiana Jones in the 90s, with attitude and pouches.

Ross and Rachel can be his side kicks.