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)



- user_32 - 03-18-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

That said, the original Lucas-approved version of INDY IV, INDIANA JONES AND THE SAUCER MEN FROM MARS, which Spielberg rejected, is an entertaining read and much better than the finished film.


I think that has to do with Spielberg never wanting to do the alien concept in the first place but Lucas was adamant. Spielberg only relented (begrudgingly) when Lucas said they weren't alien but interdimensional beings .





I truly believe that Spielberg agreed to direct again because he has to something to prove with this. There would really be no other reason at this point. He simply would have passed it on to another director as he did with the Jurassic Park series.




- agentsands77 - 03-18-2016

AOh, I definitely think Spielberg views this as an opportunity to make up for the last one and to give this series a proper send-off.

This is why I wager we're in for another Judeo-Christian relic.


- carnotaur3 - 03-18-2016

There are a lot of religions to choose from.




- hammerhead - 03-18-2016

Islam! Strike while the iron is hot!




- Belloq87 - 03-18-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

I truly believe that Spielberg agreed to direct again because he has to something to prove with this. There would really be no other reason at this point. He simply would have passed it on to another director as he did with the Jurassic Park series.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

Oh, I definitely think Spielberg views this as an opportunity to make up for the last one and to give this series a proper send-off.

I have no inside knowledge, but I do feel like I know a lot about Steven Spielberg and how he views his own films; he is DEEPLY aware of how audiences react to his movies and often seems to really take that to heart, for better or worse (he basically turned on TEMPLE OF DOOM because of the controversy it generated, even as I think it's safe to say its reputation has improved more and more as time goes on).  With that said, I don't think there's any way he doesn't view INDY 5 as an opportunity to basically apologize for CRYSTAL SKULL.  He knows what doesn't work about that film, because he's too brilliant a filmmaker not to.  I'm hoping we're going to get a film directed by a hungry Spielberg, hungry to give audiences the best possible Indiana Jones tale he can manage without certain other parties looking over his shoulder.



As for Koepp, I don’t put really any of the blame for CRYSTAL SKULL at his feet; it’s clear he was mandated to include a bunch of varied and disjointed elements from earlier drafts that should never have been thrown together in the first place, and I don’t think even any certifiably great screenwriters could have made it all work.  For all the praise Darabont's draft seems to get, I don't think it's much better than what we ended up with; it has a better-defined, more propulsive narrative and more interesting setpieces, but there are also elements that I'd argue are even worse than the worst moments of CRYSTAL SKULL.




- Dent6084 - 03-18-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
 

WAR OF THE WORLDS is one of Spielberg's masterpieces.


I like this guy.  War of the Worlds isn't perfect, but that first hour in particular is some of the Beard's finest latter-day filmmaking.  Some of Kaminski's best work too, for the record.




- carnotaur3 - 03-18-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 

 but there are also elements that I'd argue are even worse than the worst moments of CRYSTAL SKULL.


The call backs are atrocious. They even give a character a line of dialogue that was a former tagline for the films.




- fatherdude - 03-18-2016

I think what distinguishes Indy from Jurassic Park is that Spielberg and Lucas created that IP from scratch. I can buy that Spielberg sees himself as something of a custodian of the series and wants to close out at least the Ford era himself. Not sure how he rationalizes the apparent absence of Lucas in this venture, but since I can provide plenty of rationales on his behalf there's no need to dwell on that.


- Dent6084 - 03-18-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
 

The call backs are atrocious. They even give a character a line of dialogue that was a former tagline for the films.


That whole "adventure has a name!" thing Indy's Russian buddy keeps doing?  Yeah, that's fucking awful.



Like, I'd kill to see Darabont's version of the ant/River sequence on screen, but there is some clunky shit in that script.




- fatherdude - 03-18-2016

A[quote name="Agentsands77" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/240#post_4033650"]That said, the original Lucas-approved version of INDY IV, INDIANA JONES AND THE SAUCER MEN FROM MARS, which Spielberg rejected, is an entertaining read and much better than the finished film.[/quote]

Actually, the version of Saucer Men that's online is one of the Jeb Stuart drafts. Lucas had him write a few and then brought in Jeffrey Boam to pen a few more. The final Boam draft is the one Lucas felt worked, so it's a shame we don't have it. Then INDEPENDENCE DAY came out and Spielberg told George emphatically that they could not do an alien invasion movie after Emmerich did his.


- mr. stockslivevan - 03-19-2016

A[quote name="FatherDude" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/250#post_4033760"]I think what distinguishes Indy from Jurassic Park is that Spielberg and Lucas created that IP from scratch. I can buy that Spielberg sees himself as something of a custodian of the series and wants to close out at least the Ford era himself. Not sure how he rationalizes the apparent absence of Lucas in this venture, but since I can provide plenty of rationales on his behalf there's no need to dwell on that.[/quote]

My guess is that Lucas gave his blessing to his buddy to move on and do that fifth film, as he doesn't want to be involved in blockbusters anymore. Spielberg then approaches Harrison and this exchange takes place.

"Is he gonna work with us?"
"Nope.'
"Oh, thank god!"
"Yeah, I love George, but ya know..."


- arjen rudd - 03-19-2016

AI did not much like Saucer Men. It's pretty dull for an Indy film. The only memorable stuff became the opening of KOTCS.

I gots to say, I think the potential for Lovecraft Indy stuff is actually quite high. Something inspired by Mountains of Madness, full of Antarctic adventures through ice caves and ancient cities, maybe some slumbering monsters? Bring that shit on. Hell, throw a megalodon in there too. Why not?

The main reason I'm worried about this is how damn old Ford is. He's really damn old. If they've got a firm handle on that de-aging tech, maybe this is the movie to bust it out for. Wouldn't that be something, to see a late-thirties Indy running around again? Someone's going to do it one of these days. If the tech is there...


- mr. stockslivevan - 03-19-2016

AThey'll definitely have to play up his age more this time. Seriously though, he looked pretty incredible for his 60s in KOTCS and because of his charisma I was able to roll with the idea of him still being something of a man of action, if a little more rugged, kind of like how Connery was able to pull that off in his 60s when doing movies like THE ROCK. Speaking of which, Ford is now the same age as Connery was in his last screen appearance. Jeez.


- user_32 - 03-19-2016

I like Ford aging with the role. It's like Stallone and Rocky. In a world of reboots after every third movie, it's actually refreshing.




- hammerhead - 03-19-2016

Well sure, pump Ford full of human growth hormone and anything's possible.




- commodorejohn - 03-19-2016

ANo, seriously, it's honestly refreshing to see actual old people in major motion pictures, even if they have to be freaking Harrison Ford in order to be allowed anywhere near a camera. I was getting worried that Hollywood had instituted a Logan's Run policy.


- virtanen - 03-19-2016

AWho's the oldest successful action hero? I was thinking of Eastwood in IN THE LINE OF FIRE but he was only in his 60s back then.


- agentsands77 - 03-19-2016

AFord is gonna look mighty old by the time this thing gets in front of cameras. I'm fine with it, but they're going to have to be really creative with the action.


- agentsands77 - 03-19-2016

A[quote name="Arjen Rudd" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/240#post_4033790"]
I gots to say, I think the potential for Lovecraft Indy stuff is actually quite high. Something inspired by Mountains of Madness, full of Antarctic adventures through ice caves and ancient cities, maybe some slumbering monsters? Bring that shit on. Hell, throw a megalodon in there too. Why not?[/quote]
I wrote a treatment for INDY V called INDIANA JONES AND THE OLD ONES years ago.

I think going that route or the Hammer route (INDIANA JONES AND THE GOLDEN VAMPIRES) would be the way to go.

But, nah, Spielberg won't go for that. This will be the CRUSADE to KINGDOM's TEMPLE. The relic will be something like the Tower of Babel or the Staff of Moses or the Spear of Destiny.


- user_32 - 03-19-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtanen View Post

Who's the oldest successful action hero? I was thinking of Eastwood in IN THE LINE OF FIRE but he was only in his 60s back then.


I think Sean Connery was in his 70s when he made League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.



I assume Tom Cruise will be playing action roles until the day he dies (which will be never).




- fatherdude - 03-19-2016

A[quote name="Arjen Rudd" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/240#post_4033790"]I gots to say, I think the potential for Lovecraft Indy stuff is actually quite high. Something inspired by Mountains of Madness, full of Antarctic adventures through ice caves and ancient cities, maybe some slumbering monsters? Bring that shit on. Hell, throw a megalodon in there too. Why not?[/quote]

Um, yes please. Aside from the self-evident appeal of this approach, settings like those are compatible with Indy's age. I can see a wrinkly archeologist being proactive in such environments without being called on to hop from a horse onto a moving tank.

We disagree on the de-aging thing though, and I think Ford and Spielberg do too. There's a lovely anecdote about how during the Crystal Skull makeup tests they experimented with making Ford look younger, wanting to see how far they could push it. Turns out they were able to push it further than they imagined, and ended up (supposedly) making Harrison believably look practically as he did in Crusade. Ford was disturbed, stated that he should not look that way, and they went with the more honest route. They made the right call:

[Image: 400]

Ten years later, I wouldn't say the stakes are much different. Ford's face is simply frownier.


- carnotaur3 - 03-19-2016

There are set photos and certain scenes in KOTCS where he does look like he did in Crusade.




- Stale Elvis - 03-19-2016

ALoling at anyone who thinks Ford looks anywhere near like he looks old or is in bad shape for a bloke in his 70s. The guy is one of Hoolywood's last real men.

Get back to scratching those neckbeards, sofa heroes.


- fatherdude - 03-19-2016

The series needs some horrifying imagery again.  I will grant CRYSTAL SKULL this one:





But Blanchett's death is the weakest Indy villain demise ever.  She just sort of turns into Lysol.





The concept art was much more on-point.  Look at those eye sockets!  Note the burnt flesh scattered around her shirt!  What the hell, Spielberg?






- agentsands77 - 03-19-2016

ASpielberg doesn't have the stomach for sadistic violence that he used to.


- Stale Elvis - 03-19-2016

AYeah but even if they did go fully graphic on Spalko's death scene it still made no sense whatsoever, simply because we have no concept whatsoever of how her demise came about.

Think about it, in Raiders we get the whole wrath of God thing. It's set up in the beginning when we see the ark in the bible "lightning, fire, power of God or something." then when it does happen we make the connection - we've all heard of the wrath of God, whether we believe the boogeyman and a lot of superstitious hocus-pocus or not when it happens we've got some sort of innate knowledge to draw from.

In Temple, Indy recites some sort of Hindu or thugee mantra and the stones catch fire - whether we're versed in such things or not, the power of the stones has already been shown earlier in the movie.

In Last Crusade, we know that the grail gives everlasting life - but in a twist we're told seconds earlier that the wrong grail will take life.

What do we get in Crystal Skull? Well there's no set up whatsoever as to why anyone looking to return the skull would be destroyed. Spalko wanted the skulls so she could have power over minds but when she returns it (and why?) to the alien body she suddenly is given unlimited knowledge (again, why?) - there's no setup whatsoever that returning the skulls would be dangerous. So she returns it, the alien frowns (???) at her and she bursts into flames. WHY????????? What the fuck did I miss that set this up earlier in the film?


- carnotaur3 - 03-19-2016

For the record, I didn't realize Koepp wrote 1994's "The Shadow" and that's unapologetically one of my favorite films.




- agentsands77 - 03-19-2016

ASpalko's death is so much weaker than the similar scene in Darabont's draft, which is still cartoonish but has greater dramatic weight given how it has been appropriately foreshadowed and how it ties in with Indy's character arc.

Darabont's draft had problems, but it was still so much better than what we got.


- fatherdude - 03-19-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

What do we get in Crystal Skull? Well there's no set up whatsoever as to why anyone looking to return the skull would be destroyed. Spalko wanted the skulls so she could have power over minds but when she returns it (and why?) to the alien body she suddenly is given unlimited knowledge (again, why?) - there's no setup whatsoever that returning the skulls would be dangerous. So she returns it, the alien frowns (???) at her and she bursts into flames. WHY????????? What the fuck did I miss that set this up earlier in the film?


That's a function of the movie's general half-bakeness.  There are a lot of potential interesting ideas at play, but they never get properly developed.



If I had to guess, the idea was that the aliens detected that Spalko, like the conquistadors before her, was not "pure of heart," and thus they gave her deliberate information overload.  Earlier in the movie, when Spalko has Indy confined to a chair, she pouts that "The skull does not speak to everyone, it seems."  But the skull does speak to Oxley and then Indy.  It has consciously selected these academics, and declined her.  I think Spalko being unable to read Indy's mind at the beginning of the movie is meant to play into this too, somehow.  But this angle isn't fully sketched out so it doesn't really work.



What Spalko really needed was a Mola Ram moment where her powers are demonstrable.  Instead we're left guessing whether she has powers at all.  If we believe she's really psychic, then the fact that she's suddenly "blocked" when she tries to use them on Indy or listen to the skull might actually mean something.  As it is, even the protagonists don't take her seriously.  She lets the whole Jerry Springer routine between Indy, Marion and Mutt play out before she has a gun cocked behind Marion's head.  Then Indy and Marion keep right on quipping.  If the villains' captives see the villains as a joke, what the hell is the audience supposed to think?



It's the same problem with Marion driving off the cliff into the rubber tree.  It's not the cartoonishness of the rubber tree that's a problem, it's the fact that Marion does it deliberately, grinning and confident that they're all going to survive.  Everyone knows they're in a movie.  The waterfalls also come off as more inconvenience than a hair-raising, life-or-death situation.




- agentsands77 - 03-19-2016

AIf anything gives me hope for INDY V, it's Spielberg's TINTIN. I don't think TINTIN really works on a basic stylistic level, but it shows that madcap action Spielberg is still alive.

INDY V doesn't have to be great. Of the Indy flicks, only RAIDERS really is, after all. But I just want it to have some verve and imagination.

Say what you will about the Doomtown bit in KINGDOM, but it's the only sequence in the film that has anything of early 80s Spielberg's impishness.


- carnotaur3 - 03-19-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 


That's a function of the movie's general half-bakeness.  There are a lot of potential interesting ideas at play, but they never get properly developed.



If I had to guess, the idea was that the aliens detected that Spalko, like the conquistadors before her, was not "pure of heart," and thus they gave her deliberate information overload.  Earlier in the movie, when Spalko has Indy confined to a chair, she pouts that "The skull does not speak to everyone, it seems."  But the skull does speak to Oxley and then Indy.  It has consciously selected these academics, and declined her.  I think Spalko being unable to read Indy's mind at the beginning of the movie is meant to play into this too, somehow.  But this angle isn't fully sketched out so it doesn't really work.



What Spalko really needed was a Mola Ram moment where her powers are demonstrable.  Instead we're left guessing whether she has powers at all.  If we believe she's really psychic, then the fact that she's suddenly "blocked" when she tries to use them on Indy or listen to the skull might actually mean something.  As it is, even the protagonists don't take her seriously.  She lets the whole Jerry Springer routine between Indy, Marion and Mutt play out before she has a gun cocked behind Marion's head.  Then Indy and Marion keep right on quipping.  If the villains' captives see the villains as a joke, what the hell is the audience supposed to think?



It's the same problem with Marion driving off the cliff into the rubber tree.  It's not the cartoonishness of the rubber tree that's a problem, it's the fact that Marion does it deliberately, grinning and confident that they're all going to survive.  Everyone knows they're in a movie.  The waterfalls also come off as more inconvenience than a hair-raising, life-or-death situation.


I just had an idea for an easy fix for that. Indy and Mac were the two involved in the 1947 incident. She can't read Indy's thoughts just like before, so she turns to Mac - who is deep down, always a turn coat - making it pretty easy to gather the information in his head. This also builds up some really good drama with Indy trying to reach Mac as it slowly dawns on him that Spalko's powers are real.




- fatherdude - 03-19-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

Say what you will about the Doomtown bit in KINGDOM, but it's the only sequence in the film that has anything of early 80s Spielberg's impishness.


I agree with this.  It bothers me that the Doomtown sequence has come to be used as the representation for CRYSTAL SKULL's problems when it's arguably the only classic Indy cliffhanger setup in the whole damned movie.




- fatherdude - 03-19-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
 

I just had an idea for an easy fix for that. Indy and Mac were the two involved in the 1947 incident. She can't read Indy's thoughts just like before, so she turns to Mac - who is deep down, always a turn coat - making it pretty easy to gather the information in his head. This also builds up some really good drama with Indy trying to reach Mac as it slowly dawns on him that Spalko's powers are real.



There was actually a deleted scene between Spalko and Mac where she reads Mac's mind.  Not a movie-saving scene by any stretch but it would have at least addressed the issue of whether Spalko's powers are legit, which I don't consider to be welcome ambiguity in the final cut.




- Stale Elvis - 03-19-2016

AFor Indy V I like the idea of a more low-key cerebral adventure, less running and punching, more booby traps and figuring stuff out.

Perhaps make Indy more rounded as a character by having him mellow a little and look back at his youth as a time that he regrets having killed so many faceless foot-soldiers. Time and age give you a great vantage point to where you came from - It worked in Rocky Balboa, perhaps it can work here. Just make it more of a horror-thriller than an action adventure. Perhaps Indy has to team up with a retired Nazi colonel who is hiding out in Austria or Sourh America.


- carnotaur3 - 03-19-2016

Yeah the antagonists of the film don't even have to be characters. What if it was just Indy against the biggest booby trap contraption ever via Goonies.