Indiana Jones 5 (film)

[Neil]

So seems we're getting another one - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/74681


Deadline reports this will be the first “Raiders” sequel in which George Lucas will not shape the screenplay.

Good news Lucas isn't involved?!

[MinionZombie]

Good news Lucas isn't involved?!

:lol::lol::lol:

I dig the fourth film, I thought the criticism of it was overly harsh - but I will also admit it wasn't as good as parts 1 or 3, and suffered a bit with the crushing weight of twenty years of anticipation and fandom. Temple of Doom fits into the original films much better than Crystal Skull even can, naturally, having been made in the 1980s, but I never particularly gelled with ToD and have always liked it the least of all of them.

Am I particularly sad that Lucas won't be involved in the script for Indy #5? Honestly, I don't mind, as long as they get someone talented to write the script - and they make it a good script - I'll be happy.

[shootemindehead]

I feel sorry for Geroge Lucas. :(

But, they should really just let Indiana Jones go away with what little dignity he has left.

[EvilNed]

I feel sorry for Geroge Lucas. :(

But, they should really just let Indiana Jones go away with what little dignity he has left.

I guess I'll say Amen to both those statements. I mean, George Lucas is a fucking tool when it comes to being a director and writer. But there's something to his credibility as a visionary. That latest Star Wars film? Say what you want about it, there wasn't a single visionary involved in it's creation. At least George Lucas constantly tried to shake things up - even though his motives were probably as much aligned with marketing and toys sales than with a desire to provide something fresh every time.

As for the second statement, I can't see this working in any way, shape or form. Harrison Ford was hopelessly out of shape in the latest Indy film and in particular the latest Star Wars film. Jesus, just let the character rest.
I also didn't like the 3rd film, I think it's a fucking kids movie. Team Temple of Doom right here, buddy.

[bassman]

I've discussed the previous film on here many times and my opinion hasn't changed over the years. It's a worthy entry to the series, but no doubt has its issues.

I'm most certainly excited for this final film. With Disney owning the rights, Lucas basically out of the picture, and Spielberg/Ford knowing this will be their last round with Indy, I know we'll be in for a real treat.

[shootemindehead]

I guess I'll say Amen to both those statements. I mean, George Lucas is a fucking tool when it comes to being a director and writer. But there's something to his credibility as a visionary. That latest Star Wars film? Say what you want about it, there wasn't a single visionary involved in it's creation. At least George Lucas constantly tried to shake things up - even though his motives were probably as much aligned with marketing and toys sales than with a desire to provide something fresh every time.

Yeh. while I liked the new Star Wars entry, there wasn't much in the way of "new" going on. It was mostly fan service for the most part. But that's what your going to get from Jar Jar Abrams.

Hopefully, now that they shown the audience that the can do a Star Wars film without buggering it completely, perhaps the next couple of films can be brave enough to go off in their own direction.


As for the second statement, I can't see this working in any way, shape or form. Harrison Ford was hopelessly out of shape in the latest Indy film and in particular the latest Star Wars film. Jesus, just let the character rest.
I also didn't like the 3rd film, I think it's a fucking kids movie. Team Temple of Doom right here, buddy.

Yeh, it's 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' and 'Temple of Doom' for me. Couldn't stand the third one. Waaaaay too many feeble attempts at "comedy" that are about as funny as a Bowie knife up the Swiss. They chickened out, because a few over sensitive kids and their cotton wool parents couldn't handle 'Temple of Doom'.

FFS. :rolleyes:

I tried so hard to convince myself that the fourth one was a good film, or even a good Indiana Jones film.

But, it really isn't.

Ford is going to be about 74 if this next one sees the light of day. That's just silly.

[bassman]

Last Crusade is my favorite out of them all.....

[EvilNed]

Last Crusade is my favorite out of them all.....

I remember liking it too, as a kid. Then I rewatched all three of them when I got older. Seeing it again was such a wake-up call. It's over-the-top silly throughout. By the time Sean Connery managed to take down that nazi plane with an umbrella and a flock of birds, I was close to just turning it off... Sorry, but there's a very different tone in Part 3 that I don't like at all. Indy becomes a parody of himself.

[MinionZombie]

Last Crusade is my favorite out of them all.....

Same here. Loved it as a kid, love it now.

Raiders is a close second. Skull and Doom come after.

[shootemindehead]

Last Crusade is my favorite out of them all.....


Raiders is a close second.


Me

\/


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/9-07-2015/tzehJ7.gif

[bassman]

It's the same reason I really dig Die Hard 3, the Lethal Weapon series, etc. The sort of "team" interaction of Indy and Jones SR. It's a great father/son story, and is obvious by the time the film is finished, Indy discovers that the whole quest wasn't about finding the cup of Christ, but finding his friends and family. Then they all ride off into the sunset. Corny, but c'mon that's classic cinema! Funny to boot.

[MinionZombie]

@Shoot - :lol::lol::lol:

I'm not saying that Last Crusade is necessarily better than Raiders, I've just always enjoyed it a little bit more than Raiders - and I enjoy Raiders quite a lot.

[EvilNed]

It's the same reason I really dig Die Hard 3, the Lethal Weapon series, etc. The sort of "team" interaction of Indy and Jones SR. It's a great father/son story, and is obvious by the time the film is finished, Indy discovers that the whole quest wasn't about finding the cup of Christ, but finding his friends and family. Then they all ride off into the sunset. Corny, but c'mon that's classic cinema! Funny to boot.

You're a fan of all thing Spielberg, aren't you?

[bassman]

You're a fan of all thing Spielberg, aren't you?

He's made a lot of fantastic films, others not so much, but I'm not sure what you're hinting at?....

[EvilNed]

He's made a lot of fantastic films, others not so much, but I'm not sure what you're hinting at?....

Well, your description of Indy's cheesy inner journey pretty much sums up why I think Steven Spielberg might not be so great, that's all.

[DayoftheZ]

You're a fan of all thing Spielberg, aren't you?

I like Spielberg well enough. He made films that were on the TV throughout my entire childhood.

On the flip side he made the film that I consider to be the worst I have ever seen in AI. I’m a tight Yorkshire man and came very close indeed to walking out of the cinema with that film.

[Neil]

I like Spielberg well enough. He made films that were on the TV throughout my entire childhood.

On the flip side he made the film that I consider to be the worst I have ever seen in AI. I’m a tight Yorkshire man and came very close indeed to walking out of the cinema with that film.

I quite like some aspects of AI...

[bassman]

AI is a bit of a strange scenario because he was basically trying to make the film as if he were Stanley Kubrick. Had he not been trying to finish Kubrick's project and actually made the film in his normal fashion, I think the end result would have been much more pleasing.

Back to Indy.....if this is Speilberg and Ford's last round with the franchise, which it most likely is, I'm wondering how they will leave the door open for any future sequels or spinoffs. Being that Indy is now owned by Disney, you just KNOW they're going to want this fifth film to lead into others, but would this include Shia Lebouf as Jones III, recast because of his poor reception in the previous film, or create an entirely new character that can carry the franchise?

EDIT: David Koepp, who also wrote Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, is returning to pen Indy 5. For those that dislike Kingdom and will point to the same writer being a bad sign....I would also point out that Koepp was hired to cobble together scripts from multiple writers for the previous film rather than start from the ground up on a story of his own. He also wrote Jurassic Park....

[bassman]

Jon Kasdan has taken over writing duties from Koepp. Jon’s father, Lawrence, wrote Raiders of the Lost Ark, so maybe that lineage could help?....

[EvilNed]

Having seen Blade Runner last year; Harrison Ford is too old. There's no way he can pull this off as anything other than sitting in a chair in the opening and telling a story which turns into a flashback.

[shootemindehead]

I think everyone is too bloody old.

It's been delayed apparently too, so they'll be even older. I don't think anyone really has a want for this.

[bassman]

They’d have to be very careful at how they execute it, but I would be okay with Ford being bookends of the film, with flashbacks to an adventure when he was younger. It could also possibly allow them to stay in the past with the new actor and continue on with new films, which is definitely something they want to do.

By the time they get around to filming, Ford will be 80. Either flashbacks or a limited Jones Sr. type role are really the best options.

[shootemindehead]

They should just let it die.

These things had their time.

Honestly, I feel like Jeff bleedin Goldblum every time some studio wants to make a film these days.


https://i0.wp.com/www.gambitmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Jeff-Goldblum-Jurassic-Park.jpg

[bassman]

True, but Disney isn’t going to let that cash cow die. It’s going to continue in one way or another, so I guess the best we can hope for is that they can do it in a semi-satisfying way.

[shootemindehead]

It'll die and die badly when they a balls of it though.

Seriously, Jones had his day and that's gone. In any case what can he do now? The last one was terrible, with an awful story. But what can Indy do or go after that would make sense? And the idea that he bookends a new actor is woeful. Just woeful. That, right there, is the death knell. They should learn from 'Solo'. Nobody wants rebooted characters cosplaying as beloved heroes from their childhood. It just won't work.

Surely there are some minds at work in these studios?

[Neil]

No.3 was the last Indy film...

- - - Updated - - -


They should just let it die.

These things had their time.

Honestly, I feel like Jeff bleedin Goldblum every time some studio wants to make a film these days.


https://i0.wp.com/www.gambitmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Jeff-Goldblum-Jurassic-Park.jpg
LOL!!

[MinionZombie]

Indy 4 gets a bad rap. Certain things are fair enough, but it gets slayed for types of things that nobody saw an issue with in the first three movies. I liked Indy 4.

[Neil]

Indy 4 gets a bad rap. Certain things are fair enough, but it gets slayed for types of things that nobody saw an issue with in the first three movies. I liked Indy 4.

Sorry he jumped the fridge with no. 4!!! :)

[shootemindehead]

And Marion jumped a cliff, laughing.

[Neil]

And Marion jumped a cliff, laughing.

OMG! I remember almost shouting out in the cinema at that bit!

[JDP]

No.3 was the last Indy film...

Yes, and so was Return of the Jedi the last Star Wars film. And Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome was the last Mad Max movie. And T2 the last Terminator film. And Tron was the first and last Tron film (how the hell can you pretend to make a Tron film basically without Tron in it, not to say anything of Ed Dillinger and Yori/Lora??? PREPOSTEROUS!!!) And The Howling was the first and last Howling movie. There's many such examples. "Say what???", some naive youngster might ask. "But what about all the other movies in the same franchises that came after those???" Nothing. They never happened. It's as if they don't exist, as if they were never made. Not "canon", not accepted, totally REJECTED!

[MinionZombie]

Sorry he jumped the fridge with no. 4!!! :)

No 'worse' than Temple of Doom where they jump out of a crashing plane in a raft - which inflates mid-air with three people in it - crash land on a snowy mountain, ride their way down, go shooting over a huge cliff and into river rapids - and survive it all.

Indy films are based on the 1930s serials, where cliffhangers came from, and the heroes would always face (and survive) impossible situations and odds. It's entirely in-keeping with the vibe.

Hell, in Last Crusade Jones Sr. takes down a fighter plane with an umbrella and a flock of seagulls!

"Nuke the fridge" became a meme, and a lazy one at that, but it's entirely in-keeping with what came before.


And Marion jumped a cliff, laughing.

She smirks with satisfaction. That's it. You make it sound like she's cackling her head off.

[bassman]

I agree. I’ll even go as far to say that I really enjoy that scene, particularly the set up. His confusion at first, then the realization as the countdown begins, the “oh sure, don’t wait for me!!”, then the way he comes out disoriented....that’s all pure, classic Jones/Ford, to me. Seen many times before, just with the added 1950’s angle.

[shootemindehead]

No 'worse' than Temple of Doom where they jump out of a crashing plane in a raft - which inflates mid-air with three people in it - crash land on a snowy mountain, ride their way down, go shooting over a huge cliff and into river rapids - and survive it all.

Indy films are based on the 1930s serials, where cliffhangers came from, and the heroes would always face (and survive) impossible situations and odds. It's entirely in-keeping with the vibe.

Hell, in Last Crusade Jones Sr. takes down a fighter plane with an umbrella and a flock of seagulls!

"Nuke the fridge" became a meme, and a lazy one at that, but it's entirely in-keeping with what came before.

As always, with these type of films, it comes down to the extension of your willingness to suspend disbelief. That scene in 'Temple of Doom' is indeed ridiculous. However, there are stories of people who have survived falls of greater heights without parachutes. Alan McGee fell from over 20,000 feet, when he jumped out of his stricken B-17 in the Second World War.

On the other hand, anyone caught in the centre of an atomic blast would be instantly vaporised. So, there isn't even a sliver of possibility happening there.



She smirks with satisfaction. That's it. You make it sound like she's cackling her head off.

She has a dumb grin on her face while driving off of a cliff to what everyone would think is certain death. She can't possibly know what fate awaits her or her passangers.

It's looks incredibly dumb, even for an Indy film.

In any case, as far as I'm concerned, there really was one truly great Indiana Jones film and that was the first one. The second is grand too. But, that's where I stop.

[bassman]

It’s been a while, and probably doesn’t necessarily help with the suspension of disbelief, but isn’t she shown looking over the cliff and forming a plan? Maybe seeing someone else use the tree in the same way?

[shootemindehead]

It’s been a while, and probably doesn’t necessarily help with the suspension of disbelief, but isn’t she shown looking over the cliff and forming a plan? Maybe seeing someone else use the tree in the same way?

Honestly, I can't remember Bassy. It's been years since I've watched it.

[MinionZombie]

6FcXexwpOzo

She only smiles/smirks after her 'drive over the edge onto the tree' plan works. Prior to that she isn't gurning like an idiot, she's quite serious and focused about it yelling "trust me!" ... she only smiles a smug smirk after her move proved successful.

When it comes to the waterfall it's always everyone screaming. The first is quite small, everyone remains inside. The second is bigger and everyone is kind of half-in, half-out of the car, the third one is big and they all bail out quickly.

If you're using surprising realities of the real world to judge an Indiana Jones movie, I think you're judging it on the wrong scale, to be honest.

[shootemindehead]

It's still fucking stupid.

Drive off a cliff?

Sure, grand. Go on.

It's not really about judging a scene based on the realities of the real world. There aren't many scenes in Indy films that would survive that. It's whether it's looks dumb or not. And that scene looks dumb.

[Neil]

No 'worse' than Temple of Doom where they jump out of a crashing plane in a raft - which inflates mid-air with three people in it - crash land on a snowy mountain, ride their way down, go shooting over a huge cliff and into river rapids - and survive it all.

Yes, absolutely great squence isn't it. Made all the better by them not grinning... :)

BTW - Myth Busters tried the raft drop... and basically it CAN work!

I don't recall them trying a truck down a tree probably because we know the answer, with or without a grin.

- - - Updated - - -


6FcXexwpOzo

She only smiles/smirks after her 'drive over the edge onto the tree' plan works. Prior to that she isn't gurning like an idiot, she's quite serious and focused about it yelling "trust me!" ... she only smiles a smug smirk after her move proved successful.

When it comes to the waterfall it's always everyone screaming. The first is quite small, everyone remains inside. The second is bigger and everyone is kind of half-in, half-out of the car, the third one is big and they all bail out quickly.

If you're using surprising realities of the real world to judge an Indiana Jones movie, I think you're judging it on the wrong scale, to be honest.

That... Is... Appalling! EDIT: From when she started the truck towards the cliff, she wouldn't even know what was down there. ie: She couldn't even see a tree!


Note: With all the Germans on ropes tied to the truck... Why not just ram that truck off the edge of the cliff? Then take all the time they need to drive what ever vehicle they like down what ever plant they wish?

[bassman]

From when she started the truck towards the cliff, she wouldn't even know what was down there. ie: She couldn't even see a tree!


There’s a scene a few minutes earlier where she’s driving toward the cliff with Mutt in the car, he says “mom there’s a cliff!”, she quickly turns, riding along the edge of the cliff, she looks over the edge seeing the tree, then there’s a moment of realization on her face that then turns to a grin as she’d formed a plan.


I don't recall them trying a truck down a tree probably because we know the answer, with or without a grin.


Regardless of the execution or individual reception of the scene....to be fair, trees can have the strength to support vehicles. Heck, even Spielberg himself had already used the idea in Jurassic Park....

[Neil]

There’s a scene a few minutes earlier where she’s driving toward the cliff with Mutt in the car, he says “mom there’s a cliff!”, she quickly turns, riding along the edge of the cliff, she looks over the edge seeing the tree, then there’s a moment of realization on her face that then turns to a grin as she’d formed a plan.



Regardless of the execution or individual reception of the scene....to be fair, trees can have the strength to support vehicles. Heck, even Spielberg himself had already used the idea in Jurassic Park....

Still don't buy it...

Driving a truck she's never driven before, off a cliff, onto a tree... Most likely she'd just undershoot/overshoot the thing, and then for it to be able to take 4 tons of weight, perfectly?

No... No... No...

Daft... Daft... Daft...


If it was completely by accident, or there was absolutely no alternative, then maybe I could buy into it... But as a part of a choice and plan? No... No... No...

[EvilNed]

Before watching that clip I remember thinking "Well, was Crystal Skull really that bad? Maybe I should rewatch it".

Now I don't feel like rewatching it anymore. Looks cheap and silly.

[shootemindehead]

Scenes like that are a symptom of CGI-itis.

It allows film makers to put a whole manner of dumb things into their films, that otherwise wouldn't be possible. Sure, model effects could allow some silly things too, like the rollercostery mine cart ride in Temple of Doom. But, more often than not a film maker had to think around something, because it just wasn't possible. CGI makes that level of stupid possible.

Imagine of 'Jaws' was made today. It would a CGI shark, on screen every ten minutes...and it would be rubbish.

[bassman]

Imagine of 'Jaws' was made today. It would a CGI shark, on screen every ten minutes...and it would be rubbish.

Have you seen the trailers for “The Meg”? It’s an upcoming CGI shark-fest, like you mention. So cheesy and over the top that it looks like a goofy good time!

[shootemindehead]

Have you seen the trailers for “The Meg”? It’s an upcoming CGI shark-fest, like you mention. So cheesy and over the top that it looks like a goofy good time!

I saw one briefly. Don't know what to make of it yet.

[bassman]

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/54c7f8c3e4b03741e3cb2145/1422391497885/

I can see it working! :p

[shootemindehead]

No, no....a thousand times no.

[Neil]

5z33sB_Hqy0

[MinionZombie]

Feck me, that sounds just awful. :barf:

How do these morons not get it yet? Holy shit. :stunned::rolleyes:

[Neil]

More doom from Doomcock...

am2UYowqhu8

[MinionZombie]

If that is indeed how the films goes/ends, then fuck me what a balls up. :stunned:

I won't be paying for that shite, let alone watch it.

That fella in the video could do with less rambling and get the fuck on with what he wants to say; the amount of announcing what he's about to tell you is irksome.

[Neil]

Yeh, to imply all of our beloved memories of Indy have to be white washed over...? :fin:

[MinionZombie]

Yeh, to imply all of our beloved memories of Indy have to be white washed over...? :fin:

It's a wretched kind of approach, it essentially erases the beloved character - literally in this case, according to the leaks - and all he has done, handing it over to some nobody character who's parachuted in at the last minute. It's asinine.

Indiana Jones needs to be left well alone. Fans didn't even much care for the idea of Mutt taking over, so it's not even a 'sex thing', it's a beloved character thing.

I've said it many times over in the past, but it still applies, this approach is just offensive to everyone in the equation: the original character, the fans of the original character, and to women, because it says 'you are not worth creating a new character for' and 'you can only be built up by stepping on the shoulders of men and stomping them beneath your heel' ... which is all rather gross, isn't it? It's a big, lazy, cliched middle finger to everyone who supports the IP.

Baffling decision making, truly bizarre and incomprehensible. I'm stunned that Kathleen Kennedy and her ilk are still allowed to sniff around so many prized IPs after so many failures. Kevin Feige, over on the Marvel side, could do with being moved on as well as that entire franchise has become so woefully tired-out with the generally inept and worn-out Phase 4. Disney desperately needed new leadership, too, not bringing back the same guy who set in-place many of these problems (and then ditched-out for the really difficult business part during the pandemic and all its financial fall-out, blaming it on his successor instead).

It's staggering that such highly paid people with so much control have so little understanding over what the real problems are with so many of these underwhelming or flat-out awful franchise outings we've had in recent years. It's not just at Disney, either - case in point: The Witcher. What a clusterfuck.

[shootemindehead]

If that is indeed how the films goes/ends, then fuck me what a balls up. :stunned:

I won't be paying for that shite, let alone watch it.

That fella in the video could do with less rambling and get the fuck on with what he wants to say; the amount of announcing what he's about to tell you is irksome.

I don't think anyone really knows what's in store for Indy 5 and, personally I couldn't give a toss. There's only been one great Indy movie and that's first one. The first sequel was very good and the rest has been shite. So, I have no faith that 5 will change that train of events.

As for YouTubers who make a living off of clicks on edgy video titles (especially when they call themselves Doomcock :rolleyes: ) I have no interest in what they say in the slightest, about anything.

[Neil]

I don't think anyone really knows what's in store for Indy 5 and, personally I couldn't give a toss. There's only been one great Indy movie and that's first one. The first sequel was very good and the rest has been shite. So, I have no faith that 5 will change that train of events.
For me the original trilolgy are the go to movies, with the 3rd being the weakest, but still having its good moments...


As for YouTubers who make a living off of clicks on edgy video titles (especially when they call themselves Doomcock :rolleyes: ) I have no interest in what they say in the slightest, about anything.That sounds very Doomcock'ist to me :)
To be fair, he does seem to release generally good info.

[MinionZombie]

Indy 1 and 3 are where it's at for me - love them both. Temple of Doom feels a bit 'off' to me, even when I recently re-watched it for the umpteenth time. It feels out-of-place or kind of sadistic at times, really trying to gross out its audience instead of thrill them (like with the other movies).

I'm okay with Indy 4. Certainly the first act is the best portion of it and the over-use of CGI really harms it, and Mutt is a rather iffy character, but at least it still has a decent amount of respect for the character, unlike how Indy 5 seems to be going.

I've seen the odd Doomcock video, but I can't be doing with all the flim-flam and prevaricating. I got sick of Disparu as he evidently becomes just a one-note complainer, only making videos to hate on stuff (to be fair, some of the stuff he covers is justifiably hated or simply considered so naff that people don't bother watching in the first place). Then there's the likes of The Quartering and HeelvsBabyface, who I just can't be doing with as they really are like cartoon cliches, either pushing 'grumpy republican' vibes or carrying on like over-the-top performers gasping for clicks. The likes of ThatStarWarsGirl or MelanieMac (IIRC, the "Go Boom" chick) can make good points, but again I got put off by very 'clickbaity' approaches, the goddamned catchphrase sign-offs, and in the latter case an eye-rollingly stupid comment about "taxation being theft" (which is as idiotic a POV as "property is theft").

One who is more peripheral is Baggage Claim, who occasionally does videos on these sorts of topics, and she's made very good points in a much more calm and reasoned manner, limiting all that clickbaity performance to a minimum.

Critical Drinker is generally about the best as he's generally more even-handed and level-headed, but he skirts the cusp of falling into clickbait cliche at times - but he does make sure to highlight good films/shows both past and present (e.g. bigging-up Andor), and is a writer himself, so there's more to his perspective on these things.

Nerdrotic is probably the most tolerable of the more clickbaity-minded ones, although I always watch his shorter videos (never those hours-long group chats - I mean, four to six goddamned hours???!!!) with a fair amount of grains of salt getting chucked around. I could certainly do without all the silly enunciations of words like "racist" and "representation", because it really does diminish the good points he does make (and he seems to do a fair amount of research on things, or can speak with intelligence on things he's evidently well-versed in).

Where was I? Oh, yeah, Indy 5 ... fuck me it sounds awful.

[JDP]

If these rumors are true, this whole "woke" thingy is seriously getting out of hand.

Note: Temple of Doom is much in the same vein as Raiders, actually. Last Crusade is the one that really departed from the unapologetic in-your-face "darkness" of the two previous films. You want this "darkness" in Indiana Jones films. It is a must! Still, a well put together and entertaining action movie, but due to its "lighter" tone, not as good as the other two.

[shootemindehead]

For me the original trilolgy are the go to movies, with the 3rd being the weakest, but still having its good moments...

Agreed. The third has always felt kinda stupid to me, because of that ridiculous, unfunny, comedy. I think it gets kudos because of the great casting of Connery as Indy's dad. Without that, it wouldn't be remembered as fondly as it is today.

I personally think the film is just far too dumb in too many places.

Now, that's not to say that the other two were po faced, serious, dramas. They weren't. But Spielberg's option to do egregious dumb shit in Last Crusade to somehow offset the lilly livered response to Temple of Doom was an extremely bad idea.

[Neil]

Agreed. The third has always felt kinda stupid to me, because of that ridiculous, unfunny, comedy. I think it gets kudos because of the great casting of Connery as Indy's dad. Without that, it wouldn't be remembered as fondly as it is today.

I personally think the film is just far too dumb in too many places.

Now, that's not to say that the other two were po faced, serious, dramas. They weren't. But Spielberg's option to do egregious dumb shit in Last Crusade to somehow offset the lilly livered response to Temple of Doom was an extremely bad idea.

The third also had that epic start with the flashback to Indy as a teen etc...

[MinionZombie]

Doom goes further than Raiders at various points, so much so that a new rating had to be created because of it - all that heart-ripping, monkey brains gobbling stuff, plus the regular terror than the blonde lady is put through during much of the movie (so many gruesome insect scenes, the beyond icky dinner etc).

Now, Doom does have the awesome mining cart sequence, plus the rope bridge, and the opening is pretty darn good fun. I do always find it curious how some folks whine about the 'nuke the fridge' moment, but are totally fine with the way Indy and pals escape unscathed from the plane in Doom. :p

Raiders has its tougher moments, and a great end to the three villainous guys at the climax, but they're scumbag Nazis for one thing and it's pretty brief for another. Even the impaled body early on, while gruesome, has more of a spook house element to it and, again, there's a sort of 'karma' to his demise as he betrayed Indy. Doom often has very icky and/or gruesome things happening to innocent people, which is where it strays over the line on occasion by comparison to Raiders. It's not a big leap beyond, but it's just enough to feel different.

Last Crusade might be more of a romp, but it's filled with so much entertainment that is quite fitting of the genre and the shorts that inspired the franchise in the first place, and it has some darker moments - the demise of one of the villains at the end was quite shocking when I first saw it as a kid, and as a grown up the scene at a book burning rally is truly chilling.

[JDP]

The third also had that epic start with the flashback to Indy as a teen etc...

The over-the-top action sequences are also very well done, like in the previous two films.

[shootemindehead]

Doom goes further than Raiders at various points, so much so that a new rating had to be created because of it - all that heart-ripping, monkey brains gobbling stuff, plus the regular terror than the blonde lady is put through during much of the movie (so many gruesome insect scenes, the beyond icky dinner etc).

We've probably had this conversation before, but there's nowhere in Temple of Doom that matches the sheer gruesomeness of Raiders. People's faces melt at the end of the movie. Right there, that tops anything in Temple by a country mile. Alfred Molina ends up on spikes at the beginning. Plus there's a genuine horror moment when Marion is trapped in the Well of Souls and all those skeletons are seemingly wrapping themselves around her.

Frankly, it's a wonder that Spielberg managed to get a PG for that film. But then, it's a wonder that he got that rating for 'Jaws' six year earlier. That movie contains more frightening moments that a large percentage of actual horror movies.

Somebody at the MPAA had the hots for him, I reckon.

[MinionZombie]

Again, I think the tonal difference between Raiders and Doom is down to who is targeted and how they're targeted for a scare.

Raiders has creepy bug moments, such as Indy's jacket being covered in tarantuals, but he just sweeps them off. The moment is more about the other guy's fearful reaction (but he doesn't get them on him), plus it shows Indy as brave.

Meanwhile in Doom, you have Willie going through the movie constantly grossed out, wincing, being terrified, and screaming her head off. There's so many gross out gags just on her alone which make it feel much more like torturing someone for some kinda of perverse amusement, less of a thrill ride and instead something darker in tone and execution.

That's where the key difference is between those two movies and their tone. The sacrifice scene alone features the long and drawn-out rising terror of the poor innocent who has his heart ripped out of his chest - he even has his own heart brandished in front of his horrified eyes.

The villains getting melted/blown up/whatever at the end of Raiders are pretty quick moments and, because they're evil Nazi bastards, you want them to get their comeuppance. Willie, annoying as she is, is still one of the good guys and she's constantly screaming her head off and always in one super uncomfortable situation after another for most of the movie ... it almost feels as if Doom is picking on her, meanwhile the characters in Raiders (e.g. Marion) are much more rough and tumble already, so even though they go through some intense moments, the audience feels a bit safer with them if that makes sense?

[shootemindehead]

Again, I think the tonal difference between Raiders and Doom is down to who is targeted and how they're targeted for a scare.

Raiders has creepy bug moments, such as Indy's jacket being covered in tarantuals, but he just sweeps them off. The moment is more about the other guy's fearful reaction (but he doesn't get them on him), plus it shows Indy as brave.

Meanwhile in Doom, you have Willie going through the movie constantly grossed out, wincing, being terrified, and screaming her head off. There's so many gross out gags just on her alone which make it feel much more like torturing someone for some kinda of perverse amusement, less of a thrill ride and instead something darker in tone and execution.

But Willie's reactions are comedic in general. She screeches and yelps and is covered in bugs, but it ends up being funny. It becomes almost Monty Python. On the other hand Marion in the Well of Souls is bloody terrified and so is the audience. That sequence is damn scary and it ends with this, a genuine horror moment if ever there was one.

1534


That's where the key difference is between those two movies and their tone. The sacrifice scene alone features the long and drawn-out rising terror of the poor innocent who has his heart ripped out of his chest - he even has his own heart brandished in front of his horrified eyes.

The tone in raiders is damn creepy though. In places much more so than in Temple. Both movies have their dark tones, but I've never understood this idea that Raiders was some sort of knockabout romp while Temple was a kind of horror movie for nippers. I get that Temple caused some over sensitive parents to piss and moan and led to a new MPAA rating. But that rating was coming for long time. Temple of Doom, Gremlins and a few other movies were just the culmination of that journey. But Temple of Doom gets an unfair rap because of it.

As for the guy on the gurney going into the fire pit, that scene goes so far into OTT territory it ceases to be frightening. He has his heart ripped out and he's still alive which just makes it absurd and ridiculous. BTW, in UK and Irish cinemas that scene was cut for years. You never see Mola Ram's hand pierce the guy's chest. So it looked like old Mola was pulling a fast one on his audience and he had a heart hidden in his pocket. :D Ironically making it more of a scary scene.


The villains getting melted/blown up/whatever at the end of Raiders are pretty quick moments and, because they're evil Nazi bastards, you want them to get their comeuppance. Willie, annoying as she is, is still one of the good guys and she's constantly screaming her head off and always in one super uncomfortable situation after another for most of the movie ... it almost feels as if Doom is picking on her, meanwhile the characters in Raiders (e.g. Marion) are much more rough and tumble already, so even though they go through some intense moments, the audience feels a bit safer with them if that makes sense?

Whether the characters are "nazis" or not isn't important. It's the visuals. Kids watching 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' had little idea what a Nazi was. But they know a melting face when they see it. And quick moments don't matter. It's long enough to make an indelible mark upon ones memory. It's frightening what happens to the people at the end of Raiders, irrespective of who they are or what their politics is, because the visuals are so horrific and they transcend any such notions. What happens to Willie, though, is Three Stooges territory, even if it is mildly unpleasant.

I think Temple of Doom has ended up with this, quite undeserved, reputation due to the circumstances that it found itself in in 1984. The year of 'Gremlins' and 'Ghostbusters', which had spooky moments and adult humour in their own right and aren't really movies for the kiddywinks at all. But all of those films are the tipping point of a situation that had existed in cinema long before they were made. There was an inevitable tumble toward a higher than PG rating for some time.

In any case, it remains a shame that Spielberg lost his nerve, toned everything down, and decided to make Last Crusade into a stupid slapstick farce, complete with visual gags that were just stupid and not funny. Spielberg is a master at understanding action, tension, sentimentality and pathos. But he completely lacks any comic timing or sensibilities. The same can be said for George Lucas.

[MinionZombie]

TROgLeCng30

Interesting just how much they focus on Indy while simultaneously almost entirely sidelining PWB. :rockbrow:

Either the leaks are wrong or, more likely, this trailer has been cut very purposefully to lure an audience for yet another bait-and-switch, which seems to be one of Disney's favourite approaches. The vibe of "'member this guy you loved? Well, here's some newbie you don't give a shit about who's taking over instead, while simultaneously being better at everything than the original guy (having put in no graft to earn it) while also belittling him at every opportunity."

The memberberries are strong with this one. I'm suspicious. :shifty:

[shootemindehead]

Looks like a load of time travel crap, just so they could dial in the Germans again. :rolleyes:

Plus some of that CGI looks seriously bad.

[Neil]

Interesting just how much they focus on Indy while simultaneously almost entirely sidelining PWB. :rockbrow:

Either the leaks are wrong or, more likely, this trailer has been cut very purposefully to lure an audience for yet another bait-and-switch, which seems to be one of Disney's favourite approaches. The vibe of "'member this guy you loved? Well, here's some newbie you don't give a shit about who's taking over instead, while simultaneously being better at everything than the original guy (having put in no graft to earn it) while also belittling him at every opportunity."

The memberberries are strong with this one. I'm suspicious. :shifty:

That is very very clevery crafted not to overplay PWB!



EDIT:-

8395JgNJ0sg

[MinionZombie]

"Dial Tone of Density" :lol::lol::lol:

Yeah, even the subtitle is crap ... I mean ... that was the best you could come up with? :rockbrow::rolleyes:

I guarantee at some point in the promo whirl that they'll wheel out Harrison Ford to suggest something along the lines of he doesn't care about putting an end to Indy and killing him off/wiping him entirely from existence (and giving all of his achievements to PWB's 'meme of a character') ... a pretty cynical move, sure, but it's not some cast iron shield Disney can use. Ford had to be dragged back to Star Wars on multiple occasions and then was a happy chappy to have Han Solo killed off in #7 and he's never really been that fussed about the films he's done in the same way as the fans of said franchises (that's an understatement, no doubt). Fair enough to him, but if Disney pull that move during the promo tour then, ugh...

[EvilNed]

I have high hopes it's gonna be better than Crystal Skull, but I don't think it's going to be able to recapture the magic from the first three. Or actually, the first two. I don't like Last Crusade, I place it only slightly above Crystal Skull.

[Neil]

I have high hopes it's gonna be better than Crystal Skull, but I don't think it's going to be able to recapture the magic from the first three. Or actually, the first two. I don't like Last Crusade, I place it only slightly above Crystal Skull.

Crusade had its moments. eg: The tank fight was a classic across all of the original trilogy IMHO.

[Neil]

Editing of "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" to fit in with the new timeline?

1IhiOooz1Wk

[Neil]

GLkW4bGu914

[MinionZombie]

Jesus, that guy doesn't half take a circuitous route to just saying what he's gonna say ... so much waffle couching every simple statement (with some self-aggrandisement tossed into the mix as well).

Now, whether this is John Williams getting mixed up or an actual slip up that reveals they really are re-shooting the ending, we'll see.

Certainly, one way or another and whether or not it really is/was in the movie, the idea of retconning Indy out of his own fucking franchise and replacing him with 'Fleabag in a hat', if you will, some character tossed in at the last minute, is a bad fucking idea.

Suffice to say, though, little of the talk around this has been good. The only vaguely non-downer comments/articles all related to "ooh, de-aged Harrison Ford" ... gosh ... such praise and anticipation. :rolleyes:

[Neil]

Does seem an incredibly late stage to be doing a reshoot etc? And even if it is, can only be minor stuff surely?

[EvilNed]

Does seem an incredibly late stage to be doing a reshoot etc? And even if it is, can only be minor stuff surely?

Not really, the film is not due to be released until end of June. It's a vfx laden film and maybe they didn't want to test screen it before the VFX was serviceable. This schedule doesn't really strike me as that off.

People should stop just whipping up insufferable hate against something that they might as well just skip altogether if they don't like the idea of it.

[Neil]

Not really, the film is not due to be released until end of June. It's a vfx laden film and maybe they didn't want to test screen it before the VFX was serviceable. This schedule doesn't really strike me as that off.

People should stop just whipping up insufferable hate against something that they might as well just skip altogether if they don't like the idea of it.

Oh! It's June? I thought it was sooner than that. OK...

Not sure it's "whipping up insufferable hate", more than double face palming when we're possibly facing the needless antics of rendering every Indiana Jones film in effect "deleted", even with 30yr old related TV episodes requiring scenes removing, all seemingly so some element of "the message" can now be shoe horned into Indiana Jones now. TBH, if the rumours are true, I'm surprised it's not a black female actress replacing Indiana Jones. Heck, it's akin to the nonsense they pulled with Dr Who, and continue to.

[EvilNed]

Oh! It's June? I thought it was sooner than that. OK...

Not sure it's "whipping up insufferable hate", more than double face palming when we're possibly facing the needless antics of rendering every Indiana Jones film in effect "deleted", even with 30yr old related TV episodes requiring scenes removing, all seemingly so some element of "the message" can now be shoe horned into Indiana Jones now. TBH, if the rumours are true, I'm surprised it's not a black female actress replacing Indiana Jones. Heck, it's akin to the nonsense they pulled with Dr Who, and continue to.

That's a big If.

[JDP]

TBH, if the rumours are true, I'm surprised it's not a black female actress replacing Indiana Jones.

Don't forget gay. And obes... ahem! "large sized", too. And a senior citizen. And if she was paraplegic as well would not hurt. Cover as much "WOKE!" bases as possible, please.

[Neil]

That's a big If.

No, this is a big IF
:)

[Neil]

asDEyW7WzOU

[MinionZombie]

Considering how many bad decisions, PR embarrassments, and box office disappointments Kennedy has overseen in the last several years, it's beyond baffling that she still has a job. :stunned:

What dirt does she have, and on whom?

[Neil]

The Galactic Starcruiser resort failing (so soon) as well must be a significant financial hit.

[JDP]

What the hell happened to Kathleen Kennedy? She used to be involved in the production of a whole bunch of great stuff in the 80s & 90s (Poltergeist, Indiana Jones trilogy, Back to the Future trilogy, Gremlins, Young Sherlock Holmes, Amazing Stories TV show, etc.), now she's like a mega-magnet for crap.

[Neil]

What the hell happened to Kathleen Kennedy? She used to be involved in the production of a whole bunch of great stuff in the 80s & 90s (Poltergeist, Indiana Jones trilogy, Back to the Future trilogy, Gremlins, Young Sherlock Holmes, Amazing Stories TV show, etc.), now she's like a mega-magnet for crap.

I wonder how much is also the people they have around them.

ie: Lucas managed to produce the original SW trilogy, but then produced the prequels :hurl:

[shootemindehead]

Nothing happened to Kennedy. She's just a bean counter. A good bean counter. But a bean counter nonetheless.

What she isn't, though, is a creative force. But she thinks she is now that she's been put in charge of Lucasfilm, and she has far too much say into how the movies and TV shows are made.

However, she does get an unfair amount of criticism levelled at her. Because there's plenty of blame to go around for how poor Disney's output has been. Obviously she's front and centre and so will draw the most flak. But she's not solely responsible for the shoddy state of affairs going on at the house of mouse.

[MinionZombie]

The Galactic Starcruiser resort failing (so soon) as well must be a significant financial hit.

A few hundred million here, a few hundred million there ... and there ... and also here ... and there as well ... what's there to worry about? :rolleyes: :lol:


What the hell happened to Kathleen Kennedy? She used to be involved in the production of a whole bunch of great stuff in the 80s & 90s (Poltergeist, Indiana Jones trilogy, Back to the Future trilogy, Gremlins, Young Sherlock Holmes, Amazing Stories TV show, etc.), now she's like a mega-magnet for crap.

She was in the orbit of greatness, but is evidently nowhere near in the same league as those people she hung around. She worked her way up the ladder step by step, so kudos there, but the position she's in now? She's clearly not suited to it at all, hence the repeated mistakes - some of them to a mind-numbing degree of "you wot m8?!" ... and the aforemenentioned projects weren't driven by Kenndey, she was just a passenger on someone else's train. It seems when she's in charge the whole thing quickly goes off the rails.

This isn't to say that the greats can't make mistakes themselves - as you say, the Star Wars prequels were ... ... yeesh. Similarly, Indy 4 had its fair share of issues - although it's still good enough to enjoy and, arguably, beats the snot out of a lot of new films being released today by the likes of Disney. Indy 4 wasn't the greatest way for the franchise to go out, but from everything I've heard about Indy 5, fuck me running. :eek:

Really, Disney are far too large and they've got no oars in the water most of the time, and when an oar does dip into the raging torrents, it's either a case of just a bunch of flailing about to no effect or actual ability but in not enough abundance. They've just bought up major properties without truly understanding what made them great, threw oodles of cash at the projects while employing too many morons who don't know what they're doing (there's a reason so many VFX companies now despite Disney), and chased niche audience political sledgehammers to gradually corrosive effect.

Just in terms of superhero movies and shows, the market has been utterly flooded and people are worn out. How they didn't see this happening is similarly baffling. They're completely out of touch with the audience and the direction of the winds. It's a factory churning out product that looks like something that was good, but they don't understand how and why the original stuff was good.

Even the rare times things do work - like The Mandalorian (seasons 1 and 2) - inevitably it all goes arse-over-tit (Mando season 3!) ... *sigh* ... no wonder the shareholders are suing them! IIRC it's over projections for Disney+, which have turned out to be several shades of bullshit brown.

That then skews off into the wider discussion about the business of streaming - sometime soon so many of these companies are going to have to merge into far larger services. You simply cannot sustain these services in the long run as most of them aren't making any money at all - they're black holes sucking in cash and putting out no profit at all. The likes of Amazon and Apple can easily manage such things financially, Netflix actually are profitable, but other than that? Doesn't look good, chums.

[MinionZombie]

G_k8cDLe-Kk

Sounds great! :lol::lol::lol:

[Neil]

Vs4TbJNRBz8

[EvilNed]

I saw the film and it's fine. It's not great, but it's completely ridiculous to call it a crime against cinema. Man I hate the internet. That heading is just made to generate clicks, glad I didn't provide.

[Neil]

I saw the film and it's fine. It's not great, but it's completely ridiculous to call it a crime against cinema. Man I hate the internet. That heading is just made to generate clicks, glad I didn't provide.

I'll report back when I see it in a few months. Not going to the cinema to risk it.

Would have been fascinating to see that original version where Indiana died and his niece then replaced him through history.

[JDP]

Would have been fascinating to see that original version where Indiana died and his niece then replaced him through history.

"Fascinating" in a sort of Woking Nightmare kind of a way.

[EvilNed]

Would have been fascinating to see that original version where Indiana died and his niece then replaced him through history.

I don't think that version ever existed.

by chance I started listening to a podcast called "It was a shit show". In one episode they're talking about the Zack Snyder's Justice League, and the fan campaign behind it. It's filled with so much irrational hatred, conspiracy theories and downright racism/sexism fueled by youtubers who thrive off of clicks and views. It reminds me of the hatred against this film in particular, including the constant derision of Phoebe Waller-bridge, but also of unconfirmed rumours of this or that ending that are just straight out taken as fact. It's worrying me because it's just so... Hateful.

[bassman]

I went to see it twice in theaters, just to be sure. It’s okay. Love or hate Crystal Skull, it still had a Spielberg sense of wonder about it that Mangold just couldn’t quite recreate here.

I don’t understand all this “wokeness” you guys are complaining about. She was a sidekick character like any of the others that came before her and she has absolutely nothing to do with replacing Ford. Marion Ravenwood is more of the progressive female character that you seem to fear so greatly. There’s another sidekick character that should really be the focus of complaints. He was written in only to lazily answer how the characters can get to a certain destination.