2519 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

I can understand the love for Raiders, but I think it is far from perfect. In fact, it could've benefited for being cut down a good 20 minutes. Some of the stuff in there is just far too talky.

[bondrules]

I can understand the love for Raiders, but I think it is far from perfect. In fact, it could've benefited for being cut down a good 20 minutes. Some of the stuff in there is just far too talky.

Harkers, you are a cool cat, but what you just posted is blasphemy. Everything in Raiders fits a purpose. There is no extra fat in the there. The pace is perfect.

[Harmsway]

(I think CRUSADE is a better story and better film than TEMPLE, but tonally TEMPLE is closer to RAIDERS.)

Not sure I agree. Neither film is particularly RAIDERS-like, but TEMPLE is so slapstick-y and goofy that I have to say that CRUSADE, which plays a little straighter, probably hits slightly closer to the RAIDERS-ness of things. I wish both films played things a bit straighter than they do, though.

But it's also worth mentioning that when one looks at the pre-production materials of RAIDERS, it was originally going to be a much goofier film than it ended up being, and that goofiness largely fell by the wayside not because Spielberg/Lucas made a conscious decision to restrain it, but because of production casualties. So I think in the eyes of Spielberg and Lucas, Jones always had a much sillier sensibility, and that comes out in the sequels.

Do I wish INDY V would be more grounded? Play things a little straighter? You bet. Will it happen? I'm very, very doubtful. That said, I can live with a goofier, more cartoonish Jones provided other things click. As far as INDY V is concerned, I'll probably be satisfied as long as the thing has a genuine drive.

[JimmyBond]

. That said, I can live with a goofier, more cartoonish Jones provided other things click. As far as INDY V is concerned, I'll probably be satisfied as long as the thing has a genuine drive.

Indeed. I don't think anything in Crystal Skull was "goofier" than what transpired in the other two sequels (I'm sticking to that statement), however it was other things that brought the film down. The biggest problem was it was too talky, and the action sequences never really seemed to come alive in the way they did in the other films. Plus the finale felt too rushed, and too easy.

[marktmurphy]

I can understand the love for Raiders, but I think it is far from perfect. In fact, it could've benefited for being cut down a good 20 minutes. Some of the stuff in there is just far too talky.

Goodness: you're nuts! If anything there's not enough talking: the not-looking-at-the-Ark thing isn't set up.

But it's also worth mentioning that when one looks at the pre-production materials of RAIDERS, it was originally going to be a much goofier film than it ended up being, and that goofiness largely fell by the wayside not because Spielberg/Lucas made a conscious decision to restrain it, but because of production casualties. So I think in the eyes of Spielberg and Lucas, Jones always had a much sillier sensibility, and that comes out in the sequels.

Do I wish INDY V would be more grounded? Play things a little straighter? You bet. Will it happen? I'm very, very doubtful. That said, I can live with a goofier, more cartoonish Jones provided other things click. As far as INDY V is concerned, I'll probably be satisfied as long as the thing has a genuine drive.

Yeah, Indy films have jokes in: I want them funny. The KOTCS gags just weren't quite funny enough, and some I didn't understand (did Indy rip his pants with the knife? Why was he coveting the knife in the tomb? What was going on there?). But they usually manage to balance the gags with the sense of peril and awe; the peaks and troughs were too close.

Indeed. I don't think anything in Crystal Skull was "goofier" than what transpired in the other two sequels (I'm sticking to that statement), however it was other things that brought the film down. The biggest problem was it was too talky, and the action sequences never really seemed to come alive in the way they did in the other films. Plus the finale felt too rushed, and too easy.

Yup; all good comments. I don't think anything was badly conceived per se and there are good, new ideas in there (although the shooting script is too talky); it just didn't come together quite as well as it should have done. If it was all to the quality of the opening I'd be happy: that's a great sequence, and even has tension as the bomb is about to go off. I'd like to think they don't want to leave it on the last one and give him a good send-off now they have their eye in.

[Zorin Industries]

I can understand the love for Raiders, but I think it is far from perfect. In fact, it could've benefited for being cut down a good 20 minutes. Some of the stuff in there is just far too talky.

No!!! Are you serious?! RAIDERS is a lesson in blockbuster precision... and is only about 105 minutes long.

[bond 16.05.72]

I can understand the love for Raiders, but I think it is far from perfect. In fact, it could've benefited for being cut down a good 20 minutes. Some of the stuff in there is just far too talky.

Seriously Raiders is better paced than any Bond film bar none, this is pinnacle of action adventure cinema. The first sequels were entertaining but KOTCS was excrement and this is not up for debate.

To talky, you do make me laugh!

[marktmurphy]

I agree that Raiders is better than any one Bond film. I'm not sure that all of the first three aren't better than Bonds, to be honest. I think they're terrifically well-made.

[SecretAgentFan]

I can understand the love for Raiders, but I think it is far from perfect. In fact, it could've benefited for being cut down a good 20 minutes. Some of the stuff in there is just far too talky.

To talky?

Now, you´ve got some explaining to do...

[Judo chop]

(I think CRUSADE is a better story and better film than TEMPLE, but tonally TEMPLE is closer to RAIDERS.)

Not sure I agree. Neither film is particularly RAIDERS-like, but TEMPLE is so slapstick-y and goofy that I have to say that CRUSADE, which plays a little straighter, probably hits slightly closer to the RAIDERS-ness of things. I wish both films played things a bit straighter than they do, though.

True. I was wrong to say “tonally”. “Texturally” is probably closer to what I meant.

TEMPLE, though it wanders way off the tonal path with its OCTOPUSSY-like silliness, retains some of that gritty texture which was present in RAIDERS, and which has since completely evaporated from the films.

It’s not as if RAIDERS isn’t packed wall-to-wall with comedy. It sure is, almost non-stop. Spiders on the back, “start the engine”, “show a little backbone”, girl with love-letter eyelids, apple on desk, Jones interrupts Brody, “Sunday school” comment, hilariously stereotypical government officials, “…what a cautious fellow I am”, Marion punches a smiling Indy, “shoot them both”, etc...

I could go on and on and I’ve surely missed some along the way. Every scene is packed with, if not riotous comedy, at least clever amusement. It’s just its comedy has timing, maturity and a grit to it. For lack of the right descriptors, it’s just plain BETTER. If Spielberg and Lucas in any way prefer the style of amusement of the later films to that of RAIDERS, they and I are simply not on the same page, and I have to say that I’m not much of a fan of their Indiana Jones, and this RAIDERS thing is mostly a fluke.

Anyway. If INDY V is really in the works, they could use some good villains for a change too. CRUSADE's most glaring flaw, IMO, and yet another thing which is pitch-perfect about RAIDERS.

I'll step down now. MHarkin's got the floor. (And hopefully with an exit in sight. ) Although if Loomis ever joins the convo, he might prove the to be the one supporting voice for the lad.

[bondrules]

I agree that Raiders is better than any one Bond film. I'm not sure that all of the first three aren't better than Bonds, to be honest. I think they're terrifically well-made.

Absolutely. I said it before. It's the greatest movie of all time. Spielberg ached to do a Bond-type movie, and he got it pitch perfect. Funny how masterpieces work. Not even the authors are able to duplicate them.

[bondrules]

(I think CRUSADE is a better story and better film than TEMPLE, but tonally TEMPLE is closer to RAIDERS.)

Not sure I agree. Neither film is particularly RAIDERS-like, but TEMPLE is so slapstick-y and goofy that I have to say that CRUSADE, which plays a little straighter, probably hits slightly closer to the RAIDERS-ness of things. I wish both films played things a bit straighter than they do, though.

True. I was wrong to say “tonally”. “Texturally” is probably closer to what I meant.

TEMPLE, though it wanders way off the tonal path with its OCTOPUSSY-like silliness, retains some of that gritty texture which was present in RAIDERS, and which has since completely evaporated from the films.

It’s not as if RAIDERS isn’t packed wall-to-wall with comedy. It sure is, almost non-stop. Spiders on the back, “start the engine”, “show a little backbone”, girl with love-letter eyelids, apple on desk, Jones interrupts Brody, “Sunday school” comment, hilariously stereotypical government officials, “…what a cautious fellow I am”, Marion punches a smiling Indy, “shoot them both”, etc...

I could go on and on and I’ve surely missed some along the way. Every scene is packed with, if not riotous comedy, at least clever amusement. It’s just its comedy has timing, maturity and a grit to it. For lack of the right descriptors, it’s just plain BETTER. If Spielberg and Lucas in any way prefer the style of amusement of the later films to that of RAIDERS, they and I are simply not on the same page, and I have to say that I’m not much of a fan of their Indiana Jones, and this RAIDERS thing is mostly a fluke.

Anyway. If INDY V is really in the works, they could use some good villains for a change too. CRUSADE's most glaring flaw, IMO, and yet another thing which is pitch-perfect about RAIDERS.

I'll step down now. MHarkin's got the floor. (And hopefully with an exit in sight. ) Although if Loomis ever joins the convo, he might prove the to be the one supporting voice for the lad.

Yes, there's plenty more, even moments that can just put a smile on my face. I could go on and on too. But I want to quick-throw "Good evening Fraulein".

Gosh, and the melting faces, with the screams! LOL, that was hilarious! It still after 30 years, gets me cracking.

[bond 16.05.72]

I agree that Raiders is better than any one Bond film. I'm not sure that all of the first three aren't better than Bonds, to be honest. I think they're terrifically well-made.

I meant just Raiders is better than all the Bonds, the sequels are inferior but still better than say a good percentage of the Bond series, yes OHMSS, FRWL,TB are suoerior etc but the likes of YOLT, DAF, MR, VTAK and the Brosnans, I'd rather watch Temple and Crusade although Skull is worse than DAD.

[Harmsway]

Frank Marshall declares the INDY V rumors false via Twitter.

The rumor about INDY 5 is completely false. Nothing has changed, we are not shooting next year and still in the research phase...

[elizabeth]

Every time I go on the ride at Disneyland, I want to re-watch the movies, and I did, and they were as wicked as ever. I thought Skull was great, for the record. Hadn't seen Last Crusade in FOREVER, but now, having re-watched it, I think it is my favorite.

[jaguar007]

I agree with those that said Raiders is one of the most perfect films ever made and I don't expect any sequel to match up. However I would be up for another adventure as long as they bring a better game then they did with Indy 4. Ford's age was not a problem for me at all. The fact that they tried to make it look like a cross between a previous Indy adventure and a cheap 50's Sci Fi movie did not work. The lackluster action scenes and the overuse of CGI only made matters worse. Karen Allen's Marion Ravenwood in Raiders was easily the best female in the series, but she seemed to be playing a different character in KOTKS.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Frank Marshall declares the INDY V rumors false via Twitter.

The rumor about INDY 5 is completely false. Nothing has changed, we are not shooting next year and still in the research phase...

nuts...

[marktmurphy]

For example, Kennedy et.al. swore up and down that INDY IV would be CGI-free, and that they'd be doing "traditional" stunt work like they did in RAIDERS, and that turned out to be a lot of rubbish.

There's loads of good, traditional stunt work in KOTCS. Look at the entire Warehouse scene: you didn't see Ford sliding a storey down some chains or whipping down to a truck in Raiders. Even the (admittedly fake-looking) truck smashing through the crates is, in fact, done for real. The problem is that the stylised cinematography makes the film look faker than it actually is, and that the CGI stuff sticks in the mind more than the stunts. When you think of the Mutt/Spalko swordfight on the back of the jeeps do you think of the quite bad greenscreen stuff with the actors? Probably. But if you watch it again you'll see that there a couple of stuntmen in there doing it for real.

They also lied through their teeth when they denied that the movie had anything to do with Area 51, which we all know it did.

Heh! Did they? Ah well; I suppose it depends on how you take it: obviously it's just a white lie to save people from being spoiled. I wouldn't say that they're lying through their teeth; that sounds a bit accusational.

I have no desire to see anymore INDY films unless the following two things occur:

#1 George Lucas must remove himself from the creative process and have no decision making authority

No way; don't get me wrong: I think Lucas has made plenty of missteps in his time, but I've always thought that he's spot-on with Indy, as long as Spielberg's there to balance him. Lose Spiel and you get, well, Young Indy. Hmm. But Lucas' movie ideas -the ones that made it- have all been great. He's got to be involved.

#2 Harrison Ford needs to be replaced. He's too old for this role and his age is limiting the stories that can be told.

Nah: that's heresy. He's getting on, yes, but KOTCS was oddly the most physical he's been on screen as Indy, pretty much. He simply is Indy, and although time's running out, he can still do it.

[Loomis]

I think Lucas has made plenty of missteps in his time, but I've always thought that he's spot-on with Indy, as long as Spielberg's there to balance him. Lose Spiel and you get, well, Young Indy. Hmm. But Lucas' movie ideas -the ones that made it- have all been great. He's got to be involved.

I wouldn't even mind if Lucas directed the next one. I can't see him doing a worse job than Spielberg did on CRYSTAL SKULL, and I actually enjoyed two out of the three STAR WARS prequels. If Spielberg were to produce INDY 5, with Lucas directing, it might actually shake things up a bit.

Nah: that's heresy. He's getting on, yes, but KOTCS was oddly the most physical he's been on screen as Indy, pretty much. He simply is Indy, and although time's running out, he can still do it.

There are many things wrong with CRYSTAL SKULL, but Ford isn't one of them. Replacing him would be like casting someone other than Stallone as Rocky or Rambo - ridiculous. Ford is Indy! Not every role is like Bond and can be recast until the cows come home, y'know.

[Harmsway]

For example, Kennedy et.al. swore up and down that INDY IV would be CGI-free, and that they'd be doing "traditional" stunt work like they did in RAIDERS, and that turned out to be a lot of rubbish.

There's loads of good, traditional stunt work in KOTCS. Look at the entire Warehouse scene: you didn't see Ford sliding a storey down some chains or whipping down to a truck in Raiders. Even the (admittedly fake-looking) truck smashing through the crates is, in fact, done for real. The problem is that the stylised cinematography makes the film look faker than it actually is, and that the CGI stuff sticks in the mind more than the stunts. When you think of the Mutt/Spalko swordfight on the back of the jeeps do you think of the quite bad greenscreen stuff with the actors? Probably. But if you watch it again you'll see that there a couple of stuntmen in there doing it for real.

Spielberg has been pretty open about the fact that he started KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL wanting to do it all "old school." But the fact is that, unlike the previous three INDYs, KINGDOM wasn't meticulously storyboarded and planned. So as Spielberg was brainstorming on set, certain sequences changed a lot, and in order for Spielberg's changes to be accommodated, he turned to CGI.

But you're right that more about KINGDOM was "done for real" than seems in the finished product. Kaminski's pearl-o-vision cinematography gives everything an artificial sheen.

He's getting on, yes, but KOTCS was oddly the most physical he's been on screen as Indy, pretty much. He simply is Indy, and although time's running out, he can still do it.

Agreed. Nobody is Indiana Jones except Ford himself, and its his mannerisms that really are the character. Though I do think they should dial down his stunts a bit. There are a few moments in the Area 51 opener where Jones seems to be doing things that he shouldn't be. Ford can still be convincing as Dr. Jones, they just have to be a bit more accepting of his age.

He claims to have taken out the "offending parts" in order to get Steven and Harrison back on board.

Yup, he did. He toned down the aliens quite a bit. INDIANA JONES AND THE SAUCER MEN FROM MARS, his first stab at INDY IV, featured an airplane chase with saucers, among other things.

My problems occurred with stupid things like being blasted into the air inside a refrigerator and falling back down to earth and not even suffering a concussion or a broken bone.

I tired of pointing this out. You must not have read my previous contributions to this thread. The fridge was Spielberg's baby, not Lucas' (same with the groundhogs).

The earliest INDY V would come out would be 2012. Ford would be 70 years old. How can Ford not be too old to play Indiana Jones, but Roger Moore was too old to play James Bond at 57?

Bond and Indy are different characters.

[marktmurphy]

I wouldn't even mind if Lucas directed the next one. I can't see him doing a worse job than Spielberg did on CRYSTAL SKULL, and I actually enjoyed two out of the three STAR WARS prequels. If Spielberg were to produce INDY 5, with Lucas directing, it might actually shake things up a bit.

No; not for me: Lucas just ain't a film director anymore, judging from his Star Wars films. I don't think they function as movies on a really basic level: none of the characters are engaging in any way.
I wouldn't, however, hate the idea of another director doing it in prospect if SS really didn't want to. Someone like Joe Johnston or even JJ Abrams: he seems to be ken to become Spielberg. SS himself would have to be involved, though; and it wouldn't be as satisfying as having the original beard himself in the chair, though.

My problem with the CGI was that it was used for stunts where it wasn't absolutely necessary. CGI is now being used for things that were routine 15 years ago. Case in point: water flooding the alien tomb near the end of the film.

Some of it, yeah; but the water flooding was really pretty well done, and certainly more convincing than the flooding scenes in Temple of Doom which really did look fake!

Could not disagree more. Lucas is the odd man out in the Indy series. Ford and Spielberg fought and resisted the INDY 4 script against Lucas for years. I have some direct quotes from EMPIRE that I may post later, but Lucas makes it quite clear that Ford and Spielberg felt the original IV script(s) were "too connected" (presumably by tying up loose ends regarding characters previously seen in the series and introducing the Indy/Marion/child storyline) and didn't like his "McGuffin" (which I think included actual aliens, but I haven't read that version of the script in a while and I can't remember). He claims to have taken out the "offending parts" in order to get Steven and Harrison back on board.

Well, that's how the process works: the wilder ideas get thrown out in order to make a decent film through collaboration between the two of them. That's how it's always worked. Personally, I thought the aliens aspect, Area 51, all of that; made perfect sense for an Indy movie in the 50's. They're all good ideas, but the final product just wasn't quite taken to that polished stage enough before shooting, as the other ones were.

The earliest INDY V would come out would be 2012. Ford would be 70 years old. How can Ford not be too old to play Indiana Jones, but Roger Moore was too old to play James Bond at 57?

He's a man of action in the way Roger never was, even when he was young, and Indy is a different, more human character to Bond. If Connery could play Allan Quartermain in his 70s...

Spielberg has been pretty open about the fact that he started KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL wanting to do it all "old school." But the fact is that, unlike the previous three INDYs, KINGDOM wasn't meticulously storyboarded and planned. So as Spielberg was brainstorming on set, certain sequences changed a lot, and in order for Spielberg's changes to be accommodated, he turned to CGI.

Fair point; yes; that was a shame. I still really yearn for a more worked-out version of the Jungle chase- there was more they could have done there, not least used the jungle cutter. Imagine the various vehicles tearing up the different and intersecting paths created by an out-of-control cutter...

Agreed. Nobody is Indiana Jones except Ford himself, and its his mannerisms that really are the character. Though I do think they should dial down his stunts a bit. There are a few moments in the Area 51 opener where Jones seems to be doing things that he shouldn't be. Ford can still be convincing as Dr. Jones, they just have to be a bit more accepting of his age.

nah; no way- I love the way they didn't do the obvious (and tired) thing of 'I'm too old for this sh...' in it; nor did they even show him going to his cupboard and dusting off the hat for 'one final mission..': he was just Indiana Jones, same as he always was, if a little grumpier. I found that rather refreshing.
And Ford is doing those stunts: he does the full slide down the chains, and I'm not convinced that's not him doing the swinging on the whip stunt down to the trucks (albeit helped by wires, obviously). I'm happier to see him thrown in the action like that than sitting in a jeep firing a big gun like Rambo. That was fine for Rambo as he lives in a slightly more realistic world. Indy can still beat up a jeep full of soldiers; no problem.

[Harmsway]

I wouldn't, however, hate the idea of another director doing it in prospect if SS really didn't want to. Someone like Joe Johnston or even JJ Abrams: he seems to be ken to become Spielberg.

Johnston or Abrams? Ew. Keep 'em both far, far away from Indy, please. The first is a real second-rater, and as of yet, Abrams hasn't learned how to bring a real sense of scope to his cinematic endeavors.

It's interesting to note, though, that Spielberg, for a while, thought that he wouldn't direct INDY IV, and that somebody else would fill in the director's chair.

They're all good ideas, but the final product just wasn't quite taken to that polished stage enough before shooting, as the other ones were.

Arguably the two drafts we have, SAUCER MEN and CITY OF THE GODS are more effective than Koepp's eventual mess (they at least have energy; Koepp's draft is a real slog). That KINGDOM was more or less made up as they went along with it really didn't help things.

nah; no way- I love the way they didn't do the obvious (and tired) thing of 'I'm too old for this sh...' in it; nor did they even show him going to his cupboard and dusting off the hat for 'one final mission..': he was just Indiana Jones, same as he always was, if a little grumpier. I found that rather refreshing.

Well, I found some of the stuntwork in the Area 51 sequence a little beyond the stunts for the other films. All the leaping about with the whip and jumping was a bit, well, cartoonish in a way that Jones' actions in the previous film wasn't.

But I still buy him in a fight scene. Frankly, I wish we'd seen more of Indy in action in KINGDOM. Beyond the teaser, the focus seemed to move to Mutt more than Indy, and I thought that a bit of a shame.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Well, I found some of the stuntwork in the Area 51 sequence a little beyond the stunts for the other films. All the leaping about with the whip and jumping was a bit, well, cartoonish in a way that Jones' actions in the previous film wasn't.

My favourite part of the whole film. The physicality displayed here (through Ford!) is great. I love how the first few scenes fool the audience into believing he is just an old grump who is too old for this and the next instant completely shifts gears with all cylinders firing. It's like they threw that in their first thing to silence the non believers.

But I still buy him in a fight scene. Frankly, I wish we'd seen more of Indy in action in KINGDOM. Beyond the teaser, the focus seemed to move to Mutt more than Indy, and I thought that a bit of a shame.

The question is, how long can Ford get himself in the same shape he was in 2008 for a hypothetical Indy V? I think we are running out of time and I'd say 2011 is probably their last chance to shoot with Ford as a physically convincing lead character.

[bondrules]

I wouldn't even mind if Lucas directed the next one. I can't see him doing a worse job than Spielberg did on CRYSTAL SKULL, and I actually enjoyed two out of the three STAR WARS prequels. If Spielberg were to produce INDY 5, with Lucas directing, it might actually shake things up a bit.

No; not for me: Lucas just ain't a film director anymore, judging from his Star Wars films. I don't think they function as movies on a really basic level: none of the characters are engaging in any way.
I wouldn't, however, hate the idea of another director doing it in prospect if SS really didn't want to. Someone like Joe Johnston or even JJ Abrams: he seems to be ken to become Spielberg. SS himself would have to be involved, though; and it wouldn't be as satisfying as having the original beard himself in the chair, though.

My problem with the CGI was that it was used for stunts where it wasn't absolutely necessary. CGI is now being used for things that were routine 15 years ago. Case in point: water flooding the alien tomb near the end of the film.

Some of it, yeah; but the water flooding was really pretty well done, and certainly more convincing than the flooding scenes in Temple of Doom which really did look fake!

Could not disagree more. Lucas is the odd man out in the Indy series. Ford and Spielberg fought and resisted the INDY 4 script against Lucas for years. I have some direct quotes from EMPIRE that I may post later, but Lucas makes it quite clear that Ford and Spielberg felt the original IV script(s) were "too connected" (presumably by tying up loose ends regarding characters previously seen in the series and introducing the Indy/Marion/child storyline) and didn't like his "McGuffin" (which I think included actual aliens, but I haven't read that version of the script in a while and I can't remember). He claims to have taken out the "offending parts" in order to get Steven and Harrison back on board.

Well, that's how the process works: the wilder ideas get thrown out in order to make a decent film through collaboration between the two of them. That's how it's always worked. Personally, I thought the aliens aspect, Area 51, all of that; made perfect sense for an Indy movie in the 50's. They're all good ideas, but the final product just wasn't quite taken to that polished stage enough before shooting, as the other ones were.

The earliest INDY V would come out would be 2012. Ford would be 70 years old. How can Ford not be too old to play Indiana Jones, but Roger Moore was too old to play James Bond at 57?

He's a man of action in the way Roger never was, even when he was young, and Indy is a different, more human character to Bond. If Connery could play Allan Quartermain in his 70s...

Spielberg has been pretty open about the fact that he started KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL wanting to do it all "old school." But the fact is that, unlike the previous three INDYs, KINGDOM wasn't meticulously storyboarded and planned. So as Spielberg was brainstorming on set, certain sequences changed a lot, and in order for Spielberg's changes to be accommodated, he turned to CGI.

Fair point; yes; that was a shame. I still really yearn for a more worked-out version of the Jungle chase- there was more they could have done there, not least used the jungle cutter. Imagine the various vehicles tearing up the different and intersecting paths created by an out-of-control cutter...

Agreed. Nobody is Indiana Jones except Ford himself, and its his mannerisms that really are the character. Though I do think they should dial down his stunts a bit. There are a few moments in the Area 51 opener where Jones seems to be doing things that he shouldn't be. Ford can still be convincing as Dr. Jones, they just have to be a bit more accepting of his age.

nah; no way- I love the way they didn't do the obvious (and tired) thing of 'I'm too old for this sh...' in it; nor did they even show him going to his cupboard and dusting off the hat for 'one final mission..': he was just Indiana Jones, same as he always was, if a little grumpier. I found that rather refreshing.
And Ford is doing those stunts: he does the full slide down the chains, and I'm not convinced that's not him doing the swinging on the whip stunt down to the trucks (albeit helped by wires, obviously). I'm happier to see him thrown in the action like that than sitting in a jeep firing a big gun like Rambo. That was fine for Rambo as he lives in a slightly more realistic world. Indy can still beat up a jeep full of soldiers; no problem.

I don't like JJ Abraham near Indy. That guy has to be right now the most overrated director/writer/producer/whatever n Hollywood.

[marktmurphy]

I wouldn't, however, hate the idea of another director doing it in prospect if SS really didn't want to. Someone like Joe Johnston or even JJ Abrams: he seems to be ken to become Spielberg.

Johnston or Abrams? Ew. Keep 'em both far, far away from Indy, please. The first is a real second-rater, and as of yet, Abrams hasn't learned how to bring a real sense of scope to his cinematic endeavors.

Yeah I'm not convinced either, but they have the right sensibility; the right tone. I think Abrams might improve too; Star Trek was an excellent blockbuster (one of the most impressive things about it is that the climax is pretty much the most exciting part: blockbusters have forgotten how to do that recently)- a huge step up from MI3, and him and SS are working on this Close Encounters-style thing I forget the name of. They're both bland compared to SS, of course.
Maybe Favreau? He's got wit, which Indy needs. I'm not 100% convinced by his action sequences, but he can do them. Perhaps SS can even convince his mate Jackson to have a crack at the whip: he used to show a sense of humour before the Rings came along.
I think anyone that does it either needs to possess or grow a beard to do it, though.

Arguably the two drafts we have, SAUCER MEN and CITY OF THE GODS are more effective than Koepp's eventual mess (they at least have energy; Koepp's draft is a real slog). That KINGDOM was more or less made up as they went along with it really didn't help things.

I still haven't finished Saucermen for some reason, but I get less convinced by City: it's not a finished product at all (although it doesn't proclaim to be, of course) and I think that the trekking bit would have been rather episodic and may have dragged. And the action in it is really cartoonish. There are some great bits in it, though: a combination of it and KOTCS would have been the right Indy 4, I think.

Well, I found some of the stuntwork in the Area 51 sequence a little beyond the stunts for the other films. All the leaping about with the whip and jumping was a bit, well, cartoonish in a way that Jones' actions in the previous film wasn't.

Fair point; I didn't mind it, though.

But I still buy him in a fight scene. Frankly, I wish we'd seen more of Indy in action in KINGDOM. Beyond the teaser, the focus seemed to move to Mutt more than Indy, and I thought that a bit of a shame.

Yes, a little; that's true. The main crime was in relegating him to driving a jeep in the jungle chase: he should have been the one caught up in the vines. I'd have had him swinging onto the jungle cutter and taking control of it- then have him burst through the treeline in it to save Mutt and Marion as they're being forced off the edge of the cliff. Fist fights ensue, naturally.

[Harmsway]

I think Abrams might improve too; Star Trek was an excellent blockbuster (one of the most impressive things about it is that the climax is pretty much the most exciting part: blockbusters have forgotten how to do that recently)- a huge step up from MI3, and him and SS are working on this Close Encounters-style thing I forget the name of.

You and I will have to disagree. I thought STAR TREK was nothing special, and thought the climax the weakest stretch of the film.

Perhaps SS can even convince his mate Jackson to have a crack at the whip: he used to show a sense of humour before the Rings came along.

Not a terrible idea. Now that he's off THE HOBBIT, how about Guillermo Del Toro?

[Royal Dalton]

I wouldn't object to another director. Spielly was only supposed to direct the first two films, anyway. I doubt it'll ever happen, though.

[Harmsway]

I doubt it'll ever happen, though.

Me too. And I suspect INDY V won't ever really come together, either.

[bondrules]

I doubt it'll ever happen, though.

Me too. And I suspect INDY V won't ever really come together, either.

It's for the best. Let Indy live in our minds and hearts. For me rewatching Raiders is satisfying enough. Last Crusade, although far below in every aspect, it's still a movie I cherish. For every 7 Raiders rewatches I do one Last Crusade. It's all I need.

[elizabeth]

It's for the best. Let Indy live in our minds and hearts. For me rewatching Raiders is satisfying enough. Last Crusade, although far below in every aspect, it's still a movie I cherish. For every 7 Raiders rewatches I do one Last Crusade. It's all I need.

I agree. While I enjoyed KOTCS, the old ones are the best. And I love Last Crusade.