It’s a fair question. And it’s not the same question as “Do we need another Indiana Jones movie?”, which we discussed last week with the Matrix set photos.
Who is Indiana Jones 5 being made for?
It’s been 12 years since the last film. My youngest son has never had the opportunity to see an Indiana Jones movie in the theater, and my oldest son was too young to do when Crystal Skull came out. While they like the Indy movies, they do not have the attachment to them that I do. They do feel strongly about the character the way I do.
When I asked them both about their feelings at the announcement of another, they shrugged.
So it’s not for them. Is it for me?
Well, with all due respect to James Mangold, whose work I often like a lot, I don’t think I care at all about an Indy movie that’s not directed by Steven Spielberg. As much as Harrison Ford is Indy, so is Steven Spielberg. The films are some of the purest expressions of his directorial wit, some of the most exciting expressions of the way he stages and blocks action scenes, and a place where he has been able to cut loose in different ways each time. They are shot through with his personality and identity. The first one is so hungry, such a “fuck you, watch me rip” announcement from a guy coming off his first big flop, and it doesn’t make a single misstep. The second one is the divorce movie for both him and Lucas, the movie made in the shadow of the Twilight Zone tragedy, the dark movie where Spielberg pushed all that stuff out and the result is this wackadoo nightmare machine. The third one is all about movie star chemistry, the simple pleasure of sitting back and watching Ford and Connery wisecrack their way around the world.
And since there were only three movies, we’ll leave it at that.
My point is that I don’t think of Indy the same way I think of James Bond. I know… Indy is literally Spielberg’s reaction to being told he couldn’t make Bond movies, but he has been the sole director for the character on the big screen, and those films aren’t just generic adventure movies. Replacing him makes them something else entirely, and while I’m sure there’s money to be made, I don’t think my emotional connection continues in the same way, and that makes me ask again…
Who is the film for?
Is it because Harrison Ford has something he desperately wants to say with the character?
Let’s be honest. Probably not.
They’ve gone through a fistful of screenwriters, so it’s not like someone came in with a story that was just burning a hole in them. I’ve read through so many Indy films that didn’t happen over the years that it’s fascinating to me to watch them keep trying. They are all clearly trying to recapture something, and in missing the mark, they all point out just how hard it is to hit that mark.
Raiders of the Lost Ark remains one of the perfect movies, a film that works so much better as a whole than any of its component pieces suggests might be possible that it feels like magic. No one is ever going to recapture that magic, including Spielberg, because that’s the way magic works. It is possible to both enjoy some film series and acknowledge that sequels are a weird artistic proposition in every way because you’re trying to recapture so many elements at the same time. It’s not like with a book series, where there’s one voice. You’ve got the actors, the score, the cinematography, the script, the direction, the editing… everything combining to make that thing that rings everyone’s bell so incredibly hard. And even if you bring all of those same people back to do those same jobs… there’s no guarantee it will deliver anything like the same experience.
I don’t have any strong feelings about them making this film one way or another. If they do, I’ll see it. And if I know James Mangold, he’ll probably make something good that people enjoy. And if it turns into a development process that doesn’t end up being a film, fine. I won’t feel like we’ve lost something. Either way, it just doesn’t feel urgent to me, and that’s because of how very particular the appeal of Indy is.
Here’s my other big question: when are they going to set it? If they follow the same jump forward that we’ve had in real life, they could end up making a movie set in the ‘70s.
Does Indiana Jones work in the ‘70s?
It’s a lot to contemplate. Tell me what else you have on your mind. As always, this is the Saturday Free-For-All, which means anyone can post a response, whether they are subscribed to the newsletter or not, and you guys are welcome to bring up anything you’re watching or that you’ve got on your mind, and since we’re starting to see the same people here each week, let’s introduce ourselves a little more. Whatever else you want to talk about, what’s your favorite of the Indy movies, and why?
Those are all fair points on this week’s Indiana Jones’s news, and I agree with everything you’re saying on it being as much Spielberg’s character as Harrison Ford’s. I wonder if Mangold taking on the film will be him scratching an itch with making this type of adventure film he’s never really done before, or maybe it becomes something like “Logan” for the character. He’s one of those filmmakers I’ve become really excited by the past decade-plus since “3:10 to Yuma,” so while I’m not AS excited about the film with it not coming from Spielberg, I have my interest in it because of Mangold, and I’m curious now what Spielberg will follow-up “West Side Story” with.
As for more general discussion, I’ve been covering the Women in Horror Film Festival just North of Atlanta this week- it’s been great seeing the different ways female voices approach the genre, and how people write differently for female characters in that context. A few pretty great movies, some decent, some not good, but loved the weekend. They also had Heather Langenkamp there with a short film she made called “Washed Away,” which was really lovely, and they presented Amanda Wyss with a special award for her contributions to women in horror, and the industry.
Great piece, Drew. I feel the same way. Raiders came out when I was 10 years old, and it has forever been my perfect movie. The news that Spielberg was leaving the project really hit me hard, because I always got the feeling that HE wanted to cap off the series with something more satisfying than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
But if he feels he can't deliver that, then I'm worried for the movie. Maybe without Lucas he feels it's best to let it die. Maybe he's tired of the Disney machine, too. Maybe he's just tired, of the BS surrounding "having" to make this film in the first place.
I am hopeful that Mangold can bring the Ford era of Indy to a satisfying conclusion. We're going to get this movie one way or another - Disney will not let it just die. We can only hope that Mangold will respect the character and not just deliver a "wink wink" film.
I hope with this pressure off, Spielberg can focus on making West Side Story the absolute best it can be. WSS isn't a film I've been particularly excited for, but it has been a passion project for Spielberg for decades, so I'll see it because when he's invested, no one can beat Spielberg.
One problem I had with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was the cinematography. Janusz Kamiński is an amazing artist, but the feel of KOTCS didn't seem right to me. It was just off. Douglas Slocombe's camera fit Indy so well, so without Spielberg, I'm interested to see who will work with Mangold on Indy 5.
Now, will John Williams leave the series because of this, too? I really had hoped for that one last gem of a collaboration between Spielberg, Ford and Williams . I had hoped Lucas and Kasdan would be involved, too. alas... Sadly, we may not have many more Spielberg/Williams collaborations to look forward to, definitely not in this realm of adventure. Again... another gem we might not receive.
I think the idea to approach Mangold implies they're looking to turn Indy 5 into a kind of Logan-esque take on the character, if that makes sense, which could be kind of great? Indy coming to terms with the world he's leaving behind and trying to leave someone else in a position to succeed where he may have failed, even at the potential cost of his own life.
Obviously this would mark it as a much more serious film than Crystal Skull (which I maintain is not as bad as its reputation suggests), but it would also place it much more in line with the original trilogy, serve as a fitting capstone to the franchise (not that it needs one) and basically give Disney yet another excuse to print money. I dunno.
I'm honestly glad Spielberg seems to have stepped away, and I'd rather see Mangold do whatever he wants to do next (supposedly a Bob Dylan biopic with Timothee Chalamet), but if this is something Disney's insistent on making I find it hard to believe it won't get made at some point. Hell, the floor on the worldwide gross for this has got to be at least $1 billion. Who turns that down?
Anyway, do we think Spielberg's announcement that he's stepping away from this has anything to do with Iger stepping down as CEO? Or am I just a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut?
This pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about Indy 5 without Spielberg. I’m not all that interested and I don’t really get the sense anybody else (in terms of the actual players) are. Beyond the IP, you take out one of the main ingredients and it’s just kind of a big shrug.
In other news, I decided to try and push the boundaries of my nerdom/free time for the short month and watch a movie every day. As of now, I’m at 31, so hoo fucking rah! I share this because it’s one of a few places where someone may get it. I’m still not at Drew numbers though!
I’m not sure who this is for either. I don’t think we need it but we may be getting it anyway.
Honestly Spielberg being off this is not a big deal for me. Maybe Mangold can give, what I presume to be THE final Harrison Ford as Indy movie, like he did for Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine. Let’s send Indy off on a high note and out it to rest.
Part of what made Raiders transcendent was what it was when it was. Nobody had taken that tone, that style, and tried to elevate it and turbo charge it. It blasted you with a wave of pure, infectious energy laced with nostalgia for something you never knew was good to begin with. The first time through that looking glass is always going to have the surprise of the new, and never again.
I actually think James Mangold is a nice choice to direct it. I'm sure it won't be as great as something like Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is a movie I would watch once a day if I chose, but I still think it could be a really good and interesting adventure film. If you look at his last two films, Logan and Ford v Ferrari, Mangold has focused on telling stories about manly men, but he's also looked at the softer, more vulnerable sides to them, whether it's Logan bonding with X-23 or Ken Miles's relationship with his wife and child. I don't want this movie to go full Logan, but I'd be up for seeing a more vulnerable, bruised Indiana Jones that we haven't really seen before.
I'm in the minority on this one in that (1) I welcome additional Indy movies; and (2) I actually am more optimistic about then without Spielberg. I know that's blasphemy, but it was clear with Crystal Skull that Spielberg may love the character, but his heart wasn't in making another great Indy movie. Remember, the whole point of Raiders was to recapture the old serials and make them fun, and they nailed it (Raiders is a top-five movie for me, and far superior to all the sequels). I think it's OK to move on both with a new director and a new actor cracking the whip. That feels in the spirit of the original to me. There will be some misfires and outright duds, but if/when they get it right, Indiana Jones remains magic. There are plenty of properties I have no interest in seeing again, but Indy? Let's have fun with it. I'm neutral/positive on Mangold, but my fantasy Indy director is Christopher McQuarrie. His Mission Impossible movies have come as close as any action films have to capturing that relentless, propulsive tone that made Raiders so special. Give me McQuarrie with Bradley Cooper, Chris Pine or Chris Evans under the fedora, and let's have a great time at the movies again. We can do that and still appreciate Spielberg and Ford for giving us one of the few perfect movies that has ever been made, can't we?
RE: Indy, yeah I can't really get too worked up about it, at least with what we know about it so far. But I can say I probably would prefer a new director/writer team at this point. Someone who could treat the lore/franchise with the same respect Filoni and Favreau treat Star Wars.
I've had limited media time last couple weeks, but I am thoroughly enjoying the return of Better Call Saul so far. Such a GD perfect show. Also will try to sneak out to see Invisible Man tomorrow, since it seems that's going to be right up my alley.
Also, can we ge a Dune 2020 trailer already? :) Dying to get a taste.
I agree about the magic of the first film. They've never quite gotten the elements exactly right since then, and I feel like they have actually gotten farther away each time. Indy without Spielberg though, I'm not sure it's something we need. What's amazing to me is that so many great properties ferrin that errs were created in response to rejection. But in today's IP glut it feels like there's a potential franchise for everyone, so we don't get that same desperate creativity.
I'm dying to know what is that famous take of yours of a future Indiana Jones story, but I suspect you ain't giving that up. :P Anyway, I always loved Last Crusade the most of the three (yeah, let's pretend the other one doesn't exist), most probably for that exact Connery-Ford chemistry.
I like Mangold, and I would watch his Indy, hoping he would go the Blade Runner way and have Indiana Jones as the lost-from-the-world Luke Skywalker-like figure that another up-and-coming archaeologist comes to rediscover.
Raiders is my nostalgic favorite, saw that when it was originally released as a kid and was pretty much traumatized by the ending.
Temple of Doom is kind of my top pick though. I remember walking out of the theater in awe of everything I’d just seen. Chilled monkey brains? That was the perfect movie for my 13-year-old self.
I did not make it through the rest of Hunters after I was told what happens by the season's end, so I spent this week rewatching Fletch, Raising Arizona, the first couple episodes to the Sopranos
Awesome post sir. And, interestingly enough, the title about "whos film is it" was a mantra i adopted after seeing The Rise of Skywalker.....
{topic digression in 5.....4.......3.....2........
Im not gonna take us too far off topic here but the gist of it is: i really didnt like alot of choices they made in Star Wars IX: TRoS. Pretty much most choices. I understand why they made them and i know they served the story that they wanted to tell (or, rather, re-tell. #Return-o-Jedi-reboot), but i didnt like them. I was also self aware enough to realize that alot of haters of Last Jedi (which i am not. i dig it) were equally bummed about choices in that flick. So...to my point...at the end of the day a tweet about how a dad didnt like the flick but his kid loved it resonated with me. Who is the movie for. Its supposed to be for all of us. And when something excels and managed to blow everyone away, its a huge win (looking at you Endgame). But those kind of movies are few and very far between. In the case of IX...i really wish i liked their choices more..but i also know there's alot of folks who did...and theres alot of new viewers who love em. So maybe i need to step back and embrace the stuff i love and let others do the same.....
{..back on topic....
Raiders 5 is tricky for me to comprehend. Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. I dont reallly want him to pass the torch or them to reboot. Obviously they will...Franchise = Money. But I want my Raiders flicks to be about Indy. Harrison is getting up there in age. Dont get me wrong, he looks great and still has his chops big time..but he's up there. So the writers/director will have to find a story that is original, entertaining, action based, but accounting for a far older indy. Thats not impossible. But its tough. And, as mentioned, they've got the weight of literally one of the greatest movies EVER made on their shoulders (#Fact). Its tricky. Indy 4 was not good BUT i honestly feel it had so many pieces and concepts that could have been....for me it missed out on the flow of a good flick and felt like forced setpieces pastiched together. Indy 5 needs to find a way to weave a fun, creative, original, entertaining story with limitations of age. Its tricky.
At the end of the day, as an absolute fan of Indy, im not opposed to one more outing. Im actually intrigued by the challenge of it. Ill be there opening day. But one thing will be different. Ill be there with my kid. And when the credits roll, regardless of what i thought, my first and foremost thought and comment will be...."what did you think son?". I hope he will dig it. Cuz maybe it will be something like when i first saw Raiders in the theater opening weekend...and it will change his movie watching world forever. Just maybe.
I saw it for the first time at summer camp in ’84. I was ten, and this was my first trip to a real-deal, two week sleepaway camp. It was an all-boys’ camp, and the counselors chose Raiders for our weekend movie night. Bless ‘em. They blew our minds that night.
This summer camp was held in Rome, Georgia on the campus of what was once the academy at Berry College, which is comprised of these big, beautiful English Gothic buildings of stone and concrete. (You can google ‘Berry College architecture’ and get a good idea of what I’m talking about from the images there.) We had movie night in the common room of one of the old dorms there, a dark affair with 20-foot ceilings and enormous wrought iron chandeliers and a huge stone fireplace. It was like watching the movie in one of its own locations, and wow, did it cast a spell.
And the movie itself… Drew’s dead on when he calls it perfect. It touches on every genre of film, from slapstick to splatter; features a peerless cast, brilliantly directed and gorgeously photographed; is as joyous and breathless and propulsive as anything I’ve ever seen; and somehow makes it all seem so effortless. Raiders of the Lost Ark is my entertainment ideal.
Indy once told marion, they don't know what they got there. I say the same to hollywood, lightning cannot be captured in a bottle twice, only the illusion that it has. As many times as you try it just won't be. Raiders captured a moment in time that can never be duplicated again for as hard as you try. So hollywood please, i beg of you, can you please just let it be?
Indy 5 isn't meant to be watched by anyone. It's made by Disney for Disney's shareholders. It's sad that Spielberg won't be back to direct. Maybe audiences still haven't forgiven him for the Crystal Skull. But Indy is now just another Disney franchise. Indy 6 will be released exclusively as a range of fragrances. Indy 7 as a Happy Meal toy.
Was trying to figure out why I also was having a hard time comparing the Indy franchise to Bond, and assumed it’s because Ford is so indelibly Indy. But I think you’re closer to the truth here. It’s actually hard to think of a franchise as inextricably linked with a Single director (and producer) as this one. When we talk about the history of the movies (at least amongst movie nerds) it’s always Spielberg & Lucas who are at the centre of the narrative, not even the Biggest Movie Star in the World (back in the day, at any rate). MI is always about Cruise and his latest director. Bond is about who the Broccolis have chosen next. Star Wars... who the fuck knows, at this point. The MCU is too big — even with Feige at the top, each movie’s director and star are the big draws. Does anybody, even regular civilians, nor think of Indy as a Spielberg franchise?
That being said, the answer to “who is made for” is the same as any sequel — the folks who think they can squeeze more gold out of the goose. I wonder if even Spielberg still has the juice to put the kibosh on it if he wanted to. If there’s a JAWS remake, we’ll know the answer...
It was made known earlier that Indy 5 will take place in the 60's which makes sense, around 10 yrs from Crystal Skulls. Speilberg is said to be a "hands on" producer with Mangold directing. Have always had the feeling that they wanted to make one more Indy to end the character satisfying the original fans in a way that crystal skulls did not.
I was having this same conversation with friends last night. Indy was born in 1899, which means going by Harrison's real age the new movie should be set in 1977. Will there be a scene of him watching Star Wars? Also, what kind of artifact will he be going after that makes sense for the 70s? The alien thing in Crystal Skull sort of makes sense for a movie set in the 50s as it riffs on alien B movies of the era, but the 70s feels out of sync with the serial roots of this series. Something involving the Bermuda Triangle maybe? That feels kinda appropriate for that time period. But still, it feels weird for this character to be so far removed from the 1930s. And with Lucas and Spielberg not involved, why even bother?
Isn’t it time to let the eighties go now and look forward? Make 2020 things? But I guess everything already has to be an IP before it gets made?
Watched “I am not okay with this” and though,t this is is an 80s movie with all the Rubik’s cube ,tapedecks and record players but mixed with USB drives and cellphones and flatscreen TVs. Kids listening to 30-40 year old music just because the screenwriters and directors likes it, while in the real world I have to explain to a 30 year old who Howard Jones is.
He can channel Last-Crusade Connery as a thesis advisor. Twitter thread by author Max Gladstone spells it out (though I'd make it set in the 70s w/o the drinking-from-the-holy-Grail bit). Gladstone doesn't name it, but I'd call it: "Indiana Jones and the Final Defense" (thesis defense, get it!):
Dissenting opinion here: Indy, the character, is amazing. I'm not sure they have ever made a perfect Indy film yet, though. (Dissenting to my dissent: I might simply be too jaded and too modern at this point to appreciate the original two! The third is just fun, and doesn't have the same manic energy as the first two.) Mangold might be able to do it, yes, but your original question still stands: Whose film IS Indiana Jones? And the corollary: Who is this new Indy film going to be made FOR?
I believe that this is just another example of studio's being afraid of taking a chance. I know it's a business of making money, but there is a million stories out there waiting to be told. Do we need another Indy? Hell no! Will I see it? Hell yes? Hahaha. I just watched the remake Conan the Barbarian. While Marcus Nispel gave me a movie I enjoyed, there is so much missed opportunity. The magic of the original wasn't even acknowledged. I wondered to myself while watching it, imagine what a genre director like Joe Lynch could have done.
Those are all fair points on this week’s Indiana Jones’s news, and I agree with everything you’re saying on it being as much Spielberg’s character as Harrison Ford’s. I wonder if Mangold taking on the film will be him scratching an itch with making this type of adventure film he’s never really done before, or maybe it becomes something like “Logan” for the character. He’s one of those filmmakers I’ve become really excited by the past decade-plus since “3:10 to Yuma,” so while I’m not AS excited about the film with it not coming from Spielberg, I have my interest in it because of Mangold, and I’m curious now what Spielberg will follow-up “West Side Story” with.
As for more general discussion, I’ve been covering the Women in Horror Film Festival just North of Atlanta this week- it’s been great seeing the different ways female voices approach the genre, and how people write differently for female characters in that context. A few pretty great movies, some decent, some not good, but loved the weekend. They also had Heather Langenkamp there with a short film she made called “Washed Away,” which was really lovely, and they presented Amanda Wyss with a special award for her contributions to women in horror, and the industry.
Great piece, Drew. I feel the same way. Raiders came out when I was 10 years old, and it has forever been my perfect movie. The news that Spielberg was leaving the project really hit me hard, because I always got the feeling that HE wanted to cap off the series with something more satisfying than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
But if he feels he can't deliver that, then I'm worried for the movie. Maybe without Lucas he feels it's best to let it die. Maybe he's tired of the Disney machine, too. Maybe he's just tired, of the BS surrounding "having" to make this film in the first place.
I am hopeful that Mangold can bring the Ford era of Indy to a satisfying conclusion. We're going to get this movie one way or another - Disney will not let it just die. We can only hope that Mangold will respect the character and not just deliver a "wink wink" film.
I hope with this pressure off, Spielberg can focus on making West Side Story the absolute best it can be. WSS isn't a film I've been particularly excited for, but it has been a passion project for Spielberg for decades, so I'll see it because when he's invested, no one can beat Spielberg.
One problem I had with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was the cinematography. Janusz Kamiński is an amazing artist, but the feel of KOTCS didn't seem right to me. It was just off. Douglas Slocombe's camera fit Indy so well, so without Spielberg, I'm interested to see who will work with Mangold on Indy 5.
Now, will John Williams leave the series because of this, too? I really had hoped for that one last gem of a collaboration between Spielberg, Ford and Williams . I had hoped Lucas and Kasdan would be involved, too. alas... Sadly, we may not have many more Spielberg/Williams collaborations to look forward to, definitely not in this realm of adventure. Again... another gem we might not receive.
I think the idea to approach Mangold implies they're looking to turn Indy 5 into a kind of Logan-esque take on the character, if that makes sense, which could be kind of great? Indy coming to terms with the world he's leaving behind and trying to leave someone else in a position to succeed where he may have failed, even at the potential cost of his own life.
Obviously this would mark it as a much more serious film than Crystal Skull (which I maintain is not as bad as its reputation suggests), but it would also place it much more in line with the original trilogy, serve as a fitting capstone to the franchise (not that it needs one) and basically give Disney yet another excuse to print money. I dunno.
I'm honestly glad Spielberg seems to have stepped away, and I'd rather see Mangold do whatever he wants to do next (supposedly a Bob Dylan biopic with Timothee Chalamet), but if this is something Disney's insistent on making I find it hard to believe it won't get made at some point. Hell, the floor on the worldwide gross for this has got to be at least $1 billion. Who turns that down?
Anyway, do we think Spielberg's announcement that he's stepping away from this has anything to do with Iger stepping down as CEO? Or am I just a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut?
This pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about Indy 5 without Spielberg. I’m not all that interested and I don’t really get the sense anybody else (in terms of the actual players) are. Beyond the IP, you take out one of the main ingredients and it’s just kind of a big shrug.
In other news, I decided to try and push the boundaries of my nerdom/free time for the short month and watch a movie every day. As of now, I’m at 31, so hoo fucking rah! I share this because it’s one of a few places where someone may get it. I’m still not at Drew numbers though!
I’m not sure who this is for either. I don’t think we need it but we may be getting it anyway.
Honestly Spielberg being off this is not a big deal for me. Maybe Mangold can give, what I presume to be THE final Harrison Ford as Indy movie, like he did for Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine. Let’s send Indy off on a high note and out it to rest.
Then Disney can reboot the whole damn thing.
C’est la vie!
Part of what made Raiders transcendent was what it was when it was. Nobody had taken that tone, that style, and tried to elevate it and turbo charge it. It blasted you with a wave of pure, infectious energy laced with nostalgia for something you never knew was good to begin with. The first time through that looking glass is always going to have the surprise of the new, and never again.
“And since there were only three movies, we’ll leave it at that.” Made me titter Drew. A TOL if you will. Great writing as always. Thanks
I actually think James Mangold is a nice choice to direct it. I'm sure it won't be as great as something like Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is a movie I would watch once a day if I chose, but I still think it could be a really good and interesting adventure film. If you look at his last two films, Logan and Ford v Ferrari, Mangold has focused on telling stories about manly men, but he's also looked at the softer, more vulnerable sides to them, whether it's Logan bonding with X-23 or Ken Miles's relationship with his wife and child. I don't want this movie to go full Logan, but I'd be up for seeing a more vulnerable, bruised Indiana Jones that we haven't really seen before.
I'm in the minority on this one in that (1) I welcome additional Indy movies; and (2) I actually am more optimistic about then without Spielberg. I know that's blasphemy, but it was clear with Crystal Skull that Spielberg may love the character, but his heart wasn't in making another great Indy movie. Remember, the whole point of Raiders was to recapture the old serials and make them fun, and they nailed it (Raiders is a top-five movie for me, and far superior to all the sequels). I think it's OK to move on both with a new director and a new actor cracking the whip. That feels in the spirit of the original to me. There will be some misfires and outright duds, but if/when they get it right, Indiana Jones remains magic. There are plenty of properties I have no interest in seeing again, but Indy? Let's have fun with it. I'm neutral/positive on Mangold, but my fantasy Indy director is Christopher McQuarrie. His Mission Impossible movies have come as close as any action films have to capturing that relentless, propulsive tone that made Raiders so special. Give me McQuarrie with Bradley Cooper, Chris Pine or Chris Evans under the fedora, and let's have a great time at the movies again. We can do that and still appreciate Spielberg and Ford for giving us one of the few perfect movies that has ever been made, can't we?
RE: Indy, yeah I can't really get too worked up about it, at least with what we know about it so far. But I can say I probably would prefer a new director/writer team at this point. Someone who could treat the lore/franchise with the same respect Filoni and Favreau treat Star Wars.
I've had limited media time last couple weeks, but I am thoroughly enjoying the return of Better Call Saul so far. Such a GD perfect show. Also will try to sneak out to see Invisible Man tomorrow, since it seems that's going to be right up my alley.
Also, can we ge a Dune 2020 trailer already? :) Dying to get a taste.
I agree about the magic of the first film. They've never quite gotten the elements exactly right since then, and I feel like they have actually gotten farther away each time. Indy without Spielberg though, I'm not sure it's something we need. What's amazing to me is that so many great properties ferrin that errs were created in response to rejection. But in today's IP glut it feels like there's a potential franchise for everyone, so we don't get that same desperate creativity.
I'm dying to know what is that famous take of yours of a future Indiana Jones story, but I suspect you ain't giving that up. :P Anyway, I always loved Last Crusade the most of the three (yeah, let's pretend the other one doesn't exist), most probably for that exact Connery-Ford chemistry.
I like Mangold, and I would watch his Indy, hoping he would go the Blade Runner way and have Indiana Jones as the lost-from-the-world Luke Skywalker-like figure that another up-and-coming archaeologist comes to rediscover.
Raiders is my nostalgic favorite, saw that when it was originally released as a kid and was pretty much traumatized by the ending.
Temple of Doom is kind of my top pick though. I remember walking out of the theater in awe of everything I’d just seen. Chilled monkey brains? That was the perfect movie for my 13-year-old self.
I did not make it through the rest of Hunters after I was told what happens by the season's end, so I spent this week rewatching Fletch, Raising Arizona, the first couple episodes to the Sopranos
Awesome post sir. And, interestingly enough, the title about "whos film is it" was a mantra i adopted after seeing The Rise of Skywalker.....
{topic digression in 5.....4.......3.....2........
Im not gonna take us too far off topic here but the gist of it is: i really didnt like alot of choices they made in Star Wars IX: TRoS. Pretty much most choices. I understand why they made them and i know they served the story that they wanted to tell (or, rather, re-tell. #Return-o-Jedi-reboot), but i didnt like them. I was also self aware enough to realize that alot of haters of Last Jedi (which i am not. i dig it) were equally bummed about choices in that flick. So...to my point...at the end of the day a tweet about how a dad didnt like the flick but his kid loved it resonated with me. Who is the movie for. Its supposed to be for all of us. And when something excels and managed to blow everyone away, its a huge win (looking at you Endgame). But those kind of movies are few and very far between. In the case of IX...i really wish i liked their choices more..but i also know there's alot of folks who did...and theres alot of new viewers who love em. So maybe i need to step back and embrace the stuff i love and let others do the same.....
{..back on topic....
Raiders 5 is tricky for me to comprehend. Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. I dont reallly want him to pass the torch or them to reboot. Obviously they will...Franchise = Money. But I want my Raiders flicks to be about Indy. Harrison is getting up there in age. Dont get me wrong, he looks great and still has his chops big time..but he's up there. So the writers/director will have to find a story that is original, entertaining, action based, but accounting for a far older indy. Thats not impossible. But its tough. And, as mentioned, they've got the weight of literally one of the greatest movies EVER made on their shoulders (#Fact). Its tricky. Indy 4 was not good BUT i honestly feel it had so many pieces and concepts that could have been....for me it missed out on the flow of a good flick and felt like forced setpieces pastiched together. Indy 5 needs to find a way to weave a fun, creative, original, entertaining story with limitations of age. Its tricky.
At the end of the day, as an absolute fan of Indy, im not opposed to one more outing. Im actually intrigued by the challenge of it. Ill be there opening day. But one thing will be different. Ill be there with my kid. And when the credits roll, regardless of what i thought, my first and foremost thought and comment will be...."what did you think son?". I hope he will dig it. Cuz maybe it will be something like when i first saw Raiders in the theater opening weekend...and it will change his movie watching world forever. Just maybe.
Raiders is my favorite movie, full stop.
I saw it for the first time at summer camp in ’84. I was ten, and this was my first trip to a real-deal, two week sleepaway camp. It was an all-boys’ camp, and the counselors chose Raiders for our weekend movie night. Bless ‘em. They blew our minds that night.
This summer camp was held in Rome, Georgia on the campus of what was once the academy at Berry College, which is comprised of these big, beautiful English Gothic buildings of stone and concrete. (You can google ‘Berry College architecture’ and get a good idea of what I’m talking about from the images there.) We had movie night in the common room of one of the old dorms there, a dark affair with 20-foot ceilings and enormous wrought iron chandeliers and a huge stone fireplace. It was like watching the movie in one of its own locations, and wow, did it cast a spell.
And the movie itself… Drew’s dead on when he calls it perfect. It touches on every genre of film, from slapstick to splatter; features a peerless cast, brilliantly directed and gorgeously photographed; is as joyous and breathless and propulsive as anything I’ve ever seen; and somehow makes it all seem so effortless. Raiders of the Lost Ark is my entertainment ideal.
Indy once told marion, they don't know what they got there. I say the same to hollywood, lightning cannot be captured in a bottle twice, only the illusion that it has. As many times as you try it just won't be. Raiders captured a moment in time that can never be duplicated again for as hard as you try. So hollywood please, i beg of you, can you please just let it be?
Indy 5 isn't meant to be watched by anyone. It's made by Disney for Disney's shareholders. It's sad that Spielberg won't be back to direct. Maybe audiences still haven't forgiven him for the Crystal Skull. But Indy is now just another Disney franchise. Indy 6 will be released exclusively as a range of fragrances. Indy 7 as a Happy Meal toy.
Was trying to figure out why I also was having a hard time comparing the Indy franchise to Bond, and assumed it’s because Ford is so indelibly Indy. But I think you’re closer to the truth here. It’s actually hard to think of a franchise as inextricably linked with a Single director (and producer) as this one. When we talk about the history of the movies (at least amongst movie nerds) it’s always Spielberg & Lucas who are at the centre of the narrative, not even the Biggest Movie Star in the World (back in the day, at any rate). MI is always about Cruise and his latest director. Bond is about who the Broccolis have chosen next. Star Wars... who the fuck knows, at this point. The MCU is too big — even with Feige at the top, each movie’s director and star are the big draws. Does anybody, even regular civilians, nor think of Indy as a Spielberg franchise?
That being said, the answer to “who is made for” is the same as any sequel — the folks who think they can squeeze more gold out of the goose. I wonder if even Spielberg still has the juice to put the kibosh on it if he wanted to. If there’s a JAWS remake, we’ll know the answer...
It was made known earlier that Indy 5 will take place in the 60's which makes sense, around 10 yrs from Crystal Skulls. Speilberg is said to be a "hands on" producer with Mangold directing. Have always had the feeling that they wanted to make one more Indy to end the character satisfying the original fans in a way that crystal skulls did not.
I was having this same conversation with friends last night. Indy was born in 1899, which means going by Harrison's real age the new movie should be set in 1977. Will there be a scene of him watching Star Wars? Also, what kind of artifact will he be going after that makes sense for the 70s? The alien thing in Crystal Skull sort of makes sense for a movie set in the 50s as it riffs on alien B movies of the era, but the 70s feels out of sync with the serial roots of this series. Something involving the Bermuda Triangle maybe? That feels kinda appropriate for that time period. But still, it feels weird for this character to be so far removed from the 1930s. And with Lucas and Spielberg not involved, why even bother?
Isn’t it time to let the eighties go now and look forward? Make 2020 things? But I guess everything already has to be an IP before it gets made?
Watched “I am not okay with this” and though,t this is is an 80s movie with all the Rubik’s cube ,tapedecks and record players but mixed with USB drives and cellphones and flatscreen TVs. Kids listening to 30-40 year old music just because the screenwriters and directors likes it, while in the real world I have to explain to a 30 year old who Howard Jones is.
He can channel Last-Crusade Connery as a thesis advisor. Twitter thread by author Max Gladstone spells it out (though I'd make it set in the 70s w/o the drinking-from-the-holy-Grail bit). Gladstone doesn't name it, but I'd call it: "Indiana Jones and the Final Defense" (thesis defense, get it!):
https://twitter.com/maxgladstone/status/1232828182757285890
Dissenting opinion here: Indy, the character, is amazing. I'm not sure they have ever made a perfect Indy film yet, though. (Dissenting to my dissent: I might simply be too jaded and too modern at this point to appreciate the original two! The third is just fun, and doesn't have the same manic energy as the first two.) Mangold might be able to do it, yes, but your original question still stands: Whose film IS Indiana Jones? And the corollary: Who is this new Indy film going to be made FOR?
I believe that this is just another example of studio's being afraid of taking a chance. I know it's a business of making money, but there is a million stories out there waiting to be told. Do we need another Indy? Hell no! Will I see it? Hell yes? Hahaha. I just watched the remake Conan the Barbarian. While Marcus Nispel gave me a movie I enjoyed, there is so much missed opportunity. The magic of the original wasn't even acknowledged. I wondered to myself while watching it, imagine what a genre director like Joe Lynch could have done.