Indiana Jones 5
So..this is on for sure.
But the script writer is the writer who wrote The Crystal Skull.........
sammyc521 last edited by
I found that a lot of these movies, once the self-created hype wears off, I end up enjoying a lot of them. They're not favorites but they're good to a degree.
I haven't seen Crystal Skull in forever so I can't see if this passes the test. I do like the Indy franchise and I would be excited for a new movie.
Crystal Skull was awful. Like, doesnt belong in the franchise "Rocky 5" awful.
I know what they were getting at ..but the very concept should have shown them they were on the wrong track.
The original movies, set in the 1930s.. were inspired by the 1930s serial dramas on the radio and in the movies.. the cliffhanger adventures.
Moving the setting to the late 50s, they then tried to make a B grade sci-fi flick.. like what was popular in the 50s. The problem is..its an Indiana Jones movie. Its not a 50s movie.
and some of the things that made the first 3 awesome, they just left behind.
As an example..the Arc of the Covenant is either real, or (more likely) a real ancient legend..an artifact people have always searched for or known about. Its a real thing. The Holy Grail, likewise, has been sought for centuries. The cult of Thugee was a real thing (and is where we get the English word "thug" from).
There ARE some crystals skulls around.. they were first shown in the 60s. but a) thats modern b) the real skulls arent the ones in the movie and c) they are hoaxes. So, just the whole drama of what he is looking for is gone.
Second example. .previously, when Indy went somewhere, we got it right.. now, the palace in temple of Doom some people have said is racist..but it wasnt meant to be about India...it was supposed to show the depravity of THAT kingdom. But in Shanghai, a village in India, Nepal, or the jungles of central America.. we get real language, a real setting. In Crystal Skull, suddenly there was no research department or something.. they treat Incan and Mayan cultures the same. These are cultures separated by about 500 years and thousands of miles.
Then, finally.. Spielberg misjudges what most of us like about Indiana Jones. He is NOT like Luke Skywalker .. this isnt a guy we watched come of age and then project the future about.. a person we like as a person.
Indiana Jones.. we like the character and concept. So, its debatable in star wars if we want the back story or to know what happens to everyone.. should that be in the movies? But Indiana Jones.. we didnt need it or want it. We werent wondering what happened to Marion.. we didnt wonder what happened to Indiana Jones as he got older. Its the character we love, not the "person"..if that makes sense. So it was just awkward to have this forced reunions and the wedding scene had no impact whatsoever..
I am up for 5..but I want an aging Jones on one more pure adventure. I thought the last one they missed a gold opportunity to do something in South East Asia..
Its 1954.. the French empire in SE Asia is threatened, Communism is on the rise, and the Americans are growing increasingly tangled into the situation.. everyone is looking for any advantage in the tinderbox area and out of Angkor Watt strange rumors abound....
anyway, will be interested to see where we go with Indy this time..but I hope its better executed, short on fan service and long on new fun.
sammyc521 last edited by
Part of the problem also stems from the creators aging and changing their stances on things.
What Speilberg and Lucas make in their 60's and 70's is so different from what they make in their 20's-40's. You could see someone like Scorsese who seems to be making the same gangsta movie decade after decade but I dont disagree with your main point.
When you take such a big gap from a project theres bound to be lapses in what you may think is the driving point of the main character or franchise.
We'll see this tested with the new Ghostbusters movie that paid heavy fan service in the first trailer.
That is such an underestimated part of the equation.. none of us is ever the same person we were even a day before, certainly not the same person we were 30, 40 years ago. Perspectives changed and mature, interests change.. you get to a different stage of your life. For all that I hated in Crystal Skull, it still had a great line that I thought was telling.. "You get to a point where life stops giving you things and starts taking them away." Spielberg mostly is making movies these days to tell important stories he doesnt want to get lost ..