Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Indiana 5? Why bother?

This is topic Indiana 5? Why bother? in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002111

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-06-2008, 10:37 PM:

To make another squillion...why else?

Oh God, please no...
-------------------------
Harrison Ford says George Lucas in 'think mode' on another 'Indiana Jones' film
12:26 PM PT, Oct 3 2008

Indiana_jones Harrison Ford said Friday that momentum is building for a fifth movie in the "Indiana Jones" franchise and that George Lucas is already cooking up a suitable plot for a heroic senior citizen with a penchant for whips and fedoras.

"It's crazy but great," the 66-year-old Ford said. "George is in think mode right now."

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" grossed $318 million in the U.S. alone and $770 million worldwide and is expected to be powerhouse seller on DVD and Blu-Ray when it arrives in stores Oct. 14. It was a film that many people in Hollywood assumed would never be made considering the difficulty in finding the right time and the right script to reunite Ford, Lucas and franchise director Steven Spielberg after the 1989 hit "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade."

Now, though, the latest success and the fact that the franchise's old machinery was revived has Ford thinking a fifth movie is not only a viable idea, but an attractive one.

"It's automatic, really, we did well with the last one and with that having done well and been a positive experience, it's not surprising that some people want to do it again," Ford said.

I asked Ford who specifically is stirring up the idea of another revival, whether it was Lucas, Spielberg or the star himself? "Really, it comes from the ethos, from the ether. It's natural. It's a way of nature, of course, success breed opportunities ... also we don't stay as closely in contact as have in the last year, that's part of it."

Spielberg_lucas_ford_at_cannesFord said, though, he would not be game to making an animated "Indiana Jones" film, a notion that became at least a possible option after Lucas took his "Star Wars" theatrical saga into the computer-generated realm with "The Clone Wars" this summer.

"I'm not philosophically against doing animation roles but not for Indiana Jones," Ford said. "I'd hate to see it reduced in any way from the movies that we have done and the way we have done them."

The iconic star said he had some doubts that his long-gone archaeologist hero would be an automatic 21st century sensation.

"It was never a lead-pipe cinch," Ford said. "It was a calculated business risk but I believe it paid off. I was somewhat surprised and gratified to see it did the business that it did. It was successful in almost every market. The first time we showed it to a disinterested outside audience was at Cannes. That' s a crap shoot of the first order. Not only is that audience sophisticated and film-knowledgable, it's French! And it's their country and their festival and we somewhat expected to be seriously slapped around. But we were not, we were embraced...it was very gratifying."

The action hero long ago became accustomed to seeing his likeness on action figures, but even he was taken aback by the proliferation of his face and fedora this past summer as Indiana Jones became a pop-culture blizzard.

"It was everywhere I turned, I was on a Corn Flakes box or something else. That's what it takes now to do a good job of marketing a movie like this."

Did the star's 7-year-old son like the movie? "He hasn't seen it. It's a little scary for his experience at this point." What about the toy aisle, was he jolted to see Daddy on so many boxes? "He doesn't take it personally. It doesn't mean very much to him."

-- Geoff Boucher

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-07-2008, 01:34 AM:

Well, don't hold your breath. Given the length of time to get the script approved for the last one, George, Harry and Steve may all be dead before another one gets made.

They've all done well for us though - so if they make a good movie, I say why not? What the hell, I like the $$$ just like any good capitalist.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-07-2008, 01:47 AM:

..better than a lot of this crud that's been hitting the screens lately and cinemas losing tonnage on profits.

As long as Ford remains healthy, he'd definitely better jump on it while he can, just that the writer better not put in any 'stinky cheese' in this new story like "Skull" contained

.and please, get a better cinematographer...

-Monte

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-07-2008, 04:50 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
so if they make a good movie, I say why not?

Because judging from what they came up with last time, they won't. It took them 18 years to come up with Crystal Skulls and it sucked mightily. OK, it took a load of cash...but that's not my barometer of a decent movie.

Let's hope when Mr. Ford says George is 'thinking' he means he's 'thinking' of using Frank Darabont's script finally.

THAT I'd bother with, otherwise I'm yawning already. [sleep]

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 10-07-2008, 08:58 AM:

I'm still waiting for "Howard The Duck Part 2"!

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 10-07-2008, 07:34 PM:

My hope is that they will use the Darabont script, have seen it referred to as 'perfect' by people who've read it.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-07-2008, 11:41 PM:

Damn. Man, that actually gives me a little hope we may see Heaven Gate: Whisking the Rim or Ishtar: We're Back in Action!
[Confused]

Alright, Indy 4 wasn't exactly a bomb. But it sure isn't exactly a movie I'm aching to have waste space on a bookshelf amongst other titles in my Blu-ray collection. Let's call it a day shall we?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-08-2008, 03:00 PM:

quote:
Ishtar: We're Back in Action!

That's a great title. [thumbsup]

I found ISHTAR much easier to stomach after a week (single screen) when you knew all the songs. [eyes]

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-09-2008, 09:44 AM:

Indy #5? Hell Yes! In case you idiots haven't noticed, the place you work sells tickets and food for the money that pays you, you don't have to like the product to appreciate the revenue it generates.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-09-2008, 04:18 PM:

quote: Bill Enos
In case you idiots haven't noticed

Nice Bill.

Do you never have an opinion? Mine is that a movie should not be a piece of crap. Indy 4 was and will always be. Whether it takes a gazillion dollars or nothing...if it's got a budget of $150million I expect it to have a halfway decent story and not remembered for monkeys, prairie dogs and hiding from a nuclear blast in a fridge. These films have pedigree and this in no way lived up to it's predecessors.

My patrons (and hopefully yours too) don't want to leave the theatre saying "what a heap of shit". If it is, it'll end its season too soon for us to make any money out of it. Hell, we limped to week 6 with it and ended it. We had no real bums on seats with it since week 4. If it had been a good film, folks would still have been coming in week 6 when the percentage was decent for us. Word it wasn't good got out fast and down it went. I'd much rather play a lesser film that's good. Word will pass around and I'll be able to play it longer, not the other way around.

Show them shit...they'll remember you for all the wrong reasons. Show 'em a good show and hopefully they'll remember you for the right ones.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-11-2008, 08:19 PM:

We played it 3 weeks second run to good crowds to the end. Would have played it another if something else had not come available. Maybe they thought it was worth $2.00 but not $8.00 to $10.00. I'm sticking to my claim that you do't have to like it if it brings in the dollars and it did for us.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-11-2008, 09:21 PM:

I have found that every movie I hate, there are plenty of people who love it.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-12-2008, 03:20 PM:

This is the thing that I've noticed with a good amount of "indies" (and don't get me wrong-some indies can really run a show and the business, but unfortunately not all of them are on the same page), is that they have a bit of a problem with the concept of "Customer Satisfaction."

So "Hollyrock" loves the concept of doing sequels - the first one made the bucks and developed a fanbase, thus here comes the sequels (and we know that StarWars and Potter have proven this fact pretty well) and the bucks comes-a-rolling in.

So what?? Leave it alone! Play along with the game - you've got the advantage where the film is selling (or has sold) itself, why not go along with this and "sell and market" your cinema to your community as well for it's for your professional benefit anywhos? Don't you want a "win/win" situation at all times?

Bring the damn MAGIC back in "Going to a Movie!"

You gain two things in doing so: respect from you and your community.

Indie owners may hate seeing this coming from "Hollyrock", but "HEY!" it's bringing in people, a good fan/customer base and profits to your cinema.

I've seen so many 'indies' with horrible attitudes on how they run their business with setting conditions and negative attributes around their cinemas, that I find it truly amazing that they are still in business, let alone struggling to find ways to stay in business...and they wonder why the cinema down the street can outperform them in any means or form.

...just my $.03 on this topic.

-Monte

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-12-2008, 06:31 PM:

Well said, Monte.

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 10-13-2008, 08:12 AM:

quote:
I'm still waiting for "Howard The Duck Part 2"!

You mean IsTrash....I mean Istar part 2

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 10-13-2008, 10:46 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
and please, get a better cinematographer...

Monte - as I suggested to Galen - look up Janusz Kaminski on IMDB. He's a pretty well respected DP. Who would you prefer?

quote:
Man, that actually gives me a little hope we may see...Ishtar: We're Back in Action!

Anyone notice that ISHTAR is strikingly close to RATSHIT spelled sideways?

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-13-2008, 01:34 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
What the hell, I like the $$$ just like any good capitalist.

quote: Bill Enos
In case you idiots haven't noticed, the place you work sells tickets and food for the money that pays you, you don't have to like the product to appreciate the revenue it generates.

Normally, I would completely agree with you guys. Normally, I would care less about a movie if it brings people in, but in this case, I think it is different.

When two huge names like Spielberg and Lucas lay a turd like this, I think the long-term affects could hurt us. Having faith that a big name or names will deliver as promised is what star power is all about. Tom Cruise had star power. He went crazy. Now people won't come to a movie like they used to just because he is in it. Spielberg and Lucas have possibly done the same by ruining a franchise. We need our customers to be confident in names and when names this big get ruined it hurts. The short return may be nice, but the long haul will be hurt.

Posted by Julie Lucero (Member # 4959) on 10-13-2008, 01:45 PM:

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL grossed over $300 million domestically, placing third for the year. And it did nearly $800 million worldwide, so I fail to see how anyone, whether you enjoyed the movie or not, can call it a turd.

I'd say that Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Lucas, as usual, delivered the goods.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 10-13-2008, 01:57 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
Spielberg and Lucas have possibly done the same by ruining a franchise.

Two now for Lucas, plus one of his masterpieces a la the rerelease of THX 1138. George, if you are reading this, please spare American Graffiti! It does not need explosions or gophers, or extra moons and all that good stuff.

quote: Joe Tommassello
[L]ook up Janusz Kaminski on IMDB.

He has some impressive ones for sure. Some of those movies only good features are the cinematography. That doesn't make him unable to make a "turd", as Chad says. I don't know if that "halo" effect (Vaseline on the lens or digital post?) in Indy 4 was even his doing, but the final result is unappealing. I had numerous complaints about focus when I ran it, and I can assure you my focus was dead on. Stuff like that doesn't make it "artistic", it just irritates people and distracts from the story, and pisses off projectionists because we have to field erroneous complaints.

Posted by Julie Lucero (Member # 4959) on 10-13-2008, 03:22 PM:

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
George, if you are reading this, please spare American Graffiti! It does not need explosions or gophers, or extra moons and all that good stuff.

George has tinkered with AMERICAN GRAFFITI. In 1978 it was remixed for stereo, and in 199? a colorful sunset was added to the opening shot.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 10-13-2008, 03:30 PM:

quote:
I had numerous complaints about focus when I ran it,

Taking you at your word I would say I wish MORE audiences were that discriminating. When I went to see IRON MAN there were at least eight emulsion scratches across the screen. (We all know how that happened!) This was the Saturday of opening weekend. As soon as it became apparent that they weren't going to stop (about one minute into the film considering the entire pre-feature package had the same scratches) I went to get my money back. About 200 saps, however, stayed and watched it.

With IJ4 coming out on video this week I will watch it again for this "halo effect". I am curious if it can be attributed to a particular setting in the film...perhaps where something out of the realm of nature takes place?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-13-2008, 04:16 PM:

I think the general public liked IJ4 more than you guys are giving them credit for and would likely turn out in droves for another installment.

I also think that at least 75% of the people who saw the movie (1) do not know who directed and produced it; and (2) do not care.

If Tom Cruise would make a really good movie his audience would be back in droves, as well. He needs to appeal to the ladies again. His last few movies have been pretty poor choices (War of the Worlds).

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-13-2008, 04:20 PM:

quote: Julie Lucero
INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL grossed over $300 million domestically, placing third for the year. And it did nearly $800 million worldwide, so I fail to see how anyone, whether you enjoyed the movie or not, can call it a turd.

Perhaps turd was a poor word choice. I didn't mean it from the money making sense. I meant it from the oh-my-God-this-movie-is-awful-why-are-there-aliens-this-ruins-one-of-the-all-time-great-fictional-characters sense. The fact that Dark Knight did $200 mil more domestically and Iron Man did about the same with a much narrow target audience makes me think people were not interested in seeing it again and again. I meant the short-term payoff was nice, but the long-term will be hurt.

Who else saw the season opener of South Park? I think they pretty much nailed it.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 10-13-2008, 05:42 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
Dark Knight did $200 mil more domestically and Iron Man did about the same with a much narrow target audience

I have to disagree. First, I don't believe Iron Man had a narrower target audience. If anything IJ4 had a narrower audience since many of those who saw the first three are "graduated" out of the average movie-going demographic. We could hardly get to the theater what with our walkers and hip replacements.

As for Dark Knight...it was a really good film and Heath Ledger was very good in it...BUT...the tone of his performance was made all the more creepy by the fact that he died while reportedly depressed soon after shooting rapped. Some bright studio publicist hinted it was because of the "dark" role rather than his gorgeous babe kicking his ass out. Had he been walking the red carpet smiling and looking pretty at the premiere it would not have had the same effect and resulting box office draw. Death is a great career move!

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 10-13-2008, 05:45 PM:

quote:
quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George, if you are reading this, please spare American Graffiti! It does not need explosions or gophers, or extra moons and all that good stuff.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George has tinkered with AMERICAN GRAFFITI. In 1978 it was remixed for stereo, and in 199? a colorful sunset was added to the opening shot.

And some would say he already ruined that franchise with "More American Graffiti" in 1979.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 10-13-2008, 05:50 PM:

quote: Hillary Charles
And some would say he already ruined that franchise with "More American Graffiti" in 1979.

Do I smell "Even More American Graffiti Than The Last One" in 2009? How about "Son of American Graffiti" where the children of the knuckleheads from the first film are growing up in the 70s? Yeah!

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-13-2008, 11:53 PM:

More American Grafitti was spectacular in its own right. I thought the use of different shooting styles to convey the different years was very clever. Also the concept of seeing New Years Eve day simlutaneously with several years was a nifty concept.

Did it have the charm of the original? Absolutely not. It didn't take away from the original at all and it did give some follow up to the main characters. I would classify MAG as an experimental film.

The guys at South Park certainly didn't approve of Steven's and George's handling of Indy on this episode!

Steve

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-17-2008, 03:31 AM:

As I was breaking down "IJ4:Skull" tonite at our discount theatre, I was thinking of the comments made pertaining to the blurb that's been floating around now of Ford doing "IJ5" and how some are dreading the thought..and I can fully understand why with my comment below:

Granted: "IJ4" wasn't the best "Jones" movie that came out and it seems that a ton of movies lately that comes out have this one serious flaw that the storytellers and screenwriters fail to get across within their stories and eventually on the screen...and that is: "Failing to make the characters believeable", or making them into a real person(s).

Now, we loved the 1981 "Raiders of the Lost ARK" for (IMO) the simple reason that everyone who was in the film were 'believeable' characters - all the actors portraying characters in this film could have really existed.

...even the NAZI's charactization was definitely believeable. One could tell that all the characters in NAZI uniforms or SS members of the NAZI Party were definitely acting their parts as if they actually were converted to the NAZI Party to be as such. - not just someone filling in the needed blank spaces.

With "IJ4", all we saw were actors in Russian outfits, or being KGB 'baddies', yet, it seems that they're were just 'doing their job what the script wanted by reading their cue cards off-camera I.E. .. they became unbelieveable, to almost silly characters...

(Khrushchev prob would have rolled in his grave if he saw this film and saw how his Russian Army and KGB were depicted in this film...whereas Hitler would have been honored how Spielberg depicted the NAZI Army. lol)

Even Ford had a bit of a rough time getting back into his "INDY" character - like he was horribly restrained from letting "Jones" come out in full bloom as he did in the past.

Now, a simple question: Was Heath Ledger's "JOKER", a believeable character in "the Dark Knight"?

I can rattle on other movies that produced sequels with this same thought of 'believeability', yet, I'll stop here for I hope that others can see where I'm coming from.

thx-Monte

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 10-17-2008, 09:06 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Was Heath Ledger's "JOKER", a believeable character in "the Dark Knight"?

Good observations about characters being believable. As to your question...

First, "Dark Knight" was a comic book movie. You might as well ask if Batman is a believable character. Second...listen to Charlie Manson some time.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-17-2008, 12:45 PM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
listen to Charlie Manson some time.

Nah..that's okey.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-17-2008, 03:20 PM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
First, "Dark Knight" was a comic book movie. You might as well ask if Batman is a believable character.

It doesn't matter that it is a comic book movie. He's not a Super Hero. I think Batman is a very believable character. Sure, you take some liberties with the technologies of his toys, but that's not what we're talking about. The idea of someone independantly wealthy getting frustrated to the point they begin acting out vigilante justice - that to me is quite believable. I would say Ledger's Joker character is on the bubble of being believable. It is believable someone could become obsessed with a heroic figure to the point they make it their life's work to get in the way. It is unbelievable to me that someone could build up the wealth and resources the Joker had and to design and implement such fantastic schemes in such a short time, all while staying completely under the radar.

Monte - I think you nailed it. A movie becomes great when you forget you are watching a movie and you lose yourself within. I never came close to feeling that way during IJ4.

quote: Joe Tommassello
Second...listen to Charlie Manson some time.

Manson is crazy. For real crazy. I don't think Joker was supposed to be crazy.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-17-2008, 07:16 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
you forget you are watching a movie and you lose yourself within.

.. why 190plus minutes of "Titanic" went by so suddenly.. why it suddenly became the all-time top domestic grossing movie and along with the awards it won in the 1998 Oscars....

...and seeing it 5 times, I still was immersed in the movie.

..and not wanting to swing this a bit off topic, but Manson was just an individual who simply, due to his massive insecurity and madness, had a point to prove to the whole world...that he was RIGHT!

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 10-23-2008, 12:29 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
A movie becomes great when you forget you are watching a movie and you lose yourself within.

So when Batman jumps off a 60 story building with nothing but his wings and a little gadget with fishing wire you totally believe it and don't realize you are watching a movie?

quote: Chad Souder
I don't think Joker was supposed to be crazy.

??????????? I suppose he was just misunderstood?

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-24-2008, 03:06 PM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
So when Batman jumps off a 60 story building with nothing but his wings and a little gadget with fishing wire you totally believe it and don't realize you are watching a movie?

Please read the part where I said:

quote: Chad Souder
Sure, you take some liberties with the technologies of his toys, but that's not what we're talking about.

Posted by Andres Briano (Member # 4621) on 10-25-2008, 02:46 PM:

Back on topic: Yesterday I saw in a store the new IJ Box Set titled "The Complete Collection", being "complete" the key word. As you remember there´s been another box set out for quite some time. The one I have. At first I was pissed off with it... until I realized that I have the GOOD box set and not the DAMAGED one.

Question: Are they going to shit on the customers again by releasing yet another box set after IJ5 comes out??? How would that one be called??? "The archi-complete collection"??? or "The this-time-for-real Complete Collection"???

[puke]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-25-2008, 05:01 PM:

It's George Lucas...you just answered your own question.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-25-2008, 05:09 PM:

Well, not really....they all do that. There is a "complete Die Hard" collection that has 3 films in it and a "complete" Rocky collection with 5 movies, etc.

Posted by Andres Briano (Member # 4621) on 10-26-2008, 08:08 AM:

Correct. But I find that to be far from serious. Of ourse it serves capitalism a purpose, but it´s certainly a disservice for us fans/customers. Besides, I don´t find the fact that "everyone is doing it" excuse enough. Specially when it comes to something as cherished as IJ. We´ve lost Indiana and Star Wars. Hopefully Back to the Future will remain how it is.

The good thing about this thread is that I got to use the puke graemlin for the first time! [Wink]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-26-2008, 01:44 PM:

quote: Andres Briano
Of ourse it serves capitalism a purpose, but it´s certainly a disservice for us fans/customers.

I fully agree with you that there should not be another Back to the Future movie (they should have stopped that at #1!) But as for those video sets, they're understandable -- after all, when the "complete" 3-chapter IJ set was released, #4 was still in development hell and had been for years, so they probably figured (as many of us did) that it would never see the light of day.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 10-27-2008, 10:55 AM:

quote:
Please read the part where I said:

quote: Chad Souder
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, you take some liberties with the technologies of his toys, but that's not what we're talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry. I was confusing your comments with something Monte had written. I get what you are saying even if I still think you are being a little tough on IJ4.

Posted by Andres Briano (Member # 4621) on 10-27-2008, 12:35 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
...after all, when the "complete" 3-chapter IJ set was released, #4 was still in development hell and had been for years, so they probably figured (as many of us did) that it would never see the light of day.

I agree with you, Mike. I know where you are coming from. However I consider it cheap that they released the complete-4-film box set soooo fast AND suspiciously soooo little time before announcing that #5 was supposedly in progress, you know?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-27-2008, 04:08 PM:

Any other franchise I'd agree with you. But, this IS Indiana Jones we're talking about...it could be 2020 before they get it made -- IF they get it made.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-27-2008, 04:24 PM:

Somehow, I don't think it will take long for them this time to 'organise their film schedules to all get back together' and 'get just the right script to make it worthy of being an Indiana Jones film'.

They proved they can shoot and put out a pile of smelly [bs]

and still make a mint.

Won't be long at all. [Frown]

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-31-2008, 02:36 PM:

For the past 30 years or so, Lucas has pretty much lived off Star Wars and Indy. He obviously doesn't have any more creativity, so he has to milk every last penny he can off those two.