Indiana Jones V

[Zombie_61]

He could make an excellent player as either a villainous associate of Nazis on the run in South America, or one of the 'heroic local' types who could be Indy's ally against them. Or, of course, he could be a US citizen from that background which has given him a motivation to fight the Nazis. I see potential there. Given some of his former work - Desperado in particular - I think he could well prove a good choice.

Since my last post I've found some photos online of Banderas and Ford on-set in Sicily with Phoebe Waller-Bridge, and Banderas appears to be playing some kind of boat captain or fisherman.

 

[Tiki Tom]

I tend to like Banderas. Maybe this is a hopeful indication that the movie will be alright. Too early to tell, of course. My main concern is that the movie has gone through so many writers that the script might be a muddled mess by now.

 

[Edward]

Since my last post I've found some photos online of Banderas and Ford on-set in Sicily with Phoebe Waller-Bridge, and Banderas appears to be playing some kind of boat captain or fisherman.

Possibly a Simon Katanga type character - though with a name as big as Banderas, I would expect him to perhaps have a bit more screen time than the good Captain Katanga.

I tend to like Banderas. Maybe this is a hopeful indication that the movie will be alright. Too early to tell, of course. My main concern is that the movie has gone through so many writers that the script might be a muddled mess by now.

I'm somewhat hopeful that Waller-Bridge (an outstanding writer in her own right) has had some input there, even if only to her own scenes. I remain hopeful overall, but I didn't determinedly hate Crystal Skull the way some do, so. I think time travel would be a bit of a hard one for me to swallow (aliens, God's wrath coming out of a box, ,magic stones and eight hundred year old knights notwithstanding), but I've not seen anything to substantiate that rumour as of yet. I plan to go into it hoping for a Force Awakens rather than a Solo (or, Heaven help us all, a Phantom Attack of the Sith).

 

[Zombie_61]

...I'm somewhat hopeful that Waller-Bridge (an outstanding writer in her own right) has had some input there, even if only to her own scenes...

The only project I've "seen" Phoebe Waller-Bridge in was Solo, and she was so completely obscured by her "costume" that I can't honestly say I've actually seen her in anything, so I really have absolutely no concept of her as an actor. The prevalent rumor on other forums regarding her is that Disney is seriously considering making her the next Indiana Jones but, of course, everyone who might have any information in that regard must remain silent, so...

...I remain hopeful overall, but I didn't determinedly hate Crystal Skull the way some do, so. I think time travel would be a bit of a hard one for me to swallow (aliens, God's wrath coming out of a box, ,magic stones and eight hundred year old knights notwithstanding), but I've not seen anything to substantiate that rumour as of yet. I plan to go into it hoping for a Force Awakens rather than a Solo (or, Heaven help us all, a Phantom Attack of the Sith).

Of the four existing Indiana Jones movies, Crystal Skull is third on my personal list of "most favorite" (Raiders of the Lost Ark) to "least favorite" (Temple of Doom). I didn't hate it as much as many did but, just like almost every other fan of the franchise, I have my own list of what I perceive to be it's flaws. Considering all of the not-so-good news and rumors about IJ5, at this point I'll be surprised if it's better than Crystal Skull.

 

[Edward]

The only project I've "seen" Phoebe Waller-Bridge in was Solo, and she was so completely obscured by her "costume" that I can't honestly say I've actually seen her in anything, so I really have absolutely no concept of her as an actor. The prevalent rumor on other forums regarding her is that Disney is seriously considering making her the next Indiana Jones but, of course, everyone who might have any information in that regard must remain silent, so...

She's best known in the UK for Fleabag (a sort of sitcom with real depth), though Solo made her a breakout. I thought she was one of the real high points in that largely dire outing (Disney's one *big* misfire in their Star Wars tenure imo, though nowhere near as awful as Lucas' prequel trilogy). I'm not sure how I'd feel about her taking over the franchise as it were, though if Disney are going to make other, non-Jones pictures in the Jones universe, she'd be a solid lead on which to base it. If what we know so far is correct and she's based in the late sixties that would be a very different direction than the pre-Kennedy Indy stuff. Which doesn't of course rule out it being good, but different times.

Of the four existing Indiana Jones movies, Crystal Skull is third on my personal list of "most favorite" (Raiders of the Lost Ark) to "least favorite" (Temple of Doom). I didn't hate it as much as many did but, just like almost every other fan of the franchise, I have my own list of what I perceive to be it's flaws. Considering all of the not-so-good news and rumors about IJ5, at this point I'll be surprised if it's better than Crystal Skull.

Interesting you put it ahead of Temple; I have it dead equal. I agree that they are the weakest of the bunch, though that said I don't think they're bad as such, just that Raiders and Crusade are so close to perfect. I have a lot of affection for Temple because it was the first Indy picture I saw (I was closing in on ten when it hit the cinema in Summer of 84; Raiders I didn't see until it was the big Christmas Day film on television later that same year. Funny thing about Temple is that while it's definitely not up to the same standard as Crusade which followed it, every time I rewatch it it's always somehow much better than I remember it being. Especially the kid: that's actually quite an interesting study in how Shortround reflects Jones who, at that point in his life, is less a father figure and more treats Shortround as a sidekick. Even before he knows Mutt is his in Skull, he treats him with much more maturity, aware of their age and experience gap, than he does Shortround. Throw in the relationship with his own father in Crusade (Connery's career-finest, imo, a more nuanced performance than Goldfinger by far, a role that really called for a very deft comic touch the big man delivered in spades), and it makes for a very interesting pictures of Jones as a man in the 'flawed but trying to be good' end of things.

In truth, my biggest reservation about 5 is that much of it will be set in the latter Sixties; for me, Jones is entirely a man of the pre-Kennedy assassination era. That said, if they recognise that by then the relic hunter himself is a relic in this new era, that can work. Guess we'll just have to see.

 

[Zombie_61]

She's best known in the UK for Fleabag (a sort of sitcom with real depth), though Solo made her a breakout. I thought she was one of the real high points in that largely dire outing (Disney's one *big* misfire in their Star Wars tenure imo, though nowhere near as awful as Lucas' prequel trilogy)...

If you think Solo is Disney's one big misfire in their treatment of the Star Wars franchise, you're far more generous than I am; I think the only movie they got even close to right so far is Rogue One. But then, I was in the theater in May of 1977 when Star Wars (before the episode numbers and subtitles) opened here in the States and I loved it from the moment the crawl started.

...Interesting you put it ahead of Temple; I have it dead equal. I agree that they are the weakest of the bunch, though that said I don't think they're bad as such, just that Raiders and Crusade are so close to perfect...

I've mentioned it here on The Lounge before, but I have never liked Temple of Doom for primarily one reason--Willie Scott. I cannot stand that character and her incessant screaming and whining; she just ruins the movie for me. To be clear, I don't blame Kate Capshaw for this; she was cast to play a role, and she did the best she could with Lucas' terrible writing and Spielberg's apparent lack of judgement as director. I like Ford's performance (though it seems Indy had lost a lot of IQ points to fall for Willie) and Ke Huy Quan as Short Round, but those are pretty much the only things I like about Temple of Doom. I thought it was an extremely weak follow-up to Raiders (sorry, prequel), and was very pleased that Last Crusade was as good as it was.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Zombie, you should definitely check out Fleabag on Amazon Prime: I've watched it twice and am nearly ready for another go-round. It's a hoot, and writer/star Waller-Bridge is indeed prodigiously talented.



Quickies: Star Wars - Though I've seen them all, I haven't really liked ANY film since Empire. I could care less where this franchise goes from here. Indiana Jones - Honestly, I've given up hope of the next film being anything other than a cash-grab embarrassment like the SW flicks. I hope I'm wrong, I love Indy, but minus Lucas and Spielberg it already feels pretty damn ersatz.

 

[Edward]

If you think Solo is Disney's one big misfire in their treatment of the Star Wars franchise, you're far more generous than I am; I think the only movie they got even close to right so far is Rogue One. But then, I was in the theater in May of 1977 when Star Wars (before the episode numbers and subtitles) opened here in the States and I loved it from the moment the crawl started.

Perhaps the prequels rather lowered my standards... Rogue One, though, is for me arguably the single best film of the entire franchise. Over and above the original Star Wars. I got into the franchise via the toys and comic book / 'book of the film' stuff in the days before home video was a common thing. Saw the first film on TV in early 1983, Jedi was my 9th birthday outing, and then I finally saw Empire in around 1987 when it was first on British TV. I lost faith when Greedo shot first, and I hated the prequels so much I've been describing myself as an "ex-Star Wars fan" since 1999. That hasn't changed - I have zero interest in see the Mandalorian, at least until it comes to a platform to which I already subscribe - but the Disney films were mostly entertaining to me. The final trilogy one was disappointing because it rolled back in fear at a lot of the backlash against the more interesting elements of the second film. How they treated the character of Rose was appalling. Big props though to Last Jedi for making Luke Skywalker actually interesting for the first time - and make choices of his own.

I've mentioned it here on The Lounge before, but I have never liked Temple of Doom for primarily one reason--Willie Scott. I cannot stand that character and her incessant screaming and whining; she just ruins the movie for me. To be clear, I don't blame Kate Capshaw for this; she was cast to play a role, and she did the best she could with Lucas' terrible writing and Spielberg's apparent lack of judgement as director. I like Ford's performance (though it seems Indy had lost a lot of IQ points to fall for Willie) and Ke Huy Quan as Short Round, but those are pretty much the only things I like about Temple of Doom. I thought it was an extremely weak follow-up to Raiders (sorry, prequel), and was very pleased that Last Crusade was as good as it was.

She was an odd contrast to Marion. Maybe that's one of the reasons they made it a prequel - they thought she wouldn't be his post-Marion type. On the other hand, if he'd run away from marrying Marion, in 1937 he might only have been looking for a fling with a dumb blonde. It would of course have made far more sense for her to have been a noir-style femme fatale and nightclub singer, but hey ho.

 

[Zombie_61]

Zombie, you should definitely check out Fleabag on Amazon Prime: I've watched it twice and am nearly ready for another go-round. It's a hoot, and writer/star Waller-Bridge is indeed prodigiously talented...

We don't have Amazon Prime and, for a number of reasons, have no plans on signing up any time soon. I'm not opposed to the idea, it's just not in the cards for us at the moment. But I'll keep it in mind in case things change.

...Quickies: Star Wars - Though I've seen them all, I haven't really liked ANY film since Empire. I could care less where this franchise goes from here. Indiana Jones - Honestly, I've given up hope of the next film being anything other than a cash-grab embarrassment like the SW flicks. I hope I'm wrong, I love Indy, but minus Lucas and Spielberg it already feels pretty damn ersatz.

I've liked things about each movie in the "episodic" Star Wars saga, but I agree that after Empire everything started going downhill. That said, I still haven't seen The Rise of Skywalker so, assuming that'll be the end of that part of the story, I still don't know how it all ends.

Perhaps the prequels rather lowered my standards... Rogue One, though, is for me arguably the single best film of the entire franchise. Over and above the original Star Wars...

I'm a little older than you are, so I was there opening day in May of 1977 to see Star Wars (Episode IV, A New Hope, however you refer to it) and I loved it from the moment the fanfare played over the first title card. As good as Empire is, I firmly maintain A New Hope is the better movie for one simple reason--it's the only movie in the "Skywalker Saga" that tells a nearly complete story. For every other movie, including Empire, you have to have seen either the one before or the one after (or both) in order to have a complete understanding of the story, the characters and their motivations, and so on. And, yes, I understand that's by design--A New Hope had to be a "stand alone" movie because they didn't know whether or not there would be any prequels or sequels on the day it premiered. But my argument still stands. I haven't seen any of Disney's "streaming" Star Wars content for the reason I gave to Doctor Strange above--we haven't subscribed to that and, for the time being, don't plan to--so I can't comment.

And while I'm here and on the subject (sort of), George Lucas and everyone involved needs to line up and take turns kissing my backside for the abomination that is the "Special Edition" movies. As a storyteller Mr. Lucas should know better than to continue tinkering after the finished product has been accepted and deemed a success by the general public. All he did was ruin an already near-perfect product.

All of that being said, I'd put Rogue One right up there with A New Hope as a contender for best Star Wars movie so far.

...She was an odd contrast to Marion. Maybe that's one of the reasons they made it a prequel - they thought she wouldn't be his post-Marion type. On the other hand, if he'd run away from marrying Marion, in 1937 he might only have been looking for a fling with a dumb blonde. It would of course have made far more sense for her to have been a noir-style femme fatale and nightclub singer, but hey ho.

Dumb blonde? Fine. Fling? Fine. But she really didn't need to over-react at every little thing; again, I blame Lucas and Spielberg, not Miss Capshaw. Apart from that, I also thought the story was somewhat weak and that the Sankara stones were a poor choice for the MacGuffin of the movie because no one I know had ever heard of them before that movie, so their "importance" was mostly lost on people in this part of the world. Now, I'm not saying Indy should constantly chase after Christian artifacts, but in my opinion they needed to do a better job of explaining why those stones were so important because they seemed to matter only to that small Indian village. Please don't get me started on the whole "Crystal Skull" thing.

 

[Edward]

I'm a little older than you are, so I was there opening day in May of 1977 to see Star Wars (Episode IV, A New Hope, however you refer to it) and I loved it from the moment the fanfare played over the first title card. As good as Empire is, I firmly maintain A New Hope is the better movie for one simple reason--it's the only movie in the "Skywalker Saga" that tells a nearly complete story. For every other movie, including Empire, you have to have seen either the one before or the one after (or both) in order to have a complete understanding of the story, the characters and their motivations, and so on. And, yes, I understand that's by design--A New Hope had to be a "stand alone" movie because they didn't know whether or not there would be any prequels or sequels on the day it premiered. But my argument still stands. I haven't seen any of Disney's "streaming" Star Wars content for the reason I gave to Doctor Strange above--we haven't subscribed to that and, for the time being, don't plan to--so I can't comment.

I think that's a very fair point; sometimes (rarely) a sequel can be as good as or better than an original, but there's a lot to be said for a standalone story. When the Secret Cinema folks did a Star Wars theme, they actually screened Empire and I remember wondering whether that was the best choice. They did, however, sell out many nights at £80 odds a ticket, so I guess they were dealing with a hardcore fanbase there.

And while I'm here and on the subject (sort of), George Lucas and everyone involved needs to line up and take turns kissing my backside for the abomination that is the "Special Edition" movies. As a storyteller Mr. Lucas should know better than to continue tinkering after the finished product has been accepted and deemed a success by the general public. All he did was ruin an already near-perfect product.

All of that being said, I'd put Rogue One right up there with A New Hope as a contender for best Star Wars movie so far.

Rogue felt very much to me like a return to the original feel, stripped of all the cod-spirituality and pompousness the franchise had developed. I particularly liked that they let heroes die, there was a sense of 'reality', consequence and purpose to it that Solo lacked entirely.

Dumb blonde? Fine. Fling? Fine. But she really didn't need to over-react at every little thing; again, I blame Lucas and Spielberg, not Miss Capshaw. Apart from that, I also thought the story was somewhat weak and that the Sankara stones were a poor choice for the MacGuffin of the movie because no one I know had ever heard of them before that movie, so their "importance" was mostly lost on people in this part of the world. Now, I'm not saying Indy should constantly chase after Christian artifacts, but in my opinion they needed to do a better job of explaining why those stones were so important because they seemed to matter only to that small Indian village. Please don't get me started on the whole "Crystal Skull" thing.

It's going to be interesting what they choose this time round. My best guess is still the Spear of Destiny. With Willie, I have a feeling she was supposed to be the traditional 'Bond girl' part of the Bond end of the concept...

Shamefully, and much to my shock, when Indiana Jones was a subject on the Pointless quiz show here in the UK, Kate Capshaw was a big scorer and yet Karen Allen was a pointless answer. Marion would have eaten Willie for breakfast.

 

[Edward]

Stumbled across this photoshop on the web. I've always quite liked the idea of Pratt as a stand-in for Ford.... This works for me. Guess we'll find out in a few years' time, but I'd still love to see an 'Indy the war years plus' series taking him from 1939 to 1956, i.e. between Crusade and Skull. I think that would be much more interesting than plonking a carry-on series in the sixties and into the 70s...

 

[scottyrocks]

Stumbled across this photoshop on the web. I've always quite liked the idea of Pratt as a stand-in for Ford.... This works for me. Guess we'll find out in a few years' time, but I'd still love to see an 'Indy the war years plus' series taking him from 1939 to 1956, i.e. between Crusade and Skull. I think that would be much more interesting than plonking a carry-on series in the sixties and into the 70s...

View attachment 402751

Yes, this photo has appeared many times in IJ discussion forums, and the general consensus (in many IJ discussion forums) is that Prat could absolutely no way play Indiana Jones. Of course, many of the fanatics don't think anyone should play IJ after Ford because, after all, Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones, and Ford, himself, even said that no one will play Jones after he is done, at least not in the time-frame overlap of 1935 to whenever the new movie takes place (because two actors have already played him as a boy/young man).

If Disney thinks there is enough interest, or rather, if they can create enough interest, there will be another actor to play IJ. Pratt looks the part in this shopped photo, but who knows? Will the next actor be a recreation of Jones, or of Ford playing Jones? This remains to be seen.

 

[Edward]

Yes, this photo has appeared many times in IJ discussion forums, and the general consensus (in many IJ discussion forums) is that Prat could absolutely no way play Indiana Jones. Of course, many of the fanatics don't think anyone should play IJ after Ford because, after all, Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones, and Ford, himself, even said that no one will play Jones after he is done, at least not in the time-frame overlap of 1935 to whenever the new movie takes place (because two actors have already played him as a boy/young man).

If Disney thinks there is enough interest, or rather, if they can create enough interest, there will be another actor to play IJ. Pratt looks the part in this shopped photo, but who knows? Will the next actor be a recreation of Jones, or of Ford playing Jones? This remains to be seen.

It's all going to depend on target market, I suppose. If they want to target the original fanbase as well as new kids, they'll have to conform to the Ford mould. I suspect that there's too much money already in the existing property for them to reboot and pretend it's all-new. The Mouse sure didn't spend the money buying it not to milk the property with new outings. That said, they learned well imo from Lucas' disasters in trying to revisit Star Wars, and while Disney's run at that franchise may have had it's controversies (and one, stinking, dud in the form of Solo), overall they did far better in playing to old and new fanbases than did Lucas when he decided to make kiddy flicks and largely ignore his in-built audience. For my money, whomever they cast, the way forward will be not unlike what they did with the return to the original Trek characters. Not to everyone's taste, but for me enough of a homage to the originals without overly-constricting themselves with canon to make it viable. I do think that there will be more likelihood of having someone 'new' accepted were we dealing with a TV show rather than a big-screen option, though it does seem inevitable that we'll see someone playing Ford playing Indiana Jones at this level of 'iconic'. If Pratt, or whomever, can do it as well as Pine did Shatner, Quinto Nimoy, or (especially) Urban Deforrest Kelley, I'll be happy.

 

[Zombie_61]

^ I'm in the "Cast an actor to play Indiana Jones who will make the character his own" group. Indy should be treated similarly to what they did with James Bond-- rather than trying to find someone who would be not much more than a clone of Harrison Ford in the role, let each new actor and writers develop new aspects to the character and run with that. Yeah, I know that didn't regularly work out for Bond, but a succession of actors doing Harrison Ford imitations wouldn't be any better.

 

[Edward]

^ I'm in the "Cast an actor to play Indiana Jones who will make the character his own" group. Indy should be treated similarly to what they did with James Bond-- rather than trying to find someone who would be not much more than a clone of Harrison Ford in the role, let each new actor and writers develop new aspects to the character and run with that. Yeah, I know that didn't regularly work out for Bond, but a succession of actors doing Harrison Ford imitations wouldn't be any better.

I can see that argument - though as you note, it took them, what, five attempts to find a halfway acceptable substitute for Connery, and even then the films were hot and miss (for my money, of the first four anyhow, 50% good, 50% poor). I suppose this is the difficulty of casting a character who became iconic via the big screen first. I know the Bond novels were popular, but they didn't define Bond in quite the same way.... Interestingly, I've never seen this sort of "one person, who did it and can't be replaced" dilemma with any comic book property. Perhaps that's because the look and feel there is already well established, and "all" they have to do is follow it. Sure, everyone has their favourite, but Batman was already Batman, so the idea of replacing Michael Keaton in and of itself (as opposed to the dubious quality of some of the later performances) wasn't such a big deal. (Yeah, I know Adam West and other, previous TV outings, but.... Eh. Adam West was the first I saw and it put me off Batman for many years because I thought that was representative of it all....).

I come back to wondering whether in reality the best solution might not after all to be to develop a new character within the Jones universe who won't then be subject to these challenges to the same degree as they can be their own thing... Personally, I'd pay money to see an Elsa Schneider prequel, with her as an anti-hero and based on her canonical back-story, but I acknowledge that's probably way too niche for anything much other than a fan-film.

 

[Tiki Tom]

I just want to see the franchise survive and regain a bit of its former vibrancy. Ideally, it should remain anchored in the 1930s. Inevitably, Disney will have to do something with it after the current whip holder goes on the last great adventure. Finding a new actor to step into the role is, I think, also inevitable. More importantly, a plot and approach needs to be developed that is not just warming up cold oatmeal. Expanding the IJ universe is a good idea, but it is a minefield to execute.

 

[Edward]

I just want to see the franchise survive and regain a bit of its former vibrancy. Ideally, it should remain anchored in the 1930s. Inevitably, Disney will have to do something with it after the current whip holder goes on the last great adventure. Finding a new actor to step into the role is, I think, also inevitable. More importantly, a plot and approach needs to be developed that is not just warming up cold oatmeal. Expanding the IJ universe is a good idea, but it is a minefield to execute.

It's going to be interesting to see what they do, for sure. I wonder did Lucas seek to bind their hands in any way when he sold them the property? C/f the reported agreement that they would not overlap with his Star Wars timeline or retcon it. Though I think tbh with Star Wars at least that was as much as anything an element of petulance after his own changes from 1997 onwards proved so unpopular with so many.

 

[Blackthorn]

They should come up with a new face for IJ, just like they've done with James Bond over the years. My choice to carry on would be Bradley Cooper

 

[Tiki Tom]

It’s a wrap!

‘Indiana Jones 5’ Has Wrapped Filming, Producer Frank Marshall Confirms

Since acquiring Lucasfilm in 2012, Disney has produced five new “Star Wars” movies and two television series, with many more projects set in a galaxy far, far away currently in the pipeline. But the studio has yet to touch George Lucas’ other iconic franchise, Indiana Jones. That is set to...

news.google.com

 

[Edward]

They should come up with a new face for IJ, just like they've done with James Bond over the years. My choice to carry on would be Bradley Cooper

Cooper could have been a good choice at a time, but he's 47 now. I suspect they'll want to be casting somebody in their late thirties, as Ford was when he was cast in Raiders. Bearing in mind they won't be aiming to make just a single film, but a series of at least three over at least a decade, I suspect that somebody younger might be the aim. Course, there's always the chance that while we all speculate, they'll cast a relative unknown as Henry Cavill was pre-Superman. That was another franchise where there was a lot of talk about how they could get somebody as iconic as Christopher Lee. Of course, Lee was not the first screen - just the first big-screen - Supes, so that was probably not quite as difficult as Indy when there's only ever been Ford in any media, really.


Be interesting to see whether Ford comments on any, eventually-cast replacement. I seem to remember he was very nice about the guy who played Han in Solo, though I didn't rate the latter at all, tbh.