Monday, July 28, 2008

Number Five Is Alive...


After the mediocrity that was "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", the Times Online has an interview with George Lucas where he actually discusses the idea of a fifth film in the series.

I waited nineteen years for a movie that would make up for the weak attempt that was Last Crusade only to have a sequel that was worse than that film. So am I and other Indy fans to wait another two decades to make up for the last two films?

Please, George...

Just let him pass into pop-culture history. Either that, or pass the baton... you can't be trusted with something this valuable anymore. As much as I looked forward to the fourth Jones film, I don't look forward to a fifth one.

The fans deserved better and got worse...

Put down the pencil and yellow paper pad, Mr. Lucas. It's time to go film those "little" esoteric films you talked about doing once Star Wars was over. It's over. And sadly, so is Indiana Jones...

Hat Tip to Ain't It Cool News.


Anonymous said...

For a great/funny summary of Indy 4 go here:

Unknown said...

I think anyone with a camcorder and a brain (scratch that, brain not required) could make better movies than Lucas seems to be capable of making these days...

Kevbot said...

I thought Last Crusade was really, really awesome.

Crystal Skull, on the other hand...

Anonymous said...

Crystal Skull was great. I don't understand why so many people didn't like it. I saw it three times and loved it every time. I wouldn’t say it was better than Raiders or Crusade, but it was an Indy film through and through. All the elements that made the first three movies so great were there. I'm looking forward to more new Indy adventures.

Doopey said...

I agree with Art. I don't get the vehement backlash against Crystal Skull. No, it's not as good Raiders -- none of the sequels are -- but it's as good as Last Crusade was and it definitely feels like an Indy movie set in the 1950s.

Did I like the bit with Shia swinging with the monkeys? No, that was dumb. Did I like watching Indiana Jones run around and still act like the Indiana Jones I know and love? You bet I did.

What did people expect? You honestly think that after 20 years, Spielberg and Lucas can make a film as good or better than the movies they made in the prime of their youth? Not ever going to happen.

It was a fun adventure with Indy, people shouldn't force it to be anything more than that.


Unknown said...


Prime of their youth?

George Lucas was 36/37 and Spielberg was 34/35. Not exactly "old," but not really spring chickens either.

I just felt like I was watching Harrison Ford struggle to recapture the character (and sadly -- at least to me -- he did not), and the "nuke the fridge" thing has quite literally become the new "jump the shark."

Doopey said...

Yeah, I guess I also don't get why everyone has a problem with the fridge scene. I liked it. I thought it was pretty funny, and it made a reasonable amount of sense. I didn't think it was any more far-fetched than a full-blown Busby Berkley musical number inside a little Shanghai nightclub, or "X Marks the Spot", or some old dude who's apparently been living in a cave for hundreds of years just drinking holy water. You think using a lead refrigerator as a fallout shelter is more ridicules than those things? I don't.

Also, my only point about the "youth" of Spielberg and Lucas is that they were in their sweet spot during the late 70s/early 80s, and you can't realistically expect them to be the same kind of filmmakers today that they were then. We all get older, we all change. Given that, I think Spielberg did a remarkable job of trying to "copy" the look and feel of the earlier Indy films.

Anonymous said...

I think it had the look and the feel of the other Indy movies. My initial reaction was that it was a little too far-fetched. But people have convinced me that it's really no more "out there" than the original three. I still like Last Crusade the most with Raiders a very close 2nd. This is the least favorite of all, but I still plan on buying the DVD and I will probably see a 5th film if it's made.

Oh, and just for the record, I'm one of the few people that don't mind the new Star Wars trilogy. Too many people expect the newer movies to be exactly the same as the older ones.

Doopey said...

I don't hate the SW prequels but I am certainly frustrated by them.

But given how DIFFERENT they are from the original SW films it reinforces my point about how much credit Spielberg deserves for successfully recreating the style of the original Indy films.


Anonymous said...

Some sort of mumbo-jumbo about mind control skulls which belong to space
aliens that turn out to be inter-dimensional beings... who for some reason
still need a spaceship to leave, all of it pursued by a villian who may or
may not be psychic but we'll never know because that whole plot thread was


Among the many cardinal sins:

1) Indy was never in charge. He was either someone else's prisoner, or he
was second banana to Mutt. That's the most unforgiveable sin, riding
backseat to Shia. This is INDIANA FREAKING JONES, the greatest action hero
ever, yet all he ever does now is shout directions to other people? What the
f*ck was Spielberg thinking? Harrison was the driving force of all three
Indy films. A man of action. Now -- he was totally castrated in this film.

2) I liked Indy being on the outs with the government after the warehouse
theft. Too bad David Koepp caught amensia and forgot to implement that into
the rest of the plot.

3) The skull came into their possession early on. That made no sense
whatsoever. Once they had the skull... what the hell was the movie about?
Take it
back to the temple and... uh... see what happens? In the meantimes, your
characters look fairly ludicrous carrying around this giant glass prop,
waving it at things and hoping something good happens.

4) Endless exposition. They must've spent a good hour yacking about the
skulls, their history, their legends, and for all of that I still didn't
understand what the f*ck was going on. Think back to Raiders -- one scene,
five minutes long, and you know everything you need to know about the Ark
and it's actually got your spin tingling. Then you get on with it.

5) Marion. She came way too late into the film, making it impossible for
meaningful interaction with Indy. And I hate to say this, but Karen Allen
forgot how to act. She's a pale ghost of the woman in Raiders. Zero spark.
Zero interest in her. Our fondest wish to see her again... just proves be
careful what you wish for. All I saw was a tired former actress suddenly
shoved back into the spotlight with no preparation or memory of what made
her great in Raiders.

6) John Hurt. WTF? He's a crazy dude for 2 hours then magically wakes up to
his old self? What purpose did he possibly serve in this movie??

7) Ray Winstone. He betrays Indy... in the first 10 minutes?? HUH? That was
idiotic. It had no shock value because we hadn't even come to know the guy
at all. That should've been a gotcha saved for the end of the 2nd act.

8) Drab action. I blame this on CG and green screen and general laziness on
Spielberg's part. It never felt real, aside from the motorcycle chase
through the college and that was thoroughly ordinary in every regard.

9) Gophers. 'nuff said.

This just killed me man. Here I was last night reading the new Making Of
book - how Spielberg was so hungry and driven on Raiders to make a lean,
mean, action machine, killing himself in the Tunisian desert to get just the
right sunset shot, demanding thousands of more snakes be shipped in to make
the Well of the Souls scene work... and now 20 years later we get freaking
CG ants and gophers.

People will blame this on Lucas because he's the easy target, but this was
Spielberg's mess the whole way through. This was sheer laziness -- from the
asinine script development all the way through to John William's utterly
forgettable and regurgitated score (he re-used the Grail theme? Huh?),
Spielberg was asleep at the wheel everywhere it counted.

Ghosthost2 said...

I love Last Crusade, but it's the least of the real Indy movies. KOTCS was a total blasphemous disaster. KOTCS lacked everything the made the first 3 good. What made Raiders and Temple so great is that they are intense edge of your seat thrill rides. KOTCS is so releaxed that it makes Last Crusade look just as intense as the first two. Another thing that made the first two great are the dark and horrific elements. What makes the films so memorable are the scenes such as the Ark Opening, the Well of Souls, the Spike Room, and the Sacrifice scene.
How Spielberg thought Temple of Doom was 'too horrific' is beyond me. Raiders has plenty of horror in it, and that is what makes it so special and great.
Last Crusade got by laregly thanks to Connery and a lot of legitimate heart.
KOTCS takes a series that started as an adventure/horror series and turns it into total kids only fare.
There is no tension and no scares in KOTCS. Don't give me the ant scene because they looked extremely fake and the ants basically were there to help Indy since they only really threatened the bad guys.
Since Indy 5 will probably suck as much or more than KOTCS, I say don't make it.

What largely makes Indy movies great are the tension, the horror, the edge of your seat action, the suspense, and the fact that it feels like the character has journeyed into Hell and back at the end of the first two installments. An Indy movie should never be a relaxing experience.

Also, Disneyland's Indiana Jones Adventure is very much like a spook house type of attraction. It's these spook houese elements that the ride is based on, that are abundant in the first two films and completely lacking in KOTCS.

Anonymous said...

I think the problem with most people that don't like this film is that they saw the first ones as a kid and they have idealized the movies so much since then that no sequel could have met up to their expectations. It still made $750m in the box office and got 76% at rotten tomatoes with 182 favorable reviews. That's not bad. The next one will be even better. :)

Ghosthost2 said...

Nowdays, everything Spielberg gets good reviews. Plenty of people saw the original trilogy for the first time when adults and still loved them.

Colt and Maggie said...

I think its hard to say that Spielburg was in his prime in the 70s and 80s when Schindler's List, Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan were all filmed after 1990. I loved KOTCS by the way. It wasn't what I expected, but no Indy film should be. I would be ready to buy a ticket today for a 5th.

Anonymous said...

In response to ghosthost2's slandering of the "Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden Eye" attraction at Disneyland, you are sooooo wrong. That thing is a real jewel, and believe it or not, the lines for that thing are long every single day of the year.

Besides, what kind of spooks did they have in Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indy and Marion were trapped in the mummy tomb? A lot of pop out zombies.

As has been said, things may seem out of proportion until you look back at the originals - and it'll look the same.

Unknown said...

@ anonymous responding to ghosthost2

I don't think he was saying anything bad about TOTFB. He was saying it was inline with the original film and that those "spooky" elements were lacking from the most recent film.

Also, I for one think it's a terribly overrated attraction, albeit enjoyable. However, it's certainly not worth more than a 30-minute wait.

Ghosthost2 said...

To anonymous that replied to me: I love Temple of the Forbidden Eye, and I said nothing bad about it. It is my 2nd favorite theme park attraction. I was trying to say that the spook house elements are what made it so great and these spook house elements come from the first two films and were completely lacking in KOTCS.

Thanks corruption, for telling anonymous that he interpretted my post wrong.