Indiana Jones 5 Announced - July 2019
 

http://deadline.com/2016/03/steven-s...se-1201720725/

Disney has just announced that Harrison Ford will be reprising his iconic role as Indiana Jones in the fifth installment in the series with Steven Spielberg returning to the director’s chair. Pic will hit screens on July 19, 2019. Spielberg directed the previous four pics and this one has yet to be titled. Franchise vets Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall will produce.

“Indiana Jones is one of the greatest heroes in cinematic history, and we can’t wait to bring him back to the screen in 2019,” said Alan Horn, Chairman, The Walt Disney Studios in a statement. “It’s rare to have such a perfect combination of director, producers, actor and role, and we couldn’t be more excited to embark on this adventure with Harrison and Steven.”

Famed archaeologist and explorer Indiana Jones was introduced in 1981’s Raiders of the Lost Ark – one of AFI’s 100 Greatest American Films of All Time – and later thrilled audiences in 1984’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, 1989’s Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and 2008’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. All together, the four titles grossed nearly $2 billion at the global box office. Among the top Memorial Day openers, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has the second highest four-day take with $126.9M behind Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End which debuted to $139.8M.

Just... Why? Did we learn nothing from crystal skull?

The real burning question is whether Shia LaBeouf reprises Muff. Or was it Mutt?

If they open the movie revealing that Kingdom of the Crystal Crap was a dream, it'd be OK with me.

Walker of Doom?

Indiana Jones and the Relief of Bengay.

Definitely not watching this until Netflix/Premium Channels/Torrent

Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Opening Weekend Box Office.

:facepalm:

I liked crystal skull.

You're a communist.

Here is a mind blower... If you remove Indiana Jones from the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark everything will work out the same way.

The Nazi's will still find the Ark and they will still kill themselves by opening it. Indiana Jones is a useless character in the movie. :D

This is brand new information!!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oYa26EnN8t0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Bring in Chris Pratt, hand over the franchise, done and done.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

That's not accurate.

I actually wrote an outline and a brief treatment for an Indy prequel starring Pratt, but Pratt wouldn't be playing Indiana Jones, who would have been a young child briefly shown in the film.

I even took it to a major, successful Hollywood screenwriter who loved it and has access to Pratt. The problem is that Indy is George Lucas and Steven Spielberg's "baby" and they want nothing to do with outside ideas or writers.

I'll be curious to see what they do with a 76 year old Harrison Ford.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2688438/th...NMAR-570.jpg?7

"Fly it? Yes. Land it? No."

"Here we go again... again."

It's actually just, "Fly? Yes. Land? No."

Meh.

Is Indy going to be doing an archaeological dig of his own bones?

:clap:

ROFL

Besides the first one-the rest do not hold up well. The last one was a total farce. :rolleyes:

Personally, I thought that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was the best of the bunch, followed by the original.

The first three hold up just fine. The last one should never have been made. 1 and 3 are outstanding and I can't really put one over the other.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-pZekhEWCHg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I can't see this again NSFW

I really disliked Temple of Doom and believe it or not, prefer Crystal Skull over it.

It just wasn't any...fun, I guess is the right word, for me.

the direction of Temple was always really odd. Just didn't seem like Indy at all. It tried to be funny and dark and failed miserably.

both movies are terrible but at least doom didn't have this

http://i67.tinypic.com/dz8e9s.jpg

I generally like the darker movies and as such, The Empire Strikes Back is my favorite Star Wars film to date.

But nothing about Temple worked for me. Not the location, the characters, the sub-characters or the plot.

or how about the fact that short round is like the worst sidekick of all time

Or that Sondra Locke is a terrible actress

I've always loved Temple.

Love that it's dark and kinda mean. Love the action and pace.

I wish Spielberg would quit apologizing for it because it's pure pulpy fun. Nothing wrong with that

Leaving aside the obvious age jokes, there's no reason to make this film. He's already too old for action, hence the need to bring in Psycho Boy in the last film as his son. There is literally just... no... reason. They'd be better suited simply making a prequel. Problem is, Pratt will soon be 37; Ford was only 39 when he made "Raiders" so, in actuality, Pratt is not a good pick for a prequel. They'd actually be better off with Anthony Ingruber, who played the younger version of Ford in "Age of Adaline", actually looks MORE like Ford than Pratt does, and is only 26.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3452021/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t30

As for "Crystal Skull", I had no issue with it. I find it funny that most peoples' issue was with the whole alien aspect. So, let's see: the total fiction of an Ark of the Covenant is okay because it's religious, and the total fiction of the Shankara Stones is okay because it's religious, and the total fiction of the Holy Grail is okay because it's religious, but the possibility of aliens (which is much more likely than a box holding commandments that spouts fire, or a cup that gives everlasting life) is a deal-breaker? Oooookay....

Also needed a break from the Nazis. The Thugees were a real cult in India that the British exterminated but their thing was strangulation rather than pulling hearts out.

Still better than Crystal Skull.

my wife loves those movies. every time she sees it on TV, she has to watch it.

that's when I go mow the grass, or take a nap, or do anything else to avoid watching them. I gave them a solid try a few times. Just can't get into them at all. Or Star Wars.....I've never made it through a sitting of any of the Star Wars. Even as a little kid I was like "....yeah.....I'm out".

Sondra Locke?

Yes.you can make money on a shitty product. :)

My bad wrong 80s actress Kate capshaw was the one I was thinking of

Chris Pratt is over.

Star Wars spoiler: If you haven't seen Force Awakens my question has spoiler.

Indy is alive in his 90's during the LucasFilm TV show, which ran 24 episodes and 4 TV movies.

I seriously doubt they'd turn their back on it.

I blame Star Wars for making 2 billion worldwide in two months for this.

Ford needs to start taking on Wilford Brimley type roles. He'd be good at it now. Grumpy bastard.

Personally, I thought he looked old and tired in TFA and his speech was slow.

I love the Indy character but where in the hell do they go with him? He's married, it's nearly the 60's and he's got a son.

Indiana Jones and the Search For More Money.

Thankfully Hollywood is making movies I don't want to see like this one, so I can save money by not going.

That's not at all why people hated Crystal Skull. But whatever makes you feel good.

Here's the thing. We don't love Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones per se. We LOVE Indiana Jones. The bad ass super smart but super cool archaeologist who kicks ass, kills at will, gets laid whenever he want to and NEVER gets old. Harrison Ford is TOO OLD to play Indiana Jones. As far as Pratt, or any young guy that takes over, if they are going to make more of these, the have to ignore the timeline. It's not some deep thinking movie, for crap's sake. It's a fun ride, and if you find the guy who can play the character, you're good.

Sorry, but it's true.

I saw a review on Red Letter Media that touched on this. THe example given was, do you think they will make a follow up to Fast and the Furious in 20 years that brings back the same cast to play the same roles? Come ON man.

This is a search for more money, plain and simple. Crystal Skull absolutely sucked, and I barely consider it an Indiana Jones movie. Stick with the character, a la James Bond...not the guy playing the character.

I guess we should bring back Sean Connery to play friggin Bond again.

I couldn't disagree more.

As a teenager, I saw Raider of the Lost Ark in the movie theater. Harrison Ford's turn was captivating and far better than his work in Star Wars, or Force 10 From Navarone or The Empire Strikes Back or the Frisco Kid. This was the role that made him a legitimate superstar and people ate it up.

Had Tom Selleck not been able to get out of his contract and starred in the film, no one would talking about Indiana Jones today.

OK, let me insert a caviat. They (we) loved his portrayal of Indy. But the character does not lend well to aging. He's more of a mythical hollywood tough guy who doesn't do mundane things like get old.

Meh. Each their own. I just wish they'd leave it alone.

I don't know where or why you've come up with this premise but it's completely false.


No one will force you to see it.

I know that. And it may be a DVD rental for me or whatever.

Understand, I grew up on this stuff too, and I loved it. Sometimes, you can't go back. Obviously we disagree, but Crystal Skull was a pointless needless movie, there was no need to make it. Double for this one. You could easily have made Crystal Skull and NOT made it an Indiana Jones movie. It would also have bombed super hard. Indy brought us to the box office, and they went back to that well again.

I'll see this one, cuz I'm a sucker. But I probably won't bother in the theater, unless the previews really blow me away. After CS, I don't see that happening.

Maybe now we can get an ***Official*** Jaws 5 going.

Most people disagree with your opinion. The movie earned $800 million worldwide at the box office, with millions of DVD's and blu rays sold.

It still sits on Rotten Tomatoes at 78%, which is pretty damn good for a movie released 8 years ago that you have deemed "pointless and unnecessary".

Crystal Skull sucked out loud. Box office and Rotten Tomatoes be damned.

Well, it's my opinion. The movie did well because it had Indiana Jones in it and starred Harrison Ford and was going to be a great throwback for us old folks. The movie itself if it was just an adventure story called The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, would not have done as well. Tack on the words Indiana Jones And...well now you got something.

I'm not as impressed with the box office take as you seem to be. I own it on DVD as well, but that's mostly cuz it's an Indiana Jones movie, but by far was the worst of the series. I thought I wanted another Indiana Jones movie when it came out, and to be fair, I didn't HATE it, but just found that you can't recreate that kind of magic 20 years later.

The point was to make money. They did that. They will again. Nobody does anything original in Hollywood anymore and makes money. Gotta keep going back to the well.

I don't want to be argumentative for the point of being argumentative, but Crystal Crap is generally regarded poorly by anyone that's more than a passing fan. That movie was terribad. If I listed everything wrong with that movie, I'd spend the rest of the day writing.

It's worth noting your 78% percent metric is critical review. Audiences rated it 54%. Critics can't be trusted.

:facepalm:

You have zero understanding of the movie business.

For me, it was infinitely more enjoyable than Temple of Doom.

Which is ironic considering the critics loved The Force Awakens while I skewered it over and over in the thread.

Temple, by the way, is 85/81 on Rotten Tomatoes, notably higher than Crystal Crap. (I'm not a big Temple fan, either; mediocre at best.) By my estimation, there have been two good IJ movies, one mediocre, and one bad. Batting .500 isn't good enough for me to trust them on this one. The fact that Lucas isn't involved gives me at least a little hope.

And the only thing your second graf proves is that you/critics can't be trusted. ;)

What it means that they can't be trusted isn't that they're always wrong. Just that they're not always right. If they were always wrong, you'd be able to trust them. Consistency = trust. Doesn't mean you have to agree, but you can trust a critic if you consistently agree or disagree. That's taste.

I'm in lock step with you here.

Raiders, Last Crusade................Crystal Skull (watchable)..........Temple of Doom (absolute crap).

Agreed

True, but there's always another 'rugged adventurer' type and Pratt presently fills that role extremely well.

You can't just plug anyone in there and have the character be good. The Bond analogy is a great one - you can have a shitty Bond and the character will suck (I'm looking at you, Roger Moore).

But if you have a good proxy for the genuine article, you get a good product. If Pratt comes in and is Daniel Craig to Harrison Ford's Sean Connery, you'll have done a great job resurrecting a fantastic property.

But if they just stick someone in there because he's seemingly good looking and can manage the smugness of Ford's character (hmmm....Chris Pine?), the movie will fail.

I agree that the Indiana Jones franchise should get the Bond treatment. They just have to plug the right guy in there. Nothing's truly plug and play; casting will still make the movie.

Chris Pratt's name was bandied about long before I shared it and subsequently hit the internet.

But my sources say that apparently, Speilberg doesn't like him for the role. Whether that changes is anyone's guess but the strong word I'm hearing is that Kathy Kennedy, George Lucas and even Disney are only onboard with Harrison Ford and Harrison Ford only.

Disney now controls the character (although Paramount will receive an undisclosed amount of revenue for each film), so that may change down the road. But I think it'll be well into the 2020's before we see any other actor in the role.

PM'd you.

I guess you're right. I don't see anything really original out of Hollywood at all. But you understand the movie business. I don't. Maybe they are coming up with new and fresh ideas all the time and I'm just missing out. Truly. I dunno.

I've explained this time and time and time again. If you want an original movie, look no further than independent releases and films with less than a $25 million dollar budget.

Blockbuster films, in which studios spend in excess of $100 million dollars (and sometimes, $200 million dollars) need to have a built in audience. People like you say "Hollywood isn't original", yet when a film like Tomorrow Land is released and IS original, it flops at the box office.

Add to that, Pixar and Disney animated movies are definitely original. I don't even know how you could even argue otherwise. Frozen, Inside Out, Zootopia, The Last Dinosaur, Finding Nemo, Toy Story, et al, are all "original" films.

If you want "originality", watch Whiplash or Birdman or Sicario or John Wick or any number of films that are released each and every year.

But don't look for an "original" film if the budget is in excess of $100 million because most likely, you won't find it.

Goddamn Sicario was good....

That was one tense friggen movie. And I'm fairly convinced at this point that anything with Benicio Del Torro is worth watching (and Emily Blunt is reaching that status if she isn't there already).

I didn't realize it was a smaller budget picture. In either event, it was right there with the best of any movie I saw in '15.

Spoiler:

Good point. I guess I remember the days when blockbuster films WERE original...like Godfather, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, ET, etc. etc. So fine, there's "originality" in Hollywood but that's not what they are marketing to us plebes...

So, how come they don't put more money and attention to the more original type movies?

Denis Villeneuve is a bold director. He's been chosen to direct Blade Runner 2, starring Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling.

I'm expecting an excellent movie.

Money, plain and simple.

It's incredibly difficult to market a movie, especially a movie that doesn't have a built in following from a novel, short story or comic, so budgets tend to be very small.

I've told this story several times but my neighbor directly across the street produced The Hurt Locker. The film was in the can for 18 months because he couldn't find anyone to distribute it.

All it did was win the Oscar for Best Movie.

How many people here are going to be lining up to pay $50 to see it at home the day it hits the theaters?

{raises hand}


Perhaps?

Well ****ing duh! Where do you think I got it from. Not everyone watches the show though and I am guessing very few have seen every episode.

I'll watch it on putt locker the following Saturday....

I believe is incorrect.

The Nazi's didn't have the correct staff height because the medallion had information on both sides, while only one side was burned into Toht's hand.

They were digging in the wrong place and wouldn't have found the Ark if Indy's team hadn't found it first.

Only true if you accept that Marion still fights off the Nazis in Nepal. If Indy isn't in the film, he isn't there to help her, she is dead and Toht has the real medallion instead of the imprint from his hand and they dig in the correct location.

Ah, good point. I forgot about that scene.

Holy crap, I guess it's true.

Damn, Indy just caused all kinds of problems for Marion. LMAO

My vote too.

How are they going to make an action movie with their star in his mid-70's?