Indiana Jones 5 Announced - July 2019

[DaneMcCloud]

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.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by eDave

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.

[Rasputin]

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

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by JD10367

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....

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.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

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

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.

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

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.

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

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

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

No one will force you to see it.

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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.

[Predarat]

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

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

Obviously we disagree, but Crystal Skull was a pointless needless movie, there was no need to make it.

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".

[Beef Supreme]

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

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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".

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.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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".

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.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

Nobody does anything original in Hollywood anymore and makes money. Gotta keep going back to the well.

You have zero understanding of the movie business.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

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.

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

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

Critics can't be trusted.

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

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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.