Movies and TV Indiana Jones 5 Announced - July 2019 - Page 5

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-15-2016, 12:03 PM

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.

DJ's left nut · 03-16-2016, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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.

I'm in lock step with you here.

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

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-16-2016, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

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.

Agreed

DJ's left nut · 03-16-2016, 01:43 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-16-2016, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

InChiefsHeaven · 03-16-2016, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You have zero understanding of the movie business.

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.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-16-2016, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

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.

DJ's left nut · 03-16-2016, 02:17 PM

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:

Spoiler!

InChiefsHeaven · 03-16-2016, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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.

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?

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-16-2016, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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:

Spoiler!

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.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-16-2016, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

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

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.

Sorce · 03-16-2016, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru

Spoiler!

Mr. Laz · 03-16-2016, 04:02 PM

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

Deberg_1990 · 03-16-2016, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

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?

**BigRichard** · 03-16-2016, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

This is brand new information!!

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.

Great Expectations · 03-16-2016, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

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

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

03-15-2016, 12:03 PM
DaneMcCloud Supporter Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Hollywood, CA Casino cash: $10053648	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.
Posts: 88,960

03-16-2016, 02:17 PM	#67
DJ's left nut Sauntering Vaguely Downwards Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, Mo Casino cash: $2979099	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: Spoiler! A mainstream movie chickens out at the end, right? He doesn't make the dude watch him off his family before killing him. If that's a $100 million movie, he changes his mind, shoots the dad and then walks away a 'changed' man. I guess I'm just a dark soul because I absolutely loved that he blasted the family first. I was sitting there hoping they wouldn't go the cheap 'hollywood' way out of it. __________________ "If there's a god, he's laughing at us.....and our football team..." "When you look at something through rose colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags."
Posts: 60,439

03-16-2016, 04:02 PM	#72
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS Casino cash: $11047037	How many people here are going to be lining up to pay $50 to see it at home the day it hits the theaters? __________________
Posts: 95,626