The Indiana Jones Franchise (Steven Spielberg/James Mangold, 1981-2023)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

The Indiana Jones Franchise (Steven Spielberg/James Mangold, 1981-2023)

#1 Post by Jeff » Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:43 pm

Cate Blanchett has joined the cast, says The Hollywood Reporter:
Blanchett on crusade to 'Indiana Jones 4'
By Tatiana Siegel

March 16, 2007
Cate Blanchett has signed on to star in the fourth installment of the "Indiana Jones" adventures.

Harrison Ford already has boarded the project, which will be produced by Lucasfilm and directed by Steven Spielberg.

With David Koepp's screenplay shrouded in secrecy, it is unclear what character Blanchett will play. However, sources said the Oscar-winning actress has landed a starring role.

Shooting will begin in June in Los Angeles and at undisclosed locations around the world. Paramount Pictures will release "Indy 4" day-and-date around the world on May 22, 2008, with a handful of territories opening the following day.

Frank Marshall is producing, with George Lucas and Kathleen Kennedy executive producing.

Blanchett, who is filming David Fincher's "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," next will lend her voice to Wes Anderson's "The Fantastic Mr. Fox." In addition to her Academy Award win for "The Aviator," she received a supporting nomination this year for her role in Richard Eyre's "Notes on a Scandal."

She is repped by CAA.
Last edited by Jeff on Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Cinesimilitude
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:43 am

#2 Post by Cinesimilitude » Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:55 pm

Nice thread title. I hope blanchett has red or brunette hair in this one, It makes her so much more attractive.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#3 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:51 pm

Hmm, after the wonderful Raiders of the Lost Ark, all of the sequels seem superfluous to me. It would be nice, tho', to see Spielberg put something inspired into this picture, because he's at a point where such derring-do can easily become an exercise, however skillful.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#4 Post by Antoine Doinel » Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:48 am

The Last Crusade was a return to form after the clunky Temple Of Doom. Franky, I just think Harrison Ford is far too old to make his character believable and ultimately, there will have to be a really compelling story for me to want to return and see these characters again.

The original trilogy already dealt with two of the biggest, most fantastic myths of our current time - the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail. Are audiences really ready for another return to Da Vinci Code styled hyperbole and mythmaking? With location shooting taking place around the world, it seems like they're tackling another big one I just hope it offers something new to the franchise.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#5 Post by exte » Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:22 am

Out of the three, I love, love, love Last Crusade. It's the fastest, most entertaining of the bunch. I can never watch the second one. And the first one always puts me to sleep, right around the time of Indy getting on the submarine. It's a fine picture, but too long. The third is the slickest.

I have the feeling though that this fourth, with the combination of the son as a new character, will set off another trilogy for Mr. Lucas. Look for him to say that he always envisioned blah, blah, blah...

Cinesimilitude
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:43 am

#6 Post by Cinesimilitude » Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:59 am

I fell in Love with Indy all over again this past fall when I saw all 3 in 35mm. As long as Harrison Ford has the energy (which I truly believe he does) It is believable, because Indiana is Immortal. He drank from the grail, as did His father. Connery and Ford just have to bring the gusto, and all should be well.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#7 Post by Antoine Doinel » Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:29 am

I don't doubt that Harrison Ford has the engergy. But he's 65 years old. My Dad might have the energy too (and he's a few years younger!) but that doesn't make him a believable swashbuckling hero.

User avatar
a.khan
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 3:28 am
Location: Los Angeles

#8 Post by a.khan » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:09 am

Plus, there's the question of how they can update the franchise for people who were not part of the whole Dr. Jones/80s zeitgeist. People like me who saw the trilogy a couple of years ago, and found it just.amusing.

To be fair, I don't think I'm the right target audience for this anyway. I like finishing every movie I see so I can justify my opinion. But in the case of "Pirates of the Caribbean," 30 minutes of watching swashbuckling-nothingness made me realise that it's OK to break this rule.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#9 Post by colinr0380 » Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:10 pm

exte wrote:Out of the three, I love, love, love Last Crusade. It's the fastest, most entertaining of the bunch. I can never watch the second one. And the first one always puts me to sleep, right around the time of Indy getting on the submarine. It's a fine picture, but too long. The third is the slickest.
I'd agree with that, being taken to see the Last Crusade by my parents at a cinema in Cornwall when I was nine or ten years old was an amazing experience (perhaps it was my version of the 'Star Wars' moment, which is worrying in light of what happened to those films). I've never been in a cinema since where everyone in the audience was enjoying the film so completely. Also the only time I've seen an audience burst into applause at the end of a film!

Hopefully they really have found a script that would do justice to the series, although I am skeptical - there are the worries about Sean Connery and Harrison Ford being older now, though they'd be playing immortals if it is set after Crusade, as SncDthMnky mentioned. Also who could replace Denholm Elliott, who made his brief appearances so memorable? It was great to see Elliott's character, after only appearing in the beginning sections of Raiders, get dragged into the main action of Crusade. Then there is the perfect 'ride into the sunset' scene to cap everything off. I'm not sure about restarting things again - it might do more harm than good.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#10 Post by exte » Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:30 pm

They're not immortals since the cup crossed the sacred seal, thanks to that blond Nazi woman...

"You call this archaeology?!"

rs98762001
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:04 pm

#11 Post by rs98762001 » Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:31 pm

Temple of Doom is much underrated. The opening Shanghai sequence is a masterpiece of comic and action timing, as is the last chase through the caverns and tunnels on those little go-cart things. In retrospect, the Thuggee stuff is a little dodgy and un-PC, but when I was a little kid, I was terrified by the great Amrish Puri ripping out that poor guy's heart.

Count me in as someone excited by the prospects of this next sequel. I could watch Ford and Connery all day without getting bored. Just hope those rumors of Indiana's son are false, because knowing Lucas and Spielberg's propensity for irritating teenage fuckers, such an addition could quickly sink the whole enterprise.

Cinesimilitude
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:43 am

#12 Post by Cinesimilitude » Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:07 pm

exte wrote:They're not immortals since the cup crossed the sacred seal, thanks to that blond Nazi woman...

"You call this archaeology?!"
The cup crossing the seal caused the destruction of its housing, simply to keep its power from those who are not worthy of it. Indy and his father are indeed Immortal.

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

#13 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:32 pm

The grail knight referred to the temple seal as the "boundary of immortality." The two brothers who found the grail with him left and eventually died, albeit after a couple of centuries or so.

User avatar
Highway 61
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:40 pm

#14 Post by Highway 61 » Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:39 pm

I'll admit that Temple of Doom is uneven, but it features some of the most quintessential Indy moments for me. The best is the scene on the rickety bridge. The look on Ford's face when he realizes he has to cut it down followed by his expert delivery of "Oh Shit" is perfection. Then there's a very tiny moment in the mines toward the middle of the film that I just love: a heavy is whipping the child laborers, but then suddenly he gets his ass kicked off screen and is thrown into the frame; cut to low-angle shot of Indy as the camera pushes in. Spielberg's composition is classic, and Ford's posture and expression is that of a genuine hero. Whenever anyone mentions Indiana Jones, I think of that one shot from Temple.

Commander Shears
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:17 pm

#15 Post by Commander Shears » Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:14 pm

I was pessimistic already, but when I heard of Shia LaBeouf playing Indy's son, I actually got a little angry. Nothing reeks of 9th season sit-com quite like adding another family member.

Anyway, I always thought that a fourth entry should open with the exact same sequence as Raiders, but when we finally see Indy's face, it should be Tom Selleck. Cut to 50's Hollywood soundstage where someone is making a Man Who Would Be King-style movie based on Indy's exploits. You could throw Alfred Molina in there and even have Danny Huston playing a copy of his father, what the heck.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#16 Post by Antoine Doinel » Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:46 pm

Commander Shears wrote:I was pessimistic already, but when I heard of Shia LaBeouf playing Indy's son, I actually got a little angry. Nothing reeks of 9th season sit-com quite like adding another family member.
Shia LeBeouf has scuttled that rumor himself. He says that no one from the production has even contacted him about the film (yet). But I agree, if they add another member it will definitely be too many cooks in the kitchen.

Natalie Portman is also rumored to be joining the cast.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#17 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:49 pm

Commander Shears wrote:Anyway, I always thought that a fourth entry should open with the exact same sequence as Raiders, but when we finally see Indy's face, it should be Tom Selleck. Cut to 50's Hollywood soundstage where someone is making a Man Who Would Be King-style movie based on Indy's exploits. You could throw Alfred Molina in there and even have Danny Huston playing a copy of his father, what the heck.
That would be perfect.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#18 Post by exte » Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:34 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:Shia LeBeouf has scuttled that rumor himself. He says that no one from the production has even contacted him about the film (yet). But I agree, if they add another member it will definitely be too many cooks in the kitchen.

Natalie Portman is also rumored to be joining the cast.
It seemed totally confirmed just the other day at rottentomatoes and aicn... right?

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#19 Post by Antoine Doinel » Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:24 pm

Well, earlier this week at IMDB Natalie Portman was listed among the other cast as "in talks". I just checked now and she's been removed completely.

If she's in it, I guess they're still finalizing contracts, shooting schedules etc.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#20 Post by DrewReiber » Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:55 pm

George Lucas already confirmed that Portman is not in the film.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#21 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:10 am

As good as Last Crusade is (you gotta love Sean Connery), it doesn't come close to the brilliance of Raiders for the simple fact that Lawrence Kasden's screenplay is so damn good. Smart writing with the requisite one liners but not cringe-inducing, memorable lines (like, "It's not the years, it's the mileage.") and well-written, fully-realized characters. I mean, Marion is still the best and most interesting romantic interest of the bunch. Kate Capshaw just screams her way through Temple of Doom (or just acts as annoying as humanly possible) and Alison Doody is fine as the femme fatale of sorts but she doesn't quite have that spark with Ford that Karen Allen had.

They can throw all the wonderful stuntwork they can at this new film but I feel it will sink or swim based on the strength of the script and all the hands it has changed over the years doesn't make me feel too confident.

Cinesimilitude
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:43 am

#22 Post by Cinesimilitude » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:37 am

I'm excited to see that IMDB (regardless of its inaccuracy) lists Karen Allen as rumored to be in this.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#23 Post by DrewReiber » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:05 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:As good as Last Crusade is (you gotta love Sean Connery), it doesn't come close to the brilliance of Raiders for the simple fact that Lawrence Kasden's screenplay is so damn good.
I never really liked Crusade outside of Connery's involvement, as it had too many flaws. I hated the script as it was mostly an attempt to remind the audience of Raiders while playing the returning characters as parodies of themselves, the lead actress was an annoying cartoon villainess (even for an Indy movie!), and some of the key action sequences didn't work at all. Even at 10 years old, I would constantly spot embarassing technical gaffs all over the place from just poor continuity or planning. I don't think I've been able to watch the whole movie through again since I saw it theatrically in 1989. Later I found out that the screenwriter, Jeffrey Boam, was also responsible for turning the Lethal Weapon franchise into the parody people now remember it becoming.

I can acknowledge that Temple of Doom is a mess of a script, but at least the lead character is treated with respect and I can follow the ridiculous action. My expections for this new sequel are about as low as they can get, especially now that Douglas Slocombe (the original DP) is retired. I have never liked Janusz Kaminski and regardless of my personal opinions, his style of photography is still nothing like Slocombe. Furthermore, Industrial Light & Magic has completely dumped their physical effects department after the Indy 4 team promised they would try to stay away from CGI. Well, I think we all know how much these famous franchise sequels mean to George Lucas when it comes to promoting ILM at the Oscars. Ugh.
They can throw all the wonderful stuntwork they can at this new film but I feel it will sink or swim based on the strength of the script and all the hands it has changed over the years doesn't make me feel too confident.
Jeff Nathanson's original script, the one that served as the basis for the current screenplay, is no longer even being referenced in the media. He was the *only* writer out of Lucas/Spielberg's crew that I had any faith in and now we've had a major rewrite from both Lucas (ARRGH!!!) and David Koepp, who is one of the top 5 worst Hollywood writers I could come up with off the top of my head. Now we've got Indy's son in the film and I think we could pretty much telegraph the last scenes of the movie with relative ease (probably involves the hat).

Does anyone here honestly doubt that Lucasfilm wouldn't have a backup plan to keep this series going indefinitely? Should I even have to mention that reps of that company mentioned a few years back a younger spinoff character being designed for the final sequel? Or the fact that Lucas publicly admiited that "this will be another Phantom Menace" and both Ford and Spielberg disapporved of his core concept for the film until he just waited them out (and until their career success dropped)? I may go see this if the trailers don't look terrible, but the minute the movie shifts from Indiana Jones to emphasizing how his son the action star... I am probably going to walk out of the movie. I'm not paying to see Shia Lebouf, I am paying to see Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#24 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:04 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:As good as Last Crusade is (you gotta love Sean Connery), it doesn't come close to the brilliance of Raiders for the simple fact that Lawrence Kasden's screenplay is so damn good. Smart writing with the requisite one liners but not cringe-inducing, memorable lines (like, "It's not the years, it's the mileage.") and well-written, fully-realized characters. I mean, Marion is still the best and most interesting romantic interest of the bunch. Kate Capshaw just screams her way through Temple of Doom (or just acts as annoying as humanly possible) and Alison Doody is fine as the femme fatale of sorts but she doesn't quite have that spark with Ford that Karen Allen had.
I think much of the success of the movie lies in the backstory and the history that it suggests (but leaves for the most part unexplained). For example, unlike Doom's cartoon maniac and the forgettable Nazi in Crusade (who I have literally forgotten), Belloc was Indy's long-standing nemesis. Even though we only meet him in this one movie, we sense every past encounter and every frustrated moment in he and Indy's relationship; you sense the extent of the rivalry. It gives you so much extra reason to root against him. The actual treasure is another great example, since it too represented a past which Indy must confront, and has already exerted an influence upon his life.

Part of the reason I'm not a large fan of Crusade is because it commits an unpardonable cinematic sin: the tendency to explain every chief characteristic of a character by having them all occur at roughly the same moment. So Indy, in the prologue, gets his hat, his penchant for using a whip, the scar on his cheek, and his lust for adventure, all in one moment--and all of the mystery and allure of the character which was so key to Raiders is explained away. Raiders had a much smarter script; it left in the mystery and relied on the suggestion rather than the explanation of the past.

The same is true for the Karen Allen role: the movie implies a considerable past between the characters and all the conflicting emotions of said past. Of course we have no doubt they will end up back in each other's arms by the end, but such a resolution seems more natural than the usual "meet new girl, fall ecstatically in love with new girl despite your limited encounters" method. Temple falls into the juvenile cliche of making both characters hate each other only to find in the end they are actually in love (sounds like a low budget romantic comedy); and Last Crusade uses the rather out of place Femme Fatale motif, and does so in a manipulative manner. Marion is less of a type than the other two. Anyway, any movie that introduces the heroine out drinking a large sherpa gets my admiration.

Plus Raiders has all the best (and iconic) images.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#25 Post by tryavna » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:32 pm

Mr_sausage wrote:Plus Raiders has all the best (and iconic) images.
And surely the single best action sequence (the truck chase)! Say what you will about Spielberg's body of work, but that's got to rank among the all-time best action sequences ever filmed.

Post Reply