They should make prequels with a different actor about Indy when he was a kid and teenager. They could make it a weekly tv series. I think it would be really successful!

why they SHOULDNT make pt. 4:

to be cool and different by not being such money grubbing whores.


why they SHOULD make pt.4:

So they can make a better film than part 3. It may have had a carthartic ending, but in my opinion it was the weakest of the 3.
It was no snickers, it didn't satisfy me. Even part 2 in all it's dark and wacky glory I find a helluva lot more satisfying.

Also...

"Crusade" was too reminiscent of Bond... in particular the boat sequences in Venice reminded me of the chase in "Live And Let Die" and the "Moonraker" gondola run...

In general the whole movie had a very "1941" air about it, which did not go well...

Let Indy rest...

Spielberg is a better director now than he was ten years ago! Flops? Lets see his last four movies. Saving Private Ryan, A.I., Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can. I don't know how well these films did at the box office so they could've been "flops" financially. But they sure as hell weren't flops when it came to quality. They were all great.

No it doesn't. Internet chatrooms just like to bitch about it constantly, which is par for the course.

The age complaint is a bunch of bull. Whoever said Indy couldn't age, and Harrison can still do the action. Nobody bitches about Sean Connery doing the action, even in his 70s. Who the hell cares how old he is.

It just isn't going to be the same without the Nazis as the villains in it.

However, they could still be the villains if they build the film around some of the Nazis that escaped and fled from Germany. The extremely unlikely story about Hitler surviving would be too silly and controversial, but what about Josef Mengele? He did escape to South America (where he lived until 1979), and perhaps for the purposes of the IJ story, he took some treasures with him...

I have no idea where the statement about Spielberg and Lucas' "flops" comes from. The only one that could possibly be considered a flop would be A.I.. Of course, that's purely from a box-office perspective, and I doubt that's what Playitagainsam meant.

Great in your opinion. I personally think of his last 4 flicks only Saving Private Ryan could be considered for the award of "greatness." (And I still would like to see 20 minutes chopped off of it)

Most people I talk to agree that A.I., MR, & CMIYC were all pretty weak & no where near the quality of Jurassic Park, E.T., or the Indy movies. But it is all opinion...

Since I don't normally discuss movies, that's not the reason for my opinion about CGI. Lacking imagination, they go to CGI where things just come out looking fake.

Harrison and Connery are both too old for these types of movies. There's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes it's best to know when it's time to hang it up and do something else.

I have to agree that A.I, Minority Report, Catch me if you can are all rather weak movies. And as for Lucas, I haven't seen anything rom him worth notin' in awhile.

Still, I love the Jone's rilogy, yes, all three of them. I wouldn't mind a sequel. An older Ford dealing with age, making comments like he is to old for this stuff. Maybe he can have a son, on the search for something , his son gets captured and Jones to the rescue?

I don't agree with Minority Report being a weak film at all. If you want a recent futuristic movie that is weak try Equilibrium.

If Indy 4 is made I will watch it. If it isn't made there will be no sweat of my...well...you know.

You do realize that most movies nowdays have some form of COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGERY? There was CGI in Rosewood, Saving Private Ryan, My Fellow Americans, Road to Perdition. Most backgrounds and city extensions are digital mattes, just not on the scale of Coruscant.

No. Lost World: Jurassic Park 2 is considered a 'forced sequel', so much so that they forced Crichton to write the book.

Well said. the net is a waste land where anyone can give a negative view of something and still feel well hidden behind their comments. CGI is indeed in just about every film now a days and like anything, if done correctly, can benefit the film and achieve things that no amount of extra's or budget could ever do.

I can't believe the Spielberg hating that's going on here. I have my reservations about his unequivical status as "genius artist" but his recent films have been excelent. If you want to bash him then bash Hook and Always and Lost World and Amistad.

A.I. was brilliant "real" science fiction and a fascinating effort of strange collaboration between two filmmakers with very different styles.

Minority Report is a very good time and cool action, the end is weak, but it's still 100% worth seeing.

Catch Me... is easily Spielberg's most personal film since E.T. Anyone studying the reoccuring themes in his work will have a field day.

Haven't seen "Catch Me If You Can". "Minority Report" was good, but doesn't stick in my mind as one of Spielberg's all-time greats. "A.I.", while generally well-contructed, suffered from an abysmal ending, one which totally ruined the film for me. I don't think any of these films can compare to Spielberg's all-time greats - "Jaws", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and "E.T." (original version, not the rerelease).

The second and third Indy films were technically "forced sequels". There's nothing in the storyline of each film to suggest that there are other plot threads which need to be addressed. They simply did a good enough job on the films that they do not feel forced or created just for money.

So, essentially, all they need to do is make a good film and all of this other nonsense will go away.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky
[B]
I mean, what relic can Indy possibly search for that would be bigger than and have more of an mystique about it than the Holy Grail?








How about the original Star Wars on dvd?

The creators always wanted Indy to be their version of James Bond
set in the past. There are so many stories and ways that they
could take Indiana. I would love to see them pass the torch to
another actor after Indy 4 and do some more adventures around
the time of Raiders.

As to the fact that Harrison being to old to do his own stunts.
The entire fight in Temple of Doom on the conveyor belt against
the big guy with the beard was shot entirely without Harrison.
They added a few close ups later but Ford was in the states
recovering from back surgery when they filmed that. Watch
the Extras people!

They have also said that this Indy (in part 4) will be an aged
Indy and there have been talks about having another actor to
play a younger Indy in parts a la Godfather 2 switching back and
forth through out the movie.

For my part I'm glad this is being made, and I hope the stories
continue in some portion or another. (but I read a lot of the
novels when I was younger and I also liked the Young Indy
chrionicals)

Jason

Well indy did have 22 other adventures documented on tape...

Agreed, and on a slight tangent, this is what I would rather see for Star Wars 4-6 rather than the SEs.

I'm torn on Indy 4. There is the sense of completeness that exists now, but if they could pull off a really good movie, than that's always a good thing. It'd be nice to see them really force Ford to act for once in a while instead of just using the Pointy Finger of Doom on people.

Another thought that I'd had was Ford doing a remake of BladeRunner, sticking closer to Do Androids...? than the original movie. It'd be far better than trying to make a sequel or updating the FX in the original.

I don't hate Spielberg. I dislike his heavy-handed and manipulative direction in recent movies, like the schmaltzy ending of "Saving Private Ryan", and most of "A.I." ... I grew up with science-fiction (not comics and book series a la Raymond Feist, but Strugatsky and Lem, Dick and Brussolo, van Vogt and Klein etc.) and thus I was extremely disappointed in "A.I.", which I found far from original or fresh.

"Minority Report" and "Catch Me If You Can" are, at best, forgettable, just like someone had earlier observed that "Always" was. The de Caprio movie, especially, was formulaic and lacked true connection with the main character. In five years they will be just as dead and gone like all the movies of 1939 taken together (with the exception of "Gone With The Wind", of course).

It may very well be that Spielberg is actually a mediocre director who had a few lucky breaks at the beginning of his career, rather than a misunderstood genius.

Therefore, the news that he'd direct (or be closely involved in) another Indiana Jones should be no cause for applause, but rather for reflection and sobriety.

http://imdb.com/name/nm0000229/

Now that's what I call a few lucky breaks....

The last film should take place 15-20 after Raiders, between 1951-1956.

Indy should come out of retirement and fight the Russians in some Cold War struggle.

How about the Fountain of Youth? Since Indy's so old? (No, wait, that was already done.)

Well, if you scroll on that page and look at his directorial accomplishments, NOT at his work as a producer (which is an entirely different issue), you'll see quite a few turkeys.

I'm sorry, but I think his talent is way overhyped.

Out of 47 productions, you can't land a hit every time. sure there is some stinkers in there, but over all it's 47 films more then you have ever directed.