Amph The Indian Jones Thread (starring Harrington Fode) (Now Discussing The Dale of Density)

Indian Jones: A Space Odyssey

 

How about Luke's lightsabre, maybe with hand still attached.

Then do like Marvel has been doing, and hand it over to Maz Kanada at the end of the film.

 

I already made that joke.

 

Great minds think alike.

 

Because unless the movie is a Disney/Pixar type of film, with talking animals and objects, it won't do well. A live action film will do better.

 

One of the things I think I most love about the franchise is the fact that Indy is pretty laid back about the incredible powers these artifacts have. He just kind of takes as a matter of course that, for instance, the Ark is indeed capable of transmitting the mighty power of God. And then he just goes on about his affairs. It's just that these artifacts have all sorts of supernatural powers, but that's just kinda the deal and so what? It's Ford's unflappable cool in the face of these things that really sells them.

 

How many people were actually clamoring for an Indy IV, anyway?

I only ask because Last Crusade had the mother of all rarities: a pitch-perfect ending, wherein Indy, Henry, Brody and Sallah rode off into the sunset. There was no possible way to top that, and yet Spielberg and Lucas tried anyway(and yeah, pretty much failed). Let the series end.

 

Yeah, I don't even agree with the ToD detractors. To me, the first three films form one of the greatest film trilogies of all time. I watched some of the Young Indy Chronicles and read some of the books and there was occasionally some fun stuff in there, but, for me, the "real" Indiana Jones series is those first three movies and that's it. I would totally love for this fifth film to be so amazing that it becomes part of the "real" Indy mythos. But I'm skeptical of course.

 

http://patrickschoenmaker.deviantart.com/gallery/35097027/Indiana-Jones

 

Indian Jones

 

Well, I think it stems from the fact that from the prequel (Temple of Doom) it's clear that he absolutely, positively didn't believe in it at all -- which sort of makes him spouting a little bit of nonsense in Raiders when he's already witnessed mystical powers from the Sankara Stones, that he doesn't really believe in the Ark; though it does explain his turnaround at the end (even without the deleted scene).

 

I don't doubt that it would look good, but history has shown that films like "The Incredibles" and "Shrek" do better and are more often released theatrically, then something that's not that. Hasbro made "Transformers Prime-Beast Hunters: Predacons Rising", but it was never given a theatrical release. Which considering the success of the live action films, would be a logical thing to happen compared to when the 1986 animated film came out. Only "Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm" was given a theatrical run. All other animated films in that continuity went direct to video, as did "The Batman Vs Dracula". Films like "Titan A.E.", while not a great film, tanked at the box office. There's a certain expectation with animated movies and general audiences. You're never going to have a MOTP or even a "Heavy Metal" animated film that will get a release and make as much as "Toy Story" and spawn a series of animated films". Hell, we had "The Clone Wars" and no one wanted to see that film except the die hard fans. About the only film to deviate was "The Simpsons" movie and that was really blind luck that it did as well as it did.

 

"Hasbro made"

I think you can stop right there.

 

Here Di$ney, take money.

 

Well, not Hasbro directly. They funded it as they did the 86 animated film, which was done by Marvel Pictures and TOEI. Polygon pictures did the last main cartoon series and the animated feature. There was even talk of it being released theatrically, but it was opted to go direct to DVD. But the fact is, that it didn't happen.

 

Why is that, I wonder? I mean, why didn't Mask of the Phantasm spawn an animated Batman franchise in theaters. Because it really should have. I see what you're saying there and based on facts, it seems like you're right about the success of original animated properties in theaters versus pre-existing animated properties in theaters. But I really cannot wrap my head around why that would be the case.

 

Some believe that Warner Brothers should have spent more money on advertising, but I don't think that's an issue. They had a very popular show on the air, which was a fairly good advertisement right there. The film only made $5 million, while TCW made $35 million. The former only received a release in the US and only with a thousand some theaters. TCW had a wider release and was an international release. Three thousand theaters. I know that MOTP was initially going to be direct to video, but this changed midway through production and was converted to a theatrical release. But still, the studio didn't even try to make it wider and overall, it didn't do that well. When I went to it, only a handful of people were there.

But anyway, it isn't original properties vs existing ones. More that the brand name of Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks and sometimes Fox are what is behind these successes. And a lot of it is that they're using all the tricks of your standard Disney cartoon, in order to maintain that success. Talking animals and objects, singing songs and having the stories that kids will love and adults will get the adult humor. One more note: Don Bluth had success with "An American Tail" and to a lesser degree with "We're Back" and "All Dogs Go To Heaven". But his studio eventually folded because of the Disney juggernaut. Also, take note that Marvel has been tearing it up on the big screen. But only the live action properties. All animated Marvel films have been regulated to DVD. You would think that there would be an animated "Avengers" film, but nope. Even if they paid Robert Downey Jr., to do an "Iron Man" animated film, it might not do well.

"Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within". Not a great film, sure. But it was a film aimed at adults and teens, yet it didn't do well. Sure, word of mouth hurt it, but there was never anywhere the kind of buzz that you'd find if it was a Disney film. "The Adventures Of Tintin" did do well, being made by Spielberg, but it only made $77 million domestically and $296 million internationally. No music numbers and the dog Snowy doesn't talk. "Beowulf" was aimed at adults, but failed to make a huge profit.

This is all the result of how Disney put its stamp on the industry a long time ago.

 

There is a huge difference between the quality of work at Disney or Dreamworks and the quality of work that studios like Warner Bros Animation and ****ing Hasbro. The latter are simply trying to maximize profit margins because distribution costs money and, since they're making these for cheap, they go straight to video.

You're pointing to Mask of the Phantom likes it's some kind of standard, but it's really an outlier (and the quality of animation is still on the level of the TV series).

It also has nothing to do with "talking animals". Disney and Dreamworks etc. target a specific demographic. They're not gimmicks, they're for children.

Every example of a movie you're giving that failed to do well is just a bad movie. As their target audiences aren't children, adding "talking animals" wouldn't help. Songs aren't going to help a Batman animated movie. You're talking about studios that don't want to spend money on animation, so they outsource it to mills, and then act surprised when they take the fiscal approach because they know the animation is not up to par.

And Marvel isn't not making an animated Avengers movie because it wouldn't sell, it's because they're already making Avengers movies in real life that appeal to all audiences.

 

Maybe because TAS was in full swing and the filled the appetite?

 

You really think the kids would care if the animation was different? That that was what was stopping them from going. Do you really think that kids go, "I want to see "Toy Story" because it has awesome animation? They'd go because they would want to see an animated film featuring their favorite characters.

They're still gimmicks. Yes, I understand that they're for children. My point is that adults are content with watching those films and nothing that doesn't feature them.

That still shouldn't stop them from doing it. You'd figure that Disney would want to get in on that market.

 

Well, there's that, but I could see MOTP not being very successful theatrically because it was really, really dark.

 

No, but adults go to see Disney and Pixar movies because they are quality.

Everything else you've mentioned is not targeted at kids. Adults absolutely care about the quality.

What market? They have the market. They're making the movies. Like 3 a year for the next decade. There is no other market.

 

Okay, so now we finally know what the Flanneled One meant all those times he said he wanted to do indie films from now on.

Steven Spielberg Reveals George Lucas's Role In 'Indiana Jones 5'

 

We sooooooo need a rim-shot button on here .

I'm as critical of the 1997-2008 George Lucas output as anyone, but I'm glad to have him involved here. I think his involvement will likely fall somewhere in between ceremonial and highly paid advisor. I doubt he'll have substantial sway. Certainly not to the "We're doing it about crystal skulls and dimensional aliens or I'm taking my ball and going home." degree. But I honestly believe he'll have a lot of good input that will help the movie, and any post-millennial Lucasisms can be deftly discarded.

 

Beautiful work. I'd like to see this become a reality.