Indy 5 Indiana Jones & The Dial of Destiny All Aboard the Hype Train to June 2023!

I suspect Spielberg has something in mind for both an older Indy yet, post-Crystal Skull, and a presumably late 60s time frame.

 

Thank you for expressing in words the thoughts I have on the haunted castle concept. I was having a difficult time coming up with a manner of stating why I think it'd be a great choice for this film, but you captured it perfectly.

Agree 100%.

I imagine that whatever the main theme of the film is, it will carry heavy Cold War undertones. The East vs West conflict could be related to the haunted castle idea. The setting of the castle could be somewhere in the East, in the Soviet bloc. Oh man, wouldn't that be awesome!

 

Such could prove to be the kind of aesthetic change-up Spielberg might be aiming for. Crystal Skull had a decidedly ether lit comic-strip look about it, both gold-pushed and even vaguely pastel, as further emphasized by both desert and jungle settings. It wasn't as earth-toned as, or like, the previous Dougie Slocombe outings. Many criticized the film for as much but I myself thought it nicely befit the 1950s cinematic sensibility, tagging Indy's travelogue with blown-out primaries of idyllic (albeit twisted) suburbia and malt shop memories along with brighter 'Tarzan artifice' as separate from the dingier, duskier jungle treks of Raiders and Temple of Doom. So imagine going from those adventure-narrative locales to a haunted castle of late 60s Cold War Eastern Europe, if not deep into the Byzantium gloom of Russia herself. I'd picture something colder, dank and luminous in a distinctly phantasmagorical sense à la Poltergeist-meets-Bridge of Spies.

Or, they might do something entirely unrelated.

 

I doubt we're going to see them go forward with the haunted castle idea, but I definitely would not be profoundly disappointed if they did.

All I know is, re: Ford's comments on Jimmy Kimmel (?) the other day, the story is in place. They're not announcing a film and scrambling to figure out a story, but rather they have the story so they're going forward with the film. That's hugely reassuring to me, because actually knowing what you're doing is at the very least a good place to start.

 

I think there is a little bit of a difference.
The first three were rooted in reality and it was plausible. The story was serious and lighthearted. The Christian themes were present as well as religion. (Again a stretch)

The alien though goes against the last three films and goes into conspiracy theory areas that the majority don't take seriously. The originals never conclusively told you that such god existed. It was open ended. The Alien wasn't really doubted and Indy kinda winks to the audience and shrugs whilst Ox tells us they were "Interdimensional beings infact.

The magic has the same problem. People just don't find it plausible and have a hard time dealing with something so outdated.

 

I'm not sure how this can be true. I mean, what else allowed Mola Ram to rip a man's still-beating heart from his chest? What caused the Sankara Stones to burn through Indy's bag? What higher power caused the Ark of the Covenant to murder Nazis with fire and lighting, accompanied by spectral figures? Or allowed the Holy Grail to heal Henry while the wrong cup aged Donovan to dust in a matter of seconds? The original three films never shied away from or beat around the bush with supernatural elements; Indy very unambiguously lives in a world of the supernatural (and apparently an intriguingly polytheistic one at that), it's just that supernatural elements are used sparingly so as not to lose their impact when they show up.

I don't even think it's the fact that the aliens delve into conspiracy theory elements that people don't believe in; I doubt most people believe in any of the supernatural elements in RotLA, ToD, or LC. It's that the science fiction stuff clashes with the aesthetic established in the first three films. Not that its conspiratorial in nature or accepted too readily, but simply that the genre it embodies goes against the grain of what's been previously depicted.

 

^ agreed. At the time of KOTCS release I said that it might sound strange but I found the alien aspect of the film more difficult to buy into than I did the supernatural and religious themes of the originals.

 

I think I've said this before in this thread a few pages back, and I'm probably repeating myself, but I honestly think the alien thing could have worked. The issue is they had two different alien plots and neither of them had anything to do with the other, and it also does not mesh well at all with the 30s adventure pulpiness of adventuring through the jungle and avoiding temple traps with stone pillars and spikes. If they had stuck to the Roswell alien stuff (which ends up completely irrelevant to the main plot, the Roswell alien isn't even the same species) and kept it in America, it would have been fine.

Literally all the stuff Lucas wanted to tap into, the paranoid, conspiratorial natures of 1950s sci-fi, with Red Scare subtext and all the fixings, that could have worked if they actually stuck to it. Instead, the moment Indy and Mutt hop on a plane to go to South America, all of those elements (Indy accused of being a commie and put under watch, the Soviets have clearly infiltrated the US, Indy was present at the Roswell crash site and went to Area Hanger 51) stop mattering. We're now watching an Indiana Jones adventure in the formula of RotLA and LC, but with ancient aliens thrown in. And that, to me, is where the film completely stops working. That's where the sci-fi genre starts to mesh with the classic 1930s adventure pulp aesthetic they're trying to recreate from the old films like orange juice and tooth paste. If they stuck to the initial intent with the alien plot, and made a film that was more true to its era and presented a completely different kind of adventure for Indy, I genuinely think they could have made it work.

 

I think the alien was a similar species though. "The autopsy gave us promising results but it wasn't what we were looking for, who knows maybe he was a distant cousin," I think is the quote.
The Alien stuff was trying to do other things as well.
"Thirteen beings came, and taught them farming, agriculture" and then the (gold) "knowledge was their treasure" but for what reason? The end seems to have been tacked on without much more continual drive in the film. Ie. If you directly had the Russians trying to use the Alien tech throughout with a clear purpose then it would have worked better. Irina seems to be a loose canon and I never really saw her taking orders from Soviet command. If you like she is like Red Skull. And is purely out for her own self. Power? Knowledge? It isn't clear.

 

You know what gets me about the hate Indy 4 got? Ghosts coming out of the ark and making peoples skin melt off is totally fine, Nothing wrong with ripping a guys heart out of his chest with bare hands. Then the guy's still standing there breathing only to finally die later by a fire pit but aliens oh no that's going too far!

NEWS FLASH! The whole indiana Jones franchise is littered with unrealistic nonsense but i wouldn't have it any other way! It's supposed to be a fun adventure series with swashbuckling action and excitement! You want realism go watch a documentary!

Bring on Indy 5! Minus Mutt of course, Just say he ripped on some old guy about his age one too many times and got cold cocked into last decade or something.

 

Yes it was taking it too far. Sounds strange I know but I found the supernatural and earthly religious quests of the first 3 to be subjects I could suspend my disbelief for in the world of Indy. I don't think aliens and spaceships fits in to the world of Indy that we know from the other films. Theres something about the core of the plot and the macguffin that I couldn't get in to. Maybe its because in the first 3 theres a clear goal, we know what they are trying to do and what the artifact can do. In KOTCS I'm not exactly sure what they are trying to do.

Personally I think in a way Disney are in a similar position with Indy 5 as they were with TFA, both films are / were coming off the back of previous films that are widely acknowledged as not being as good as the originals. So with TFA Disney unashamedly added all the elements that take you back to the spirit of the originals and I think they pulled it off with a good film, and I think they did this to get the new series of films off to a good solid start. So I think that Indy 5 will be squarely aiming to be like the originals, my guess is more like Raiders and TLC in terms of its theme, adventures and feel.

I'm confident (purely based on what Disney did with TFA) that they know exactly what they need to do to get the Indy films back on track. We saw people doubting what the TFA would do, thinking that the PT had harmed the brand, that proved to be unfounded and I the same applies to Indy 5. Disney understand this their target audience and the advantage that films like Indy and Star Wars have is that because they’ve been around so long is that they are crossing generations. I can't see KOTCS having a hugely negative effect on 5.

The question is will this film be a one off or will they be laying the groundwork for more? Its clear Harrison probably won’t do any more after this. So my gut feeling is that Indy will get rebooted by Disney at some point in the future. Indy 5 may be their litmus test and the popularity of 5 may determine how quickly they get round to a reboot with other actors and directors. Indiana Jones could still be too highly profitable a character for Disney to discard after Harrison hangs up the whip.

 

Oh my god, you know what would be amazing marketing? Various 2D animated Indiana Jones short films (I see them inspired by the art style of the Fleisher Superman shorts) that play in front of Disney movies in the year leading up to the release of Indy 5. Just fun, quick little hand drawn adventures.

 

At least the existence of aliens is not entirely impossible. Unlikely maybe but to think that earth is the only planet with life is just absurd when you think about how big the universe has to be. Now somebody still standing with eyes open and breathing not too mention screaming after their heart has been removed that's rediculous! If you thought nuking the fridge or an alien plot made no sense in Indy 4 what makes the stuff in temple of doom any less stupid?

When i saw that movie as a kid i enjoyed it because of the silly stuff, The excitement and how it was like a nonstop rollercoaster of chills and thrills!
I didn't quite get the same thrill from Crystal skull but maybe that's because i wasn't a wide eyed little kid anymore. I will say that i enjoyed it more than the first movie honestly. All that talking and the slow boring begining didn't really grab me. It wasn't until temple of doom that i became a fan and isn't that the one everybody hated when it first came out?

Anyway my only concern with Indy 5 is are they are going to completely ignore the events of Indy 4? Most fans probably want them to since it's so universally hated but if Marion is suddenly not there or not even mentioned it'll be weird since they got married last time. Plus there's the issue of Mutt. Do we just not even bring up his name or say he died or what? Maybe this new one could take place a couple years before crystal skull but then Ford would look way older and it wouldn't seem right either. I don't think we should go backwards and bring Nazi's into it again. It's been done. Now the only thing else is will Ford even live to get this movie made? He's not getting any younger and 2019 is still quite a ways away. They better get started soon!

 

All Indy movies are awesome. End of discussion.

As for Mutt and Marion, I would love to see them again. If they're not in it, though, there's probably a good in-universe reason for that.

 

Uhm.... Harrison does the voice acting? Or get The TCW/Rebels team to make an animated series.

Short round!

 

The "world" of Indiana Jones is specifically a cinematic one predicated on pulp adventure—vintage fictions roughly throughout first half of the 20th century that dealt in the fantastical and were delivered in direct, hard-hitting and comparably unsophisticated narratives. To somehow exclude aliens from the above is to not really have much of a gauge for it. The general conceit-engine Team Lucasberg appropriated for the film series was to take a premise from preexisting myth, folklore and/or urban legend and assign it a cinematic homage as best accompanying, be it Golden Age, Poverty Row B-genre or usually both ...or the whole process vice-versa, or altogether in a loose brainstorming fashion. But that's really all there is to it either way. The first three installments were never "religious" themed, exactly, but more generally supernatural for its own sake; the actual religious themes therein were to serve metaphorically as moral lessons and/or character-arcing themes for the heroes and villains respectively. So when the series jumped ahead twenty years into the latter 1950s, the story idea they went with was to me so obvious that I never thought twice about it; a sort of, "Well, of course it would be space aliens." Crystal Skulls are real artifacts, El Dorado and Area 51 are real legends and folklore, Red Scare inspired "flying saucer" movies were definitely the pop-cultural lexicon of the time ...frankly, I don't see how the fourth installment could be anything other than what it was.

For the life of me, I don't see how Spalko's intentions with the crystal skulls are any less vague than, say, an Ark containing the "wrath of God". It's never clarified in Raiders how Hitler and the Nazis actually plan to control, let alone repeatedly and effectively wield, such a vaguely described super-weapon, nor that they even really understand what it does anymore than Indy, Belloq or we the audience. The Sankara stones? How do they actually work as a means of world domination? How feasible is it to brainwash entire nations under the Black Sleep of Kali? The Holy Grail is the most specific in terms of immortality, but even then: Does Hitler plan on replenishing every single one of his German soldiers time and again, or just his Nazi party, or just himself? Does he or anyone else know how the Grail actually works in such regards?

Of course none of this really matters. Under such aforementioned standards of storytelling, it can be reasonably assumed that these various villains sought there mythic treasures, at least, as a means to study them for whatever destructive or tyrannical potential. And the same applies to the Russians seeking the Crystal Skulls. Spalko calls them a "mind weapon". It's clear enough that psychic warfare was the agenda.

Well, whatever is done with Indy 5 creatively, it'll won't be Disney calling the shots, but Steven Spielberg. That's the difference here. Episode VII was primarily in the hands of Kathleen Kennedy, who in turn hired JJ Abrams to spearhead the commercial intentions of the merged studios at large. Needles to say, Spielberg is not a director for hire. Even if Lucas never eventually steps in to any degree, Spielberg alone is practically his own institution, of which I highly doubt the corporate 'focus group' filmmaking behind The Force Awakens will somehow override.

 

I had an idea for the scenario - Native American culture , now I'm not American so I don't know too much about them but I assume there must be certain popular myths / supernatural artefacts in their culture which could provide a good story / quest/ mcguffin .

plus - we don't seem to see them anymore in cinema , and in the 60s IIRC they were finally getting to have their voices heard somewhat

 

Oh Danger comes this way.
Yeah uhm don't go there.
You would think it is ripe for storytelling but really most people won't "get it". It is sometimes too strange.

JK Rowling (that author who 'wrote' Harry Potter) started a whole storm over something similar...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/artic...riting-web-post-about-native-american-wizards

Essentially she took some of their Myths and Legends and stuck them in the Potterverse.
As to having their voices heard. That is what the whole storm was about because Real actual people believe this and JK made it fantasy. Doesn't that give the wrong impression?

Where do you draw the line?
Should ASOIAF be scorned because that incorporates other myths and legends?

I don't know but I don't think it should be touched lightly. Disney would have to be so so careful that it wouldn't be easy or make a fun film.

 

well there's gonna be complaints whatever religion or cultural myth they go for (TOD got a fair bit of flak I think ) , but at least it could give some jobs to Native American actors and raise some wider interest in their culture .

.

 

But that wouldn't really be fair Would it.
You can star in a film where your beliefs are essentially used as a form of entertainment.
I don't think that is right personally.

Wider interest is okay but not if it is inaccurate. How many people actually think the Ark or the Holy Grail did the things in the films? It is clearly misrepresentation but it works.

On a related note I thought of another macguffin. Spear of Destiny. The spear that pierced Jesus's side when he was on the cross.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying , are you saying that because Native americans still believe in these things that its out of bounds ? I mean I don't know , but I imagine they're like any other religious people - some of them do believe in it literally and some of them appreciate it more in terms of myth .

but this is the thing with Indy - it takes a mythical idea from a religion does a populist take on it for entertainment and at the same time raises interest in the archaeology and history of those things .

Native American myths have usually been used in a very flippant off-hand way for mostly horror films - how many times have they used the 'Indian burial ground' trope ? but they're not the centre of the story , in this case they would be .

.
.

 

This was actually used as the MacGuffin in an Indy comic Dark Horse published in the mid-nineties.

 

Yeah pretty much. I mean these beliefs are still practised, beliefs are still held by those people. Wheras normally religious people (say Christians) can accept it (even then they have their doubts about the portrayal of their beliefs) Native American people haven't really accepted the modern day world (and nor should they) and are very hostile to outside people.

And the populist take on things is exactly what you don't want to do. Would you like your beliefs taken out of context and simplified for others entertainment?
It does raise interest in the stuff but it is inaccurate and wrong. Maybe they don't want to have interest in them. They simply want to live with the traditions and beliefs of the past, is that enough?

 

I think they will learn from the problems of KOTCS. The point of the first 3 is perfectly clear and Indy knows exactly what he's there to do, that's not the case for KOTCS (yes spalko wanted to mind control but then she wanted knowledge), why did the skull need to be returned, Indy didn't even seem to know why he was there or what he had to do and spent the film helping the villains. It had no feeling of peril at all, out of place attempts at humour and family therapy in the middle of action scenes again diminished any sense of peril, unnecessary mystery surrounding the identity of mutts mother that had no feeling of surprise. It seemed like they just wanted to get the thing made irrespective of all the problems with it. Just because it was The 1950s didn't mean it had to be sci-fi related. I'd say the Cold War with the Russians was a perfect back drop but after establishing the paranoia of the era in the first act it was promptly dropped. The 2 genres did not gel for me, yes it might for some but I'd say it's look, feel and tone doesn't fit with the world of Indy established in the first 3.

I predict Disney will follow TFA and make sure it's a film that harks back to the originals. I don't believe that Spielberg will have complete and total control over the story either. But I'm hopeful we won't see a mish mash of genres.

The interesting aspect is going to be if it will be something that's set in the 1960s, if so will they set it somewhere that will mean it won't look like a man from uncle film and set it somewhere in the east maybe. Will it be Cold War based or a new unrelated threat. What sidekicks will return or will they be all new.

 

Good point about the Crystal Skull. With the previous McGuffins it was made clear why Indy needed to find them.

• Find the Ark of the Covenant to stop the Nazis from using it's power to conquer the world.
• Find the Shankara Stone to restore prosperity and virility to the village and their crops.
• Find the Holy Grail so that Hitler won't live forever.
• Find the Crystal Skull and uh, ummm... Return it?

I still enjoy the film but the motivation should have been much stronger. I think they could have played up the mind control angle more.