You see, that's the problem with franchises (and sequels in general). People in charge are so focused on making new films because they CAN that they don't even consider whether they SHOULD. They order sequels and announce release dates without having any story, any creative or narrative reason to make the film, other than "hey, it's a franchise, it's meant to have sequels".I've never liked the idea of sequels when there is no artistic reason to make them.

Obviously, Raiders was created with the clear idea of evoking a serial, and with the intention of making sequels. Fortunately, Lucas is so creative that he never wants to repeat himself, and wants to do something different with each sequel. The results may be good or bad, but at least, they are never going to be a repeat of the original movie. He was, without a doubt, the main reason why each Indy film had its own personality.

Right now, as far as we know, there is no reason to make any other Indy film. They don't have a great story concept that is driving the creative process. It's just a few executives saying "this film is going to make a lot of money, so we need to make it". No doubt they can create something decent and well-made: they have the money to hire enough good people for it. But, similar to what happened with the ST, it won't be a film created by the creative impulse of an artist. It will be a corporate film, ordered and closely supervised by a bunch of people who only care about pleasing enough fans and not be controversial, so they can create more sequels.

 

I think my hype just totally died.

I'll probably still go see it when it comes out, but I won't really care one way or the other anymore. I don't think I'm even going to pay attention to how the production is going anymore.


I had a feeling, for a while though, that this movie might get canned. There had been so many delays. So I guess I'm not totally surprised.

 

I’m not sure I agree with this. Last Crusade is very similar in tone and style to Raiders, and brought back many of Raiders’ story elements, the Nazis, a Christian artifact, Sallah, Brody, Indy-after an opening action-packed scene-teaching a class before being apprised of his next mission, Indy-on the back of a horse-pursuing the enemy through the desert, a final showdown with the antagonist in which the antagonist is killed by the artifact he is seeking while the protagonists are saved by the same artifact. It seems to me that, after the controversy surrounding Temple of Doom, Lucas and Spielberg were playing it safe by emulating the film that started it all.

 

It means what it always means: "I don't want to do it anymore but someone else owns the rights, so it's happening anyway."

 

Spielberg had to convince Lucas of most of that. It was basically the polar opposite of Crystal Skull, where Lucas had to convince Spielberg.

 

this could either be a good thing or a bad thing. Of course Spielberg is great and a big part of Indy but sometimes new blood is needed.

 

Time to call it off, I think. I love Harrison Ford, but he's unfortunately getting a little too old for an Indy adventure to be believable. And now Spielberg doesn't even want to direct? It's time to let Indiana Jones rest. We have four films. Let's not be greedy.

 

Spielberg knows he's at the age now where he only has a handful of movies left in him and he probably decided that Indy 5 was not a film he really wanted to dedicate a year of his life to. He is however very protective of the character and the franchise so I'm guessing he felt that by staying on as a hands-on producer, he will have some creative control over the movie but leave it up to another director to do all the heavy lifting.

It is interesting that we have not heard any kind of public statement from Disney, Lucasfilm or Spielberg about this. Not that I'm doubting the source from the Variety article.

 

And really if SS's heart was not in it this was the right thing to do. he gave the world 3 Indy sequels, not sure he owes the world a 4th.

 

From what I've read about Spielberg as a producer, he sort of contributes to the setup, initial idea, and then lets the director do his thing, (just look at how many thing Spielberg has produced, he certainly wasn't all over them). also I don't think James Mangold would take to someone looking over his shoulder the whole shoot. It certainly wouldn't be like Lucas on ROTJ where he was a distinct presence on set. Or Poltergeist which apparently had Spielberg shadow-directing it.

I'm still kinda shocked Spielberg wouldn't direct it, though. Maybe the fact they're on like 5 drafts by now and Lucas totally retired has something to do with it.

 

If he truly wanted Indy 5 to be a thing, I have no doubt that he would be directing it himself.

The reality is that Indy 5 is going to be a thing whether he likes it or not.

And I agree with the people who say we should take the "hands-on" thing with a grain of salt. Of course he's going to say that, because it blunts the P.R. impact of him not directing.

But the reality is that this thing is just getting further and further removed from the creative control of the people who brought us the original movies, just like with the Star Wars sequels.

 

Alden Ehrenreich will replace him. Alden is Indy. You heard it first.

 

You're right saying that Last Crusade is the most similar to Raiders of the three sequels. However, there are a couple of things to consider:

-Even though both films have similiar story elements (Nazis, desert chase, Biblical artifact, Sallah, Broody, the power of God...), I'd say the TONE is quite radically different. In Raiders, the power of the Ark is something to be feared ("death has always surrounded it"), whereas in Last Crusade, the power of the Grail is positive, spiritually uplifting: a search for the goodness within each person. In Raiders, Indy is quite a lonely dark character ("a shadowy reflection") whereas in Last Crusade, his relationship with his father is the core of the movie. In Raiders, the tone is more gritty and realistic (less music, a complex villain, rather brutal Nazi), whereas in Last Crusade there is a lot of levity and comedy (Broody is a whole new character),it's a funnier film. If you look past the obvious similarities, you'll find out that both films have very different tonalities. Raiders is a pure adventure film. Crusade is a more spiritual, mature and emotional film.

-This is mostly based on my impression after reading about how the movies were made, but I'd say that most of the similiar elements between both films came from Spielberg, rather than Lucas. Spielberg is much more conservative than Lucas, who tends to be quite radical (they've both talked about how different they are and how they both benefit from each other). After Temple of Doom, Lucas worked for years on a script which was very very different, and Spielberg vetoed it. I'm fairly certain that Last Crusade has much more Spielberg than Temple or Kingdom.

I agree. I think Indy films somehow "belong" to the 80s, when Spielberg, Lucas and Harrison were younger and had the energy to travell around the world; they created this great trend of fun adventure movies. By the time the 80s were over, all three of them were "done" with the Indy film series.

Kingdom was exactly what it seems: a bunch of 60 year olds attempting to recapture that spirit, a nostalgic trip to their younger years. (But they made the whole film without leaving US!)

Clearly, Spielberg has many other projects that finds more interesting than Indy V. It's a film that it's bound to disappoint fans, because once again, the expectations are going to be huge, and impossible to meet (and the recent trend of extremely violent criticism focusing on every tiny detail and creating a very negative buzz on the internet is not something to look forward to).

 

Despite not feeling good about this, Indiana Jones has an advantage over Star Wars when it comes to continuing the series after the original creator's exit. Unlike Star Wars, which required a new creative architect to recreate the wheel for the ST to work imo, Indiana Jones films follows a predictable formula. The new director needs to simply watch the existing Indiana Jones movies, take note of the common beats and conventions, and then apply them to a new adventure with a new artifact.

 

I can’t say that I’ve ever been to see a film or had my opinion influenced by who’s directing it. The original trilogy are absolute bona fide classics, but I thought KOTCS was terrible. I’m more than happy to see someone else write and direct it and see where it goes.

 

Imo the reality is that Indiana Jones is too good a character and too iconic for it not to be rebooted at some point in the future. Whether audiences accept someone else other than Harrison Ford playing him is another thing, but I can there being more made in the future without him.

 

Hey it might work. I won’t knock a film until I see it

They’ll reboot the franchise eventually but I don’t know if they’ll do that with this one

 

I was expecting that even before the Spielberg news.

I remember when it was scheduled for last year.

 

Well if Spielberg had entirely washed his hands of it and walked away in a huff, the story would be Spielberg leaves Indy 5 not Spielberg eyeing James Mangold as replacement on Indy 5. So he cares a tiny little bit to figure out who to hand it off to at least. (and just to restate, Mangold isn't some wet behind the ears Disney hack, he's a journeyman director who bounces in between tones and genres, much like Spielberg himself)

Even though Spielberg has taken flack from his last few action efforts, Crystal Skull and Ready Player One, I still think he's an excellent action director with populist mainstream filmmaking written into his film's DNA. It'd be weird to see him entirely drop the genre. and West Side Story is still him doing his Big Mainstream Populist Thing.

 

I would much rather have filmmakers create a new character inspired by Indiana Jones in the same way that Indy was inspired by old movie serials and James Bond than rebooting with a new actor. I know, I know. It isn't realistic given the way Hollywood works, but that's what I wish.