Don't we already pretty much know that this movie is going to suck? I understand the excitement, but after Crystal Skull, is a better film expected? Well, I guess it can't get much worse (maybe). I say this on the day that I picked up the 4 Indiana Jones films on 4k. I'm a fan. My expectations for film #5, though, is right down there with teaching my Pet Rock to speak.
...um, we don't. But I certainly remember expecting a better Bond movie after Die Another Day and a better Batman movie after Batman and Robin...and look how they turned out. That Spielberg or Lucas aren't directly involved is a plus as I see it, not a minus. James Mangold is no hack - and Indiana Jones 5 (and Indiana Jones himself) could benefit from fresh energy in the director's chair. Hell, the best thing in The Force Awakens was Harrison Ford, who rediscovered his pulse after JJ Abrams asked him to amp up the energy of his performance. Unlike Spielberg or Lucas, Mangold also might back off the silly jokes and the over reliance on digital effects to make a more streamlined action movie, like he did with Logan. Of course, I'm hitting my cup of optimism hard. I choose to because I'm really looking forward to taking my 11-year old son to see an honest-to-God, brand-spanking new, Harrison Ford Starring As Indiana Jones movie in the damn theaters next summer. Pass the popcorn - and the Kool Aid.
This doesn't exactly instill confidence. You're right. Nostalgia will bring out the moviegoers in droves. There's nothing wrong with that. Not a thing. I'm sure that's what the filmmakers are banking on. It sounds like you and your son will have a lot of fun no matter the quality of the film. I'll give it a chance for sure. I'm just not expecting much at all.
It's hard to be disappointed when you set the bar on the ground. I learned that lesson after Twister and Independence Day came out. Never again got excited about a tentpole blockbuster. And wouldn't you know it? While I might have been blase on how much I enjoyed them, I never walked away thinking the film was worse than what I expected!
I was more excited when Spielberg was at the helm, with Lucas there as a consultant or for moral support. Their chemistry that worked so well on the first 3 movies went creatively toxic on the fourth film, at least in the screenwriting department. They couldn't have been more opposed on their ideas for the film. The screenwriters had a difficult task trying to reconcile both of their visions, which they weren't up to. I like a lot of how Crystal Skull was executed, but it was a bad screenplay. If Mangold was more of a no-name hired hand, I'd be more confident that Spielberg would really be in control and using him as a puppet director. But with his big reputation and the fact that he writes his films too, I doubt Spielberg will be involved on a micro level. He might just be there to veto any big ideas he doesn't like. The warning signs include that Mangold exhibited little to no sense of humor in his two Wolverine movies. Granted, Raiders had less humor than the sequels. But it still had a mostly lighthearted quality to it, with some pretty big moments of comic relief punctuating a lot of the action scenes. The other warning sign is that this is the same New Lucasfilm run by Kathleen Kennedy. And her Star Wars productions were filled with poor decisions, a lack of planning and no inspiration from anything outside of modern Hollywood or the franchise itself. The Old Lucasfilm Star Wars and Indiana Jones films were filled with all kinds of influences from old Hollywood and non-movie sources. Kennedy is not the same kind of person Lucas and Spielberg are, who both consumed all forms of entertainment growing up. Mangold, unfortunately, also suffered from ripping off recent movies in his Wolverine films, with scenes obviously cribbed from Fury Road and Prometheus. So there's a chance the movie is not going to seem too inspired at a conceptual level. And without Spielberg's unparalleled inventiveness as a director, the execution might not seem inspired compared to the past films either. There's also the vague scent in the air that something "message-oriented" might happen with the Phoebe Waller-Bridge character. As if she might be set up to replace the Indiana Jones character in subsequent films. There is the danger this could go down that disrespectful and depressing path as The Force Awakens and Terminator: Dark Fate did. Waller-Bridge is apparently politically oriented in some of her other work, and I think some of this seeped into the droid character she voiced in the Star Wars Solo movie, a character a lot of people found annoying. The TV show she does was described as "unapologetic in its protest of typecast representation of women." So when that attitude meets a franchise film, it usually means "kill off the male and replace him with a female character who does what he does even better."
I think your idea of terrible writing is a bit sketchy, to say the least, if only because you seem to have completely ignored the reasoning behind it completely and then gone on to compare it to something completely different. Killing Han, his own father is an action which not only provides enormous room for conflict with his character but it's a pretty good way to turn the audience against him really quickly as being irredeemable. It also affects the way the other characters see him as well Rey is filled with confusion and anger going into their final conflict. Chewey has just blasted him in the gut, a justifiable reaction after what he just witnessed. And then there are the echoing effects on the sequels going forward, you can't just kill off some nobody you have to kill someone who carries some real weight in the story. Comparing it to "First-time writers killing off Aunt May" is a shallow analysis, to say the least particularly when you have no context as to the reason for killing off Aunt May.
It's an act of desperation. There are good reasons to kill off a character, but trying to develop another character is not one of them. Obi-Wan was killed off in the original Star Wars not to develop Darth Vader, but to give his character a dramatic purpose in the final battle, as he becomes available to help Luke through the Force. Obi-Wan got to end his life story on his own terms and go out a successful hero. To use a longstanding character as nothing more than a dramatic device in another character's story shows a disrespect to the character, and either a laziness or a deficiency in talent that you couldn't find another way of achieving the same goals in your story. Force Awakens is the same movie where one of the ways they "developed" Kylo Ren is to have him throw chairs at TV screens, or smash up a wall with his lightsaber, or something. That is a scene straight out of a 1980s children's superhero cartoon, except there, they would usually use a scene like that for comic relief, to show how much of a crybaby featherweight the villain was. Ultimately, using big, climactic events as your methods of developing characters is cheesy, soap opera-style writing. There are so many smaller, more subtle ways to build character that are more believable and satisfying. Through performance, through dialogue, through the way other characters interact with that character. The audience doesn't need to be hit over the head with shocking plot twists and dramatic revelations constantly. If that's the only way you can think of to keep them interested, you have failed as a writer.
The only desperation is your spin on the subject, Han's death has all the echoes that Obi-Wan's death had but it also has other implications for Kylo's journey deeper into the dark side of the force and the scene reflects it. Obi-Wan doesn't die so that he can give Luke guidance through the force he dies because George felt someone needed to die for dramatic tension in that scene and stories of this kind usually call for the mentor to be killed. You are grasping at straws calling the scene disrespectful to his character. If you can think of something better I'd be happy to hear it considering all the smack you are talking. Without Han's death Ben Solo's story throughout the series wouldn't be nearly as compelling.
Off topic. But while I did go see Blade Runner 2049 it seemed like Harrison Ford was not on screen that much. Maybe same will happen here. Although he is in really good shape for any age.
Bamburgh, UK Movie set in Northumberland is put on fire as part of filming for Indiana Jones 5, starring Harrison Ford Photograph: Owen Humphreys/PA
Except it's not compelling. It's also "disrespectful" that they brought back a returning beloved character like Han, only to kill him off minutes later. Then they brought back Luke in the next film, only to kill him off minutes later. It's lazy, bad storytelling, the kind that pisses off fans because it has no real point except shock value. What it says is "we can't find a way to make this story or its new characters compelling, so let's kill off the old characters so the audience becomes emotionally invested", and it's not a way to win over people who have spent a generation watching these films. Maybe Disney will complete the trifecta here and kill Indy off, seeing as they've already established a track record for it. Something tells me they won't, but what's happening in this movie is anyone's guess and is probably going to be very lame if the Disney Star Wars movies are any indication -- Indy goes into a wormhole and disappears for long stretches of the movie (Ford on-screen for 10 minutes), Indy de-ages and goes back in time (Ford gets to have minimal involvement while they employ a stand-in and use Irishman-like VFX), or they have him "supervise" a diverse team of new characters who will take over future sequels. Mangold is certainly competent but Spielberg saying no and not directing this movie gives off a real (Kathleen) "KennedyFilm" vibe where the real creative talents behind the series are mostly absent and it'll be another "product" that Disney placed a release date on before they had a screenplay. Be afraid of the fact that even Steven -- who said yes to Crystal Skull -- said no to this one.
If James Mangold is involved it will be good. Maybe not what most people expected (i.e. it'll be ten IQ points higher than the average Hollywood film) but it will be good.
I remember reading an interview in which Spielberg said this film will take place in the 1960s. It's not a recent interview, so it's possible things have changed.
Yeah, but Spielberg's interviews about Indy 4 were hilarious. He was basically friend-bullied into doing it! Spielberg directing is as much Indiana Jones as Ford's acting is. It's become ridiculous. Make new things, Hollywood!!!
A predictable plot twist... Harrison Ford Injures Shoulder Rehearsing ‘Indiana Jones 5’ Fight Scene; Production To Shoot Around Recovery June 23, 2021 7:14am Harrison Ford Hurt Rehearsing Fight Scene India Jones 5 – Deadline
