Indiana Jones 5

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by Face-palm

Why should it matter when I made a profile and how long I’ve been a lurker?

I was born May 1991, I’m 30 years old and I’ve been a lifelong fan of Star Wars and Indy my entire life. Do I need to fit a certain demographic to have an opinion on the films?

[Face-palm]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Very strange.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Sure it does.

"Say what you will about Indy 4, but at least it's not Rise of Skywalker bad."

Crystal Skull is proof that Lucas and Spielberg are not only capable of making a terrible film but probably also believing that terrible film is actually good.

[jedilips]

Originally Posted by kylor

Opinions vary.

and "Anthony Ingruber is a good actor" is a bad one.

being a youtube mimic of an established actor does not equal acting.

[HillSprinter]

Originally Posted by Batman1980

Crystal Skull is proof that Lucas and Spielberg are not only capable of making a terrible film but probably also believing that terrible film is actually good.

Or it’s proof certain people are incapable of appreciating the inspiration for the genre.

[Batman1980]

It felt more like a bad parody of the previous 3 films than an organic continuation of the story.

[Guy87]

I feel like the issue was conflict between the two guys at the head of the project.

Lucas was forcing aliens as a subject matter and Spielberg totally not being on board with that idea and wanting to make more of a classic Indy 30's serial (and not even wanting to direct it himself in the first place)

I don't actually totally disagree with Lucas' idea, the film absolutely could have been a homage to the b-movie sci-fi of the 50's and worked if they just went unapologetically all in. I should read the "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars" script one day.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by jedilips

and "Anthony Ingruber is a good actor" is a bad one.

being a youtube mimic of an established actor does not equal acting.

Your opinion is also a bad one. A real stinker. Agree to disagree. I think Anthony could pull off a younger Indy. He's already pulled off acting as a younger Ford in Age of Adeline.

[morris_schaffer]

Originally Posted by Batman1980

Crystal Skull is proof that Lucas and Spielberg are not only capable of making a terrible film but probably also believing that terrible film is actually good.

Didn't Spielberg come around on Indy 4, admitting it wasn't too hot? I'm sure I read this somewhere.

I didn't think the idea of aliens, sorry I mean interstellar travellers, was a bad idea per se. But two further observations I will make:

1) From the man who directed some of the best movies about Aliens ever, it's kinda hard to argue this element in KotCS is just as wondrous and persuasive. It's a plot propellant, not something which takes the breath away and makes you believe.

2) Crystal Skull's aliens are not nearly as convincing as the more fantastical elements in Raiders and Crusade or even Doom. The Ark, its devastating power, the knight in Crusade still alive after all this time. In lesser movies these might have been ho-hum plot elements, but the storytelling and execution is IMO far superior to KotCS. Both of those movies bring up the ark and the grail at several junctions throughout the movies, so there is tremendous build-up, we begin to understand their meaning, power and significance and anticipate where it's going to go. Now, my memory is a bit foggy, but in KotCS, the finale is sort of a surprise, like TADAAAA!! It's aliens!! Which comes out of the blue so to speak. It's not really a plot element that has been masterfully build-up all throughout the flick, but is more of a reveal. Which, given its fantastical element, came across as a bit cheap and not-at-all wondrous and truly surprising. I believe if Spielberg in his prime had made An Indiana Jones movie with aliens or something similar, that particular element would likely have been as breathtaking as Close Encounters and still as thrilling, engaging and all around fun as Raiders and Crusade.

The inspiration is sound I believe, but the execution is lacking.

[Face-palm]

Originally Posted by kylor

Your opinion is also a bad one. A real stinker. Agree to disagree. I think Anthony could pull off a younger Indy. He's already pulled off acting as a younger Ford in Age of Adeline.

That was a very tiny role…he’s not an “actor” like Aldin is.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by Face-palm

That was a very tiny role…he’s not an “actor” like Aldin is.

Hence why I think he needs more chances to star in bigger movies, including playing a younger Indy IMHO. But of course, you don't have to agree with me, I just think Anthony deserves a shot at it. Alden well.. sucks. He was fine as Solo but it was also lacking. It's hard to describe. But that is also an opinion and my opinion may well be a stinker too on that, but then bad opinions are everywhere these days.

Also: you never got back to me as to who you thought would be good casting choices for a much younger rebooted Indy. I can't think of a younger actor, except for the obvious: Tom Holland.

[Himmel]

New set pics show stunt performer wearing a

[Show spoiler]young Indiana Jones mask, rumor is Ford will be de-aged for flashback scenes. ∆

[kylor]

Originally Posted by Himmel

New set pics show stunt performer wearing a

[Show spoiler]young Indiana Jones mask, rumor is Ford will be de-aged for flashback scenes. ∆

[Show spoiler]

[levcore]

That mask is really impressive (from this distance in those photos)

[EvaDK]

Originally Posted by kylor

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

Looks like he is wearing a German Waffen-SS uniform, if I had to guess. So, this flashback scene could be late 1930s, early 40s?

[Face-palm]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

The age doesn't matter...if a different actor plays a role, eiher in a sequel or prequel (or flashback), it's technically "recasting".

I’m sure if you tried hard enough, you could understand the difference.

[kylor]

Originally Posted by EvaDK

Looks like he is wearing a German Waffen-SS uniform, if I had to guess. So, this flashback scene could be late 1930s, early 40s?

Possible, although the bike would probably be a bigger tell of a more accurate time period. I'm not an expert on war vehicles, but I'm sure someone can reference the dates that particular bike was actually used in real life.

[Blu Ray McHone]

Originally Posted by kylor

Possible, although the bike would probably be a bigger tell of a more accurate time period. I'm not an expert on war vehicles, but I'm sure someone can reference the dates that particular bike was actually used in real life.

I read a quote in an article (Likely speculation) that the time period of the scene is between 1941-1945 with Indy escaping a POW camp.

[craigbarr2003]

Originally Posted by kylor

Hence why I think he needs more chances to star in bigger movies, including playing a younger Indy IMHO. But of course, you don't have to agree with me, I just think Anthony deserves a shot at it. Alden well.. sucks. He was fine as Solo but it was also lacking. It's hard to describe. But that is also an opinion and my opinion may well be a stinker too on that, but then bad opinions are everywhere these days.

Also: you never got back to me as to who you thought would be good casting choices for a much younger rebooted Indy. I can't think of a younger actor, except for the obvious: Tom Holland.

He's auditioned for things a bunch (even for a friend of mine), but he's never gotten those roles. There's a reason for that.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by craigbarr2003

He's auditioned for things a bunch (even for a friend of mine), but he's never gotten those roles. There's a reason for that.

You can’t drop that nugget without more! Is he Bad? Is he obnoxious and difficult to work with? Is he both?