Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Comments: 477 +-   Lucas, Ford to Start Filming New Indiana Jones Film on Tuesday January 02 2007, @11:36AM

Posted by Zonk on Tuesday January 02 2007, @11:36AM
from the junior? dept.
movies
media
Alchemist253 writes "George Lucas has announced that the script for the long-rumored fourth Indiana Jones film has been finalized and is to begin filming this year, with Harrison Ford once again in front of the camera. From the article: 'In a statement, the 64-year-old Ford said he was ready for another turn as the globe-trotting archaeologist. "I'm delighted to be back in business with my old friends," he said. "I don't know if the pants still fit, but I know the hat will."' All three of the earlier movies were shot in the 80s. How well do you think this character is going to translate into a movie made today?
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Chas (5144) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @11:39AM (#17432374) Homepage Journal
    *Decks a Nazi out*

    *CRACK*

    "Shit! My back went again!"
  • shot in versus (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sammy baby (14909) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @11:41AM (#17432400) Journal
    All three of the earlier movies were shot in the 80s. How well do you think this character is going to translate into a movie made today?


    The originals were all done in the pulp-action adventure style that was popularized fifty and sixty years ago - I doubt that it'll somehow be less attractive now than it was when the genre was only thirty years old.

    Also, all three may have been shot in the eighties, but they took place in the forties, so it's not like we're going to see an Indiana Jones trying to come to terms with teh Intarwebs.

    On the other hand, twenty-some odd years later... hey, an Indiana Jones that took place in the sixties might have real potential.
    • Re:shot in versus (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Thansal (999464) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @11:52AM (#17432574)
      I honestly hope they DON'T ditch the pulp fiction feel of it.

      What the entertainment industry lacks currently is light stuff like pulp fiction, be it books, movies, or tv shows (I will admit that the day and age of the radio drama are probably gone, though they could be revived via the use of netcasts).

      I have honestly been goign back and reading some of the old stuff (before my time) jsut because it is hard to find anytihng like it that is current. After all, I can only take so many pieces that are trying to be high-brow/intelectual/witty/etc. Every so often I need something that is just pure release and nothing else.
      • by SirWinston (54399) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @02:31PM (#17434552)
        > I honestly hope they DON'T ditch the pulp fiction feel of it.

        [Int. ancient temple. Indy's female love-interest-du-jour has a cartoonish Nazi at gunpoint.]

        Indy: Bring out the Gimp.
        Nazi: The Gimp is sleeping, Herr Jones.
        Love-interest-du-jour: It's fantastic! The chamber must extend 60 meters...
        Indy: Shit, they ain't got the metric system in ancient Egypt. They wouldn't know what the fuck a meter is.
        Love-interest-du-jour: Then what would they call it?
        Indy: A cubit.

        [Love-interest-du-jour accidentally shoots Nazi in the head, splattering brains everywhere.]

        Love-interest-du-jour: Oh man, I shot that Nazi in the face.
        Indy: Why the fuck did you do that!
        Love-interest-du-jour: Well, I didn't mean to do it, it was an accident!
        Indy: Oh man I've seen some crazy ass shit in my time...
        Love-interest-du-jour: Chill out, man. I told you it was an accident. You probably set off a booby trap by stepping on that "X" right there.
        Indy: "X" never, ever marks the spot, bitch!
        Love-interest-du-jour: Hey, look man, I didn't mean to shoot the son of a bitch. The gun went off. I don't know why.
        Indy: No, let me ask you a question. When you came in here, did you see a hieroglyphic out in front of this temple that said Dead Nazi Storage?
        Love-interest-du-jour: Indy, you know I ain't seen no...
        Indy: Did you see a hieroglyphic out in front of this temple that said Dead Nazi Storage?
        Love-interest-du-jour: [pause] No. I didn't.
        Indy: You know WHY you didn't see that hieroglyphic?
        Love-interest-du-jour: Why?
        Indy: 'Cause it ain't there, 'cause storing dead Nazis ain't my fucking business, that's why!

         
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The movies were set in the 1930s, not the forties.
    • by greenguy (162630) <steveh&greens,org> on Tuesday January 02 2007, @12:29PM (#17433054) Homepage Journal
      Also, all three may have been shot in the eighties, but they took place in the forties,

      The open sequence in Raiders says "Peru, 1936."
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Remember, Dr. Jones did drink from the Grail....
  • by moore.dustin (942289) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @11:42AM (#17432408)
    Another great set of films to have its legacy tarnished by trying to cash in on it one... last... time...

    Hopefully 2007 ushers in a year in which remakes, sequels, and adaptations give way to original and creative stories and ways to tell them.
  • by p3d0 (42270) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @11:42AM (#17432410)
    Lucas said he and Steven Spielberg recently finalized the script for the film. "It's going to be fantastic. It's going to be the best one yet," the 62-year-old filmmaker said
    This from the guy who can be heard in the making of the Phantom Menace saying about Jar Jar Binks: "we've never had a character this funny before".
  • So much for never (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Tuesday January 02 2007, @11:42AM (#17432416) Homepage Journal
    Does anybody else remember when Indiana Jones's hat was deposited in some Hollywood museum (under glass) and they made a press conference about how there would never be another one? Apparently Lucas doesn't. Presumably he was holding out for the script that allowed him to shoot the entire movie in CG except for Harrison Ford.
    • Re:So much for never (Score:5, Informative)

      by Svenheim (723925) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @11:46AM (#17432480)
      Indy 4 will be shot in the old-fashioned way with lots of use of stuntmen rather than CGI effects. It's one of the few things confirmed about the project. And remember, Spielberg is directing this, not Lucas.
  • That'll make Indiana Jones Jr. old enough for something like Indiana Jones and the House Committee on Un-American Activities.


    HCUUA: Sign the confession!

    Jones Jr.: Gimme the whip!

    HCUUA: No time to argue. Sign the confession, we give you the whip.

    Jones Jr.: (signs the confession) Gimme the whip!

    HCUUA: Adios, señor. (guards grab Indiana Jones Jr.)

  • by lbmouse (473316) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @11:46AM (#17432482) Homepage
    "All three of the earlier movies were shot in the 80s. How well do you think this character is going to translate into a movie made today?"

    Most of us who saw the originals are still alive today. Why wouldn't the characters translate well? The 80's were NOT that long ago. Sheesh!
    • by Civil_Disobedient (261825) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @12:10PM (#17432782)
      The 80's were NOT that long ago. Sheesh!

      I know how you feel, but remember when your parents kept telling you when you were a kid about how cool the 60s were, and it felt like they were talking about a different geological era? Well, that's what these kids today think about the 80s. And much like our parents told us, we can tell today's youth that their music sux0rs compared to the stuff we had back in our day.

      Of course, they were right.
  • No new ideas (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Silver Sloth (770927) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @11:47AM (#17432498)
    Is it me or is there a staggering paucity of new ideas around at the moment. If you discount the remakes and the 'let's do another one's there's precious little around now that's truly original. Much as I loved the Indianna Jones movies can't we have a new hero once in a while.
    • Re:No new ideas (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SamSim (630795) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @01:07PM (#17433488) Homepage Journal

      There are plenty of new ideas around. Thousands, millions of them. You can bet your bottom dollar that Hollywood is absolutely crammed to bursting with smart, dynamic writers with amazingly edgy, groundbreaking, intelligent film scripts, any one of which could, if made, become an iconic classic, a milestone in modern cinema, a fixture of pop culture to come. You have your ideas, I'm sure. I know I do too. There is no shortage of ideas.

      The problem is the, studios don't care about movies. They don't care about creating new icons. They care about money. And nothing else. And when you want to make money, you don't take risks, you make safe movies. Cash cows. Sequels to existing successful movies are by far the most reliable of these. Even most original movies you will find slot neatly into pre-existing genre templates. There's the teen comedy movie, the action movie, the romantic comedy, the animated kids' movie, and so on, and so on. It's all numbers.

      The other problem is the viewing audience. They don't want to see new things. While there is less money at stake, they, too, want a safe movie. They go to movie theaters to see something they are pretty sure will entertain them. Out-there, avant-garde movies do not appeal to the general public - at least, not to the most profitable movie-going demographics. Therefore making a stunningly imaginative new movie is risky - it's a risk for punters to see it, which makes it a risk for studios to make it, which is why they are so rarely made.

      • Re:No new ideas (Score:4, Informative)

        by RexRhino (769423) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @04:07PM (#17435622)
        Also, movies are a global market. An explosion translates far better into a foriegn language than subtle dialog. Special effect blockbusters do much better overseas than a witty drama (much of which can be lost in the translation).

        That being said, there are more indie movies available now that there ever were... you just have to see them on cable, or on netflix, or whatever.
  • by ofcourseyouare (965770) * on Tuesday January 02 2007, @11:47AM (#17432500)
    From TFA...

    "George, Harrison and I are all very excited," Spielberg said, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

    I thought George Harrison has passed away? Or are they bringing him back as well as Indy? Just amazing what those boys at ILM can do...
  • by j00r0m4nc3r (959816) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @12:00PM (#17432656)
    "Indiana Jones and the Metamucil Drink"
  • by FatRatBastard (7583) <acentofanti.yahoo@com> on Tuesday January 02 2007, @12:01PM (#17432666) Homepage
    All three of the earlier movies were shot in the 80s. How well do you think this character is going to translate into a movie made today?

    Depends on who has the most influence on the movie: if Spielberg then I think it'll be a fun romp, if Lucas then I'm afraid it'll turn into a moralistic pile o' crap (see "Star Wars Prequels").

    Lucas has already said he's tried to reedit the earlier movies to make Indy more "heroic" (I believe that he wanted to edit or remove the "Indy pulls his guns on the sword wielding baddies and shots 'em dead on the spot" scene from the first film a'la "Greedo shoots first". Spielberg wouldn't allow him).
    • by geoffspear (692508) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @12:22PM (#17432954) Homepage
      What an idiot. I don't care whether Greedo shot first, but that scene was by far the funniest thing in the entire Indiana Jones series, and removing it would be as dumb as letting Lucas write dialog of any kind.
    • by YetAnotherDave (159442) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @01:29PM (#17433712)
      I've heard that the scene with the crazy sword-spinning guy was another
      Ford improvisation - they had planned an elaborate sword vs. whip duel
      (Indy had lost his gun someplace) but Ford was too sick to film it
      and suggested "can't I just shoot him?".
  • by Ingolfke (515826) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @12:15PM (#17432844) Journal
    River Phoenix signing up as Indy's son? He did a good job in the last movie. Is he even available?
  • by C0rinthian (770164) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @12:17PM (#17432874)
    ...and they are in peril.
  • by Ingolfke (515826) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @12:31PM (#17433088) Journal
    that this was a sign of the coming of Duke Nukem Forever?
  • by jpellino (202698) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @12:36PM (#17433162)
    "Indiana Jones and the Prostate of Doom"

  • All three of the earlier movies were shot in the 80s.

    Oh, man. I read this and thought "that can't be right!" - then I looked it up and now I just feel old.
  • by the computer guy nex (916959) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @01:47PM (#17433916)
    This movie has been in the works for easily 10 years. There have been dozens of scripts by multiple writers that have been repetitively rejected.

    In order to preserve the original trilogy as one of the best in American film history, only a damn good script would make it past Ford/Lucas/Spielberg.

    Personally? I can hardly wait another year and a half for it. A fourth movie is long overdue.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Well the knight who was guarding the grail also aged despite drinking from the grail regularly (one would imagine). The grail seems to severely slow down aging, but perhaps only through frequent use (the knight did say something about staying in the temple being the price and limitation of the grail's power) My guess would be that they'll set it forward quite a few years and make up Ford and Connery to look a bit younger. iirc, in the old "Young Indiana Jones" tv series you saw a very very old Indiana Jone
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Watch the movie again, the old man guarding the grail mentions that the grails effects only work if dont pass the great seal, that is the boundaries of immortality.

        Which leaves a very big plot hole on who made the great seal and what is it?

        And why does it have anything with the holy grail? Since presumptuously the grail in itself is the power to immortality, but why does it matter that the seal had anything to do with this? Did Jesus show up and bless the seal when the knights made the temple in the Middle
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          > Which leaves a very big plot hole on who made the great seal and what is it?

          I think you're missing out on the whole "Power of God" thing here. Just to pull something from my nethers, I'd say that the folks who set up the place (the knights who found it) got a vision from God to set up a place for the grail and make a seal on the ground to mark the boundary. The seal itself isn't the boundary, just like a road cone isn't the pothole that it marks. The seal just shows mortals where the line is. As
    • Re:Oh boy! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by oni (41625) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @12:07PM (#17432738) Homepage
      > Any magic he allegedly had 'back in the day'

      Yeah. Allegedly. In truth, what has lucas ever done that wasn't hokie and childish? The original Star Wars was actually pretty good, but Lucas deserves little credit for that. He lucked out in a major way with Harrison Ford, and Harrison Ford saved Star Wars. Try to imagine the movie with just whiny little Luke Skywalker. It just doesn't work.

      Case in point, there is a video on youtube of behind the scenes footage from Empire Strikes Back. There is a great scene in Empire where Solo is being lowered in the carbonite pit and Leia shouts to him, "I love you!" Han looks up at her and say, "I know"

      What a great scene! Well guess what, Lucas originally wrote it this way:
      Leia: I love you
      Han: I love you too.

      Stop for a moment and let the deep, penetrating suckiness of those two lines seep into your being. George Lucas, sitting at his typewriter, no doubt in his underwear, actually typed that, and actually thought it was a good idea. He typed that crap, then he sat back and looked at what he had done and said, "hell yeah, I'm a bloody genius."

      Fortunately, when it came time to film that scene, Irvin Kershner was calling the shots and Lucas was (presumably) in a crypt somewhere. Harrison Ford looked at the script and said, "this sucks" and Kershner agreed and they changed it. And we all remember Empire Strikes Back as a great movie.

      Well, it is a great movie, but no thanks to Lucas.

      If only we had known the truth, then maybe we wouldn't have been so shocked some years later when we were treated to Lucas' drivel in the form of such brain-numbing lines as "omfg sand is the suxor it gets in my eye LOL!!!11" and my personal favorite, "Noooo!!!!"

      God, I hate George Lucas.
      • Let me improve your feeble script

        Lucas originally wrote it this way:
        Leia: I love you
        Han: I love you too.

        Luke: NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

        George Lucas : I'm a bloody genius

        such brain-numbing lines as "omfg sand is the suxor it gets in my eye LOL!!!11"

        "zomg teh force is strong in dis 1, i can tell from his milk-of-chloreines"

        Random Star Wars fans, I AM George Lucas. Together we shall rule the universe as father and son.

      • Re:Oh boy! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Jtheletter (686279) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @01:13PM (#17433546)
        Harrison Ford looked at the script and said, "this sucks" and Kershner agreed and they changed it.

        If only it had been such an intentional alteration. In fact, the scene had so many takes that Ford had heard "I love you" so many times he finally replied "I know" half jokingly. They thought it fit Solo's character better and stuck with that line. The whole movie had to be re-edited at great expense because the first version was terrible. To get the movie we ended up with many of the scenes go right until the last frame of film that was shot to get them to work.
        • Re:Oh boy! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Kelson (129150) * on Tuesday January 02 2007, @06:07PM (#17436942) Homepage Journal
          One of the memorable fight scenes in Raiders of the Lost Ark came about in a similar way. During the chase through Cairo, Indy was supposed to have a long fight with a swordsman. Harrison Ford was sick the day they were going to shoot the scene, and asked Spielberg if they could shorten the scene. The result: The guy flashes his swords around, and Indy just pulls out his gun and shoots him. A classic Indy moment that wasn't in the script.
... the MYSTERIANS are in here with my CORDUROY SOAP DISH!!