Lucas, Ford to Start Filming New Indiana Jones Film

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?

Comments

Well there goes another one!

[moore.dustin]

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.

Ok, George, I'll believe it when I see it

[p3d0]

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".

We Aren't Dead, Yet

[lbmouse]

"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!

Re:We Aren't Dead, Yet

[Civil_Disobedient]

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

[Silver Sloth]

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

[SamSim]

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:Oh boy!

[oni]

> 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.

Indiana Jones now has a family...

[C0rinthian]

...and they are in peril.

Re:That's funny

[ArsonSmith]

I always thought James Cameron should only do sequels. Stay away from originals and remakes.

Re:Another billionaire who doesn't know any better

[GigsVT]

He was talking about patriots rising up against tyrants, not some invading army coming in and slaughtering both.

Re:How will this one be?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> It seems like such a poor idea that I have trouble believing that someone actually seriously entertained it.

Meesa thinksa yousa not paying attention...

Re:Oh boy!

[Bobtree]

> Yeah. Allegedly. In truth, what has lucas ever done that wasn't hokie and childish?

THX 1138. This is a classic work of science fiction, not fantasy adventure, and is fairly serious throughout. Even the directors-cut expanded CG-updated version is relatively unspoiled and watchable.

Re:Jake Lloyd

[taustin]

The sad thing is, that would probably make a better movie that what we're likely to actually get.

Re:How will this one be?

[tsotha]

Bah. The only thing Spielberg guarantees is some overly cute, sappy kid. I hate cute kids in my adventure movies.

It's like he saw how successful the cuteness was in E.T. and decided to put it in every movie. Well, every movie that wasn't designed to depress me.

Re:Another billionaire who doesn't know any better

[Mr. Slippery]

I personally get excited about the potential birth of freedom in a formerly murderous dictorship.

Nice fantasy, but I personally get depressed about the reality of the birth of a theocratic murderous dictorship in a formerly secular murderous dictorship, an exchange obtained at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Problem is, the tree of depostism is also refreshed by blood.

Re:Oh boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the reason it took so many takes is because the crew kept laughing at that line.

Re:shot in versus

[macshit]

"Sky Captain ..." had good intentions, but it was an awful movie (that's why critics panned it). Despite the gorgeous computer generated scenery and a very nice "feel" (the whole 30s pulp/newsreel thing), the characters were so incredibly flat and uninvolving, and the plot such an uncompelling random mishmash, that I found myself nodding off despite my initial enthusiasm. The creators had a very neat idea, but they apparently just didn't have the movie-making chops to pull it off.

Raiders of the Lost Ark on the other hand, was a very good movie. The characters were interesting and charismatic, the plot kept you on the edge of your seat, and the pacing was just about perfect. Spielberg is a much better director than Lucas, and somehow working together with Lucas (and Ford) seemed to keep Spielberg on track, and restrained him from indulging in his most annoying habits (seen in his own rather saccharine movies from that period).

It would be cool if Lucas/Spielberg/Ford can pull it off again, even if they have to use large dollops of CGI and a family pack of canes to do so.