Slashdot Mirror
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?
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.
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.
I read the internet for the articles.
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 Jones in a few segments. Maybe that's how they internally explained how he could be as old as he was and yet more active than someone of his very advanced age might normally be.
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 ages?
Lastly... Why can't the seal be moved. If immortality is achievable why not move the seal or move into the temple with modern luxuries?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
> 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 to moving into the place and living forever, it's an artifact from God, so it stands to reason that if you try to find a loophole but you're not devoutly religious, God would just pull the plug on you anyway.
Virg
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).
- is there a source on this? It seems like such a poor idea that I have trouble believing that someone actually seriously entertained it.
-- "Oh. This guy again."
Ya know, these jokes were rampant regarding the new Rocky movie. Have you seen Harrison Ford or Sly lately? Take a real good look, then go to the corner and cry like I did after watching the new Rocky movie. Despite the years on these guys, I would wager a hefty sum that either of them on their worse day are in better shape than 3/4's of us /.'ers.
Now what THAT means is a whole other question...
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.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
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.
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.
I remember when I was about 12 years old, my Dad was trying to talk me into seeing this movie about an archeologist searching for some ancient jewish artifact. I couldn't imagine anything more boring sounding. "Dad, I don't wanna see some dumb archeology movie, it sounds boooooring! I don't care if Han Solo is in it. It's still gonna be dumb!" Well he and my Mom dragged me along to see it anyway. We were a bit late because of my foot dragging. We walked into the Villa Theater (huge wraparound screen that made IMAX look like a video ipod) right as the Paramount trademark was fading to the jungle mountain. I'm getting chills up my back remembering it. That might have been the most pure unadulterated FUN I ever had in a movie theater.
-- QED
Stop going to mainstream theaters. Try out an art house theater. In Dallas alone, there are two separate art house theater chains(!) (Angelika & Landmark). Most movies approach or go well beyond the 2 hour mark, due to character development and plot. You'll never see a sequel in one of those theaters, and many of them have budgets in the 20-50 million dollar range, and top ranked actors like Edward Norton, (Painted Veil), Brad Pitt (Babel), or George Cloony/Toby MacGuire (Good German).. Doogie Houser starred in a film adaptation of the book Running With Scissors.
At least one "independent" film comes out of studios like Warner Independent, Fox Searchlight, Sony Pictures classics etc every month. Typically 2-3.
moox. for a new generation.