We’ve known for a while that Disney has plans to reboot the Indiana Jones franchise, with Robert Pattinson and Chris Pratt being thrown around as potential fedora’d frontrunners. But now Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy has confirmed it that a fifth Indiana Jones film is in the works… eventually.
Talking with Vanity Fair about that other big sequel in a galaxy far, far away, Kennedy confirmed the rumors that Disney has plans for our favorite archaeologist:
[Another movie] will one day be made inside this company. When it will happen, I’m not quite sure. We haven’t started working on a script yet, but we are talking about it.
As Vanity Fair points out, Kennedy served as Steven Spielberg’s executive producer on his projects from 1982-2012. Which means, yes, she was part of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Hopefully she also realized how poorly gem-headed aliens and fridging jokes went over with movie audiences, and will help guide the franchise into a more diverse exploration of the world we already love. (And may we nominate some possible Indys?) In the meantime, we can always rewatch The Mummy.
oh, great
So, I have to ask – what exactly was it about Crystal Skull that was so bad? I saw it when it came out, and I definitely remember feeling it wasn’t quite as good as (most of)* the others; Shia LeBeouf wasn’t that impressive to me, and of course there was the ridiculous fridge thing…but I can’t really put my finger on what exactly aroused so much ire about it. I remember at the time I wasn’t particularly appaled by it and had a decent enough time at the theater watching it.
*I actually would watch Crystal Skull over Temple of Doom any day. I hate that movie, and can only make it about half way through before getting incredibly bored and annoyed.
Crystal Skull wasn’t quite as awful as some make it out to be, but it had its share of problems, namely Shia, the fridge, and some very fake looking CGI.
I think a lot of fans expect a harder edge to an Indy movie rather than a clumsy family adventure. Hopefully they’ll go back to the more ruthless Indy of Raiders. More men’s adventure pulp and less Swiss Family Robinson.
1. I hated the cinematography. It somehow combined deep focus and soft focus (i.e. everything on the screen was in focus, but it was a soft focus). The blocking is very weird too. Everybody always seems to be standing around in a group. These problems are very noticeable in the first 20 minutes, when they’re in the warehouse.
2. Nobody liked the sci-fi bent. People apparently want religious/mystical treasure objects.
3. Blanchett’s villain sucked. The accent was probably the main problem.
4. Indy never seems to be in danger, get tired, get injured, etc. All of the stuff that makes the action exciting in the first three movies is forgotten and he is now the indestructible hero … at 70 years old.
5. Where’s the humor? I only remember a couple of jokes landing (I liked the jocks/greasers fight).
6. No memorable music. The great scores of Raiders and Last Crusade are a big part of why those movies are so effective.
I wouldn’t mind Chris Pratt in the role; he’s basically Harrison Ford for this generation anyway. But like #3 says, Indy works a lot better when they remember that he should be a little ruthless. More grave robber, less boy scout.
All the russians were horrible, the chases were awful, the aliens – ridiculous, plus everything you said up until now. I honestly can’t think of one redeeming quality of the Crystal skull. Maybe if I rewatch it I’ll find one or two not-so-awful things in it but I sure as hell ain’t doing that. :D
Excited for the 5th movie tho – hopefully they learned.
Hmm…I remember thinking the sci-fi bent was kind of an interesting twist (that said, I’m like one of the only people in the world that thinks the midichlorians are cool and a positive addition to the Star Wars mythos), but I can definitely see the other points. I haven’t seen it since it came out myself, so obviously it didn’t impress me that much.
Still better than Temple of Doom though ;)