Surprised this hasn't been posted yet. When I heard it I was hoping it was just a rumor, but it's been confirmed. https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sp...diana-jones-returns-to-theaters-july-19-2019/ An Indiana Jones film set in the late 1960s?
There is a chance this could be an epic, epic failure. The kind that will be remembered for a thousand years.
Ford will be 77 when this movie is released. 77! Indiana Jones in the late 1960s doesn't make much sense either. The original trilogy borrowed its tone from the adventure serials of the 1930s. Even though "Crystal Skull" was a terrible film, I could see some sense in transposing the character to a 1950s B-movie aesthetic and narrative. But the late 1960s are more or less the start of the movie brats subverting nearly every genre in the book. Only it is impossible to subvert the Indiana Jones character whilst still making an Indiana Jones film.
It would've been much better if they did something relating to the JFK assassination or the Cuban Revolution. I'm really baffled at what historical event they're going to base it on.
Indy is about magic, not conspiracies. He will probably look for the Spear of Destiny or the Cintamani Stone or something like that. It should be the Monkey's Paw. Because the existence of this movie is a perfect example of wishing for something and being sad that you got it.
This will be terrible. Unless they follow the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles way of thinking and have a now retired Dr Jones retell a story of an adventure from his youth with a new actor playing a Young Indy.
Young Indiana Jones was excellent. However, I don't think the fans would be too happy if Ford's involvement was kept at a minimum.
"Yeah? I'll tell you what; Until I get back my five thousand dollars, you're gonna get more than you bargained for. I'm your goddamned nurse!
If this is set in the late 1960s, then Short Round is a 40-something dude. Perhaps they can lure Jonathan Ke Quan out of retirement!
*Except for this one: In hindsight I honestly would have been perfectly fine with that being Harrison Ford's last appearance as Indiana Jones, and the franchise as a whole might have been better off for it. About the only redeeming value of Crystal Skull was that it renewed interest in the franchise. It also made Temple of Doom, which many fans previously considered the black sheep of the franchise, earn a lot more appreciation because it seemed so much better by comparison. But even without the alien-oriented plot, CGI gophers, "big damn ants", mawkish skits, bad dialogue ("I'm sorry; I meant 'No, comrade'"), and idiotic swinging monkeys, the fourth movie, released in 2008, would have been pushing the franchise's luck. Eleven years later, I fear the franchise might get driven completely off the cliff. Lucas's absence does help mitigate that concern, but Spielberg has proven that not everything he touches turns to gold. I would actually prefer limiting Ford's involvement to a frame story over acting like he's still 30- or 40-something and putting him in the center of action scenes. Plus that would allow the main story to take place in the interwar era of adventure in which the franchise really should take place. But I doubt they'll go with that because it would open the door for a new actor to play Indiana Jones, which producers have said they don't want to do. I don't understand this stubbornness about wanting to continue the franchise indefinitely without recasting Indiana Jones. No one's going to want to watch a Not-Indiana Jones and the Something of Something movie that takes place in the 1970s. Either let someone else put on the fedora or leave the franchise be and let it preserve some dignity.
"‘Indiana Jones 5’ Will Miss 2020 Release Date (EXCLUSIVE)" (Variety.com - Thursday, 6/28/18) (CREDIT: Courtesy of Disney) -G