Spielberg won't do Indy 5
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
Without 1941 we don't get Raiders in its current form. Spielberg had to prove he could shoot a movie under budget and ahead of schedule, after the excesses of 1941. To pull it off Speilberg storyboarded 80 percent of the film ahead of time. 14 days ahead of schedule and spending only 20 million dollars (which I once read was half his approved budget).
To be fair, that's why I said "worst Spielberg movie that I've ever seen", because I figured that there might be worse stuff out there.
To be fair, Close Encounters is useful as a cure for insomnia, which might put it over Temple of Doom since at least it does something useful, while Temple is just painfully annoying. Still, Harrison Ford is still good as Indy even in a bad movie, which is why I'd still say Close Encounters is a worse movie for me.
I found it very exciting.
I found it very exciting.
That's fine. I don't hate the movie enough to get into an argument over it, we all like different things. I was personally bored almost literally to sleep when I watched it, and found it to have no redeeming features.
The Mummy is what Raiders would have been with Tom Selleck.
None taken.Ha, ha, it's funny because family trauma explains away a seeming plot hole! Meaningless franchise extension prevails!
... No, actually, that's just as awful an idea as an adventure movie starring Sr. (No offense.)
I love all that-- it's just that the aliens should have been space aliens, not interdimenional whatevers.
You're a fan of his episode of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles ("Princeton, February 1916"), then?
I enjoy the heck out of 1941. It has some truly hilarious moments and a lot of really enjoyable stuff. It also has more than a few ill-conceived scenes that turned out like train wrecks. I'm glad that the film exists, but it's more than fair to admit that the film has a lot of serious problems.
Close Encounters, on the other hand, is a masterpiece. The entire finale at the landing strip is brilliant. The beginning and the middle also (pardon the pun) hit a lot of powerful notes.
Close Encounters, on the other hand, is a masterpiece. The entire finale at the landing strip is brilliant. The beginning and the middle also (pardon the pun) hit a lot of powerful notes.
I watched that one relatively recently (ie., within the last six months). I do, in fact, like that episode. In general, I like Young Indy, though it's more interested in random historical cameos than telling an actual story a little too often and the DVD presentation (reordering it and re-editing it chronologically instead of as broadcast) leaves a lot to be desired. If Disney+ decided to take the unfilmed scripts and make a new Young Indy series, recast obviously, I'd watch it in a heartbeat.
^ Cast Anthony Ingruber and I’m in.
Well, at least we got something good out of it in the end then.
You really don't like cerebral movies do you?
I find it a little ironic since a movie I consider one of the best sci-fi movies of the last 20 years is literally just four people sitting around in a house talking, until the shit hits the fan in the last 15 or 20 minutes. I have major respect for anyone who can figure out what movie I'm talking about.
That's a really arrogant, pretentious thing to say. "You just don't like smart movies" is an insulting statement, especially about this movie. Close Encounters isn't "cerebral", its a boring slog where absolutely nothing fucking happens. So, if cerebral in this context means "Boring, pretentious shit that would have bombed if it came out even a few years later", then yeah, I don't like "cerebral" films
Even 2001 A Space Odyssey has more of a claim to being a "cerebral" film then this does, and that movie is even worse then Close Encounters. I'd personally apply the term cerebral to stuff like a lot of Nolan's non-Batman work (Inception, Memento, etc), and I like those two movies, because they could be cerebral and actually have things happen.I'd avoid calling people stupid for not liking a movie that you like, personally. It doesn't reflect well on you
This.
OK, maybe cerebral was the wrong phrase for Close Encounters, maybe character focused would work better.That's a really arrogant, pretentious thing to say. "You just don't like smart movies" is an insulting statement, especially about this movie. Close Encounters isn't "cerebral", its a boring slog where absolutely nothing fucking happens. So, if cerebral in this context means "Boring, pretentious shit that would have bombed if it came out even a few years later", then yeah, I don't like "cerebral" films
I'd avoid calling people stupid for not liking a movie that you like, personally. It doesn't reflect well on you
People who don't understand 2001 don't understand 2001.
No way was that film budgeted for $40 mil. Remember how outrageous TMP's reported $45mil budget was just 18 months earlier? I vaguely recall something like the movie's approved budget was $20mil (then considered highish) and it came in at closer to $18mil.
Last edited:
We're in complete agreement here. For me, THE LAST CRUSADE is the best Indy movie with RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (yes, a classic) in second place. THE CRYSTAL SKULL in third, and....well.....THE TEMPLE OF DOOM.....as much as I tend to enjoy older movies over newer stuff, this one......well, there ARE exceptions to every rule after all.
EDIT: Oh. I missed what you said about CLOSE ENCOUNTERS the first time. I guess we're not in complete agreement after all.
Last edited:
I can't say I'm not disappointed with Spielberg dropping out. His filmography the last 20 years has been such a mixed bag and he's been living off his reputation during the first 30 years of his career. Ready Player One was so forgettable that I struggle to remember that I saw it in the movies. Martin Scorsese can still be counted on to deliver about three great movies a decade. You would not call Spielberg a legend if you judged strictly on his last 20 years as a filmmaker.
I like Mangold and think he could give the franchise a shot in the arm. Indy doesn't need the Logan treatment but I'd love to see this film stick the landing.
I like Mangold and think he could give the franchise a shot in the arm. Indy doesn't need the Logan treatment but I'd love to see this film stick the landing.
