Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

I also feel that hero deconstruction works better with characters like Bond or Batman who aren’t tied down to one interpretation or actor. Part of the reason I liked The Batman so much is because to me it plays like a meta-narrative rebuttal to “movie Batman”. In The Batman, Robert Pattinson’s Bruce/Batman start out as the pinnacle of what “movie Batmen” have been—they punch criminals and they brood and they drive cool cars. But Pattinson’s Batman learns over the course of the film that he has to be more—he can’t just inspire vengeance, he has to protect people. He can’t just hyper focus on “the element”, he has to use both his Batman persona and public Wayne persona to influence Gotham for good. He needs to be better at the detective side of things—if he had figured out Riddler’s plan in time, he could have stopped a lot of destruction and injuries and even deaths. So his Batman works as a deconstruction of previous film Batmen who were fine for a popcorn movie blockbuster, but didn’t measure up to all that Batman is as a character, the aspects that exist in comics and cartoons but not in films.
 
This feels like a much more balanced, nuanced, honest review from someone who loves Indy.


Maybe it's because he kept his review spoiler free, but most of what he addresses is the production value, which honestly amounts to nothing if the script is suspect. Part of me feels as though his take is essentially boiling down to, just be happy settling for decent, don't expect greatness. That's what the gyst of so many reviews come down to these days. No one honestly expects these new iterations to touch the magic of the originals. All we want is to not have the characters we love reduced to a shadow of themselves who is broken down and only to be given a half hearted "redemption" by the end of the movie. Granted I'm keeping in mind that this review is spoiler free, so much of what he could dig into about what works for the movie may be buried in the full review, which he can't reveal just yet.

Indiana Jones is a throwback to the golden age of cinema and those types of heroes didn't need to be deconstructed to become beloved. Take that away and you're throwing away something baked into his DNA as a character.
 
For me, I think the “deconstructed hero” works best when it’s a new character, inspired by an older one, that is more depth. Like, James Bond was this pure escapist fantasy of what men wanted to be in the 20th century. Cool, suave, drinks and gets laid all the time, says just the right thing at just the right time. Along comes Indiana Jones. He’s still escapist, still a version of what “men want to be”, but he’s more fallible. More human. He gets knocked on his ass. He never gets/keeps the treasure at the end. He’s out of his depth a lot. But he’s still a college professor, still sleeps around, etc., etc. Then you get something like the Uncharted games and Nathan Drake, who is even more of an everyman. He likes to think of himself as cool and suave, but more often than not he’s getting by on pure luck. He’s still smart and knows a lot about history, but he’s more morally grey than Indy, because Nate is straight-up a treasure hunter, looking for a payday. His character struggles, of feeling like everything he touches turns to ****, of feeling like some kind of human wrecking ball, and in the final game, his marital problems, tell a much more human story without losing the fun and escapism. So, Nathan Drake is a deconstruction of Indy in a way, but in a way that doesn’t diminish Indiana Jones. Just like how (in my opinion, at least) Indy is a sort of deconstruction of James Bond without feeling like parody or of tearing anything down.
Well said. I was going to use the comparison to Bond as well. These are pulp heroes. Escapist fantasy for men (and women from a different perspective). Deconstructing them defeats the purpose. It's like dining on 'healthy' pizza. The reason one eats pizza is to indulge. It's why I didn't care for Daniel Craig's Bond. He was far too dramatized and self-conflicted. I don't want to watch a mopey Bond anymore than I want to watch a mopey Superman.

Deconstruction is a fine storytelling mechanic but, it's a mistake to make these pulp heroes the subject of it and sometimes a hero has such an important place in film history and is so popular (like Indiana Jones or Luke Skywalker), that even a well told deconstruction story is not desired by the overwhelming majority of the audience who just want to believe in their heroes one last time.
 
Last edited:
Well said. I was going to use the comparison to Bond as well. These are pulp heroes. Escapist fantasy for men (and women from a different perspective). Deconstructing them defeats the purpose. It's like dining on 'healthy' pizza. The reason one eats pizza is to indulge. It's why I didn't care for Daniel Craig's Bond. He was far too dramatized and self-conflicted. I don't want to watch a mopey Bond anymore than I want to watch a mopey Superman.

Deconstruction is a fine storytelling mechanic but, it's a mistake to make these pulp heroes the subject of it and sometimes a hero has such an important place in film history and is so popular (like Indiana Jones or Luke Skywalker), that even well a told deconstruction story is not desired by the overwhelming majority of the audience who just want to believe in their heroes one last time.
I think Ryan Johnson’s take on the Jedi and the themes in TLJ would have gone over great in a stand-alone film without legacy characters.
 
I guess pretty soon we'll get an update to this picture, with KK and Phoebe Waller Bridge instead of Spielberg and Lucas.
maxresdefault.jpg
 
"You know what fans really want to see?"

View attachment 1711987

See, here's the "odd" thing.... Ford himself INSISTED on showing Indy as an old, tired/aged man. He WANTED to walk around the apartment with his shirt off. He WANTED to show Indy struggling. And more than anything, Ford WANTED Indy 5 to be made. And Ford lauded PWB performance in the film.

So, Disney/Lucasfilm does not shoulder all of the responsibility for this film's shortcomings or underperformance.
 
I'm seeing interviews with Mangold where he talks about making location changes due to Covid. I wonder what other concessions were made due to trying to film in that environment. I'd rather they had waited and made the film they wanted to make, and not the one they ended up having to make. Though thinking about it, this is the fifth Indy movie, and if the early chatter is true, out of those, only two seem to be considered classic movies, with Temple of Doom still being divisive. So out of five movies, 2.5 are good.
 
See, here's the "odd" thing.... Ford himself INSISTED on showing Indy as an old, tired/aged man. He WANTED to walk around the apartment with his shirt off. He WANTED to show Indy struggling. And more than anything, Ford WANTED Indy 5 to be made. And Ford lauded PWB performance in the film.

So, Disney/Lucasfilm does not shoulder all of the responsibility for this film's shortcomings or underperformance.
I hear what you're saying but like Hamill, let's wait until all the non-disclosures and release are behind us to have an accurate assessment of Ford's thoughts on this. He surely isn't going to trash the idea in public before the film has made what it's going to make. Along with this is his probable reluctance to say anything negative that would hurt the longterm success of his co stars...i mean, he is the co star...what i meant is this films star...lol
 
See, here's the "odd" thing.... Ford himself INSISTED on showing Indy as an old, tired/aged man. He WANTED to walk around the apartment with his shirt off. He WANTED to show Indy struggling. And more than anything, Ford WANTED Indy 5 to be made. And Ford lauded PWB performance in the film.

So, Disney/Lucasfilm does not shoulder all of the responsibility for this film's shortcomings or underperformance.
I've made this point before, but while I think Harrison Ford loves acting, I don't think he really gives a damn about the characters he plays. They are a vehicle to a paycheck, nothing more. When you look at Henry Cavill walking away from The Witcher because the writers hated the source material, or, more recently, Jenna Ortega pissing off the writers on Wednesday because she kept insisting that her character would never do those things, those are actors who care about the characters.

Ford has never struck me that way.
 
See, here's the "odd" thing.... Ford himself INSISTED on showing Indy as an old, tired/aged man. He WANTED to walk around the apartment with his shirt off. He WANTED to show Indy struggling. And more than anything, Ford WANTED Indy 5 to be made. And Ford lauded PWB performance in the film.

So, Disney/Lucasfilm does not shoulder all of the responsibility for this film's shortcomings or underperformance.
He also wanted Han Solo to die in RotJ and I assume he signed on to be in Disney Star Wars in part because they granted him that wish. But just because he wanted something doesn't mean it was right for his character.
 
He also wanted Han Solo to die in RotJ and I assume he signed on to be in Disney Star Wars in part because they granted him that wish. But just because he wanted something doesn't mean it was right for his character.
Yeah, actors sometimes have good ideas about their characters, and sometimes they don't. Let's not forget Mark Hamill who thought it would be cool to reveal Boba Fett as Luke's lost mother.
 
I'm pretty sure Hamill was joking about that, but your point is taken. Maybe Ford found it to be an interesting acting challenge to make Indy a shell of his former self? Who knows? The whole movie sounds lame.
 
I've made this point before, but while I think Harrison Ford loves acting, I don't think he really gives a damn about the characters he plays. They are a vehicle to a paycheck, nothing more. When you look at Henry Cavill walking away from The Witcher because the writers hated the source material, or, more recently, Jenna Ortega pissing off the writers on Wednesday because she kept insisting that her character would never do those things, those are actors who care about the characters.

Ford has never struck me that way.

I see your point, but I have a slightly different view... I think that Indy is the ONLY character that Ford has ever really cared about.

His final stint as Han with his TROS cameo: yeah, that was just a $1 million paycheck for the day, and a favor to JJ I'm sure. Ford wanted Solo dead all the way back in ROTJ, and it only took 34 years to get there. So he didn't love the Solo character.

And Deckard, I'm not sure about. Maybe Ford liked the IDEA of seeing Deckard in a new film, more than the character himself?
 
Sounds like they may have reworked the ending??

…Actor Harrison Ford admitted to Spanish-language outlet Espinof, “We did a little work on the ending, which is the last thing I shot with Karen Allen, who has been in a substantial part of the whole thing, but appears in this story only briefly, at the end, but with a very strong, emotional hook. I felt nostalgia, a sense of accomplishment. I’m proud of the film, happy with the film.”
 
John Williams confirmed they shot a new ending a few months ago at a concert because he had to score a new end theme.
 
Well, I have a ticket to a showing tonight but I’ve gotten pretty sick these last few days, today being the worst. My throat is raw and my head is pounding. I don’t know if I could handle being miserable and sick AND miserable and sad if (maybe when?) the movie turns out disappointing. I may have to get a refund for my ticket and go another day.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top