It’s not like I don’t get the appeal of the franchise, mind you: they’re well-made action-adventure movies. They’ve even, alongside Star Wars, gone on to inspire one of my favourite animated movies, aka Castle in the Sky. But, be it a combination of exhaustion, frustration and discomfort, that one time I tried watching Raiders of the Lost Ark on the bus ride to my Grade 12 graduation trip I fell asleep before the third-act (or tried to, since I hate sleeping on moving vehicles.) The bits and pieces of its immediate sequels that I’ve gathered from TV didn’t interest me either. And while I’ve yet to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I’m pretty sure I’d be equally disinterested in it. I don’t like MacGuffin chases, which this franchise thrives on.
This past week, Disney announced a 5th Indiana Jones movie set for July 19th, 2019. It’ll once again star Harrison Ford and be directed Steven Spielberg, the latter of whom is one of my favourite directors. This should sound like great news, especially since Disney managed to bring back Star Wars from the dead last year, but it’s been met with a lot of skepticism. People aren’t sure what to make of this announcement, even making jokes about the new film. I have to ask: why is that?
For context, let’s rewind back to the Summer of 2008. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was heading to theatres after a 19 year gap since the last film. People were hyped. It seemed like Indy would wow yet again; after all, he’d never truly let people down before, so why now? What could possibly make this film worse than the recent Star Wars movies?
Critically, nothing serious. The movie still fared decently, earning a 78% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 65 on Metacritic. But audiences were split on it, with some enjoying it and others calling it horrendous. To date, it remains the worst-received movie in the franchise, taking Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom’s spot from 24 years prior. Clearly, something went wrong here, but what?
Simple: management.
I don’t think it should be any shock in hindsight that the film disappointed. I know people like nitpicking details, particularly Shia Labeouf, but I don’t think it was the actors’ faults. They were working with they had, and since film is a collaborative process, one where anything can go on any level, I doubt they’re solely to blame. Nor do I really fault Steven Spielberg, who, ignoring that this was the time period between Catch Me If You Can and Lincoln where his films were okay at best, has come out to state that his heart wasn’t fully in it while directing. In truth, this was George Lucas being George Lucas yet again, and that people didn’t see the warning signs after three disappointing Star Wars prequels baffles me. I wasn’t surprised then either! Considering how frequently I’d heard people complain about Star Wars since I was 9, and knowing that Lucas had a hand in the Indiana Jones franchise, I was amazed people were expecting another masterpiece to begin with!
But whatever, we can argue if it was fair to overhype expectations another day. The point is, Indiana Jones wasn’t suffering because it was past its prime. It was suffering because the higher-ups no longer cared. For Spielberg, it was a favour to a longtime friend of his. For Lucas, it was another attempt at making money off of nostalgia. And for everyone else, it was another example of how blind optimism can be dangerous.
Fast-forward to 2013, when Disney announced that it’d acquired Indiana Jones from Paramount Entertainment. People were skeptical, since this was around the same time that Disney had acquired Star Wars. As time went on, and rumours kept surfacing about another Indiana Jones film, I remained on the sidelines. I was neither for nor against this decision, as, like I said earlier, I didn’t really care for Indiana Jones. Star Wars was what concerned me, since I was in my anti-Star Wars phase brought about by the internet’s snobbery. I wasn’t concerned that Indiana Jones wouldn’t live up to its roots, I was more concerned that Star Wars would pander to older fans so as to “atone for its prequel sins”.
Sufficed to say, I shouldn’t have been concerned. Not only had Disney already made excellent use of its Marvel acquisition, but Star Wars: The Force Awakens ended up being a lot of fun. It may not have been what I’d wanted, but it at least showed that Disney did care. So for them breathe new life into Indiana Jones wouldn’t be that much of a stretch.
And this is why I’m confused over the reaction: it’s Disney. They’re not George Lucas, they’ve proven twice already that they can handle big-name IPs with respect and care. Is their business strategy motivated by greed? Yes. Am I pleased with every decision they’ve made? No. But they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
As for the claims that Harrison Ford has “lost his touch”, get out of here! He may be in his 70’s, but he can still act. He played a convincingly older version of Han Solo in the latest Star Wars movie, and that’s a role we haven’t seen since 1983! If he can do that, I’m sure he can do justice to an older Indiana Jones. Especially now that Disney owns his character and can find people to use him responsibly.
So yes, the news of a new Indiana Jones film doesn’t bother me. Here’s hoping that the MacGuffin chase in this new film is one I actually care about, or I might end up bored like I was the last time.
You deserve a lot of kudos for admitting that this franchise just isn't for you without simultaneously trying to claim that its overrated, overpraised, not actually that good, yadda, yadda, yadda. It takes a lot of maturity to do that.
ReplyDeleteThough you might want to give "Last Crusade" a chance in its entirety, as it focuses more on characterization than the other three films, offering a reasonably compelling father/son relationship to hang our hats on, as well as some additional resonance for the MacGuffin [which is connected thematically to the arcs of the two main characters]. There's a reason it tends to be a lot of fan's favorite installment [mine included].
Speaking as someone who *is* a fan of these movies, I'd like to share something: I think "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is legitimately underrated. Its not a great film, mind you, and think one can plausibly argue that its the weakest of the four. It suffers from an overly CG-d climax, a fairly weak performance by Shia LaBeouff, and a maddening unwillingness to just come out and admit that its a movie with aliens [which was never a big deal, given the 50s setting]. But it does much, much better by the titular character than its given credit for, with Indy being integrated into the 50s setting quite believably, with the welcome return of Marion Ravenwood, and with the acknowledgements of Indy being a man out of his time. The Soviets are the perfect pulpy villains for the setting, with Cate Blanchett giving [in my honest opinion] a lovingly hammy performance; she's said she was delighted to be involved in the film, and it shows. The opening action scene is pure Indiana Jones. And anyone who objects to the fridge scene is either taking these movies too seriously, or just hasn't been watching them very carefully [remember the liferaft in "Temple of Doom"?]. It was 100 percent in keeping with the tone of the franchise, and it was arguably one of the best scenes in the series.
You can wipe that puzzled look off your face. I'm perfectly serious. The fridge scene was awesome, and it was pure, classic Indiana Jones [insert trademark symbol].
I do wish Spielberg's heart had been more fully into the film, as I think it could have been pretty great had he been more invested. Even so, I don't think "Crystal Skull" should be dismissed entirely. Spielberg's lack of interest in the MacGuffin most certainly hurt the final product. But even so, his obvious lingering affection for the titular character combined with his prodigious directorial talent to provide plenty of elements that prevent me from being able in good conscience to dismiss the movie entirely, as so many do.
Should Disney make another Indiana Jones movie? Well, the last scene of the fourth movie certainly felt like a franchise conclusion. Even so, I'm open to the possibility, but on one condition: Harrison Ford has to come back. Indiana Jones isn't like Star Wars, where the setting is so expansive that it can thrive even without any of the original characters. An Indiana Jones movie lives or dies by the title character. And that character has pretty much been defined by Mr. Ford's performance. Take him out of the equation and its doubtful that any future installment will have anywhere near the same box-office appeal.
ReplyDeleteThere is the factor of Ford's age to consider, I suppose. I think that with a creative enough screenplay that was able to work around Ford's advancing age -or better yet, plausibly incorporate it- while still offering fans plenty of what they've come to expect, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. With that being said, Ford's in his seventies; the man's going to be able to do action for so only much longer. For that reason, I think that if Disney wants to make another Indy movie, they had better:
1. Get the production rolling as soon as possible,
and
2. Focus on making one final, well-made send-off movie to the character, as opposed to something that's meant to setup future installments.
It's interesting to hear a warmer take on the last Indiana Jones movie. Most people I've spoken to don't take so kindly to it.
DeleteAs for Harrison Ford? You kinda read my mind on the whole "pull a Skyfall" approach. Although, from what I've read, a younger Indiana Jones for future instalments might work if they cast, say, Chris Pratt or Jeremy Renner as the lead character. Both are pretty big names right now, so they'd definitely bring in the big bucks...
In my experience, the vast majority of the criticisms that are made of "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" are not the ones that ought to be made of it. That and it tends to get unfairly lumped in with the Star Wars Prequels, when by any rational, levelheaded assessment, its a better film than any of those, even allowing for its faults- both as a standalone movie *and* as an Indiana Jones movie. Its most damning fault is honestly that Spielberg plainly wasn't nearly as interested in the titular Crystal Skull as he was in everything else in the movie. The result is a film that's actually pretty fun and enjoyable *despite* the MacGuffin, rather than because of it, which then predictably falls flat at its climax, when it can no longer tapdance around the alien element- and which then immediately picks up again with the denouement, once the Skull has exited the plot. That the film is able to do this owes a lot, I think, to the fact that it continues "Last Crusade"'s noticeably increased interest in fleshing out Indiana Jones as a character in his own right. ["Raiders" and "Temple" certainly have their moments of characterization, but they prioritize the "thrills and chills" above all else.] If "Skull" has somewhat less success at this endeavor than "Last Crusade", I think that's because the latter's quest for the Holy Grail is more intimately bound up in its two main characters' personal growth. Indy doesn't really have the same personal connection to the Crystal Skull that he does to the Grail. What he *does* have, though, is something he also had in his quest for the Grail- a personal connection to some of the people involved. That might not bring quite the same dividends as having both would, but its enough to carry me through the majority of the movie.
DeleteAs far as a younger Indiana Jones- that's kind of already been done, what with the "Young Indiana Jones Chronicles", which documented a number of the main character's adventures from his youth up until he was on the cusp of adulthood [the series had an older Indy played by Harrison Ford as a framing device, incidentally]. And do keep in mind that in the first three movies, Indy's in his mid-thirties. The gap in which a younger [but still adult] Indiana Jones who's played by a different actor could plausibly be inserted is much narrower than I think many people are assuming.
But there is also this: Spielberg has gone on record as stating that he'll only be involved if Harrison Ford is involved. And unlike with Han Solo, Ford never had to regain any of his love for the role of Indiana Jones, because he's never lost that love. He's probably the most excited at the prospect of a fifth installment out of anybody who'd be involved. If they were to make one without him, all signs point towards Ford being genuinely, sincerely miffed. And after building such a sturdy bridge with him for "The Force Awakens", I highly doubt that Disney wants to offend him now.
The only potentially acceptable compromise I can think of would be having a younger actor play Indy in flashback scenes, with Ford playing him in the present. That's assuming, of course, that such flashbacks are warranted by whatever story winds up being told.