from the walkers-are-provided-as-a-cast-perk dept.
Gizmodo and others announce Disney is going to squeeze some more juice from the (73yo) Harrison Ford - and your pocket - with a reboot of the Indiana Jones franchise (acquired together with the Lucas studio):
Spielberg will direct, Ford will star, Frank Marshall and Kathleen Kennedy[1] will produce. The official press release from Disney has no mention of co-creator George Lucas, who sold Disney rights to the character in 2012 along with Star Wars.
For the past several years, Spielberg and Ford have reiterated they wanted to come back to the series. There had also been lots of talk about a possible recasting. Whether or not this fifth film will set the table for that, we don't know, but the Indy of old will be back at least one more. And we're excited to have him.
Just cross your fingers for no flying monkeys.
tenplay.com.au with a just a bit of more gossipy details on George Lucas' reaction:
No plot details for the next instalment have been released, and there has been no mention of Mr Lucas being involved in the project.
Though, he was spotted enjoying food-court noodles in Adelaide this afternoon as fans absorbed the announcement of a fifth film.
His wife, Mellody Hobson, was the key speaker at today's Conference of Major Super Funds in the city.
Mr Lucas voiced his unhappiness with last year's Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the third highest-grossing film worldwide of all time, when he was not consulted during the project after selling the film rights to Disney.
...
The Indiana Jones franchise has grossed nearly US $2 billion at the global box office with the previous four films and amassed a global fan base.The announcement quickly became a top ten trending topic on Twitter, but reaction was mixed. Many made fun of Ford's age, offering tongue-in-cheek suggestions for the film's title, such as "Indiana Jones and 'Hey You Kids, Get Off My Lawn!"
[1] Frank Marshall and Kathleen Kennedy produced all the other 4 movies of the franchise. Spielberg and the two are also involved in Amblin Entertainment, another movie production company.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @06:20PM
n/t
(Score: 3, Funny) by Celestial on Friday March 18 2016, @06:26PM
... And the Search for a Retirement Home That Serves Good Pudding?
Well, at least this one doesn't appear to have Shia LaBeouf, so that's a plus.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 18 2016, @07:16PM
Another plus is that South Park may well make another George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Harrison Ford snuff/pron skit. That last one was funny as hell.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @10:21PM
A giant wad of denture cream rolls toward them as they fight off zombie nurses using bed-pans and canes while riding Hoveround scooters in order to protect the Secret Gold Filling found in the knocked-out tooth of the old guy in Room 23 with the East Indian accent. They couldn't read the engravings on the filling because the zombie nurses broke their reading glasses such that they have to first escape the retirement home in order to get to the drug store to buy a magnifying glass, and some Depends while there.
After escaping the zombie nurses and the giant denture cream wad to get outside, they end up being harassed by the gardener who doesn't want them on the lawn, and then have to face an insistent grave-plot salesman. They finally ditch the salesman by accepting a brochure and pretending like they'll call later. However, they forget why they are outside, and so head back to the retirement home for nap.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday March 19 2016, @02:28AM
Come on now. He's only 73 not 103...still in the prime of life.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday March 18 2016, @06:30PM
His latest retread, of course, is Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money.
So I think this should be called "Indiana Jones 5: Paying For My Retirement" or maybe "Last Chance at an Oscar".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @06:31PM
The Star Wars film that didn't involve Lucas is now the third highest grossing film of all time? Probably more than the three before it combined, maybe?
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday March 18 2016, @06:33PM
Do movie studio marketing folks care about inflation? Probably not.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday March 18 2016, @06:41PM
Gross ticket sales aren't the best way to compare films, since they don't account for inflation, ticket price increases, more expensive tickets (like 3D), etc. I do know the original Star Wars was in theaters for three years (77, 78, and 79) while the new movie lasted about three months before it faded into pop-culture oblivion. And Disney used up all their ammo on this one. Their hype machine (and lockdown on revealing anything about the lame film itself before it was in theaters) made the film a blockbuster, but these days the first shot is the biggest, and the subsequent ones trail off.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday March 18 2016, @07:56PM
There's a lot more factors at play.
Back in '77, we didn't have home video at all (the VCR and movie rental didn't become common until the 80s). So if you wanted to watch a movie at all, you had to go to the theater, and if you wanted to watch it again, you had to go back to the theater and buy another ticket. Now we have DVDs, Blu-Rays, and Netflix. Rarely do people re-watch a movie in the theater (they just buy it if they like it that much), and lots of people don't bother with theaters any more (high prices, noisy/badly-behaved kids, cellphone users, talkers, etc.) and just wait for it to become available on some video format they can watch at home. Home theater setups these days are cheap and frequently nicer than theaters.
Also, these days, the population is larger, and movies are released internationally pretty quickly (or even simultaneously), so there's a much bigger audience available. So with all the viewers in places like Europe, Australia, China, etc., (and America's larger population), you can still get really high ticket sales even without a movie being *that* much of a hit.
All in all, it's hard to directly compare a movie released in 1977 to one released in 2015. You can certainly compare movies both released in or around 1977, or two movies in or around 2015, but between two so totally different time periods, it's not so easy. The best you can really do I think is to just compare actual sales (both tickets and video sales/viewings) in absolute numbers, and then in dollar amounts after adjusting for inflation. But the latter isn't all that useful since the economics of things have changed so much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @08:19PM
Yeah yeah yeah, you can't compare, it's complicated blah blah blah. But the new ones SUCK ASS.
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Friday March 18 2016, @10:19PM
Home theater setups these days are cheap and frequently nicer than theaters
More than "frequently". Food at grocery store prices, wine at liquor store prices, and a floor that doesn't stick to your shoes are enough to win without even counting the other stuff.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday March 18 2016, @11:02PM
There's another huge, huge advantage to home theaters: the ability to pause or rewind with the press of a button. No more sitting uncomfortably holding it in until the movie ends and then racing for the restroom and trying to beat all the other people who did the same.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @05:41AM
TFS> Disney is going to squeeze some more juice from the (73yo) Harrison Ford [...]
PizzaRollPlinkett> [...] these days the first shot is the biggest [...]
This may be the closest thing to porn we'll see coming out of Disney, so we may as well enjoy it.
(Score: 2) by fnj on Saturday March 19 2016, @03:15PM
The top inflation-adjusted USA-domestic gross of all time was Gone With The Wind.
The following are all adjusted to 2016 dollars [boxofficemojo.com].
1. Gone with the Wind $1,757,788,200
2. Star Wars $1,549,640,500
...
8. Doctor Zhivago $1,079,978,500
...
11. Star Wars: The Force Awakens $931,358,200
...
21. Raiders of the Lost Ark $770,183,000
...
55. The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King $536,265,400
...
75. Lawrence of Arabia $481,836,900
Worldwide gross king [boxofficemojo.com] (I think unadjusted) was Avatar $2,788,000,000. Only 27% of that was USA domestic.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday March 18 2016, @07:30PM
The Star Wars film that didn't involve Lucas is now the third highest grossing film of all time?
Psst... The Force Awakens didn't beat Avatar. :)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anne Nonymous on Friday March 18 2016, @06:38PM
This film will be such a bomb that you'll have to hide in a refrigerator to avoid being killed by it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by rts008 on Friday March 18 2016, @10:44PM
Damn, I'm getting too old to start the 'Duck and Cover' drills again.
Besides, if I tried crouching under a school desk nowadays, I would only end up with an awkward cape. :-(
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @06:44PM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/combined [imdb.com]
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday March 18 2016, @06:44PM
Why is the geriatric Ford doing all these movies all the sudden? Just money? He's reprising the Han Solo, Indiana Jones, and Blade Runner characters. Has there ever been an interview with him asking him why the sudden interest?
Anyhow, I can't blame Disney. They sort of accidentally got Indiana Jones as a lagniappe when they bought Star Wars. No reason not to try one movie just to see if they can manufacture a hit using the same formula as Star Wars (serve the audience the old films all over again) and recoup some of that $4 billion they sunk into Star Wars. If the IJ franchise is ever monetized, it needs to be while Ford is still alive and Disney can make a nostalgia play on it.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 18 2016, @06:58PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @08:22PM
Maybe he realized his whole life has been faking someone else to audiences of numbskulls. And he has to double down to avoid facing the truth.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 18 2016, @09:25PM
Maybe he realized his whole life has been faking someone else to audiences of numbskulls.
Like there's anyone out there who thinks Star Wars is a documentary.
And he has to double down to avoid facing the truth.
Why are you looking for the snake in the garden?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Friday March 18 2016, @09:24PM
He reprised Han Solo in large part as fan service. But, I do think he did a pretty respectable job of it. Same goes for the other original cast members that showed up in the movie.
As far as Indiana Jones goes, I think it's probably more about not wanting Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls to be the last time he plays Indy.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday March 18 2016, @06:46PM
There is only one question that matters: Nazis or no-Nazis? From previous movies we will then know if it's really good or really REALLY bad.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday March 18 2016, @08:59PM
Known quantities:
1. There WILL be Nazis, but the black one will go rogue on them and join Indiana in his adventures
2. They will be chased by a big round rock, but the rock will be bigger (planet sized) but just as easily defeated
3. The bad guy will turn out to be Indiana's son and he's really not so bad, just conflicted to the point where he will need box after box of Kleenex to wipe away his nose-tears.
4. ??PROFIT??
Won't be watching it, i'm sure i'll pass. (Wish i could take back the hours spent on Star Wars: the Rip-off.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @10:04PM
/me nods to ACK SW ref.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday March 18 2016, @09:27PM
That's the big issue here. Everybody knows that odd numbered Indiana Jones movies have Nazis and even numbered ones don't. Unfortunately, how is he going to fight Nazis in the '60s?
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday March 18 2016, @09:38PM
If it's a reboot/remake I guess they can go back to when things was good? We can forget about all the commies, the aliens and the thugs. That or the commies will invent a time machine that will bring Indy back to 1941 (or there about) and it the movie will be redeemed. It's that or it has to be the space-nazis from the darkside of the moon that returns to rebuild the Reich.
(Score: 3, Touché) by TheRaven on Saturday March 19 2016, @09:03AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Monday March 21 2016, @03:28PM
(Score: 2) by Squidious on Saturday March 19 2016, @12:05AM
Indy can go to Peru to explore Machu Pichu and have a run in with the Nazis that relocated there after fleeing Germany at the end of WW2.
The terrorists have won, game, set, match. They've scared the people into electing authoritarian regimes.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday March 18 2016, @07:08PM
What's with the "reboot" term being such a big fad in recent years? What happened to good old "remake"? Is this a sign it is the decade of the nerd?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 18 2016, @07:31PM
I think reboot is used when talking about remaking a franchise or series of films. For example, Batman Begins/Dark Knight/Rises.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Francis on Friday March 18 2016, @09:33PM
Remakes are when you tell the same basic story a second time. Sometimes you'll change the setting or tinker with the specifics, but it's the same basic story again.
A reboot is like with Batman or Spiderman where you're re-using the universe, but not necessarily the same stories. The Christopher Nolan Batman movies use the same universe and characters as Tim Burton's Batman movies, but I don't think it's fair to suggest that Christopher Nolan was remaking what Tim Burton had done. Or that Tim Burton was remaking the previous movies either.
Basically a reboot is something like if you went back in time and created an alternate timeline by making some minor changes. A remake is where you're going back in time and just move the cameras around so that you get the same basic story, but told from a different point of view.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday March 18 2016, @11:00PM
Who cares? They both suck ass. Wake me up when they go back to telling new stories, with real stunts, minimal CG and no soap opera back stories about the character's depressing youths. They'll remake ET next. Nothing's sacred and almost all movies now are a cynical, continuity destroying, lowest common denominator cash-in.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @08:11PM
Gizdomo
Gizdomo arigato?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 18 2016, @10:34PM
I'm tempted to keep it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by wisnoskij on Friday March 18 2016, @08:16PM
In the underrated Young Indiana Jones Chronicles TV series they had old indy narrating the adventures of the protagonist, young indy. Which is what they should do here. Harrison Ford should be involved in any Indiana Jones films, but as an old retired Indiana Jones narrating the story of his past adventures.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @09:30PM
The Young Indy series was surprisingly good overall, and I'd love to see a return. The thought of a retired Dr. Jones narrating his past adventures got crossed in my brain with images of Terry Pratchett's Cohen the Barbarian - the hero who had "a lifetime in his own legend."
This mix-up didn't hurt nearly as much as I expected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18 2016, @09:49PM
Pitty you can not get it on DVD. Oh you can get a 'version' of it on DVD. One that has been massively butchered and re-edited. You can guess who did that...
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Friday March 18 2016, @11:32PM
It was my understanding that they only cut the old indy intro and outro scenes and reordered them into chronological order. It is too bad that they cut anything, but I would not say that the cuts really harmed them in any real sense.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday March 18 2016, @11:15PM
I recall having mixed feelings about it when it was on TV. The teenage Indy was ok - taking place around WWI and that period, but the kid indy was fairly annoying. But it was overall good.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Saturday March 19 2016, @02:50AM
The crystal skull kept referencing the young Indy stories. It's like Lucas thought he could reinterest people in them. Which may have worked, if the movie itself wasn't beyond horrible.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Snotnose on Friday March 18 2016, @08:29PM
Indiana Jones and the Sons of Arthritis, Hydrocodone chapter.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday March 19 2016, @01:19AM
I was thinking Indiana Jones and the Lost Metamucil.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @12:47AM
Whatever everyone.... I will watch it. I probably will even enjoy it like the last 4.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 19 2016, @03:36PM
I don't understand. There are oy 3 indy movies. The last one where he finds his father was sad at the end where the girl dies.
People keep talking about the indy movies jumping the fridge or some such but I think that they should just remember the films as classics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 20 2016, @12:14AM
The last one gave us "Nuke the Fridge".
This is just the Mouse looking to squeeze more blood from the stone. I passed on the new Star Wars, and will pass on this too.