Hold On, Indiana Jones 5 Isn't as Far Along as You Think!
So earlier this week, Shia LaBeouf let slip that Spielberg had "cracked a story" on Indiana Jones 5 and that "they're gearing that up." It was pretty big news, especially because some people were thinking we'd never see another one (despite the $787 million that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull made worldwide). However, that doesn't mean we'll be seeing it that soon. Empire talked with producer Frank Marshall recently, who told them that it's still in very early development. "Until there's a script, nothing's definite," he said. Don't expect to see this shooting by the end of the year… or even next year.
To give you an idea of where it's at in development, Marshall wrote on Twitter: "The story for Indy5 is progressing. It is still in the research phase." That just means they're still brainstorming and haven't written one line of the script yet. But no one wants to wait another 20 years to see a sequel (like we did after Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade came out in 1989). "Once we see that, we'll see. We're not going to wait another 20 years. We'd all love to make another one," Marshall said. "We had a great time making the last one and, as Harrison said, we need to make this one soon. We're not getting any younger." That's for sure!
So don't jump the gun on this sequel. With some luck, we could Indiana Jones 5 in 2011. But at this rate, I don't expect to see it until 2012 or even 2013. It's a long way out, sure, but maybe that'll give them some time to figure out a good story to tell in this one… or at least to cut out any monkeys or gophers or nukes.
Reader Feedback - 36 Comments
Bring back those monkeys
Jesse on Jun 18, 2009
It was just as far along as I thought. LaBeouf also claimed we'd be seeing Disturbia 2 right about now.
Bahumbug on Jun 18, 2009
man, as if they didnt milk enough out of the crystal skull.. that movie made me hate the indy series.. i love the first three, why do they have to muck it up so much just to make money.. lucas is doing the same thing he did to star wars.. waiting WAY too long to make a sequel, and then ruining it. LET IT GO. please don't soil the indiana jones series any farther..
bleh on Jun 18, 2009
I wonder in George Lucas is involved in the brainstorming part. Because if he is, then expect worse things than monkeys, CGI gophers or indestructible fridges.
AKUMARED on Jun 18, 2009
As far as Im concerned they didn’t make another one after Crusade, I have the 3 film box set that sits proudly on my shelf and that’s where it ends for me. What they did when they made that piece of trash was tantamount to........... I can’t talk about it, it’s still too fresh in my mind and it hurts to remember!!!!!
Dar-El on Jun 18, 2009
This is what made the Raiders films great: http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2009/03/raiders-story-conference.html Brainstorming and creativity and roots in actual history.
Greedo the Rodian on Jun 18, 2009
Just back off the lastest indy. Really, if you saw a man turn into a skeleton in a cave where an old jackass was sitting for 2 centuries... what did you really expect to see in the next installment ? monkeys ? Sure. Aliens ? Sure. Just because the 3rd one involved Nazis in a desert hunting for Jesus (Litteraly) you are getting surpsires by a flying saucer ? Get a grip. Indy 4 was in line with previous flicks and most of the bashers were the new hip 15year olds who thought 80s was just 80s and not a real age.
Shige on Jun 18, 2009
#6 Right. #7 Wrong.
Hmm on Jun 18, 2009
Who thought it was far along? Oh, you Alex!?!
w00t!!! on Jun 18, 2009
Seriously, #7: Take a good hard look at the series, man. The first three in the series are all adventure stories with religious/occult undertones. The Ark of the Covenant in the first movie, the stones in the second, and the Grail in the third - all are religious artifacts. Indy 4 (or as I like to call it "the one that never happened") somehow sidesteps the entire thematic core of the franchise by introducing science fiction into the mix (no matter how shakily tied to ancient tribes it is). Aliens are not the same thing as vengeful deities. Sure, that could have been forgiveable, had the rest of the movie not sucked more than Paris Hilton on a Friday night. Painfully bad dialog, completely unbelievable scenarios (which is saying a lot considering other parts of the original trilogy). The difference? Good filmmaking versus bad filmmaking. Good filmmaking means that Indy surviving a plane crash in an inflatable raft seems somehow plausible. Bad filmmaking means that Indy somehow surviving a NUCLEAR FRIGGIN' EXPLOSION in nothing but a fridge and somehow being tossed miles in the air without a scratch seems totally and completely farfetched. The only way Indy 5 stands a chance is if Spielburg ties Lucas up in a closet during writing, filming, and editing, then lets him out for the merchandising (which is the only thing Lucas is good at). Then, they need to fire Shia Lebeouf, give Indy a real artifact to go after, and hire a real writer to write the script (have you read the original Indy 4 draft? It was amazing before Lucas mucked it up).
Pete the Geek on Jun 18, 2009
Please, stop killing Indy.
theJoker on Jun 18, 2009
Indy 4 was great, for those of us who remembered what an Indy film is SUPPOSED to be like. Pretty ridiculous how so few, but vocal people trashed this film because it wasn't Bourne Identity or something. The Indy films are in a category all it's own, and Indy 4 was a perfectly seamless addition to the earlier ones, in both style and script. I'm all for 5, but they better hurry. Ford is getting pretty long in the tooth.
Scott on Jun 18, 2009
The Indy Jones movies should have stopped at 3. If I bought the movies tomorrow I wouldn't even have Indy 4 in the equation. My reasoning is that Indy Jones movies were originally based on a fictional historical past, which made it interesting and to some degree plausible. The fourth movie took the Indy Jones formula and went on a ridiculous tangent about spaceships, aliens and fridges that can also double up as a shelter for a nuclear blast! The later movie doesn't even fall in the same realm of it's predecessors and shouldn't have been made. It ruined what I thought was a good series of movies. Now that Indy Jones has seen space ships, I wonder if he'll go on another extreme and have Jones taken out of cryogenic freeze in the future and have him battle Aliens and laser blasts with his cracking whip and six shooter! Mr Spielberg let it go, don't make another Indy Jones movie, if you do then it will be obvious that you have lost your ideals as a creator of fine movies and now desperately just trying to bleed something dry when it should have just been left alone. You are ruining a good thing in the name of $$$$$$$$.
Ezza on Jun 18, 2009
->Monkeys are great ->Nuke is great ->Mutt is great ->Interdimensional-thingie is great Ha! In your face, internet community! 😉
m4st4 on Jun 19, 2009
has anyone seen that South Park where Lucas and Spielberg have their wicked way with Harrison Ford? hilarious and accurate
hey on Jun 19, 2009
The 4th one was ok and I liked it. But to reassure all the ppl that hated the 4th. Look at it this way: 1-good 2-bad 3-good 4-bad 5-??? Do you see a pattern? 😀
Sam2 on Jun 19, 2009
Indy and the Golden Zimmer frame with his side kick bladder bag, hope they dont make to mince like the last indy outing....... Shame.
LV 426 on Jun 19, 2009
Don't blame Lucas for all of it. At least a dozen writers put in things that ended up in the final movie. Frank "Shawshank Redemption" Darabont wrote the fridge scene, btw. And while I can see why you think the alien thing doesn't fit with the religous thing, it's not science fiction per se. It's more like, a common modern extension made when reviewing ancient beliefs. See, the ancient alien theory has been around a long time. Several South American tribes really did beleive their gods came from the sky in flying vessels and taught them agriculture and all that. The Nazca Lines really exists, and the Nazca themselves really did bind their infant's heads to elongate the skull to mimic what they beleived their gods looked like. Sadly, some modern people have taken in this information and see it as evidence that aliens exist. Which leads us to the film which, as in the previous Indy's, takes the more popular form of the myth and expands upon it. But I will concur, the monkeys sucked ass.
max_jaybo on Jun 19, 2009
I'm with 18, down to the Monkeys. With the expection of islam, Indy's covered two of the big 3 and aspects of some of the major religions (minus African, Nordic, Native American pacific islands)... Still baffeled on a 60's era MacGuffin outside of 'nam' though...
Mr j Money on Jun 19, 2009
DICK HIM SPIELBERG!
Meatcarnage on Jun 19, 2009
led panel on Jun 20, 2009
Jaybo nailed what Crystal Skull was after, and anyone trying to flippantly cast off that viewpoint as being "tenuous at best" isn't really looking at the bigger pulp picture. Maybe this new one will explain how Indy loses his eye. See you haters in line for "Indiana Jones and the Whining of the Fanbabies". Maybe he'll find a religious artifact that'll shut all the idiot haters up. PS: Oxley sucked. That's about it.
Goonie Goo Goo on Jun 20, 2009
People can blindly accept the Ark of the Covenant, the Grail and the stones, but they can't accept a flying machine from another world, which is actually far more plausible than any of the first three mcguffins Indy was chasing. My my, how the world has been indoctrinated and programmed to believe by the spoon feeding evil catholic church. It's astounding and really quite hilarious to see, that we're just a pack of monkeys, that have been given a bag of peanuts and a pat on the head and will believe anything because it was in the bible.
Mike S on Jun 20, 2009
@23 The argument isn't about people being monkeys and taking what they are given. I love science-fiction or non-fiction for that matter. It isn't an argument about the plausibleness of UFO's or aliens. The point that people are trying to argue is that the 4th movie was never in line with the previous 3 for Indy Jones to be encountering aliens or spacecraft. This subject matter is so out of left field in context to what the movies have been so far that Indy Jones 4 has become a movie that's out of place to the previous 3. It's literally chalk and cheese. Some of the action scenes were so extreme that they were in no way realistic (such as the fridge and nuclear blast incident). In addition I would have to say that the Catholic Church serves no input in this movie or my way of thinking as I'm not Catholic for one and secondly Steven Spielberg is Jewish.
Ezza on Jun 20, 2009
@23 The Ark of the Covenant is Jewish tribal mythology. It was not created by the Roman Catholic Church.
Phil on Jun 21, 2009
4th movie was NO WAY in line with the first 3. Sure, on a checklist it fits (wit, humor, unbelievable elements, etc) but on the screen, off the page of comparison, you KNOW it wasnt in line so please shut the hell up with your weak arguments. Lucas and speilberg both agree so just give it a rest. Let this sequel wait till after the 2012 apocalypse (just like the Y2k Apocalypse).. once again the truth is we will all watch it, some on opening day, some on rental, some bootlegged, but everyone here that has commented will be watching so who cares?
IndysCGIhat on Jun 22, 2009
Flying saucers are no more make-believe or fictional than ghosts, demons or Jesus. They're all supernatural inventions about powerful beings from the sky. I've actually grown to appreciate Kingdom more and more on subsequent viewings. YES, Kingdom fits fine with the first three because they are all based on the pulp fiction of the times in which they are set. In the case of Kingdom, that's the 50's paranoia saucer men from space stories. It perfectly fits the pulp adventure serial format of the entire series. I LIKED that they tried something new instead of looking for another McGuffin that only authenticates religious superstition. In terms of the series, Indy has already seen all that religious supernatural shit. It's more interesting if he faces something he has a hard time accepting. He didn't believe in the Ark at first, but came to accept it's power. He didn't believe in the stones or the Grail either. In Kingdom, he listens to Spalko describe the skulls as involving "saucer men from Mars" and rolls his eyes saying, "Come on..." That's what we love about the Indy stories: he searches for the unexpected that challenges his skepticism and preconceived ideas. What amazes me is how fanboys can know every frame of every Lucas film, yet still don't get that Lucas has ALWAYS tried to mix up the status quo in his sequels. All of them, to greater or lesser degrees, have tried to do something unexpected from the original, in terms of style, tone, comedy, etc. Take More American Graffiti for example. Instead of offering another 50's cruising romp, Lucas expanded the idea of a cinematic cultural artifact and created a multi-image acid trip that reflected the 60's. Empire was a departure from Star Wars that didn't just tell another adventure, but expanded the story and changed the tone, the texture and the scope of the story. I remember vividly fanboys in 1980 bitching about Empire when it came out as "not Star Wars" and being disappointed it was "in line" with the original. If you haven't figured out that Lucas isn't a "get in line" guy, then stop watching his films. You don't get and probably never will. He isn't going to take your advice. Fanboys whining about Lucas' decisions are no better than the mind-numb studio suits in 1976 insisting that the "wookiee needs pants." Look, some of Lucas' ideas work and some don't. That's true of ALL artists. But Lucas has often had his greatest successes when he did something that had huge potential for failure. Every fan knows (or should) that everyone making Empire thought Yoda was going to be a disaster. Lucas pushed ahead anyway and it paid off. Every studio in Hollywood passed on Star Wars and thought Lucas was crazy for even attempting it. He proved them wrong. Fanboys whining about Lucas and his decisions is just more of the same -- which is why he doesn't care what you think. Sometimes his ideas don't work -- Jar Jar being exhibit number one. But, frankly, I appreciate that he tries new things and tries to push the boundaries of expectations. Is Kingdom my favorite Indy film? Nope. But neither is Doom or Crusade. So what? Why does discussing these films always become some geek pissing match??! I've heard whining and complaining about every film Lucas has ever made, including Raiders and the original Star Wars. Each time a new film comes out, the fanboys whine, screech the gospel of "Lucas doesn't get it" or "he raped my childhood", and wrap themselves even more possessively around the earlier films that were just as criticized as the ones they hate now. And so it will be with Indy 5. Lucas will put out a film that will be different than what fanboys expect, making their heads spin in confusion. It will likely be brilliant in places, goofy in others, funny, silly, shocking, stupid, and fun. Just like EVERY Lucas film. And I can't wait!
HateFanboys on Jun 23, 2009
I really liked the Crystal Skull. I thought it kind of broke down in the climax, but so did Holy Grail. I had no problem with the monkeys but was not entirely fond of Shia LeBoof swinging through the jungle like Tarzan. As far as the refrigerator, I thought that whole scene was F'n brilliant and no more an unbelievable exploit than falling from an airplane in a raft (another brilliant scene), jumping track in a mine car or walking across a bridge painted so well it blends in with a chasm (THAT was utter BS, but still entertaining as hell). If the fanboys could just pay their 10 bucks sit down and allow themselves to be entertained...well I guess messageboards like this would just disappear. P.S. I anyone in production is out there reading this, the Indy story that I really want to see now, is what he was doing in WWII, That's got to be an awesome tale! Also, bring back Salla and a grown up Short-Round!
voodoochild on Jun 23, 2009
@28 "P.S. I anyone in production is out there reading this, the Indy story that I really want to see now, is what he was doing in WWII" You know, with the "de-aging" tech we saw used on the actors in the opening scene of XMen3, and in the Direct TV commercials, there could be a pretty good opening scene w/ Indy in WWII, which could set up what is another story in the late 50's; something he discovered while spying in '40 or '41, and comes across again in '57 or '58. If he was trekking around Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa at the time of the War, who knows what could be set up then? There's plenty of Ford reference material from 15 - 20 years ago. I was really intrigued to see if they played out any more moments that referenced WWII & Indy (in KOTCS) but it didn't happen. *shrugs* Who knows. My problem with KOTCS is that I liked it, but I wanted to LOVE it, and there was some stuff just missing in there. It's still a good movie, and it made my kids want to go back and watch the first two (having arleady seen Holy Grail). If we see another one, great. If not, hey, there's always video games.
CMK on Jun 23, 2009
#7 Right #3 Doesn't get it...especially the part about Lucas ruining Star Wars...what the hell movies were you watching??? Star Wars is the greatest saga ever....the prequels deepened the mythology immensely...Indiana Jones not far behind as the greatest series ever... "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is based on the same cultural / mystical notions the others were based on...first one, the Ark, second, the Sankara stones, the Holy Grail, and the last puts a spin on Roswell...perfectly in line with the series... People need to lighten up on these films....if "Temple of Doom" or "The Last Crusade" came out after 19 years, it would have been met with the same nit-picking and unfair criticism... Indiana Jones lives on and his film legacy is fully intact! Bring on the fifth adventure!
Adam Seely on Jun 23, 2009
you know you've done something wrong when labeouf isn't the weakest part of your movie. you wouldn't give Bourne a sports car, suit, and gadget-infused watch then have have him save the world after seducing women and drinking martinis so you shouldn't make Indy go up against mythology rooted aliens
Silver on Jun 23, 2009
Shige (#7) and voodoochild (#28) nailed it. I liked Indy 4 a bunch, though I didn't like the ending as much. To the idiots... I mean kind folks who keep complaining that aliens didn't fit into the Indy theme, that's becuase (suppossedly) there WERE no aliens before Indy 4. The mythology of #4 is centered around the Roswell landing which took place in 1947. The theme fits in *perfectly* for the time period in which Indy 4 is set, as does the nuclear explosion from the testing that was going on at the time. Bring on Indy 5. And Indy 6. And Son of Indy and Return of Indy's Cousin. Lucas is going to have to do 30 times worse than Indy 4 for me to get tired of this series.
kevjohn on Jun 24, 2009
All right everyone, I've read your comments , and come up with a conclusion to all this mess. FACT 1: Harrison Ford will of course be in the fifth and final installment. ( George Lucas has said since 81' that indiana jones was supposed to be 5 movies) FACT 2: Indiana jones has always been campy fantasy popcorn entertainment. ( so quit bitching about nuking maytag appliances and monkeys with louis steven's personality.) FACT 3: every single indy adventure has been science fiction. ( 44 said it best. if you're okay with biblical ghosts, then aliens shouldn't surprise you.) FACT 4: We can still trust Spielberg. Lucas is a tool, but last crusade only rocked because spielberg was unsatisfied with " audience reaction". Be patient, and Indy 5 will rock as hard as raiders. I stake my novelty disneyland fedora on that. you don't think he's heard the nuke the fridge comments? he'll be back. FACT 5: Harrison Ford could still kick your ass. At 65 year's old he is still in better shape then you are. That's right, I'm talking to you! Look down at the flabby spare tire You've been carrying around your waist since jr. high. You will never be as cool as Indiana Jones on his worst day, so you're just gonna have to come to Jesus on that little fact. FACT 6: All you haters are bitching about shia for one simple reason. You're not him! You are all jealous, because no one ever asked you to be a part of two of your all time childhood fantasies. You don't realllllllllly hate him…… you want to be him. All of you would Jizz your pants if you so much as touched the animatronic hand of the indy robot at the temple of doom attraction, let alone been asked to play his son, so please stop acting like you could do one better. No one wants to see your lame, coulda woulda shoulda ass on the big screen. FACT 7: INDY 5 IS GONNA HAPPEN! So just embrace it. let's bring back the hat, the gags, the maguffin and for heavem's sake sallah, and we'll all be in for a hellova ride! bum ba dum daaaaaaaa bum badaaa! ( put on your fan boy hat's now)
indyjack on Jun 24, 2009
why the hell are people putting shit on indiana jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull it was awsome just like TEMPLE OF DOOM and i totaly agree with indijack
damien on Jul 2, 2009
for all those people bashing Shia Labouf atleast they didn't get Zac Effron to fuck up the roll like hes doing with most stuff from the 80's
damien on Jul 3, 2009
If any of you out there have connections with, or if you are, one of the powers that be, I have a finished Indiana Jones 5 script, that takes into consideration the opinions of a few hundred Indiana Jones fans. The maguffin is from Jewish legend but also ties in with Christian beliefs. The plot has a number of twists and surprises. And the characters? Some are old; some are new. If you would like to contact me, I can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
cpete on Jul 20, 2009
Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.