f13.net

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ied0764c52ea0c6b79e5a439cf257d65d

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nineteen years after chasing down the Holy Grail in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," Harrison Ford will return to the big screen in the character of the globe-trotting archeologist in May 2008.

Producer George Lucas and director Steven Spielberg confirmed details of the project Monday after Lucas tipped off the media to Indiana Jones' imminent return as he prepared to serve as grand marshal of the Rose Parade in Pasadena.

After years spent in script development, a fourth installment of the famously successful franchise is set to begin production in June in locations around the world and in the U.S.

Although he has been developing other projects, including a biopic about Abraham Lincoln with Liam Neeson attached to star, Spielberg has decided the "Indiana Jones" sequel will be his next directorial outing. Helping Spielberg choose his next directing commitment had been a primary goal of new DreamWorks CEO Stacey Snider (HR 6/23).

"George, Harrison and I are all very excited," Spielberg said. "We feel that the script was well worth the wait. We hope it delivers everything you'd expect from our history with Indiana Jones."

The film will be produced by Lucasfilm Ltd. and released worldwide by Paramount Pictures, the parent company of DreamWorks. Although reps from the companies involved did not address the question of financing Monday, Paramount execs have said that the studio expected to co-finance the project with Lucasfilm.

Frank Marshall will serve as producer, with Lucas and Kathy Kennedy joining him as executive producers. Longtime Spielberg associates, Marshall was credited in a producing capacity on the three earlier films, and Kennedy served as associate producer on the past two.

"Working with Steven, Frank, Kathy and the 'Indy' crew is like working with family," Lucas said. "These films are such great fun to make. I'm looking forward to reuniting with the team and starting this new journey."

David Koepp, who has penned such previous Spielberg projects as "Jurassic Park" and "War of the Worlds," wrote the screenplay that finally got the stamp of approval from Lucas and Spielberg. An earlier screenplay by Frank Darabont had been shelved when Lucas turned thumbs down on it.

For the moment, the title of the new film as well as its story line are being kept under wraps. In August, however, Lucas told Empireonline.com, "I discovered a McGuffin. I told the guys about it and they were a little dubious about it, but it's the best one we've ever found. ... Unfortunately, it was a little too 'connected' for the others. They were afraid of what the critics would think. They said, 'Can't we do it with a different McGuffin? Can't we do this?' and I said 'No.' So we pottered around with that for a couple of years. And then Harrison really wanted to do it and Steve said, 'Okay.' I said, 'We'll have to go back to that original McGuffin and take out the offending parts of it and we'll still use that area of the supernatural to deal with it.' "

In an interview with MTV.com, Lucas also said that the project will acknowledge Harrison's age; the actor is currently 64. In a statement, Ford said he is ready for another action-packed turn as the death-defying archeologist. "I'm delighted to be back in business with my old friends," he said. "I don't know if the pants still fit, but I know the hat will."

Although a spokesman for Spielberg said Monday that no casting has begun, Lucas and Ford have said that they would like to include Sean Connery, who played Indiana Jones' father, Professor Henry Jones, in "The Last Crusade." "We are writing him in whether he wants to do it or not," Lucas told "Access Hollywood" when Connery was honored in June with the American Film Institute's Life Achievement Award.

It also is not known whether the project will be shot digitally, like Lucas' recent "Star Wars" movies, or on film, the medium Spielberg prefers.

"Raiders of the Lost Ark," the first film in the series, was released in 1981, followed by "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" in 1984 and "Last Crusade" in 1989. The three movies have earned 14 Academy Award nominations, seven Oscars and grossed more than $1.182 billion worldwide.

A release date was not announced, but the past two films in the series opened shortly before the Memorial Day weekend. Currently, the May 2008 lineup includes Paramount's "Iron Man," from Marvel Enterprises; Buena Vista's "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" from Walt Disney Pictures and Walden Media; and Warner Bros. Pictures' "Speed Racer," from Warners, Silver Pictures and Village Roadshow.

They're doing Prince Caspian ?

After the last Narnia movie ??

Oh dear.

I have to say that that hat on your avatar gives me a chuckle everytime.

Considering the first one grossed $745 million in theaters worldwide I would say doing a sequel is a no-brainer decision.

Narnia wasn't a bad movie at all, and it followed the book pretty faithfuly.  It just paled in comparison to LOTR, and really illustrated how Lewis was writing for children while Tolkien was writing for adults.

Tilda Swinton was the only good part in my mind. She's good in everything.

Not exactly a bad movie though, I agree.

I will totally see this. Indy is my hero.


Saw a preview for another Die Hard movie too. Sad that there aren't any decent action stars from the past 20 years or so that they have to recycle all the 80s heroes.

Me too!  Yay!

Harrison Ford was born July 13, 1942.  The guy is 64 years old.  Can they at least cast him in a role where he uses his wisdom a bit more?  Maybe I'm jaded, but I can't envision Ford playing the high action Indiana Jones any more than I can believe Stallone can get into the ring with a real boxer. 

Hollywood's chasing of the $$$ on old horses would be more palatable if they at least cast these guys in appropriate roles.

Thomas Jane, Tony Jaa, and Christian Bale. Viggo Mortensen could probably be cool too.

Of those three, I could only pick Bale out of a lineup. I have never even heard of Tony Jaa.

Basically what we need is someone charismatic with decent enough acting chops to play other roles, and hunky enough to pull off an action role. Bale does work for that, btw...good call there. He just needs a bit more exposure before he is a household name.

I think I'd want someone more sarcastic.  One of the things I love about Indiana Jones is the fact that he looks like the stuff he pulls off is almost accidental.  Where do you find someone with a dry wit and intelligence that's able to pull off believeable action/comedy?

For acting chops, Thomas Jane was pretty good in Stander (or check his part out in Boogie Nights). He also packed on 60lbs for the Punisher (as Bale did for Batman). Plus, he looks like a cross between Clint Eastwood and Christopher Lambert -- but without the funny French Canadian accent. Heh. But at the very least, I think he'd make a cool "average Joe" action star like Bruce Willis.

Tony Jaa is fun to watch in a Jackie Chan sort of way (better and more raw though, since he's Muay Thai). YouTube is fucking up on me though, so I can't find a decent clip.

Also, Jason Statham sucks.....Just needed to throw that out here.

And the Rock should only play villians from now on.

I like Jason Statham as a snarky small time hood, but not as a big action star.

It doesn't help that they're also recyling the old 80s action movies.    :-D


Exactly.  The SUPER hilarious part about all this?  Harrison is - right now - 4 years older than Connery when he played dad in '89.  And there's no Jr. Jr. (IIIrd?) on the scene.  It's going to come off as more comedy than is intended, I suspect.  Not to mention the love interest.  To mitigate the 'wtf' factor it's going to have to be a 35-40 year old actress.  Pairing Indy at 65 with someone in their 20's, early 30's?  Roofles.

Harrison hasn't aged well. Al Pacino and Harvey Keitel are older than he is, and they could still pull off a gangster or cop flick (or whatever kind of action roles they're good at).

Sometimes he looks okay and sometimes he looks awful.  This seems to be a recent photo and I think he looks great in it.  I saw him in a film a couple of years ago or so and he looked awful.  (if I could remember the name of it, I'd say so, but I don't.  Remember, that is.)

(http://www.hfm2.com/photopost1/data/536/006a.jpg)

PS  I never liked Al Pacino's face.

Big Ups for Christian Bale. How much exposure does he need than to play in the Best Batman movie, ever?

Also, I'm waiting for The Rock to drop that moniker and use his real name, Dwayne Johnson. Maybe he should work on the shift by being credited as Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson?

As far as I know he is already credited as Dwayne "he Rock" Johnson in his recent movies.

 Well but why do we need a new action movie star? We didn't even have such a movie in 2006. Name one movie of 2006 (or 2005 for that matter) that emulates that classic action flick formula well. (Like Die Hard, Lethal Weapon or The Rock did). You'd have to look outside of hollywood to find some.

Miami Vice
MI:3
Snakes On a Plane
Running Scared


I haven't seen any of those, but from what I can tell, they're all about as close to the 80's formula as you can get (whether they're good or not is another matter).

I'd list Casino Royale, but someone would try arguing that it isn't really "Hollywood" made (even though it is), and I don't feel like hearing their stupid bullshit.

[EDIT] Oh yeah, forgot about Superman Returns and Poseidon.

[EDIT]

2005 (action films distinctly Hollywood, and that fall back on old formulas):

The Island, Legend of Zorro, Sahara, XXX: State of the Union, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Batman Begins, Into the Blue, Assault on Precinct 13, Stealth, War of the Worlds, Serenity.

A few of those could have used better leading actors imo.


So, there you go. I listed more than one. Maybe these haven't been distributed in Germany yet? ;)

Huh?  When did the James Bond franchise go indie?  If Bond isn't Hollywood, nothing is.  How anyone could even make that argument is beyond me.

I just had the feeling someone might try pulling that, I don't know.

Same with Batman Begins. Someone might want to discount it as Hollywood made for having a British Bruce Wayne and British Director (though it is Hollywood backed, and it's an American Icon they're dealing with).

I'd list Kingdom of Heaven too, but just about everyone except Edward Norton was European. But still, Ridley Scott got his cash from nowhere except Hollywood.

Are you suggesting that they should be doing them in chronological order (with The Horse and His Boy coming next) rather than the published order?  Philistine.

Bruce Campbell.  They should have had him pick up the Indiana Jones role 10+ years ago.

Impossible to do at this point. Or else the first movie would have had to have been The Magician's Nephew. It's a prequel after all.

Thing is, Prince Caspian is probably the dullest of all of the books. Its more of an epilogue to LW&W. Things don't pick up till Voyage of the Dawntreader.

I'd MUCH rather go for a Horse and His Boy, which was the best for me, as a boy. The Silver Chair also ruled, but its a rather odd book, which I doubt will make it to the theatres.

They're ALL going to make it to the theatres.  Probably.  I just think they shouldn't.

As Raph already pointed out, Chronology is fucked at this stage and you couldn't really make The Magicians Nephew anyway, seeing as it's total shite.  Like A Horse And His Boy.  Oh, and The Last Battle.

I can only imagine what a fucking waste of film The Last Battle would be to put on the screen.

I realise that LWAW made money.  I just thought it was rubbish.  The thing about the books is that they're completely anorexic and don't really lend themselves to a 1 30 movie too well.  This shone through like a diamond in LWAW - the characterisation was non-existant and the plot was like Callista Flockhart; thin.

I personally think they should have gone for a couple of movies where they did multiple books :  Magicians, lwaw, caspian and then another film with chair, treader and then just a single film that contained The Last Battle so EVERYONE could fucking ignore it. 

Lewis was a fucking nutjob.

:)

Bruce Campbell is probably my favorite actor next to Christian Bale. Sad but true. I will usually see a movie just because he is in it. In fact, I'm really looking forward to My Name is Bruce. If you're a fan it could be fun. Basically, a town gets attacked by monsters and he is kidnapped because the townsfolk assume he can fight monsters because he is Ash in the Evil Dead movies.

On another note, he is the only actor I've met so far that was genuinely nice and likeable. This was at a book signing. The place was crowded and overheated. The store it was taking place at did poor planning so people were bitchy and cranky. And he was still nice. He talked to each person for like 5 minutes and actually seemed interested. At one point the crowd got restless because the store employees held up the line to organize things, so he stood up, and read a section from his book and did a Q&A and told jokes. You could tell it was totally off the cuff but he did it anyway and it worked. He turned the crowd from surly to laughing and having a good time.

We don't need more '80's style action movies, or retreads from that decade. The formula worked then, but got stale real fast. That's why the Hong Kong action style got so much traction in the '90's. Another Die Hard sequel is needed as much as a sequel to the Big Hit. Both are movies I enjoyed, but the formula and characters are played out.

Let's get some new action movie formulas in here.

As for action movie actors, there are tons of good ones waiting out there, it's just that Hollywood needs to stop looking backwards for octogenarian action stars and look at the new blood. Statham would be a great one, if he didn't have the SHITTIEST AGENT ON THE PLANET. Stop trying to make him speak American, stop putting him in action movies that make no sense, and work on his strong points. He cuts a mean figure, does decent looking martial arts, and is an imposing figure. Use that. If the Transporter movies had not been so fucking ridiculous, they'd have been perfect for him.

As for others, yes, there's Bale, and Thomas Jane. What about Clive Owen, who also needs to fire his manager or stop trying to play serious-y movies. Derailed? Crappy, boring movie with a silly twist. He was the only worthwhile thing in the movie. King Arthur? Fuck's sake that movie was a Stupid Sandwich.

As for Harrison Ford playing Indy, yes he really is just too old. Indy should not creak when he cracks the whip. Ford has not aged well. He's still a handsome guy, but not in the slim svelte way he was earlier in his career, more in the distinguished wisdom sort of way.

Children's.

Books.

If we're going to start ripping apart things aimed at kids, let's start with something that deserves it, like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

Did no one see, or like, the Kill Bill stuff?

Too much gratuitous blood and stuff for my tastes.  So no... didn't like it.

Yeah, but they were almost too Tarantino-ey for me.  I mean I like pop culture referentiality and all and I dig the "martial arts flicks are teh awesome" vibe and all, but I dunno.  I think it's possibly because it was Uma Thurman. 

Kill Bill sucked monkey ass. It was over the top stupid, campy, and cheesy. It was an expensive homage to movies that were better left on Saturday morning matinees, with dialogue so grossly strained it gave David Mamet a heart attack five minutes in, and a loving tribute to the nastiness that is Uma Thurman's rubber chicken feet. There was about 30 minutes of story not even worthy of an afterschool special, elongated like Plastic Man into not one shitty movie but two incredibly shitty movies that besmirched the names of otherwise fine actors and actresses.

Bruce was the main guest at A-kon several years back.  He was friendly and although not too familiar with anime seemed to have a great time, and certainly entertained the crowd.

I definately agree with him being nice and likeable.  As a guest he was one of the judges during the Cosplay event, and I think ours stood out rather well (third overall and the other winners were for costume design, not a skit).  The next day my friend and I were in costume and he gave us a little hello wave when he passed by.

Kill Bill was, to me, a case of Tarantino overdosing on his own hype with nobody around to say no to him.  If your fight scenes drag on for so long that even gory decapitations become boring, you don't need to split it up into two movies.  You need a god damned editor.

I dunno, with me, if I don't have a historical bone to pick with a movie, a lot of stuff that may bother people who actually care about movies passes right be me.

Except where Jet Li is concerned. I fucking hate his movies.

Please, for the love of God and all things holy, don't make this about Kill Bill. We've been down that road, and the only thing there is the assraped corpse of a man I call Sanity.

EDIT: In relation to the topic, as long as Speilberg is on board I don't have any problems with Ford as the main character. I think the storyline will adapt nicely to the age change involved as long as he is directing the project.

I actually wouldn't mind if the direction changed from less action Indy to more scholarly indy ala Dan Brown.

I have some sympathy for that movie because I have a soft spot for Antoine Fuqua, the director.  He also did Training Day and Tears of the Sun, so you know he's not a hack McMovie director like Brett Ratner.  I give the guy credit for being a black director and not going the John Singleton route; making a long line of crappy angsty "street" movies.  He was trying to tackle the Arthurian mythos with some semblance of how things may have been, what with Rome vacating Britain, the Saxons moving in, etc.  He failed, but it was still a better movie than some of the shit that's come out of the Arthurian legends.  Last Knight with Richard Gere, anyone?

When you come down to it, there's really only two ways to go with Arthur, and that's either the Excalibur, mythic to the hilt way or something along the lines of what he was trying to do. 

Ah, forgot about the Saxons in that film. Stellan Skarsgård was pretty cool. As always.

Really, he was probably the only good thing in that film (and I like those other actors too).

Check out Beowulf & Grendel when you get a chance, he plays Rothgar in it.  Not a bad movie, and fairly well done as to the whole Grendel motivation thing.

Good idea. Thanks.

Before Rocky Balboa I would have been more skeptical about 60something Ford playing Indy. (I just realized he is older than Sylvester Stallone if my math is right. Weird.)

If it is handled as well as Rocky was it'll probably be ok.

King Arthur was ok. It felt rushed, and underfunded, but the idea was noble, if poorly executed. Another midieval epic that I thought was underrated was Kingdom of Heaven (http://imdb.com/title/tt0320661/). I came to it with low expectation and was pretty gratified at the results. I recommend it for a lazy Sunday afternoon.

I dig Antoine Fuqua. I have ever since Replacement Killers, an underrated action movie. With him directing and Owen starring, it should have been great, or at least bearable. It wasn't. I finally had to turn it off at the stage where they had the ice fight with the pursuing whatever they were. It was just "quasi-realistic fantasy epic with Braveheart-style battles 101" and that part sealed the deal of bombastic, silly fight scenes. It tried too hard to top the rest of the fight scenes and degenerated into silly land, instead of just being a good fight scene with good cinematography.

Speaking of children's books become film: Where's my well-done version of The Dark is Rising? How about a version of The Black Cauldron where that noble twit stays dead, rather than have Gurgi self-rez?

Or fuck, how about Wee Free Men? Good Omens. Do some damn Pratchett. There's a shit-ton of good books out there that could be good movies, now that a couple of directors got off their asses and proved a movie version DOESN'T have to suck ass.

Call me old fashioned, but I hope that most of the good children's books stay just books.  Kids need an incentive to read something other than MySpace pages. 

It's a tough call.  Some people are more likely to pick the book up if they see the movie and like it.  Jurassic Park, High Fidelity, and the Harry Potter series all spring to mind as books I was inspired to read only after seeing the movies.  A friend of mine only finally picked up Hitchhiker's Guide (after years of nudging from me) after he saw the movie and dug it.

People who go by the logic of "I saw the movie, reading the book would make no sense now" probably wouldn't read a book voluntarily anyway.

Loved the series, but The Dark is Rising one of those books that as much as you love it, you know there's absolutely no way in hell its going to make it to the threatres. Maybe BBC or ITV in England will have a miniseries filmed on a shoe-string budget that plays at 10 a.m. Saturday mornings, but that's about the size of it.

Apparently, it's being developed as a major motion picture. People want a little of that lord of the rings action.

When the dark comes rising, six shall turn it back; Three from the circle, three from the track. Wood, bronze, iron, water fire, stone, five will return, one go alone

I did that from memory, except for the order of the elements. I haven't read the series in about 15 years, and that's how much I loved it. What a great series; it's dated now, but it made one hell of impression on me when I was about 10.

It also made me want to visit wales; I've never yet been but I imagine the mountains to be just like in the book. Amazing.

Mountains?  In Wales?

books, you have failed me again :(

no mountains in wales?

Well, I think there's a few that can *technically* claim to be "mountains" since they meet the 2,000-foot requirement.  They're not exactly Everest, though.

Yeah, no Alps or Rockies, but the Welsh (and the Cornish) are historically well known for being miners.  George Hearst almost exclusively imported Welsh and Cornish miners to work the Comstock Lode, along with hordes of Chinese coolies for debris removal and shit like that.

Swedgin!

Reminds me of this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112966/).

http://www.mountainwalk.co.uk/walkingsnowdon.html

Welsh mountains go up to around 3500ft. Which for comparison is about as high as the top of a fairly high ski resort.

As mentioned, not exactly everest or anything - not least because the Welsh have a climate that's as good as can be expected for walking up mountains. But you climb it and you are going to feel it.

Very cool. That's added of the list of things to do when I finally visit.

Hitler was right about one thing. (http://hitlerwasright.ytmnd.com/)