Indiana Jones 5 Will Star Harrison Ford And Hit Theaters in 2019

Indiana Jones 5 Will Star Harrison Ford And Hit Theaters in 2019

Raiders of the Lost Ark 9x4

Harrison Ford is getting up in years, but Disney has still invited him back to reprise his role as Indiana Jones in the fifth installment of the profitable movie franchise.

I guess after Disney purchased Lucasfilm and brought us a new Star Wars, it was only a matter of time before we got a new Indiana Jones film. And sure enough, Disney has announced Indiana Jones 5 will be coming to theaters on July 19 ... 2019.

To top it off, Harrison Ford will be back as the iconic archaeologist, despite being over 70 years old. Steven Spielberg will again direct, and Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall will co-produce. And apparently George Lucas will not be involved in the project.

"Indiana Jones is one of the greatest heroes in cinematic history, and we can't wait to bring him back to the screen in 2019," Alan Horn, chairman of Walt Disney Studios, said in a statement. "It's rare to have such a perfect combination of director, producers, actor and role, and we couldn't be more excited to embark on this adventure with Harrison and Steven."

The casting for the film has yet to be determined, but Chris Pratt has been mentioned as a possibility as the next Indy, so it will be interesting to see if he is cast for the film in an heir apparent role.

The four previous Indiana Jones films have grossed more than $2 billion worldwide since Raiders of the Lost Ark debuted in 1981. The fourth installment in 2008, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, holds the box office record for the franchise, garnering more than $317 million domestically and in excess of $786.5 million globally.

Lucasfilm has previous acknowledged that a new film was in the works, but no details were divulged.

While Crystal Skull did well at the box office, fans of the franchise were generally disappointed with the film. Here's hoping the new one will be more like the original Raiders than Crystal Skull

Source: Deadline

Permalink

So... two for two Harrison Ford? Man wants to really retire so I wonder how the movie will end.

"We can't wait to bring him back to the screen in 2019" is one hell of an oxymoron.

dragongit:
So... two for two Harrison Ford? Man wants to really retire so I wonder how the movie will end.

Which is weird, because Crystal Skull seemed like a good enough place for him to "retire" the Indiana Jones character, despite the film being garbage.

Good lord, Hollywood! Give the man a break, he's had enough!

What...?

Why...?

How...?

No.

I was listening to a podcast today of some reviewers that I enjoy. At the end of the podcast they always answer a few questions that have been sent in from listeners. One of the questions on this podcast was "If you could freeze an IP to make sure there's never another remaked/sequel/what-have-you, what would it be?"

I'd say Indiana Jones would be a good candidate for that...the world needs another Indiana Jones movie the way it needs another Ben Stiller + Owen Wilson comedy.

...which is to say: it doesn't.

I wonder if (read: hope) they'll make this as if Crystal Skull is non-canon.

See, I actually liked Crystal Skull but I still think it should have ended there. The final scene was the closest you could get to wrapping a series like Indiana Jones up, or at least Ford's version of the character. This feels like a bad idea destined to be embarrassing.

They rode off into the sunset at the end of Last Crusade. He got married in Crystal Skull. What's he doing coming back again?

No.

No.

No...

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...

OT: Oh well. Lucas being out of the picture is good, but Spielberg's latest crop of mainstream action schlock haven't been as great as his earlier work, and he's kinda reinvented himself as a drama director.

Still, its been long enough, maybe they've learned their lessons. Although keeping Harrison Ford as Indie is one big mistake already.

09philj:
They rode off into the sunset at the end of Last Crusade. He got married in Crystal Skull. What's he doing coming back again?

Henry Jones Jr. Jr. Jr.

The Real Sandman:
OT: Oh well. Lucas being out of the picture is good, but Spielberg's latest crop of mainstream action schlock haven't been as great as his earlier work, and he's kinda reinvented himself as a drama director.

Wait, when did that happen? Looking at Spielberg's filmography, his drama films go at least as far back as Savage (1973) (or The Colour Purple (1985) if we go 'pure drama'), and his last action film was The Adventures of Tintin (2011) (maybe War Horse, but haven't seen it, only seen the stage play and read the novel). And while his last film was a drama (Bridge of Spies), we have The BFG coming up next (urban/low fantasy), and Ready Player One coming up next (which will probably fit into the cyberpunk genre).

Now, haven't seen every film in Spielberg's filmography, and that includes Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but looking at it, coupled with the films I have seen, I don't think I can really peg him as being locked to any one genre. But certainly I enjoyed Tintin a lot, and that was an action-adventure film if I ever saw one.

I'm glad Spielberg will get to make this one without Lucas; it may be the one thing that gives the film half a chance. But Ford himself seems increasingly uninterested in the fact that he's been fortunate enough to be part of multiple legendary blockbuster series, other than picking up a paycheck, and it's really starting to show.

KotCS was if nothing else a poor action picture, one that seemed to be going through the motions and in which none of the characters were faced with anything resembling serious risk. If this new film is going to be worth a damn, we need not to have a series of obvious blue-screen shots and repeated-identical-punching-sound fist fights, and I can't help but suspect that may be difficult for an aging cast to pull off.

This is nuts. Indiana Jones should be retired. Ford is over 70 and they already had Indy struggling with being old in Crystal Skull.

I get the Feeling he just does it to die in this movie as well so no one bothers him about making another sequel.

They should simply make movies of Indiana's earlier career with Chris Pratt. Until Crystal Skull the movies weren't chronical anyway.
Temple of Doom takes place before Raiders of the Lost Ark.
No need for any fancy bullshit, just make the movies take place in 1925 or something and be done.

well, cant be any worse with the story than part 4. now that lucas isnt directing anymore. this was his idea to use aliens in part 4 when pretty much everyone else was against it. i still enjoy part 4 more or less, until the ending that is.
but damn, he should retire actually. at the same time though, i admire is persistence for continuing on acting.

Standing in for Indiana Jones is the desiccated husk of Harrison Ford.

I still think Crystal Skull has a very clever premise (as Indy moves into the fifties, change the subject of his pulp adventures from the occultism of the forties into the little green men of the fifties! Come on, that's a good idea) that was unfortunately screwed up by a bad script and an annoying sidekick. Hell, I crossed out that first bit because the script really isn't all that bad. It's not inspired, but it's perfectly serviceable.

Anyway, if they both want to make another movie, let 'em! It's not like I'm required to go see it if the trailers or the reviews make me think it'll be bad.

Well, if they can work the magic they did on Star Wars... But then, I never thought that Lucas did any wrong when it came to Indiana Jones - I actually rather enjoyed Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

So I guess I'm curious about what direction they'll take it in.

Watch it be a retread of the original Indiana Jones film but with a non-surprising twist.

I'm being mean. As somebody who didn't hate "Crystal Skull" I can't exactly bemoan this as much as I should.

Hawki:

The Real Sandman:
OT: Oh well. Lucas being out of the picture is good, but Spielberg's latest crop of mainstream action schlock haven't been as great as his earlier work, and he's kinda reinvented himself as a drama director.

Wait, when did that happen? Looking at Spielberg's filmography, his drama films go at least as far back as Savage (1973) (or The Colour Purple (1985) if we go 'pure drama'), and his last action film was The Adventures of Tintin (2011) (maybe War Horse, but haven't seen it, only seen the stage play and read the novel). And while his last film was a drama (Bridge of Spies), we have The BFG coming up next (urban/low fantasy), and Ready Player One coming up next (which will probably fit into the cyberpunk genre).

Now, haven't seen every film in Spielberg's filmography, and that includes Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but looking at it, coupled with the films I have seen, I don't think I can really peg him as being locked to any one genre. But certainly I enjoyed Tintin a lot, and that was an action-adventure film if I ever saw one.

You're right, Spielberg has never stuck to one genre. I guess what meant to say was that his action movie efforts in the last 10 years have been alright (The Adventures of Tintin, I liked it too, but not a lot), kinda lack luster (War of the Worlds), and down right bad (Indiana Jones 4), where as his recent pure drama films I felt have been much stronger. When you compare these films to the first three Indy films, Jurrasic Park, Saving Private Ryan, and arguably Duel, I feel there is a noticeable gap in quality. Spielberg seems to have lost a bit of his touch with action films as of late, I would love to be proven wrong.

I'm the opposite of you with War Horse, I've only seen the film, never read the book or saw the play. Despite I think...two(?) short battle sequences, the film is all story and dialog. I thought it was great, check it out!

Gibbagobba:
Give the man a break

They did, on the set of Star Wars #TooSoon?

Well I hope they don't try to make it kid friendly again and actually explain the ending this time unlike that last shitty movie.

What is this "Crystal Skull" you speak of? It doesn't ring a bell, and just makes me feel sad seeing those words together.

I cant wait when they announce Indiana Jones 27 starring the bones of Harrison Ford vs the Communist Nazis xenomorphs from Omicron Persei 12.

The Real Sandman:

Hawki:

The Real Sandman:
OT: Oh well. Lucas being out of the picture is good, but Spielberg's latest crop of mainstream action schlock haven't been as great as his earlier work, and he's kinda reinvented himself as a drama director.

Wait, when did that happen? Looking at Spielberg's filmography, his drama films go at least as far back as Savage (1973) (or The Colour Purple (1985) if we go 'pure drama'), and his last action film was The Adventures of Tintin (2011) (maybe War Horse, but haven't seen it, only seen the stage play and read the novel). And while his last film was a drama (Bridge of Spies), we have The BFG coming up next (urban/low fantasy), and Ready Player One coming up next (which will probably fit into the cyberpunk genre).

Now, haven't seen every film in Spielberg's filmography, and that includes Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but looking at it, coupled with the films I have seen, I don't think I can really peg him as being locked to any one genre. But certainly I enjoyed Tintin a lot, and that was an action-adventure film if I ever saw one.

You're right, Spielberg has never stuck to one genre. I guess what meant to say was that his action movie efforts in the last 10 years have been alright (The Adventures of Tintin, I liked it too, but not a lot), kinda lack luster (War of the Worlds), and down right bad (Indiana Jones 4), where as his recent pure drama films I felt have been much stronger. When you compare these films to the first three Indy films, Jurrasic Park, Saving Private Ryan, and arguably Duel, I feel there is a noticeable gap in quality. Spielberg seems to have lost a bit of his touch with action films as of late, I would love to be proven wrong.

I'm the opposite of you with War Horse, I've only seen the film, never read the book or saw the play. Despite I think...two(?) short battle sequences, the film is all story and dialog. I thought it was great, check it out!

Looking at those examples, you may be right. To be honest, of the Indy films, I've only seen Temple of Doom and some of Raiders, and I wasn't really taken in with either of them. I actually prefer Tintin over them, but I'm almost certainly in the minority there, and Indy, films or otherwise, has probably had far more impact on pop culture than Tintin. As for War of the Worlds, I'm not sure if I'd call it an action film (survival sci-fi, maybe?), but while I like it, I think it's harmed by its third act. I've commented that the moment we see the aliens in the basement is the moment the film starts to lose its stride. At the least, I'd put it below Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan, and Minority Report, among others.

As for War Horse, I'll keep that in mind. While we're making reccomendations, the book isn't too special, but the stage play I saw was incredible. In the confines of a stage and screen above it using abstract imagery, not to mention the lack of actual horses, it was still incredible how they could evoke the feeling of WWI. Found myself genuinely shaken and close to tears at times given the emotions being stirred.

remnant_phoenix:
I wonder if (read: hope) they'll make this as if Crystal Skull is non-canon.

The new one will have time travel. Time travel fixes all a franchises problems. Unless it's the Terminator franchise, then it just makes it worse.

Okay, I'm calling it now: most of the movie will focus on young Indy while Ford will be either in flashbacks or some time travel shenanigans.

Mahorfeus:
Well, if they can work the magic they did on Star Wars...

You mean make a soulless movie that copies the original trilogy to a T and has been a product of careful marketing research? No thanks, I wouldn't want that.

Please don't have aliens again. Please don't have aliens again....

JimB:
I still think Crystal Skull has a very clever premise (as Indy moves into the fifties, change the subject of his pulp adventures from the occultism of the forties into the little green men of the fifties! Come on, that's a good idea) that was unfortunately screwed up by a bad script and an annoying sidekick. Hell, I crossed out that first bit because the script really isn't all that bad. It's not inspired, but it's perfectly serviceable.

Anyway, if they both want to make another movie, let 'em! It's not like I'm required to go see it if the trailers or the reviews make me think it'll be bad.

After reading Lovecraft, I began to see some similarities with some details (like getting burned because of glancing to the infinite knowledge of the universe). But the execution felt like they were aiming for a more generic alien premise.

I sure hope Indy 5 will be the unofficial sequel to Bubba-Ho-Tep.

Citizen Graves:
I sure hope Indy 5 will be the unofficial sequel to Bubba-Ho-Tep.

Hah! That would be awesome. Indy opens the sarcophagus, and finds Elvis Bruce Campbell. "...the hell is this shit?!" xD

Damn I need to watch that movie again.

RealRT:
Okay, I'm calling it now: most of the movie will focus on young Indy while Ford will be either in flashbacks or some time travel shenanigans.

Actually, a flashback movie, of him in some dive in a random country, telling some story that leads up to him waiting at that bar. "...and I've been waiting to find that man...waiting for 50 years...and now, tonight, that wait is over..." *door opens, and people come in. Indy turns to them, and gives them "that look", then starts shooting people.* Hell yeah, I'd totally be up for that kind of story. Done right, that could be badass. Let Harrison do the funny stuff, and banter in conversation that he is good at, and let the young actor do the actual stunting.

RealRT:

Mahorfeus:
Well, if they can work the magic they did on Star Wars...

You mean make a soulless movie that copies the original trilogy to a T and has been a product of careful marketing research? No thanks, I wouldn't want that.

Heh. "Soulless." What does that even mean anymore?

But, no.

I'd gladly take a good sequel, even if the more cynical side of Indy's fanbase hates it. At least it doesn't have decades of expanded material to obliterate in the process.

Mahorfeus:

RealRT:

Mahorfeus:
Well, if they can work the magic they did on Star Wars...

You mean make a soulless movie that copies the original trilogy to a T and has been a product of careful marketing research? No thanks, I wouldn't want that.

Heh. "Soulless." What does that even mean anymore?

But, no.

I'd gladly take a good sequel, even if the more cynical side of Indy's fanbase hates it. At least it doesn't have decades of expanded material to obliterate in the process.

In this context it means lacking any originality or heart put into it and being made completely artificially, through a lot of market research.
...except for all the Indy comics and video games - like the Emperor's Tomb or The Fate of Atlantis.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here