George Lucas Will Be Fully Involved In 'Indiana Jones 5' According To Spielberg

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know what they meant, but nothing about War of the Worlds seemed like "gentle Dad Spielberg."

Plus the reason that ending fails isn't because the kid lives, it's that a key emotional moment in the film was already struck through the notion that the kid died, that we saw it happen, that Ray moved on from it (kind of). It wasn't just Spielberg refusing to kill a kid at the end, it was him basically undoing a part of his own story for the sake of the happy ending. Which is a problem of his (and has been, yeah) but even him fucking that up like he did isn't enough to make me come anywhere close to writing off the movie.
Yeah, it's definitely not got that bright, optimistic vibe he has in his fun-for-the-whole-family flicks, and I wouldn't write it off either despite its huge missteps near the end, but I do think there's a point to be made that even in his harder stuff he can't seem forgo a happy ending as he's gotten older.

Heck, the initial alien reveal / attack at the beginning is one of the most intense, well-shot things Spielberg has done. Which is what makes the flaws later on more glaring for me because of just how good WotW is aside from them.
 
Red Tails was awful and he was involved with the production of that. Not to mention the last Indiana Jones being underwhelming to say the least. Not really interested in this, wasn't before, but definitely not now.
 
They probably mean since Spielberg became Gentle Dad Spielberg in the '90s.

Of course. Spielberg will have directed about 30 films since JAWS by the time IJ5 starts production. I think it would make more sense to look at his last 15 movies to understand where he is as a filmmaker.

I imagine Lucas will be involved to a significant extent, I mean both him and Spielberg are close friends and work in tandem a lot. I don't think he'll be writing scripts though.

They both seemingly respect the other's opinion. I guess it'll boil down to if Lucas wants to get in the fray again.

Lucas has never written an Indiana Jones script. Don't know why he would now. I really can't imagine Spielberg not consulting with Lucas. It doesn't make any sense. Dave Filoni still occasionally talks to Lucas about stuff on Rebels. I said it before, but I'm sure Lucas will decide his own level of involvement. He might not want to be involved at all.
 
Yeah, it's definitely not got that bright, optimistic vibe he has in his fun-for-the-whole-family flicks, and I wouldn't write it off either despite its huge missteps near the end, but I do think there's a point to be made that even in his harder stuff he can't seem forgo a happy ending as he's gotten older.

Dude made Munich in the same year he made War of the Worlds. He made Schindler's List the same year he made Jurassic Park. I feel like in both cases he was all "Fuck, this other movie has to have a feel good ending or I'm not gonna get through it."
 
Lucas has never written an Indiana Jones script. Don't know why he would now. I really can't imagine Spielberg not consulting with Lucas. It doesn't make any sense. Dave Filoni still occasionally talks to Lucas about stuff on Rebels. I said it before, but I'm sure Lucas will decide his own level of involvement. He might not want to be involved at all.

I was thinking more of the general script process but I can't see Lucas being too hands off. He's not one to withhold his opinion.
 
Plus the reason that ending fails isn't because the kid lives, it's that a key emotional moment in the film was already struck through the notion that the kid died, that we saw it happen, that Ray moved on from it (kind of). It wasn't just Spielberg refusing to kill a kid at the end, it was him basically undoing a part of his own story for the sake of the happy ending. Which is a problem of his (and has been, yeah) but even him fucking that up like he did isn't enough to make me come anywhere close to writing off the movie.

I think Devin Faraci put up a good defense of the ending.

And so we come to Robbie, and his ultimate survival, perhaps the most often used criticism of War of the Worlds. I’ve never had a problem with this turn of events, and I’ve never quite understood why others have; yes, the ending is a hopeful reunion, but considering the extraordinary darkness of the preceding 110 minutes, some hope is welcome. Robbie surviving doesn’t magically erase the fact that War of the Worlds is one of the scariest, most oppressively dark movies of Spielberg’s career, and perhaps the most extreme PG-13 movie of our modern era. It doesn’t remove the sheer terror of the initial Tripod attack, the moral confusion of the ferry scene or the sickening sweep of the river full of corpses.

And there are a few more paragraphs in the article.
 
I think Devin Faraci put up a good defense of the ending.

Nah, that's not really a defense. He just says what I'm saying: It's not enough to drag down the rest of the movie.

There's no real reasoning as to why that decision makes sense in and of itself as a positive to the film. "It didn't hurt the movie that much" isn't really a defense of the ending.

The idea that Robbie needs to be alive to give people that "ray of hope" is a bad one. You don't need it. The ray of hope is that Ray actually got to where he was going, and reunited his family. That the world will move on, even if he doesn't get the happy ending he wants, he's able to provide it for others in a way he wasn't able to do at the beginning of the film.

Robbie coming out that front door is cheap as fuck. That said - its cheapness doesn't make the 98% of the movie that preceded it go from good to bad.
 
Of course. Spielberg will have directed about 30 films since JAWS by the time IJ5 starts production. I think it would make more sense to look at his last 15 movies to understand where he is as a filmmaker.
The alterations to the special edition of ET I think speak to that change I was referring to, even if he later admitted the walkie-talkie one as a mistake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom