Both of them are capable of making brilliant movies…but I’ve found their collaborations a tad phoned in.
Early reactions to Indiana Jones 5 are similar to how people react to Star Wars “it’s not as good as when I saw the original 3 when they came out”
I don’t think Disney was prepared for the mid-life crisis crowd…
When Owen Gleiberman states in his review that he did not really like „Raiders of the lost ark“, his opinion on this new film gets a perfect perspective…
I keep hearing it’s better than Crystal Skull. I’m just happy that we got another Indy film. A controversial opinion of mine, is that Indiana Jones could have been like James Bond as a continuation franchise. There would always be a artifact or a threat in any era of time. Books, movies and video games, Lucasfilm could have taken better care with Indy after the 2000s. They focused too much on Star Wars. Speaking of Star Wars, James Mangold’s film could depend solely on Indy’s success, financially and critically. He stayed on for Indy, which says something considering Lucasfilm and their directors. After Book of Henry failed, that was one of the reasons Colin Trevorrow was fired from Star Wars 9. I still plan to see Indy, either way.
What do you mean? Mangold was already an established very versatile director before he was offered Indiana Jones.
Trevorrow was coming off the successful JW and got his passion project which tanked financially and critically. So SW was taken away from him, but JW stayed his.
What I’m saying is that we don’t know how set in stone Lucasfilm’s plans for Star Wars are. And anything can happen just like that. I know that James Mangold is a talented filmmaker, however we have seen how caring Lucasfilm has been to their directors since Disney took over. Just some observations.
Oh… No! Don’t know if this is already discussed, but I just read that Eddie Murphy is doing a remake of… The Pink Panther, playing Clouseau! Not a good idea, if you ask me.
I’m down for more Pink Panther movies just have Eddie Murphy be a different character. I enjoyed the two Steve Martin did and thought they were better than a couple of Peter Seller’s lesser entries in the series.
I especially laughed when they say: It‘s not a cash grab, the audience legitimately wants more.
Don´t you think that both is true? Of course there is money to be made of it. But I read somewhere that it is the only franchise with increasing box office in the first 4 consecutive films (after the Bond franchise of course… )
Of course not!
Hey, all movies are a cash grab, basically. Even the most artistically inclined won´t commit to working without wishing to see good returns.
It is a business, and that´s perfectly fine. I don’t work for free, either.
And “John Wick” has proven to be an inventive stunt parade, enjoyable and extremely well put together.
I have no problem with them continuing if they deliver on that level.
But after the last film Reeves and the director pretty explicitly ended the story. Now that it is another huge success, of course, the studio wants it NOT to end.
Does the audience want to see more? Well, probably. Although if the next sequel sucks people will say: Oh, they should have stopped after the last one.
I just laugh at the sheer self-delusion or trickery of this statement. They are not doing more films of this stuff because “it´s not a cash grab”. They are exactly doing that because John Wick now is their “cash cow”. And I would milk it as well. And also maintain in press statements that I only do it to serve the fans who want more.
And I would seriously try to make the next one interesting again.
But I would also know: without the chance to grab more cash, this would be a dead horse to beat.
As for Bond: Albert R. Broccoli always stayed truthful and said he would do more as long as the previous one made profit.
So, why not stay real and truthful? Why not say: We underestimated the enormous love for “John Wick”. So we will return and deliver what the fans want.
If I were writing a fifth film I’d have John take down the whole Table, and then call it a day. There’s an easy way to explain his return too, considering Chapter 3 explicitly says in this universe the
bullet placements he receives during the final duel are non fatal.
“Those who cling to death live. Those who cling to life die.” John embraces death by slumping over on the steps.
You only live twice,
Once when you are born,
Twice when you stare death in the face.
Turnabout is fair play, since I thought the '89 film played out as THE JOKER (with michael keaton as batman).
Affleck’s Batman is in this, too, and for all I know possibly others. It’s like the League of Batmen, with special guest star some pervy kid in a red suit. They knew from Day 1 that Batman was going to be the true audience draw for this film, but I’m sure they’re thanking the movie gods that they leaned into that instinct, now. At first Bats was just there to break through the audience’s indifference, but now he’s got to compensate for their active disgust and animosity towards the nominal star. If they can make a success of this thing, Warner needs to show Miller the door and give Keaton a new plane, or an island.
There’s one really BIG cameo that was recently reported but I will leave it to those who want to be spoiled to do the Google Fu…
And the sequel will be BATMAN VS BATMAN VS BATMAN AND SUPERMAN (feat. The Flash)