EvaUnit02 on 18/6/2009 at 11:18
Oh Christ, beat that dead horse some more why don't you?
(
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/2508635/Shia-LaBeouf-confirms-Indy-5/)
Quote:
Shia LaBeouf has confirmed a fifth Indiana Jones film is in the pipeline, and that director Steven Spielberg has been working on a script for it.
LaBeouf - who starred in last year's fourth film in the franchise, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - said a fifth film was definitely in pre-production in a new interview.
"Stephen (Spielberg) just said that he cracked a story on it before I left, and I think they're gearing that up," he told BBC reporter Lizo Mzimba in London.
Crystal Skull - the follow-up to 1981's Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1984's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and 1989's Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - was a box office hit, earning almost US$800 million worldwide.
It helped make Harrison Ford last year's highest paid actor in Hollywood, with an income of NZ$112 million.
But the film was slammed by critics for its bizarre plot, which included Soviet agents, Peru's Nazca Lines and aliens.
It was the topic of a bad taste episode of animated comedy show South Park that featured George Lucas and Steven Spielberg raping Indiana Jones.
LaBeouf, the star of upcoming blockbuster Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, also confirmed he will star in a sequel to Wall Street called Money Never Sleeps.
Thor on 18/6/2009 at 11:29
Rofl. XD
Raping the Indiana Jones II, eh?
SubJeff on 18/6/2009 at 11:36
The are saying that LeBooof is the new Ford already aren't they?
Anyways, just shows that any artistic integrity we thought these people had was a result of luck, circumstance and fan projection.
Matthew on 18/6/2009 at 11:37
A sequel to Wall Street?
Queue on 18/6/2009 at 11:47
What about Legally Blonde 3, dammit!?
Thirith on 18/6/2009 at 11:54
Indy IV was slammed for its bizarre plot? Bullshit. It was slammed for its wobbly use of CGI, lame script, lame characters, bad pacing and other things beside - but no critic worth his or her money would slam a film that's basically a '30s pulp serial pastiche for its bizarre plot. That's like slamming The Seventh Seal because it didn't have enough gunfights.
Scots Taffer on 18/6/2009 at 11:56
Quote Posted by Matthew
A
sequel to
Wall Street?
The first movie was about greed, what do you not understand about this.
Matthew on 18/6/2009 at 11:57
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
The first movie was about greed, what do you not understand about this.
This point, it is a good one.
DDL on 18/6/2009 at 12:13
Quote Posted by Thirith
Indy IV was slammed for its bizarre plot? Bullshit. It was slammed for its wobbly use of CGI, lame script, lame characters, bad pacing and other things beside - but no critic worth his or her money would slam a film that's basically a '30s pulp serial pastiche for its bizarre plot. That's like slamming
The Seventh Seal because it didn't have enough gunfights.
I dunno...ok, I admit this may sound strange, but here goes:
The Indy movies up until 4 basically said "biblical god exists...probably. Or something very similar", and Indy 4 said "aliens exist".
Now I can just about forgive biblical god existing in a film, and I can easily handle aliens existing in a film, but there's something inherently
grating about an ostensibly consistent world where both god AND aliens exist.
"And on the third day the lord said LET THERE BE GRAYS and lo, there were grays. And the weeping and lamenting of the anally-probed cattle was terrible to behold."
Queue on 18/6/2009 at 12:20
Now there's a God I can believe in.
