Oh no, not again...can somebody (God maybe) stop this now?
As if Star Wars has not been degraded enough, they have to defile Indiana Jones some more after that ludicrous, horrendous, preposterous Crystal Skull.
I understand that selling new stuff makes more money than selling old stuff.
But when the new stuff is of a lower grade than the old stuff, it TARNISHES it, and then you don't sell neither the new stuff nor the old stuff.
How on earth a super old Harrison Ford, a super out of shape Spielberg, and a super has been Lucas could produce a movie that is in any way acceptable as a sequel to the original triolgy?
They failed miserably 10 years ago, I can see how they want to "fix" that total turd, but making another, possibly even bigger and smellier turd, is not going to fix it: if anything it's just going to pile up even more shit on what used to be the best adventure trilogy ever.
I feel like I'm back to 2007 on imdb boards...this time please somebody do something!
I agree. I’m probably being an idiot, but the kid in me still believes that Spielberg knows what he’s doing. But if this sucks as bad as the last. It’s beyond time to hang it up...
I said when they made Crystal Skull that the timing was all wrong. Indy was no longer young and able bodied but he wasn't yet an old man either. There's nothing interesting there. They missed the window. Now, it makes sense.
Recast it with Anthony Ingruber, have Harrison Ford in it too as Indy but with Anthony Ingruber as Indiana Jones. As a young Indy we'd get to see him fight Nazis again and go to far flung places chasing after relics in a time when the world was a little more dangerous and mysterious.
I liked Crystal Skull alright. I think they'll take some cues from Harrison Ford's recent movies like Blade Runner 2049 and Star Wars: The Force Awakens. He'll handle the dramatic moments and some of the action while they give him a sidekick to do the more difficult stunts.
"2 If God hates somebody, it's probably the one named satan."
That's a bit of a misconception. 'Satan' was originally 'Lucifer', the ANGEL that 'fell'.
The Creator then gave him the task of TEMPTING people - he still needs people to SIGN THE CONTRACT to sell their soul to him for materialistic gain and hedonistic pleasure, he can't just do evil things all by himself.
This means, even 'satan' works for the Creator, by putting people through TRIALS and initiation of sorts.
The Creator is like the sun - everyone and everything is part of it, therefore, it doesn't hate anyone or any part of the whole, because it'd be just as insane as if you hated your toe and wanted to cut it off. What kind of sense would that make?
Therefore, both your conclusion and the original statement are both proven wrong.
I never understood the logic of these movie studios.
First they take something that has a following, like an old classic from the 1980s.
Then they MUTATE IT COMPLETELY to be something absolutely different and separate from the 1980s classic, but still use the NAME to draw in audience.
How can they think they can profit that way?
I mean, if you are going to remake something, it's already problematic, because if you make it too much like the original, it's just going to look like a lame rip-off, a worse version of the original, and no one will like it.
If you make it too different, you alienate the people that loved the original, because it's nothing like that original, so there's nothing to like about it.
I am exaggerating a bit, but I don't get the logic of taking a 'famous name' and then changing it completely, and then expecting people to flock in and like it.
It's almost as if it's not important whether anyone likes it, but that people are DRAWN IN, and that's as far as their thinking goes. So they buy a license, then butcher it completely and wonder what went wrong.
If they want the old fans to like it, obviously the name isn't enough, the movie has to be good in a similar way that the first movie was good. If they want new fans (a bit of an oxymoron, of course) to like it, then they can't just rely on nostalgia and name, so it doesn't even make sense to USE the old name, because it means absolutely nothing to the new audiences (necessarily).
So whom are they trying to please? They can't please the old fans by mutilating their beloved franchise or movie, they can't please anyone new because they don't care about the name. Either way, it makes NO SENSE to just take some popular name from the 1980s and 'remake/reboot/whatever' it into a movie that you'd have to change quite a lot anyway, so you might as well make a completely new movie.
It's also astonishing how MUCH they are willing to sink money into 'woke' crap, but WON'T give new ideas a chance.
Well their "logic" is:
people are lazy (correct)
people will get on board with something they already know more readily than with something new (sort of correct)
we will save a lot of money on ads with something well established (correct)
That's about it.
They certainly don't give a fuck about pleasing anybody nor about honoring a beloved franchise.
They are totally fine with mutilating said franchise in pursuit of the possible gains of their "logic".
It's not even a gamble: they simply don't give a fuck.
They do NOT reason like artists nor experts nor fans of these films: they only think like businessmen, and their only goal is the monetary profit. Even a giant turd like Crystal Skull, I am sure, made them some money. Hence, it makes good business sense to try again with more shit. Untill they completely go broke and decide "there's nothing else to get out of this", they will keep going at it. Disney is particularly avid and pitiless at this.