redblog

Last week, producer Frank Marshall confirmed to Empire that he (and presumably, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg) is moving ahead full steam on a fifth Indiana Jones movie. This was after Shia LaBeouf let the rumor slip to the BBC during the Transformers press tour.

So wait, LaBeouf keeps hedging on doing the fantastic, nuanced Y: The Last Man comic-book adaptation because he doesn't want to do more "Sam Witwicky" type roles–ie, running around being chased by things–but he's all okay with running around being chased by things in another Indiana Jones movie? (He says now he does want to do Y, that he loves the comic, but it's a timing issue with him and director D.J. Caruso.)

Hmmm, could it be that mostly LaBeouf doesn't want to do a movie that won't be a massive summer blockbuster complete with Slurpee-cup tie-ins? Sorry, I know Shia is Erika's boy, but while I like him fine in movies, I'm beginning to think he might be a bit of a punk. A punk with some Mom issues…

But back to our story… It remains very unclear what kind of movie an Indy 5 would be. It would most likely focus on LaBeouf's Mutt character, but would the nearing-70-year-old Harrison Ford be along for the ride? Or just pop up in a cameo? And perhaps more importantly, would Spielberg direct? Those questions remain very much up in the air.

I have a very blase attitude toward the ongoing Indy franchise. Like most geeks my age, I loved Raiders utterly and completely, but have never really connected and felt the magic from any of the sequels. (Let me be clear about this: I love Raiders. It remains joyous cinematic perfection.) Sure, most of them weren't all that magical, but mostly I just wasn't a 14-year-old boy anymore. I thought Last Crusade and Crystal Skull were both perfectly decent, likable action films, but not all that special except for their sturdy, reliable craftsmanship. So a fifth film, with LaBeouf not Ford at its center? Eh, sure… why not…

I'm even more non-plussed (hmmm, have I ever been plussed? Would I have known if I was?) about the news that J.J. Abrams and Tom Cruise have agreed to co-produce a fourth Mission: Impossible film. (The bigger news is that Cruise would be coming back to work with Paramount after his much-publicized break with the studio at the end of that wacky Summer of '06.)

I'm in the process of moving on to a new Tom Cruise phase–one where I'm sort of over the control-freak, creepy smile, Scientology, odd marriage, couch-jumping stuff, and am just sitting back and trying to take him or leave him based on his actual films and performances. It's a daring move on my part, one that requires constant vigilance. I'm just taking things one day at a time…

And to be honest, I have very few overall memories of the first three MI films–I don't remember hating any of them, or really liking them. MI:1 marked the sadly plastic end of director Brian DePalma's one-time exciting career. I remember MI:2 was a bit of John Woo overkill with slo-mo doves. I enjoyed Abrams' MI:3 the most and yet would be hard pressed to describe a single scene to you.

But now I'm on the Abrams bandwagon thanks to Star Trek (well, at least the feature-film bandwagon — I still need to give Lost another chance some day…), and I'd be happy to test my new Cruise attitude and Abrams love on another Mission: Impossible film. In other words, eh, sure… why not…

So which of these two franchise continuations are you most interested in seeing? Which do you think is a colossally bad idea? And what other franchises are you excited to see getting a restart? Are there any old action franchises out there you'd like to see revived?

(I'll put up a couple redblog polls to this effect in a bit–if you have action-film franchises–old, new, dormant, ongoing–you want to see in the poll, get 'em in the comments now!)

Related Posts

Cruise is Impossible… Again.

Indiana Jones 5? WHAT!?!

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull