Producer Frank Marshall gives Indiana Jones 5 update

Suggests it's unlikely to happen

After the swinging monkeys, giant ants and nuclear-resistant fridges of Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, most right-thinking cinemagoers thought the franchise had been killed stone dead. Time for an increasingly craggy Harrison Ford to hang up the bullwhip, and for George Lucas to have a long think about what he's done.

That said, rumours surrounding a potential fifth instalment have refused to go away, with Ford having indicated a willingness to do it and vaguely positive murmurs emerging from Spielberg's camp. However, producer Frank Marshall has been talking about the possibility, and from what he has to say, a fifth film isn't sounding likely.

“I say, for me, [Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is] the last hurrah," says Marshall. "I know that yes, we talk about it, but there’s no idea, there’s no MacGuffin.” Last we'd heard was that Spielberg and Lucas were working on a "gem of an idea", but apparently that hasn't developed into a fully blown script."

An additional roadblock would appear to be Lucas stepping down from Lucasfilm, with Marshall's wife Kathleen Kennedy poised to take the reins. "Yeah, no he isn’t [hungry to do another Indiana Jones]", says Marshall, "and he’s obviously passing the baton to my wife."

That to us would suggest that any clamour there had been for another go-around has died down significantly, with Lucas having lost his enthusiasm for the franchise after the debacle of the last film. To be honest, we think it's probably for the best...

Would you be keen on a fifth Indy adventure? Tell us, below!

Comments

    • mattburgess

      Jul 26th 2012, 9:14

      No! Please give a great screenwriter the opportunity to let Indiana Jones hang up his whip on a high note.

      Alert a moderator

    • Heisenberg

      Jul 26th 2012, 9:35

      POSSIBLE BATMAN SPOILERS! I bet now that with they way TDKR ended, all the franchises are gonna come crawling out of the woodwork to give their character the same "LEGEND ENDS" kinda deal. Dunno if that's a spoiler, better safe than sorry.

      Alert a moderator

    • Hadouken76

      Jul 26th 2012, 9:39

      Translation : Lucas lost all enthusiasm after being thoroughly crucified for his ' great idea for a movie', causing Spielberg to go off and hang out with REAL film-makers like Cameron and Jackson .

      Alert a moderator

    • kidkongo

      Jul 26th 2012, 9:40

      "after the debacle of the last film" A 3 star review in TF is a debacle of a film!? I didn't care for it much myself but at least stand by your reviews.

      Alert a moderator

    • FBPMurray37

      Jul 26th 2012, 10:12

      I'm REALLY sick of the ridiculous hate for Indy 4. It wasn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, it wasn't as good as the legendary Raiders and Crusade, but I wouldn't say it was significantly 'worse' than Doom. That's not to say Doom was a bad movie at all, just that Indy 4 was a reasonable if not classic entry to the series. And don't even get me started on all those folks who hit out at the unbelievability of Indy surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge etc. Need we forget this is the same Indy who survived falling out of a plane with nothing but an inflatable raft! The hatred for Indy 4 is nothing more than people of a certain age having major fondness for the originals, and then getting so hyped up over Indy 4 that it could never match expectations. The reviews of the time are pretty accurate - three/four stars in many places (giving it a 3.5 star average which I think is a fair ball-park figure). It's good but not without flaws. However it has since become increasingly 'fashionable' to bad mouth the last Indy entry to the extent that you'd think the film was a one-star monstrosity. That online-centred hatred for Indy 4 is so all encompassing that it has caused those who thought it wasn't bad to revise their opinions downwards. It was a similar story with Superman Returns - which got overwhlemingly positive reviews from most movie mags upon release, but which has slowly seen its image tarnished over time as people in the industry have revised their own opinions in the wake of the rage of a very vocal minority who'd have us all believe it was a one or two star flick at best. I've never met anyone face-to-face who didn't think Superman Returns wasn't a good movie, and yet you go online and the supposedly 'universal' hatred would imply that everyone in the world thought the film was the anti-Christ. I personally thought it was a strong four-star flick with a lot of heart and a cracking early set piece in the form of the aircraft rescue. It's high time movie mags etc stopped revising their own views of a movie because a very vocal few keep harping on about a movie's supposed flaws. Both Total Film and Empire gave Indy 4 and Superman Returns positive reviews, yet their online news articles frequently make reference to them as unholy messes. A little consistency here please folks! Phew, rant over. lol.

      Alert a moderator

    • kidkongo

      Jul 26th 2012, 10:20

      Will said FBPMurray37 here here!

      Alert a moderator

    • kaiser

      Jul 26th 2012, 10:39

      No......Just. NO!!!!

      Alert a moderator

    • Heisenberg

      Jul 26th 2012, 10:42

      @FBPMurray, finally a rant that actually makes perfect sense!!

      Alert a moderator

    • Desperation

      Jul 26th 2012, 10:48

      Fully agree with the comments. Indy 4 was a perfectly reasonable film. My only real gripes with it were the CGI monkeys and the fact that nobody called him Indy (i can kind of understand Jim Broadbent calling him Henry, but would it have been so hard for Ray Winstone to call him Indy instead of Jonesy?). Also, i've never understood people's problem with the aliens. How is that any more ridiculous than a cup that gives everlasting life? In fact, as an athiest, i'd say that the alien macguffin is more believable that the religious ones.

      Alert a moderator

    • Desperation

      Jul 26th 2012, 10:50

      On a completely unrelated point: i'm getting sick of the comment system on this site not accepting line breaks, so every post ends up as a single block of text. Sort it out TF, i want paragraphs.

      Alert a moderator

    • ChrisWootton

      Jul 26th 2012, 10:55

      I have to disagree with you guys. The fourth one was a terrible film, woeful special effects, annoying characters (where there was any character). What was great about all of the previous entries is the fact that when Indy is in, say Cairo, the film makers shot in Cairo.. when anything is shot outside, the film makers shot outside. Almost every scene, no matter where in the world Indy was, was shot in a sound studio somewhere with awful digital matting applied to have us believe we were somewhere else. I agree to an extent about surviving the plane fall in a raft but the nuclear fridge survival did push it too far. The worst scene for me was where Indy was in stuck in the quicksand and had to escape using a snake.. they even say that the snake is slimy which we all know (and have done since we were kids) isn't the case. I'd tell you, if we met face to face, that I didn't like Superman Returns either.. the shot of Supes flying at the end was one of the worst special effects I've ever seen and I just found the rest of it very boring. I definitely agree with you though about magazines either sticking to their reviews or giving us an honest review in the first place. I am of a certain age (although going by your user name we are the same age) but that doesn't have any relevance for me.. Raiders is an exceptional movie made by a team at the top of their game when it comes to adventure and excitement.. Skulls was a movie turned around too quickly with (except for the college chase, real stunts, real location, no cgi) no memorable set pieces.. well, memorable in completely the wrong way. I'd love to see Harrison Ford as Indy again as he deserves a better film (he was the best thing in skulls), but if they make it the same way as skulls then I'd rather they didn't bother. It's good to debate though as there are plenty of people who enjoyed skulls.. one of my friends actually prefers it to Raiders.. many an argument has occurred because of this.

      Alert a moderator

    • MikeyRix

      Jul 26th 2012, 10:59

      @FBPMurray37 "I'm REALLY sick of the ridiculous hate for Indy 4. It wasn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination." You're right. It wasn't bad, it was terrible.

      Alert a moderator

    • 2Dglasses

      Jul 26th 2012, 12:14

      Indy 4 might have been a tolerable National Treasure film (with alterations of course), but otherwise everything about it was wrong. Shia Labeuof or however he misspells it, pointless ray winstone, miscast blanchett, wasted hurt wasted broadbent. Yes i guess the aliens were comparable to magic artifacts or voodoo possession, but there you go. But above all the invincible fridges and ninja pygmies the worst sin it committed is that it was no FUN whatsoever. I may need to see it again though and think again-originally my interest died when i saw shia swinging through the jungle with monkeys. Here's a thought for the next one which i DO want to see. Start off with no CGI and see what you can do for real...everyone seems to forget that the most memorable scenes often come about for daft reasons (raiders swordfight etc). Just doing it with CGI means these scenes never happen.

      Alert a moderator

    • Hadouken76

      Jul 26th 2012, 12:17

      The reason people hate Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skulls is the same reason they hate the last Matrix film. Everything about that made the first one (interesting characters, tension, heart-felt romance) such a thrill to watch was ejected in favour of lazy set-pieces and an over dependence on CGI, (the effects in The Matrix were groundbreaking because there was a POINT to them). The truth is, writer Lawrence Kasdan made Lucas look good and was notably absent in both 'Skulls' and Star Wars prequels. Yes I know Kasdan didn't do 'The Last Crusade' but the presence of Connery made up for it, (although turning Marcus Brody from a stoic Curator into a bumbling idiot was a sore point).

      Alert a moderator

    • FBJRider

      Jul 26th 2012, 12:33

      How can they make Indy 5 when there isn't even a 4th one? It's a trilogy. A 4th film doesn't exist!!!!!1

      Alert a moderator

    • ChrisWootton

      Jul 26th 2012, 12:45

      Thank you Hadouken! I hated what they did with Marcus.. the scene where he tells Indy that if he was younger he'd be going with him was great, you got the sense that in his day Marcus was an adventurer himself. Then they turned him into a complete bloody fool.. "Henry, Henry, Don't you see? The pppen, is mmmightier than the sword" the series low point until the whole of the fourth movie.

      Alert a moderator

    • apo1978

      Jul 26th 2012, 12:55

      Everyone has different opinions. I, for one, totally agree with all FBPMurray37's points. I'd put Skull level with Doom. For me, the 4 Indy films go; Epic, Fun, Epic, Fun.....

      Alert a moderator

    • MoodyMonkey

      Jul 26th 2012, 14:35

      Echoing Kidkongo's comment, well said FBPMurray37. the film aint that bad, certainly nowhere as bad as Episode I (remember the reviews for that one anyone..?).The look on Indy's face when he sees Marion is worth the price of admission alone. Some people really need to get a grip for f**k's sake...

      Alert a moderator

    • 2Dglasses

      Jul 26th 2012, 14:46

      Perhaps a vital lesson for the filmmakers then. Dont let expectation get so high you'll never match it with the product. This, Prometheus, some people with TDKR (although i loved it..), Star Wars prequels... @MoodyMonkey, you must be very rich!

      Alert a moderator

    • Ali1748

      Jul 26th 2012, 15:58

      I would only be interested in Indy V if it was directed by Spielberg and Lucas/LeBouf were no where to be seen.

      Alert a moderator

    • Ali1748

      Jul 26th 2012, 15:59

      Oh and I can't wait for the original trilogy to come to Blu Ray !!!

      Alert a moderator

    • johnweber

      Jul 27th 2012, 16:38

      CRYSTAL SKULL had its ups and downs, but so did every follow-up to RAIDERS. Even te most generally heralded CRUSADE which while a good movie has the problem of not being that original. Seriously, it has most of the same plot elements as RAIDERS. It has just enough deviations for it to be good and not a complete rehash, but if I am to give anything to DOOM and SKULL it is that both actually took risks. Aside from some of the scenes with a bit too much CGI, and issue that could easily be fixed in a sequel, I have no real issues with the film. It wasn't any more silly, over-the-top, or cartoony than DOOM was. The Rafting the Himalayas was as unbelievable as Nuking the Fridge (and no, Mythbusters did not disprove this), Willie Scott was far more obnoxious than any character in SKULL (seriously, Labeouf is so bad but not her?), etc. I find them about on par most of the time, and as I said earlier actually had the balls to be very original with its concept. But let's be honest. The last time they did that with Indy was TEMPLE OF DOOM, and that was basically the CRYSTAL SKULL of its time. The hate for that was so bad that Spielberg called LAST CRUSADE his apology for it and for years basically disowned the movie. The reason why LAST CRUSADE did every darn thing it could to recreate RAIDERS. I don't think any of the follow-ups are bad, but none of them match RAIDERS and that's basically to be expected given how great that film was. And I don't like this modern hypocrisy concerning the media that liked the film when it first came out but now spends all its time panderin to the internet haters. In short, I wouldn't mind seeing an INDIANA JONES 5.

      Alert a moderator

    • umiqua

      Jul 27th 2012, 23:16

      When you attract endorsments like these: "kidkongo Jul 26th 2012, 10:20 Will said FBPMurray37 here here!" ...then it's time to rethink your platform.

      Alert a moderator

    • umiqua

      Jul 27th 2012, 23:17

      PS well, at least he got "said" right. ;)

      Alert a moderator

    • loveroflostgirl

      Jul 28th 2012, 11:27

      This is very good news, no sane person wants (or needs), to see Indy dragged any further thru the mud. P.S Why all this hating on Temple? I've always thought personally that it's the best of the series!

      Alert a moderator

    • alexr

      Jul 31st 2012, 8:27

      Personally, I really didn't like Skulls, although I don't have any particular gripe with the spaceship ending (SPOILER!). I didn't like the CGI monkeys or the ants, I hate that the crystal skeletons ACTUALLY MOVE (THEY'RE CRYSTAL!!!), and I hated the 'slapstick comedy' - Indy swinging to land in the car, missing, and then CRASHING THROUGH A LORRY CAB!?! Surely he'd just have bounced off it? Anyway, I have no issues with the campus chase, the quicksand, and I actually quite like the river journey and the Incan/Mayan city scenes. For me, my level of enjoyment diminishes with each movie so I rate them in order: Raiders, Doom, Crusade, Skull. Perhaps a 5th movie would be a second step too far, but I would like to see Indy sign off with a trip to Atlantis...

      Alert a moderator

    • Alcatrazisland

      Aug 2nd 2012, 18:25

      Well I'm totally with you FBPMurray37 it was far from a terrible film, true my expectaions weren't high given the StarWars prequels so I was pleasently surprised by how enjoyable it was, but the whole point of the Indy films was to make a film like the serials of the 30s and 40s, enjoyable mindless entertainment not Citizen Kane. And people who complain about the aliens, what's so believable about the wrath of god pouring from the Ark of the Covenent and killing off the nazis..? Or voodoo posession..? Or a man who can pull people's hearts through their chests with his bare hands...?? Or Indy saving his Dad with the Holy Grail..?? The Indy films have always been based on fantasy and ancient legend just like the mayans and incas being visited by aliens. And as for the whole CG debate, well all of the original Indy films relied heavily on special effects there's barely a landscape that's not augmented by a matte painting it's just that old school matte painting is a dying or dead art and CG is the matte painting of today so you can hardly criticise them for using it to give the film the scope that the originals achieved with the state of the art effects of their day. I don't see anyone claiming the original films should have found the things they wanted to show for real and not use visual effects to create them, I mean if we wanna talk about bad CG let's talk about the massively successful multi oscar winning travesty that is Titanic!!! And that won an Oscar for special effects!!! But the real point I believe FBPMurray37 was making is that reviewers need to stop colouring their opinion with what it's fashionable to like or dislike when they gave a very different review/opinion when the film came out, and he's dead right.

      Alert a moderator

    • Trinity70

      Oct 15th 2012, 20:39

      FBPMurray37 and Alcatrazisland, I couldn't agree more with your comments about Indy 4. The fourth Indiana Jones movie has flaws like the previous movies so it doesn't deserve the harsh criticism. Indy surviving a nuclear explosion in a fridge is implausible but people who nitpick on that should use what is called 'suspension of disbelief ' and enjoy the movie. I was also pleasantly surprised at how entertaining and enjoyable it was the first time I saw it. It is my favourite. It is as good as the classic Indy movies in my opinion because it matches expectations as the old movies do. The hatred for Indy 4 is nothing more than nostalgia.

      Alert a moderator