Originally Posted by :
Plot and character details have still been kept tightly under wraps, until now. The Illuminerdi can exclusively reveal the roles of Mads Mikkelsen and Shaunette Renée Wilson. And on top of that, when the next installment of the Indiana Jones franchise will take place.
According to our sources, Mads Mikkelsen will be playing the villain in this new installment of Indiana Jones. His character is described to us as a Nazi scientist enlisted into NASA by the United States government to work on the space agency’s moon landing initiative.
Shaunette Renee Wilson will be playing Mads Mikkelsen’s villain’s CIA handler responsible for “babysitting” the Nazi scientist turned NASA recruit. There will also be a female villain, “an evil and brutal killer” who will work with Mads Mikkelsen’s character. According to our sources, Scarlett Johansson actually passed on this role previously.
Mads Mikkelsen’s character’s description not only reveals that he will be the villain of Indiana Jones 5, but when the franchise’s next installment will be taking place.
The next Indiana Jones adventure would logically be set during the 1960s space race. NASA’s Apollo 11 landed on the moon in 1969, so it wouldn’t be a shock for the film to be set later in the 1960s, especially since the fourth Indiana Jones film was set in 1957. And in classic Indiana Jones fashion it looks like our hat wearing, whip wielding, archeologist will have another chance to punch some Nazis, with Mikkelsen’s villain being a former scientist for Hitler’s Reich.
Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare:
If this doesn't break 900 million, it'll be the end of "woke " blockbusters.
Eventually there's going to have to be a serious course correction on how much these movies cost to make and promote. This isn't even a shot at 'wokeness' or whatever, constantly having to hit near a billion to break even, much less make significant profit just isn't sustainable long term. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sure-Oz:
65% ok maybe I'll go see it. Curious of the audience score
This isn't one I'll see in a theater regardless. Has nothing to do with the movie itself, I honestly don't think I've been to a theater to see a movie since End Game and just no desire to go. Costs me & the family $100 minimum to go to a movie and I don't want to waste the money on a bad movie so I just wait for them to come out for streaming.
For me, if I'm iffy on a movie I look to the audience score verse the critics score. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Cheater5:
This will be forgotten schlop in under 60 days, buried in the queue next to ‘The Librarian’ franchise of milquetoast adventure movies. Its’ cinematic tombstone will have one word; Irrelevant, which is arguably worse than Crystal Skull’s which reads— Unnecessary.
Lucasfilm’s dignity is in the freaking gutter.
So bad it'll be buried with Melissa McCarthy movies all featuring the same typecast, snarky character?
That's pretty seriously bad.
Does George still own Lucasfilm because I don't think he ever had much dignity. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
Eventually there's going to have to be a serious course correction on how much these movies cost to make and promote. This isn't even a shot at 'wokeness' or whatever, constantly having to hit near a billion to break even, much less make significant profit just isn't sustainable long term.
Yeah, $300 million is just insane. And when they spend that much on production, you can bet their marketing budget will be something NEAR that on its own.
For reference, Raiders cost about $60 million when era adjusted. Is there any chance at all that this movie is better than Raiders? If not, why the hell should it cost 5 TIMES as much to make?
I mean you have live action Disney remakes costing $250 million+
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
Ya'll complaining about a snarky female? Strong independent woman who don't need no man?
As I said earlier - I'd have LOVED to see Marion in a major role here being all Ravenwoodey and what not.
I don't need some snot-nosed brat that's 40 years Indy's junior stealing his thunder.
Karen Allen had about 40 minutes of screen time in a roughly 2 hour movie. If early reviews are to be believed, THIS movie is essentially a Phoebe Waller Bridge vehicle that's used to tie up an Indiana Jones loose end. And by most accounts, the most enjoyable part of the movie is the first 20 minutes that don't have her in it.
Marion is such a badass character. And yes, a 'strong, independent woman' - but she's a worthy foil/ally of Indy's; a legitimate peer. She's not his fucking wetnurse and the smartest character in the room every time she's on screen. [Reply]
