Re: 2000 or 2001. I answer that question.

[ Reply ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Adam from on January 01, 1998 at 18:26:08:

In Reply to: Re: 2000 or 2001. I answer that question. posted by Johnny on January 01, 1998 at 17:41:43:

The usual, roundabout shooting time for a major motion picture sponsored by a studio is roughly ten weeks. ROUGHLY. Cameron's TITANIC, Coppola's APOCALYPSE NOW!, and ANYTHING by Stanley Kubrick has been known to go on and on, even as much as a year (or OVER a year, as Kubrick's upcoming EYES WIDE SHUT. And THAT still needs to have sevberal more months of post production).

The Indy movies -- as well as the STAR WARS trilogy -- have a track record of going very, very fast in production considering the amount of locations and scale of the films. Both Lucas and Spielberg are well known for being efficient (for the most part, that is -- Spielberg's JAWS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, and 1941 all went significantly over budget and schedule, though RAIDERS was made ahead of schedule).

The new STAR WARS prequel #1 has finished filming months ago, but the fact that it won't be released until summer of next year isn't surprising, considering the number of new methods being employed for special effects and sound work. In this case, Lucas is trying to be efficient in keeping costs down instead of rushing it. But the photography phase was done without costly turmoil.

It's likely that the new Indy film, if made, could be released within a little over a year AFTER production begins (preproduction -- art design, ect. -- can ALREADY be in the works as far as we know). But the start date is the question. Certainly Lucas will want to have the film dominate the summer box office, without competing with STAR WARS. So it's likely that, since 1999 is already set for STAR WARS 1, the following summer is the next best thing. Certainly NOT winter or Spring.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:



Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:  

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]