Should Henry Jones Sr., Sallah, Shorty, or Willie have been in KOTCS?

MonarchOfTheSea said:

They would only be immortal if they had stayed in the Grail temple. But silly old Elsa had to take the Grail past the seal & cause the temple to fall apart! So, when they left the place, they were no longer immortal.

Click to expand...

Is that from the movie? Only if they had stayed in the Grail Temple? That's not fair. Immortal life, but basically...no life? Who wants to stay in there forever? No sun, no food, no fun. ACK!!

Btw, I liked Shorty. Cool little kid. Not annoying at all, IMO.

Henry Jones III said:

I would've liked to have seen Shorty in a non-speaking role at the wedding.

Click to expand...

A Shorty cameo would have been cool.

Short Round and Sallah

Was anyone else disappointed that neither of them came to Indy's wedding?

There' even a poll over here:

http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=14899&highlight=short+round+sallah+wedding

Rocket Surgeon said:

There' even a poll over here:

http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=14899&highlight=short+round+sallah+wedding

Click to expand...

Yeah. Threads merged.

Lao_Che said:

Remember that Henry Sr. only died because Connery didn't want to come out of retirement.

The only way any of their presences would be missing is at family function where cameos would have been appreciated. Except maybe Willie Scott, implications are she and Indy went their seperate ways.

Click to expand...

Of course, I didn't know Indy kept a picture of her on show in his house at the time...

Henry sr was dead at the time. I know the first time Indy spoke about henry sr, it seems like he was on another lecture tour, but by the end of the movie, it pretty much confirms he's dead.

I dunno, Maybe Indy and Willie fell out of contact since 1935. Maybe she went off to hollywood and became the star she always wanted to be and wasn't available by 1957.

Shorty would have been the perfect addition. Indy seeing his old sidekick once more and wishing him luck bfore letting him off on his first archaeological dig.

Again, I'd have liked to have seen sallah again. Maybe one last adventure for them both before they both call it quits on the adventuring

Forget about adding anymore. They should have deleted some. The family and friends excursion didn't do it for me.

Mickiana said:

Forget about adding anymore. They should have deleted some. The family and friends excursion didn't do it for me.

Click to expand...

There is a good case for letting Indy move on from the past. Characters returning from years before can have a detrimental effect, in terms of highlighting self-referentiality, becoming purely 'fan moments'. It also makes Indy's world smaller, that he only has a few friends, whereas throughout his rich life he's met and befriended a huge number of people.

I agree Montana. I hope they employ that slant in Indy5. New and exciting characters and not too many of them, please.

I would have like to have seen Willie pop out of the cake at Indys bachelor party.

Henry Jones Sr., he was in an early draft of the script afterall.

chicago103 said:

Henry Jones Sr., he was in an early draft of the script afterall.

Click to expand...

If only Sean Connery had said yes - he would have added a bit of weight to KOTCS. Having the father of Indy instead of the lightweight son of Indy would have improved the film no end.

I prefer Sean Connery in his own film and story: Last Crusade. That will make that movie special forever.

In each new Indy movie he has to go with a new companion: Marion, Willie, Shorty, Dad, Mutt... and little participation of past friends (Marion, Sallah, Marcus).

Sean Connery was the origin of the character of Dean Stanton, so if he only appeared in that brief scene the haters would say that Connery has little screen time for such a great actor etc. Also his death makes a better development for Indy's solitude in the beginning of the story.

Wilhelm said:

I prefer Sean Connery in his own film and story: Last Crusade. That will make that movie special forever.

In each new Indy movie he has to go with a new companion: Marion, Willie, Shorty, Dad, Mutt... and little participation of past friends (Marion, Sallah, Marcus).

Sean Connery was the origin of the character of Dean Stanton, so if he only appeared in that brief scene the haters would say that Connery has little screen time for such a great actor etc. Also his death makes a better development for Indy's solitude in the beginning of the story.

Click to expand...

You think Connery was the origin and not Denholm Elliot's Marcus?

There's always fors and againsts. Adding Connery in a cameo would leave us wanting more Connery, and without him (and Marcus) we have the pathos of Indy's loneliness in a world that's threatening to leave him behind.

Yet, Sean in place of Shia is also an appealing idea. Though, it would be retreading old ground.

Not the origin of the character, but the origin of the scene with the Dean. Maybe in a previous draft Indy goes to Connery's home and they talk about family, time etc...

They did a quick rewrite and add the character of Broadbent. I think the movie works better without Connery, because we could see that Indy is now the father.

For me the whole movie is about the 2 sides of Indy: academic and adventurer. The academic side is influenced by Marcus Brody and Henry Jones Sr. The first time in the movie that we see Indy reacting like his father is in the University chase, specially when the russians break the statue of Marcus (Symbol of the academic side).

And after watching the eyes of the Skull in the camp Indy is more Henry than ever: Ox calls him "Henry", his reactions when he sees Marion or in the sand pit. In fact the Crystal Skull is from an alien that is also an archaeologist and academic so the influence is bigger. I see the movie as the need of Indy to show the world that he's a professor and academic more than a grave robber, so the whole subplot of the CIA firing him from the university is an excuse to show Indy returning for the first time in his career the artifact (Unlike the beginning of Raiders) and to appreciate more knowledge than "gold". Ox and Mac also represent this 2 sides of his personality. And the wedding as the final result of his new life.

I think Sallah & Short Round should have been at The wedding at least.
That would have made the end Enjoyable

To briefly answer the title question (and then I really, REALLY should go study)...

There were already enough chaos and non-sense in this movie, even without needing other unnecessary and more than redundant extra characters.

Had Connery accepted, it would've been a different film........I suspect John Hurt may not have been in the film - Hurt was hired almost immediately after Connery declined.

So would Connery have been the one spellbinded by the skull? I don't know.

Would it have have been nice if Connery returned? Was I disappointed when he declined? Of course.

But after seeing 'Skull,' his presence wasn't essential. The passing of his father led to an interesting character dynamic for Indy. In a sense, Indy almost fulfills his father's shoes. Mutt was the main sidekick this time around.

Cole said:

Had Connery accepted, it would've been a different film........I suspect John Hurt may not have been in the film - Hurt was hired almost immediately after Connery declined.

Click to expand...

Lucas stated that Connery was not part of the main adventure in the script, implying that even if he had appeared in the film, it would have been a cameo appearance in the Connecticut scenes. The character of Oxley was already in the script, no doubt.

I agree with you, though, that his presence wasn't essential to the storyline. Spielberg and Lucas probably thought it would have been nice thematically to have the three generations of Jones boys together at the end, but I'd argue Henry Sr.'s death probably gave more impact to the theme of Indy's isolation in the first act.