Originally Posted by Stoo
My remark was multi-layered.
Shock: An actual, concrete confirmation straight from the director's mouth. That's 2 REAL news items in less than a week! The cool thing about this tidbit, though, it that it relates to the film's story
Dismay: I was hoping for winter 1959. It's not a surprise that it'll be in the '60s but the closer Indy's setting gets to my birthdate, the closer I come to feeling like a relic, myself.
Apprehension: This film is finally starting to happen.
Ha, if you only knew. I happen to LO-O-O-OVE the '60s. My favourite music, art, fashion, cars, TV shows, etc. Heck, I was even born in 1967 so a part of that decade is a part of me.
Yes, I know and have always been an advocate of this approach. I'd just rather not see a '60s date onscreen at the beginning of the movie because it's too close to home.
Anyway, anyhow, anywhere, I await the film with much anticipation. As I've mentioned in your numerous other threads about this very same subject, my fingers are crossed for 1962
since it's not too far away from "Skull" (and would be a nod to "American Graffiti").
I think that honestly, what you said (and people's narrow view of the 1960s in general as being druugs and rock n' roll, duuude) is a lot of the reservation. I know for me, the 1970s is a cutoff for any sort of Indy adventure. I view the 1970s as too modern, too much like today (despite the technological differences), and too tacky to be adventurous. The 1960s though were the age of James Bond, who, in my opinion, isn't that far off from a pulp character in his own way. The 1960s to me seem like a different world, at least the first half of the decade does. The age of JFK, tailfins, fast cars, when the bikini was a scandalous sensation. You still had grandness, you still had that epic sense of scope in that decade. This was a decade when in fact Americans, at least, were feeling at perhaps their most adventurous ever. We were looking backward at a less tame past fondly with Westerns and looking forward optimistically with Star Trek where our technology could allow for even more adventure.
All these 1960s characters I mention or imply - The Man with No Name, James Bond, James T. Kirk - they're all models for who Indiana Jones became. And they're all products of the 1960s. These sorts of characters were obviously believable enough to be received well by audiences in the 1960s - they weren't fodder for snickering. Indy's clothes may be archaic in 1965, but the underlying character - the meat, grit, and potatoes - is very much relevant, even then.
I'm talking from an American perspective but I see the 1960s, prior to Kennedy's death, as being the last gaps of the same era that Indy was a part of. That Depression through post War era of decency and adventure.
If we were talking about the film being set in the 1970s, I'd be horribly against it. But ideally, set the film before 1965 (when the combat troops landed in Vietnam) or even more ideally, set it before Kennedy's death and we're fine.