Originally Posted by Stoo
Plenty of things in the films tell us that 1935 is not his 1st adventure. In "Raiders", Marcus says, "It's like nothing you've ever gone after before." and Indy is called "an obtainer of rare antiquities". One year would seem too short to have that sort of reputation. From "Doom":
1) Indy's weathered clothes
2) Indy's skill & resourcefulness with a whip
3) Indy's knowledge, experience & wariness of booby-traps, finding secret passages, etc.
4) Indy 'found Nurhachi' before the film begins
5) Wu Han says he has followed Indy on 'many adventure'
6) Chatter Lal has heard Dr. Jones' name from studying at Oxford and directly refers to pre-1935 events in Honduras and Madagascar
Even though the "Chronicles" ends in 1920, Lucas had a 'vision' of 2 episodes set in 1921 which were planned to have adventurous themes with Indy on expedition in both stories. (The "Brazil" episode would've contradicted the "Seven Veils" novel.) Excluding the unproduced shows, there's still the hunt for the Eye of the Peacock, the Jackal's head (and the Cross of Coronado).
Without the novels, Lucas' vision was more more like 1921-19?? but, years ago, I remember reading where he talked about the untold gap between the TV series and the movies. He said something like
(paraphrasing), "I'll leave it to someone else to tell those stories." (Wish I could find the quote!)
Not quite sure what you mean about 'first adventure'. Do you mean 1st mystical one?
I mean his first real adventure where he's the guy with the hat, leather jacket, the whip, etc--Where he's the tough and street wise Indiana we know from the Harrison movies. In Peacock's Eye, he's still even after the war a naive, not really 'macho' kid who gives up because a preachy anthropologist tells him it's a bad idea to keep going essentially. That's the problem with the Chronicles--Did he have to meet a famous person in EVERY episode? Why couldn't they have Indy ever actually get past being a squeaky clean, totally PC character in the series?
A lot of the stories themselves are nice stories, but they still would've been better stories without the historical characters involved, and if you had a better actor portraying Indy--Sean Patrick Flannery comes off like a wuss. Just like I've said when talking about the idea of Tom Selleck as Indy--The problem with SPF, like Selleck, is his voice. Harrison Ford has a deep, distinctive voice; He sounds pretty authoritative. It's a part of the character just like everything else is, and let's be honest: Could you expect someone like SPF or Tom Selleck to say, "Let her go!" in Raiders and come off as commanding? His voice is part of what makes him come off badas* SPF even by the last Chronicles episode still has that high pitched (for Indy) voice and giggles too much and comes off somehow, I don't know, effete? He's not street wise at all. He doesn't come off at all rogue-ish. He never even lets his stubble grow out, not even when he's at war, nor when he's searching for the Peacock's Eye. He's always dressed way too formally. Yeah, the scene where he uses the whip in 1916 is cool, but it would've been nice to see him don the "Indy gear" for the first time in the Chronicles.