What year should Indy 5 be set?

R

Raiders90

Well-known member
If this film does end up starring Harrison, where do you feel the "line" is in terms of how far past KOTCS it should be set?

I would say, for myself, that 1962 is the limit. Any time between 1959 and 1962 is fine with me. Hippies would not appear until 1965 at the earliest, and really didn't become a thing until 1967. If they HAD to go past 1962, which I would prefer they didn't, then 1965 would be the ABSOLUTE limit.
 
Last edited:
R

Raiders90

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
But the assassination is such well-tred territory in fiction; its concerns, frankly, seem rather remote from those of the Indiana Jones series.
Click to expand...

I will be honest though, having the assassination and all the conspiracy theories around it could be interesting, if it was tied up into a greater MacGuffin storyline. If aliens are the 1950s popular mythology, JFK's assassination is the 1960s popular mythology. Look at the almost thriller approach that the film JFK from 1991 used. Something like that. Creepy, mysterious, perhaps centered around some sort of artifact. Would be a departure, but not veering into the land of sci-fi.
 
R

Raiders90

Well-known member
Inauguration of LBJ, 1965.

yodkcYZ.jpg


Note that fedoras were still present in about half the attendees. Indy wouldn't look too out of place in 1965 if it had to be that year.

Compare to Nixon's inaugural in 1969. Just one fedora on an old man. Indy is a relic by 1969:
UJalSpc.jpg
 
Last edited:
D

Doctor Jones'89

Member
Perhaps, using JFK assassination as a main feature of the plot could make the story less captivating outside the US.

I think that South America/Middle East and the escaped nazis could offer some good ingredients for a plot set in the sixties. This is the time of Eichmann's capture in Argentina and trial in Jerusalem (1960-61), and the hunt for the escaped nazis became a popular subject in fiction (e.g. Forsyth's 1972 Odessa file and other books turned into movies like The Boys from Brazil).

It would be interesting to mix together these ingredients into a movie plot, with the nazis & other villains looking for a supernatural source of power, and have Indy supported by a spy or a figure alluding to Simon Wiesenthal, but I don't know if Steven Spielberg wants to go down that path. I've recently re-read the storyboard of The Iron Phoenix and I think there are some really good ideas in it!
 
R

Raiders90

Well-known member
I wasn’t sure of a better place to put this, but I’ve noticed that:

In KOTCS we missed out on most of the 50s by zinging right to 1957

In DoD we missed out on the entirety of the 1969s by going to 1969.

My preferred periods for an Indy V would’ve been 1940-1944, with a section in around 1952, with the “modern day” being somewhere between 1963 and 1964.

It’d have been nice to have seen Indy in eras we haven’t seen him. 1944 is covered, but it’d have been nice to see him in the early 50s. The early 60s too in the post JFK era of weirdness and mystique with a detective type noir jaunt

As it is, it feels weird that there three “Young Indy” films, and two “Old Indy” films. It makes me wish they’d filmed two back to back so we could have two trilogies to enjoy.
 
The Lone Raider

The Lone Raider

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
As it is, it feels weird that there three “Young Indy” films, and two “Old Indy” films. It makes me wish they’d filmed two back to back so we could have two trilogies to enjoy.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm a bit sour about that too. Had reception of the fourth one not been so poor, along with the reception of the Star Wars prequels, George Lucas might have not sold Lucasfilm to Disney, and he could have had more motivation to crank out one or two more Indy films before now.
 
fedoraboy

fedoraboy

Well-known member
The Lone Raider said:
Yeah I'm a bit sour about that too. Had reception of the fourth one not been so poor, along with the reception of the Star Wars prequels, George Lucas might have not sold Lucasfilm to Disney, and he could have had more motivation to crank out one or two more Indy films before now.
Click to expand...
Had it been left to Lucas and Spielberg I'm fairly certain we would never have seen an Indy 5. Neither of them had any drive to do this, they were barely motivated for Indy 4. The film has only happened because KK's Lucasfilm and Disney got behind it, and even then it only picked up momentum once Spielberg stepped aside. We'll see how it turns out, but Kennedy and Mangold are the ones to thank for this thing ever seeing the light of day.
 
emtiem

emtiem

Well-known member
Yes that's probably true. I get the feeling Lucas may have been slightly more up for it but Spielberg would never have gone for IJ5 in 2010 or so... well he didn't! :)
I do agree with the guys above that there was mileage there though- if they'd have bitten the bullet and hired a different director and gone for another one a couple of years later it could have been fun. Skull was a massive hit; it would have been interesting to see if everyone hated it as much as we keep hearing and whether they'd have gone to see another a couple of years down the line.
 
fedoraboy

fedoraboy

Well-known member
Yeah, if Spielberg had made the decision to step away earlier, then we could have had more films in the early 2010's (or indeed in the early 00's or 90's). But, given how closely Lucas and Spielberg guarded the franchise, I do think it took Disney's acquisition to kickstart this again, if that hadn't happened I really don't think we'd be getting anything at all.

Of course ,we don't know how the new one will turn out, but I think the fact there has been a bit of a gap, that we're seeing Indy at a different stage in his life, with a director who seems to have an interesting story he wants to tell, might mean we get a better movie than if we we'd just got a straight up sequel to Skull in 2011 or something.

To be honest, I think the fact a fifth film has been made, and that it looks incredibly promising, is a minor miracle. Let's be thankful for that.
 
The Lone Raider

The Lone Raider

Well-known member
Yes, and let him romance another woman between the ages of 23 and 31, with innuendo in the dialogue and a passionate kissing scene with the love interest's theme playing in the background.

Make it extra weird and cast Daisy Ridley for the part, given their prior on-screen dynamic together as mentor & apprentice/surrogate father & daughter.
 
A

antonb

Well-known member
Random question, is it not in front of avatar , the trailer cus all I hear is about barbie in front of it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top