Indiana Jones 5: July 19, 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.

Raiders90

Well-known member
People speak about a desire to see Indy during WWII. I personally don't. We already know Jones' history going back to 1908. We know about his WWI era activities. The 1920s-early 1930s and 1940s are the blank spaces. I wouldn't mind exploring the 1920s-1930s...But I think WWII should remain a mystery. We know he was working for OSS during the War but...the adventures shown probably wouldn't live up to the ones we'd create in our minds.
 

DoomsdayFAN

Member
Raiders112390 said:
People speak about a desire to see Indy during WWII. I personally don't. We already know Jones' history going back to 1908. We know about his WWI era activities. The 1920s-early 1930s and 1940s are the blank spaces. I wouldn't mind exploring the 1920s-1930s...But I think WWII should remain a mystery. We know he was working for OSS during the War but...the adventures shown probably wouldn't live up to the ones we'd create in our minds.

I don't see how they could do WWII unless it's with reboot Indy.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
People speak about a desire to see Indy during WWII. I personally don't. We already know Jones' history going back to 1908. We know about his WWI era activities. The 1920s-early 1930s and 1940s are the blank spaces. I wouldn't mind exploring the 1920s-1930s...But I think WWII should remain a mystery. We know he was working for OSS during the War but...the adventures shown probably wouldn't live up to the ones we'd create in our minds.

WW2 is enough of a mystery. I reckon some great IJ stories could come out of WW2 settings. With WW2 you already have intrigue, international adventures, academic and political potentials. A WW2-IJ movie can take heaps of license and embellish whatever official historical narrative and add the supernatural/military/academic/political/adventuring elements it needs.

WW2 would be a great backdrop.
 

Indy86

New member
I'm still in favor of WWII. There is just something about that time, I really like but that I can't explain. Despite it's been a terrible war, I think it's one of the most romantic times. The Nazis were just such an evil force that in the end it really had to be all or nothing in that war. We just couldn't afford to lose that war or else we wouldn't have had the world we have now. The war is always a great backdrop because the stakes were never higher than back than.

Those 19 years without Indy films was just way too long. There was plenty of time to a fourth and fifth movie in the 90's and set them during the war.

There's plenty of reasons why it can still work. It just depends on how you do it. And there are plenty of ways to get them in the story. Again I refer to Dinosaur Eggs. The Nazis just made a cameo there, while in other books they are the main villains. And actually that's why I wanna read the books set in the war again. To me they are the ultimate evil. We can't even imagine what the world would be like if they won that war. And above all, I don't think there is anything the Nazis didn't do. I think you might be surprised how much of research leads back to World War II. And not only that but I was thinking a few days ago about the movie Antman. Even though it was CGI, they did manage to make Michael Douglas convincingly twenty-five years younger. So maybe that can help. Make Harrison 25-years younger or more through CGI.

And indeed, the war has all the elements it needs. Once after it finding a new enemy becomes harder. It is logical that it would the Russians, but it's the different. The Nazis really went out to conquer the nations for their lebensraum. No other powers did afterwards again, in order to really conquer the world and to keep it.
 

dr.jones1986

Active member
WWII would have been a good setting but Harrison Ford is now too old so any movie made with him would have to take place after Crystal Skull. I would rather not see the Nazis used as enemies again. While they do make great villains, they have been used enough for the series so far. I do think other regimes have risen to their level of evil and barbarity in the 20th century, such as Imperial Japan during the WWII era, the USSR under Stalin and Maoist China just to name a few. For whatever reason none seem to be as well known or infamous to most westerners.

I think the 60's could be a great setting with the Cold War as a backdrop. Communists could make great villains, though I hope for better execution than we saw in the last film.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Indy86 said:
I'm still in favor of WWII. There is just something about that time, I really like but that I can't explain. Despite it's been a terrible war, I think it's one of the most romantic times. The Nazis were just such an evil force that in the end it really had to be all or nothing in that war. We just couldn't afford to lose that war or else we wouldn't have had the world we have now. The war is always a great backdrop because the stakes were never higher than back than.

"that I can't explain". Try and explain it. You will clear up many things for yourself in the attempt.

"most romantic times" Wow. You've been on the Hollywood diet too long. About 58 million people died in WW2. I'm not sure where the romance was, but the bombs and the bullets were on target.

The term 'Nazi' was invented by someone behind the Allies. The German forces never referred to themselves as 'Nazis'. As for "evil", what about the Allied bombing of civilian cities? As many as 20 million Germans died in WW2, many of them civilians, men, women and children.

"the world we have now" You mean the one where we have had continuous warfare since the end of WW2? Where wars, 'peace keeping actions', proxy wars and wars of 'liberation' have squandered trillions of dollars, grabbed resources, killed millions and where Communism and Post Capitalism have ravaged the world?

Sorry to come down this hard, but your post sounds quite naive. We will never see a B grade Hollywood escapist movie address Historiography in any context other than official narrative, but we don't have to believe it.
 

dr.jones1986

Active member
Mickiana said:
"that I can't explain". Try and explain it. You will clear up many things for yourself in the attempt.

"most romantic times" Wow. You've been on the Hollywood diet too long. About 58 million people died in WW2. I'm not sure where the romance was, but the bombs and the bullets were on target.

The term 'Nazi' was invented by someone behind the Allies. The German forces never referred to themselves as 'Nazis'. As for "evil", what about the Allied bombing of civilian cities? As many as 20 million Germans died in WW2, many of them civilians, men, women and children.

"the world we have now" You mean the one where we have had continuous warfare since the end of WW2? Where wars, 'peace keeping actions', proxy wars and wars of 'liberation' have squandered trillions of dollars, grabbed resources, killed millions and where Communism and Post Capitalism have ravaged the world?

Sorry to come down this hard, but your post sounds quite naive. We will never see a B grade Hollywood escapist movie address Historiography in any context other than official narrative, but we don't have to believe it.

I agree with many of your points. I hate when the word Nazi is used as a substitute for Germans/Germany during the WWII era. While many many Germans did partake in some horrific crimes against humanity, many in the Wehrmacht were just average Germans who were drafted or voluntereed to fight for their country and homeland, regardless of how they felt about the government. I am sure their were many Russians who didn't like the USSR, Stalin or Communism but fought to defend their homes and families during the war. Almost all Americans supported their country during the war regardless of how they felt about FDR and the New Deal policies that were instituted.

While I do think the better side one, certainly terrible things were carried out to achieve that victory, including conventional and atomic bombings that helped to secure victory. Many of them I feel were necassary evils but they still had devastating results.

While WWII has had a lasting legacy on the world it certainly did bring lasting peace. Just like WWI's ending set the stage for WWII, so did WWII in setting the stage for the Cold War and all of the smaller proxy wars that were to follow. I think many feel nostalgia for the era because it seemed like a simpler time. The Axis powers were the enemy and achieving victory was straight forward. To many things seem more complex today, with global terrorism and the conflicts around the world. Things seem less black and white to many.
 

Indyfan82

Member
I agree with many of your points. I hate when the word Nazi is used as a substitute for Germans/Germany during the WWII era. While many many Germans did partake in some horrific crimes against humanity, many in the Wehrmacht were just average Germans who were drafted or voluntereed to fight for their country and homeland, regardless of how they felt about the government. I am sure their were many Russians who didn't like the USSR, Stalin or Communism but fought to defend their homes and families during the war. Almost all Americans supported their country during the war regardless of how they felt about FDR and the New Deal policies that were instituted.
Very important point to remember that is often forgotten.:whip:
 

Indy86

New member
Mickiana said:
"that I can't explain". Try and explain it. You will clear up many things for yourself in the attempt.

"most romantic times" Wow. You've been on the Hollywood diet too long. About 58 million people died in WW2. I'm not sure where the romance was, but the bombs and the bullets were on target.

The term 'Nazi' was invented by someone behind the Allies. The German forces never referred to themselves as 'Nazis'. As for "evil", what about the Allied bombing of civilian cities? As many as 20 million Germans died in WW2, many of them civilians, men, women and children.

"the world we have now" You mean the one where we have had continuous warfare since the end of WW2? Where wars, 'peace keeping actions', proxy wars and wars of 'liberation' have squandered trillions of dollars, grabbed resources, killed millions and where Communism and Post Capitalism have ravaged the world?

Sorry to come down this hard, but your post sounds quite naive. We will never see a B grade Hollywood escapist movie address Historiography in any context other than official narrative, but we don't have to believe it.
What I couldn't explain, dr.jones1986 managed to describe as a simpler time. And that's where a part of the romance lies. It was a simpler time, but I think also in everything else like the fashions and the cars...

Continuous warfare? Yes, there always is a war going on somewhere. And yes, the world we have now is far from great with the recent terrorist attacks. But I grew up in a peaceful time. If it wasn't for the Allies in the 40's, we'd probably have a total different world. I think after the Cold War was over we lived perhaps in the most peaceful time since WWII. That time is over now since 9/11. But I know that the consequences of the war are still noticeable. A few months ago, I tried to start a topic on this on another forum and did some research on it and I was actually surprised it all began even before Hitler was born what would eventually lead to World War II.

And what I meant about being in favor of World War II, I meant it for the movies of course.
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
Indy86 said:
What I couldn't explain, dr.jones1986 managed to describe as a simpler time. And that's where a part of the romance lies. It was a simpler time, but I think also in everything else like the fashions and the cars...

Continuous warfare? Yes, there always is a war going on somewhere. And yes, the world we have now is far from great with the recent terrorist attacks. But I grew up in a peaceful time. If it wasn't for the Allies in the 40's, we'd probably have a total different world. I think after the Cold War was over we lived perhaps in the most peaceful time since WWII. That time is over now since 9/11. But I know that the consequences of the war are still noticeable. A few months ago, I tried to start a topic on this on another forum and did some research on it and I was actually surprised it all began even before Hitler was born what would eventually lead to World War II.

And what I meant about being in favor of World War II, I meant it for the movies of course.



Peaceful for the U.S...sure meanwhile Russia was slaughtering its own people
And by far the biggest mass murder of people was in China during the "peaceful" time we were having. So many people, it makes WW2 look like a rainy day.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Just as many people felt Indy didn't fit in the 1950s, I don't feel he fits in the 1940s. 1940s = film noir for me. Indiana Jones isn't film noir. The late '50s-early '60s period at least works in a sense because that period isn't not really associated with any singular genre. But seeing Ford (or a replacement actor) in say, 1943, try to be Bogart wouldn't work for me.

The only way a post 1939 period works for Indy is if you ignore the world at large. KOTCS hammered that we were in the 'nifty '50s' in our faces many times throughout the film when it didn't need to. It only deepend the divide between it and the existing films. And if you make a film set in the 1940s, which also ignores the 40s, what's the point of setting it then in the first place?

I view WWII as the start of the modern era. The age of the Atom. Indy was supposed to harken back to a time when the world seemed to be a much smaller place. There's a reason none of the original trilogy is set during the '40s.

And the Nazis have really been done to death as villains, both in pop culture and in Indy too. They no longer have the scary, spooky effect they once had. They're overplayed.

It's too bad KOTCS was set so late in the 50s. Seeing Indy around the time of the Korean War, in Asia, with vicious Chi-coms or Korean Communists as the enemies, could've been interesting. Some of the most brutal, bitter fighting was at Chosin in frozen Winter.
 
Last edited:

Stoo

Well-known member
dr.jones1986 said:
I hate when the word Nazi is used as a substitute for Germans/Germany during the WWII era.
Same here. Even worse is when people spell the term as "Nazi's". :rolleyes:
Raiders112390 said:
People speak about a desire to see Indy during WWII. I personally don't.
Indy 5 isn't going to take place during WW2 so why even mention it in this thread? :confused:
Raiders112390 said:
Just as many people felt Indy didn't fit in the 1950s, I don't feel he fits in the 1940s. 1940s = film noir for me. Indiana Jones isn't film noir. The late '50s-early '60s period at least works in a sense because that period isn't not really associated with any singular genre. But seeing Ford (or a replacement actor) in say, 1943, try to be Bogart wouldn't work for me.
Wow, man. Out of all the crazy things you?ve ever written, Raiders112390, this is probably your most insane. :eek:
Dr.Sartorius said:
...he'll be involved in a lots of fun action sequences but letting younger characters dominate during other important sequences...This is Disney they're not going to make a tentpole summer movie with a 75 year old leading man as the only star.
True...and there's a very, high probability that one of the leads will be a young girl. This is 21st century Disney, folks, and their most recent successes are a good indication as to what type of character might play a major role in Indy 5. Just look at the new "Star Wars" movies.

As I wrote almost 6 months ago:
"Expect a watered-down, 'Indy-light' movie that every little girl around the world can enjoy."
 

DoomsdayFAN

Member
Stoo said:
True...and there's a very, high probability that one of the leads will be a young girl. This is 21st century Disney, folks, and their most recent successes are a good indication as to what type of character might play a major role in Indy 5. Just look at the new "Star Wars" movies.
\

Don't forget the era we're living in. This girl will most likely be black and gay. They gotta check them boxes.
 

DoomsdayFAN

Member
Remember this quote from Ford:

"I've always thought there was an opportunity to do another. But I didn't want to do it without Steven [Spielberg]. And I didn't want to do it without a really good script. And happily we're working on both. Steven is developing a script now that I think we're going to be very happy with."

That was from 7 months ago. Put that together with Koepp's comments from about 1-2 weeks ago and it would appear they've been working on the script for at or around 7 months. Hopefully things are going good but I still can't get over how much time is between now and the release date. It seems like 2018 would have been a far more reasonable time to release it. 2019 is so damn far away. Just.....why? :confused:
 

Olliana

New member
Especially when more recently announced movies like "Disenchanted" get a 2018 release date.

  • Mary Poppins Returns (2018)
  • Gigantic (2018)
  • Mulan (2018)
  • Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
  • The Incredibles 2 (2018)
  • Untitled Han Solo Star Wars Anthology Film (2018)
  • Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
  • Untitled Wreck-It Ralph Sequel (2018)
  • A Wrinkle in Time (2018)
  • Disenchanted (2018)
 

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
Stoo said:
Same here. Even worse is when people spell the term as "Nazi's". :rolleyes:
Indy 5 isn't going to take place during WW2 so why even mention it in this thread? :confused:
Wow, man. Out of all the crazy things you?ve ever written, Raiders112390, this is probably your most insane. :eek:
True...and there's a very, high probability that one of the leads will be a young girl. This is 21st century Disney, folks, and their most recent successes are a good indication as to what type of character might play a major role in Indy 5. Just look at the new "Star Wars" movies.

As I wrote almost 6 months ago:
"Expect a watered-down, 'Indy-light' movie that every little girl around the world can enjoy."

I'm agreeing with a young girl scenario- simply coz that's one of the things that is still sitting on the shelf since the days of ToD's development. I'm anticipating the elements that haven't been used up to this point are the ones we're likely to get.

Even with the new SW EU canon, we had a lot of elements borrowed and tweaked from the original EU. Disney used ideas that were popular before and even these are prevalent in Rogue One's trailers and eps of Rebels. Which potentially could mean even a slim chance of Young Indy and old Indy bookend acknowledgements (I don't think so but it has happened once already). So I ultimately think what we will get will be somewhat obvious (go ahead and surprise me please, Spielberg and Koepp).
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
I don't think there's any chance we get another sidekick of Short Round's age, or even younger than Mutt, if that's what's being suggested.

Also, the noir period doesn't begin in earnest until '45, as it's in large part a postwar phenomenon.

And, whatever might be imagined, Disney and Paramount both released 0 films with LGBTQ characters in 2015.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Re: Young female sidekick

Sadly, I tend to agree with those who pointed out that it is a very likely scenario.

And this embodies the very reason why I am not at all happy about Disney's decision to have one last old Indy adventure, before making prequels with a younger actor.

A sidekick who gets involved in most of the action scenes is only needed because of Ford's age.
And if it is a girl, by the time Indy 5 gets out we'll have already seen strong, young female characters in Rogue One, SW8, the Lara Croft remake etc.

Plus, we had the old Han/young Rey interaction in TFA, so that angle has been explored already with Ford playing the senior hero character.

If Disney choose to just rinse and repeat the same approach for Indy 5, it'll be tired and boring, frankly.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top