1960s?

Le Saboteur

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
If there is say an Indy 5, or even an Indy 6, how would you feel about the adventures being set in the 1960s?

I wouldn't go see it. The day Sputnik went up is the day the curtain closed on the world Indy inhabited. The post-colonial fallout in Africa & Asia can be a fertile ground for that type of two-fisted archeology, but it requires a different type of character.

And what the hell does Doo Wop have to do with anything?
 

Indy's brother

New member
If I may say so, I think what Raiders 112390 was alluding to with the doo-wop comment was that it's still pre-Jimi Hendrix, which would still place Indy in a time where his appearance wouldn't clash with the world around him. I think Indy could stick around into the 60's, but only up to the point when the hippy counter-culture begins. At that point, his attire and approach would be too out of place, and it would be all too obvious to ignore that he is a relic of his time.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Le Saboteur said:
I wouldn't go see it. The day Sputnik went up is the day the curtain closed on the world Indy inhabited.

With reference to the Cold War, the curtain fell in 1945 (but Churchill had seen it coming before that).

With reference to space technology, Indy saw dead 'aliens' in 1947 and one of their space craft in 1957. I don't think it would come as a suprise to him to see man getting a satellite into space.

Le Saboteur said:
The post-colonial fallout in Africa & Asia can be a fertile ground for that type of two-fisted archeology, but it requires a different type of character.

Indy is an adaptable character, after all, he does make things up as he goes along.

All that being said, I do understand the reluctance to see Indy in more and more modern settings. The orignal charm of the first three movies was their 1930s period. In order to get a fourth movie we had to adjust our viewpoint to see a version of the 1950s.

In the 1930s we can believe that the world still held mysterious places. By the 1950s, with improved travel the world is shrinking. By the 1960s the world is smaller, but I'm sure there's still still enough room for Indy, as long as the story is good enough.

Being eccentric would probably come naturally to the aging Indy, so the looks people give his attire wouldn't bother him. In fact, in the 1960s there was quite a variety of odd looks, and older men generally hang onto the look that they've found comfortable for so long.
 

monkey

Guest
The simple answer to this question is: NO.

Indiana Jones should NEVER be in the Sixties. It is not his element..........it is not his time.

To put Jones into the Sixties would be an almost 'Twilight Zone' kind of thing.

That said. If he is FORCED into the Sixties (by Indiana Jones fans who don't know enough for their own good), then there would be a number of plot lines that could be pursued.

I would maybe (not sure) like to have a gun pointed at my head and be forced to write an "Indiana Jones in the Sixties" story.

I wouldn't otherwise write it.

But if someone were so kind as to point a (preferably .455 Webley) handgun at my temple and force me to write it.......I think there could be some good 'Indy in the Sixties' story lines.

Personally I would make Jones a radical Professor at a radical university.

The culmination of his life experiences, combined with his view of History has combined to make him rather cynical and 'radical'. He will be very misunderstood, .............and not just from a a fashion perspective.

The world of the Sixties will make him angry and confused.

He will long for the simplicity of the 1930's..........and like all of us........will wonder why he is not back there.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
monkey said:
Indiana Jones should NEVER be in the Sixties. It is not his element..........it is not his time.

The '60s is no country for old men!

monkey said:
That said. If he is FORCED into the Sixties (by Indiana Jones fans who don't know enough for their own good), then there would be a number of plot lines that could be pursued.

You're almost wishing he dies before the '60s, monkey?

monkey said:
The world of the Sixties will make him angry and confused.

He will long for the simplicity of the 1930's..........and like all of us........will wonder why he is not back there.

I'll agree to that. As I wrote before, the 1950s were a necessary evil, since Indy ages in step with Harrison Ford. It would have to be a very good story to allow us to forget the nostalgia we had for the Indy of the '30s.
 

monkey

Guest
Montana Smith said:
I'll agree to that. As I wrote before, the 1950s were a necessary evil, since Indy ages in step with Harrison Ford. It would have to be a very good story to allow us to forget the nostalgia we had for the Indy of the '30s.

Necessry Evil.....yes.

Indy in the 50's...........strange. Indy in the 60's.........even stranger.

Indy in the 70's...........why not? if we're going to get weird......let's get really weird.

Bottom line Montana, as you know, and as you have indicated: Indiana Jones belongs in the 1930's.

Where the powers that control him will take him.........who knows?

If I controlled him, I would put him back where he belongs.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
monkey said:
Necessry Evil.....yes.

Indy in the 50's...........strange. Indy in the 60's.........even stranger.

I can imagine him storming into Woodstock, going up on the stage and asking them to turn the noise down. When they won't listen he'll do it for himself with his trusty revolver!

monkey said:
Indy in the 70's...........why not? if we're going to get weird......let's get really weird.

Then he'll have discos to cope with, as well.

monkey said:
Bottom line Montana, as you know, and as you have indicated: Indiana Jones belongs in the 1930's.

That's the trouble. It was great to see Indy return as an older character, and to see him we had to see the 1950s as well. If we want to see Harrison as Indy again, it's going to have to be the 1960s. And that really does make me think of Austin Powers, a man out of his time.

monkey said:
Where the powers that control him will take him.........who knows?

I have my Mutt-filled fears... :eek:

monkey said:
If I controlled him, I would put him back where he belongs.

Would you reboot him with a new actor, so that we never have to tackle the issue? Either way might spell the metaphorical death of the character.

I've said in other threads that sometimes the best option is the hardest one - to leave the character whilst he still has a semblance of dignity, and whilst his character is still strong, and associated, as it has been for so long, with Harrison himself. A reboot may dilute the legacy. A Mutt franchise just wouldn't really be Indiana Jones.

It all comes down to story, and that's why it always takes so long to release each Indy movie. It's not just a matter of knocking out another Bond every other year, so it gets to the point where they overlap and merge, reboot and reboot again, and you don't really care about the main character any more.
 

monkey

Guest
Montana Smith said:
Would you reboot him with a new actor, so that we never have to tackle the issue?

Absolutely!! Yes!!

A total Reboot is required.

Canon be damned!

Harrison Ford IS.........retired.

Time to bring the REAL Indiana Jones back to the big screen!!

What is the fear in doing this??
 

Montana Smith

Active member
monkey said:
Absolutely!! Yes!!

A total Reboot is required.

Canon be damned!

Harrison Ford IS.........retired.

Time to bring the REAL Indiana Jones back to the big screen!!

What is the fear in doing this??

No fear, just nostalgia. I grew up with Harrison as Indy, and I can't imagine the adult character being anybody else. I would love to be proved wrong in my thinking! :D
 

lao che & sons

New member
After crystal skull I could see INdy in 1960, 61, or 62. But anything after that would be pretty far fetched to me. THe way you put it was parfect(y) the early sixties were more like 1956, 57,58, and 59 than what most people know ast "the sixties" that is, hippies, sycadelic etc.;)
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Merged with the Indy 4 thread, since we're still talking sequels. Indy 4 scripts were set in '49, '54 and '57, so the last one just happened to occur in the year of Sputnik and the largest atmospheric nuclear test in the US. If Indy 5 and 6 are fortunately timed, they might have the Cuban Missile Crisis and the space race as backdrops. '62 is possible, and if the people still want more, late '60's. And then you're into no man's land, if only because a second trilogy would have to end with a bang like none we've ever seen.
 

Ajax the Great

New member
Heck, send Indy into the 1980s. Have a shot of Ford going into a movie theater and then just show Raiders.

For me, Indy's a serial character, and I think that the strength of the first three films was driven by the whole 1930s serial premise. That started fading away with LC, and were it not for the inclusion of Connery, LC would not be as highly regarded as it is. I think that Connery's inclusion compensated for the toned down pulp factor in LC, so it's still seen as a great movie by most fans.

I think that CS demonstrated the strain of working outside the 1930s serial formula without a compensatory storyline. It's obvious that the next movie (if there is one) will take place in either the 50s or 60s - and that's fine, but the filmmakers need to try and reinstate that pulp quality of the 30s.

I understand why Lucas switched styles for CS - the film took place in the 50s, so it should look like a 50s movie. But I think that this was a bit of an oversimplification of how integral the 30s style was. For Lucas and co, the 30s style might have been just a tool for homage. But for fans, the 30s style became the distinctive Indy style. If they take Indy to the 60s - fine. But leave his style in the 30s, where it was defined.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Indy's brother said:
I think Indy could stick around into the 60's, but only up to the point when the hippy counter-culture begins. At that point, his attire and approach would be too out of place, and it would be all too obvious to ignore that he is a relic of his time.

That could be a good plot point--Indy, once the finder of relics, has become in the 1960s a relic of a long gone, much simpler past.
 

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
Personally the latest I'd go is 1959.

The 60's era is pushin' it.

Sure you could say 1960 is only one year later, so what's the difference?

My reply? I don't know. Just imagining Indy existing while The Beatles are rockin' it up in Liverpool just doesn't feel right to me.
 
Last edited:

Indy's brother

New member
Ajax the Great said:
It's obvious that the next movie (if there is one) will take place in either the 50s or 60s - and that's fine, but the filmmakers need to try and reinstate that pulp quality of the 30s.

I understand why Lucas switched styles for CS - the film took place in the 50s, so it should look like a 50s movie. But I think that this was a bit of an oversimplification of how integral the 30s style was. For Lucas and co, the 30s style might have been just a tool for homage. But for fans, the 30s style became the distinctive Indy style. If they take Indy to the 60s - fine. But leave his style in the 30s, where it was defined.

I've often thought of this very issue, and agree completely. Paying homage to two different era's at once is too much "homaging". And completely unnecessary. I've never watched serials, but I have watched the sh*t out of some IJ movies. As far as I know, serials are nothing like the OT or CS, and frankly I don't care if they are or not. What I do know is that I love the feel of the OT, and I didn't get that so much from KOTCS. I want IJ movies to feel like themselves, if that makes sense.

Raiders112390 said:
That could be a good plot point--Indy, once the finder of relics, has become in the 1960s a relic of a long gone, much simpler past.

I think this was kind of alluded to in KOTCS, "we were younger then", "I was gonna put it back" (he wouldn't have in the other films), and I'm sure in other places. To put the idea any more up front than it already has been would be a little clichéd e.g., "I'm too old for this sh*t."

DocWhiskey said:
Personally the latest I'd go is 1959.

The 60's era is pushin' it.

Sure you could say 1960 is only one year later, so what's the difference?

My reply? I don't know. Just imagining Indy existing while The Beatles are rockin' it up in the cavern club just doesn't feel right to me.

I have a possible solution for this. How about a TOD style adventure without any stops in the U.S., or any real references to western culture. Would that be enough to keep your mind sufficiently off of the Fab Four?

Edit: Doc, I just saw your edit. For whatever it's worth, I get the Cavern Club reference
 

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
Indy's brother said:
I have a possible solution for this. How about a TOD style adventure without any stops in the U.S., or any real references to western culture. Would that be enough to keep your mind sufficiently off of the Fab Four?

Edit: Doc, I just saw your edit. For whatever it's worth, I get the Cavern Club reference

Haha. I love your reply.

"Would that be enough to keep your mind sufficiently off of the Fab Four?"

I don't know why but I lol'ed at that as the kids say. I guess because Indy and the Beatles together seem so ridiculous.

No Beatles in Indy 5!

I wouldn't mind a ToD-like style, but it would be tough to gloss over his family. A few lines explaining their absence would seem lazy yet I don't want them there along with Indy. I don't know. But all in all I would like a ToD-like adventure again.

And I wasn't sure if The Beatles played at the Cavern Club as early as 1960 so I edited it.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Here's my take on Indy 6. Released in 2018, set in 1968. It gets weird.

A long-haired Mutt, estranged from his fiance, sits out reel 1 in a Middle Eastern hotel. Indy discovers he hooked up with a twentyish blond, which turns out to be Elsa, healed by the grail water decades earlier but not a day older. Eventually she reveals she's pregnant... but by Jones I, II or III?
Indy learns the Soviets have found the reflecting mirror from the Lighthouse of Alexandria, which according to legend could incinerate a ship 30 miles away on the horizon. While trying to remove it from a weaponized satellite, Indy is launched into orbit, and has to fight for the only seat on the reentry module. (Indiana Jones and the Star Wars!)
The final battle takes place at a Soviet circular particle accelerator. Crawling through a Jeffries tube, Indy and the MacGuffin tumble into an unknown wormhole and he's thought dead.
Present day, but moments later for Indy, a British Lord attending the site's decommissioning pulls Indy aside. He's another time traveler of sorts, Elsa's son, who secured his title with a genetic test of his royal blood. So his father was the Grail Knight. Mutt's family thrives but Marion's gone. Elsa's roughly Indy's age, and they settle in England.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Indiana Jones movies are primarily a period piece action/adventure movie. The closer the story moves to a more contemporary setting, the more it moves away from the original high concept that served it so well. That?s not to say that an IJ movie set in the 50?s, 60?s or 70?s can?t be valid? but regardless of quality, it can?t help but dilute the original premise.

I thought Harrison Ford was one of the best things about KOTCS (and he still has star quality), but there is no denying that an IJ movie featuring a character/actor in his advancing years is a completely different beast than a movie with a character/actor in his physical prime. There?s certainly room for a movie (set of movies) featuring Indy as a more mature character, but ultimately it?s borne out of a necessity to keep the role with Ford, rather than what would be the preference for a new movie (if one could start with a blank piece of paper).

Ultimately it comes down to whether one wants to keep Harrison Ford in role, at any price, or whether one thinks the character is bigger/has more shelf life than the actor playing the part. I?m not sure?
 

Ajax the Great

New member
Darth Vile said:
Indiana Jones movies are primarily a period piece action/adventure movie. The closer the story moves to a more contemporary setting, the more it moves away from the original high concept that served it so well. That?s not to say that an IJ movie set in the 50?s, 60?s or 70?s can?t be valid? but regardless of quality, it can?t help but dilute the original premise.

Contemporary is all relative though. The OT was released approximately 50 years after the era it represented. Raiders took place 45 years before it was released, TOD took place 49 years before, LC took place 51 years, CS took place 51 years...it only makes sense that an Indy 5 would take place in the early 1960s. I think the only reason for our contention about the 60s is that we have a stronger bond with the 60s than we do with the 30s, because the 60s has such a notorious connotation.

Personally, I say go for an Indy because I don't feel that CS was a fitting send off. Leave the entourage at home, don't worry about the new kiddie audience and give us some good old '30s cheap 'n' gritty pulp. Don't make too many pop culture references (the only explicit references to the '30s in the OT were the period transports and Nazis, CS had lots more references to the 50s). And then drop it. Move on. I'm not one for replacing Harrison as Indy, but I can see it potentially happening down the road. But let the Harrison/Lucas/Spielberg chapter come to a fitting and unapologetic end.

Indy VI is pushing it in my book. That echoes Star Wars - which worked, because it was an epic. Indiana Jones is not an epic, and ending it at 3 or 5 is much more poetic and conclusive.

Also, Harrison's career is all but in the toilet. He needs an Indy V desperately.
 
Top