1960s?

FordFan

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
If there is a God, we will never see an Indy movie set in the 60s. :sick:

KOTCS was set in 1957. They are shooting Indy 5 11 years after that film came out. Harrison Ford is in the film. What would you propose they do?
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
FordFan said:
KOTCS was set in 1957. They are shooting Indy 5 11 years after that film came out. Harrison Ford is in the film. What would you propose they do?
Dude, I made that comment six months before Indy 5 with Ford was announced. :rolleyes:
What my remark implied is blindingly obvious: I was hoping for a recast.

Unfortunately, with Ford on board the 60s are the only option.
My only hope for Indy 5 at this stage is that we get at least some flashbacks with a younger actor, who can then take over the role in future prequels.

I do realize this isn't likely to go down well with someone with your moniker, but frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. :p
 
Last edited:

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
Dude, I made that comment six months before Indy 5 with Ford was announced. :rolleyes:
What my remark implied is blindingly obvious: I was hoping for a recast.

Unfortunately, with Ford on board the 60s are the only option.
My only hope for Indy 5 at this stage is that we get at least some flashbacks with a younger actor, who can then take over the role in future prequels.

I do realize this isn't likely to go down well with someone with your moniker, but frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. :p

No younger actor. Spielberg said after Indy V, they're rebooting the series with a female as Indy.
 

Drones33

New member
Raiders112390 said:
No younger actor. Spielberg said after Indy V, they're rebooting the series with a female as Indy.

No. He didn?t say that at all.

?And the famed director did admit that the series wouldn?t have to continue with a male lead, revealing that he has considered a female actor to take over. ?We?d have to change the name from Jones to Joan. And there would be nothing wrong with that,? he added.?

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/04/steve...harrison-fords-last-film-7439144/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/
 

Randy_Flagg

Well-known member
Drones33 said:
No. He didn?t say that at all.

?And the famed director did admit that the series wouldn?t have to continue with a male lead, revealing that he has considered a female actor to take over. ?We?d have to change the name from Jones to Joan. And there would be nothing wrong with that,? he added.?

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/04/steve...harrison-fords-last-film-7439144/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

I know he's kidding about the name (since they wouldn't need to change the last name, regardless of whether the character is male or female), but there actually was a elderly woman at the hospital where my mother used to work, and her name was Indiana Jones. Her family was from the state of Indiana, and Jones is a very common last name. Obviously, based on her age, she was named long before the movies existed.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
No younger actor. Spielberg said after Indy V, they're rebooting the series with a female as Indy.
Oh, come on. :rolleyes:

He was clearly joking, and his chances of getting involved post-Indy 5 are close to zilch, anyway.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Z dweller said:
Oh, come on. :rolleyes:

He was clearly joking, and his chances of getting involved post-Indy 5 are close to zilch, anyway.


Maybe they'll go the Death Becomes Her, route:

giphy.gif


and make it a dark comedy.
 
I think (hope) that we should expect a different kind of adventure, i.e. a "Wits Path" adventure; something like Sean Connery's role in the Name of the Rose, with some cool action interspersed in-between :)gun: :whip: ). So, I'd say late '60s, and maybe they could refer to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls - which happened, however, in the late '40s - and set the initial part of the film in the Qumran caves, with Indy looking for more scrolls, leading somehow to the MacGuffin.

Or else, they can rejuvenate Harrison Ford through CGI and make it an action-packed movie...

I guess that they're still defining the script, but they must have at least a few clear ideas about the plot and how it's going to be like, so let's wait and see!
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
Doctor Jones'89 said:
I think (hope) that we should expect a different kind of adventure, i.e. a "Wits Path" adventure; something like Sean Connery's role in the Name of the Rose, with some cool action interspersed in-between :)gun: :whip: ). So, I'd say late '60s, and maybe they could refer to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls - which happened, however, in the late '40s - and set the initial part of the film in the Qumran caves, with Indy looking for more scrolls, leading somehow to the MacGuffin.

Or else, they can rejuvenate Harrison Ford through CGI and make it an action-packed movie...

I guess that they're still defining the script, but they must have at least a few clear ideas about the plot and how it's going to be like, so let's wait and see!

Why would Ford be de-aged if Spielberg said this film takes place in the late 60?s?

Makes no sense.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
I am still wrapping my head around the fact that Indy will be out adventuring during the time when Jim Morrison and Syd Barrett were making awesome out of this world tunes. It's weird, but not in a bad way. But I mean as long as it isn't featured in the film, it's not bad. But it's just wild to think Indy will be out there adventuring and Sgt. Pepper and Psychedelia and hard rock will be ruling the airwaves, women will be burning their bras and such. It's just fascinating to juxtapose Indiana Jones with this period of history; he has become the relic.
 
Face_Palm said:
Why would Ford be de-aged if Spielberg said this film takes place in the late 60?s?

Makes no sense.


I could write down a long list of things that make no sense and yet made into KotCS (CGI-wise especially) ;) Having said that, it's just an idea - probably senseless, as you suggest - but there are so many nostalgic fans out there who would love to see a young-ish Indy back in action. The nostalgia factor played quite a substantial part in movies like Rougue One, and I wonder whether there will be a short flashback scene at the beginning of the movie (cf. the opening of Last Crusade) with a rejuvenated Ford. It would connect so very well with our mental picture of Indy and make it easier for the audience to effortlessly empathise with the protagonist from the start.
But again, it's just a thought...
 

emtiem

Well-known member
Randy_Flagg said:
I know he's kidding about the name (since they wouldn't need to change the last name, regardless of whether the character is male or female), but there actually was a elderly woman at the hospital where my mother used to work, and her name was Indiana Jones. Her family was from the state of Indiana, and Jones is a very common last name. Obviously, based on her age, she was named long before the movies existed.


Seriously? That's amazing! I've heard of people called James Bond or whatever but I didn't expect that :)
 

Kai Hagen

New member
Raiders112390 said:
I am still wrapping my head around the fact that Indy will be out adventuring during the time when Jim Morrison and Syd Barrett were making awesome out of this world tunes. It's weird, but not in a bad way. But I mean as long as it isn't featured in the film, it's not bad. But it's just wild to think Indy will be out there adventuring and Sgt. Pepper and Psychedelia and hard rock will be ruling the airwaves, women will be burning their bras and such. It's just fascinating to juxtapose Indiana Jones with this period of history; he has become the relic.
During the 1960s, the world outside of North America, Europe, Japan, and Hong Kong would still be similar as it had been before WWII. Many countries didn't have the new culture that the Western world was experiencing. Many of the developed countries of the present didn't have skyscrapers at that time. Going to these countries during the 1960s still felt like going back in time. I agree that it would be wild to have Indy with hard rock, and I actually like that idea. And then going to the Third World countries would still have that old world atmosphere.
 

Lambonius

New member
Raiders112390 said:
I am still wrapping my head around the fact that Indy will be out adventuring during the time when Jim Morrison and Syd Barrett were making awesome out of this world tunes. It's weird, but not in a bad way. But I mean as long as it isn't featured in the film, it's not bad. But it's just wild to think Indy will be out there adventuring and Sgt. Pepper and Psychedelia and hard rock will be ruling the airwaves, women will be burning their bras and such. It's just fascinating to juxtapose Indiana Jones with this period of history; he has become the relic.

I think you're collapsing a bit too much time here. Bra-burning and psychedelic rock music were really late 1960s/early 1970s. The early 1960s were culturally closer to the more conservative attitudes of the 1950s than the hard rock era of the 1970s.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Lambonius said:
I think you're collapsing a bit too much time here. Bra-burning and psychedelic rock music were really late 1960s/early 1970s. The early 1960s were culturally closer to the more conservative attitudes of the 1950s than the hard rock era of the 1970s.

The early 1960s, before around 1965 are very different from what we associate with the 60s yes. Even 1964, the year The Beatles landed, was still very much the "maltshop" era. But I'm speaking to the likliehood that Indy V will be set after 1965. While I think most here would agree that setting Indy V anywhere from 1958-1963 would preferable, I think it's very very likely it'll be set in 1967, 1968, or 1969. That's the era I was talking about - it being wild, not necessarily in a bad way (for me) being in an age close to the Summer of Love, Woodstock or Altamont. It'll feel bizarre to see '67, '68, or '69 appear as the set year.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Here's the wall I think us as fans keeping running into:

-Why does Indy have to be confined to "known" big bads? The Nazis or the Russians or some other global power? Why not some either totally imaginary force at play in the 60s (Neo-Nazis, Voodoo, whatever) or some semi-historical force?

-Why do the 1930s/1940s era matter so much?

I look, obviously, at Indiana Jones as a more cerebral James Bond. There was a sense, at least on the part of George Lazenby, that Bond wouldn't be interesting to the enlightened audiences of the 1970s, which is why he quit the role. He went so far as to say the series would be better suited to getting rid of the John Barry scores and incorporating pop music. Yet we saw Bond acquit himself well in the 70s, 80s, 90s and the present day.

I'm not suggesting, mind you, that Indy should go anywhere near the present day. For myself, 1970 is a dead stop. No go zone.

But the 60s? I've never understood - even back in 2007 - the trepidation with approaching this decade. People speak of the "innocence" of the 1930s-1940s...You mean when a good percentage of the world's population was suffering poverty during the Depression? When the Black Man and White Man were still separated by law? The 1940s, when the world was plunged into the madness of a second World War and you had the Holocaust? They weren't exactly peachy times.

The 1960s are far away enough from current audiences to be as nostalgic and quaint now as the 1930s were in 1981. Mad Men changed the way a lot of people viewed the 60s. It helped to shatter the Baby Boomer centric view of the era as all Women's Lib, burning bras and Hippies.

And honestly, outside of us diehards, I don't think any audience will care WHEN an Indy movie is set. Most aren't even aware that Temple of Doom is a prequel. What matters is the quality.
 
Top