I thought the little subtle push and tug between Spielberg and Lucas over Indy's character was interesting--Spielberg wanted Indy to be more of a Clark Gable type character, or in Spielberg's own words:
''Remember the movie "Soldier Of Fortune" with
Clark Gable? There was a good deal of Rhett Butler in that
character. The devil-may-care kind of guy who can handle
situations. He's so damn glib he bluffs everybody around. People
think that he's a push-over. He's challenged, and he always
appears like a push-over. But in fact he's not. He likes to set
himself up in these subordinate roles from time to time to get
his way''
To which George rebuffs him by saying:
''What I'm saying is, that character just would not
fit in a college classroom or even as an archeologist. He's too
much of a scruffy character to settle down. A playboy, or however
you want to do it. He's too much of a wise-guy, maybe that's a
better way to say it, to actually be a college professor. He
really loves the stuff, but he became too cynical, he's too much
of a wise guy to fit into an academic situation, or even an
archeological situation. He's really too much of an adventurer at
heart. He just loves it. So he obviously took this whole bent
that was different because it's just more fun. He just can't
settle down. It's a nice contrast. It's like the James Bond
thing. Instead of being a martini drinking cultured kind of
sophisticate, he's the sort of intellectual college professor
James Bond. He's a superagent.''
Spielberg also adds in how Indy should be a "good gambler.", amongst other things. He keeps going back to wanting to make Indy more of a Clark Gable inspired character, whereas George keeps refuting him by saying he should be more of a Humphrey Bogart character. He also already in 1978 seems to have a vague idea of Indy's background--That Indy has been on supernatural adventures before Raiders and he's the guy people go to get or solve this stuff for them--But he's the eternal skeptic even in light of the things he's seen--and George also introduces the whole Ravenwood character--albeit unnamed--to present a mythology to the series (as Lucas puts it "a character you want to see that's often mentioned" to paraphrase him)--Making Ravenwood are our unseen "Man with No Name." I have to admit, in terms of character or story mythology, Lucas in those days was like a genius. Steven seemed to be more into the casual action-y, James Bond-y type stuff, whereas Lucas was more of a character creator then.
Really it was a perfect marriage--George for the characters, mythology, enigmatic side of Indy; Steven to get the great, adrenaline pumping action scenes--The thinker and the doer creating a film together, so to speak. Had just Steven been on board, we would've probably had a more action based, but less mysterious and deep Indy; Had just George been on board, it might've been a more slower, but deeper film. And then you have Kasdan in the mix throwing in all sorts of details and adding meat to the skeleton George and Steven put together. This really was the perfect trio at the height of their powers.
I know people bash Lucas a lot these days, but I think that Lucas' vision--An intellectual James Bond involved in supernatural mysteries--was much better and much more exciting and original than Spielberg's, which would've basically been a rehash of James Bond and Clark Gable, and I'm glad it won out. It seems like Lucas, moreso than SS, was responsible for the Indy we came to love, and for a lot of the enigmatic brilliance of Raiders. I don't think Harrison would've played a good Clark Gable-ish character anyway.
And even though there is a James Bond influence on the film and on Indy in terms of action and "Indy girls", I personally don't really see too much of the Bond influence on film--I see Indy in Raiders as more of a thinking man's Bogart or a college educated Bogart in Treasure of the Sierra Madre, who has the LUST for treasure and adventure but not the respect and true understanding of it that Indy has. I'd say Fedora (from LC) is more of that Treasure of the Sierra Madre character. Indy isn't suave or cool; He isn't the cool, playful, cat-like, suave murderer of Connery's Bond or the judo chopping classical yet man of action Brit of Moore's Bond. He's more rough hewn, more gritty, his hair gets mussed, he lets his stubble grow out, he gets beaten and bloodied---Bond beats the bad guy with only his tie undone. Indy comes off as almost more like a modern "Cowboy" in some ways.
But that's just me. I wanted to make a thread on Indy's personality as expressed solely in the Trilogy (without all of the extra stuff--Just the original 3 films) and how his character and characterization changed over time, but I figured I'd just make it a new post in this original thread.
It seems both character wise and otherwise after Raiders they really moved away from their original intentions--a character firmly grounded in a low key movie as in low key action and stunts and whatnot; believable, yet touching against the supernatural--Each movie became less serious, much bigger in terms of stunts and outrageousness-It's almost like after Raiders, Indy becomes this larger than life hero--Not the grounded, gritty, almost Noir-ish mysterious guy of Raiders.
It seems a rather easy formula, yet since 1981 GL and SS haven't seem to want to want to retain it. I'm not saying TOD or LC aren't great films--they are, in their own right--But ROTLA is different; a league of it's own. Indy at times feels like a different character in terms of personality, things he says etc.
They really should have had Larry Kasdan write all 3 movie scripts, since he helped create Indy as much as GL and Steven did. He would've had a better feel for the character, in my opinion, than Katz and Boam did. Katz and Co. created this over the top super hero version of Indy, this more comedic, light hearted, less serious guy. Boam did a much better job, but he grounded Indy too much. Made him seem too world weary. Boam would've been good for Indiana Jones IV, because as I've stated before--Indy in LC seems like he's ten years older instead of two years (and not just in terms of appearance, but his overall personality). Boam or Darabont would've been great for a 1940s Indy in a Noir sort of film.
Overall their different characterizations of Indy can be retconned with the help of EU sources as a character arc, but strictly film wise I think it suffers for it.
Anyway, anyone want to discuss Indy's personality and character in relation to both the conference and the trilogy?
''Remember the movie "Soldier Of Fortune" with
Clark Gable? There was a good deal of Rhett Butler in that
character. The devil-may-care kind of guy who can handle
situations. He's so damn glib he bluffs everybody around. People
think that he's a push-over. He's challenged, and he always
appears like a push-over. But in fact he's not. He likes to set
himself up in these subordinate roles from time to time to get
his way''
To which George rebuffs him by saying:
''What I'm saying is, that character just would not
fit in a college classroom or even as an archeologist. He's too
much of a scruffy character to settle down. A playboy, or however
you want to do it. He's too much of a wise-guy, maybe that's a
better way to say it, to actually be a college professor. He
really loves the stuff, but he became too cynical, he's too much
of a wise guy to fit into an academic situation, or even an
archeological situation. He's really too much of an adventurer at
heart. He just loves it. So he obviously took this whole bent
that was different because it's just more fun. He just can't
settle down. It's a nice contrast. It's like the James Bond
thing. Instead of being a martini drinking cultured kind of
sophisticate, he's the sort of intellectual college professor
James Bond. He's a superagent.''
Spielberg also adds in how Indy should be a "good gambler.", amongst other things. He keeps going back to wanting to make Indy more of a Clark Gable inspired character, whereas George keeps refuting him by saying he should be more of a Humphrey Bogart character. He also already in 1978 seems to have a vague idea of Indy's background--That Indy has been on supernatural adventures before Raiders and he's the guy people go to get or solve this stuff for them--But he's the eternal skeptic even in light of the things he's seen--and George also introduces the whole Ravenwood character--albeit unnamed--to present a mythology to the series (as Lucas puts it "a character you want to see that's often mentioned" to paraphrase him)--Making Ravenwood are our unseen "Man with No Name." I have to admit, in terms of character or story mythology, Lucas in those days was like a genius. Steven seemed to be more into the casual action-y, James Bond-y type stuff, whereas Lucas was more of a character creator then.
Really it was a perfect marriage--George for the characters, mythology, enigmatic side of Indy; Steven to get the great, adrenaline pumping action scenes--The thinker and the doer creating a film together, so to speak. Had just Steven been on board, we would've probably had a more action based, but less mysterious and deep Indy; Had just George been on board, it might've been a more slower, but deeper film. And then you have Kasdan in the mix throwing in all sorts of details and adding meat to the skeleton George and Steven put together. This really was the perfect trio at the height of their powers.
I know people bash Lucas a lot these days, but I think that Lucas' vision--An intellectual James Bond involved in supernatural mysteries--was much better and much more exciting and original than Spielberg's, which would've basically been a rehash of James Bond and Clark Gable, and I'm glad it won out. It seems like Lucas, moreso than SS, was responsible for the Indy we came to love, and for a lot of the enigmatic brilliance of Raiders. I don't think Harrison would've played a good Clark Gable-ish character anyway.
And even though there is a James Bond influence on the film and on Indy in terms of action and "Indy girls", I personally don't really see too much of the Bond influence on film--I see Indy in Raiders as more of a thinking man's Bogart or a college educated Bogart in Treasure of the Sierra Madre, who has the LUST for treasure and adventure but not the respect and true understanding of it that Indy has. I'd say Fedora (from LC) is more of that Treasure of the Sierra Madre character. Indy isn't suave or cool; He isn't the cool, playful, cat-like, suave murderer of Connery's Bond or the judo chopping classical yet man of action Brit of Moore's Bond. He's more rough hewn, more gritty, his hair gets mussed, he lets his stubble grow out, he gets beaten and bloodied---Bond beats the bad guy with only his tie undone. Indy comes off as almost more like a modern "Cowboy" in some ways.
But that's just me. I wanted to make a thread on Indy's personality as expressed solely in the Trilogy (without all of the extra stuff--Just the original 3 films) and how his character and characterization changed over time, but I figured I'd just make it a new post in this original thread.
It seems both character wise and otherwise after Raiders they really moved away from their original intentions--a character firmly grounded in a low key movie as in low key action and stunts and whatnot; believable, yet touching against the supernatural--Each movie became less serious, much bigger in terms of stunts and outrageousness-It's almost like after Raiders, Indy becomes this larger than life hero--Not the grounded, gritty, almost Noir-ish mysterious guy of Raiders.
It seems a rather easy formula, yet since 1981 GL and SS haven't seem to want to want to retain it. I'm not saying TOD or LC aren't great films--they are, in their own right--But ROTLA is different; a league of it's own. Indy at times feels like a different character in terms of personality, things he says etc.
They really should have had Larry Kasdan write all 3 movie scripts, since he helped create Indy as much as GL and Steven did. He would've had a better feel for the character, in my opinion, than Katz and Boam did. Katz and Co. created this over the top super hero version of Indy, this more comedic, light hearted, less serious guy. Boam did a much better job, but he grounded Indy too much. Made him seem too world weary. Boam would've been good for Indiana Jones IV, because as I've stated before--Indy in LC seems like he's ten years older instead of two years (and not just in terms of appearance, but his overall personality). Boam or Darabont would've been great for a 1940s Indy in a Noir sort of film.
Overall their different characterizations of Indy can be retconned with the help of EU sources as a character arc, but strictly film wise I think it suffers for it.
Anyway, anyone want to discuss Indy's personality and character in relation to both the conference and the trilogy?
Last edited: