I personally think anywhere from 1959 to 1962 would be fine.
It would be cool to have (film) Indy start in the mid 1930s and end in the early '60s. That's basically all part of the same era, and is about when that era begins and ends.
You've more or less got it right as far as the upper bound...past '62 would be a stretch, once you hit the Missile Crisis, and the end of '63, with the Kennedy assassination, is a point I'm not sure you can push past without acknowledging it.
I'd like to see it set in 1965. Indy can hire Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce to design the PR campaign for the grand opening of the New York wing of the National Museum.
You've more or less got it right as far as the upper bound...past '62 would be a stretch, once you hit the Missile Crisis, and the end of '63, with the Kennedy assassination, is a point I'm not sure you can push past without acknowledging it.
Well, I figured the Kennedy age, around '61 or '62 is the last gasp of the 'age of innocence', and around 1933-1935, the Roosevelt years, is when that began--The high reign of the till then infallible Greatest Generation and undefeatable America. It's sort of Indy beginning right along with the beginning of the era, and if he ends during the Kennedy years, than the end of that era. I mean since we've brought Indy into the Atomic age, I don't see why '61 or '62 wouldn't be good. 1961 might be perfect as it's the last year before the first (film) James Bond came out. I'd be nice (even though they're unrelated) if the age of Indy ends chronologically as the age of James Bond begins.
I'd like to see it set in 1965. Indy can hire Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce to design the PR campaign for the grand opening of the New York wing of the National Museum.
Showcasing artifacts from the Akator expedition? It isn't a spaceship, it's a time machine?
I'd personally prefer they don't go pass 1959. However the furthest they could go is 1962. Dr. Jones has to retire in 62 so James Bond can start saving the world.
I don't think it's necessary that they keep it in real time, and it's not really tradition, anyhow. Last Crusade allegedly takes place two years after Raiders, but Harrison Ford sure as heck looks eight years older in that movie. I was way more convinced that I was looking at a 58 year old man in Crystal Skull than I was that I was looking at a 39 year old in Last Crusade.
I do agree that if they move things to the 60s then that would bring with it a whole new approach and slew of influences. I'd be cool either way.
I personally think anywhere from 1959 to 1962 would be fine.
This would be the ideal time.
However, I'd really like to see it set in the summer of 1977 when Star Wars was setting the country on fire. A tie-in would be a must. Am I thinking a bit too much like Lucas!?
But there will be a generalised preconception of what the 60s were like. Will that impact on the script? I wouldn't have a clue, but I look forward to the story of Indy5.
But there will be a generalised preconception of what the 60s were like. Will that impact on the script? I wouldn't have a clue, but I look forward to the story of Indy5.
The 1950s impacted very heavily on KOTCS, so if Lucas continues in that vein, then he'll probably be looking for more contemporary references for the next one.
Part of the difficulty in initially accepting KOTCS was not so much Indy's age, but the period itself. I have the notion that the 1930s were an age of wonder nd mystery, which the pulps accentuated as an escape from the very real impact of the economic depression.
The 1939-1945 war years accelerated modernization, and the world became smaller through technological advances. Some of the mystery was eroded. I always think of 1945, at the end of the war, as the beginning of another modern age. Therefore, it was hard to see Indy in this new world. Harder still to see him in the 1960s, though this is where I expect he'll be in Indy V.
It's also a transition from the stylish art deco world of the 1930s into the age of the concrete high-rise block. A time when the world was losing its charm (seen personally as a mythical golden age), and succumbing to brute ugliness. Indy not only has to battle his own age, but the age he's forced to exist in.
But there will be a generalised preconception of what the 60s were like. Will that impact on the script? I wouldn't have a clue, but I look forward to the story of Indy5.
Right. But I think people tend to know that there's Kennedy's Camelot and the civil rights-hippies-Vietnam era of LBJ and Nixon. (To take the Zemeckis narrative.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
The 1950s impacted very heavily on KOTCS, so if Lucas continues in that vein, then he'll probably be looking for more contemporary references for the next one.
Part of the difficulty in initially accepting KOTCS was not so much Indy's age, but the period itself. I have the notion that the 1930s were an age of wonder nd mystery, which the pulps accentuated as an escape from the very real impact of the economic depression.
The 1939-1945 war years accelerated modernization, and the world became smaller through technological advances. Some of the mystery was eroded. I always think of 1945, at the end of the war, as the beginning of another modern age. Therefore, it was hard to see Indy in this new world. Harder still to see him in the 1960s, though this is where I expect he'll be in Indy V.
It's also a transition from the stylish art deco world of the 1930s into the age of the concrete high-rise block. A time when the world was losing its charm (seen personally as a mythical golden age), and succumbing to brute ugliness. Indy not only has to battle his own age, but the age he's forced to exist in.
I agree with all of this. But I feel like the period from 1945 to 1963 is its own era, and the 60s as we think of them don't really start in earnest until after Kennedy, that is, after 11/22/63. It's about hope and optimism and idealism of a sort that are symbolized as collapsing with the assassination - and I think nothing we've ever heard from Spielberg and Lucas gives us reason to think they wouldn't go along with precisely this interpretation.
It's true that there's room for a lot more exploration and adventure pre-'45 and as has been said, the Doomtown sequence dramatizes this very well, showing Indy as a relic who doesn't fit into the 1950s notions of suburbia. But post-1963, I'm not sure there's room for Indy's brand of heroism at all. So there's a declension of heroic ages, I suppose.
The original trilogy took place in the 30's and stuck to the "serials of the 1930's" feel.
Since they decided to move KOTCS into "50's sci-fi B-movie" territory, I think they should stick with the 50's for Indy 5.
I didn't exactly jump down your throat...all I'm saying is that the stereotypical '60s don't begin with 1960. They've done 1950s Red Scare paranoia, and if they're going to keep going with era-appropriate shenanigans, as seems to be a part of their M.O., I don't think it's unlikely to suspect that we'll exit the 1950s and move onto something that's a little bit different without being in an entirely new period. The various musings and rumors about the Caribbean are unsurprising in this regard, allowing us to deal with Communists in a different framing, or perhaps with the mob, or a tinpot dictator of some sort.
I agree with all of this. But I feel like the period from 1945 to 1963 is its own era, and the 60s as we think of them don't really start in earnest until after Kennedy, that is, after 11/22/63. It's about hope and optimism and idealism of a sort that are symbolized as collapsing with the assassination - and I think nothing we've ever heard from Spielberg and Lucas gives us reason to think they wouldn't go along with precisely this interpretation.
I like your interpretation of '45-'63. There was probably the euphoria of rebirth from the ashes of the war. Yet at the same time, though, there was a dark shadow: the cold war, the iron curtain (a term which Stalin apparently coined a few months before Churchill), and the political corruption behind the scenes - the suspicious death of Marilyn Monroe in 1962, a woman who yearned for and had the talent for more, but seemed crushed by the expectations of others. 1962 was also the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
After Kennedy came the drug-fueled era of hippy culture, like an escape or a reaction to a negative reality. And we're a long way from that mythical golden age of the 1930s-that-never-was.
Bond arrived on screen in 1962, and it was a time when super-villains really could hold the world to ransom. Two-fisted Indy with his potsherds at the beginning of KOTCS is now a truly anachronistic figure. Sadly, it's now the age of Mutt (and for me, that's the end of Indy).
Which is exactly what you already wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
It's true that there's room for a lot more exploration and adventure pre-'45 and as has been said, the Doomtown sequence dramatizes this very well, showing Indy as a relic who doesn't fit into the 1950s notions of suburbia. But post-1963, I'm not sure there's room for Indy's brand of heroism at all. So there's a declension of heroic ages, I suppose.
1954, with the beginning scene set some years prior, as it was in "The Last Crusade". It would be awesome to see Indy come back to Asia, with the main story taking place all throughout China, Tibet, Japan or similar exotic places.
They could also reference the War of Korea that was raging at that time, then the film would have all the right attributes to potentially become one of the most original adventure stories of all times (not many of them take place in eastern Asia).
This has all got me thinking - I'm pretty sure we're all expecting the fifth film to be the last (correct me if I'm wrong). If that's the case, should it be a definitive conclusion (i.e., Indy dies or retires) or more of "just another adventure" where he rides into the sunset at the end? I'm definitely leaning towards the former.
Indy 5 has the potential to be really sad and heartbreaking... as many have said, by the 1960s perhaps the world doesn't allow for an Indiana Jones. Maybe the plot could further develop the theme of Jones not fitting into a changing world. If the movie went that route there could be some very emotional stuff going on, especially for us Indyfans. I don't know if Spielberg and Lucas would have the guts to go with such a downer ending though.
Location: In the Map Room playing with a laser pointer
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
1954, with the beginning scene set some years prior, as it was in "The Last Crusade". It would be awesome to see Indy come back to Asia, with the main story taking place all throughout China, Tibet, Japan or similar exotic places.
I'm all for this. Digital/prosthetic makeup for a nice glimpse at Indy in his 30's again then do the "real" Indy reveal a-la LC showing our current-aged Indy already in an adventure in some exotic locale. Not necessarily Asia though, anywhere relatively untouched by America's changing times would be fine. Aside from vehicles, weapons, and things like that, I don't need any real references to the period. I think we all know well enough by now that it's the 50's/60's, not the 30's. A bunch of period references in Indy 5 would seem too familiar to KOTCS and would be an unnecessary distraction from the adventure itself. Know what I mean? Keep the action tight, and keep Dr. Jones off continent; KOTCS already spent the necessary time reintroducing Indy to the movie viewing public, along with acknowledging his age and era.
1966 - *if* they got making it now. Meaning, for a release in 2011, which won't happen. That'd make it the 30th anniversary of Raiders both in real-time and movie-time. Also, if set in the '60s, it *could* be more of an espionage movie. That would play to Ford's age, but moreover, it would harken to what inspired Indy -- James Bond. The script I wrote has a large section of it taking place in Cuba, under Castro's new regime, and Indy having to go there in disguise.
2012 - Heck, set it in modern times. Have the "teaser" be WITHOUT Indy, but rather, have Mutt, now a grandfather (and thus a minor, soon-to-be-gone character), telling tales about Indy, and ending with "whatever happened to him? Nobody knows. He disappeared seeking . . ." Then someone takes the idea to heart and tries to track down the last adventure Indy never completed. And, on the way, they find Indy . . . he hasn't really aged since the late '50s due to some supernatural force in the ruins (fountain of youth, perhaps? Maybe a time-displacement from the Bermuda Triangle?) Anyway, Ford's age would be a non-factor at that point as it'd be remarkable that he'd be around at all. Plus, Indy in the 21st century would open up some really interesting possibilities. Since Indy V will be the last movie for certain, just go for broke!
Just another thought: Given what has been done with TRON 2, that of making Jeff Bridges appear 35 years younger (and it works well, believe me), would Lucas do that with Ford? Maybe Indy V could be set in the '30s after all. I know it sounds blasphemous, but what I've seen of Bridges in TRON LEGACY makes me a believer that is the new direction of film, at least to make stars look younger or older. Makeup has been one-upped to say the least.
Last edited by Matt deMille : 08-23-2010 at 08:10 PM.
