1960s?

Raiders90

Well-known member
After watching ''Firewall'' and seeing Harrison's appearence, I think that the timeline may need to updated to at least the mid '50s and at the most to the early 1960s. I don't believe that Ford can pull off a 50 year old Indy without a lot of ''Hollywood magic''--CGI or heavy makeup-- and I think a timeline falling somewhere between 1954-1961 would be more appropriate at this point.
I know some may say that a 62 year old adventurer is unrealistic, but then again, the Indy films were never really about realism.
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Why not have Indy IV set in the late 60's, where Prof. Jones battles a group of counterculture acid-dropping hippies setting out to destroy the "institutionalization" of higher education at his university? It could be part Indiana Jones, part Pink Floyd...awesome
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
I honestly think they waited a bit too long. Anywhere from '93-98 would've been perfect; he was still in great shape, was at a high point in his career and didn't look as aged as he does now. He's got a bit of a belly now, and he looks ten years older than he really is, thanks to a Calista Flockart.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
HovitosKing said:
Why not have Indy IV set in the late 60's, where Prof. Jones battles a group of counterculture acid-dropping hippies setting out to destroy the "institutionalization" of higher education at his university? It could be part Indiana Jones, part Pink Floyd...awesome

In the late 60's, Prof. Jones would also be nearly 70 years old! I mean, for that matter, why not have a senior-citizen Jones escaping from the old age home and taking on Pimps and Black gangsters in 1975 Harlem?

Though seriously, it would be cool if he found the fountain of youth, and then we could have Indiana Jones films spanning from the 50s all the way into the 80s.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
1961 would be a good setting for the movie as Indy would still fit. The early 60s were the Kennedy years, a time when classy, debonair men and beautiful, classy women were still in style. Sure, the ''man with the hat'' was going out of fashion but Indy I think could still fit.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
The early 60's, surprisingly, is also the beginning of the Bond era.

Somehow it feels as they want to draw a fine line between these two heroes and keep Indy in the fifties...
 
"the beginning of the Bond era"
As good a reason as any to stay away from it.

"I honestly think they waited a bit too long"
And the "Understatement Of The Week Award" goes to.... :)
 

indyt

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
I know some may say that a 62 year old adventurer is unrealistic, but then again, the Indy films were never really about realism.


No way man. A 62 year old adventurer is very realistic. I consider missionaries adventurers and I know many over 65 and 70. These guys are on boats, hike through the jungles and island hop to get where they need to go. I believe it is all in the heart, not the legs, arms, etc.
 

fedoraboy

Well-known member
He does look older in Firewall, but he could still pass for mid 50's no problem.

There was a quote last year from Kathleen Kennedy I think, saying that it will be set in the late 40's - just 10 years after last crusade - I think that could be a bit of a stretch...
 

Katarn07

New member
When is it set? '49 or '59? I remember Frank Marshall actually giving an approximate date, but that seemed like centuries ago.
 

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
Wasn't it Kathleen Kennedy who said something like late 40s early fifties, somewhere there. I think 1956. Korean War and Hungarian riots, well known events about Communism happened around that year. Plus that's exactly 20 years after Raiders. I think that's plausible.
 

Grizzlor

Well-known member
The late 40's or early 50's is too early for Harrison. The time period likely has to do with the plot, of course, as Raiders and Last Crusade did. I have said my ideal period would be the late 50's. Good point about the Bond era of the 60's, that is too modern for Indiana Jones, I don't want that, if possible. Communism was a lurking force in the 50's, just as Facism was in the 30's. By the 60's, all hell had broken loose, and I think they want to avoid those periods. As for his age and shape, Harrison looked good, if you ask me, in Firewall. Not for nothing, but he didn't do near the kind of stunts in Last Crusade that he did in the other movies. Nor was his shirt off as much!
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Grizzlor said:
The late 40's or early 50's is too early for Harrison. The time period likely has to do with the plot, of course, as Raiders and Last Crusade did. I have said my ideal period would be the late 50's. Good point about the Bond era of the 60's, that is too modern for Indiana Jones, I don't want that, if possible. Communism was a lurking force in the 50's, just as Facism was in the 30's. By the 60's, all hell had broken loose, and I think they want to avoid those periods. As for his age and shape, Harrison looked good, if you ask me, in Firewall. Not for nothing, but he didn't do near the kind of stunts in Last Crusade that he did in the other movies. Nor was his shirt off as much!

Why do people say that the 60s is too modern for Indy? We've seen Indy at all ages and in almost every decade of the 20th century...We've even seen him in the 1990s, in his 90s! We've seen him in the trenches during WWI, and we've seen him wade through gas attacks and fly with photo reconnaisance. It doesn't get much more chaotic than the Great War.
One touch which would be nice would be to open the film with a flashback to Indy's past like in Last Crusade, perhaps to ''Palestine, 1926'' or something, and maybe in this flashback we'd finally get to see Abner, and it would be Indy and Abner working on a dig or something where we'd see Indy on his first true, mercenery adventure.
Another element I hope they keep was in the ''Saucermen'' script in which it revealed that Indy had worked as a spy for the O.S.S during WWII. Seeing his past as a spy for French Intelligence and his passion for peace during the first world war, it wouldn't be too unbelievable

And yeah, ''Last Crusade'' was much more watered down than the previous two. You could tell his age was clearly starting to affect the series. There was barely any action when compared to RotLA and ToD, and none of the physical, bare knuckle fighting of the previous two. In each one, we had Indy getting into a big fist fight with a much bigger opponent and getting his a** handed to him.
Not so in ''LC'', the only real physical action piece of the film was the Tank scene, and there wasn't the same gritty, dirty fights of the first two. I mean, yeah, you had the motorcycle chase, and the dogfight, but those weren't really ''physical'' pieces. The action in LC is definately not as intense as in the previous two and seemed, I don't know, tired.
 
Last edited:

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
The thing just is, YIJC isn't actually "officially" considered as canon (it's up to each one's own preference, to me it's "partial canon") so many points made can easily be shrugged off...

Indy's age has nothing to do with not being in the sixties. (I'm still referencing to Connery's ability to pull off quite nice stuff even older as Ford.) It would just create an odd film should cultural pieces we've used to seeing in completely different famous franchises be thrown into the vat.

Heck, I'm still saying that should they make more, just recast the character and throw us back into the 30's. This character's just way too good to be buried with Ford.
 
Last edited:
As people in those days lived harder lives and therefore looked older than they were, its conceivable that a 65 year old from 2007 could pass as a 55 year old in the mid '50s.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Violet Indy said:
Kathleen Kennedy who said something like late 40s
She's the only one I know who said 1940's, and it appears to me she spoke absent mindedly. So I'm guessing 50's.

Boomers were born between 1946-1963. For many, history and innocence ended with the JFK assassination, so I think 63 is the cutoff for an Indy feature. I still would love to see an American Graffiti crossover in 62.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Moedred said:
She's the only one I know who said 1940's, and it appears to me she spoke absent mindedly. So I'm guessing 50's.

Boomers were born between 1946-1963. For many, history and innocence ended with the JFK assassination, so I think 63 is the cutoff for an Indy feature. I still would love to see an American Graffiti crossover in 62.
Maybe that's Lucas was referring to when he said Spielberg and Ford thought the McGuffin was ''too connected.'' Something of that nature, a tie-in to another movie of the time or something. Like, imagine Indy is riding in his car and he passes a poster promoting "Dr. No, an upcoming feature."
 

Grizzlor

Well-known member
Let's not forget that Steven and George were heavily influenced by the old Republic Pictures Serials, which ran from 1936 through 1955, ironically the years on film of Raiders and Back to the Future. I think having Indy in the Space Age doesn't seem right. That's why I say middle 50's. Just make it 20 years after Raiders or Last Crusade.
 
Top