Stoo said:
My mistake, then.
Would’ve helped if you replied to a “quote”, though. 
It’s not opinion, it's madness.
You wrote that “1940s = film noir” and that a film set in c.1943 would be Ford trying to be Bogart.
Not too long ago, you didn't even understand what film noir was, dude. Some of the best cliffhanger serials are from the ‘40s and they contain the very elements which inspired the Indy movies in the first place. Lucas & Spielberg have acknowledged the '40s as inspiration time & time again so, yes, it’s insane to say that Indy doesn’t fit that decade.
My reference with regard to Bogart was Casablanca (1942). I'm simply not a Humphrey Bogart fan. And many of Indy's other film influences came out during the 1950s, yet, many people felt the 1950s was not a decade Indy should be in. I recall the majority opinion here at one time aligning with mine: That Indy shouldn't pass into the WWII or post-War era as the world became a much smaller place during and after. WWII marks for many the beginnings of the "modern era." I think there's a reason the original films directly avoided the 1940s. LC could've easily have been set in the 1940s to account for Ford's age, but they made sure to set it comfortably outside of the boundaries of WWII. And I'd like Indy to have enemies besides Nazis. Doing the Nazis for a third time would just be boring.
As for film noir:
The questions of what defines film noir, and what sort of category it is, provoke continuing debate. "We'd be oversimplifying things in calling film noir oneiric, strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel […]"—this set of attributes constitutes the first of many attempts to define film noir made by French critics Raymond Borde and Étienne Chaumeton in their 1955 book Panorama du film noir américain 1941–1953 (A Panorama of American Film Noir), the original and seminal extended treatment of the subject.[4] They emphasize that not every film noir embodies all five attributes in equal measure—one might be more dreamlike; another, particularly brutal.[5] The authors' caveats and repeated efforts at alternative definition have been echoed in subsequent scholarship: in the more than five decades since, there have been innumerable further attempts at definition, yet in the words of cinema historian Mark Bould, film noir remains an "elusive phenomenon […] always just out of reach".
Though film noir is often identified with a visual style, unconventional within a Hollywood context, that emphasizes low-key lighting and unbalanced compositions, films commonly identified as noir evidence a variety of visual approaches, including ones that fit comfortably within the Hollywood mainstream. Film noir similarly embraces a variety of genres, from the gangster film to the police procedural to the gothic romance to the social problem picture—any example of which from the 1940s and 1950s, now seen as noir's classical era, was likely to be described as a "melodrama" at the time."
So when even experts have a problem with the definition, it's not just me. When I speak of film noir, it's mainly a reference to the Bogart films of the 40s-50s. I'd prefer Indy not mucking around in WWII - the conversation we were having was about having Indy adventure around during WWII. If you can make a film that's set in the 40s and somehow avoids both the Nazis and the War in general, I'd be all for it. I just don't want to see Indy's adventures in the OSS, personally.
Truth be told, I just want to be on the right side of history for once. I championed KOTCS, and that didn't exactly work out for me.
