Debate

Maybe there WAS a fourth film and it was supposed to take place in 1937, which is why Last Crusade took place two years after raiders instead of one year.

Or maybe not.

I have my dates from George Lucas and history.
The last Indy film was made in 1989 and then next will be in 2004 that's about 15 year's thereand George Lucas has said that Indy IV will take place in the late 50's do to the fact rhat Ford is older now, therefore if you subtact the Last Crusade from about oh 1958 it's around 1943 or 1944 and the rest according to the storyline is just a few year's a part. As for the novell's I have never read a page of an Indy novell, and my knowledge of Indy is composed of the movie's Raidernet,this message board and my own reasoning wich as far as these dates go is bang on. And you should be grateful for the date I have given, if the movies took place in the 1930's then shorty would be in his mid thirty's by now since according to George Lucas the films will take place in the late 1950's.

But the Last Crusade took place in 1938, not anywhere in the '40's. That fact comes from the film itself.

Okay,Raider's of the Lost Ark took place in 1936, and the Last Crusade did take place in 1938,( My mistake ) but there goe's your idea of bring back Shorty because in the 20 year's or so between the story line of Temple of Doom and Indy IV, 11 year old Short stuff will have turned into 30 year old tall stuff. I think like I said before that bringing Shorty back as member of the archeology team is great, but I also think Indy should have a son (by Marion)
in Indy IV,( you can read some of my thought's on this subject at my other thread. )

Still doe's anyone else have an thought's on this DEBATE?
Oh and about the dates, I had forgotten what was put on the movies and ( havent seen them for a while ) and thought that since the Nazi's were in Eygpt that it was durring the invasion of Eygpt by the Nazi's around 1943, again this was my mistake and I apoligize for the confusion. Please let me know your thought's about Indy's son though.

Shorty as a member of the team would be great, because he would be in his 30's so Indy cant really be a father to him.

Glad you agree Grumpus.
If you would like to hear what I and several other's are descussing about the possibility of Indy having a son go to my other thread.

I'll give FAN a little support and say I'm not totally opposed to the idea of Indy having a son. However, I think Lucas/Spielberg/etc. would need to use EXTREME CAUTION if they went down this road. They must not fall into the trap of expecting the father-son thing carry the story. They pulled off the son-father relationship very well in LC by not letting it rule the story. They were still after the Grail and still had several other elements in the story. They also need to avoid using the "son" idea simply as a springboard for a spin-off series of movies. I honestly wouldn't be against that idea either but, again, extreme caution needs to be used. The stories/movies need to be able to stand on their own, not fall back on the popularity of Indy or rest their hopes on gimmicks. OK, that's enough chatter for now...my fingers are getting hoarse!!