Even if Harrison stars, should Indy 5 be a soft reboot?

Raiders90

Well-known member
In the mid 70s, the James Bond series lacked its own identity. 1973's Live and Let Die had the series jump on the Blaxploitation bandwagon. 1974's The Man with the Golden Gun cashed in on the Kung Fu craze to dismal box office results. These were films which were essentially other genres with Bond pasted in them. The series returned to form in 1977 with The Spy Who Loved Me, which is in many ways a reboot or even a soft remake of You Only Live Twice. Both films share many elements in common with The Spy Who Loved Me having some more modern tweaks to avoid being completely derivative.

Likewise, KOTCS was in some ways a bandwagon jumper - it took elements from the popular alien invasion renaissance of the 1990s as well as cues from other Indy inspired films. It is a film which also pays homage to the 1950s in a way the original films never did to the 1930s.

Should then a Harrison helmed Indy 5 go back to the drawing board and offer a soft or structural remake of Raiders? Enough of a remake to feel familiar while offering new elements so that it doesn't feel like a total retread (basically what TFA did)?

If so, how would you structure it?
 

Drones33

New member
Raiders112390 said:
In the mid 70s, the James Bond series lacked its own identity. 1973's Live and Let Die had the series jump on the Blaxploitation bandwagon. 1974's The Man with the Golden Gun cashed in on the Kung Fu craze to dismal box office results. These were films which were essentially other genres with Bond pasted in them. The series returned to form in 1977 with The Spy Who Loved Me, which is in many ways a reboot or even a soft remake of You Only Live Twice. Both films share many elements in common with The Spy Who Loved Me having some more modern tweaks to avoid being completely derivative.

Likewise, KOTCS was in some ways a bandwagon jumper - it took elements from the popular alien invasion renaissance of the 1990s as well as cues from other Indy inspired films. It is a film which also pays homage to the 1950s in a way the original films never did to the 1930s.



Should then a Harrison helmed Indy 5 go back to the drawing board and offer a soft or structural remake of Raiders? Enough of a remake to feel familiar while offering new elements so that it doesn't feel like a total retread (basically what TFA did)?

If so, how would you structure it?
How the hell can you say that the original films never paid homage to the 1930s?
And if you want to talk about Bond films, The Spy Who Loved Me, while not being a remake, did blatantly re-use elements from You Only Live Twice, and these days could well be considered a soft reboot. But it didnt prevent the ?jumping on the bandwagon? aspect from happening again. Moonraker was famously made after, and due to, the success of Star Wars. And it still goes on. Bond was given a reboot with Casino Royal, and both it and Quantum of Solace were clearly very heavily influenced by the Bourne Identity and its sequels, not least in terms of the gritty, shaky-cam style cinematography.
But this is not about Bond, its about Indiana Jones. And as for Indy 5, i doubt it will jump on any specific bandwagon, rather i believe it?ll probably be influenced by the current rather generic style of the big summer ?blockbusters? like Black Panther, Infinity War, Guardians of the Galaxy 2 etc, in that it?ll be loud, long, with a lot of explosions with a ton of CGI characters running around on screen in an incoherent finale... I am exagerating of course, i do however feel that generally contemporary films lack the originality of, oh i dont know...Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Indy 5 doesnt need a soft reboot, any more than Bond did. It just needs the powers that be to have faith in the character and the identity of what the Indy films represent, of what made them so great in the first place, without trying to jump on the bandwagon of whatever happens to be popular at the time.
 

Major West

Member
Raiders112390 said:
It is a film which also pays homage to the 1950s in a way the original films never did to the 1930s.

Erm, what??

Should Indy 5 be a reboot film. No. Reboot film comes after.
 

IndyForever

Active member
Indy5 should & will be a celebration of a now clearly older Harrison playing his favorite part in what I am sure will be a love letter to the fans.

I do not even think a reboot will happen anytime soon either. Indy 5 with Spielberg calling all the creative shots will not setup a new franchise it will end the current one in style I hope.
 

Walecs

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
The Spy Who Loved Me, which is in many ways a reboot


Nope, before Casino Royale came out all Bond films were meant to be in the same continuity, at least going from Dr. No to A View To A Kill. TSWLM even mentions the ending of OHMSS.

Raiders112390 said:
In the mid 70s, the James Bond series lacked its own identity. 1973's Live and Let Die had the series jump on the Blaxploitation bandwagon. 1974's The Man with the Golden Gun cashed in on the Kung Fu craze to dismal box office results. These were films which were essentially other genres with Bond pasted in them. The series returned to form in 1977 with The Spy Who Loved Me, which is in many ways a reboot or even a soft remake of You Only Live Twice. Both films share many elements in common with The Spy Who Loved Me having some more modern tweaks to avoid being completely derivative.

A movie shares many elements in common with itself. Well, duh.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
I don't really want another Raiders remake: we've already had two of those! :)

Indy's an adventure hero: how many adventure stories have to feature the hero against an army, racing to find a thing that melts the bad guy's face at the end? Temple of Doom doesn't feel any less an Indy movie because it doesn't feature that format.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Walecs said:
Nope, before Casino Royale came out all Bond films were meant to be in the same continuity, at least going from Dr. No to A View To A Kill. TSWLM even mentions the ending of OHMSS.



A movie shares many elements in common with itself. Well, duh.

Soft remake then, structural remake, whatever the term you wanna use. Ain't a shot for shot remake but enough of the structural elements and ideas are there for it to basically be the kind of remake TFA was to the 1977 Star Wars - whatever you'd call that. And yeah I slipped up linguistically on the second point. But my point remains, without the split hairs.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Drones33 said:
How the hell can you say that the original films never paid homage to the 1930s?

Didn't say the original films never paid homage to the 1930s, but it was never to the extent that KOTCS did it with the 1950s. I mean you got a couple of rock songs, the sidekick is a literal greaser who spits out '50s greaser lingo and even calls Indy "Daddy-o", Indy himself says "I like Ike", it was never that blatant in the original movies is my point.
 

Drones33

New member
Raiders112390 said:
Didn't say the original films never paid homage to the 1930s, but it was never to the extent that KOTCS did it with the 1950s. I mean you got a couple of rock songs, the sidekick is a literal greaser who spits out '50s greaser lingo and even calls Indy "Daddy-o", Indy himself says "I like Ike", it was never that blatant in the original movies is my point.

One of the key points of Raiders is the fact that its an homage to the adventure serials of the 1930s.
It begins with the words ?South America, 1936? on screen
The costume design, and i dont just mean Indy?s gear, are unmistakeably 1930s.
If as you say, ?a couple of rock songs? represents the period in which the Crystal Skull is set, did you not notice ?Anything Goes? in Temple of Doom, and ?Youre a Sweet Little Headache? in Last Crusade?
Factor in pre-war nazis, AND Hitler, thats the 1930s right there.

Perhaps its an age thing. At your age perhaps you?re simply more aware of the popular culture of the 1950s than you are of the 1930s, and so the 50s is more immediately recogniseable to you.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
They already tried copying some of Raiders with Last Crusade. Indy V should be original while sprinkling enough of the Indy staples into it.
 

michael

Well-known member
IndyForever said:
Indy5 should & will be a celebration of a now clearly older Harrison playing his favorite part in what I am sure will be a love letter to the fans.

I really do hope this is what is planned for Indy 5. A true last hurrah, one for the ages (no pun intended).

Luckily with KOTCS it wasn't treated as such, so they have an opportunity to do it this time.
 

Grizzlor

Well-known member
I personally see little to no future for Indiana Jones following Harrison's exit. These reboots are just not working anymore.
 

IndianaBones

Well-known member
I personally can’t see it. Indiana Jones is not as much talked about today as a lot of franchises, and when we think of Indy we think of Harrison Ford. I always say that Disney bought Lucasfilm for Star Wars, and Indy was more of an after thought for them, which is why we haven’t gotten any Indy media and barely any merchandise since the acquisition. But as an Indy fan, I’m used to it. I’m personally glad that we’re getting a fifth movie with Harrison this old, and I would prefer a last sequel than a reboot anyway
 

IndyForever

Active member
Soft reboots are pointless. Harrison is Indiana Jones.

They could get 1 more movie with him easily in the can within the next year or so but they will do what they always do wait to see how Indy 5 does @ the global box office before thinking about what's next.
 

Nerdpants

Well-known member
Weather it should happen or not is another debate.

Bob Iger confirmed Indy 5 won’t just “be a one off” so we know more is coming in some way, shape or form.

Iger did say say that and it's probably still true.

That said, he said it way back in 2016. That's 5 and a half years ago. A lot has changed since that time.

For one, Iger is transitioning to retirement.

Indiana Jones has not been a priority for Disney and I can't see that changing after Indy 5 hits the screen. They will slowly work towards trying to continue the current series with another character or rebooting the whole thing. It will fail imo just like Solo failed. We already know what a young Indy looks like, it would just be depressing seeing some young little known actor trying to find magic in a bottle again.

This is not the 007 series.. different actors won't work
 

Randy_Flagg

Well-known member
Indy 5 will be The Force Awakens.
Possibly. I do hope it's as entertaining and well-made as TFA was (which still ranks highly as one of my favorite SW films), but I also hope the story feels less derivative. I'm a bit skeptical about that latter point, though, since Indy movies have almost always been derivative of each other. TOD was really the only one that broke the mold. LC is often accused of being a Raiders retread (though I personally felt it still brought enough new elements to the table), and KOTCS definitely followed mostly the same formula again. So I have my doubts that Indy 5 will be the one to take the franchise somewhere new. At this point, I think the general audience expects the Indy movies to follow a certain formula, and it would be risky for IJ5 to break from that too much.

So, yeah, something like TFA is pretty much what I'm realistically hoping for: i.e, A well-made film that's entertaining despite (or because of?) following the beats of what came before.
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
Iger did say say that and it's probably still true.

That said, he said it way back in 2016. That's 5 and a half years ago. A lot has changed since that time.

For one, Iger is transitioning to retirement.

Indiana Jones has not been a priority for Disney and I can't see that changing after Indy 5 hits the screen. They will slowly work towards trying to continue the current series with another character or rebooting the whole thing. It will fail imo just like Solo failed. We already know what a young Indy looks like, it would just be depressing seeing some young little known actor trying to find magic in a bottle again.

This is not the 007 series.. different actors won't work
Solo failed for other reasons. It was poorly marketed - it’s first trailer was released only 2.5 months prior to the films release, most people didn’t even know the film was happening. Your average Star Wars movie will have a trailer anywhere from 8 months to a whole year prior to the films release, not a teaser 2.5 months out. Not only that it was released in a VERY crowded summer. Bob Iger personally took responsibility for the ridiculous decision on marketing/scheduling. It would have made $700-$800 million EASILY with a better marketing campaign+better release date. They know this.


The film did get good reviews and reception though, not crazy high praise sure but nothing negative. Fans have been asking for a sequel to the film since it came out, personally I hope we get Solo 2 and 3. Alden did a pretty good job.
 
Top