No more Indiana Jones from George Lucas.

Raiders90

Well-known member
The YIJC works because Indy lives in an unbelievable world where Christian, Jewish and Hindu deities coexist alongside Ancient aliens, in a world where a man can survive all the impossible things Indy survives in the original 3 films. That one man would find both the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant in a two year span is improbable to say the least. That he would uncover the Sankara Stones as well just a year prior is stretching reality. Combine this with him taking on elite German forces in 1936 and 1938 and winning despite being just Indy. All of that stretches one's sense of disbelief; I can live with Indy meeting famous people because his entire life is unbelievable as it is even within the context of the films.

They also work because his life was largely a blank slate. Outside of having a distant relationship with his father and his mother dying when he was young, and he naming himself after a beloved dog, we knew little to nothing else of Jones' life. The YIJC fulfills and fills in those details. We see how the relationship between Henry Sr and Henry Jr widens and becomes strained over time until it finally is severed ("You left just when you were becoming interesting"); We see Henry Sr's distance toward his wife and child because of his obsession ("It was an obsession Dad, I never understood it. Neither did Mom.") We see his mother being worn down and becoming weak and even beginning to be sickly as the two year long trip wore her down, with Henry Sr only having a slight regard for her health. We see where Indy picked up the love and excitement toward archaeology, his early love life and where he picked up being the Don Juan kind of guy in the movies; we see the tragedies and events which shaped him from an idealistic kid to a more jaded man.

The moments we don't see are the moments we probably shouldn't see. We never see him don the leather jacket and khakis for the first time, but we do see "protoypes" of that outfit being worn during his wear years. It'd cheapen the experience to see him put on the jacket and hat for the first time. He wore the scar and hat, and that is enough in terms of attire.

It is also conceivable that he would've served in the military (the earliest conceptions of Raiders have him saying he already served when he's told the men from Army Intelligence want to meet him). The fact that he is very fluent with multiple languages and blends in well with the local surroundings when he needs to (such as when he dons the Nazi Uniforms and fits right in, unnoticed in Raiders) speaks to a high class education and perhaps even being a spy.

The fact is, Indiana Jones didn't come out of the womb with a fedora on his head, a whip in one hand and an artifact in the other. He developed into the man we meet in 1935. The YIJC ends in 1920, with enough time left for the final development of Indy into the guy we meet in Shanghai.

It is not like the SW prequels where information in the original stories are retconned or just forgotten about (for example Obi Wan's lies about Anakin; "And he was a good friend" and the other inconsistencies). The YIJC doesn't retcon or not fit in with anything we're shown in the films.
 

Randy_Flagg

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
I completely disagree... in that clearly Lucas wanted to further explore the character and situations presented. If Lucas had an intention to base a series around a globe trotting youth set in the 20's/30's... then other than Tin Tin, Indiana Jones is the perfect character (unless you are going to invent someone else to do exactly the same things).
Except that the character we saw in YIJC seemed nothing like the character we see in Raiders. And, yes, I know he's younger and people change over time, but I really can't see how the altruistic guy in YIJC becomes the "Fortune & Glory" guy that we see in TOD. It just didn't gel at all. It would be like making a series about MacGyver as a teenager, and then depcting him as a guy who loves shooting people and doesn't care much about science.

I don't think TYIJC is the best thing that's ever been done... and there were a few duds along the way, but it was a quite innovative program for its day and I really respect that, for the most part, it was an intelligently made/well crafted series. Of course, if made now I'm sure it would be something different as times have changed.
It was definitely well-made. You won't get any argument from me on that. It just did not feel like Indy in any way to me.
 

Djd1

New member
I'm with you on all that Randy. The young Indy we see at the start of LC is the young Indy the audience wanted. The action hero. All of a sudden YIJC submerges us in some pseudo realistic world rather than the pulp universe Indy is 'meant' to inhabit. And does the series really teach the audience anything about history (which seems to have been one of its aims)? I didn't think so because the blurring or real persons and real events with fiction left this viewer (who has a keen interest in history I might add), somewhat bemused as to where reality actually began or ended. I think ultimately the audience didn't get it. It wasn't what they were expecting or what they wanted for the most part. A few of the episodes worked for me but far more didn't. Indy's love of jazz... Where's that hinted at in the films? Does it seem to fit with what we knew of his character or in retrospect? I don't think so. To me the series was a massive lost opportunity. Generally I thought it far too slow for kids and far too adolescent for adults.
 

Randy_Flagg

Well-known member
Djd1 said:
All of a sudden YIJC submerges us in some pseudo realistic world rather than the pulp universe Indy is 'meant' to inhabit.
That's a good point. Aside from just the character himself being too different, he seems to be inhabiting a different world. It's kind of like the problem I had with the last Rocky movie: The first five movies in the Rocky series depicted an exaggerated world of boxing. The final movie, though, tried to be realistic, which is fine, except that I couldn't believe that Mason Dixon existed in the same world as Ivan Drago, just as it's hard to see many of the characters in YIJC existing in the same world as Mola Ram, Spalko, Toht, et al.
 

Archaeos

Member
Randy_Flagg said:
Aside from just the character himself being too different, he seems to be inhabiting a different world.

I can see what you mean, but frankly - and without getting to metaphysical here - isn't this the passing of time and flow of history in general? Isn't the real world of 1976 in which "Rocky" was shot, seemingly a completely different world, seemingly irreconcilable with 2006 in which "Rocky Balboa" was shot? Just as the world of someone living in - say - the Vienna of 1913 and then of 1923 and the of 1933 look like different universes. Just as much as 1981, 1991 and 2001 for us?
 

Djd1

New member
Youre right of course but there's the semi realistic portrayal of an era as in YIJC and the latest Rocky and the fantasy / pulp versions inhabited the Indy of the films and earlier Rocky. The tone of the pieces is completely different. As far as Indy is concerned I don't think it's what they wanted.
 

Archaeos

Member
Djd1 said:
Youre right of course but there's the semi realistic portrayal of an era as in YIJC and the latest Rocky and the fantasy / pulp versions inhabited the Indy of the films and earlier Rocky. The tone of the pieces is completely different. As far as Indy is concerned I don't think it's what they wanted.

But isn't the tone and portrayal even within the Indy movies differing quite alot between them, from ROTLA to TOD to LC, so that the perceived consistency of the pulp fantasy universe Indy inhabits in the 1930s has more to do with the actors and the production values and cinematic styles of the 1980s?

One of the key points why KOTCS is so disliked might be because "the look and feel" and the quite obvious maturity of the movie industry context in which KOTCS was shot is so vastly different now to the 1980s and shows on screen*?

I find some YIJC episodes to closer to some Indy movies than all the Indy movies themselves (Trilogy or Tetralogy)...


_____________
* and no claims by Spielberg/Kaminski to "emulate" the Dough Slocombe & Eastmancolor look were ever taken seriously by those working in cinematography, cf. here, here and here.
 
Last edited:

Djd1

New member
For all their differences all the films are clearly in a fantasy environment to some extent or another. YIJC is for the most part routed in reality (with the exception of the dracular one). That's the difference in tone I'm talking about.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Randy_Flagg said:
Except that the character we saw in YIJC seemed nothing like the character we see in Raiders. And, yes, I know he's younger and people change over time, but I really can't see how the altruistic guy in YIJC becomes the "Fortune & Glory" guy that we see in TOD. It just didn't gel at all. It would be like making a series about MacGyver as a teenager, and then depcting him as a guy who loves shooting people and doesn't care much about science.

I think there is a bit of revisionism and retrofitting both on the side of Lucas and on the side of the fans. On Lucas' part, he wanted to flesh out the character a bit more... (I suppose in line with his own maturing). And on the fans side, 30 something blokes want to pretend Indiana Jones is some dark and deep character to justify their continued 'manly' interest in him (when really he's quite 2-dimensional). You see, for me anyway, the Indiana Jones I first saw in Raiders was an "altruistic guy"... he was the clear hero of the piece. He was a modest and self conscious professor by day, and by night he was a roguish adventurer with a strong moral compass. He would never have sided with the Nazi's to find the Ark would he??? He would never have left the children to rot in the mines would he???

I can certainly see the Indy of the movies in TYIJC (albeit a lot less rough around the edges and TV friendly).


Djd1 said:
For all their differences all the films are clearly in a fantasy environment to some extent or another. YIJC is for the most part routed in reality (with the exception of the dracular one). That's the difference in tone I'm talking about.
Yes I'd agree. There is definitely a more realistic tone (less fantasy) to the TV series. That never bothered me, but I understand why others wouldn't like the less fantastical approach.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Randy_Flagg said:
Except that the character we saw in YIJC seemed nothing like the character we see in Raiders. And, yes, I know he's younger and people change over time, but I really can't see how the altruistic guy in YIJC becomes the "Fortune & Glory" guy that we see in TOD. It just didn't gel at all. It would be like making a series about MacGyver as a teenager, and then depcting him as a guy who loves shooting people and doesn't care much about science.


It was definitely well-made. You won't get any argument from me on that. It just did not feel like Indy in any way to me.

The Great Depression could definitely do the bolded. Indy in my mind always did the stuff we see in the movies as "side work", stuff to make a little extra dough in the throes of the Depression. It wasn't his main job.
 

Archaeos

Member
Raiders112390 said:
The Great Depression could definitely do the bolded. Indy in my mind always did the stuff we see in the movies as "side work", stuff to make a little extra dough in the throes of the Depression. It wasn't his main job.

I agree.

And while leaving the movies' fantasy bits aside which really are only ever centred around the MacGuffins and their respective plotline resolutions, I found the movies' settings to be as (semi-)realistic as the settings of the chronicles: the realities of British Raj India or İskenderun and the realities of Beersheba or 124th Squadron.

The fantasy element only comes from the MacGuffin objects, and those only appear in an archaeological context, and remain strictly limited to that one as well. I found Treasure of the Peacock's Eye moving pretty closely towards the movies (without a "übermagical" MacGuffin), and thus building a solid continuity bridge for Indy's later biography and character development.

Also, the fortune & glory bit was always rooted in getting objects into museums (and being paid for that - still a common practice, by the way) and finding recognition for that - in papers and from peers. Indy never sought fortune & glory in purely monetary or decadent-lifestyle-financing ways, best achieved by flogging artefacts on the grey or black antiques market. That's an important nuance.

I think the Chronicles and the Movies create a believable/credible/plausible biographic arc. It really is more a matter of what type of audience has a personal preference for the Indy flavour they want to indulge in for entertainment. But overall, Lucas' Indiana Jones bio gels well. Personally, I effortlessly recognise Indiana Jones as Old Indy retrieving mail and joking with sexy mail lady, or standing at the lectern again, or patronise on the topic of psychoanalysis.

The funny thing is that we will see how this decade now - which will be of similar significance and consequence than what Young Indy lived through - will have on us, will change us... :cool:

Randy_Flagg said:
It would be like making a series about MacGyver as a teenager, and then depcting him as a guy who loves shooting people and doesn't care much about science.

Now THAT'S something I would love and pay to see! (y)
 
Last edited:

Djd1

New member
I have to disagree on the point that the fantasy in the movies is centred around the macguffins. The movies are a pulp / comicbook environment, with comicbook physics and stunts, comicbook nazis, flying wing aircraft in the 30s, Germans in Egypt in the 30s, thuggee cults, mine car chases, petroleum filled catacombs, etc etc. Its an entirely different tone to 95% of YIJC. It's like comparing Kelly's Heroes to Saving Private Ryan. That's how it feels to me at least.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Djd1 said:
I have to disagree on the point that the fantasy in the movies is centred around the macguffins. The movies are a pulp / comicbook environment, with comicbook physics and stunts, comicbook nazis, flying wing aircraft in the 30s, Germans in Egypt in the 30s, thuggee cults, mine car chases, petroleum filled catacombs, etc etc. Its an entirely different tone to 95% of YIJC. It's like comparing Kelly's Heroes to Saving Private Ryan. That's how it feels to me at least.

I don't know how this got around to Young Indy, but I agree. The TV series was an educational vehicle using Indy's name as a hook.

It was a well made series. Yet it often portrays a very sugary sweet version of the character in a usually less fantastical world. (Dracula was seemingly intended to be a mere Halloween story). Sometime between the early '20s and 1935 he remembered Fedora and and became much more cynical - and therefore much more interesting.

In KOTCS Indy mentioned riding with Pancho Villa, and it wasn't a happy coincidence that he said that at a time when his character had become less interesting again.
 

Djd1

New member
While I'm rambling on about this I also found it odd (and frankly disappointing) that Indiana Jones - the famous professor of archaeology spends so little time in his supposed youth doing anything remotely to do with archaeology, treasure hunting or similar. Instead we get unconnected nonsense (in my opinion!) about film making, jazz, art, literature etc - none of which chimes with his known character in the 1930s. There was a lot of intersting exploration and archaeology going on in the early years of the century that could have sustained a much more interesting and pulpy tv show.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Djd1 said:
I have to disagree on the point that the fantasy in the movies is centred around the macguffins. The movies are a pulp / comicbook environment, with comicbook physics and stunts, comicbook nazis, flying wing aircraft in the 30s, Germans in Egypt in the 30s, thuggee cults, mine car chases, petroleum filled catacombs, etc etc. Its an entirely different tone to 95% of YIJC. It's like comparing Kelly's Heroes to Saving Private Ryan. That's how it feels to me at least.

I think you over credit the movies and do the TV series a dis-service. I agree that the Indy movies are much more "pulp/comic book" like than the TV series... and the tone is palpably different. But I don't think you can compare the series to Kelly's Heroes or the Indy movies to Saving Private Ryan. If anything, it's more the other way around. The Indy movies could never be described as 'serious'. They were largely light weight, funny and family friendly movies. TYIJC on the other hand sometimes got very serious and philosophical (too much so sometimes). I think it's that that sets the two apart. Production values aside -TYIJC (taken as a whole), and how Indy's character is tackled, is more complex, more serious way than the movies (especially the episodes set around the events of WWI) - IMHO. I personally wish they'd tackled a couple of the movies like that in order we'd got a more rounded, complex character post Raiders.
 

Djd1

New member
Sorry - I failed to explain that properly. I meant it as Indy films= Kelly's Heroes and YIJC = Saving Private Ryan. Not in terms of quality but in terms of tone. A lose comparison I'll grant you but it hopefully makes the point.

The depth of characterisation is all well and good but is it the same character we see in the films? I can see practically nothing in common. Do we see Indy lugging round his sax? Do we get a feeling that he's popping off to the cinema to pursue his interest in films and film making? The Indy we see in the films seems totally focused on treasure hunting / archaeology and wonanising to a lesser degree. Does the alledged depth of characterisation in YIJC explain or chime with any of this? I don't think so, and this to me is a problem ;)
 

Randy_Flagg

Well-known member
Something to consider: If Lucas had gone with a different name for the character and the series, let's say, "Young Billy Travels The World," but he kept the stories exactly as they are, how many people would watch it and say, "Wow, this guy reminds me of Indiana Jones! I bet this is what Indy would have been like as a kid!" I'm guessing not too many.

(wow, this thread got totally derailed, didn't it?)
 
Who cares what Indy did before he grew pubes or something? That beginning of Last Crusade was embarassing enough.

Just make a kickass 1930s supernatural-tinged adventure film with Indiana Jones in it doing stunts, punching nazis and bedding hot girls.

Oh, they did already.

Move on, people, nothing to see here.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Djd1 said:
Sorry - I failed to explain that properly. I meant it as Indy films= Kelly's Heroes and YIJC = Saving Private Ryan. Not in terms of quality but in terms of tone. A lose comparison I'll grant you but it hopefully makes the point.

The depth of characterisation is all well and good but is it the same character we see in the films? I can see practically nothing in common. Do we see Indy lugging round his sax? Do we get a feeling that he's popping off to the cinema to pursue his interest in films and film making? The Indy we see in the films seems totally focused on treasure hunting / archaeology and wonanising to a lesser degree. Does the alledged depth of characterisation in YIJC explain or chime with any of this? I don't think so, and this to me is a problem ;)

The best comparison I can think of is MASH the movie and MASH the tv series. They both work individually, are tonally different, yet it's the same universe.
 

Djd1

New member
I see your point but I think the relative prominence of the tv show MASH versus the film undermines it somewhat. With Indy the films are the big thing. They're the draw for your potential tv audience. Without that you have next to nothing. With MASH more people had seen the tv show than ever saw the film after a couple of seasons. I guess for me YIJC just didn't work. Even at its best I never thought of the character as the chap from the films.
 
Top