Post-"Indy 5" Film Models

The Future of the Franchise

  • Spin-offs

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • Recast/Reboot

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .

Face_Melt

Well-known member
Walecs said:
But why would you set a new movie sometime between 1935 and 1938? Assuming these movies are made every other year, the actor could make only 3-4 movies before he ages too much.
On the other hand, if you set the new movie sometime in the 1920s, movies may be set in the following years according to the actor's age.

Hopefully I made myself clear.

Late 20’s to early 40’s is the perfect setting. I don’t think many people want to see Indiana Jones before his prime. We got that in a TV series which was cancelled. We want to see Indiana Jones like we saw him in the first 3 Ford films. Future films after Indy 5 should return the character to that era.

Although I would like to see Ford bookending the films with scenes of Indy in the 70’s.
 

Walecs

Active member
Face_Palm said:
Late 20?s to early 40?s is the perfect setting. I don?t think many people want to see Indiana Jones before his prime. We got that in a TV series which was cancelled. We want to see Indiana Jones like we saw him in the first 3 Ford films.

Yeah, I agree with that as in that would be the smartest solution. But TheFedora suggested that these movies should be set between Temple and Last Crusade, meaning no earlier than 1935 and no further than 1938.
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
Walecs said:
Yeah, I agree with that as in that would be the smartest solution. But TheFedora suggested that these movies should be set between Temple and Last Crusade, meaning no earlier than 1935 and no further than 1938.

I mean some can, but not all definetly. That?s much too limiting. I mean that?s only 3 years of adventures! Lol
 

TheFedora

Active member
Face_Palm said:
I mean some can, but not all definetly. That?s much too limiting. I mean that?s only 3 years of adventures! Lol


Okay okay yeah maybe I did limit it a bit to much in my suggestion of that time span. I'd say maybe a adventure or two could be set after last crusade for sure.
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
TheFedora said:
Okay okay yeah maybe I did limit it a bit to much in my suggestion of that time span. I'd say maybe a adventure or two could be set after last crusade for sure.


The 40?s is a great decade as well. I wish we would have gotten an Indiana Jones movie in the 90?s that was set in the 40?s. I?m sure Clint Eastwood would have played Indy?s brother as Lucasfilm had wanted at one point.
 

OldIndy2323

Active member
As I've stated in another thread, and based on Disney, Marshal, Spielberg and Ford's comments about "never" recasting, coupled with current trends in Hollywood, I think they'll introduce an African-American female academic peer / partner who will carry the franchise into the 70's. Maybe Harrison can be lured in to "launch" each mission as Marcus Brody did (but a much cooler / darker version of Marcus). Maybe the titles can all be "Indiana Jones presents: The ..." ( for example- "Indiana Jones presents: The Revenge of the Saucer Men") written in the same Indy font as always. The movies could have the same feel and formula as Harrison's and could begin to add and build other characters. For example, Indy's new partner in Indy 5 could then have a partner in her standalone movie that we could then go back in their timeline and pick up an adventure. This gives the studio all the "feel" of the Indy movies without worrying about fan reaction to a recast
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
OldIndy2323 said:
As I've stated in another thread, and based on Disney, Marshal, Spielberg and Ford's comments about "never" recasting, coupled with current trends in Hollywood, I think they'll introduce an African-American female academic peer / partner who will carry the franchise into the 70's. Maybe Harrison can be lured in to "launch" each mission as Marcus Brody did (but a much cooler / darker version of Marcus). Maybe the titles can all be "Indiana Jones presents: The ..." ( for example- "Indiana Jones presents: The Revenge of the Saucer Men") written in the same Indy font as always. The movies could have the same feel and formula as Harrison's and could begin to add and build other characters. For example, Indy's new partner in Indy 5 could then have a partner in her standalone movie that we could then go back in their timeline and pick up an adventure. This gives the studio all the "feel" of the Indy movies without worrying about fan reaction to a recast


As cool as that sounds, those movies won?t make anywhere near what movies that star Indiana Jones as the main character could make. They would be leaving money on the table, big time. The newest Tomb Raider film made $270 million. Indy 4 made almost $800 million.
 

OldIndy2323

Active member
I think the flashback / younger Indy formula will get a test run with SOLO in a few weeks. Audiences may not want to see a different actor in an iconic role so closely associated with one actor (which may have added to the lack of success of Young Indy Chronicles) And before the "Bond / Batman theory of rotating actors" is mentioned, Disney and all involved have said that they won't be re-booting Indy, so it only leaves flashback actors or moving the series on with other people. Steven Spielberg has already publicly said that "someone else" could lead the movies (even making an "Indiana Jane" joke)
 

deepermagic

New member
OldIndy2323 said:
I think the flashback / younger Indy formula will get a test run with SOLO in a few weeks. Audiences may not want to see a different actor in an iconic role so closely associated with one actor (which may have added to the lack of success of Young Indy Chronicles) And before the "Bond / Batman theory of rotating actors" is mentioned, Disney and all involved have said that they won't be re-booting Indy, so it only leaves flashback actors or moving the series on with other people. Steven Spielberg has already publicly said that "someone else" could lead the movies (even making an "Indiana Jane" joke)

Yeah, this is why I started this thread. I don't see many viable options and I was trying to kick around something that I'd like to see given all the limitations.

What I outlined above isn't my ideal, but more like a shoehorn into something I'd conceivably enjoy without tarnishing the Indiana Jones legacy.

I'm already down on SOLO. Either route, flashback actors or others in the mold of Jones in the future, it's going to be a hard sell.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Build the whole film conflict and all, and then introduce Indy in the 3rd act.

I mean sell it as a completely different adventure film in the trailers, something totally unrelated to the franchise (sorry Stoo). Do all the marketing and amusement park tie-ins as a new direction for action and adventure, and then have him show up at the end, to 'rescue' the piece away.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:
Build the whole film conflict and all, and then introduce Indy in the 3rd act.

I mean sell it as a completely different adventure film in the trailers, something totally unrelated to the franchise (sorry Stoo). Do all the marketing and amusement park tie-ins as a new direction for action and adventure, and then have him show up at the end, to 'rescue' the piece away.

That just sounds ridiculous. Why bother having the character in at all? Also, can I ask why you have this animosity toward the character? It seems like it's at best a deep level of cynicism and a sense of almost betrayal or "doneness" regarding the franchise on your part. I'm not saying it as an attack, but it comes off at times like you just think the character is done to death and should be put out to pasture.
 

Face_Melt

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
That just sounds ridiculous. Why bother having the character in at all? Also, can I ask why you have this animosity toward the character? It seems like it's at best a deep level of cynicism and a sense of almost betrayal or "doneness" regarding the franchise on your part. I'm not saying it as an attack, but it comes off at times like you just think the character is done to death and should be put out to pasture.

Exactly. You can?t ?surprise? the audience with Indiana Jones lol. It need to be an Indiana Jones film.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Raiders112390 said:
Also, can I ask why you have this animosity toward the character? It seems like it's at best a deep level of cynicism and a sense of almost betrayal or "doneness" regarding the franchise on your part.

It comes down to my feelings on storytelling.

A character arc is the transformation or inner journey of a character over the course of a story. If a story has a character arc, the character begins as one sort of person and gradually transforms into a different sort of person in response to changing developments in the story.

There's little left to offer Henry Jones Jr. save his evident mortality. I don't think anyone will convincingly, realistically and maturely approach that, but if they did, I'd be ALL IN. He grew materially through TOD, spiritually though Raiders and emotionally in Crusade. He didn't do nothing or change at all in KotCS.

...it comes off at times like you just think the character is done to death and should be put out to pasture.

I do. 100%. And if the storytellers are honest, they will to and do it in the best sort of way. (but they won't because it'll kill merchandising) So I'm completely cynical about it, because no one aside from Deadlock even has tried to be open to it.

Face_Palm said:
Exactly. You can’t “surprise” the audience with Indiana Jones lol. It need to be an Indiana Jones film.

Why? Films that break the mold usually do so with tremendous acclaim (Memento, Pulp Fiction, etc...), if done in the right way.
 

OldIndy2323

Active member
Couldn't it be said that Indy gained a sense of "renewal" in KOTCS? He starts the movie (Marshall College sequence) kinda low and world-weary from the political troubles and the recent loss of his dad and Marcus. He's lost his "family". By the end of the movie, he has a new family and things are looking bright. Surely that's a cycle of growth. The new movie's theme will have to be the OFFICIAL passing of the torch to a new hero. And for Indy's mortality, Disney won't kill off Harrison Ford twice so it'll probably be more of a "I'm getting too old for this" revelation; with more "teeth" than the couple of "I'm too old" jokes in Crystal Skull.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:
He didn't do nothing or change at all in KotCS.
That's not entirely true (see OldIndy2323's remarks), and definitely not the main reason why KOTCS sucks.

While I agree that it's going to be challenging to find elements of character growth for Indy in his late 60s, it's by no means impossible.
I'm a lot more worried about action scenes, TBH.
A few posters have pointed out that Old Indy could use his smarts and gun more than his fists, but it would have to be done really well for me to find that engaging. I suspect that the temptation to delegate most of the action to a younger sidekick will be too strong for Spielberg/Koepp to resist.

Pale Horse said:
I do. 100%.
How about prequels with a younger actor, would you be interested?

Pale Horse said:
no one aside from Deadlock even has tried to be open to it.
That was a fun read, thanks for the link.

@Deadlock: hey dude, if you are still around: well done, sir! :hat:
How about penning a prequel script?
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
That's not entirely true (see OldIndy2323's remarks), and definitely not the main reason why KOTCS sucks.

While I agree that it's going to be challenging to find elements of character growth for Indy in his late 60s, it's by no means impossible.
I'm a lot more worried about action scenes, TBH.
A few posters have pointed out that Old Indy could use his smarts and gun more than his fists, but it would have to be done really well for me to find that engaging. I suspect that the temptation to delegate most of the action to a younger sidekick will be too strong for Spielberg/Koepp to resist.


How about prequels with a younger actor, would you be interested?


That was a fun read, thanks for the link.

@Deadlock: hey dude, if you are still around: well done, sir! :hat:
How about penning a prequel script?

Why does he need to have an arc or character growth? His character is wildly inconsistent in the first three movies and the inconsistencies are only bridged by the fans - not the movies themselves. The Indy in Raiders, TOD, and LC is a very different character in each and it's not because of any growth - it's just different writers. This isn't Shakespeare. They're ultimately dumb action movies with a cool hero, and part of the reason that hero is cool is because of who is portraying him.

You don't find gun fights engaging? Look at the Bond films even when Connery was young - it was more car chases and gun battles than it was fist to fist combat. Indy has his whip, his wits, the environment, and his gun at his disposal. Every fight we've seen him get into outside of KOTCS he's gotten pumelled except when he cheated and used some element of what was around him. Maybe Indy's older, wiser, and will cheat more often, fight dirtier, less fists, more wit while still being exciting.

Mutt was given as much as screentime as he was because Shia was Spielberg's boy toy at the time. Spielberg doesn't like to repeat himself; he resisted the idea of Indy having a daughter because it reminded him too much of the Lost World.

I can easily see a female figure, a student, do some action, but bearing in mind that this is 100% Harrison's last, I think Spielberg will want to give Harrison a grand sendoff and his sidekick won't stand in the way.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
What might be a cool thing - IF DONE RIGHT - would be some rudimentary use of 'gadgets' - akin to, but nowhere as sophisticated as - Bond, a nod to the 1960s time period. The student would use them and Indy would show disdain - things just weren't done like that in his day.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Why does he need to have an arc or character growth? His character is wildly inconsistent in the first three movies and the inconsistencies are only bridged by the fans - not the movies themselves. The Indy in Raiders, TOD, and LC is a very different character in each and it's not because of any growth - it's just different writers. This isn't Shakespeare. They're ultimately dumb action movies with a cool hero, and part of the reason that hero is cool is because of who is portraying him.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm not too hang up on character growth either, and was just replying to someone else's post.
Raiders112390 said:
You don't find gun fights engaging?
I'm worried about action scenes in general, not just fights.
I can't see Indy in his late 60s do stuff like the opening Raiders scene or the truck chase, and that's the type of action I want to see in a Indiana Jones movie.
Raiders112390 said:
I think Spielberg will want to give Harrison a grand sendoff and his sidekick won't stand in the way.
There's no getting around the constraints imposed by Ford's age, Spielberg's intentions notwithstanding.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
You are barking up the wrong tree.
I'm not too hang up on character growth either, and was just replying to someone else's post.

I'm worried about action scenes in general, not just fights.
I can't see Indy in his late 60s do stuff like the opening Raiders scene or the truck chase, and that's the type of action I want to see in a Indiana Jones movie.

There's no getting around the constraints imposed by Ford's age, Spielberg's intentions notwithstanding.

The truck scene would be as mocked today as the fridge scene was in 2008.

You can't see a 60 year old man leap across a gap? Really? Or run?

If they set the movie in the 1970s when Indy is in his 70s I would agree but...If the film is set in 1965 or even 1967 I could see it.

The only one imposing restraints on the action are your own worries. Yeah, he's not going to get dragged by a truck. But he'll still fight, shoot, and whip. You act like the character is going to be 80.

I know we're supposed to hate old people...but I don't. Sorry.
 
Top