TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Indiana Jones 5
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-04-2015, 10:20 AM   #51
Drones33
IndyFan
 
Drones33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: England
Posts: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
You have to ask what it is that makes Indiana Jones unique enough to be a viable enterprise.

What sets him apart from any number of screen adventurers past, present and future?

So far it's largely been the presence of Harrison Ford who breathed life into the character and established his position in popular culture. Lucas and Spielberg can easily be replaced, since there are plenty of good writers and directors.

To make Indiana Jones viable it's the actor that has to be the one who captures the imagination. He needn't be a carbon copy, but he has to bear the character and all his idiosyncrasies. Or else you lose what it is that gave him his original uniqueness.

I see him as different to the ever rebooted Bond, who might as well have been a series of agents sharing a similar life experience.

Harrison Ford has been with us as Indy for so long that he makes future planning tricky.

So, find an actor that can be the character, but don't remove him from the period in time that created him (the 1930s and 1940s). You start pushing him into more recent times and he becomes Buck Rogers or Captain America - both men out of their time having to learn to re-establish themselves. Just as Old Indy was out of his time in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, becoming a bumbling idiot in the process.
Yes, that's it exactly.
Drones33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2015, 12:41 PM   #52
foreignerfred
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 242
Sometimes around here we get into language that sounds like we're on opposing teams or something, but the truth is, we all love Indiana Jones.

1.) The camp that thinks Harrison Ford is the ONLY Indiana Jones there should ever be feels that way because they love the character of Indiana Jones.

2.) The camp that's open to recasting so that Indy's film adventures can continue beyond Harrison Ford feels that way because they love the character of Indiana Jones.
foreignerfred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2015, 11:42 PM   #53
kongisking
IndyFan
 
kongisking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Skull Island
Posts: 3,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreignerfred
Sometimes around here we get into language that sounds like we're on opposing teams or something, but the truth is, we all love Indiana Jones.

1.) The camp that thinks Harrison Ford is the ONLY Indiana Jones there should ever be feels that way because they love the character of Indiana Jones.

2.) The camp that's open to recasting so that Indy's film adventures can continue beyond Harrison Ford feels that way because they love the character of Indiana Jones.

Of course. But only one side of this debate will become irrelevant in good time. And I think I know which one that is...
kongisking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2015, 01:26 AM   #54
Toht's Arm
IndyFan
 
Toht's Arm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olliana
Not to offend anyone, but I think the idea of a flashback movie with Ford AND Pratt is outrageously stupid and I can not even imagine that this is something they'd consider doing.

I don't see what the problem would be. It would just be like the Cross of Coronado sequence in TLC, except feature-length, no?
Toht's Arm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2015, 02:26 AM   #55
Olliana
IndyFan
 
Olliana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 251
Yeah, except in TLC, seeing Indy as a teenager was completely unprecedented and not essential for the rest of the movie nor the continuation of the series at the time. The audience knows perfeclty well how Indy looked in his mid-30s and it would be way too obvious and even slightly meta what they'd be trying to do there with Pratt and Ford. I don't know, I think this isn't even something Ford would be content with.
Olliana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2015, 02:41 AM   #56
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Eventually it'll be a complete reboot with a new actor.

The stunts and spectacles will be so over the top that children will ask, "Grandpa, how did people really think that Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones films were any good?"

Forget everything you ever knew about Indiana Jones.

There's a storm coming.

Indy is dead. Long live Indy.

Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2015, 01:12 PM   #57
Z dweller
IndyFan
 
Z dweller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The old colonel was right - but he never even got close...
Posts: 577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olliana
I think this isn't even something Ford would be content with.
Completely disagree.

Harry is nothing if not smart, and knows only too well that at his age he simply cannot credibly play the swashbuckling adventurer anymore.

I am sure that he didn't have an issue with sharing some of the action scenes with Mutt in KOTCS, since the character is Indy's son after all.
But I doubt that would work a second time, and in view of the flak Labeuf got after KOTCS and his recent shenanigans I strongly believe Mutt is out of the picture now.

In my opinion, Harry would be more than happy to do play "old Indy" in part of the new movie, as it's been suggested.
He knows that at some point Disney are going to recast the role anyway, and being part of this transition himself would be the perfect way to wrap up his involvement in the series.
Z dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2015, 03:07 PM   #58
Face_Palm
IndyFan
 
Face_Palm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 242
Heck yeah. Bring HF back as Old Indy! Have Pratt featured in flashbacks.
If Harrison agreed to appear in Anchorman 2 for 5 minutes just to turn into a CGI werewolf, why would he not return to play his most iconic character that he also loves?!
Face_Palm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2015, 03:27 PM   #59
Dr. Gonzo
IndyFan
 
Dr. Gonzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Face_Palm
If Harrison agreed to appear in Anchorman 2 for 5 minutes just to turn into a CGI werewolf, why would he not return to play his most iconic character that he also loves?!

Because Anchorman (and Expendables for that matter) was just for a very quick/fun one day shoot and he didn't really care because it was a prompt paycheck...

I have a feeling his thoughts and actions concerning his legacy as Indiana Jones have a bit more weight to them than a small quick paycheck....
Dr. Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2015, 05:20 PM   #60
Indy Jones
IndyFan
 
Indy Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 128
It would hardly be bankable, but if they had another go with Ford and Indy was working with a crew (like in the novel "Hollow Earth") and the others did the majority of the action (but maybe left Indy up to gunfights and maybe one brief fistfight), I'd be enthused. I'm fine with Indy growing older... it's something that made KOTCS richer for me. His fights with Dovchenko were much more thrilling because of it, because this 'old man [wasn't] bad in a fight.'

However more likely; I'm fine with someone else taking over. Just, as I said before, make it a new adventure set in the same universe; an interquel placed in a previously unused year. Maybe have an opening with Ford as Indy to help the wider audience understand "it's still the same chronology as the other films."

Films don't do that anymore... James Bond used to just carry on without rebooting... Superman IV (terrible though it was) didn't ignore III, it just... didn't mention anything from it. I've had my fill with reboots and "Star Trek"-style universe wiping. It'd be nice to have one franchise get moving again without having to resort to either of those two options.
Indy Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2015, 06:10 PM   #61
IndyForever
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 352
Ford does not need the money so the only way he would return is if he is the lead....there is still time to make 2 back to back Indy's with Ford as the lead then they can remake/reboot in about 10 years making Henry Jones Jnr & The Uncalled Remake From Creatively Bankrupt Hell

Hopefully the terrible looking 1:1 shot by shot Poltergeist remake will fail miserably & stop Hollywood remaking classic movies just because they have no original ideas & or talent to do something original & worthwhile.

Ford was rumoured to have got Disney to agree to 2 more Indy with him in return for SW EP7..............
IndyForever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2015, 06:51 PM   #62
The Stranger
IndyFan
 
The Stranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Italia
Posts: 326
I wanted to write this days ago, but my account wasn't working, so damn, now I'm late... well, for what's worth...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
All series and IPs worth something go through the process at one time or another. There is really no viable reason for why this particular one should become a stale relic frozen in time when the original group of creators has disbanded, especially if the reasons to think so are deeply emotional and hardly rational.

Time and again, we've seen how changing the creative powers behind it all has actually brought some fresh air into it all. Sure, there have also been times when the product has not reached the bar set by the originals, but that is no problem either - it still does not affect quality of those originals, and can be freely ignored if one so chooses. Hell, some people already think they've seen a subpar addition to the series, yet KotCS does not in any way taint the awesomeness that is Raiders of the Lost Ark. If anything, it may make you appreciate it even more.

Yes, all the IPs that are worth something get rebooted and/or rebranded every now and then. Hollywood is just like that, and we all know too well.

But now, seriously, think of just one big movie saga that have successfully gone that way in recent history. Or even past history, for what that matters.

Star Trek?? Yes. The characters were created for a sloppy TV series of the 60s, so, basically, they were already a parody of themselves before the start. Kirk, Spock, Sulu and all the rest, no matter how much people could like 'em (I'm a fan too), but they have been firstly written as poor, corny sci-fi for kids and B-movie aficionados.
And in spite of this they had to wait more than 40 years before deciding to revamp the series according to the vision of J.J. Abrams. And Spock is still played by Leonard Nimoy as of 2015, with William Shatner rumored to be in talks to reprise the role of Kirk for the future film.

James Bond?? The franchise was based on novels, so the character was completely faceless in its origins.
Then true, the movie series have been revamped multiple times, spawning more than 20 films over 50 years. But the first time they decided to recast the role, the movie was good yet the backlash from fans and critics was so enormous that MGM was forced to convince Connery to return for the sequel, and exponentially increase his salary. Not only that, the demand for him was so high that he played the character AGAIN twelve years later, and his movie still topped the one with Roger Moore. (On a side note, George Lazenby refused to return in the sequels because he feared that his public image would be damaged by the comparison with Connery, and his career was both started and ruined by that film.)

Batman and other superheroes really do not matter, for a number of reasons so vast that it would be even pointless to list. Superheroes are based on comic books, not exactly quality works, and they are ALL characters that have already been rebooted, retconned or reimagined many times on paper, much before their on-screen counterparts. Also remind, most of the better known superheroes are characters with more than 50 or 60 years of story behind them. Batman and Superman have both been created almost one century ago.

So, any others?

I'm with Montana Smith on this thing. Indiana Jones is one of the most legendary characters in cinema history. It was creaded for the silver screen, as a tribute to the silver screen, and have been played by Harrison Ford for more than 30 years. The first three movies were all top notch quality productions, under every possible aspect, acting, writing, storytelling, special effects, directing. They are still up among the best movies ever in spite of their age, while most other action/adventure/thriller films of that period just look like crap if you rewatch them now. Think of it.

So, basically, what I'm saying is that we can all agree the Indiana Jones IP may deserve a future reboot treatment, but I still strongly think that recasting the actor NOW would be just the most disastrous jackshi* in the entire history of moviemaking. As I've said before, and as we all know already, even the more "progressive" ones , Harrison Ford is still perfectly capable of playing an mid-aged version of the role, while still dealing with action and stunts on his own, and by doing that being the only good thing of a film. He has given us proof of this with Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull.
If they really want to go for a recast, first, I don't think there are any actors that could fit the role as of now, let alone Chris Pratt, and second, it would be a very risky maneuver.

I think they'd better wait at least another decade. At least. Maybe even more.
Go write some other stories, with other characters. Go write a good Mummy 3 for Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz to return. Go write a new National Treasure. Go write a decent Uncharted film. Do something different. An animated series, a comic book run, or something entirely new. Do not touch the freaking Indiana Jones now, if you don't want Harrison to be involved. I say it would be a disaster. I may be wrong but honestly don't think so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FordFan
While I think a lot of actors could bring something to the role, they can't bring everything. Ford's performances fire on every cylinder. Can you see Pratt playing the college professor? Can you see any other actor riding on a horse, leaning over the side, and picking up that rock off the ground like Ford did in TLC, without a stunt double? Can you see someone making a suggestion as brilliant as Ford's to shoot the Cairo swordsman?

You get it.

Last edited by The Stranger : 02-05-2015 at 07:06 PM.
The Stranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2015, 09:05 PM   #63
TheFedora
IndyFan
 
TheFedora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 636
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6OEChj-UiI


"Who do you think I am? Indiana Jones?"

Relevant. :P
TheFedora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 12:42 AM   #64
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
I'm with Montana Smith on this thing. Indiana Jones is one of the most legendary characters in cinema history. It was creaded for the silver screen, as a tribute to the silver screen, and have been played by Harrison Ford for more than 30 years. The first three movies were all top notch quality productions, under every possible aspect, acting, writing, storytelling, special effects, directing. They are still up among the best movies ever in spite of their age, while most other action/adventure/thriller films of that period just look like crap if you rewatch them now. Think of it.

So, basically, what I'm saying is that we can all agree the Indiana Jones IP may deserve a future reboot treatment, but I still strongly think that recasting the actor NOW would be just the most disastrous jackshi* in the entire history of moviemaking. As I've said before, and as we all know already, even the more "progressive" ones , Harrison Ford is still perfectly capable of playing an mid-aged version of the role, while still dealing with action and stunts on his own, and by doing that being the only good thing of a film. He has given us proof of this with Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull.
If they really want to go for a recast, first, I don't think there are any actors that could fit the role as of now, let alone Chris Pratt, and second, it would be a very risky maneuver.
Way to go missing the point.

I wasn't saying "do it" because it think it has chances of succeeding. I'm saying "do it" because its chances of succeeding do not matter.

It's exactly like you say. We have three great Indiana Jones movies that are truly ageless. And then we have one, that, well... divides opinions. But yeah, despite that, we still have at least three great ones. That aren't going anywhere.

Now, back to the serious question... how many great ones will there be if they make a new one that does not live up to the standards? Two? Two and a half? No. Three.

You "Ford is Indy" types are exactly like the crybabies who wailed "Lucas ruined my childhood!" upon the release of the prequels. For them, I have a newflash: The originals are still there. They haven't gone anywhere. Your childhood's intact and well.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 01:23 AM   #65
Indy Jones
IndyFan
 
Indy Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 128
Considering that the person who has portrayed Indiana Jones more than anyone else is actually not Harrison Ford, it makes fear over his replacement a bit late. Although Ford returned for KOTCS, technically Indy had already been recast when Sean Patrick Flanery took over.

Yeah, yeah. "Not in feature films/not as an adult" some will cry. For me, TV or film, it's a moot point. Young Indy was an official, canon production and Ford had little to do with the show, thus making Ford a large part of the legacy, but not the be-all, end-all.

If people could accept SPF, or Doug Lee, why not someone else in the role?

Also, I agree with Finn; people take the idea of new installments or reboots/etc too seriously. First off, they're just movies. Second, you have nothing to lose, but everything to gain. If you hate KOTCS, it didn't do anything to the OT. If you like KOTCS, then you got another great Indy film!

Same thing with a reboot/recast interquel: you have nothing to lose, but only an enjoyed film to gain.
Indy Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 01:39 AM   #66
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Indy has his reputation to lose.

But that's a moot point as well, considering it's already in tatters since KOTCS.


There's only one way to settle the dispute over who should take over from Harry.

Dance-off.



Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
I'm with Montana Smith on this thing.

I would have to respectfully disassociate myself with that comment. Rebooting is inevitable. The issue is keeping the character relevant, otherwise it'll just be a cash-grab banking on the 'Indiana Jones' name. (And such a film might as well feature Jack Hunter or Benjamin Franklin Gates).

It's about preserving the legacy.

Which may involve some rebuilding post-KOTCS.

Last edited by Montana Smith : 02-06-2015 at 01:44 AM.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 01:53 AM   #67
Indy Jones
IndyFan
 
Indy Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
Indy has his reputation to lose.

That assertion is banked on the fact that recasting or making a new film is promising poor quality inherently, and it's a viewpoint that baffles me. If they made another film with Ford, just because KOTCS was "bad" doesn't put a voodoo curse on Indy 5 so that it is destined to be poor in quality. The same for recasting the role.
Indy Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 02:10 AM   #68
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
I would have to respectfully disassociate myself with that comment. Rebooting is inevitable. The issue is keeping the character relevant, otherwise it'll just be a cash-grab banking on the 'Indiana Jones' name. (And such a film might as well feature Jack Hunter or Benjamin Franklin Gates).
One thing I don't really see happening is taking Indy out of his natural timeframe (namely, the early 20th century) and just setting the reboot in modern days, or any other point in history. I don't even see where such a notion is coming from in the first place.

That would be like taking Star Wars out of its galaxy and setting it in Cleveland.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 02:28 AM   #69
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
One thing I don't really see happening is taking Indy out of his natural timeframe (namely, the early 20th century) and just setting the reboot in modern days, or any other point in history. I don't even see where such a notion is coming from in the first place.

That would be like taking Star Wars out of its galaxy and setting it in Cleveland.

I think that began with Mutt, and the implication that he thought he was deserving of the hat.

That would have pushed the timeframe into the 1960s.

A slippery slope hopefully avoided since Shia's post-KOTCS shenanigans!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Jones
That assertion is banked on the fact that recasting or making a new film is promising poor quality inherently, and it's a viewpoint that baffles me. If they made another film with Ford, just because KOTCS was "bad" doesn't put a voodoo curse on Indy 5 so that it is destined to be poor in quality. The same for recasting the role.

The assertion is always relevant in all cases of new entries in a series. It doesn't imply future poor quality, but the possibility of such.

And it's not even just poor quality, because there might be an excellent film made, but it might have little to do with what Indiana Jones means as a character.

In any case Ford is too old to carry another film in any capacity other than that of mentor to a young pretender. Something they felt necessary to do in KOTCS, even though the character was only in his late fifties.

The films are characterized by stunts and cliff-hanger situations. For Ford to lead a new film it would have to be a change of pace and style. In itself that is not a bad idea - the Hitchcockian style has been raised here - but it isn't what made Indiana Jones popular, or made money enough to secure further films and enterprises.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 09:37 AM   #70
The Stranger
IndyFan
 
The Stranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Italia
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Way to go missing the point.

I wasn't saying "do it" because it think it has chances of succeeding. I'm saying "do it" because its chances of succeeding do not matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
You "Ford is Indy" types are exactly like the crybabies who wailed "Lucas ruined my childhood!" upon the release of the prequels. For them, I have a newflash: The originals are still there. They haven't gone anywhere. Your childhood's intact and well.

But you missed my point too.

I didn't write that I absolutely don't want a reboot, that I despise the idea, or that I don't want somebody to "ruin my childhood memories", or something. That's not what I'm saying. We know it's obvious that it will be done anyway, sooner or later.

What I am just saying is that I'm convinced they'd better wait.
Or do a fifth one with Ford now.
It would be risky for them to go another route.
The Stranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 12:00 PM   #71
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
But you missed my point too.
On the contrary. You seemed to be of the mind that it shouldn't be done while Ford could still do it, but didn't exactly elaborate why. When that happens, it's not really that unusual to get lumped in with other people who seem to be crying "wah-wah I don't wanna", but can't really tell why. Even if you are of the more moderate mind.

Also, you're quite mistaken when you say that even us "progressive" ones agree that Ford could still pull off a mid-aged version of the role. There are quite a bit of us who disagree. And even if Ford could still do it, it would still be missing quite a bit of elements that also make Indiana Jones. Because, as Smitty alluded, the character is simply NOT Ford in a fedora.

No, about as much as Ford, you need the proper setting, which is the early part of 20th century. Sure, you could make Ford don the hat and have him play an aged Indy in, say, a pastiche to 60s/70s spy caper. But that would very much be "Star Wars in Cleveland".

It doesn't really matter whether Ford is in good physical shape or not. He can't anymore play Indiana Jones in the 30s/40s/50s timeframe. Even KotCS was cheating a bit to pull it off. Therefore, the arguments stating "they shouldn't do it now with a new guy because Ford can still do it" have gone stale and ring hollow.


Moving on. You also seem to challenge us to come up with a recent movie series that has been successful, as your main point of argument. I could accuse you of moving the goalposts for listing some and then coming up with reasons why they don't really count. But let's not go there. Instead, I ask... why "recent"?

Why don't we look to the origins of Indiana Jones? Namely, the age of the old, cheap serials. Now, I encourage everyone who wants to hang onto Ford, no matter what, to look at characters like Zorro, Tarzan, Allan Quatermain... and see how many peeps have played them over the years. Heck, just check out how many different actors have played them before the second half of past century alone. Reboots and recasts are way older than some of you think, and were perhaps treated even more offhandedly back then.

Indiana Jones was designed after characters who were given iconic looks - because the guys wearing those looks were to be easily replacable. Therefore, I might even argue that those of us who have no issues seeing a new fellow pick up the hat are far more in tune with what the character really is about. Indy's intellectual origins lie smack dab in the middle of an era where the clothes stayed the same, but the man inside them changed all the time.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 12:01 PM   #72
Indy Jones
IndyFan
 
Indy Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 128
Actually, I think you could still wring a couple Indy adventures out of the 1960s--just stay away from the US and the UK, like Temple of Doom, where you didn't see the "civilized" world at all. If you're in South America, or Africa or the Middle East, those areas don't immediately reflect the evolution of modern society. They did it deliberately in KOTCS to emphasize how different the world is, which was fantastic, but they wouldn't wanna repeat that same schtick anyway.
Indy Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 12:14 PM   #73
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Jones
Actually, I think you could still wring a couple Indy adventures out of the 1960s--just stay away from the US and the UK, like Temple of Doom, where you didn't see the "civilized" world at all. If you're in South America, or Africa or the Middle East, those areas don't immediately reflect the evolution of modern society. They did it deliberately in KOTCS to emphasize how different the world is, which was fantastic, but they wouldn't wanna repeat that same schtick anyway.
Not to mention that would kind of do away with the point of Indy films being pastiches of movie genres popular at the time they were set in. Many of us have spent plenty of hours to make that point to people who have panned KotCS's alien element. Even then, of course, they couldn't take Indy completely out of the "high adventure" setting which is why I said they were cheating a bit. Having 60s movie tropes combined with high adventure themes would most likely make an even more dreadful mix than what we saw with KotCS.

And to have an adventure in the 60s without elements typical to pop culture of the time means we couldn't use that point anymore to excuse KotCS. Double standards are never nice.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 01:01 PM   #74
Z dweller
IndyFan
 
Z dweller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The old colonel was right - but he never even got close...
Posts: 577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Jones
Considering that the person who has portrayed Indiana Jones more than anyone else is actually not Harrison Ford, it makes fear over his replacement a bit late.
Game...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
It doesn't really matter whether Ford is in good physical shape or not. He can't anymore play Indiana Jones in the 30s/40s/50s timeframe.
Set...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Indy's intellectual origins lie smack dab in the middle of an era where the clothes stayed the same, but the man inside them changed all the time.
...and match!
Z dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2015, 01:17 PM   #75
Indy Jones
IndyFan
 
Indy Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn

And to have an adventure in the 60s without elements typical to pop culture of the time means we couldn't use that point anymore to excuse KotCS. Double standards are never nice.

I wouldn't care, haha. I don't think KOTCS needs to be 'excused,' as no higher power has come down and officially declared that KOTCS is actually 'awful.' It's in the eye of the beholder. Granted, I think people who hate the film with a burning passion are going overboard, but quality is subjective. Character is the be-all, end-all for me. KOTCS could have had Indy riding a flying dinosaur through space but as long as Ford had given a great recreation of his character, I would have still been entertained.

I don't think the pastiches have to be relegated to when the story was set; there were still very much elements of the homage to '30s serials in KOTCS, you could have stories set in the 1960s that don't bother to reflect that era at all. As long as you're away from 'cilivized' society, it wouldn't be any different from the OT, just Indy would be older.

KOTCS had to reflect it because the 1950s culture was so affected by the atomic age that, given that the first act was dependant on being set in the US, you had to at least touch on-it (the Communist fear getting Indy fired, Area 51, atomic tests), but you could have avoided it more if they hadn't had Indy confront a nuke himself. But then again, what better way to show had vastly things had changed?

KOTCS kind-of worked as a re-introduction of Indy, since we hadn't seen what he was doing (on movie screens, at least) for 20 years of his life. We had to touch base with his home, his job... it necessitated seeing the state of how those parts of his life had changed. A fifth film could (again, like TOD) just get right into it without having to touch on him in his off-hours. Wnat to see how the family's doing? Marion joining him and Mutt being "back at school" in a telegram would suffice.

Last edited by Indy Jones : 02-06-2015 at 01:22 PM.
Indy Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 PM.