Should Marion have even been brought back?

I for one have always found Marion's importance in the "Indiana Jones mythos" if you will to be overstated. I think the only reason fans placed her on such a pedestal was because she was a better character than Willie, and not a villain like Elsa. But Indy was originally modeled to be something of a James Bond. Not a pent house playboy exactly (though that was an early conception), but instead an anti-hero who would have a different girl in every movie. I look at Marion as an old flame of Indy's who happened to share in an adventure. But as the YIJC and TOD and LC showed us, Indy's had other women.

I'm not saying this because of Karen Allen's performance in KOTCS or anything, but purely Marion's character in the series itself. I feel Indy isn't a character we should've watched get married for one, and secondly, I'm sure if they wanted, they could've thought up an even more compelling love interest. Or just gone with Sophia Hapgood. I don't see why it HAD to be Marion, or why Indy even needed to get married.

It just seems like many of Indy's original qualities as per Raiders have been gradually phased out:

Mysterious, "Man with No Name"-- Phased out with LC and the YIJC
Rugged, borderline ruthless anti-hero-- Phased out with LC and KOTCS
"Womanizer" -- Phased out with KOTCS
Grave Robber -- Phased out by Mutt in KOTCS
Pistol totting gunfighter -- Gradually phased out from TOD to no gunplay in KOTCS
"Killer" (as in, kills if he has to) -- Phased out with KOTCS

It just seems like many of the qualities which made Indy so appealing have been gradually worn away, like a stone in a river bed. They were all still there more or less in TOD and LC, but KOTCs seems to have really eaten away at all of them with an insatiable hunger.

By the end of KOTCS, the only qualities Indy has left are occasional adventurer, bespeckled professor, and two-fisted brawler.

Marion

Bringing back Marion wasn't a bad idea. It was just poorly executed. Yes, Indy was modeled after James Bond. The movies never delved too deeply into Bond's past, and this kept him somewhat of a mystery. But Bond, too, had 1 great love, so I think the idea is that Marion was Indy's.

In both Raiders and Temple, the filmmakers did a good job of keeping Indy's past shrouded in mystery, with occasional hints, etc but none too revealing. With Crusade, all of that was thrown out the door. Instead of opening up a small window into Indy's past, they threw the door wide open and even told us how he got his nickname. No more mysterious adventure, now we know everything. His mother died while he was young, his dad was a strict disciplinarian with an obsession with the grail, his name came from a dog, he ran away when he was a teenager. Not one clue per movie, but everything and the kitchen sink in the span of about 15 minutes of exposition.

When Crusade was released, I have to be honest and say I felt a little underwhelmed. The magic was gone. I laughed and enjoyed the movie, loved the characters, but all of the mystery had been taken away.

Then came Skull. Despite the official silence, everyone knew Shia was going to be his "long-lost son", a cliche that is always thrown around when trying to restart a series that has been idle for years (Die Hard 4's original premise was that the hacker boy was McClane's son). The secret was out when it was announced Marion was returning. In my opinion, the series started its slide with Crusade (which was still an excellent movie), and Skull was an extension of that downward slide. We saw the first two for their edge of your seat excitement. The last two films replaced that with character studies, and the quest took a back seat.

It would have been more ballsy to bring her back and then kill her off .... But movies hate killing off characters ... however the loss of major characters brings far more threat to any given situation ....

The Character said:

It would have been more ballsy to bring her back and then kill her off .... But movies hate killing off characters ... however the loss of major characters brings far more threat to any given situation ....

Click to expand...

It's not too late.



A special offer family ticket makes sense economically.

punisher5150 said:

Bringing back Marion wasn't a bad idea. It was just poorly executed. Yes, Indy was modeled after James Bond. The movies never delved too deeply into Bond's past, and this kept him somewhat of a mystery. But Bond, too, had 1 great love, so I think the idea is that Marion was Indy's.

In both Raiders and Temple, the filmmakers did a good job of keeping Indy's past shrouded in mystery, with occasional hints, etc but none too revealing. With Crusade, all of that was thrown out the door. Instead of opening up a small window into Indy's past, they threw the door wide open and even told us how he got his nickname. No more mysterious adventure, now we know everything. His mother died while he was young, his dad was a strict disciplinarian with an obsession with the grail, his name came from a dog, he ran away when he was a teenager. Not one clue per movie, but everything and the kitchen sink in the span of about 15 minutes of exposition.

When Crusade was released, I have to be honest and say I felt a little underwhelmed. The magic was gone. I laughed and enjoyed the movie, loved the characters, but all of the mystery had been taken away.

Then came Skull. Despite the official silence, everyone knew Shia was going to be his "long-lost son", a cliche that is always thrown around when trying to restart a series that has been idle for years (Die Hard 4's original premise was that the hacker boy was McClane's son). The secret was out when it was announced Marion was returning. In my opinion, the series started its slide with Crusade (which was still an excellent movie), and Skull was an extension of that downward slide. We saw the first two for their edge of your seat excitement. The last two films replaced that with character studies, and the quest took a back seat.

Click to expand...

This summarizes things perfectly. I love LC but as I've posted in the past I hated it the first time I saw it. It did take away all the mystery and turned the series into a character piece and a buddy comedy. I liked it more with each viewing and now I enjoy the film for what it is just like KOTCS and the Star Wars prequels. They are fun movies but not of the same caliber as Georges earlier work in my opinion.

It really should have been a different girl . . .

They just made Marion into a writing device to get Mutt into the picture. It really sucks seeing her do next to nothing in KotCS, It's like all the chemistry between her and Indy is gone.

What reason did they have to get married anyway? Did Indy ever apologize for fathering LeBoouufee and leaving? If they really wanted closure, where was that scene?

Point is, Marion wasn't a necessity in a movie with too much going on and she seemed to dampen Indy's qualities even more.

m'kay, so i think that if Kingdom is truly the lat Indy film to be made, yes, i think it was a good idea to bring Marion back. BUT if an Indy 5 comes out, they shouldve had him marry Marion in that one. see, i think that the very last Indy film to be made, whether it be an Indy 5 or Kingdom, should have Marion return. i mean Indy marries her and that should be it!! at this point i am against the idea of an Indy 5 simply because A) Kingdom screwed it up so badly that they shouldnt make another one, and B) they've waited too long since Kingdom came out to find ideas of Indy 5. sorry if that makes me a terrible fan

Just got one thing to say on the subject:

Rubber tree scene.

In the "Complete Making Of" book, it did say that in the original "Saucer Men from Mars" script, it was going to be a different girl in place of both Marion and Mutt. So that means we have Darabont to blame for Marion's return.

I do think it should've been a different girl. I've said this before, but I think the main problem is Marion just shares no interest in archeology. Yes, she's the son of Abner who was Indy's inspiration, but we saw no signs of her interest in the subject in Raiders(or Kingdom) so I never got that they were a perfect match. I think Indy's perfect mate should be one who shared his passion for archeology and could rival him in intelligence. Of course, it could be all down to the screenplay, and that the real problem was Marion had nothing to do but drive a vehicle, but I never really loved having her back and wish it were more consistent with the other movies in that department with introducing a new girl.

That, and the Indy movies needed a red-head!

Forbidden Eye said:

That, and the Indy movies needed a red-head!

Click to expand...

Agreed.

You know what would have been great is to have Sophia Hapgood in KotCS.

She's into weird paranormal stuff, has a history with Indy, etc.

Forbidden Eye said:

In the "Complete Making Of" book, it did say that in the original "Saucer Men from Mars" script, it was going to be a different girl in place of both Marion and Mutt. So that means we have Darabont to blame for Marion's return.

Click to expand...

Marion's return was Darabont's idea, but he's only responsible for the way she was utilized in his script. Spielberg's decision (because I'm pretty sure he stated it was he who insisted that the idea carry over from the Darabont draft) to retain Marion for a very different story (at least as far as she was concerned) with no real idea of how to use her is his to own.

For those interested, some pretty good discussion about the effectiveness of Marion's inclusion in Indy4 occurred in the Haters thread starting at the bottom of Page 13. It makes a good companion peice to this thread.

This picture says quite a bit:

Her return was nothing more than shallow fanservice. She had no real arc. No real purpose in the film. Hell, she didn't even punch Spalko. I kind of wanted to see her and Spalko fight rather than Spalko and Mutt.

The Darabont script did handle Marion a lot better. But I'd have preferred it be a new girl.

Raiders112390 said:

But I'd have preferred it be a new girl.

Click to expand...

A feisty daughter in place of Mutt would have eliminated Marion and the wedding. One less character as a bonus, but the daughter would need to come with some sort of proof of her lineage. Maybe even have Marion dead before it begins, giving the daughter impetus to find her real father.

So, no Marion, no soppy wedding, and no threat to Indy's position as top dog in the family.

Forbidden Eye said:

In the "Complete Making Of" book, it did say that in the original "Saucer Men from Mars" script, it was going to be a different girl in place of both Marion and Mutt. So that means we have Darabont to blame for Marion's return.

I do think it should've been a different girl. I've said this before, but I think the main problem is Marion just shares no interest in archeology. Yes, she's the son of Abner who was Indy's inspiration, but we saw no signs of her interest in the subject in Raiders(or Kingdom) so I never got that they were a perfect match. I think Indy's perfect mate should be one who shared his passion for archeology and could rival him in intelligence. Of course, it could be all down to the screenplay, and that the real problem was Marion had nothing to do but drive a vehicle, but I never really loved having her back and wish it were more consistent with the other movies in that department with introducing a new girl.

That, and the Indy movies needed a red-head!

Click to expand...

While she's not an archaeologist herself, that's not necessarily a prerequisite for anything. It's not as though the majority of real-life couples are made of pairs of people with the same profession. More importantly, she does share other attributes of Indy, namely her toughness and spirit. Those are qualities Indy would genuinely be attracted to.

Personally, I do have a fannish taste for the idea that she's Indy's "true love," falling into and out of relationships multiple times over the course of decades, with them eventually finally making it work once they're both ready. I also like to think the character of Indy himself is interesting and developed enough to warrant better than just having another new fling of the moment for every adventure until the day he dies. That particular convention has been done to death with James Bond, Captain Kirk, and countless other male adventure heroes, to the point of being parodied in the Austin Powers movies. Indy's already gotten to have an extended period of that anyway. I don't see that shaking up the formula a little and letting him have an enduring relationship does any harm to the franchise at this point.

Crack that whip said:

I don't see that shaking up the formula a little and letting him have an enduring relationship does any harm to the franchise at this point.

Click to expand...

Not now that it's over, since KOTCS was set up to be Indy's swan song.

If there was enough blind fan love to encourage Lucas to make another movie, then he'd just as likely push it further into Austin Powers territory with regards to parody.

It was (as was Last Crusade, for that matter), but they do keep talking about a fifth.

I meant that I for one did (and do) like the idea of Indy getting married at some point, and more generally the idea of him changing with time and age over the course of the series, as real people do. Back in the day, even before the TV show, I always found Indiana Jones more interesting as a franchise than, say, James Bond (for example), in part because we learned more about Indy as a person in just three movies than we did about James in fifteen or sixteen or however many it was then. That's still the case for me - even more so now than it used to be - and a large part of that comes from observing how the character evolves over the decades.

I do appreciate that not everyone liked the way Marion was portrayed in the fourth film (not unlike the way not everyone cared for the portrayal of Marcus in the third), but I don't think it has to be a deal-killer for ever wanting to see the character again (assuming a fifth does happen). I also do fully appreciate the appeal (at least for heterosexual male viewers) of seeing an unending string of love interests, one fresh one per adventure, but I think the series can be better than that, and having Indy make a commitment actually offers more in the way of dramatic potential anyway.

Montana Smith said:

Not now that it's over, since KOTCS was set up to be Indy's swan song.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's true. City of Gods had the feeling of "one last hurrah," but Kingdom comes off as more of a middle chapter to me, a transition. Obviously, it works well enough as a curtain close - though certainly not as well as Last Crusade - if that's what it ends up being, but snatching the hat back definitely sends the message that he's not done yet. This may have been a deliberate decision by Spielberg and Lucas to keep the series open after the intention to make a finale in 1989 came back to bite them. I actually think the approach to the movie in this regard changed over the years.

Udvarnoky said:

...but snatching the hat back definitely sends the message that he's not done yet.

Click to expand...

I think it sends the message that Indy's never going to give up the hat. Which really means that we'll never see him give it up. Therefore, there can be no fifth film, or else he'll have to prove himself all over again at an even older age, which will stretch credibility beyond snapping point.

KOTCS was the final hat gag - the fedora always returns to him in spite of everything. Even age.

Montana Smith said:

I think it sends the message that Indy's never going to give up the hat. Which really means that we'll never see him give it up. Therefore, there can be no fifth film, or else he'll have to prove himself all over again at an even older age, which will stretch credibility beyond snapping point.

KOTCS was the final hat gag - the fedora always returns to him in spite of everything. Even age.

Click to expand...

Indeed, he seems to cherish it still and wear it regularly all the way into his 90s, as we know.

But I do think there's room for one more without stretching credibility too much.