TheRaider.net
 

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-21-2010, 09:56 AM   #51
lao che & sons
IndyFan
 
lao che & sons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Club Obi Wan, Shanghai
Posts: 828
After crystal skull I could see INdy in 1960, 61, or 62. But anything after that would be pretty far fetched to me. THe way you put it was parfect the early sixties were more like 1956, 57,58, and 59 than what most people know ast "the sixties" that is, hippies, sycadelic etc.
lao che & sons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2010, 03:15 PM   #52
Moedred
Administrator
 
Moedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4,882
Merged with the Indy 4 thread, since we're still talking sequels. Indy 4 scripts were set in '49, '54 and '57, so the last one just happened to occur in the year of Sputnik and the largest atmospheric nuclear test in the US. If Indy 5 and 6 are fortunately timed, they might have the Cuban Missile Crisis and the space race as backdrops. '62 is possible, and if the people still want more, late '60's. And then you're into no man's land, if only because a second trilogy would have to end with a bang like none we've ever seen.
Moedred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2010, 05:23 PM   #53
Ajax the Great
IndyFan
 
Ajax the Great's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 159
Heck, send Indy into the 1980s. Have a shot of Ford going into a movie theater and then just show Raiders.

For me, Indy's a serial character, and I think that the strength of the first three films was driven by the whole 1930s serial premise. That started fading away with LC, and were it not for the inclusion of Connery, LC would not be as highly regarded as it is. I think that Connery's inclusion compensated for the toned down pulp factor in LC, so it's still seen as a great movie by most fans.

I think that CS demonstrated the strain of working outside the 1930s serial formula without a compensatory storyline. It's obvious that the next movie (if there is one) will take place in either the 50s or 60s - and that's fine, but the filmmakers need to try and reinstate that pulp quality of the 30s.

I understand why Lucas switched styles for CS - the film took place in the 50s, so it should look like a 50s movie. But I think that this was a bit of an oversimplification of how integral the 30s style was. For Lucas and co, the 30s style might have been just a tool for homage. But for fans, the 30s style became the distinctive Indy style. If they take Indy to the 60s - fine. But leave his style in the 30s, where it was defined.
Ajax the Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2010, 08:52 PM   #54
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy's brother
I think Indy could stick around into the 60's, but only up to the point when the hippy counter-culture begins. At that point, his attire and approach would be too out of place, and it would be all too obvious to ignore that he is a relic of his time.

That could be a good plot point--Indy, once the finder of relics, has become in the 1960s a relic of a long gone, much simpler past.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2010, 09:16 PM   #55
DocWhiskey
IndyFan
 
DocWhiskey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,386
Personally the latest I'd go is 1959.

The 60's era is pushin' it.

Sure you could say 1960 is only one year later, so what's the difference?

My reply? I don't know. Just imagining Indy existing while The Beatles are rockin' it up in Liverpool just doesn't feel right to me.

Last edited by DocWhiskey : 03-22-2010 at 09:28 PM.
DocWhiskey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2010, 09:58 PM   #56
Indy's brother
IndyFan
 
Indy's brother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In the Map Room playing with a laser pointer
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax the Great
It's obvious that the next movie (if there is one) will take place in either the 50s or 60s - and that's fine, but the filmmakers need to try and reinstate that pulp quality of the 30s.

I understand why Lucas switched styles for CS - the film took place in the 50s, so it should look like a 50s movie. But I think that this was a bit of an oversimplification of how integral the 30s style was. For Lucas and co, the 30s style might have been just a tool for homage. But for fans, the 30s style became the distinctive Indy style. If they take Indy to the 60s - fine. But leave his style in the 30s, where it was defined.

I've often thought of this very issue, and agree completely. Paying homage to two different era's at once is too much "homaging". And completely unnecessary. I've never watched serials, but I have watched the sh*t out of some IJ movies. As far as I know, serials are nothing like the OT or CS, and frankly I don't care if they are or not. What I do know is that I love the feel of the OT, and I didn't get that so much from KOTCS. I want IJ movies to feel like themselves, if that makes sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
That could be a good plot point--Indy, once the finder of relics, has become in the 1960s a relic of a long gone, much simpler past.

I think this was kind of alluded to in KOTCS, "we were younger then", "I was gonna put it back" (he wouldn't have in the other films), and I'm sure in other places. To put the idea any more up front than it already has been would be a little clichéd e.g., "I'm too old for this sh*t."

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocWhiskey
Personally the latest I'd go is 1959.

The 60's era is pushin' it.

Sure you could say 1960 is only one year later, so what's the difference?

My reply? I don't know. Just imagining Indy existing while The Beatles are rockin' it up in the cavern club just doesn't feel right to me.

I have a possible solution for this. How about a TOD style adventure without any stops in the U.S., or any real references to western culture. Would that be enough to keep your mind sufficiently off of the Fab Four?

Edit: Doc, I just saw your edit. For whatever it's worth, I get the Cavern Club reference
Indy's brother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2010, 10:48 PM   #57
DocWhiskey
IndyFan
 
DocWhiskey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy's brother


I have a possible solution for this. How about a TOD style adventure without any stops in the U.S., or any real references to western culture. Would that be enough to keep your mind sufficiently off of the Fab Four?

Edit: Doc, I just saw your edit. For whatever it's worth, I get the Cavern Club reference

Haha. I love your reply.

"Would that be enough to keep your mind sufficiently off of the Fab Four?"

I don't know why but I lol'ed at that as the kids say. I guess because Indy and the Beatles together seem so ridiculous.

No Beatles in Indy 5!

I wouldn't mind a ToD-like style, but it would be tough to gloss over his family. A few lines explaining their absence would seem lazy yet I don't want them there along with Indy. I don't know. But all in all I would like a ToD-like adventure again.

And I wasn't sure if The Beatles played at the Cavern Club as early as 1960 so I edited it.
DocWhiskey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2010, 10:51 PM   #58
Moedred
Administrator
 
Moedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4,882
Here's my take on Indy 6. Released in 2018, set in 1968. It gets weird.

A long-haired Mutt, estranged from his fiance, sits out reel 1 in a Middle Eastern hotel. Indy discovers he hooked up with a twentyish blond, which turns out to be Elsa, healed by the grail water decades earlier but not a day older. Eventually she reveals she's pregnant... but by Jones I, II or III?
Indy learns the Soviets have found the reflecting mirror from the Lighthouse of Alexandria, which according to legend could incinerate a ship 30 miles away on the horizon. While trying to remove it from a weaponized satellite, Indy is launched into orbit, and has to fight for the only seat on the reentry module. (Indiana Jones and the Star Wars!)
The final battle takes place at a Soviet circular particle accelerator. Crawling through a Jeffries tube, Indy and the MacGuffin tumble into an unknown wormhole and he's thought dead.
Present day, but moments later for Indy, a British Lord attending the site's decommissioning pulls Indy aside. He's another time traveler of sorts, Elsa's son, who secured his title with a genetic test of his royal blood. So his father was the Grail Knight. Mutt's family thrives but Marion's gone. Elsa's roughly Indy's age, and they settle in England.
Moedred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2010, 01:39 PM   #59
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Indiana Jones movies are primarily a period piece action/adventure movie. The closer the story moves to a more contemporary setting, the more it moves away from the original high concept that served it so well. Thatís not to say that an IJ movie set in the 50ís, 60ís or 70ís canít be validÖ but regardless of quality, it canít help but dilute the original premise.

I thought Harrison Ford was one of the best things about KOTCS (and he still has star quality), but there is no denying that an IJ movie featuring a character/actor in his advancing years is a completely different beast than a movie with a character/actor in his physical prime. Thereís certainly room for a movie (set of movies) featuring Indy as a more mature character, but ultimately itís borne out of a necessity to keep the role with Ford, rather than what would be the preference for a new movie (if one could start with a blank piece of paper).

Ultimately it comes down to whether one wants to keep Harrison Ford in role, at any price, or whether one thinks the character is bigger/has more shelf life than the actor playing the part. Iím not sureÖ
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2010, 03:05 PM   #60
Ajax the Great
IndyFan
 
Ajax the Great's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Indiana Jones movies are primarily a period piece action/adventure movie. The closer the story moves to a more contemporary setting, the more it moves away from the original high concept that served it so well. Thatís not to say that an IJ movie set in the 50ís, 60ís or 70ís canít be validÖ but regardless of quality, it canít help but dilute the original premise.

Contemporary is all relative though. The OT was released approximately 50 years after the era it represented. Raiders took place 45 years before it was released, TOD took place 49 years before, LC took place 51 years, CS took place 51 years...it only makes sense that an Indy 5 would take place in the early 1960s. I think the only reason for our contention about the 60s is that we have a stronger bond with the 60s than we do with the 30s, because the 60s has such a notorious connotation.

Personally, I say go for an Indy because I don't feel that CS was a fitting send off. Leave the entourage at home, don't worry about the new kiddie audience and give us some good old '30s cheap 'n' gritty pulp. Don't make too many pop culture references (the only explicit references to the '30s in the OT were the period transports and Nazis, CS had lots more references to the 50s). And then drop it. Move on. I'm not one for replacing Harrison as Indy, but I can see it potentially happening down the road. But let the Harrison/Lucas/Spielberg chapter come to a fitting and unapologetic end.

Indy VI is pushing it in my book. That echoes Star Wars - which worked, because it was an epic. Indiana Jones is not an epic, and ending it at 3 or 5 is much more poetic and conclusive.

Also, Harrison's career is all but in the toilet. He needs an Indy V desperately.
Ajax the Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2010, 05:53 PM   #61
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajax the Great
Contemporary is all relative though. The OT was released approximately 50 years after the era it represented. Raiders took place 45 years before it was released, TOD took place 49 years before, LC took place 51 years, CS took place 51 years...it only makes sense that an Indy 5 would take place in the early 1960s. I think the only reason for our contention about the 60s is that we have a stronger bond with the 60s than we do with the 30s, because the 60s has such a notorious connotation.


History is relative... and the way we perceive it does change. This is largely due to the notion that history is a reflection of our technological and cultural reference points.

The postmodern fetish for replicating all things 60's, 70's and 80's means that those decades (in terms of design/fashion) have become, for want of a better word, homogenized. For example, it's possible to watch From Russia With Love and still have a sense of it being a contemporary movie. However, sitting down to watch Casablanca, it's hard to believe only circa 15 years separate both movies. Same is true for music e.g. Any given Beatles record is much more comparable to the popular music of today than Cole Porter was to the popular music of the 1960’s. Due to this homogenization factor, and the leap in technological advancements, I'd imagine that an Indy movie set in the 1960's/70's would feel a lot less like a period movie to a kid today than Raiders did to me when I was a kid.

Hope that makes sense…
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2010, 07:30 PM   #62
Insomniac
IndyFan
 
Insomniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In another dimension
Posts: 792
In my opinion you can't pull of an Indy film after JFK's death!
Insomniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2010, 08:09 PM   #63
Indy's brother
IndyFan
 
Indy's brother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In the Map Room playing with a laser pointer
Posts: 3,029
Of course, my wavering hope is that the "end of the innocence"/"hippy-era" could be avoided with a quick trilogy...prequel to 4, and a 6th as a grand finale. Added bonus: KOTCS wouldn't seem like such an odd bookend. I honestly think I would like 4 better if it had a 5 & 6 to lean on, prequel or not.
Indy's brother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2010, 11:38 PM   #64
Ajax the Great
IndyFan
 
Ajax the Great's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 159
Another thought...the 60s signified the world's passage into darker and more mature times, can Indy survive there? Or is he best left to thrive in the more light spirited serial days? It all comes down to how much we can separate Indy from the genre.
Ajax the Great is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 05:44 PM   #65
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
I was thinking 1961 or 1962 might be good. Maybe even 1963--Before JFK is killed.
You're deep into the Doo Wop era then, and that'd be an interesting time to see Indy in.
The early '60s is WAY different than the late '60s (which to the popular culture's imagine IS the '60s. We always see the Hippie/Vietnam '60s in movies about that time period--Never the early Doo Wop '60s, when America was still innocent and a new era of class had seemed to have begun with JFK in the White House after the Gray Eisenhower '50s)

If you want to take a REALLY radical step, have it be set in 1968 or '69. The Moon Landing, Woodstock..and Altamont. An era where EVERYONE is confused, especially Indy. I mean in 1969, we didn't know which way we wanted to go, or where fate was taking us--You had Woodstock in one direction, the Moon landing in another, Altamont and Charles Manson in another. 1969 for Indy would be like a trip into another world in and of itself, and without relying on the typical late '60s cliches could be interesting.

Last edited by Raiders112390 : 11-17-2010 at 06:01 PM.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 02:38 AM   #66
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
If you want to take a REALLY radical step, have it be set in 1968 or '69. The Moon Landing...

Have Indy involved in uncovering the US plot to fake the moon landing...

I'm really not looking forward to Indy entering another decade, though that's probably where he'll be if they keep the movie years in step with the real passing of time.

The more modern he becomes, the less mysterious his world becomes. Knowing George he'll be engulfed by the culture and politics of the day, when all we really want to see is the spirit of adventure and mystery. I still say stick him in the wilderness, where culture has less bearing on him. In the wilderness anything is still possible, weird cults can exist undetected, and Indy can get away with wearing a gun on his hip without being arrested.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 08:37 PM   #67
Nurhachi1991
IndyFan
 
Nurhachi1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pankot Palace
Posts: 4,771
I wanna see Indy in Nam killing some Charlies

I could see Mutt flying a huey helicopter gunning down vietnamese GET SOME!!!!
Nurhachi1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 09:41 PM   #68
Gear
IndyFan
 
Gear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oregon, U.S.
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nurhachi1991

I could see Mutt flying a huey helicopter gunning down vietnamese GET SOME!!!!


Let's just hope he doesn't go full retard.
Gear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 11:38 PM   #69
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
Have Indy involved in uncovering the US plot to fake the moon landing...

I'm really not looking forward to Indy entering another decade, though that's probably where he'll be if they keep the movie years in step with the real passing of time.

The more modern he becomes, the less mysterious his world becomes.

I agree completely. The '50s is as far as I want Indy to go.
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2011, 11:50 PM   #70
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Bump. I say set it between 1961-1963. I want Indy to go into the Kennedy '60s.
1963 is as far as Indy should go, of course. The JFK years were in essence culturally just a classier and more elegant extension of the '50s. Not too much different. 1961 was very, very much removed from post 1965 America. It's still an era where Indy isn't an anachronism. These are the Mad Men years. Indy still fits. Actually, the early '60s are more akin to the '30s than the '50s. The '50s were gray, dry, boring--The Ike years. The '30s and early '60s had FDR and JFK--glamorous eras. Women in pillbox hats and gloves, Doo Wop instead of Rock, Kennedy instead of old, gray Eisenhower.

And men still wore hats. This is picture of Opening Day, April 1961 (baseball). Note all the hats, including the fedora on President Kennedy's head. And he didn't wear fedoras often. Fedoras was still very much in fashion in 1961:


If Indy can exist in 1957, well into the Brando/Rock N' Roll/Greaser/beatnik era, than I don't see why he can't be around in the Kennedy years.

I'd prefer if we had two more movies; One set in 1961, and the last set in 1962 or 1963. Having a new trilogy of "Older Indy" would really make KOTCS feel less like the odd man out.

Then you could have three series--The 1910s to 1920s Young Indy; the 1930s Indy in his Prime, and the 1950s/60s Older Indy.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 12:55 AM   #71
InexorableTash
IndyFan
 
InexorableTash's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 721
Personally, I'd like to see one more film with Ford. Last Crusade as the, er, last.... crusade... would have let Indy go out with style, but then KOTCS happened. I'm fine with that, but it isn't a finale. It rather explicitly shows that Indy isn't ready to ride off into the, er, sunset.

As has been mentioned, the world has changed by the 60s, and saving the world from the forces of evil falls to the likes of Bond. I'd like to see that acknowledged head-on, with Indy rather explicitly getting out of the game in something that bridges the genres. (In the back of my head there are nebulous thoughts of a von Braun-esque German rocket scientist in the pay of some megalomaniac, trying to launch a satellite with an orichalcum-mirrored Archimedian death ray mirror...)

In my dream world, this is followed by a hiatus (during which the whole entertainment industry implodes due to the lack of quality and interest by the public who can watch indie films produced on shoestring budgets and SFX done on laptops that outdo big budget Hollywood schlock in every conceivable metric - but I digress). Then a renaissance in film-making allows for a handful of attempts at producing Indy's early (1920s) and later (19402) adventures as true bite-sized adventure serials for the YouTube generation, with a variety of actors.
InexorableTash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2011, 12:50 AM   #72
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Why not the '60s?

If we can accept Indy still being a force in the 1950s, even at the end of the '50s, and we can accept him facing off against the Soviets (America's enemy from 1945-1991), why do some have such a problem with Indy crossing the barrier from the 1950s to the 1960s? It's not like we're talking about a jump to 1968--That's a time utterly removed from the era of Indy. We've already brought Indy into the Atomic, Rock N' Roll, Greaser era. Why shouldn't he go forward into the Doo Wop, Malt Shop era?

1960, 1961, 1962, 1963--That's still the era of the man with the hat, even if it was beginning to die slowly. That's still an era in which a man like Indy isn't an anachronism. An older man? Sure. But so is Harrison. 1960-1963 or so is still the era of polite society, of the old values. The 60s can be easily divided into two eras--The Kennedy/early LBJ years, which were culturally just an extension of the 1950s, and the Beatle era, beginning in 1964. The "Hippie '60s" didn't truly begin until sometime between 1965-1966. Even in 1964, the Beatles were still considered a silly fad (Look at James Bond's comment about listening to the Beatles without earmuffs in 1964's Goldfinger. Even Bond wasn't out of date yet). Look at shows like Mad Men, set in the early-mid 60s; Men still wear hats, dress dressy, etc. I think the early-mid 1960s is still an "Indy friendly" era.

I mean if we view the series in whole, we've seen Indy in the 1900s, the 1910s, the 1920s, the 1930s, and the 1950s. This isn't a character really limited to one era or milieu. Now, I don't believe an Indy adventure should be set any later than 1965 and CERTAINLY not into the 70s--But the early/mid 60s is still believable, still a time when Indy wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb and look foolish.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2011, 01:31 AM   #73
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Why not the '60s?

Because the character is losing his relevance.

The further he exceeds the bounds of his concept as a death-defying pulp hero, the further he relegates himself to the position of a has-been living out his fantasies through a younger newcomer. He becomes Anthony Hopkin's aging Zorro teaching the apprentice Antonio Banderas.

Why do we need to watch an idol humiliate themselves in a constant battle to prove how young they feel?

Now, if Lucas and Spielberg are going to be sensible about it, and make a cult movie rather than a popular one, then Indy could be seen as relevant in the way old criminal masterminds are relevant in the face of strapping young heroes. But this isn't what the masses will expect from an Indy movie. They'll expect big stunts, and not the twists and turns of an engaging storyline.

Indy is a mythical figure, and the older he becomes the more like Oxley he'll forced to be - and the dull Oxley was the antithesis of 1930s action hungry Indy.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2011, 01:51 AM   #74
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,436
(Threads merged, largely because I think this is a great topic, and there's been good stuff said on it previously.)

I sometimes feel a little hackneyed saying it, because it's the sort of thing that is really just received wisdom for me, from history and Mad Men and so forth, but November '63, with the Kennedy assassination, does seem to be about as far into time as the Indy films could go. On the other hand, between the suspicious FBI in Crystal Skull and the shady bureaucrats in Raiders, anything involving either Cuba or assassination conspiracy theories isn't actually all that far afield.

Maybe Indy can, like Don Draper, go to Disneyland. By the end of the day he'll be wondering if they'd let him stick around. Adventureland seems like a nice spot, albeit safer than he's used to...
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2011, 08:13 AM   #75
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
...this isn't what the masses will expect from an Indy movie. They'll expect big stunts, and not the twists and turns of an engaging storyline.
Watching Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace again, I'm struck by how entertaining a well constructed action/stunt film can be.

I don't expect as frenetic a footrace but I know there's tallent out there that COULD deliver a great Indy film.

The decade makes ZERO difference. Raiders and the original trilogy were not constrained by much in the way of period pieces. There are still many locales that exist which still function in ways that haven't changed in a thousand years.

I don't need nor do I want another Indy film where the adventure takes a back seat to an extended meditation on geopolitics. Crystal Skull has set the stage, now lets have a film which focuses on the journey.

Lets see the batteries in Indy's flashlight corrode with saltwater as he goes back to what works...

Screw the 60's...it should exist solely as a touchstone for action and not a vehicle for the story.
Rocket Surgeon 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 12:09 PM.