If Indy 5 was set in the modern day...
- Thread starter hunter79
- Start date
Gear
New member
If Indy 5 were set today, a the plot would involve the New World Order and our main villain would be a wealthy, powerful industrialist backed by bankers with a private security firm at his (or her...) disposal.
Maybe they seek a MacGuffen with the capabilities to easily wipe out 95% of the population.
It would be short, because it wouldn't get produced.
Maybe they seek a MacGuffen with the capabilities to easily wipe out 95% of the population.
It would be short, because it wouldn't get produced.
Hanselation
New member
hunter79 said:
That couldn't be an Indiana Jones-movie in my mind, but maybe an powerfull modern adventure-movie where the main character may have the same name. The Indy character is not as easy to transform in modern times like James Bond.
WilliamBoyd8
Active member
In 2014 Indiana Jones would be 115 years old.
Old Indy Returns!
Old Indy Returns!
Montana Smith
Active member
Modern Indy in the imagination of the idealist:
Modern Indy in the imagination of the realist:
Indy works because he belongs in the past. Preferably pre-war or wartime.
Put him in the present and his old skills are going to count for less when faced with such hindrances as high-tech gadgetry and an overly complicated world.
He's a complicated character for simpler times. Put him in the present and the cracks are going to show - which is possibly what Lucas was showing when he made Eyepatch Indy an unfortunate old duffer in Young Indy: a man reduced to entertaining children with crazy accounts of his presumed past.
If the bad guys are determined collectors of artifacts then they could still be from any nationality without offending that nationality. As long as there are enough fellow-countrymen/women displayed in positive roles.
So far in the series the villains have been American, Austrian, Chinese, French, German, Indian, Nepalese, and Russian. As far as I remember only the Indians and Russians have shown dissent.
The safe bet would be American or European.
Modern Indy in the imagination of the realist:
hunter79 said:
Indy works because he belongs in the past. Preferably pre-war or wartime.
Put him in the present and his old skills are going to count for less when faced with such hindrances as high-tech gadgetry and an overly complicated world.
He's a complicated character for simpler times. Put him in the present and the cracks are going to show - which is possibly what Lucas was showing when he made Eyepatch Indy an unfortunate old duffer in Young Indy: a man reduced to entertaining children with crazy accounts of his presumed past.
hunter79 said:
If the bad guys are determined collectors of artifacts then they could still be from any nationality without offending that nationality. As long as there are enough fellow-countrymen/women displayed in positive roles.
So far in the series the villains have been American, Austrian, Chinese, French, German, Indian, Nepalese, and Russian. As far as I remember only the Indians and Russians have shown dissent.
The safe bet would be American or European.
Yeah I definitely agree with why modern Indy 5 would be a terrible idea. It was more so just a what if based mainly on the fact that the idea that it's just hard to beat the nazis when it comes to having a good bad guy.
For an Indy type movie you can't really touch on Muslim Terrorists, or North Korea, etc. Too current and touchy. So it's almost like your only option would be a cult of some sort. Of course a lot of those have been used in Tomb Raider, National Treasure, Assassins Creed, etc.
An Indy type movie is definitely better suited for the past, which is why I was curious about how they'd even handle something like that if it was set in present day.
For an Indy type movie you can't really touch on Muslim Terrorists, or North Korea, etc. Too current and touchy. So it's almost like your only option would be a cult of some sort. Of course a lot of those have been used in Tomb Raider, National Treasure, Assassins Creed, etc.
An Indy type movie is definitely better suited for the past, which is why I was curious about how they'd even handle something like that if it was set in present day.
It's an interesting idea and it wouldn't be the first time people have tried to bring a character originally created for specific time period into the 21st century. The most recent example I can think of is the BBC series Sherlock.
Archaeology is still a hot subject in today's world. Thanks to the History channel, National Geographic channel and others, some Archaeologists are almost celebrities. It would be intriguing to imagine Indiana Jones in a world with all the modern technology available to those of his profession.
I've always looked at Sam Neill's Alan Grant character in Jurassic Park as a good indicator on how Spielberg would view Indiana Jones in today's world of gadgets of technology. Grant was a renowned palaeontologist who loved his job and preferred to do everything old school and had concerns about how new computer technology would affect the field of palaeontology. I could see them trying the fish out of water approach for Indy but I'm not sure it will work as well
A big part of Indiana Jones is that he is a product of the old serials and Saturday morning matinees of the 1930's. Putting him in the 21st would in my opinion require a huge makeover in how he looks and acts and I prefer Indy where he is.
Archaeology is still a hot subject in today's world. Thanks to the History channel, National Geographic channel and others, some Archaeologists are almost celebrities. It would be intriguing to imagine Indiana Jones in a world with all the modern technology available to those of his profession.
I've always looked at Sam Neill's Alan Grant character in Jurassic Park as a good indicator on how Spielberg would view Indiana Jones in today's world of gadgets of technology. Grant was a renowned palaeontologist who loved his job and preferred to do everything old school and had concerns about how new computer technology would affect the field of palaeontology. I could see them trying the fish out of water approach for Indy but I'm not sure it will work as well
A big part of Indiana Jones is that he is a product of the old serials and Saturday morning matinees of the 1930's. Putting him in the 21st would in my opinion require a huge makeover in how he looks and acts and I prefer Indy where he is.
nopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenope.
It's not like thise wouldn't make sense, considering that he drank from the Holy Grail. But we've seen this and it's called National Treasure.
Plus, what enemy is he going to have? Terrorists? Canadians? Putin? The whales?
It's not like thise wouldn't make sense, considering that he drank from the Holy Grail. But we've seen this and it's called National Treasure.
Plus, what enemy is he going to have? Terrorists? Canadians? Putin? The whales?
Gear said:
I'm iffy on time travel. It's too science fiction. Besides the fact that I feel time travel is an impossibility. If it were possible, where are all the time travellers amongst us? I don't think time exists in the way time travel hypotheses would like it to.
He just has to go after another religious object that has inexplicable powers and get it before the baddies do.
BTW, there is nothing artistic in the NWO or in big banking. Maybe artistic license, like 'creative accountancy'...
kongisking
Active member
Mickiana said:
I disagree that time travel is a strictly sci-fi concept. Lots of stories utilize a supernatural means of travel. It just is so well-known for being in science fiction. That doesn't rule out a more imaginative, paranormal way to do it. And besides, you feel time travel is impossible? Well...not to be a smartass, but these movies are packed to the gills with bull****. Why should magic boxes that melt faces, healing rocks, cups that make you young, and psychic skulls be allowed, but not another famous speculative genre convention?
I personally think the Indy series has a lot more potential than folks give it credit for. So many fans think it absolutely has to stick to certain rigid requirements to work, and I see the appeal of "if it aint broke don't fix it", but you then run the risk of losing the balls to experiment. KOTCS was a weird mixture of wanting-to-try-something-new AND not-messing-with-formula. So it resulted in a disjointed movie that couldn't really commit to either one.
I think if people were more willing to let Indiana Jones try new, more off-the-wall ideas, the series would benefit from it. I don't agree that Indy has less potential for endless stories like Star Wars. You just have to dare to experiment. Star Wars does it all the time, but for some reason Indy's not allowed? Ludicrous.
My biggest evidence for the wisdom of my argument?
Montana Smith
Active member
kongisking said:
A supernatural object, by its nature, is beyond the laws of science as understood by man. So I wouldn't have a problem with time travel, or some kind of fractured reality situation, since this could be in keeping with the fantasy elements that Indy has become familiar with.
kongisking said:
People had problems with aliens in KOTCS. My only problem with them is that they weren't the kind that fitted with the 1950s theme, but too obviously pertaining to the later popular concept of 'ancient aliens'.
If Indy was set in the modern day then the aliens of KOTCS would have been more relevant and part of popular consciousness.
However, the creatures were described as 'Interdimensional' beings, implying that they derived from a supernatural plane rather than another planet. This is a precedent on the big screen for all manner of strange creatures from myth and legend.
kongisking said:
You wouldn't want Indy to go full Jar Jar Binks would you?
There are paths that Indy could take that work in comic books, but wouldn't go down well on film. Just how far would you take him from his source?
The original question is what would a modern day Indy film be like?
There's no reason there couldn't be a film set in 2014 with a man in a leather jacket and fedora calling himself Indiana Jones. Get him into a remote place and he can be carrying his gun in a holster and encountering strange adventures. Yet, put him back in civilization and he becomes more irrelevant and somewhat anachronistic.
Unless of course he's a modern man. In which case he's no longer the same character, and essentially not Indiana Jones. Therefore the only reason to call it an 'Indiana Jones' film is so that it will attract a larger audience than a film with 'Jack Hunter' in the title.
Gear said:With all due respect, I think you missed my point.
I meant something along the lines of..
I did get what you said, I think. I wanted to reply to your general question about what would blow Indy's mind in terms of something really new with something very conspiratorial (examples from the real world) but was hesitant about opening up a Pandora's Box. Considering what is going on in the world today, there is plenty for Indy to fight against, but it would shift him away from the supernatural to the conspiratorial, which is not his arena so much.
RE Kong: I'm still against the time machine idea. It's too science fiction and implausible. I know, I know, the Ark, the Sankara stones and Jesus' chalice are implausible too but they stay within implausibility properly. They suit his world. Not the aliens from CS. They are with time travel in this case. They are suitable for elsewhere.