Indy V Settings: What locations are left?

Pick up to 3 locales you'd like to see in Indy V, not necessarily as a group


  • Total voters
    30

Stoo

Well-known member
Kai Hagen said:
The movie got away with that because it was released before the Information Age. And there were less history books available than there are now. And at that time, chances were that an average American wouldn't hear the opinion of someone from Egypt or the UK about that scene. I don't think a new movie would get away with those kinds of wrong historical depictions now. Look at how the Britons reacted to U-571 on the internet.
The "Information Age" has nothing to do with it. My friend's older brother (a WW2 buff) pointed out the error in "Raiders" back when the movie came out and he was only 16! None of us cared about the mistake and neither did anyone else I told.

Things like that are still being done today. Ex. Look at the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies, which have the British East India company in a part of the globe they never went to. It's doubtful that this inaccuracy is common knowledge nor a big concern for fans of the series.
IndyForever said:
Spielberg cannot film in China as he insulted them over the 2008 Olympics which meant KOTCS was never released there throwing away millions in box office!
They don't need to film in actual China when they can use somewhere else that resembles it (just as was done with the previous entries).
 

Kai Hagen

New member
Stoo said:
The "Information Age" has nothing to do with it. My friend's older brother (a WW2 buff) pointed out the error in "Raiders" back when the movie came out and he was only 16! None of us cared about the mistake and neither did anyone else I told.

Things like that are still being done today. Ex. Look at the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies, which have the British East India company in a part of the globe they never went to. It's doubtful that this inaccuracy is common knowledge nor a big concern for fans of the series.
Oh yes it does. Already, your post is here to inform those who don't know. This didn't happen before the Information Age. There's clearly a difference.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Kai Hagen said:
Oh yes it does. Already, your post is here to inform those who don't know. This didn't happen before the Information Age. There's clearly a difference.
The difference being that it?s on a computer screen 10 years after those movies came out? :confused: I was told about the ?Raiders? error an hour after seeing it opening weekend. That inaccuracy was also mentioned shortly afterwards in a magazine (?Starlog??) or perhaps even on ?Sneak Previews? with Siskel & Ebert, if I remember correctly. No need to ?hear the opinion of someone from Egypt or the UK? on the internet to find out the facts in 1981.

The Information Age hasn?t deterred historical inaccuracy in films. Since Indy 5 concerns both Spielberg & Disney, keep in mind that ?Pirates?, ?Lone Ranger? and ?War Horse? have fudged history and each of them were made during the Information Age so, yes, a new Indy movie could do it, too (and it SHOULD?because that?s the series? pattern).

Imagine someone at Disney/Lucasfilm objecting:
?No, no, no! We can?t put Chinese troops in Australia because everyone knows everything these days and Average Joe won?t accept it! Think about the internet backlash!?

The negative reaction to ?U-571? is justified (but a whole other ball game). Bad comparison.
 

Walecs

Active member
Are we seriously critizing a movie where Nazis are killed by ghosts coming out from the Ark of Covenant because it lacked historical accuracy?
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Walecs said:
Are we seriously critizing a movie where Nazis are killed by ghosts coming out from the Ark of Covenant because it lacked historical accuracy?
While I find the critique a bit silly as well, I still have to say that suspension of disbelief is actually not a uniform thing. It's not broken when a story veers from real life. It's broken when a story veers from its own internal logic and established rules.

In the world of Indiana Jones, it is firmly established that supernatural (or at least forces that could be perceived as supernatural) exists. Therefore no one bats an eye when supernatural elements appear.

However, it has NOT been established that the world of Indiana Jones takes place on a timeline that is alternate from our own. History is still largely following its course as we know it. Therefore somebody might take notice of the historical inaccuracies.

So one shouldn't suggest that because of the supernatural elements we should ignore the historical inaccuracies. It's very much a logical fallacy.

But that's not to say people complaining about the historical inaccuracies are in the right. Because it has not been established that the world of Indiana Jones aligns with our own timeline down to minute detail. The broad strokes are there, but the inaccuracies are so rife (and sometimes deliberate) that because of said fact, one should still be able to uphold the suspension.
 

Walecs

Active member
Finn said:
While I find the critique a bit silly as well, I still have to say that suspension of disbelief is actually not a uniform thing. It's not broken when a story veers from real life. It's broken when a story veers from its own internal logic and established rules.

In the world of Indiana Jones, it is firmly established that supernatural (or at least forces that could be perceived as supernatural) exists. Therefore no one bats an eye when supernatural elements appear.

However, it has NOT been established that the world of Indiana Jones takes place on a timeline that is alternate from our own. History is still largely following its course as we know it. Therefore somebody might take notice of the historical inaccuracies.

So one shouldn't suggest that because of the supernatural elements we should ignore the historical inaccuracies. It's very much a logical fallacy.

But that's not to say people complaining about the historical inaccuracies are in the right. Because it has not been established that the world of Indiana Jones aligns with our own timeline down to minute detail. The broad strokes are there, but the inaccuracies are so rife (and sometimes deliberate) that because of said fact, one should still be able to uphold the suspension.

I actually agree with this. :cool:
 

dr.jones1986

Active member
Stoo said:
The difference being that it’s on a computer screen 10 years after those movies came out? :confused: I was told about the “Raiders” error an hour after seeing it opening weekend. That inaccuracy was also mentioned shortly afterwards in a magazine (“Starlog”?) or perhaps even on “Sneak Previews” with Siskel & Ebert, if I remember correctly. No need to “hear the opinion of someone from Egypt or the UK” on the internet to find out the facts in 1981.

The Information Age hasn’t deterred historical inaccuracy in films. Since Indy 5 concerns both Spielberg & Disney, keep in mind that “Pirates”, “Lone Ranger” and “War Horse” have fudged history and each of them were made during the Information Age so, yes, a new Indy movie could do it, too (and it SHOULD…because that’s the series’ pattern).

Imagine someone at Disney/Lucasfilm objecting:
“No, no, no! We can’t put Chinese troops in Australia because everyone knows everything these days and Average Joe won’t accept it! Think about the internet backlash!”

The negative reaction to “U-571” is justified (but a whole other ball game). Bad comparison.

I think the real problem with China is not even so much filming there because as you say they can film it somewhere else. The problem is that using China as a setting would mean that it would only make sense to have the communist Chinese and Mao (offscreen most likely) as villains. In China they still consider Mao 70% right and would likely boycott anything critical of their nations history. Despite the fact an Indiana Jones movie set in the 60's or 70's would make sense to use China during the Cultural Revolution as a backdrop, I cannot see it happening from a business prospective. China is not only the most populous nation on earth but it is an increasingly important source of film revue for Hollywood studio's who are trying to appeal to the emerging Chinese middle class. Anything critical of the Chinese communist history would likely be barred from release in the PRC.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Walecs said:
Are we seriously critizing a movie where Nazis are killed by ghosts coming out from the Ark of Covenant because it lacked historical accuracy?
Hi, Walecs. None of us were criticizing the film for its inaccuracy (as I said in my other post, I don't care about it), we're just discussing the issue with regards to #5's possibility of shoehorning an enemy force into a time & place where it never was. It doesn't bother me because these are 'fantasy' movies, after all.

dr.jones1986 said:
I think the real problem with China is not even so much filming there because as you say they can film it somewhere else. The problem is that using China as a setting would mean that it would only make sense to have the communist Chinese and Mao (offscreen most likely) as villains.
They could avoid using the Chinese government as villains (in the same vein as "Doom"). There's a fitting scenario but I'll save it for one of the 'villain' threads.

dr.jones1986 said:
In China they still consider Mao 70% right and would likely boycott anything critical of their nations history. Despite the fact an Indiana Jones movie set in the 60's or 70's would make sense to use China during the Cultural Revolution as a backdrop, I cannot see it happening from a business prospective. China is not only the most populous nation on earth but it is an increasingly important source of film revue for Hollywood studio's who are trying to appeal to the emerging Chinese middle class. Anything critical of the Chinese communist history would likely be barred from release in the PRC.
Joe Brody mentioned the same thing earlier and it's a sad fact. Hollywood's pandering to the Chinese market is on the rise, however, it isn't solely confined to communist history. It's become offensive to show ANY Chinese bad guys in movies these days. :rolleyes: (Hello, James Bond.)

I don't expect China to appear but it's my desire; Indy in The Orient and to see some snow. With a Chinese location, both could be had at the same time and done without having its people as antagonists. Scratching the 'Indy vs. Commies' angle, a part could be set in a remote area with only the terrain/weather or a booby-trapped temple creating the situations. It could be a way of setting some scenes there without any objections. ("NO! This is still an insult to Chinese territory!")

Joe Brody said:
That's a total no go. Trust me, we won't see any 1960 vintage Art Weber's in Hong Kong sporting Her Majesty's livery.
Thanks for shooting down my hopes of a scene involving one of Cpt. Blumburtt's family relatives! :gun:
 

dr.jones1986

Active member
Of course it is an insult, how dare you even question Chinese control of Xinjiang or Tibet! Seriously, I think a remote setting in Western China somewhere, perhaps Tibet or somewhere along the old silk road would be a great Indian Jones location. It is unfortunate that the communists won't be used as the antagonists because of this. Based on the fact that Skull took place in 57, this movie would likely be set at least a decade later, in the late 60's during the height of the cultural revolution. The communists during the cultural revolution would make the perfect villains for an Indiana Jones movie. The Red Guards destroyed countless historical sites and relics because they felt they didn't conform to Mao's communist ideals. This would be very much keeping in line with the Nazis being used as anti-intellectual villains in the original films. Having Indy in China during the Mao era without communists would be tough to do because of the lack of westerners being allowed into that country at that time and having him sneak into China might also bother the Chinese censor boards.

Even using the Soviets again might create some tension. There were some Russians who were annoyed about this last time and the relationship between the US and Russia has deteriorated since then.
 

Kai Hagen

New member
dr.jones1986 said:
I think the real problem with China is not even so much filming there because as you say they can film it somewhere else. The problem is that using China as a setting would mean that it would only make sense to have the communist Chinese and Mao (offscreen most likely) as villains. In China they still consider Mao 70% right and would likely boycott anything critical of their nations history. Despite the fact an Indiana Jones movie set in the 60's or 70's would make sense to use China during the Cultural Revolution as a backdrop, I cannot see it happening from a business prospective. China is not only the most populous nation on earth but it is an increasingly important source of film revue for Hollywood studio's who are trying to appeal to the emerging Chinese middle class. Anything critical of the Chinese communist history would likely be barred from release in the PRC.
What if the movie jumped to the time of President Nixon in the 1970s? This was when he warmed up to China. The current face of Harrison Ford would certainly make Indy look right for that era.

Previously, I thought that the declining relationship between the US and China would take the Chinese market off the equation. Now I don't know. Trump changes his mind very often, and it seems like he is already changing his mind about China, but that could change again in the future.

If the movie goes back to before WWII, I'd like to see the German expedition to Tibet. The official objective could be a ruse to hide their real objective. It's an artifact that's so dangerous that Indy needs to prevent it from getting into the hands of the wrong people.
 
Last edited:

Kai Hagen

New member
Raiders112390 said:
Red China would make fine enemies in the 1960s. I believe the movie will avoid the late 1960s though.
I'd feel too sorry for them. They were starving due to the bad policies by their government. It would be good if Indy helps out the starving Chinese civilians.
 

seasider

Active member
IndyForever said:
Spielberg cannot film in China as he insulted them over the 2008 Olympics which meant KOTCS was never released there throwing away millions in box office!

Insult is a strong word and a little unfair in my opinion. He was initially involved with collaborating with Zhang Yimou in planning the opening and closing ceremonies of those Olympics but unfortunately had to give in to political pressure from liberal groups in the U.S who were critical of China's role in Darfur. And that was almost 10 years ago and as recently as 2013 he has expressed a desire to make a movie in China. Personally, I have a hard time seeing even China holding onto an old grudge against one of Hollywood's most recognized filmmakers but what do I know?

IndyForever said:
Spielberg mainly films nowadays in US or UK anything else is usually handled by 2nd unit so its highly unlikely he will change his stance now. I am still amazed he even agreed to Indy 5 after all this time the odds are stacked against it being even close to KOTCS production quality now Lucas is not bankrolling the movie with an unlimited budget & Disney are well known for slashing budgets even on Star Wars (why Rogue One had to get major reshoots). Its going to be a constant studio battle over budget to even get Indy5 onscreen so that rules out extensive location shooting.

Since 2008, Spielberg has done location shooting in parts of the UK and Europe and Canada and of course the U.S. While I don't see him returning to Tunisia or Sri Lanka anytime soon, I disagree that he's going to be against going on location himself but it will depend on what is being filmed. But just because he's reluctant to shoot in exotic locales doesn't mean he's going to resort to doing everything with soundstages, studio backlots and bluescreens. When he did Munich he was able to use Malta as a backdrop for Israel for example and Hawaii was used to double for Peru for KOTCS. I mean you're talking about a director who up until recently was still editing his movies using a moviola.

As far as budget, Lucas bankrolling the movies may have given Spielberg a lot of creative freedom but it was never a blank check situation. Lucas even admitted that he wanted to shoot outside of the U.S for KOTCS to save money but Spielberg preferred being close to home at the time. And Spielberg deals with studios all the time with movies and budgets unlike Lucas who prefers independence so I don't see how Disney would give him a really hard time unless the movie was approaching James Cameron budget levels.
 

Kai Hagen

New member
I'd like to see Indy go back to India as one of the locations. This time, I want to see impressive traditional architecture and authentic cuisine. And I'd like to see some Bollywood celebrities. To be honest, The Temple of Doom gave me a wrong impression on India when I was a kid. This was before the internet and there was a lack of info about India where I lived in. I want to see an Indy movie that would give more justice to Indian culture this time.
 

Don'tCallMeJr

New member
Indiana Jones 5 Vietnam setting + rough story idea

Due to the current drought of any news (as there will be for the next couple of years) I have been thinking about how the next Indiana Jones could work with its setting and story as well as continuity.

The one setting that I really like the sound of is the Vietnam War. Hear me out. The film could be set anywhere (at least with my ideas) between 1965 and 1975 (though I am fairly certain 1969 is as far forward in time as Spielberg and Koepp would set it) and would involve Indy hunting for a Buddhist relic of some kind in Vietnam and Cambodia. I was thinking that the Cintamani Jewel would be a good MacGuffin as it is Buddhist in origin and is supposedly located in the mystical city of Shambhala (I reckon Indy needs a good lost city as a final location after the slightly lacklustre El Dorado in KOTCS).

Now for the continuity and story. One of the major problems Indy 5 will have is how to deal with Mutt. I was thinking that he could have volunteered for the Vietnam War (which is very much in his rebellious character). While serving he is chosen for a special mission to investigate a supposed lost city (that is being used as a VC command centre) with his platoon. However en route to its supposed location his platoon is ambushed and all but three (him, a sergeant and another private) are killed. They are then taken prisoner by the Viet Cong and Mutt is handed over to the Soviets when his identity is discovered (through his dog tags).

The US government then approach Indy to find the lost city and the Cintamani Jewel (they didn't tell Mutt and his platoon about the city's significance) as they suspect the Soviets are trying to find and harness its power (maybe could create a kind of super-nuke? Sounds cheesy but could work) and the US must get there first. When Indy refuses, they tell him that his son is MIA in the same area after being sent on a recon patrol to find the city.

That's all I've got at the moment but I just wondered what you guys thought about it!
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Don'tCallMeJr said:
Now for the continuity and story. One of the major problems Indy 5 will have is how to deal with Mutt.

I'm still partial to not dealing with him at all. Set the adventure in the east, have Indy make some off-hand comment about him being at school, and presto, you're free to deal with characters people actually want to see.
 

Don'tCallMeJr

New member
Udvarnoky said:
I'm still partial to not dealing with him at all. Set the adventure in the east, have Indy make some off-hand comment about him being at school, and presto, you're free to deal with characters people actually want to see.

That's true and I would certainly be happy with this solution. However I believe that he should be in this movie as a motive for Indy to do what he does. He doesn't have to have a big role but I think done right he could become a more liked character - seeing him deal with the horrors of war and mature a lot could help with that. Maybe he could sacrifice himself for his father? Could certainly add some emotional weight but again only if it is done right. What you describe is certainly the safer, more viable and probably better option!
 

Paul Pauley

Active member
The Indian government still hasn't forgiven Spielberg for what they perceive as his racist, Westernised version of India and Hinduism in TOD.

I doubt a Indy film will be shot there.
 

The Lone Raider

Well-known member
Don'tCallMeJr said:
Due to the current drought of any news (as there will be for the next couple of years) I have been thinking about how the next Indiana Jones could work with its setting and story as well as continuity.

The one setting that I really like the sound of is the Vietnam War. Hear me out. The film could be set anywhere (at least with my ideas) between 1965 and 1975 (though I am fairly certain 1969 is as far forward in time as Spielberg and Koepp would set it) and would involve Indy hunting for a Buddhist relic of some kind in Vietnam and Cambodia. I was thinking that the Cintamani Jewel would be a good MacGuffin as it is Buddhist in origin and is supposedly located in the mystical city of Shambhala (I reckon Indy needs a good lost city as a final location after the slightly lacklustre El Dorado in KOTCS).

Now for the continuity and story. One of the major problems Indy 5 will have is how to deal with Mutt. I was thinking that he could have volunteered for the Vietnam War (which is very much in his rebellious character). While serving he is chosen for a special mission to investigate a supposed lost city (that is being used as a VC command centre) with his platoon. However en route to its supposed location his platoon is ambushed and all but three (him, a sergeant and another private) are killed. They are then taken prisoner by the Viet Cong and Mutt is handed over to the Soviets when his identity is discovered (through his dog tags).

The US government then approach Indy to find the lost city and the Cintamani Jewel (they didn't tell Mutt and his platoon about the city's significance) as they suspect the Soviets are trying to find and harness its power (maybe could create a kind of super-nuke? Sounds cheesy but could work) and the US must get there first. When Indy refuses, they tell him that his son is MIA in the same area after being sent on a recon patrol to find the city.

That's all I've got at the moment but I just wondered what you guys thought about it!
Haven't posted on this site in at least a year, probably more. But I've been reading some of the threads lately and honestly, I think this is my favorite idea for Indy V that anyone has proposed so far. Personally, I was hoping for a departure from wars and flags in the next movie, similar to what they executed in Temple of Doom; however, this...this right here really excites me. I'd love if they went in this direction.

It may not mean much to you, but I think it sounds like a great idea, especially in the case of a continuation of the Indy & Mutt arc. It sounds like it could work and work well.
 
Last edited:
Top