1960s?

Darth Vile

New member
Ajax the Great said:
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… :)
 

Indy's brother

New member
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.
 

Ajax the Great

New member
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.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
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:

Montana Smith

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
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... :p

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.
 

Nurhachi1991

Well-known member
I wanna see Indy in Nam killing some Charlies :D

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

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Have Indy involved in uncovering the US plot to fake the moon landing... :p

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.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
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:
nsapnl7lextr.jpg


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.
 

InexorableTash

Active member
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.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
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.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
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.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
(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 <I>Mad Men</I> 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...
 
Montana Smith said:
...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.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
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.

The '60s means Indy is also '60s. But it's worse than that. Harry will be 70s. It puts a chain on the high action formula. You could mask his inactivity with a lot of action happening around him, or he could be an invulnerable super-hero, so we don't have to worry about broken bones.

I would be all for Indy picking up the flashlight and heading into some creepy adventure, where you don't know what's coming next. But not to have him at the mercy of a decade where he's a fish out of water. The '50s of KOTCS should have been a backdrop, and not an extra character. Just as the '30s were the backdrop for his three classic adventures.

Not only that, but the '30s were far more appealing. Pushing forward with Harrison is in danger of wringing the character dry in a hopeless cause, while there are still great stories to be told of the younger man, one day, when the time is right, and when there's the perfect actor ready and waiting.

The desperate need to have one more Indy movie with Harrison, before it's too late, is not a valid reason to make Indy V.
 
Montana Smith said:
Not only that, but the '30s were far more appealing. Pushing forward with Harrison is in danger of wringing the character dry in a hopeless cause...
There's always that danger...we're living our own psuedo adventure in that respect. The 30's were, indeed Golden, but I know Indy can be done justice, still. I also know how improbable it is...which is all the more a shame.

Montana Smith said:
The desperate need to have one more Indy movie with Harrison, before it's too late, is not a valid reason to make Indy V.
What IS a valid reason? Really? If you have or can see none that's fine. I see the need for redemption, I see the desire for a last hurrah...
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
What IS a valid reason? Really? If you have or can see none that's fine. I see the need for redemption, I see the desire for a last hurrah...

The story can be the only valid reason. They had plenty of time since TLC to work on what became KOTCS.

Now Spielberg and Ford (and the wannabe Shia) want to push Lucas for one more, and he seems to be dragging his feet. Either he sees the problems ahead (which will be even more compounded than in KOTCS), or he just doesn't have the desire or the inclination.

I don't see the point of what would be one last rushed Indy movie, just to have some more Harrison screen time. It won't be classic. Just a sad end.

They should have milked the holy cow more between 1989 and 2008. They'll be hard pressed to find much milk left in her. What we wish for might end up being a load more bull.




EDIT: On second thoughts, to hell with Indy's legacy. Another film might give us more classic action figures!
 
Last edited:

Raiders90

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
I see the need for redemption, I see the desire for a last hurrah...

Same. I want them to finish off Indy with a movie on par with the original three, a movie which truly showcases Indy being a relic in his own time. It'd basically be Robin & Marion meets Mask of Zorro meets The Gunfighter. If Indy's going out, I don't want a "And they got married and lived happily ever after" ending. No. I want Indy to go out with a boom, not a whimper. To me, KOTCS ended on a whimper and the ending was pure fanservice to a portion of the fanbase. Sure he puts his hat on his head, reclaiming it...But he's married. He's now doomed to a boring rest of his life being married and an associate Dean. That's going out with a whimper. That's like putting a lion in a zoo; It's not the place he belongs. Indy's life is the field and adventuring. Surely he'd get bored. I don't see what's wrong with having him take the role of aging hero like Anthony Hopkins did in Mask of Zorro. Hopkins still had plenty of action scenes and was still a badass.

I picture some young kid pulling Indy out of retirement in search of an artifact, maybe the kid's heard of Indy's reputation and seemingly envisions himself like Indy--the legend. Indy at first seems reluctant but inside knows he's dying a slow death with marriage and fatherhood and teaching. It just isn't who he is. Marion maybe urges him not to go and it puts some sort of wedge between them and she doesn't show up again until later, having followed his trail. Mutt's away at college. Indy wants to show this young kid that he's still got it. That he isn't some irrelevant artifact himself. But there's a twist. Bad guys are looking for this same mystical artifact. It's got to be really shrouded in mystery, something EPIC. Something religious. The bad guys could be the Soviets again, or could be the last remaining Nazis attempting to revive the Third Reich, or a group like James Bond's SPECTRE--Except this group wants this mystical artifact to give them power. Maybe the government is involved somehow and part of Indy's going off on this adventure is the government asks him to--One last favor on his part and this young kid is assigned to work with him.

But the twist is somewhere along the line the kid doesn't respect Indy anymore and thinks he's better than Indy, or he's been working for the enemy all along and using Indy to lead them to the artifact...And he seemingly mortally wounds Indy. Maybe shooting him. Ondy, though mortally wounded, is able to finish off his enemies (except the kid) in a clever, believable way, protect the world. Maybe his death isn't made clear but he disappears into the mists. He doesn't necessarily have to die on screen; he could be seemingly mortally wounded and disappear--a legend, his true fate unknown.

Or, maybe as he's dying, the kid takes Indy's hat--Think of the film The Gunfighter--and either runs off to his own fate, or is killed by Marion at the last minute, who's been following Indy's trail all along, worried about him. He could die in Marion's arms, getting killed doing what he loves.

Think of films like the Mask of Zorro, Gunfighter, Robin & Marion, Carlito's Way, in terms of storyline of an aging/retired hero or expert in his field.

In terms of the tone, think of a Hitchcock film, or a dark, bleak sort of tone like The Misfits (Clark Gable's last film before he died, released in 1961. He died due just after the film finished due to a heart attack after performing all his own stunts out of boredom), or, an eerie, dark Twilight Zone-esque tone.
No more cheeseball antics like LC and KOTCS.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
Same. I want them to finish off Indy with a movie on par with the original three, a movie which truly showcases Indy being a relic in his own time. It'd basically be Robin & Marion meets Mask of Zorro meets The Gunfighter. If Indy's going out, I don't want a "And they got married and lived happily ever after" ending. No. I want Indy to go out with a boom, not a whimper. To me, KOTCS ended on a whimper and the ending was pure fanservice to a portion of the fanbase. Sure he puts his hat on his head, reclaiming it...But he's married. He's now doomed to a boring rest of his life being married and an associate Dean. That's going out with a whimper. That's like putting a lion in a zoo; It's not the place he belongs. Indy's life is the field and adventuring. Surely he'd get bored. I don't see what's wrong with having him take the role of aging hero like Anthony Hopkins did in Mask of Zorro. Hopkins still had plenty of action scenes and was still a badass.

KOTCS was very much the wrong choice of storyline/movie. If it had been intended to film Indy V on the back of it, then the situation could have been saved.

Raiders112390 said:
I picture some young kid pulling Indy out of retirement in search of an artifact, maybe the kid's heard of Indy's reputation and seemingly envisions himself like Indy--the legend.

The problem here will be that the kid will certainly be Mutt. It would be awkward creating a new 'kid' to fill that role after previously introducing his son. And with Mutt comes again the issue of the heir to the hat.

If Indy V focuses on youth/age/death, then Mutt or Marion will feature. KOTCS has written them into this corner.

Raiders112390 said:
In terms of the tone, think of a Hitchcock film, or a dark, bleak sort of tone like The Misfits (Clark Gable's last film before he died, released in 1961. He died due just after the film finished due to a heart attack after performing all his own stunts out of boredom), or, an eerie, dark Twilight Zone-esque tone.
No more cheeseball antics like LC and KOTCS.

That would be the tone to follow if the film hoped to redeem a more mature Indy, as well as working on the redemption required for KOTCS. Yet, in terms of Indiana Jones that would equate to a cult movie, rather than a mass market one. It wouldn't be made.

The prosepct of what's more likely to be made is of the "cheeseball" variety. Something tame and un-controversial in which Indy mentors Mutt in the ways of aggressive archaeology. It would be just as dull as The Mask of Zorro (apart from that scene with Catherine Zeta-Jones...)
 
Top