I would be interested to see the fifth Indy movie divulge how Indiana Jones lost one of his eyes....but that brings up the question again- are the "Old Indy" scenes of "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" still considered canon? (And if so, are he and Marion having a daughter any time soon?) Personally, I still like to think of them as canon, but they seem to have been excised by George Lucas.......yet, TYIJC was referenced in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", with Indy's line about riding with Pancho Villa.......
So it seems the show is canon- but maybe not the Old Indy scenes?
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by temple_runner
Maybe we'll see Indy lose an eye in this movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Raider
Actually that would be a great idea. I'm sure a lot of us want to know what happened to his eye. Maybe they'll reveal it in the movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indyfan82
I would be interested to see the fifth Indy movie divulge how Indiana Jones lost one of his eyes....but that brings up the question again- are the "Old Indy" scenes of "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" still considered canon? (And if so, are he and Marion having a daughter any time soon?) Personally, I still like to think of them as canon, but they seem to have been excised by George Lucas.......yet, TYIJC was referenced in "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", with Indy's line about riding with Pancho Villa.......
So it seems the show is canon- but maybe not the Old Indy scenes?
As for the year of Indy 5? No later than '65. (Preferably, 1962.)
Why do you prefer '62?
My preference personally would be anywhere from 1959-1961...I cut it off at '61 because '62 is the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis; In America, at least, this is culturally one of the first defining events of the '60s. Pop culture didn't really change much roughly between '57 and '63, which is why 1960-1963 is sort of a forgotten time; It was basically a continuation of the '50s. I mean, I am open to anything up to 1965...But I'd prefer no later than 1961.
I have to admit, it will feel weird seeing, say "Egypt, 1961" at the start of the next movie. I have always wanted to see Indy in the early '60s, but I will admit it will feel different. The '50s are an easier sell because they're a less modern period, a more pulpy time (it being the era when quite a few of the films which inspired Indy came out). The '60s start to take us into modern history...Anything in and after 1965 is to me modern history.
Why do you prefer '62?
My preference personally would be anywhere from 1959-1961...I cut it off at '61 because '62 is the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis; In America, at least, this is culturally one of the first defining events of the '60s. Pop culture didn't really change much roughly between '57 and '63, which is why 1960-1963 is sort of a forgotten time; It was basically a continuation of the '50s. I mean, I am open to anything up to 1965...But I'd prefer no later than 1961.
I have to admit, it will feel weird seeing, say "Egypt, 1961" at the start of the next movie. I have always wanted to see Indy in the early '60s, but I will admit it will feel different. The '50s are an easier sell because they're a less modern period, a more pulpy time (it being the era when quite a few of the films which inspired Indy came out). The '60s start to take us into modern history...Anything in and after 1965 is to me modern history.
You know, I'll have to agree with you on just about everything you said.
I vote that the film be split between 1964 and sometime between 1921 and 1923. Have Indy's quest in the present be connected in someway with an adventure of his past - Perhaps Indy in "the present" finally brings an adventure from his past to a proper conclusion.
I vote for 1964 as it is still in the pre-Vietnam and pre-Hippie era, and Indy would only be aged 65 - in-universe, not all that old, still able to credibly to engage in action; yet it is far enough from 1957 to account for Harrison's aging since 2008. Mutt need not cameo - after all, (retroactively), Short Round wasn't in Raiders or Last Crusade and we were never given an explanation for his absence in the films.
The younger segment I'd set somewhere between 1921 and 1923 as it would be post the YIJC, thus allowing for that series to still exist in continuity, while laying the groundwork for a new post-Harrison series that explores an unexplored (at least on-screen) era of his career.
What about you?
Well they have announced that the story will follow KOTCS so I'm assuming it will be set in the early 60's. I think what they mean is that it will have the same antagonist (like with Raiders and Last Crusade with the Nazi's) so they will have the Soviets as the main villain. I think that they should stick with the 60's because if they go back to the 20's and 30's then they will need to have an actor who is basically Ford's twin. Raiders took place in 1935 so if they do the 1920's he's still going to look pretty much the same as he's only going to be about 10 years younger. Plus you'd have the issue of the Bantam novels which are canon to the series and the Bantam novels take place from 1923-1935 at the start of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I personally think this adventure will be set in the 60's with Vietnam as the backdrop.
Location: The Host City of the 2018 Commonwealth Games, Australia
Posts: 3,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyWhipCracker
Well they have announced that the story will follow KOTCS so I'm assuming it will be set in the early 60's. I think what they mean is that it will have the same antagonist (like with Raiders and Last Crusade with the Nazi's) so they will have the Soviets as the main villain. I think that they should stick with the 60's because if they go back to the 20's and 30's then they will need to have an actor who is basically Ford's twin. Raiders took place in 1935 so if they do the 1920's he's still going to look pretty much the same as he's only going to be about 10 years younger. Plus you'd have the issue of the Bantam novels which are canon to the series and the Bantam novels take place from 1923-1935 at the start of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I personally think this adventure will be set in the 60's with Vietnam as the backdrop.
I kinda doubt the books being canon would be an issue- mainly coz I could say the same before TFA for the Star Wars EU. And the quantity of fans who've read the Indy EU are certainly far outnumbered by those who read the original SW EU and Disney/Lucasfilm had no problem with dismissing all that for TFA. As it's been said a few times in threads- Disney builds worlds- it's reasonable to expect younger Indy movies and perhaps even animated series post Indy 5.
Does the new Indy need to be a Ford twin? Not necessarily. Have similarities yes but twinning not really. I mean River Phoenix and Sean Patrick Flanery are hardly twins but still had similar looks and played the part at those respective ages well.
I do agree early 60s and Soviets- seems logical. Vietnam I'm not keen on as a location personally but if it makes for a good story and fits the Indy framework then so be it.
I kinda doubt the books being canon would be an issue- mainly coz I could say the same before TFA for the Star Wars EU. And the quantity of fans who've read the Indy EU are certainly far outnumbered by those who read the original SW EU and Disney/Lucasfilm had no problem with dismissing all that for TFA. As it's been said a few times in threads- Disney builds worlds- it's reasonable to expect younger Indy movies and perhaps even animated series post Indy 5.
Does the new Indy need to be a Ford twin? Not necessarily. Have similarities yes but twinning not really. I mean River Phoenix and Sean Patrick Flanery are hardly twins but still had similar looks and played the part at those respective ages well.
I do agree early 60s and Soviets- seems logical. Vietnam I'm not keen on as a location personally but if it makes for a good story and fits the Indy framework then so be it.
I think you're right, while Indy 5 will probably be Ford's farewell, it's unlikely to be the last Indy film we see. I wouldn't be at all surprised by a pre-Raiders flashback to introduce new guy, followed by Indy 6 set between 1930 and 1935. Obviously some fans will hate someone other than Ford playing Indy, others will accept the idea, but I'm sure we'll all go and see it.
Set the film in 1954. A prequel to Kingdom would solve most of the problems.
With a little makeup and/or a beard, Harrison will look absolutely no different from how he looked in 2008.
The man is still in great shape.
Then I'd personally really love to have a prologue scene (even the entire first half of the film if you ask me) set in the '30s or '40s, with him digitally de-aged for the task.
The technology is there. By 2019 it will also have been improved and cost less. USE IT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiana
No mystique, except in the official narrative. I can see Indy listening to JFK's famous speech appealing to the press to uncover the monumental conspiracy he describes and who could disagree with his appeal?
There are major government departments involved, the Illuminati, the Mob, current power brokers in the background, heck, even Woody Harrelson's father was named as one of the shooters!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiana
I do agree. Indy doesn't get into conspiratorial political stuff too much. It sits on the outskirts perhaps of what he does. Solving the wily machinations of JFK's assassination probably wouldn't require too much adventuring anyway.
But then again, Indy became embroiled in Cold War politics and McCarthyism in CS in a big way. It came looking for him of course.
Location: The old colonel was right - but he never even got close...
Posts: 496
@The Stranger.
Re prequel: too bad Marshall already said that Indy 5 would be a continuation of KOTCS.
Re digitallly de-aging Ford: I used to find this idea ridiculous up until a while ago.
Now I think it's probably less ridiculous than having 75+ Harry wear the fedora for the entire movie.
Re prequel: too bad Marshall already said that Indy 5 would be a continuation of KOTCS.
Too bad he used the word "continuation" instead of the word "sequel"... because they don't necessarily mean the same thing at all.
Temple Of Doom was technically a "continuation" of Raiders Of The Lost Ark. Same actor, same director, same premise, same screenwriter and producer, same formula. They even referred to it as Raiders 2 for some time. But its story arc was set an year earlier and the movie was actually a prequel to the first one.
As of now, the statements of Marshall could mean literally anything.
Most certainly he used the term "continuation" just to indicate that the film will be the fifth installment in the original saga, keeping the vibe and the atmosphere of the last movie, instead of being the reboot with new cast and director that some people have been talking about in the last year or so.
If you ask me, I sincerely doubt that by now they have already started working on the script, and they may not even have a definitive story outline.
On a side note, I think that if they already had plans for an actual "sequel" to the fourth film, then they should have secured Karen Allen and Shia's involvement too, and made their comeback a big part of the first press release as well, 'cause given the way the last film ended, I don't see so many chances to not let Marion and Mutt be a part of the new one, if that was the case. But guess what?? No such announcement was made.
From what we know now, anything can happen. Even a prequel.
And that would be much much easier both to write, and to sell to new audiences. A win-win for everybody.
I might have read it here or on another forum where the idea of Indy in the sixties for the setting but adding flashbacks to adventures when he was younger. That way, the audience can be introduced to a replacement for Ford (younger Ford) and have more Indy movies with the new actor but based in the past.
If not - they can reboot the franchise and introduce a new actor then. If they do that it will give them more flexibility to move the character to present time if they want.
Would be funny in the script if Indy somehow drinks from the fountain of youth or some other type of magic and the ending is the flashback actor being Indy in the movie present time-line.........
Spielberg has been pretty vocal, NO ONE else will play the character. I'd assume early 60's, maybe the space race plays a part? I think they're better off getting away from historical politics and stick with adventure, a la Temple of Doom.
Spielberg has been pretty vocal, NO ONE else will play the character. I'd assume early 60's, maybe the space race plays a part? I think they're better off getting away from historical politics and stick with adventure, a la Temple of Doom.
How do you explain Disney's plans to make more Indy films past 5 then?
Yeah Spielberg doesn't own the franchise, Disney do. And I've never heard him say no one else will play the character.. Don't forget three other actors already have played the character.
4 other actors, actually.
Corey Carrier, River Phoenix, Sean Patrick Flannery and George Hall.
To the point of the thread though, I'd prefer to see a fifth Indiana Jones movie set either in the very late '50s (1959- though by the time the movie gets made that will probably not be as believeable) or the early 1960s. I could see things tieing in to the space race, for sure. There's also the Cuban Missile Crisis going on and the Cold War and the Vietnam War in the mid-'60s.... And the civil rights movement with Martin Luther King, Jr. and JFK's assassination.... There is a lot of history in that time period that could definitely play a part in the movie, but I don't know how much they might want to get into any of those events.
And as I've said before, I'd prefer that Harrison Ford make one last Indiana Jones movie and be done. But as long as he's up for it, I'll happily go see other Indy movies starring him in the role. I don't particularly care to see a new young version of Indy, though I feel sure Disney will wind up doing that eventually. We'll see. I'll just look forward to the 5th. movie for now.
Only 8 minutes before in 
Instead of 3-D glasses at the cinemas, they could hand out foggy goggles.
