Indy 5 news 2018

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
:whip:
Stoo said:
Oh, Jesus H. Frickin' Christ.

Don't fret Stoo 1960's science is on our side:

April 15 – William C. Chardack implants the first fixed-rate cardiac pacemaker with mercury battery, designed by Wilson Greatbatch.
May 2 – The first coronary artery bypass surgery is performed by a team led by Dr. Robert Goetz and thoracic surgeon Dr. Michael Rohman with the assistance of Drs. Jordan Haller and Ronald Dee at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine-Bronx Municipal Hospital Center in the United States using internal mammary artery as the donor vessel; the patient survives for 9 months.
 

Randy_Flagg

Well-known member
I just hope Indy 6 takes place in 1981. The entire movie could be Indy watching Raiders Of The Lost Ark and making comments about it.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Stoo said:
Oh, Jesus H. Frickin' Christ.
Succinctly put.

But with Ford starring, it was inevitable.
At this stage the odds for a new low in the series, worse even than KOTCS, are getting shorter and shorter.

Happy to be proven wrong of course, but the confirmed 60s setting is further proof that there's no escaping the constraints imposed on the story by Ford's age - not that one was needed.

My only hope is that they take the opportunity to introduce a new actor in flashbacks for a decent portion of the movie.

It's either that, or a new sidekick for a good chunk of the action scenes.
And this now being under Disney's helm, there is a fair chance it'll be a Rey-like girl, as you already pointed out Stoo.

I never thought I'd say this, but ARE WE GOING TO MISS MUTT? :sick:
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
Succinctly put.

But with Ford starring, it was inevitable.
At this stage the odds for a new low in the series, worse even than KOTCS, are getting shorter and shorter.

Happy to be proven wrong of course, but the confirmed 60s setting is further proof that there's no escaping the constraints imposed on the story by Ford's age - not that one was needed.

My only hope is that they take the opportunity to introduce a new actor in flashbacks for a decent portion of the movie.

It's either that, or a new sidekick for a good chunk of the action scenes.
And this now being under Disney's helm, there is a fair chance it'll be a Rey-like girl, as you already pointed out Stoo.

I never thought I'd say this, but ARE WE GOING TO MISS MUTT? :sick:

Too cynical man.
 
Last edited:

Raiders90

Well-known member
There are ways of doing the 1960s without making "DA 60s" be the star of the show, you know. Not every film set during a certain period has to be the Forest Gump of that particular era. Whether the film is set in 1961 or 1968, Indy is not going to be hobnobbing with JFK or Elvis. He's not going to be at Altamont. You might see one or two characters in the background with long hair, but so what? You're not going to see Indy dropping acid. Why is the timeframe 1960-1969 such a big deal for you? It is the last period where the world was a small place. Prior to July 20th 1969, anyway.

You can handle a decade well without making it be the star of the decade. Also, Spielberg has never shown the great love for the 1960s that he and Spielberg showed for the 50. It can't simply be that the 50s-ness KOTCS was a one off?
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Why do you guys hate the 1960s so much? The entire decade wan't lovebeads and long hair for God's sake.

I think it's a legitimate concern that Harrison Ford's age has forced Spielberg to push the character firmly out of the golden age of pulp...y'know, the entire universe the character operates in. The question of what kind of adventure Indy could go on in a world where lost civilizations no longer have room to hide is a fair one.

That said, I think it can be done, and I think the secret is to choose environments that have a timeless quality. Ancient ruins, mountain temples, etc. will always feel Indiana Jones appropriate regardless of the decade.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Udvarnoky said:
That said, I think it can be done, and I think the secret is to choose environments that have a timeless quality. Ancient ruins, mountain temples, etc. will always feel Indiana Jones appropriate regardless of the decade.

The noir angle will still work, if we can find Indie at the bottom of a bottle, running away from the 60s, and make it a sort of foil to his previous Glory Days. I would almost be somewhat excited, if the 60s were actually Indiana Jones villain. Time is about the only thing he can fight at this point. And that's a character study I'd be interested in.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Henry Jones VII said:
I think it comes as no surprise, the timeframe of the story.
My remark was multi-layered.

Shock: An actual, concrete confirmation straight from the director's mouth. That's 2 REAL news items in less than a week! The cool thing about this tidbit, though, it that it relates to the film's story.

Dismay: I was hoping for winter 1959. It's not a surprise that it'll be in the '60s but the closer Indy's setting gets to my birthdate, the closer I come to feeling like a relic, myself. :D

Apprehension: This film is finally starting to happen.

Raiders112390 said:
Why do you guys hate the 1960s so much? The entire decade wan't lovebeads and long hair for God's sake.
Ha, if you only knew. I happen to LO-O-O-OVE the '60s. My favourite music, art, fashion, cars, TV shows, etc. Heck, I was even born in 1967 so a part of that decade is a part of me.

Raiders112390 said:
There are ways of doing the 1960s without making "DA 60s" be the star of the show, you know. Not every film set during a certain period has to be the Forest Gump of that particular era. Whether the film is set in 1961 or 1968, Indy is not going to be hobnobbing with JFK or Elvis. He's not going to be at Altamont. You might see one or two characters in the background with long hair, but so what? You're not going to see Indy dropping acid. Why is the timeframe 1960-1969 such a big deal for you? It is the last period where the world was a small place. Prior to July 20th 1969, anyway.

You can handle a decade well without making it be the star of the decade.
Yes, I know and have always been an advocate of this approach. I'd just rather not see a '60s date onscreen at the beginning of the movie because it's too close to home.

Anyway, anyhow, anywhere, I await the film with much anticipation. As I've mentioned in your numerous other threads about this very same subject, my fingers are crossed for 1962 since it's not too far away from "Skull" (and would be a nod to "American Graffiti").
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Too cynical man.
I think not.

Steven, let it g̶o̶ be.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/It3Cctk6BRs" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
I think it's a legitimate concern that Harrison Ford's age has forced Spielberg to push the character firmly out of the golden age of pulp...y'know, the entire universe the character operates in. The question of what kind of adventure Indy could go on in a world where lost civilizations no longer have room to hide is a fair one.

That said, I think it can be done, and I think the secret is to choose environments that have a timeless quality. Ancient ruins, mountain temples, etc. will always feel Indiana Jones appropriate regardless of the decade.

We're still discovering lost civilizations and cities TODAY, much less almost 60 years ago. Just this month, an entire necropolis was discovered in Egypt. A hundred sub-cities were discovered in South America last month. The time isn't the concern for me, it's whether or not the story can be told in a way that works.

The problems with Harrison's age can be fixed in very easy ways:
1) Make-up
2) Stuntmen
3) Subtle CGI if absolutely necessary

It's out of the realm of believably for Harrison Ford at 77 to beat someone up. But for Indy at 65, 66, perhaps using an element of the environment around him as a weapon and fighting much dirtier than he used to, perhaps fighting someone around his age or someone less clever than he. Think of how he beat the second German mechanic. He got his ass handed to him, but he used an element of the environment to win a fight that he otherwise would've probably been beaten to death in. And even though it wasn't a clean win, and even though we saw our hero get beaten up, it still made for a great scene. Work stuff like that in.

Or hell, he has a gun. Use that more often.

A 60 something year can still throw a punch and knock someone out, can't they?

If you have say a couple of scenes of that, some stunts that look cool but are actually easier than they look, gunplay to amp up the action element, it's fine.

As far as the 1960s goes, as long as we're not hit over the head with the fact that it is the 1960s, it's fine. It's just a set of years. Even the 1960s has its intrigues and its villains that could be used. Chi-Coms, for example. Never really had Asians as the "Big Bad" before. Vietnamese. Neo-Nazis.

My main concerns are with Disney, not with Harrison's age or the year set. This will be his last outing, perhaps even his last big movie role. I want the folks at Disney to get it right. That's where my reservations come in.

These films work as long as one's imagination is wide enough to craft a good film. Harrison is still in good enough shape physically, and most importantly of all, facially, to pull off this final film, and do it well - IF the writers have enough imagination to do so.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
I think not.

Steven, let it g̶o̶ be.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/It3Cctk6BRs" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You'll have to explain why, really. If the film doesn't feature the 1960s as a supporting character, what's the issue?

The best Indy films (at least, the best received, anyway) are those that used the decade as scenery, and nothing more. TOD and KOTCS hit us over the head (KOTCS obviously moreso) with the 1930s and 1950s and didn't work as well.

And again...If you think the entirety of the 1960s can be summed up by rock n' roll and long hair...You're dead wrong. 1960 is a very different world from 1967 or 1968. I read a quote once by Keith Richards. He was comparing the Stones' first tour of the United States (1964) to their tour in 1969. He said in essence it was like two different worlds, the U.S. in 1964 being all malt shops and hamburgers, conservative, boring; 1969 being turbulent and full of chaos - and that's a Brit looking on America at that time - and here's the kicker -

The entirety of the film doesn't even need to be set in America. You can have a Marshall College type exposition scene and then move the film to Prague, or China, or someplace where the year may be 1965 or 1966 but it doesn't have to be portrayed in the same way you would portray America in that year.

In fact, after the Americas-centric KOTCS I would prefer to see Indy go someplace new.
 
Last edited:

Raiders90

Well-known member
Stoo said:
My remark was multi-layered.

Shock: An actual, concrete confirmation straight from the director's mouth. That's 2 REAL news items in less than a week! The cool thing about this tidbit, though, it that it relates to the film's story.

Dismay: I was hoping for winter 1959. It's not a surprise that it'll be in the '60s but the closer Indy's setting gets to my birthdate, the closer I come to feeling like a relic, myself. :D

Apprehension: This film is finally starting to happen.

Ha, if you only knew. I happen to LO-O-O-OVE the '60s. My favourite music, art, fashion, cars, TV shows, etc. Heck, I was even born in 1967 so a part of that decade is a part of me.

Yes, I know and have always been an advocate of this approach. I'd just rather not see a '60s date onscreen at the beginning of the movie because it's too close to home.

Anyway, anyhow, anywhere, I await the film with much anticipation. As I've mentioned in your numerous other threads about this very same subject, my fingers are crossed for 1962 since it's not too far away from "Skull" (and would be a nod to "American Graffiti").

I think that honestly, what you said (and people's narrow view of the 1960s in general as being druugs and rock n' roll, duuude) is a lot of the reservation. I know for me, the 1970s is a cutoff for any sort of Indy adventure. I view the 1970s as too modern, too much like today (despite the technological differences), and too tacky to be adventurous. The 1960s though were the age of James Bond, who, in my opinion, isn't that far off from a pulp character in his own way. The 1960s to me seem like a different world, at least the first half of the decade does. The age of JFK, tailfins, fast cars, when the bikini was a scandalous sensation. You still had grandness, you still had that epic sense of scope in that decade. This was a decade when in fact Americans, at least, were feeling at perhaps their most adventurous ever. We were looking backward at a less tame past fondly with Westerns and looking forward optimistically with Star Trek where our technology could allow for even more adventure.

All these 1960s characters I mention or imply - The Man with No Name, James Bond, James T. Kirk - they're all models for who Indiana Jones became. And they're all products of the 1960s. These sorts of characters were obviously believable enough to be received well by audiences in the 1960s - they weren't fodder for snickering. Indy's clothes may be archaic in 1965, but the underlying character - the meat, grit, and potatoes - is very much relevant, even then.

I'm talking from an American perspective but I see the 1960s, prior to Kennedy's death, as being the last gaps of the same era that Indy was a part of. That Depression through post War era of decency and adventure.

If we were talking about the film being set in the 1970s, I'd be horribly against it. But ideally, set the film before 1965 (when the combat troops landed in Vietnam) or even more ideally, set it before Kennedy's death and we're fine.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
I wouldn't mind seeing Indy paired up with a girl who isn't his love interest. It would be new to the franchise. We've seen him paired up with a former flame, his father, his son, and a child who was both a buddy and almost an adoptive son. We've never seen him paired up with a female colleague who was on his level who he didn't end up bedding. It would be interesting. But I don't trust Disney to do that without making the character into Rey and making a feminist statement with it.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
If the film doesn't feature the 1960s as a supporting character, what's the issue?
Yes, that way it might just work - agreed.

But even with Lucas pretty much out of the picture, I doubt they'll resist the temptation to throw in several 60s cliches.
A miniskirted, sassy student or some such as Indy's sidekick is a distinct possibility for instance.*

Raiders112390 said:
The entirety of the film doesn't even need to be set in America. You can have a Marshall College type exposition scene and then move the film to Prague, or China, or someplace where the year may be 1965 or 1966 but it doesn't have to be portrayed in the same way you would portray America in that year.

In fact, after the Americas-centric KOTCS I would prefer to see Indy go someplace new.
I hope none of the story takes place Stateside at all.
Exotic, remote locations only. But I doubt they'll do it that way.




*Although, if she's really hot... :p
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Z dweller said:
Yes, that way it might just work - agreed.

But even with Lucas pretty much out of the picture, I doubt they'll resist the temptation to throw in several 60s cliches.
A miniskirted, sassy student or some such as Indy's sidekick is a distinct possibility for instance.*


I hope none of the story takes place Stateside at all.
Exotic, remote locations only. But I doubt they'll do it that way.




*Although, if she's really hot... :p

I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of girls in mini-skirts stateside before moving East, in all honesty. If this film was being done without Disney, I would want a female sidekick. But with Disney at the helm, f--k no to that.

I have to admit, seeing a few of these in an Indy film, if just in the background, would bother me none:
https://s-i.huffpost.com/gen/2746728/images/o-MINI-SKIRTS-FP-facebook.jpg

A part of me wants the exotic locale approach, another part wants Indy to be a relic in his own time. Do what KOTCS did jokingly and only briefly touched upon in a serious way. The chaser of artifacts is now an artifact, or rapidly becoming one, himself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WilliamBoyd8

Active member
The man in the background:

post_raven_miniskirts_man.jpg


New Indy villain!

:)
 
Last edited:

Henry Jones VII

Active member
Stoo said:
My remark was multi-layered.

Shock: An actual, concrete confirmation straight from the director's mouth. That's 2 REAL news items in less than a week! The cool thing about this tidbit, though, it that it relates to the film's story.

Dismay: I was hoping for winter 1959. It's not a surprise that it'll be in the '60s but the closer Indy's setting gets to my birthdate, the closer I come to feeling like a relic, myself. :D

Apprehension: This film is finally starting to happen.
Ok thank you for your response. Yes indeed it's a mild shock but wonderful to hear solid and concrete information from the director himself.

I'm hoping for an european setting, the old continent has so much in terms of cultural and archeological content they can use in the story.
 
Top