General Indy 5 Thread - rumors and possibilities

[Raiders90]

Instead of an "Indy 5", why not just create a series of 'prequel' films based on the Bantam novels and comics? A lot of those novels and some of the comics have good stories which most Indy fans like, and which would make for GREAT adventure movies--and a lot of them touch on relics that other movies haven't. You get a good actor as Indy who would be young enough to carry the series for a long time.

Also, it helps that the Bantam novels and some of the comics don't touch or interfere with the Ford film continuity. It would be a fresh breath of life into the series, with tons of new adventures, without touching or displacing Harrison's films as being part of the story of Indiana Jones.

Basically, it'd be a reboot in a SENSE...But not a reboot in the sense that Ford's films would be erased.

I mean there's around 10 or so Bantam novels, all taking place between 1922 and 1934...Plenty of stuff to mine there without disrespecting Ford's films.

Plenty of stuff in there to make, in the right hands, to make films worthy of the Indiana Jones name.

And since the Bantam novels are sandwiched between 1921 and 1934, it also wouldn't invalidate the YIJC which end in 1920.

So it'd be a good idea all around, rather than just rebooting the series and utterly disrespecting the original Ford films.

 

[Raiders90]

Indy needs to be Nolanized, in the way Batman was rescued from the sickly clutch of Joel Schumacher.

Nolan prepares to mount Indiana Jones from behind. He's gleeful, a gleeful psychopathic clown. His cultists have helped kidnap Jones, stripping him of all the mindless fun of the original films, because this is the dark world of 2013; No one has fun anymore. He's excited, knowing he's going to fill yet another famous series full of his overwrought psychological drama and "grittiness". He unbuttons his trousers, and he grunts to Indy, "Them panties. Take 'em off." And Indy is thence Nolanized.

 

[kongisking]

Nolan prepares to mount Indiana Jones from behind. He's gleeful, a gleeful psychopathic clown. His cultists have helped kidnap Jones, stripping him of all the mindless fun of the original films, because this is the dark world of 2013; No one has fun anymore. He's excited, knowing he's going to fill yet another famous series full of his overwrought psychological drama and "grittiness". He unbuttons his trousers, and he grunts to Indy, "Them panties. Take 'em off." And Indy is thence Nolanized.

Sigh, are you finished yet?

 

[Montana Smith]

Nolan prepares to mount Indiana Jones from behind. He's gleeful, a gleeful psychopathic clown. His cultists have helped kidnap Jones, stripping him of all the mindless fun of the original films, because this is the dark world of 2013; No one has fun anymore. He's excited, knowing he's going to fill yet another famous series full of his overwrought psychological drama and "grittiness". He unbuttons his trousers, and he grunts to Indy, "Them panties. Take 'em off." And Indy is thence Nolanized.

Anyway, I wrote "Nolanized" as in rescued from the brink and set back on course.

It would seem to be the correct term, taking into account the Urban Dictionary's definition.

Taking an unrealistic idea for a movie and making it believable in the real world.

In his proper trilogy Indy was just at the edge of our world. In his last outing he and his associates were far from it.

 

[The Drifter]

Anyway, I wrote "Nolanized" as in rescued from the brink and set back on course.

Set back on course for who? Your idea of how an Indiana Jones film should be, may differ from someone's elses idea of how it should be.
What may appease you, may turn-off someone else.
There is no certain course, IMO. Too many people wanting too many things and having too many opinions, make that a fact.

Some want grit, some want humor. Some want slap-stick, some want fist-fights. You can please some of the people some of the time, but you sure as Hell can never please all of the people all of the time.

 

[Raiders90]

Anyway, I wrote "Nolanized" as in rescued from the brink and set back on course.

It would seem to be the correct term, taking into account the Urban Dictionary's definition.



In his proper trilogy Indy was just at the edge of our world. In his last outing he and his associates were far from it.

Instead of "Nolanizing" everything--first of all, while Nolan makes movies about superheroes, he himself is NOT a superhero or a golden god or a holy calf. Someday he'll slip up and make a crappy film, and some say he already did with TDKR. He's not infallible....

But more to the point, the grittiness of Raiders of the Lost Ark, I believe, is overstated. It's a much more down to Earth film than any of it's sequels, in some ways. But in other ways, it's just as unrealistic. The basic premise of a guy being able to survive being pulled along underneath a truck and pull himself up against the weight of a truck going at high speed--Very unbelievable. The whole premise of the Ark, depending on your beliefs, can be totally unbelievable.

What sets Raiders apart from it's sequels isn't the realism of it. It's the tone. It has a tone that is consistent throughout, that doesn't go too far into darkness, nor too far into slapstick. TOD veers between the slapstick and the darkness; LC and KOTCS embrace the slapstick wholeheartedly.

But also in Raiders, and TOD, Indy is an anti-hero. And he's very much an unknown character. In Raiders and TOD, we only know four things about him:

1) He's a professor of Archaeology at a University.
2) He did SOMETHING to Marion Ravenwood around 1926 that made her and her father, who was a mentor to him and taught him at the University of Chicago, hate him.
3) He's not a good guy. He's not a villain, but also not a true hero by any means. He's largely in it for himself. He's a mercenary, willing to work for the highest bidder, whether that be vicious gangsters or American intelligence.

4) In TOD and Raiders, his only use for "The Museum" is the money it can bring him through him bringing in relics for it. In TOD, he doesn't care at all about the Museum because the rocks would just collect dust there. In Raiders, he just wants the museum to buy his little trinkets to fund a trip to Marrakesh and also to gloriously display the Ark of the Covenant. He's a guy interested in fortune and glory.

Beyond those things, we don't know much at all about him, his background, anything really. As far as we know, Indiana Jones is his actual, real name.

LC changed the character almost completely. From LC on we were introduced to an increasingly moral, increasingly "real" character. We learned in LC he had a bad relationship with his father, which informed a lot of his character; pretty much ripped off his entire adventure outfit from a thief he met briefly in 1912; He goes from being a mysterious anti-hero to being increasingly a hero with a past; A guy on the right side of history scrubbed of any prejudices or ugliness of his time--a guy who hates the Nazis.

And finally, the biggest change of all to his character: "It belongs in a museum!" The 1912 segment retcons his entire motive for being a treasure hunter. In Raiders and TOD, it's pretty clear: He does what he does to make some good money, and to perhaps bring himself some glory. LC retcons this to that since he was a teenager, he's wanted to rescue artifacts from falling out of history and into the hands of greedy collectors, to put them in a museum for the public to enjoy them. His motives have become much more pure.

People can say all they want about KOTCS, but really, it just expands on the character that LC set up. The good guy, hero, "It belongs in a Museum" Indiana Jones with a past and a complexity about him. The only difference is that he's an old man in KOTCS and has mellowed somewhat with age.

But, all that said, Raiders, in tone and otherwise, is far from a Nolan film. It's not overly psychological or about mentally tortured people nor does it have ruminations about life or this or that or duality or anything. It's it's own kind of entity. Nolan would take Indiana Jones way too far in the other direction.

You want to restore Indiana Jones? You'd have to make him an anti-hero again. It's as simple as that. We can't restore the mystery of his character, but his status as anti-hero can be restored.

 

[Montana Smith]

Set back on course for who? Your idea of how an Indiana Jones film should be, may differ from someone's elses idea of how it should be.
What may appease you, may turn-off someone else.
There is no certain course, IMO. Too many people wanting too many things and having too many opinions, make that a fact.

Some want grit, some want humor. Some want slap-stick, some want fist-fights. You can please some of the people some of the time, but you sure as Hell can never please all of the people all of the time.

The course was set over the 'course' of the trilogy.

KOTCS is an addendum. There were always elements of irony, black humour, slapstick, violence, wild set pieces. KOTCS was fine until that refrigerator landed. After that we might as well have been in the Land of Oz.

Way off course into some strange post-fridge hallucination involving monkeys, a sandpit, and a collection of half-fledged individuals.

 

[Pale Horse]

Indiana Jones and the March of the Zombies

Some just want Indy to die in peace. Alas, reincarnation is the popular trope here.

 

[The Drifter]

The course was set over the 'course' of the trilogy.

KOTCS is an addendum. There were always elements of irony, black humour, slapstick, violence, wild set pieces. KOTCS was fine until that refrigerator landed. After that we might as well have been in the Land of Oz.

Way off course into some strange post-fridge hallucination involving monkeys, a sandpit, and a collection of half-fledged individuals.

Exactly, the course was set over the course of the trilogy. And that's why the films mean different things to different people.
Like I said, what you may want in a new film, may not be what someone else wants. While you may be happy, Joe down the street may be on The Raven spamming his hatred.
It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Montana Smith]

Instead of "Nolanizing" everything--first of all, while Nolan makes movies about superheroes, he himself is NOT a superhero or a golden god or a holy calf. Someday he'll slip up and make a crappy film, and some say he already did with TDKR. He's not infallible....

I think you just slipped up by admitting he never made a "crappy film"!

But more to the point, the grittiness of Raiders of the Lost Ark, I believe, is overstated. It's a much more down to Earth film than any of it's sequels, in some ways. But in other ways, it's just as unrealistic. The basic premise of a guy being able to survive being pulled along underneath a truck and pull himself up against the weight of a truck going at high speed--Very unbelievable. The whole premise of the Ark, depending on your beliefs, can be totally unbelievable.

Of course. ROTLA doesn't take place in our world with our history, or with our laws of physics.

What it does do is create a world just beyond that we may recognize and relate to, if we accept that the supernatural is a natural element there.

There is a conceit that masks the mechanics of survival, as with the raft from the 'plane in TOD, descending a slope to water.

People can say all they want about KOTCS, but really, it just expands on the character that LC set up. The good guy, hero, "It belongs in a Museum" Indiana Jones with a past and a complexity about him. The only difference is that he's an old man in KOTCS and has mellowed somewhat with age.

And with the old man Lucas and Spielberg lost sight of where they were nineteen years before.

The major problem with KOTCS is that for a franchise that is based on cliffhangers, the movie presents an Indy that is impervious to damage. The Fridge. Not a scratch on him.

There wasn't even an attempt at conceit. Stick him in a fridge, blast him through the air and let it crash down on rock. Instead of tweeting birds flying around his head there's a family of prairie dogs bearing witness. After that the rest of the film has no real connection or feeling. It's a cartoon parody.

But, all that said, Raiders, in tone and otherwise, is far from a Nolan film. It's not overly psychological or about mentally tortured people nor does it have ruminations about life or this or that or duality or anything. It's own kind of entity. Nolan would take Indiana Jones way too far in the other direction.

There was no advocation for Nolan to write or direct Indiana Jones, only that Nolan took a character left damaged on film by Schumacher and gave him back some credibility.

You want to restore Indiana Jones? You'd have to make him an anti-hero again. It's as simple as that. We can't restore the mystery of his character, but his status as anti-hero can be restored.

Yes. Definitely. And that will only work if the parameters of his world are more clearly defined again.

Some just want Indy to die in peace. Alas, reincarnation is the popular trope here.

Death or reincarnation.

He can't continue on the course set by KOTCS. Supermen become dull by their nature. Indy used to be an everyman, albeit a lucky bugger.

Now, there is some cause for hope. During the Old Indy bookends he never once mentioned his most dangerous cliffhanger: the fridge. (He never mentioned his son either, but that's understandable).

Ergo, it never happened!


Still, it's in the popular consciousness now. He can't live it down.

 

[Pale Horse]

Death or reincarnation

I am being duplicitous.

 

[Montana Smith]

I am being duplicitous.

There is no third way.

 

[Finn]

There wasn't even an attempt at conceit. Stick him in a fridge, blast him through the air and let it crash down on rock. Instead of tweeting birds flying around his head there's a family of prairie dogs bearing witness. After that the rest of the film has no real connection or feeling. It's a cartoon parody.

You know what irks me? The fact that everybody talks about the fridge and nobody ever mentions "three times it drops", a part the statistician in me found far more ludicrous.

 

[Montana Smith]

You know what irks me? The fact that everybody talks about the fridge and nobody ever mentions "three times it drops", a part the statistician in me found far more ludicrous.

You're right.

Fridge, prairie dogs, monkeys, sandpit, rubber tree...waterfalls!

The fridge landing is the beginning of the descent. After that it's hard to stay on board as the film drops. By the time the waterfalls appear I'd already accepted that we weren't in Kansas any more.

That's what I meant about the raft in TOD. There was an attempt to rationalize the event.

The trilogy slipped up every now and then, such as the explosion of a fuel-drained aircraft (unless there were explosives in the cargo), or the non-igniting petrol in the TLC Venice crypt. Yet these were minor events by comparison.

 

[Attila the Professor]

You know what irks me? The fact that everybody talks about the fridge and nobody ever mentions "three times it drops", a part the statistician in me found far more ludicrous.

Indeed. The fridge I'll accept, in large part because the scene preceding it is so great. The waterfalls are arguably the lowest point of the series.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Indiana Jones and the March of the Zombies
Some just want Indy to die in peace. Alas, reincarnation is the popular trope here.

You're more right than you know...

Stick him in a fridge, blast him through the air and let it crash down on rock. Instead of tweeting birds flying around his head there's a family of prairie dogs bearing witness. ...It's a cartoon parody.

Funny enough, if that would have happened I could have accepted the film a bit more.

 

[Montana Smith]

Indeed. The fridge I'll accept, in large part because the scene preceding it is so great. The waterfalls are arguably the lowest point of the series.

I'm okay with the fridge surviving and flying.

"Fly, yes. Land, no."

Funny enough, if that would have happened I could have accepted the film a bit more.

It's something Disney might consider for the next one!


I'd have accepted vultures circling Indy's head in preparation to pick over his jellied flesh.

 

[Indy's brother]

Fridge, prairie dogs, monkeys, sandpit, rubber tree...waterfalls!

Nothing inherently wrong with any of these things in theory. It's in practice that they failed.

Fridge: Could have worked if they had shown a single scratch on Indy after he came out of the thing.

Prairie dogs: Could have worked if it was used only ONCE. After seeing them over and over, it seems like there is an inside joke going on that we've not been let in on.

Monkeys....same thing. And the cgi was WAAAAAYYYY out of place, and this is coming from a guy that thinks the cgi'd ants worked. I actually like the ant fight the best.

Sandpit: All of it was wrong. Direction, score, dialogue, jokes....total miss. Ham-fisted. Cartoonish. I think it was trying to cram too many gags in all at once. ZERO tension in a classic cliffhanger trope? THIS IS INDIANA JONES!

Even the rubber tree could have worked if the camera hadn't stayed on it for so long as to force us to realize how stupid it is. Even that could have been redeemed by showing us the russian soldiers get dashed on the rocks. But as per the whole flick, most deaths are implied, not actually shown. In film, if you didn't see it, it didn't happen.

The waterfalls, again, show a little injury. Some reason to think that there is some peril involved, like showing a log go over first and get broken into splinters. Or a boat with some russians go over first and they don't survive. Something ANYTHING. Of course, by that point, it didn't matter anyway.

So. In summation. With some restraint, and some common sense considering the previous films, another one could be made as long as we are given the idea from the get-go that nothing is sacred when it comes to Indy's mortality, or at least his well-being. And that is what it would take at this point.

Bring on the eye-patch for Indy 5.

 

[Montana Smith]

Nothing inherently wrong with any of these things in theory. It's in practice that they failed.

All down to poor execution.

I agree with everything you wrote, though your last paragraph and sentence seem at odds with the direction of KOTCS.

With the fridge I argued in kong's Nuke Fridges thread that it would be scientifically possible, if extremely unlikely, for the appliance to survive the escape from the danger zone. However, there is no amount of head scratching that can resolve the issue of the landing.

For me this overshadows all else, and it had to be a big shadow to beat some of the other face-palm moments!

The films have been self-referential to past exploits, with the Ark appearing in both TLC and KOTCS as a reflection of Indy's greatest discovery. Could they make a fifth film and not refer to his greatest escape?

For that reason, along with marriage, son and promotion, I think that the Harrison Ford era has been resolved. Just that the supposed highest points for the character happen to coincide with his lowest ones in my view.

The fridge and waterfalls are expressions of just how far Lucas and Spielberg considered they could take Indy while they still had the opportunity to take him anywhere. (And I don't mean where they took him in South Park).

 

[Raiders90]

Even despite nuked fridges and monkeys, I still think KOTCS is a good film.
Thing is, it's a good film in a series of GREAT films. It's not the Phantom Menace, but it's not Raiders either. But IMO it's nowhere near a bad film, whether in terms of the series or as a movie in general.

That said, I really do hope they adapt the Bantam novels as a prequel series someday. That'd be so awesome.