The Politics of Crystal Skull

[Rocket Surgeon]

...and George Lucas.

Plinkett was right!

Blurring the lines between good and evil upset the real formula of an Indiana Jones film.

Lucas has let his pseudo Buddist/pacifist ways seep into his entertainment to its detriment. The most obvious and, to Plinkett's credit, unheralded point is the writing on the wall...or more aptly the crawl of Revenge of the Sith.

There are Heroes on Both sides.

Star Wars has become a glorified Soap Opera...so there's more elbow room for such nonsense, but Indiana Jones has always had a clear mission against an insidious evil.

Instead of spending valuable screen time illustrating that a characters evil doesn't spring from their nation of birth or a political ideology, that it's a personally misplaced understanding or corruption of an ideal, (A HUMAN FOIBLE AND CONDITION WHICH TRANDSCENDS BORDERS), they reinforce the idea of Soviet Patriotism, while demonizing capitalism.

Should I NOT root for the Soviets finding a psychic super weapon to defend themselves against a paranoid nation not opposed to dropping nuclear bombs?

Plinkett was right.

 

[Darth Vile]

...and George Lucas.

Plinkett was right!

Blurring the lines between good and evil upset the real formula of an Indiana Jones film.

Lucas has let his pseudo Buddist/pacifist ways seep into his entertainment to its detriment. The most obvious and, to Plinkett's credit, unheralded point is the writing on the wall...or more aptly the crawl of Revenge of the Sith.

There are Heroes on Both sides.

Star Wars has become a glorified Soap Opera...so there's more elbow room for such nonsense, but Indiana Jones has always had a clear mission against an insidious evil.

Instead of spending valuable screen time illustrating that a characters evil doesn't spring from their nation of birth or a political ideology, that it's a personally misplaced understanding or corruption of an ideal, (A HUMAN FOIBLE AND CONDITION WHICH TRANDSCENDS BORDERS), they reinforce the idea of Soviet Patriotism, while demonizing capitalism.

Should I NOT root for the Soviets finding a psychic super weapon to defend themselves against a paranoid nation not opposed to dropping nuclear bombs?

Plinkett was right.

Good topic Rocket...

There's certainly an element, more so in Star Wars I think, where the relationships have become much more complex and 'real world' like. Of course Lucas always liked to mix it up a little (Stormtroopers in white etc.) but one of the things that made Star Wars and Indiana Jones so easy to watch was that very simple notion of 'good and bad', 'right and wrong' which drove the narrative of the stories (and one the reasons I'd never automatically see Indy as an 'anti-hero').

I actually really appreciate/like the fact that the relationships in the Star Wars prequels are a lot more complex and grey than the OT counterparts... but I also completely understand that it makes it much more difficult for an audience to root for the 'good guys' and hiss at the 'bad guys'... a bit like politics/politicians, the characters all tend to congregate in the middle ground fighting for position... with the voters/audience left scratching heads and wondering what they actually stand/fight for. The risk being that the voter/audience stop caring about the ground being fought over.

With KOTCS, I think some of that positioning was imposed by moving events into the 50's. Everyone loves to hate the Nazi's (or that doctrine)... but it's a bit more politically incorrect to bash on 'Commies' - hence them appearing a tad non threatening. Obviously the element of corrupt/insidious US political officials/McCarthyism was overlooked and we never really got to see what would have potentially been a good 'enemy within' story.

 

[Raiders90]

Good topic Rocket...

There's certainly an element, more so in Star Wars I think, where the relationships have become much more complex and 'real world' like. Of course Lucas always liked to mix it up a little (Stormtroopers in white etc.) but one of the things that made Star Wars and Indiana Jones so easy to watch was that very simple notion of 'good and bad', 'right and wrong' which drove the narrative of the stories (and one the reasons I'd never automatically see Indy as an 'anti-hero').

I actually really appreciate/like the fact that the relationships in the Star Wars prequels are a lot more complex and grey than the OT counterparts... but I also completely understand that it makes it much more difficult for an audience to root for the 'good guys' and hiss at the 'bad guys'... a bit like politics/politicians, the characters all tend to congregate in the middle ground fighting for position... with the voters/audience left scratching heads and wondering what they actually stand/fight for. The risk being that the voter/audience stop caring about the ground being fought over.

With KOTCS, I think some of that positioning was imposed by moving events into the 50's. Everyone loves to hate the Nazi's (or that doctrine)... but it's a bit more politically incorrect to bash on 'Commies' - hence them appearing a tad non threatening. Obviously the element of corrupt/insidious US political officials/McCarthyism was overlooked and we never really got to see what would have potentially been a good 'enemy within' story.

Maybe moving the next story (if there ever is one) to 1961, Cuba, would much more black and white. Castro is still hated to this day. He's no Hitler or Stalin but he was an enemy of the US nonetheless. Plus if some of the action happens in Cuba, you have the potential for a return to truly exotic locales: Early 1960s Cuba, plus maybe some Twilight Zone meets Hitchcock-esque stuff involving the Bermuda Triangle. Just got to find the right MaGuffin. Could spend ZERO time in the States outside of the very beginning and move from Cuba to the the Eastern side of the Berlin Wall...Into the very heart of the USSR. Think the washed out, weary Europe of the post war era.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

...but it's a bit more politically incorrect to bash on 'Commies' - hence them appearing a tad non threatening.

That's the dagger in the back of the film though...I think you have to be able to "brave the slings and arrows" so to say and make the evil personal and whatever institution brings together such "like minds" is akin to:

...corrupt/insidious US political officials/McCarthyism

...we never really got to see what would have potentially been a good 'enemy within' story.

That would have been a worthwhile direction, one worth resolving.

 

[Montana Smith]

...and George Lucas.

Plinkett was right!

Blurring the lines between good and evil upset the real formula of an Indiana Jones film.

Lucas has let his pseudo Buddist/pacifist ways seep into his entertainment to its detriment. The most obvious and, to Plinkett's credit, unheralded point is the writing on the wall...or more aptly the crawl of Revenge of the Sith.

There are Heroes on Both sides.

Star Wars has become a glorified Soap Opera...so there's more elbow room for such nonsense, but Indiana Jones has always had a clear mission against an insidious evil.

Instead of spending valuable screen time illustrating that a characters evil doesn't spring from their nation of birth or a political ideology, that it's a personally misplaced understanding or corruption of an ideal, (A HUMAN FOIBLE AND CONDITION WHICH TRANDSCENDS BORDERS), they reinforce the idea of Soviet Patriotism, while demonizing capitalism.

Should I NOT root for the Soviets finding a psychic super weapon to defend themselves against a paranoid nation not opposed to dropping nuclear bombs?

Plinkett was right.

Blurring the lines goes with the period it was set in. That's where the problems originate: Indy doesn't belong in the '50s.

The '50s were the period of decline for the serial cliffhanger. Full of regurgitated footage, just as KOTCS resembles something regurgitated. But when it came up, it brought with it the B movie genre all-too convincingly.

Yet, Lucas wasn't content with just that. He also had to do what he did with Star Wars: politicize it into shadowy factions that cross over one another.

In KOTCS the enemy is everywhere, yet nowhere, because there's too little to invest in to care about. Bland characters represent political strands, but without any real emotion to raise them above the symbolic.

Indy would have been better off shunning his nation, which would readily discard him, and shacking up with Irina and having some adventures beyond the iron curtain... just for the hell of it because nothing mattered at all after the fridge landed.

 

[Raiders90]

Blurring the lines goes with the period it was set in. That's where the problems originate: Indy doesn't belong in the '50s.

The '50s were the period of decline for the serial cliffhanger. Full of regurgitated footage, just as KOTCS resembles something regurgitated. But when it came up, it brought with it the B movie genre all-too convincingly.

Yet, Lucas wasn't content with just that. He also had to do what he did with Star Wars: politicize it into shadowy factions that cross over one another.

In KOTCS the enemy is everywhere, yet nowhere, because there's too little to invest in to care about. Bland characters represent political strands, but without any real emotion to raise them above the symbolic.

Indy would have been better off shunning his nation, which would readily discard him, and shacking up with Irina and having some adventures beyond the iron curtain... just for the hell of it because nothing mattered at all after the fridge landed.

Indy can exist in the '50s. Indy could fight the Reds and the Reds could be treated as enemies just as the Nazis were.

The problem is you have a director who has grown rather kid friendly (Spielberg could've chosen to show us the Russians gun down the American soldiers, or the Ugha Warriors if he had chosen to. He could've shown us Spalko threatening Mac's life etc). And on the other hand, you have a producer/storywriter who now feels that there are no absolutes--That "heroes exist on both sides". You didn't see any heroic Nazis in Raiders or LC. Lucas and Spielberg in their own ways grew soft with age, less willing to be politically incorrect, less willing to show blood and guts, less willing to be risky and edgy.

You have the problem of KOTCS being a film that Spielberg didn't want to make to begin with; It being a film that had a rushed script; that represented a pieced together compromise vision which didn't fully satisfy either creator, a script cobbled from bits and pieces of other scripts. If Spielberg had truly gotten what he wanted, there'd have been no aliens at all. If Lucas truly had gotten what he wanted, it'd have been Saucermen from Mars. Two utterly different sentiments at work here.

You had two "collaborators" who were at odds, who caved in to each other weakly and rushed out the film because the fans wanted another Indy, and cobbled together a Frankenstein-esque script before Harrison got too old.

The problem wasn't the setting or this or that. It was purely the execution. Indy could easily exist in the 1950s. Indy could easily fight the Soviets. Indy could encounter aliens. All of these concepts are workable, and if done right, could've led to an awesome film. The problem was the way it was executed.

 

[Montana Smith]

Indy can exist in the '50s. Indy could fight the Reds and the Reds could be treated as enemies just as the Nazis were....

The problem wasn't the setting or this or that. It was purely the execution. Indy could easily exist in the 1950s. Indy could easily fight the Soviets. Indy could encounter aliens. All of these concepts are workable, and if done right, could've led to an awesome film. The problem was the way it was executed.

Execution covers everything, because the film should never have been exectued in the first place (or perhaps executed and buried before the public got to see it).

Culturally, Indy doesn't belong in he '50s. That much is evident by the fact that Lucas opted for the '50s B movie to accompany the original serial aspect. Yet, the fridge (among other silly things) is something that belongs in an Ed Wood movie - the absurdity is closer to Plan 9 From Outer Space than it was to ROTLA.

So having set the fourth film in the 1950s, because Lucas only decided late in the day to actually make it, after the main actors were past their prime, he has a mess of a story written that encompasses just about every aspect of the decade he loves so dearly. And that, invariably includes McCarthyism. Being a Forrest Gump character, it was natural that Indy would become one of the persecuted, otherwise he'd have missed out on a piece of history.

And on the other hand, you have a producer/storywriter who now feels that there are no absolutes--That "heroes exist on both sides". You didn't see any heroic Nazis in Raiders or LC. Lucas and Spielberg in their own ways grew soft with age, less willing to be politically incorrect, less willing to show blood and guts, less willing to be risky and edgy.

Remember the deleted scene of the German soldier refusing to execute Sallah?

Back then Lucas was considering showing that there were no absolutes. The soldiers in uniform weren't SS, and likely very little different from men in any army in any country at that time.

Refusing to carry out an order on moral grounds is heroic at a time when, if not your life is in danger, then at the very least your livelihood is, especially during an era of depression.

However, the scene was excised, probably to avoid further darkening the character of Indy the killer.

You have the problem of KOTCS being a film that Spielberg didn't want to make to begin with; It being a film that had a rushed script; that represented a pieced together compromise vision which didn't fully satisfy either creator, a script cobbled from bits and pieces of other scripts. If Spielberg had truly gotten what he wanted, there'd have been no aliens at all. If Lucas truly had gotten what he wanted, it'd have been Saucermen from Mars. Two utterly different sentiments at work here.

You had two "collaborators" who were at odds, who caved in to each other weakly and rushed out the film because the fans wanted another Indy, and cobbled together a Frankenstein-esque script before Harrison got too old.

All these are added problems.

The '50s just feel too late. And the '60s would be a horror beyond the imagination of even Ed Wood!

 

[Raiders90]

Execution covers everything, because the film should never have been exectued in the first place (or perhaps executed and buried before the public got to see it).

Culturally, Indy doesn't belong in he '50s. That much is evident by the fact that Lucas opted for the '50s B movie to accompany the original serial aspect. Yet, the fridge (among other silly things) is something that belongs in an Ed Wood movie - the absurdity is closer to Plan 9 From Outer Space than it was to ROTLA.

So having set the fourth film in the 1950s, because Lucas only decided late in the day to actually make it, after the main actors were past their prime, he has a mess of a story written that encompasses just about every aspect of the decade he loves so dearly. And that, invariably includes McCarthyism. Being a Forrest Gump character, it was natural that Indy would become one of the persecuted, otherwise he'd have missed out on a piece of history.



Remember the deleted scene of the German soldier refusing to execute Sallah?

Back then Lucas was considering showing that there were no absolutes. The soldiers in uniform weren't SS, and likely very little different from men in any army in any country at that time.

Refusing to carry out an order on moral grounds is heroic at a time when, if not your life is in danger, then at the very least your livelihood is, especially during an era of depression.

However, the scene was excised, probably to avoid further darkening the character of Indy the killer.



All these are added problems.

The '50s just feel too late. And the '60s would be a horror beyond the imagination of even Ed Wood!

The '50s wouldn't be a problem if we didn't get the American Graffiti version of the 1950s. If George didn't want to move into the 50s Sci-Fi genre. 1954 wasn't that different from 1938. Look at Secret of the Incas, one of the real precursors of Indy--it was a product of the 1950s. The '50s weren't all Rock, Elvis, and Greasers. Baby Boomers like George like to remember that time that way because that was their youth, and the Greasers and Rock were parts of the youth culture. America really didn't change all that much until the mid 1960s. Even the Kennedy era was still an era of men wearing hats etc.

The problem isn't putting Indy in the '50s, it's putting the '50s into Indy--It's making the era part of Indy's world. Making the '50s a character or a presence in the film itself. The 1930s isn't a "character" in the original trilogy; It isn't slammed into your head over and over that Raiders takes place in 1936. It's just a setting. A backdrop. But outside of Anything Goes, the films could take place easily anywhere in the 1930s to 1940s.

If you set Indy 4 in 1954 and didn't have him in the US at all, or for only a brief period in the film, it wouldn't feel all that much different from the 1930s. And Indy was never really ground in the US--Most of his adventures are overseas.

Look at the Mystery from the Blues segment in the YIJC. It is set in 1950. It doesn't feel like Indy is in a time or place he doesn't belong. It just feels like a mini-sequel. Just another one of Dr. Jones' adventures.

 

[Montana Smith]

The '50s wouldn't be a problem if we didn't get the American Graffiti version of the 1950s. If George didn't want to move into the 50s Sci-Fi genre. 1954 wasn't that different from 1938. Look at Secret of the Incas, one of the real precursors of Indy--it was a product of the 1950s. The '50s weren't all Rock, Elvis, and Greasers. Baby Boomers like George like to remember that time that way because that was their youth, and the Greasers and Rock were parts of the youth culture. America really didn't change all that much until the mid 1960s. Even the Kennedy era was still an era of men wearing hats etc.

The problem isn't putting Indy in the '50s, it's putting the '50s into Indy--It's making the era part of Indy's world. Making the '50s a character or a presence in the film itself. The 1930s isn't a "character" in the original trilogy; It isn't slammed into your head over and over that Raiders takes place in 1936. It's just a setting. A backdrop. But outside of Anything Goes, the films could take place easily anywhere in the 1930s to 1940s.

If you set Indy 4 in 1954 and didn't have him in the US at all, or for only a brief period in the film, it wouldn't feel all that much different from the 1930s. And Indy was never really ground in the US--Most of his adventures are overseas.

Look at the Mystery from the Blues segment in the YIJC. It is set in 1950. It doesn't feel like Indy is in a time or place he doesn't belong. It just feels like a mini-sequel. Just another one of Dr. Jones' adventures.

Yes, it's George's infatuation with certain aspects of '50s culture that shapes the film. I would've been happier if Indy 4 had taken place in a wild location, far from civilization, in which the characters were pitted against nature, the unknown and an enemy without placing the story so particularly in time - such as The Mystery of the Blues where it's Indy in the wilderness being Indy.

If Indy 5 ever surfaces it will be in the '60s, if Lucas keeps with the tradition he set with the dating of KOTCS (+19 years in both real and Indy time). There's a possibility that if the '60s aren't as big an appeal Lucas as the '50s, then he would opt for a timeless wilderness. Though whether he's got political intrigue out of his system is another question.

 

[Darth Vile]

Indy can exist in the '50s. Indy could fight the Reds and the Reds could be treated as enemies just as the Nazis were.

The problem is you have a director who has grown rather kid friendly (Spielberg could've chosen to show us the Russians gun down the American soldiers, or the Ugha Warriors if he had chosen to. He could've shown us Spalko threatening Mac's life etc). And on the other hand, you have a producer/storywriter who now feels that there are no absolutes--That "heroes exist on both sides". You didn't see any heroic Nazis in Raiders or LC. Lucas and Spielberg in their own ways grew soft with age, less willing to be politically incorrect, less willing to show blood and guts, less willing to be risky and edgy.

You have the problem of KOTCS being a film that Spielberg didn't want to make to begin with; It being a film that had a rushed script; that represented a pieced together compromise vision which didn't fully satisfy either creator, a script cobbled from bits and pieces of other scripts. If Spielberg had truly gotten what he wanted, there'd have been no aliens at all. If Lucas truly had gotten what he wanted, it'd have been Saucermen from Mars. Two utterly different sentiments at work here.

You had two "collaborators" who were at odds, who caved in to each other weakly and rushed out the film because the fans wanted another Indy, and cobbled together a Frankenstein-esque script before Harrison got too old.

The problem wasn't the setting or this or that. It was purely the execution. Indy could easily exist in the 1950s. Indy could easily fight the Soviets. Indy could encounter aliens. All of these concepts are workable, and if done right, could've led to an awesome film. The problem was the way it was executed.

If think that?s a bit too simplistic approach. There?s an interesting debate to be had around whether Indiana Jones, as a character, sits better within a certain time period where there is a clearer sense of good and bad/right and wrong? and where the world doesn?t feel quite as small as it does now. Otherwise, it?s just another bashing thread.

Of course the threat in KOTCS could have been handled better? and I agree with you, to a certain extent, that Spielberg plays it a bit safer now with his more crowd pleasing and mainstream movies. However, for me I think it?s a much more worth while exercise to discuss whether the concept of moving Indy from the 1930?s/40?s to the 50?s/60?s undermines the spirit of the originals which served them so well.

For me Indy, as a concept, works much better in a pre 1950?s world? it feels much more ?period? in nature? it feels ?analogue?. The 50?s (IMHO) feels like the start of the modern age? and I?m not convinced that Indiana Jones fits into that smaller world so well? especially when the power of things like the Ark and Sankara stones are rendered obsolete by the atomic bomb?

 

[Raiders90]

Yes, it's George's infatuation with certain aspects of '50s culture that shapes the film. I would've been happier if Indy 4 had taken place in a wild location, far from civilization, in which the characters were pitted against nature, the unknown and an enemy without placing the story so particularly in time - such as The Mystery of the Blues where it's Indy in the wilderness being Indy.

If Indy 5 ever surfaces it will be in the '60s, if Lucas keeps with the tradition he set with the dating of KOTCS (+19 years in both real and Indy time). There's a possibility that if the '60s aren't as big an appeal Lucas as the '50s, then he would opt for a timeless wilderness. Though whether he's got political intrigue out of his system is another question.

Exactly. Remember, we've seen Indy in other areas before. Even if you discount the YIJC where we see him from 1908-1920, we've seen him in 1912 in LC--A time culturally far removed from 1936. But it doesn't feel that way because the politics and culture of that period aren't slammed into your head. We don't hear Young Indy in 1912 proclaiming he's a proud Bull Moose. It just feels like another Indiana Jones adventure.

I too think we'll get a return to timeless wilderness in an Indy 5 if it's set in the '60s. The early '60s (1960-1963) are a very quiet, transitional period really, culturally speaking. They're sort of like the Truman era--A forgotten period boxed in by two romanticized eras (the Depression 1930s/FDR 40s and Ike/Greaser '50s). They wouldn't be of interest to George. He's never shown any interest in the pop culture of that era. He's a 50s guy. There also isn't all that much political intrigue in the early '60s, culturally speaking, outside of Cuba, and George has never seemed to be into that either. Even if Cuba was involved, for whatever reason, Castro is generally considered more of a villain, even today, than the USSR was. McCarthyism and Red Baiting is generally over, relegated to the Birchers and other fringes. Rock N' Roll is considered dead by 1962 (a NY Times article I read discussed the "Death of Rock N' Roll" and how it had passed as an interesting but short lived fad, with no rock hits on the charts). Greasers have become sort of a joke and have faded into the background and won't reappear again until the '70s nostalgia for the '50s kicks in. Things are heading towards a sense of normality culturally. JFK's time and the early Great Society before Vietnam can be looked upon as a second FDR-esque era--A time of peace, cultural grace and exciting leadership. By 1963 we're heading toward an informal Detente that would become formal with Nixon. The Russians don't even need to be the villains in an early 60s set film.

1965 is absolute the limit for me. That's when Vietnam really began and that's when Hippies began coming out of the woodwork. Indy's time ends, for me, when the 60s as they're known culturally begins. 1964 and 1965 could work if you ignore the Beatles. I like to think of the Hippie era as beginning in 1966 really. For me '64 and '65 are still an era of some remaining innocence--the era of the 1964-1965 World's Fair, for example.

 

[Montana Smith]

Exactly. Remember, we've seen Indy in other areas before. Even if you discount the YIJC where we see him from 1908-1920, we've seen him in 1912 in LC--A time culturally far removed from 1936. But it doesn't feel that way because the politics and culture of that period aren't slammed into your head. We don't hear Young Indy in 1912 proclaiming he's a proud Bull Moose. It just feels like another Indiana Jones adventure.

I too think we'll get a return to timeless wilderness in an Indy 5 if it's set in the '60s. The early '60s (1960-1963) are a very quiet, transitional period really, culturally speaking. They're sort of like the Truman era--A forgotten period boxed in by two romanticized eras (the Depression 1930s/FDR 40s and Ike/Greaser '50s). They wouldn't be of interest to George. He's never shown any interest in the pop culture of that era. He's a 50s guy. There also isn't all that much political intrigue in the early '60s, culturally speaking, outside of Cuba, and George has never seemed to be into that either. Even if Cuba was involved, for whatever reason, Castro is generally considered more of a villain, even today, than the USSR was. McCarthyism and Red Baiting is generally over, relegated to the Birchers and other fringes. Rock N' Roll is considered dead by 1962 (a NY Times article I read discussed the "Death of Rock N' Roll" and how it had passed as an interesting but short lived fad, with no rock hits on the charts). Greasers have become sort of a joke and have faded into the background and won't reappear again until the '70s nostalgia for the '50s kicks in. Things are heading towards a sense of normality culturally. JFK's time and the early Great Society before Vietnam can be looked upon as a second FDR-esque era--A time of peace, cultural grace and exciting leadership. By 1963 we're heading toward an informal Detente that would become formal with Nixon. The Russians don't even need to be the villains in an early 60s set film.

1965 is absolute the limit for me. That's when Vietnam really began and that's when Hippies began coming out of the woodwork. Indy's time ends, for me, when the 60s as they're known culturally begins. 1964 and 1965 could work if you ignore the Beatles. I like to think of the Hippie era as beginning in 1966 really. For me '64 and '65 are still an era of some remaining innocence--the era of the 1964-1965 World's Fair, for example.

The wilderness without a specific time is a trade off in the right direction, but, for me the '30s are still the ideal period, as Darth wrote:

For me Indy, as a concept, works much better in a pre 1950’s world… it feels much more ‘period’ in nature… it feels ‘analogue’. The 50’s (IMHO) feels like the start of the modern age… and I’m not convinced that Indiana Jones fits into that smaller world so well… especially when the power of things like the Ark and Sankara stones are rendered obsolete by the atomic bomb…

It's a more appealing time. It's even more appealing in terms of politics. Rather than the dreary Cold War stand-off, the equivalent of Reds under the bed would have been Fifth Columnists. The Cold War built towards Cuba and Vietnam, whereas the '30s built towards another World War. The end of that war feels like the watershed. As soon as the Enola Gay dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima, Japan Indy's world becomes very different.

The co-pilot wrote in his log, "My God, what have we done?"

Those could well have been the words used by the creators of KOTCS!

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

It's not necessary to bring politics into the story, Raiders relied on the viewers knowlege (or not) of the enemy but showed the agents to be ruthless setting the bar and requiring Indiana Jones to clear it.

Thats all we really had to know.

Skull made too many concessions to understand the villain and to give their evil justification.

It all makes for a muddled mess and dilutes our hero's adventure...one he wanted like a hole in the head.

The best film of the series didn't show us the sphinx, didn't introduce us to Hitler.

The time period was defined by craft, (both art and transportation) clothes and some archetecture which by virtue of its existence in the 21st century will still exist in the 50's and 60's...(that goes for the vehicles as well).

The exotic is a part of the draw, you want Indy to bring you to a place untouched by the passage of time, with politics of their own.

 

[Stoo]

The '50s wouldn't be a problem if we didn't get the American Graffiti version of the 1950s.

There's a possibility that if the '60s aren't as big an appeal Lucas as the '50s, then he would opt for a timeless wilderness.

The early '60s (1960-1963) are a very quiet, transitional period really, culturally speaking. They're sort of like the Truman era--A forgotten period boxed in by two romanticized eras (the Depression 1930s/FDR 40s and Ike/Greaser '50s). They wouldn't be of interest to George. He's never shown any interest in the pop culture of that era. He's a 50s guy.

Guys, guys..."American Graffiti" is set in 1962!

 

[Montana Smith]

Guys, guys..."American Graffiti" is set in 1962!

Then there is no hope!

Never seen American Graffiti.

 

[Raiders90]

Guys, guys..."American Graffiti" is set in 1962!

Whatever. The point still stands.

 

[Forbidden Eye]

To add more politics to this, here's what John McCain thought:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20217425_20492464,00.html

''A couple of weeks ago we went to see the new 
Indiana Jones movie. I enjoyed that so much. The old guy wins.''

 

[kongisking]

Indy can exist in the '50s. Indy could fight the Reds and the Reds could be treated as enemies just as the Nazis were.

The problem is you have a director who has grown rather kid friendly (Spielberg could've chosen to show us the Russians gun down the American soldiers, or the Ugha Warriors if he had chosen to. He could've shown us Spalko threatening Mac's life etc). And on the other hand, you have a producer/storywriter who now feels that there are no absolutes--That "heroes exist on both sides". You didn't see any heroic Nazis in Raiders or LC. Lucas and Spielberg in their own ways grew soft with age, less willing to be politically incorrect, less willing to show blood and guts, less willing to be risky and edgy.

You have the problem of KOTCS being a film that Spielberg didn't want to make to begin with; It being a film that had a rushed script; that represented a pieced together compromise vision which didn't fully satisfy either creator, a script cobbled from bits and pieces of other scripts. If Spielberg had truly gotten what he wanted, there'd have been no aliens at all. If Lucas truly had gotten what he wanted, it'd have been Saucermen from Mars. Two utterly different sentiments at work here.

You had two "collaborators" who were at odds, who caved in to each other weakly and rushed out the film because the fans wanted another Indy, and cobbled together a Frankenstein-esque script before Harrison got too old.

The problem wasn't the setting or this or that. It was purely the execution. Indy could easily exist in the 1950s. Indy could easily fight the Soviets. Indy could encounter aliens. All of these concepts are workable, and if done right, could've led to an awesome film. The problem was the way it was executed.

This completely nailed it. Even though I remain a defender of the film, I definitely see the flaws, and accept them. I have come to like the film for what it is, warts and all. Think of it this way: would you discriminate against a person just because they aren't as smart or brave as their three older siblings? No, you should love them for who they are, and focus on their good points. That's probably a stupid example, but whatever. You get what I mean!

 

[Raiders90]

This completely nailed it. Even though I remain a defender of the film, I definitely see the flaws, and accept them. I have come to like the film for what it is, warts and all. Think of it this way: would you discriminate against a person just because they aren't as smart or brave as their three older siblings? No, you should love them for who they are, and focus on their good points. That's probably a stupid example, but whatever. You get what I mean!

I understand your point, it's just I veer between loving the film as a great mindless adventure film, great mindless fun in the vein of The Mummy films (which I highly enjoy), a nice 1950s Indy romp, and hating it because of the glaring flaws and because it had the potential to be so much more, and because it was a mediocre last chance to see Harrison be Indy. A lot of love, a lot of hate.

As you saw from my post, I'm not one of those who feels that Indy should be confined to the 1930s or should only deal with traditionally religious artifacts. I'm utterly fine with aliens. I actually found the Saucermen script better in some ways. It needed a few rewrites yes, but I think it in general had a lot more potential and as I've said in other threads, it represented a fully formed, 100% revolutionary vision. It wasn't a weak compromise. It broke a lot of Indy "laws" and I think laws with a character like Indy, laws are made to be broken. Indy shouldn't be stuck in a rigid framework. He was intended to be an American James Bond basically, and James Bond has had all manners of "adventures." ToD is probably my favorite Indy film and it didn't adhere to ANY Indiana Jones laws. It had unbelievable stunts, no Marshall College, no Marcus or Sallah, no Judeo-Christian relic, no Nazis; It was over the top, experimental, edgy and great. Controversial but IMO great. KOTCS in concept had the potential to be a second ToD--A new, revolutionary, rule breaking Indy film. The way it was handled killed that potential.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

To add more politics to this...

Please.

What personal politics were dialog in the films?

"Ravenwood's no Nazi."

"What about your boss, Der Fuhrer?"

"Only our mission for the Fuhrer matters."

"Let me ask you this:would you be more comfortable opening the Ark in Berlin, for your Fuhrer..."