Disney now controls Indiana Jones as well...

I think when a new movie comes out in the future it will either be young IJ or IJ in name only taking place in the modern day and looking like a Bourne movie.

 

I've read that Disney is concerned the licenses on some characters may actually expire, so they're buying up more-recent franchises.

 

I don't think they'd put Indy in a contemporary setting. My guess is they'll focus on pre-Raiders adventures.

 

If you recast, do set it in the same continuity as the Ford movies or do you re-boot? If you re-boot, do you re-make Raiders? You would almost have to, IMHO.

 

I suppose I can see them doing an "origin story" movie about Indy's early encounters with Abner Ravenwood, Marcus Brody, Sallah, etc. But the most successful movies both involved Indy vs. Nazis, so I think post-Last Crusade movies set during WWII are a natural choice.

To the question above, what would a reboot entail? What would you change? It's a pretty straightforward premise -- adventurous archaeologist in the early 20th century battling Nazis and supernatural forces. Why overcomplicate things? Just go the Bond route, do more of the same with a different actor.

After all, let's not forget that Indiana Jones is a pastiche of the adventure movies and serials of the '30s and '40s, and those things recast their lead actors in sequels all the time.

 

I think they'll go for pre-Raiders adventures that stay within the mid-1930s. That way they can use Nazis as villains and have a style, look and tone to the films that's close to Raiders.

 

I guess I'm asking what's better for Indy? The pre-Daniel Craig Bond approach that preserves previous continuity, or the present Daniel Craig Bond-era approach that starts fresh? Or maybe the Bond approach vs JJ-Trek approach would be more accurate.

That's why I felt a re-boot would have to start with a Raiders re-make.

 

They could just make Indy adventures without getting into continuity issues at all, basically the Temple of Doom approach. That's probably the best way to do it.

 

Well, the Nazis were only in power for three years prior to Raiders' 1936 setting, but for another seven years after Last Crusade's 1938 setting. And it seems that "Indy in WWII" is a significant missing chapter in his life.

Why, though? It's not like that was an origin story or anything. It was just one of the character's many adventures. It began with Indy being defeated by his longtime nemesis, then had him go back to his well-established teaching job and spend time with his old friend, then had him reunited with his old flame, and then the two of them joined up with another old friend of his. Raiders was a story from the middle of his career, just one (and a half) of the many adventurous episodes of his life, albeit an unusually big one. So why would that specific story need to be told again?

Now, I'm usually not one to say that series shouldn't be rebooted. Reboots can be valuable and worthwhile. I'm just not seeing what there is about this franchise that gives purpose to a reboot as opposed to a simple recasting. It doesn't need to be modernized, since it's intrinsically a period piece. An origin story could be told without contradicting or overwriting existing events. There are plenty of gaps between existing adventures in which new adventures could be slotted, and it's episodic enough that continuity wouldn't be a major issue.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see why keeping the existing movies in continuity would get in the way of telling new stories. It's not like Star Trek where they had 45 years and 700-plus installments' worth of past, present, and future continuity to contend with and thus needed a fresh start to have room to breathe. Kingdom aside, the Indiana Jones chronology is largely wide open. It would be far simpler just to recast and keep the continuity more or less intact.

Hmm, still, maybe the case could be made that Raiders itself is a classic story in a way beyond the rest of the franchise, the way King Solomon's Mines is the most famous and popular of the Allan Quatermain stories and has thus been filmed half a dozen times. But I don't see that happening for a while yet. Given that the creators were consciously influenced by Bond, I think that as long as Spielberg and Lucas and Kathleen Kennedy (and Lawrence Kasdan?) are potentially involved, they'll want to recast and continue rather than remake existing films.

 

That is exactly what I'm trying to say. Thank You!

A total cinematic re-boot can ignore the other movies, but having that story in the mix is a must.

 

Three years or seven years still gives plenty of room for adventures and I think other factors will trump any missing chapter rationale.

 

KotKS said something about him doing intelligence work during WW2? Off to wiki...

... Aaaand I'm back.

From the Indiana Jones wiki...

 

I agree.

 

Since when has a project being pure folly ever stopped Hollywood from doing it anyway?

 

I acknowledge that Indiana Jones has been at his best fighting Nazis. If you want to keep Harrison Ford (and I would like to see at least one more with him before moving on), then I think there is a way to have the best of both worlds.

Set the next one back in South America in the 50s or 60s and have him fight Nazis who fled and hid in South America after WWII. Maybe team up with some of the Nazi Hunters of the time. Argentina would be particularly good, since the Perons were in power during some of that period.

 

I'd see an Indy reboot with Joe Flanigan in the role. He could definitely take over from Ford.

 

Actually, come to think of it, Disney may not be allowed to produce a remake of Raiders under the terms of the agreement with Paramount. Disney can make new Indy films, but Paramount maintains distribution rights over the first four films. It's not clear whether a remake would infringe on the rights Paramount retains over Raiders.

 

I bet the two studios would reach some sort of accommodation if things went in that direction. After all, a remake of Raiders would be a very expensive advertisement for Paramount's Indy catalogue, and I believe they also get a cut of the box office from Indy projects going forward, no?

Hopefully, they don't go in that direction, though. The movie wouldn't benefit from being remade.

 

No one would remake Raiders. Remaking Indy is another story. There are tons of stories they could tell and artifacts to go after.

I've always wanted to see Indy go to China and Tibet. Cambodia and Thailand. Egypt again going after something other than the Ark. India again, but stay above the ground this time. They could shoot in Sri Lanka again if the Indian gov't still has a stick up their ass about the script like they did for Temple of Doom.