I'd like to forget that "Mutt" ever existed.
Disney now controls Indiana Jones as well...
- Thread starter Professor Zoom
- Start date
If it's set after the others that would basically put it in the 1960s, and that's just way too recent in my mind for an Indy adventure.
Of course whether it's a reboot or continuation, there's still the same basic problem that Lucas and Spielberg ran into, which is that there are only so many religious/historical artifacts out there really worthy of centering an Indy movie around. The Ark and Grail are about as big as it gets, and they've already been done.
I don't see a new character working as well, nor do I see the need. Indiana Jones was always meant to be a James Bond-type character, so recasting the role should be a natural approach.
As for magical artifacts, there's always the Spear of Destiny, although the first Librarian movie (itself a blatant Indy knockoff) already did that one.
As for magical artifacts, there's always the Spear of Destiny, although the first Librarian movie (itself a blatant Indy knockoff) already did that one.
The difference with James Bond is he isn't continually set in one time period, but rather in the present day so the char has evolved as well.
I doubt we will see Indy trying to recover a religious artifact in the remains of Noah's Ark while being pursued by Isis.
I like Pratt and think he could pull off Indy. I don't want to see Ford do it anymore. He clearly doesn't care and he's way too old. Ford in KOTC reminded me of Connery in NSNA.
No need to reboot anything. Leave the continuity intact.
Off the top of my head:
Have the first one set in East Asia in 1932. That puts it before Temple and allows people to see it as an origin story of sorts. Lao Che can be involved (as a neutral criminal resource, perhaps the backer of Indy's outing in Australia), along with Marion & Abner Ravenwood. Locales would be Australia for the opening, then Shanghai (for Lao and the main plot start), then on to sites in Japanese-occupied Manchuria.
That allows for Imperial Japan to oppose Indy, giving the movie its easily unlikable fascist villains, without having to trot out the Nazis on the first outing of the new series of films.
There has to be something suitably ancient and valuable in Manchuria for Indy to go after that the Japanese would also want to get their hands on.
For the second one I'd go to the Mediterranean in 1934 so Egypt and Sallah could be introduced in the opener, Marion could go off with Abner to search for another lead on the Ark (Staff of Ra), and then Indy, Sallah and "insert romantic lead here" could head either into the heart of Africa or to Greece for suitable artifacts or locations from myth. If we wanted to stick with fascists as go to bad guys, the Italians could serve in either case (agents in Greece, military in Ethiopia). Belloq would be introduced in this film where he steals not only the prize but the girl from Indy.
The third would involve whatever incident led to Indy breaking off his relationship with Abner and Marion during the opener (I'm thinking them discovering Indy has a girl in every museum after ostensibly being with Marion since the first movie would do the trick). It would not include Sallah and would be set in 1935. The primary location should be somewhere cold, I think. Perhaps Soviet Russia, Scandinavia or in Canada/Northern US. There would be no more origins of people, places, or things form the OT in this one. Love interest, sidekick, and villain would be all new here.
OT Temple and Raiders follow this one in late 1935 and 1936.
The fourth would fit in between Raiders and Crusade. Five and six would be post-Crusade and deal with Nazis, the occult and Indy's time with the OSS during WWII. Six could even jump right into post-war Europe and the scramble to recover the art and artifacts Hitler had stolen before the Soviets get ahold of them. This would lead the series into (ugh) Kingdom and be the conclusion.
Pratt could easily do 6 films if they pumped them out every two or three years, keeping him at a decent age to cover the range of the films. Or he does three and gets replaced.
A big issue I could see would be keeping the tone right to fit with the OT. Indy isn't Nathan Drake, so Pratt can't be free-running through temples, shooting people in the face on the fly. He's physical, gets in fights, does action hero stuff, sure, but he's not invincible man. Avoiding the kind of style disconnect Star Wars PT/OT had with superhero Jedi versus samurai Jedi would be important. Setting-wise, the historical periods are well established and shouldn't be a problem.
No need to reboot anything. Leave the continuity intact.
Off the top of my head:
Have the first one set in East Asia in 1932. That puts it before Temple and allows people to see it as an origin story of sorts. Lao Che can be involved (as a neutral criminal resource, perhaps the backer of Indy's outing in Australia), along with Marion & Abner Ravenwood. Locales would be Australia for the opening, then Shanghai (for Lao and the main plot start), then on to sites in Japanese-occupied Manchuria.
That allows for Imperial Japan to oppose Indy, giving the movie its easily unlikable fascist villains, without having to trot out the Nazis on the first outing of the new series of films.
There has to be something suitably ancient and valuable in Manchuria for Indy to go after that the Japanese would also want to get their hands on.
For the second one I'd go to the Mediterranean in 1934 so Egypt and Sallah could be introduced in the opener, Marion could go off with Abner to search for another lead on the Ark (Staff of Ra), and then Indy, Sallah and "insert romantic lead here" could head either into the heart of Africa or to Greece for suitable artifacts or locations from myth. If we wanted to stick with fascists as go to bad guys, the Italians could serve in either case (agents in Greece, military in Ethiopia). Belloq would be introduced in this film where he steals not only the prize but the girl from Indy.
The third would involve whatever incident led to Indy breaking off his relationship with Abner and Marion during the opener (I'm thinking them discovering Indy has a girl in every museum after ostensibly being with Marion since the first movie would do the trick). It would not include Sallah and would be set in 1935. The primary location should be somewhere cold, I think. Perhaps Soviet Russia, Scandinavia or in Canada/Northern US. There would be no more origins of people, places, or things form the OT in this one. Love interest, sidekick, and villain would be all new here.
OT Temple and Raiders follow this one in late 1935 and 1936.
The fourth would fit in between Raiders and Crusade. Five and six would be post-Crusade and deal with Nazis, the occult and Indy's time with the OSS during WWII. Six could even jump right into post-war Europe and the scramble to recover the art and artifacts Hitler had stolen before the Soviets get ahold of them. This would lead the series into (ugh) Kingdom and be the conclusion.
Pratt could easily do 6 films if they pumped them out every two or three years, keeping him at a decent age to cover the range of the films. Or he does three and gets replaced.
A big issue I could see would be keeping the tone right to fit with the OT. Indy isn't Nathan Drake, so Pratt can't be free-running through temples, shooting people in the face on the fly. He's physical, gets in fights, does action hero stuff, sure, but he's not invincible man. Avoiding the kind of style disconnect Star Wars PT/OT had with superhero Jedi versus samurai Jedi would be important. Setting-wise, the historical periods are well established and shouldn't be a problem.
^That's a good plan. I like it.
Hmm... Who'd be a good casting choice for the young Marion? Or for Sallah?
Hmm... Who'd be a good casting choice for the young Marion? Or for Sallah?
For me, Indy was a great trilogy of films and should be left as such. The Young Indy series was fine for what it was (an educational adventure program for a young audience).
But those films themselves are homages to the films of an earlier era, such as the old Republic adventure serials, She, and King Solomon's Mines. The 1954 Charlton Heston film Secret of the Incas was a particularly direct influence, with Indy's costume being almost an exact match for Heston's in that film and with many of the scenes in Raiders being almost shot-for-shot identical, or so it's been said. Here's a site that discusses the influences on the series.
So since the Indy films themselves were a tribute to past adventure film series, it would not be at all inappropriate for a new generation to pay tribute to them in turn. Sure, we've seen plenty of knockoffs like Tomb Raider and The Librarian, but I see nothing wrong with directly reviving a timeless character like Indiana Jones.
Doctorwhovian
Fleet Captain
Funny thing about Abner Ravenwood, the guy almost shows up in several Indiana Jones projects, but gets cut out most of the time. Either in the backstory of Indy's relationship with him and Marion (Which would probably have eventually been seen in YIJC had it not been cancelled), he's also been 'sort of' in comics and video games. Perhaps the biggest missed oppurtunity was with Kingdom of the Crystall Skull, where I think at one point in production the Oxley character was supposed to be Abner. or something like that.
One of the Indiana Jones comics did the Spear of Destiny already too.
Is that really the case though? We've seen an older Indiana Jones in Crystal Skull and TV gave us the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. There seems to be an implied continuity unlike anything we've seen with the James Bond films. I can't recall anything that has suggested
What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about changing the continuity, just recasting the actor. I've been saying throughout the thread that it would be easy to recast the role without rebooting the continuity; after all, Indy's already been played by five different actors at different ages, so this would just be more of the same.
For that matter, I don't know where you get the idea that the Bond films have rebooted the continuity with each new actor. Sure, gradually over time, they've had to subtly tweak the continuity to justify Bond's agelessness, but prior to the Daniel Craig reboot, it was more of a Marvel-style sliding timescale where past events are assumed to be in continuity even if their chronology is glossed over. (For instance, Bond's marriage in George Lazenby's movie being referenced in several Roger Moore movies.)
It just seems off to me to say the character was meant to be a James Bond-type character when the films have used the same actor for thirty years. Who meant for the character to be such?
From wikipedia, that we all love so much:
He(Lucas) also changed his mind about continuing the series with a spin-off, joking "Indiana Jones is Indiana Jones. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. If it was Mutt Williams it would be Mutt Williams and the Search for Elvis or something.
EDIT: Actually, I know you'll find where Spielberg will mention that IJ could be a "James Bond film without the hardware". So really, this is just a stupid argument over worthless semantics so don't bother with it, I should just delete it now.....
From wikipedia, that we all love so much:
He(Lucas) also changed his mind about continuing the series with a spin-off, joking "Indiana Jones is Indiana Jones. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. If it was Mutt Williams it would be Mutt Williams and the Search for Elvis or something.
EDIT: Actually, I know you'll find where Spielberg will mention that IJ could be a "James Bond film without the hardware". So really, this is just a stupid argument over worthless semantics so don't bother with it, I should just delete it now.....
There's more to James Bond than recasting the role. He's a James Bond character in the sense of being the charismatic hero of an ongoing action-adventure franchise. That's what I was referring to, and I was saying that if he's already a Bond-like character in that sense, there's no reason he couldn't also be a Bond-like character in the sense of transcending a single actor.
I like that plan too.
Kate Bosworth or Katie Holmes and Omid Djalili.
Who'd you pick for Short Round and Marcus Brody ?
Last edited:
Fair enough and I agree with you on that.
In a perfect world, they could do it with the blessing of Ford and Spielberg. While like Bond, it would depend on getting a good actor to fill the role, I think another adventure in the classic era could be fun to see.
I believe that was to be a plot line for an abandoned Indiana Jones video game as well.
We as has already been pointed out OHMSS was referenced most notable in "For Your Eyes Only" with Bond at hiswifes grave, and Blofeld.
"Die another Day" of course refers to every previous EON Bond film
Nice try but everyone knows OHMSS never really happened just like this George Lazenby character they insist starred in it. Urban legend....
I just watched the documetary "Everything or Nothing", which tells the history of Bond in film. George Lazenby told a funny story of how when he heard that the studio was looking for a new James Bond he decided that it had to be him, even though he never acted in his life.
He bought a tux from the people made Connery's, paid a visit to Connery's barber, went to the studio, snuck past the front dest, made his way to Brocolli and Saltzman's office and said, "I hear you're looking for the next James Bond."
When they asked him about his experience he made up stories of movies in India and Turkey and other places that he thought they would ever be able to check (pre-IMDB, of course). They put him through the various stages they felt were appropriate and gave him the job.
Later, when he confessed to the director that he wasn't an actor, the director just stared shocked at Lazenby and laughed and said, "Kid, you just bluffed your way past two of the most ruthless men in Hollywood. You are an actor. Stick with me, and I'll make you James Bond!"
Unfortunately for Lazenby, he saw this largely as an opportunity to party and get laid on a regular basis, and effectively Lindsay Lohan-ed himself out of the job.
He bought a tux from the people made Connery's, paid a visit to Connery's barber, went to the studio, snuck past the front dest, made his way to Brocolli and Saltzman's office and said, "I hear you're looking for the next James Bond."
When they asked him about his experience he made up stories of movies in India and Turkey and other places that he thought they would ever be able to check (pre-IMDB, of course). They put him through the various stages they felt were appropriate and gave him the job.
Later, when he confessed to the director that he wasn't an actor, the director just stared shocked at Lazenby and laughed and said, "Kid, you just bluffed your way past two of the most ruthless men in Hollywood. You are an actor. Stick with me, and I'll make you James Bond!"
Unfortunately for Lazenby, he saw this largely as an opportunity to party and get laid on a regular basis, and effectively Lindsay Lohan-ed himself out of the job.
Last edited:
Similar threads
