I detest Red Letter Media; I'd rather be dismembered by a grizzly bear. The Indy movies are just meant to be good old fashion action-adventure movies with some romance thrown in and maybe a goofy sidekick. We don't need to shred the movie apart.I don't disagree. As Mike Stoklasa of Red Letter Media has observed, the character of Indiana Jones isn't all that special; he was conceived as a "generic action man," and while his bookish professor/rough-and-tumble archeologist gives him some character depth, he's hardly irreplaceable. What is irreplaceable, though, is the 1920s-30s setting, when people dressed all snazzy, Art Deco was en vogue, the world wasn't yet completely mapped, flashlights hadn't yet replaced fire torches, radio wasn't yet a thing, and the greatest/worst villains of all time, the Nazis, hadn't yet unleashed WW2, meaning they can be used as baddies without necessarily dealing with the acute horrors of the war itself.

You know, we don't need to reboot at all. Just recast the character and tell some stories between films. Problem solved.So, by all means, lets have new and more adventurer characters in that time period. (I've long held, for instance, that The Mummy '99 is better than all Indy films apart from Raiders.) If Lucasfilm or anyone else is willing to give one a try, I'd be interested, and that's exactly why I suggested re-introducing a new Indy indirectly, as a secondary character, if that has to be done at all. I'd rather have an original character than a new Indy - but I'd rather have a new Indy than no 1920s/30s archeology-themed adventure flicks at all.