For now, I just want to see one thing on youtube: Indiana Jones, Disney Princess
Disney now controls Indiana Jones as well...
- Thread starter Professor Zoom
- Start date
Now that Disney owns both Star Wars and Indiana Jones, I look forward to the inevitable Muppet movie versions.... 
That's basically what I was suggesting. I guess "reboot" was a bit of a sloppy term on my part. Though I wouldn't be opposed if they were to play it "fast and loose" regarding the continuity, pick and choose what they want without feeling enslaved to movies that are thirty years old.
Now that Disney owns both Star Wars and Indiana Jones, I look forward to the inevitable Muppet movie versions....
Anyone else picturing Kermit running from a giant boulder right now?
How about a Star Wars/Indy crossover...?
Yeah, but if you just recast within the same continuity, then that story is already in the mix. That's what I'm saying. A recast seems the simplest option, and I see no problems with that approach that would make a total reboot preferable to it.
Err, but earlier adventures would be missing chapters too, so I don't understand this sentence.
Or, this time they could actually bother to do their research and write a script that doesn't insultingly mischaracterize Indian culture and religion. Make amends for the mistakes of that film.
Which is the way screen franchises have usually handled continuations -- being nominally in the same continuity but not sweating the details. The concept of the wholesale "reboot" is a relatively recent one. To the best of my knowledge, it only became a common term in fandom in reference to the reinvented Battlestar Galactica about a decade ago.
We've seen many film series in the past that nominally carried their continuities forward while retconning freely. Each of the sequels to the original Planet of the Apes retconned the premise and ending of its predecessor to some degree (since none of the first four films was designed to allow for a sequel) while still pretending to be continuations. Pretty much all of the Highlander sequels contradict one another while purporting to be continuations of the original. The '88 War of the Worlds TV series was a direct sequel to the '53 film but played fast and loose with its specifics, while the second season retconned things massively from the first season's version of the world without bothering to explain many of the changes. And so on.
So the modern tendency to reduce continuity to only two options -- a faithful continuation vs. a complete reinvention -- is overly narrow. Most franchises over the decades have taken the intermediate path of pretending to continue while reinventing what they needed to.
I'm finding it extremely difficult to imagine an Indy movie starring Kermit not being far better than an Indy 5 starring Ford.
Now that Disney owns both Star Wars and Indiana Jones, I look forward to the inevitable Muppet movie versions....
Anyone else picturing Kermit running from a giant boulder right now?
Miss Piggy would be Marion, obviously.
Fozzie Bear as Sallah.
Who should be Belloq and Marcus Brody?
You identified a fairly long period as a missing chapter. I think they're more likely to go with mid-30s adventures that are basically Temple of Doom era tales. So, yes, they would be untold adventures, but it wouldn't be an entire missing chapter in the way you had talked about.
Nothing's sacred anymore. Reboot, recast, remake, uneccessary late sequel, just leave it alone.
I wasn't talking about duration, but about significance. It's World War Two. That's a big deal.
My point about duration was a separate one, that there's a lot more room for Indy-vs.-Nazis stories after the original trilogy than there is before it. Also the Nazis are a bigger, more global threat post-1938 than pre-1936. They didn't really begin exerting military force beyond their borders until 1936, so the pre-Raiders period is a less feasible setting for globetrotting, Nazi-fighting adventures than the post-Crusade period (or even the period between those two films).
Duration and/or significance of that missing chapter won't trump the lure of the mid-1930s in my opinion. But we'll see what happens. It's a long way off.
They could still have him come up against Nazis very easily, especially Nazi agents. Anyway, I don't think they'd have him square off against Nazis every time at bat.
Oh come on. It wasn't that bad. If it was, Amrish Puri and Roshan Seth would not have participated. And as someone who has seen over 100 Indian films myself, let me tell you there are PLENTY that mischaracterize Indian culture for entertainment's sake, and use religion as silly plot devices that DO offend certain portions of the population. Or offend certain social groups. It happens all the time.
The Deceivers is a "more accurate" representation of the Thug cult, but even that movie had scenes showing drug trips and murderous fervor in the name of Kali, not to mention Pierce Brosnan in brownface. But the Indian government seemed to not have a problem in 1988 like they did in 1984, presumably because of the involvement of Ismail Merchant and James Ivory, and Shashi Kapoor adding his star power to the cast. Though some local residents had problems with the film, the Indian government signed off on it.
What is the lure of the mid-1930s, though? That's unclear to me. What is it about that period that you think would be so appealing?
But they wouldn't be nearly as potent a threat pre-'36. They'd just be some nationalist upstarts in Germany who were making a lot of noise. We, the viewers, would know what they would become in the future, but they wouldn't seem that big a deal to Indy yet, and they wouldn't have the kind of global influence and presence that would make their agents that much of a threat to him.
Besides, the nature of the franchise is such that Indy needs a lot of cannon-fodder soldiers to kill off. That's not something I enjoy about the franchise, but it's part of the formula. So it makes sense to do a Nazi story at a time when there are Nazi armies for him to confront, not just the odd spy here and there.
I never suggested or endorsed anything of the sort. Of course it doesn't have to be done every time, but it is worth doing. And if it's going to be done, it makes far more sense to do it in a post-1936 story.
So? That doesn't mean it isn't worth making the effort not to offend people. Surely that's axiomatically more desirable than the alternative.
The lure is Indy adventures in the original mold in tone, design, etc, with an Indy who's young and robust. It's a great setting for light archaelogical adventures. From an historical perspective the era offers a lot of freedom for light globe-trotting adventures without having to take the effects of World War II into account.
With India, it's pretty much impossible not to offend someone, some group, some political party, whatever when you make a film. Every time there's a retelling of the Ramayana for a modern audience, someone gets offended. If you have a Muslim actor playing a Hindu character, someone gets offended (double that if the Muslim actor is playing a prominent Hindu character). If an actor or actress born in the north plays a character from the south, someone gets offended. You get the idea. This is never the majority, but when it happens, there's always some PR niceties that are exchanged. And then they get on with it. Prominent names spoke out against Slumdog Millionaire, too. It's impossible to please everyone.
With the Thug Cult, it's also virtually impossible to make a movie on them without offending someone. Some people actually believe that they murdered no one, they simply robbed people. Others believe that the whole story was made up by the British to discredit India. Others say they robbed and maybe murdered, but didn't do so in the name of Kali. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. There's evidence to suggest that they got themselves into a fervor (drug induced or not) and murdered people in the name of Kali. It's safe to assume they did so without cutting people's hearts out and lowering them into fiery pits, and had no idea what voodoo was, but there's not much in Temple of Doom that is THAT far off base. Yes, it emphasized the "destruction" side of Kali and not the "creation" side (more like didn't mention the "creation" side), but then again, so did the Thugs. And that's the point.
The stuff about the lingam stone was off base too. But again...Amrish Puri and Roshan Seth were on that film. If there was something GLARINGLY offensive, I'm sure their involvement would've ceased.
I'm finding it extremely difficult to imagine an Indy movie starring Kermit not being far better than an Indy 5 starring Ford.
Indiana Frog & The Secret of the Sacred Marsh
I'd honestly be more excited about seeing something like this than an actual sequel at this point.
Indiana Frog and the Rainbow Connection of Doom
Do we want "light" adventures, though? Maybe for a TV series, but feature films are supposed to be about major events in the characters' lives. Indy movies should be light in tone, yes, but that doesn't mean they're about minor incidents.
Also, it's not like Indy would've immediately gotten old the moment Last Crusade ended. His 40th birthday would've been July 1, 1939, about a year after that movie -- plus he would've been rejuvenated by drinking from the Grail, so he probably would've been in great shape for his age. (As implied by the fact that the 92-year-old present-day Indy in the frame sequences of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles was played by a 75-year-old.)
Evidently we do given what you say in the first half of your second sentence below.
They should be light in tone, but not about minor incidents. One doesn't preclude the other, as you've just acknowledged. No one had said they should be about minor incidents.
This is pretty much the same reason why the TCW tv series was canned - Cartoon Network, owned by Warner, had the distribution rights. And Disney now owned the show itself. Disney would be damned if they'd let Warner keep making money off of distribution, and Warner would be damned if they'd give up distribution rights to Disney, thus meaning Disney couldn't run it on their own channels and make money that way... so.. Disney just cancelled the show. To be replaced with their own in-house show, Rebels, a fully DisneyWars production to be distributed over Disney channels.
Similar threads
