Look, I get the desire for "more," but sometimes it's best to just let things go. Or, hey, do a new story with a different, similar character. I hear the Uncharted series is supposed to be pretty good at capturing the kind of "jungle adventure exploration" thing that Indy had.
But Indiana Jones himself? That character:
A. Can only be played by Harrison Ford, and
B. Really only works for a period from about 1920-ish through WWII.
Now, you could do various things to the Indy franchise, but you'd violate one of the two abovementioned factors.
You could reboot the franchise and pretend the Ford films never happened. That would let you stay within the 1920s to 1930s timeframe, but it'd violate the "Only Harrison Ford" factor.
You could keep sticking Ford into films as he gets older and older, but that'd violate the timeframe issues because you'd have to push the stories into the 1960s or 1970s. And nobody wants to see Disco Indy.
Or you could violate both clauses and stick the Indy character in modern times, but that's basically just cashing in on the name and at that point, you might as well just tell a new ******* story about some other character because trying to claim it's Indiana Jones is pointless.
And yes, I know, there's the "James Bond" argument. But while Indy and Bond are loosely connected (due to Spielberg or Lucas saying they wanted to direct a Bond film, I think), Indy and Bond are very very different characters. Bond is a lot closer to, say, a comic book superhero. He's a creature OF his time, not of a bygone age. Bond movies are always set in the "present." It's just that the "present" has shifted. When Connery did Dr. No in 1962, the film was set in the present day. It wasn't set in "the 1960s" as if that were some past era. When Roger Moore did Moonraker, that was set in the present day in the 1970s. And so on and so forth. Bond is always a current character, not a character who exists in a past era.
As for the Sherlock comparison, that's a better argument, but I think there's another key difference in that updating Sherlock from the 1880s to the 2010s, and when the character has existed for 120 years. Indy has existed for a little over 30. There's a difference between taking a 30-year old character and fundamentally changing it, and doing the same with a 120 year old character. Sherlock had been done to death in the 1880s by the time the BBC and CBS series came out. A fresh take was warranted. With Indy, we've had three (ok, fine, four) movies, a short-lived TV series that wasn't really what the movies were about, a couple video games, and some comic books and maybe a novel or two. Indy hasn't been done to death in the 1930s (although arguably he was in the 1950s...).
Here's the thing, though. I don't think people want more "Indy." What they want is the feel of Indy. There's a LOT of ways you could get that without going back to Indy per se.
