Egon Spengler
Master Member
It'll be a half baked hand off, same as the sequel trilogy.
Indiana Jones 5 officially announced
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
harrisonp
Sr Member
The biggest issue with this IMO is what’s next? You’ve handed off the hat and it’s 1980, the era of “exotic locales” and treasure hunting is over. If it’s going to be more Cold War/Russians then you’re basically James Bond and have lost the point. The modern successors to Indy are Nathan Drake, and Lara Croft, and maybe I’ll add National Treasure as well. There’s no reason to keep this going just for “brand recognition” when Indy/Harrison are the brand. Star Wars is bigger than its component parts, Indy IMO is not.
Wolfsburg
Master Member
I agree Indy works better in the 30s and 40s, preferably fighting Nazis. Even in the case of the 50s, as per the last movie, I thought it was an enormously wasted opportunity to not make the "big baddies" be the "Odessa" Nazis hiding out in South America when they were arguably most active. Maybe they had some plot to create the 4th Reich, bolstered by a crystal skull or some other supernatural macguffin. Maybe they have Hitler's body and want to resurrect it. I don't know... but it would've been a good plausible way to push forward while still keeping Nazis in the picture and their quest for artifacts.
Indy in the psychedelic age? Eh, color me highly skeptical.
Indy in the psychedelic age? Eh, color me highly skeptical.
If the rumor is true, they already had the perfect chance to introduce a female character in KOTCS. I've said this before, but instead of Mutt, they should have had Indy's daughter instead. It would have been funnier to see him have a daughter just like him. It was the perfect setup for a new series of movies. This just seems forced like everything else coming out of Hollywood.
The problem with continuing the chronological nature of the character to account for Harrison's age, is that it has to evolve into some other genre in order to mesh with the era in which the story takes place and that's a problem because Indy's time period is firmly planted in the golden era of film. That's why Crystal Skull felt off. It took place outside that context. You can't just uproot the concept and modernize it in a different era when it's supposed to take place in the real world. Star Wars could do it because the setting of the story was completely fictionalized. Indy doesn't have that luxury. Those types of movies weren't filled with subversive ideas. They were in made in total opposition to that. They were made to escape from it.
As for recasting the role and setting it once again back in the 1930's, modern audiences are too cynical to really identify with the archetypal adventure stories set in the relatively unknown world. If you need further proof of this, just look at the countless articles by entertainment journalists over the last decade that have a habit of deconstructing classic movies to the point of outright mockery, all the while claiming to be huge fans. The irony is staggering. Is everyone a hipster? Treasure hunting stories often have elements that most would find uncomfortable and if the story was going to stay true to those roots it's only natural to pay homage to those tropes. Though now those things would be considered problematic and it's a risk to not address certain cultural insensitivities because, you know, reasons. Modern audiences don't seem able to put things in context. Hollywood isn't exactly known for handling such things with any tact either, so I'm not at all interested in seeing more of that. Some aspects of movies don't age well but that's evidence that movies are a product of their time and if you're going to enjoy older movies you have to have at least a rudimentary understanding of this.
Plus how much can you really mine from Indiana Jones? I mean really? The concept worked great for 3 films and even Spielberg only did Crystal Skull to appease George. You can only have Indy fighting Nazi's so many times that it gets tired. It worked in Last Crusade, but barely. I love that movie but it was kind of a retread of Raiders without the same punch. Do fans really want to see a further watered down Indiana Jones? I don't.
As for recasting the role and setting it once again back in the 1930's, modern audiences are too cynical to really identify with the archetypal adventure stories set in the relatively unknown world. If you need further proof of this, just look at the countless articles by entertainment journalists over the last decade that have a habit of deconstructing classic movies to the point of outright mockery, all the while claiming to be huge fans. The irony is staggering. Is everyone a hipster? Treasure hunting stories often have elements that most would find uncomfortable and if the story was going to stay true to those roots it's only natural to pay homage to those tropes. Though now those things would be considered problematic and it's a risk to not address certain cultural insensitivities because, you know, reasons. Modern audiences don't seem able to put things in context. Hollywood isn't exactly known for handling such things with any tact either, so I'm not at all interested in seeing more of that. Some aspects of movies don't age well but that's evidence that movies are a product of their time and if you're going to enjoy older movies you have to have at least a rudimentary understanding of this.
Plus how much can you really mine from Indiana Jones? I mean really? The concept worked great for 3 films and even Spielberg only did Crystal Skull to appease George. You can only have Indy fighting Nazi's so many times that it gets tired. It worked in Last Crusade, but barely. I love that movie but it was kind of a retread of Raiders without the same punch. Do fans really want to see a further watered down Indiana Jones? I don't.
Last edited:
ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
The rumor that Indy is going to be replaced or succeeded by a woman has been circulating since well before filming started. It's not like it's massive leap to make that assumption. That story is not really newsworthy. Tell me Indy is being replaced with a whip wielding Iguana and that would be a bit surprising.
The Goon
Sr Member
The only movie I've seen that had Phoebe Waller-Bridge in it was Solo: A Star Wars Story, and since she played L3-37 I can honestly say I've never actually seen her in anything.
HMSwolfe
Master Member
He (Mangold) is the absolute only reason I have any vestigial hope for this movie. I haven’t seen something of his I haven’t loved yet. But it’s such a small part, and the kind of director he is really doesn’t seem like it would work with as much control Disney, Lucasfilm, and Kennedy are definitely going to be demanding on a project this big.
Exactly. And it has to be said and I can't emphasize this enough...no matter who you 'replace' Indy with -male, female, son, daughter, student, rival- it's NOT INDIANA JONES ANYMORE! It being set in the "same universe" doesn't matter one iota and despite what I'm sure KK and Disney think, Indiana Jones is more than just a bullwhip and a fedora. This "passing the torch" trend in modern film is a sham.
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
Forget passing a torch, just put Chris Pratt in the fedora and take the stories back to the 30’s.
The Goon
Sr Member
Yeah, 'cause those Hollywood types would never lie about their latest project in order to keep any major secrets hidden from the general public.
Prop Collector
Sr Member
Yeah and guess who they hired. Phoebe. Waller. Bridge. Yeah...
Attempting a hand-off -
That decision is liable to come from the producer & studio level (read: financial), not the director & writer level (read: creative). I'm assuming it's happening in this movie unless there is hard evidence to the contrary.
They might have made another movie starring Shia's character a decade ago if the public had reacted well to him. They could have built it mainly around Shia and given Harrison Ford a supporting role like Stallone in 'Creed'. In Indy#4 they were clearly testing the waters. There is probably an unused take of the last scene (the wedding) where Shia succeeds in putting the fedora on his head.
As for handing it off to Phoebe W-B at the end . . . I have been ignoring those rumors because, frankly, the idea doesn't seem credible. It sounds like an SNL skit.
Maybe they would try to spin off PWB's character into her own franchise at the end. That's not a crazy idea per se, if the public likes her character in Indy#5. (It's like following 'Mad Max: Fury Road' with a movie about Charlize Theron's character.) But that also wouldn't really be Indiana Jones anymore.
I just don't buy the idea of Indy#5 concluding with PWB taking the name & fedora & bullwhip. That rumor is too ridiculous to be credible IMO.
That decision is liable to come from the producer & studio level (read: financial), not the director & writer level (read: creative). I'm assuming it's happening in this movie unless there is hard evidence to the contrary.
They might have made another movie starring Shia's character a decade ago if the public had reacted well to him. They could have built it mainly around Shia and given Harrison Ford a supporting role like Stallone in 'Creed'. In Indy#4 they were clearly testing the waters. There is probably an unused take of the last scene (the wedding) where Shia succeeds in putting the fedora on his head.
As for handing it off to Phoebe W-B at the end . . . I have been ignoring those rumors because, frankly, the idea doesn't seem credible. It sounds like an SNL skit.
Maybe they would try to spin off PWB's character into her own franchise at the end. That's not a crazy idea per se, if the public likes her character in Indy#5. (It's like following 'Mad Max: Fury Road' with a movie about Charlize Theron's character.) But that also wouldn't really be Indiana Jones anymore.
I just don't buy the idea of Indy#5 concluding with PWB taking the name & fedora & bullwhip. That rumor is too ridiculous to be credible IMO.
Similar threads
