Indiana Jones (Disney+ series)
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Maybe it's not true (and I hope it's not) but these directors are not above openly lying about plot details and doubling down when called out for it.
For Mangold's sake I certainly hope he's not that stupid. Both to lie but more importantly to be one of the writers responsible for destroying another beloved icon.
For Mangold's sake I certainly hope he's not that stupid. Both to lie but more importantly to be one of the writers responsible for destroying another beloved icon.
CB2001
Master Member
At this point, I'm following the "trust no one" approach to anything a director says, especially if they're working with a company that has more poorly executed films and shows than good. Better to have the bar drastically low. Less disappointment that way. Hell, even with Ghostbusters: Afterlife, I was cautiously optimistic (I had my bar very low, but I had a small bit of hope that it'd be good). And when people have told me that Manigold has done nothing but make good movies, I have to point out, "Having a string of good movies in a row doesn't mean that the next one is going to be good."
NakedMoleRat
Master Member
I've just decided that if I don't see it, then whatever happens, never happened.
The Khan example keeps coming around. Not meaning to dismiss it - if Abrams flat-out lied, then it's a fair point that it can happen - but how representative is this of directors in general responding to major spoiler rumors?
Perhaps there are dozens upon dozens of similar instances I'm just not aware of. But if it's only the handful that keep getting cited, I start to wonder if we're working ourselves up over a mere possibility as opposed to a likelihood.
Perhaps not that prevalent. The Khan example just happened to be a big one so naturally it gets brought up often. What I find puzzling is that they even respond at all. Obviously they're not going to confirm rumors but when a rumor turns out to be authentic, why try to deny it like JJ did? They're so much better off just keeping quiet.
Yet those handful of examples have been notable productions with decades of popularity and rabid fan bases to the franchise. Plus it's never worked in these directors favor to antagonize fans. Ever. Alienating die hards before the movie is released is not a smart move. If the movie is as good as the director believes it is, let the work speak for itself.
I don't think anyone wants these rumors to be true, but experience has made a lot of people cautious. You wouldn't see this kind of concern over your run of the mill movie or show. Fans just want to be sure the legacy isn't tarnished.
I don't think anyone wants these rumors to be true, but experience has made a lot of people cautious. You wouldn't see this kind of concern over your run of the mill movie or show. Fans just want to be sure the legacy isn't tarnished.
I doubt they will literally have Indy die onscreen. Harrison won't be filming a death scene.
But IMO the rumor of retconning him out of existence is entirely plausible. The Harrison era is an old asset. The studio looks at it like Christopher Reeve Superman movies or the Adam West Batman TV show. They may have warm feelings for Harrison's Indy as much as the next person, but it's not making them any new money. Studios are businesses. Franchises are product lines.
The fanbase would scream if Harrison's Indy was retconned. But Disney/LFL would just say "Hey, it's an alternate timeline. No biggie. Go watch your old Indy movies on video if you want. We aren't trying to eradicate those in real life."
Look at the Star Trek reboot. Alternate timeline.
But IMO the rumor of retconning him out of existence is entirely plausible. The Harrison era is an old asset. The studio looks at it like Christopher Reeve Superman movies or the Adam West Batman TV show. They may have warm feelings for Harrison's Indy as much as the next person, but it's not making them any new money. Studios are businesses. Franchises are product lines.
The fanbase would scream if Harrison's Indy was retconned. But Disney/LFL would just say "Hey, it's an alternate timeline. No biggie. Go watch your old Indy movies on video if you want. We aren't trying to eradicate those in real life."
Look at the Star Trek reboot. Alternate timeline.
Which is what makes that rumor all the more plausible because it rests on a technicality. Like so many other plot contrivances used to prop up new installments with their weak writing, it wouldn't shock me in the least if he gets retconned out of existence only to live as a memory to the people who grew up with him. Granted, we won't know for sure until the movie is released and perhaps Mangold is being totally honest about everything. Thus far the track record for some of these high profile IP's directors isn't the greatest and it doesn't instill much confidence to take them at their word when they've burned fans time and again. I would love to be proven wrong.
Last edited:
robstyle
Master Member
A theory, with lots, and lots, of commas,,, I'm going to go full Jet Beatle for a moment.
What if the character of Helena is from the past, entering the time present of 1969, using the time travel device that brings Indy to the past, but, Helena is more important to the future than Indy, so, when they venture to the past, one has to stay to make sure a time in history plays out by swiping the dial device, and it's Indy. This would leave Indy back in time, but, at an uncertain point in time, Sliders meets Quantum Link style. This would allow a TV series set on events in history for Indy to travel in and out of as he can't exist for a set period of actual time within any time frame he has not naturally lived within. Hence if he goes to see the building of the Great Pyramids he can only visit once and for a set period of time before he becomes Vapor, but, if he visits anywhere within his natural lifeline such as seeing himself discover the Ark, he could stay indefinitely. But again, only one visit and never the same time could be visited again. Time can only be visited within the physical existence of the dial device itself. So no dinosaurs.
All that would mean both young and old Helena would exist in 1969. To make that work an old woman Helena would also be the sacrifice meaning the older version of herself would either be held captive or have a medical cognitive brain issue which is why nothing of the dial device has been mentioned. Secret kept, until its not.
Indiana Jones and the Adventures of Time.
It's a working title. I'm sure we can find a more suitable word to replace Time.
What if the character of Helena is from the past, entering the time present of 1969, using the time travel device that brings Indy to the past, but, Helena is more important to the future than Indy, so, when they venture to the past, one has to stay to make sure a time in history plays out by swiping the dial device, and it's Indy. This would leave Indy back in time, but, at an uncertain point in time, Sliders meets Quantum Link style. This would allow a TV series set on events in history for Indy to travel in and out of as he can't exist for a set period of actual time within any time frame he has not naturally lived within. Hence if he goes to see the building of the Great Pyramids he can only visit once and for a set period of time before he becomes Vapor, but, if he visits anywhere within his natural lifeline such as seeing himself discover the Ark, he could stay indefinitely. But again, only one visit and never the same time could be visited again. Time can only be visited within the physical existence of the dial device itself. So no dinosaurs.
All that would mean both young and old Helena would exist in 1969. To make that work an old woman Helena would also be the sacrifice meaning the older version of herself would either be held captive or have a medical cognitive brain issue which is why nothing of the dial device has been mentioned. Secret kept, until its not.
Indiana Jones and the Adventures of Time.
It's a working title. I'm sure we can find a more suitable word to replace Time.
Adventure Time? Huh?
Ah, the “…does a falling tree make any sound if no one is there to hear it?” theory of cinema.
Tangent: the way Into Darkness handled the Khan character was so... problematic, that I wonder why JJ et al. could not see the glaring problems? The big reveal(s) were not revelations at all, there was no history with New Kirk so that layer of tension was missing, reviving New Trek Khan because "he thinks outside the box" would be ridiculous given the era New Trek is set within, Khan having the Fountain of Youth in his blood was just crazy out of nowhere (and if true, New Trek scientists would synthesize it and give it to every human), and then putting Khan BACK into suspended animation (when he has brought about the deaths of thousands at this point) is beyond the pale.
And let's not get started on the whole Kirk/Spock sacrifice switcheroo, when there was NO chemistry/history between the New Trek duo that would merit such a moment (in ST II: TWOK, it was a quiet moment of anguish for Kirk's character; Into Darkness treats it with a primal Spock scream).
joberg
Legendary Member
NakedMoleRat
Master Member
Indiana Jones and the Quantum Leap.
Will a genius white dog with glasses be his sidekick on these new adventures…?
Lightning
Master Member
It would have been better if Khan had stayed a good guy in Into Darkness. Admiral Marcus frames him as the Villain, and the Audience goes along with it because he's Khan. But he never turns on Kirk, and they fight Marcus together. TOS set him up for a redemption, noting that he acted defensively during the Eugenics Wars. All you have to do is convince Khan that the truly superior man has no need to force people to follow him, people would do it willingly if his leadership is actually superior.
Jet would be proud.
Similar threads
