Indiana Jones V

[Seb Lucas]

Back in 2006 HBO aired a documentary called Boffo! Tinseltown's Bombs and Blockbusters. One of the people featured in the doc was George Clooney. I wish I could find the exact quote, but Mr. Clooney said something to the effect that no one in Hollywood knows how to make a hit movie because if they did they would do it all of the time. He added that the best they can do is hire the people they believe are best for each job, film the movie, release it, and hope it finds an audience.

Taking this a step further, I'd say those same people are more often than not equally clueless about why a movie succeeds or fails even after audiences make that determination. They might think they know, so they take this and that from the first movie and include those elements in the sequel, and that's why so many sequels are watered-down versions of the original movie. And, of course, there's that "top that" mentality that MikeKardec mentioned above. "Now that we know what works, we can do it better!" Wrong.

No question about that. The quote a la Clooney is a paraphrase of the famous observation in Adventures in the Screen Trade by William Goldman - "Nobody knows anything". An entire chapter of Goldman explores this idea.

But really it only partly applies to the Indy films (maybe to 4). They continued to have hits with the Indy films, so why would anyone care if a few people quibble over the dodgy scripts and bad effects? Last Crusade was an enormous hit and many like it as much as Raiders. So in actual fact they knew what they were doing.

For me the sequels failed as artistic works - as good screenplays and film making. And there are many who would agree with that. But this never effected the bank accounts of messes Lucas and Spielberg.

What I find fascinating is how often a hit is an artistic failure and a flop is an artistic triumph.

 

[Zombie_61]

No question about that. The quote a la Clooney is a paraphrase of the famous observation in Adventures in the Screen Trade by William Goldman - "Nobody knows anything". An entire chapter of Goldman explores this idea.

But really it only partly applies to the Indy films (maybe to 4). They continued to have hits with the Indy films, so why would anyone care if a few people quibble over the dodgy scripts and bad effects? Last Crusade was an enormous hit and many like it as much as Raiders. So in actual fact they knew what they were doing.

I don't know about that. If they truly knew what they were doing Temple of Doom and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull would have been much better movies.

 

[Edward]

A commercial hit can at least be objectively measured. Artistic success is as subjective as is possible to get!

 

[MikeKardec]

action should never be played for spectacle.

One of the greatest action moments (in my ridiculous opinion) in a film was in a generally terrible James Woods movie "Cop" that was an early adaptation of a James Ellroy novel (either Blood on the Moon or Suicide Hill, I can't remember ... but why, in God's name change the title?!). James Woods and Charles Durning approach a suspect's car and when one of the men inside jumps out and knocks Durning down, Woods leans across the roof and shoots the man in the temple. No (or few) cuts and NOTHING to telegraph the violence, no attempt to depict it in anything other than a medium wide shot. People in the audience screamed ... because the filmmakers hadn't prepared them for it with a bunch of fancy cuts and camera moves. Equally effective was a car crash in (I believe) The Seven-Ups. The camera pans as a car, going VERY fast, runs right into the back of a semi trailer, the bed of the trailer shearing the roof back to the trunk. You don't know it's coming. We all know the sound from being in car wrecks. Totally analog. The stunt driver dove into a protective cage on the floor of the car at the last moment and rode it out. It was real and it was horrifying ... even if it was a stunt.

we'll still have the Ford films

Of course and this attitude is so important. I deal with both the literary and film sides of a big literary estate. People freak when a bad movie is made. "They RUINED the book!" Nonsense. The original is still there, as good as it ever was. Calm down.

those same people are more often than not equally clueless about why a movie succeeds or fails even after audiences make that determination. They might think they know, so they take this and that from the first movie and include those elements in the sequel, and that's why so many sequels are watered-down versions of the original movie.

It's a bit weirder than that: Creative Executives clamor to get involved with films that look like they are going to be successful during production ... sometimes to the point of ruining the film. Then they flee when anything seems like it's going wrong. Then the blame (and fire) the producers who work at their direction (The C.E.s are the top of the food chain) saying that they ruined a perfectly good film. It's also all Kabuki Theater because everyone knows the producers are just the scapegoats but they pretend to believe the story the C.E.s are telling.

Many people know when a film project is heading south. Not every time but many times. But it's like a train without breaks; you can't stop it. In fact most have little interest in stopping it. No one wants to tell their boss that the boss or they themselves has made a mistake. Producers, directors and stars all have "free housing" deal at many studios ... but like everything, the housing isn't really free, it's billed to the next film you make. It eventually MUST be paid off. So you make the film. If you try to hold a film up, waiting for the right actor or writer or something of the sort the political conditions may change (often once or twice a year) at the studio. Once a new C.E. takes over, your project is likely dead in the water. Forever. Years of work down the drain. You do everything you can to get even the most screwed up film going just so you can get your money and move on. Life in Hollywood is a constant struggle to get something going, you're not going to hold back just because something isn't perfect. Lastly, it's remarkable how crazy some shoots are. No plan of battle survives contact with the enemy. Sometimes you just don't know what you've got or haven't got until the test screenings.

"Nobody knows anything". An entire chapter of Goldman explores this idea.

... and now, in Hollywood, that saying has become an excuse for not trying to know anything. It's always a risk when someone famous and talented says something that sounds profound.

If they truly knew what they were doing Temple of Doom and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull would have been much better movies.

I suspect that Crystal Skull suffered from "have to do something" fatigue. There were so many ideas floated for so long. Just part of the ongoing drama is discussed here - http://indianajones.wikia.com/wiki/Indiana_Jones_and_the_City_of_the_Gods - and here - http://www.mtv.com/news/1589257/the...ull-to-city-of-the-gods-script-leaked-online/ - but don't allow yourselves to totally believe any of it. Movie people rarely tell the whole truth and the Entertainment Press lie like it's going out of style just to have a story.

It sounds to me that, by this point, NOBODY had a clue how to get back to the Pulp Adventure style that Raiders so beautifully referenced. I think that no matter what version they made the same mistakes were a given.

 

[Zombie_61]

One of the greatest action moments (in my ridiculous opinion) in a film was in a generally terrible James Woods movie "Cop"...

Cop could have been a good movie, but they broke the rules. Part of the fun of watching a "whodunit" is trying to figure out who the perpetrator is before they reveal it. Cop set itself up to be one of those movies by introducing a number of characters, any one of whom could reasonably have been the perpetrator, but at the very last minute (the last 5-10 minutes of the movie, if I remember correctly) introduced a character the audience hadn't seen or heard of previously, and that was the perpetrator Woods' character had been looking for. That might be more true-to-life, but it cheats the audience out of the opportunity to figure it out for themselves.

Normally I'm not one to reveal "spoilers" regardless of how old a movie is or how well it was or wasn't received by audiences, but Cop isn't worth wasting the time on even a single viewing.

...Equally effective was a car crash in (I believe) The Seven-Ups. The camera pans as a car, going VERY fast, runs right into the back of a semi trailer, the bed of the trailer shearing the roof back to the trunk. You don't know it's coming. We all know the sound from being in car wrecks. Totally analog. The stunt driver dove into a protective cage on the floor of the car at the last moment and rode it out. It was real and it was horrifying ... even if it was a stunt...

They did "telegraph" the crash by showing the truck a few seconds before it happens, but it happens so quickly that the impact is still jarring. And Roy Scheider's performance as he climbs out of the wreckage really "sells" it; I'd really like to know how he made the veins in his forehead bulge so prominently. It's a brief moment in the movie, but it's a brilliant and unforgettable piece of filmmaking.

...Of course and this attitude is so important. I deal with both the literary and film sides of a big literary estate. People freak when a bad movie is made. "They RUINED the book!" Nonsense. The original is still there, as good as it ever was. Calm down...

Sure. Unless the author is George Lucas and the "original" is the original trilogy Star Wars movies.

 

[Seb Lucas]

MikeK I find myself agreeing with everything you say.

I worked in TV Network drama for a while and one of the elements that really effected scripts and performances were producers and Network heavies being worried about how something would play in suburbia. If they thought something was unconventional or controversial, no matter how small, it would be changed, smoothed over - pretty much while filming was taking place. This often distorted the story integrity and made the programs blander than they should be. This was before shocking suburbia became the point of much TV.

In a similar vein, I am sure that movies like Indy films loose their way when the makers try to please groups they believe to be powerful stakeholders. Fans, for instance. Imagine trying to please Star Wars fans!? It could distort your work entirely. And when I hear something like "This is for the Indy fans." I shudder and imagine the horrors that happen when a producer thinks he knows what the fans want.

The Indy film has become a series of cliches - you need a quest, a bad guy, a girl, a MacGuffin, a contrived backstory explaining more about the character, a series of chases and finally a supernatural climax. It's James Bond plus the occult. Those elements are really easy to get wrong and so what you end up with are sentimentality combined with improbability, all awash with CGI. Indy 4.

 

[MikeKardec]

I worked in TV Network drama for a while and one of the elements that really effected scripts and performances were producers and Network heavies being worried about how something would play in suburbia. If they thought something was unconventional or controversial, no matter how small, it would be changed, smoothed over - pretty much while filming was taking place. This often distorted the story integrity and made the programs blander than they should be. This was before shocking suburbia became the point of much TV.

Sounds like we worked in the biz around the same time. I started as a college student in 1981 and quit a number of times, my last credit was in 2001 when I was asked to do a semi Indy clone for USA Cable. It was fun and ticked off most of the boxes you mentioned. Because a lot of the issues you raised I was only able to do the perfected version of that story as an Audio Drama many years later. I think the hardest part to make work is the supernatural element. I didn't get that functioning at a truly spiritual level until the Audio version.

It would have been VERY hard to confront any of the executives I've known with a good supernatural theme without them criticizing me out of the room. They would demand it be childishly clear and would have feared embarrassment unless it was somehow obviously genius right out of the box. They'd want dramatic CGI work and nothing too mysterious or intriguing (see childishly clear) ... when you think of Raiders it's kind of amazing how subtle and mysterious the Ark is allowed to be, even when it wacks out all the Nazis at the end. Can you imagine having to answer the sort of "Okay, so what is it that's happening, exactly?" question that a film maker (not named Spielberg) would get today. Answer that question in a manner that gives the exec. the tiniest qualm that he'll look foolish in front of his peers and you're fired. Have I mentioned that I'm happy being out of that sort of insanity?

 

[Edward]

The Indy film has become a series of cliches - you need a quest, a bad guy, a girl, a MacGuffin, a contrived backstory explaining more about the character, a series of chases and finally a supernatural climax. It's James Bond plus the occult.

Wasn't that kinda the point right from the off, though? I mean, the source material for Raiders was always a compilation of cliche...

 

[MikeKardec]

Wasn't that kinda the point right from the off, though? I mean, the source material for Raiders was always a compilation of cliche...

I might be confused about the definition (or your definition) of cliche but I'd argue the literal answer is, no. You might be right in saying that Raiders source material may have been considered cliche at the time Raiders was written ... though I'd argue that Pulp Adventure was a nearly forgotten genre and so that doesn't ring true to me, but it might to others.

Raiders scraped together (quite literally lifting scenes from classic pulp stories, two of them originally by my father) but I'm sure no one but my Dad and I were sitting in the theater saying, "I know where that came from."

At the time they were written most pulp Adventure stories were pretty earnest in their presentation and intent. Not grittily realistic but not intended to strain belief in the quest for thrills. Today we might decide that they are over the top but just look back on the overt patriotism during WWI or WWII, some of that feels like it's trying too hard today also. Those sentiments were taken seriously at the time. The big advantage of Raiders over the other films is that it is somewhat (though FAR from completely) accepting of it's own reality. It's fun but it isn't trying to push the "fun" down your throat in the times when it is dramatically inappropriate. With a couple of exceptions (the idiotic "riding the submarine sequence" not withstanding) it was sort of a "best of" collection of sequences stolen or inspired by the great pulp Adventure stories of the era.

Later in the series things got much more consistently tongue in cheek. Those, I'd say, were more cliche, though the cliche may have been "look how much like Raiders we are." Always a mistake no matter if you get short term appreciation from the audience; it takes them out of the film.

I hope this isn't undermining my point but probably the thing most responsible for killing the pulp Adventure magazines was WWII. Exotic locations weren't as exotic when you knew someone who had been wounded or killed there. "Action" of the same sort could activate PTSD. There was a big explosion of Westerns after the war because the action and the setting was safely at home and safely in the past.

All that said, I do agree with you that the theatrical Indiana Jones series has become a place to act out cliches, Young Indiana Jones, dull as it was, and far less pulpy, (only my opinion) was less so.

 

[Edward]

MN, there's certainly a blurredl ine between cliche and trope. Maybe a trope is the trend and a cliche is thed value judgement. I guess it's the same difference between a song being a classic or played out.... You do have a fair point, though, that as the films went on they did become more their own thing than the source material Raiders originally nodded to. I imagine that was inevitable in a way, given the audience. C/f how Rango was considered a flop, and the blame put on the fact that the kids who made up the primary audience had no understanding of the Western genre. I'm not sure that the Indy series necessarily depends on being more true to the 30s pulp adventure to succeed, though certainly while I enjoyed the way they shifted the frame on to the scifi ideas of the fifties and the Wild One references along with Indy's timeline shifting, it seems a lot of the fanbase didn't run with that. Maybe they still wanted 30s pulp without knowing it?

 

[MikeKardec]

I'm not sure that the Indy series necessarily depends on being more true to the 30s pulp adventure to succeed, though certainly while I enjoyed the way they shifted the frame on to the scifi ideas of the fifties and the Wild One references along with Indy's timeline shifting, it seems a lot of the fanbase didn't run with that. Maybe they still wanted 30s pulp without knowing it?

It is a question whether anyone other than people like us really care about the more or less accurate call backs to the 1930s or any of the other historical references. But then why set the films in any particular time frame?

I'd argue (not with you, just as a way of clearing some ideas out of my head) that the reason you use a genre is that the particular genre allows the telling of a certain sort of story in a better way than doing it as "general fiction" does. I'm riffing on here because now you've got me really interested in what purpose people think the old Exotic Adventure or "High Adventure" (like Raiders of the Lost Ark) genre serves.

As mentioned above, I am of the opinion that in the 1940s and '50s the Adventure genre partially morphed into the popularity of Westerns. Westerns could perform the same function without stirring memories best unstirred. By the late 20th and early 21st century that aspect of Westerns had long worn off and you could only get one to work well when it was the best avenue to address other issues; say our contemporary reaction to violent entertainment in Unforgiven or what happens when you look at the Western genre, which has long told "love stories between men" (mostly being stories of strong characters coming to appreciate one and other's differences), through the lens of a literal "love story between men," like Brokeback Mountain.

Science Fiction is the easiest. It allows you to look at what doesn't exist or what might exist. To exaggerate trends or explore questions the size of theology.

Mysteries or crime stores are the adventures that occur at the level of the human soul or are exotic excursions into passion or psychology.

Historical Adventure, set in the 15th through 19th century, looks at a world so broad that going from Amsterdam to Jakarta was like the next century's trip to Mars. Nine months and 50% casualties. Every voyage was utterly new exploration.

The Raiders like Exotic Adventure genre lets us do something that others genres don't. My current thoughts are that it refers to 1) the last moments before the world was completely mapped, that last of the planetary unknown. The closest moment that last moment comes to our lives today. 2) In European fiction it relates to the exotic excitement or moral hypocrisy of the colonial experience or freedom from European politics and attitudes. 3) In American fiction it's more about blue collar adventurers experiencing the world. In Europe I'm thinking that going out to the colonies meant you were of a certain class or it meant that you could move up in class structure, at least while you were there. In America, where class was more fluid it was a bit different but still contained some of the same elements. The US only really had one overseas colony of any size and that was the Philippines and there is remarkably little in American fiction about the PI ... now why the heck is that?!. But it still seems that the underlying aspect is that there are the last bits of a wide world of pre modern mystery and adventure; mist hidden islands and lost civilizations ... not everything is known.

WWII led to a closing of this aspect, the mapping and controlling of every area of the globe. That didn't happen right away, but I think the war made the risk of areas uncontrolled by the most powerful local government (besides the major powers think China, Egypt, etc) apparent and governments acted accordingly.

What do you think? What the heck are the underpinnings of the genre that contains Raiders of the Lost Ark?

Today there are still mysteries left but they are vastly smaller in scale. They are nearly always "scientific" in scale.

 

[Tiki Tom]

I would humbly suggest that there are many, many compelling real world mysteries and lost mcguffins out there and that the old pulp adventure genre still has abundant potential to be updated and reborn. That having been said, as we are all painfully aware, creating a compelling story-line is one thing, pitching it to "the executives" is another. The hardest up hill climb in the world is pitching an amazing story with ancient spirits and mcguffins and exotic locations and improbable heroes to a bunch of accountants and "youth market" analysts. Especially if the person pitching the story has no track record of generating a healthy return on investment. And I can understand that logic completely. I suppose it is only when you have the one in a million circumstance where everyone in the food chain shares the same "crazy" vision and passion that anything gets off the ground.

As far as Indiana Jones goes, I'm afraid that they are perhaps trying too hard and hiring too many pros. They might do better by simply reading some impassioned fan fiction written by nerds who have soul-sucking day jobs but have a passion for the original 30s pulp adventure roots of the thing. Or maybe Ponga Jim Mayo stories (tip of the hat to anyone related) could lend themselves to being twisted into Indy jones stories that might stay true to Raider's roots. As it is, I'm afraid that they are going to kill the Indiana Jones project by always trying to "go bigger" while ignoring the exoticism and other basic elements at its roots.

I agree that it being set in a world where there are blank spots on the map is important ...and that it has to seem like these adventures could happen to average guys and gals. Finally having nazis as the "universal bad guys" is handy and easily plays to the supernaturalism. But, of course, a little nazi goes a long way and it can be easily over done.

 

[MikeKardec]

a little nazi goes a long way and it can be easily over done.

LOL. The first thing to do is for them to stop winking at the audience and doing shout outs to Raiders!

 

[Edward]

It is a question whether anyone other than people like us really care about the more or less accurate call backs to the 1930s or any of the other historical references. But then why set the films in any particular time frame?

I'd argue (not with you, just as a way of clearing some ideas out of my head) that the reason you use a genre is that the particular genre allows the telling of a certain sort of story in a better way than doing it as "general fiction" does. I'm riffing on here because now you've got me really interested in what purpose people think the old Exotic Adventure or "High Adventure" (like Raiders of the Lost Ark) genre serves.

As mentioned above, I am of the opinion that in the 1940s and '50s the Adventure genre partially morphed into the popularity of Westerns. Westerns could perform the same function without stirring memories best unstirred. By the late 20th and early 21st century that aspect of Westerns had long worn off and you could only get one to work well when it was the best avenue to address other issues; say our contemporary reaction to violent entertainment in Unforgiven or what happens when you look at the Western genre, which has long told "love stories between men" (mostly being stories of strong characters coming to appreciate one and other's differences), through the lens of a literal "love story between men," like Brokeback Mountain.

Science Fiction is the easiest. It allows you to look at what doesn't exist or what might exist. To exaggerate trends or explore questions the size of theology.

Mysteries or crime stores are the adventures that occur at the level of the human soul or are exotic excursions into passion or psychology.

Historical Adventure, set in the 15th through 19th century, looks at a world so broad that going from Amsterdam to Jakarta was like the next century's trip to Mars. Nine months and 50% casualties. Every voyage was utterly new exploration.

The Raiders like Exotic Adventure genre lets us do something that others genres don't. My current thoughts are that it refers to 1) the last moments before the world was completely mapped, that last of the planetary unknown. The closest moment that last moment comes to our lives today. 2) In European fiction it relates to the exotic excitement or moral hypocrisy of the colonial experience or freedom from European politics and attitudes. 3) In American fiction it's more about blue collar adventurers experiencing the world. In Europe I'm thinking that going out to the colonies meant you were of a certain class or it meant that you could move up in class structure, at least while you were there. In America, where class was more fluid it was a bit different but still contained some of the same elements. The US only really had one overseas colony of any size and that was the Philippines and there is remarkably little in American fiction about the PI ... now why the heck is that?!. But it still seems that the underlying aspect is that there are the last bits of a wide world of pre modern mystery and adventure; mist hidden islands and lost civilizations ... not everything is known.

WWII led to a closing of this aspect, the mapping and controlling of every area of the globe. That didn't happen right away, but I think the war made the risk of areas uncontrolled by the most powerful local government (besides the major powers think China, Egypt, etc) apparent and governments acted accordingly.

What do you think? What the heck are the underpinnings of the genre that contains Raiders of the Lost Ark?

Today there are still mysteries left but they are vastly smaller in scale. They are nearly always "scientific" in scale.

I think you're onto something. For me, it's a perfect storm of a bunch of things coming together in that period. Some stories have to be pre-internet and pre-mobile phone, for one thing. That takes it back to a different world, and yes, the fact that it was ,in those pre-satellite days, still possible to conceive of an undiscovered island / civilisation / w.h.y. in the blank spots on the map. It's an old world.... and yet also a new world - new discoveries in archaeology (linking back further in time), the arrival of the aviation age, the sense that man stands on the cusp of mastering the world - or destroying it (the Nazi threat). It's also an era that for many of us is within the scope of family memory - my grandparents were in their young adulthood in Indy's heyday; maybe on some level Indy is a fantasy grandparent....

LOL. The first thing to do is for them to stop winking at the audience and doing shout outs to Raiders!

Ha. I enjoy that side of it, but it needs to be subtle. IN-jokes work because they're in-jokes; they're no fun when they beat the audience over the head with them.

 

[MikeKardec]

For me, it's a perfect storm of a bunch of things coming together in that period. Some stories have to be pre-internet and pre-mobile phone, for one thing. That takes it back to a different world, and yes, the fact that it was ,in those pre-satellite days, still possible to conceive of an undiscovered island / civilisation / w.h.y. in the blank spots on the map. It's an old world.... and yet also a new world - new discoveries in archaeology (linking back further in time), the arrival of the aviation age, the sense that man stands on the cusp of mastering the world - or destroying it (the Nazi threat). It's also an era that for many of us is within the scope of family memory - my grandparents were in their young adulthood in Indy's heyday; maybe on some level Indy is a fantasy grandparent....

I like this and I think it's a big part of it. For me (with and older parent) it is more of the world of my father than grand father. I'm not even really sure it relates to family so much as the older generation reminds us of the world that we just barely missed. I also think your right about the early days of globe spanning technology.

Going back to the "American" version of the pulp Adventure fantasy; more than being about the colonial experience it's about modest people having access to the world. Prior to the era of the classic American Exotic Adventures, we had the Western ... also a story about the average man's access to a "Foreign" world of adventure. It was just attached enough to the home states so that a normal man or woman could ride or even (in the case of many during the gold rush) walk there. It had it's monsters and exotic civilizations and it freed human nature to be as bad or as good as the individual thought they could get away with. My Dad wrote Westerns. He was the child of an old father too; his Dad was born in 1868.

 

[Zombie_61]

...It's also an era that for many of us is within the scope of family memory - my grandparents were in their young adulthood in Indy's heyday; maybe on some level Indy is a fantasy grandparent...

Like MikeKardec, my parents were in their young adulthood in Indy's heyday. Actually, they're my adoptive parents. Considering Harrison Ford is 18 years older than I am, we're the same height and roughly the same build, Indy really could be my father.

 

[Tiki Tom]

LOL. The first thing to do is for them to stop winking at the audience and doing shout outs to Raiders!

I always thought that the addition of Belloq to Raiders was brilliant. He was a bit of a buffer that explained and humanized the bad guys and, most importantly, kept the ridiculous nazis a little bit in the background. Belloq was an ingenious device included exactly to prevent the over-use of nazis in the first movie. Plus Belloq had style.

Like MikeKardec, my parents were in their young adulthood in Indy's heyday. Actually, they're my adoptive parents. Considering Harrison Ford is 18 years older than I am, we're the same height and roughly the same build, Indy really could be my father.

Ditto. My dad also did his adventuring from the mid-1930s to the mid-50s. We are somehow a little more engaged with the franchise because we are only a generation removed. The trick for Disney will be to make the 1930s relevant to a new generation.

 

[MikeKardec]

The trick for Disney will be to make the 1930s relevant to a new generation.

Not that I want this thread or Disney's movies to go the least bit political but it seems to me that there are LOTS of similarities between today's world wide situation and the 1930s. The more you try to point fingers saying this modern person is the same as that historical person the stupider the analogy gets BUT the general instability, tension, and the sense that a sudden realignment is right around the corner is spooky. Ripping off Dickens, 'it was a time so like the present as to be indistinguishable' ... if you squint your eyes and hold your mouth right. Especially in the US we tend to remember Pearl Harbor and use that as an excuse to forget all the details of what led to that moment. The "World on the Brink" aspect of Raiders of the Lost Ark made that one of the series' conventions.

That said, I agree that the Nazi thing could get over played, but the Nazis were actually kind of late on the scene when you think about it. There were lots of other brewing tensions that smell a lot like today. The Middle East, that ground zero for archeology, was and is a great setting and it's surely not all as simple and stark as the sands of Egypt!

The one serious warning, however, should be to not get so bogged down in experiencing literal history that any new franchise entries begins to resemble Young Indiana Jones. That way lies death ...

 

[Tiki Tom]

it seems to me that there are LOTS of similarities between today's world wide situation and the 1930s. The more you try to point fingers saying this modern person is the same as that historical person the stupider the analogy gets BUT the general instability, tension, and the sense that a sudden realignment is right around the corner is spooky. ...

Very much so. I can't tell you how often we've had a discussion in my office that starts with the question "don't you think this feels like we are in 1938 or 1939?" To be having such conversations in Central Europe can be especially creepy. Of course we've been saying that for 5 or 10 years, so maybe it has lost a little bit of its shock value.

Nonetheless, an effective Indiana Jones reboot geared for the millennials might start with text scrolling down (ala Star Wars) describing the global tensions in terms that sound exactly like today's... and then a quick cut to the first scene and the date "1937".

(A little off topic: It just struck me that my unpublished Hawaii mystery novel ---discussed in an unrelated thread--- has all the requirements of a pulp adventure relaunch: global tensions, Chinese intelligence operations, a mcguffin steeped in legend, dripping jungles, ancient kapus (taboos), ghosts and spirits, a tramp freighter, a protagonist who wears fedoras and Hawaiian shirts, and a beautiful seaplane pilot; not to mention true historical mysteries and a tiki bar that acts as HQ and is modeled on a real location. Only it is set in Honolulu 2017. I guess I'm more invested in the pulp adventure revival idea than I realized.)

 

[scottyrocks]

I've been reading about Indy sequels since before IV, both here and on the old COW. The latest analyses here are fascinating.

I am not one of the new, young audience the bean counters want to bleed dry. I was 21 when Raiders was released and I had never seen anything like it before. I was at that age where I could have taken off and run through the jungle in a fedora and leather jacket, clutching some valuable artifact. The movie had thoroughly taken hold of me, at least until 1984 (see below).

When I was a kid, my mom always had the 4:30 movie on the TV, so I have seen at least bits and pieces of many of the movies that served as elements RotLA. But the totality of Raiders made it something completely different.

As far as I'm concerned, the production company blew it just three years later with Temple of Doom. It was horrible. Last Crusade was a little better, but it depended too much on plot elements from Raiders (the nods you guys mentioned). I think I can say that best thing about LC was that it wasn't ToD. KotCS (IV) was even worse in this regard. The CGI and writing was painful to watch and listen to.

I think there are way more ways that an IJ V would not work than ways it would. I think what would make me happiest, and possibly appeal to a lot of original Raiders fans, is a remake of Raiders, but not exactly. It would be the same story, scene-for-scene, but from new angles, massaging the pacing just a bit, where necessary. A 1930s flavor would have to be maintained, but with the clarity of modern film making not detracting from this very important element.

The films that always come to mind first for me are the 1933 and 2005 versions of King Kong. They are essentially the same story but completely different films. Even though the films look and sound completely different, for me, the 2005 version retains the old time feeling throughout (note: I didn't like Jack Black in the Armstrong role).

True, RotLA is not 72 years old (if the remake was released this year). But 36 years is a good enough gap, I think, to do a nice update. But all the good things that made Raiders great - the characters, actors, plot, story-telling, and the pulp, would have to be palpable in the remake.

Which brings me to another point - who is to play Indy? This discussion has raged for years in fan circles. To me, the name and/or fame of the actor isn't important. What is necessary is an actor who merely reminds the viewer of the general mannerisms and character of what people know as Indiana Jones. It shouldn't a Ford clone, but it shouldn't be a Mr. Bean, either. But somewhere out there is an actor who, when people see him onscreen, suspension of belief takes hold, and think, even subconsciously, 'Yes, that's Indiana Jones!'