Indiana Jones

Seve

mtm wrote: »

I guess you can choose to ignore these elements and write your own film in your head, but personally I think you'd be missing out on the good stuff Spielberg was doing.

Fair enough, we each take from it what we want, I don't "choose" to ignore these elements, I just don't give them as much weight as you do, I don't see them as essential and if they are not there I won't miss them as much.

mtm wrote: »

The reason I brought the father/son thing up was to talk about character development, but you miss my point that once you have changed the character in some way then continuity comes into play, because the films which follow it have to acknowledge that change.

I don't think you "have to". For example, Indy's relationship with his father need not come up in the next film at all, as it didn't in ROTLA or TOD, if it is not relevant to the story at hand.

mtm wrote: »

...And much the same with Raiders being set after the change they show in Temple. The point of that aspect of the plot is the 'fortune and glory' arc they give to Indy. His altruistic side is teased out of him. It's part of the reason why it's a prequel to Raiders rather than a sequel.

Except that when they made "Raiders" they had no idea they would even get to make a sequel. Indy was the finished article in Raiders, and whatever happened in "Temple" was made up after the fact, piecemeal.

After the first film was a huge success and Spielberg, Lucas & Ford sat down to discuss doing a sequel, only then did they asked themselves;- "what can we do with Indy next?". Later they did the same thing when it came to do LC, "What lessons can we learn from TOD, and where to next?" There was no preconcieved "Grand Plan", just as there was no "Grand Plan" for Craig-Bond.

mtm wrote: »

Well I don't know if there's many more stories to tell with that version of Indy. For those who don't care about continuity of timeline, a reboot should be no problem.

Well I'm sure there are, it's not like anything that Indy has experienced hasn't already been experienced somewhere by another character in an earlier film.

Movies continually recycle "classical" themes about the human condition, and either dress them up in new clothes for a new generation, or find a new angle on an old idea, as societal norms change and evolve. So there must be plenty more scenarios out there that Indy can suffer through yet.

thedove

History tells us that Hamilton wanted nothing associated with Connery Bond in the Moore movie. You can say that this is surface stuff and perhaps it is. But we didn't have the same feel of film. Bond never ordering a martini, briefing scene at his house, no Q scene, etc. There was a conscious decision to not play into some of things that Connery's Bond was associated with. Was this because of Moore? Not entirely but it was done to limit comparisons. Lazenby's Bond had remnants of gadgets in his drawers, a midget whistling GF, it had a Title Sequence shouting, This is the same guy! The comparisons to Connery grew and Lazenby came off as a poor imitation.

If they simply cast a younger actor, give him the same things as Ford's Indy it will draw out comparisons to him. They need to find a way to have Indy be slightly different. Maybe tone, maybe era, but something needs to be different.