It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
To bring down the budge shoot the entire thing on green screen, even normal scenes like in an office or restaurant. Indiana Jones and the Screen of Doom...ok, go for the rhyme: Indiana Jones and the Screen of Green
I don't know. A bigger budget means more spectacle and therefore more CGI. And we have the latest ones as an example.
An old-school movie doesn't have to be expensive. I guess an Alien Romulus type movie is too much to ask. They'll surely find new ways to mess things up.
I think a new IJ tv show could be cool. I'd definitely check it out. 😉
You can't remake Raiders in my opinion that is classic cinema. Which means you either continue with the timeline and have a different actor playing the character like Ford. Or you place the series in a different time era and have a new guy take on the role. Harrison was a master of making the action and character believable. Someone has big shoes to fill.
I'm just not so sure that works with something like Indiana Jones where it has only been Harrison Ford for the series' entire existence. As he aged, so did Indy's world. There's less of an opportunity to just continue on with some standalone adventures with a new actor unless it's a full reboot, remake, or whatever the latest word is.
I'd love a brand new character but for that we need "top men".
I disagree, James Bond didn't go in different directions because they changed actor, or because the producers thought it was time to change actor, but because that's what the Producers felt was the appropriate stylistic direction to go at the time.
OHMSS wasn't a different direction from Connerys because of Lazanby himself, or because the Producers thought it was time to put Connery out to pasture.
DAF wasn't different just because Connery returned, or because the Producers thought it would be a refreshing direction to bring Connery back
FYEO moved in a different direction from MR while Moore was still Bond etc.
Yes, Dalton is often sited as having had some influence on the direction of the character, which had been going over 20 years by then and was probably in need of a fresh pair of eyes, but that's the exception. Even the Craig era was more about the Producers wanting to put their own stamp on the character, after essentially following the traditional formula with their first Bond.
Indy would be no different, they could choose to do a "more gritty" Indy, or someone out there in movie land, writer or director. who grew up loving the original movies, could come up with a good story that fits the character.
However I acknowledge that taking that first step away from the only actor that has so far played the role is a biggie, just ask George Lazenby...
Forget all the timeline nonsense, pre Marvel Studios (and Craig-Bond) it was never a thing. Outside of a niche group of obsessive compulsive fanatics, no-one in a blockbuster audience gives a damn about timelines.
Even "reboots" are a waste of time, was OHMSS a "reboot", was LALD a"reboot", or TLD or GE?
IMO they are all just BAU Bond movies with a new actor in the role
I don't really know what you mean- 'timeline' is just another word for continuity. Loads of continuing series have had continuity, and the producers of Indy have kept his intact. Now we know when he met Marion, got married, first saw something supernatural etc. etc. there's not much room for big, movie-worthy events in his life. Unless a new version of him is created.
IMO a Timeline is a more rigid concept. Continuity only means taking into account previous events that have occurred or been referred to previously, A timeline implies that we map out a strict order, even where that is not important, and complain when there appear to be too many events to fit the number of years available, or when the character doesn't age. e.g James Bond has been on 20 missions and still looks to be in his mid 40s, or James Bond was in his 50s last time, now he's in his 30s, Moneypenny was white, now she's black, Q was straight, now he's gay... I don't care
TV series yes, and it makes more sense for that to be the case, but in movie series, which generally come out after several years gap, not so much
Continuity has become the fashion, but for most of my life it wasn't, so I don't understand the current obsession with it.
IMO most continuity is just "soap"
In the 1960s and 1970s there was no continuity as such outside of soap operas, a character might have occasional episodes that referred back to past events, or that contained life changing events in the present, but the next episode would see them carrying on as usual as if nothing had happened, and those events might never be referred to again. Sometimes there were even examples of character development episodes that would contradict an earlier character development episode.
In my day "Hill Street Blues" was considered revolutionary, because it introduced continuity and story arcs that ran over several episodes.
At the time I thought that might be interesting, but I soon got sick of it
Back then it was usually the guest stars and their characters who got most of the character development, while the regular star was the anchor, "a still point in a turning world".
Must be the generation gap?
Gosh I could name any number of films and their sequels which maintained continuity and moved the story on whilst remembering events from the previous film or TV show. Planet of the Apes, Star Trek Motion Picture and sequels, Star Wars, Jaws 1/2/3 etc., Godfather, Rocky... I mean it's kind of harder to think of film series which didn't do that.
I guess it depends what generation you're from. Pretty big gap if it's from before the films mentioned above!
If you recall, my original post was critical of expecting or wanting a strict "timeline" (as defined by me), you were the one who brought up "continuity".
However, you make some good points, but on the other hand, there weren't nearly as many sequels made at all back then, which indicates a lack of demand for them. Audiences followed the stars, not the characters. John Wayne was usually John Wayne doing John Wayne things, no matter what his characters name was. Plot wise, "Rio Lobo" was a "sequel" to "Eldorado" which was a "sequel" to "Rio Bravo".
Of course, any sequel has to have a certain level of continuity, that goes without saying, otherwise it wouldn't be a sequel.
In many a TV series, the characters and setting are the same each week, so it has "continuity", but the episodes are otherwise unconnected and the characters don't change or develop. "Gun Smoke" can run for 20 years, but Matt and Miss Kitty remained unmarried, "Law & Order SVU" has run for 26 years, but Olivia Benson only sporadically has any relationships.
Did Jaws really "move the story on" or just recycle the same character arc with cosmetic alterations, enough to provide the justification for another round of Shark on human mayhem?
Did anyone watch Rocky for the insights into the drama of his personal life, or just to see him take on the next big bad boxer in the ring? (as for Rambo...)
John McLane always has a thin veneer of a personal life (all but invisible in DH3), but how many of the audience really care?
Jurassic Park may have had a message originally, and some character development along the way, in amongst the thrills, but only in order to facilitate more Dinosaur action.
Star Wars 4-6 didn't really know where they were going, plot wise, after Empire and ended up recycling the finale of 4 in 6.
Star Trek recycles Khan and the Klingons from the TV series and I don't think Kirk and co really change, for example even with all the stuff around Spock, in the end is he really any different after, or is he still the same old Spock?
Not like the grand arc that evolved, piecemeal, for Craig-Bond...
Godfather and POTA are another matter, I grant you, although Apes concept ran out of steam by the 5th
Personally, with regard to Indy, I've always been more interested in the "now" of his character, rather than his past. Only minimal continuity is required and no timeline at all.
Send him to China to take on the Imperial Japanese, who are trying to find some Chin Empire equivalent of the Arc of the covenant... but that probably wouldn't be considered PC, these days only Nazis and Commies are allowed to be characatured as villains without offense beiing taken.
I've kind of lost track of what the problem is then! :D
Well it's in terms of Indiana Jones: from the TV show right up to Dial of Destiny there's a fairly full story of his life which has been shown from child to old man, and it doesn't leave a huge amount of room for life events. Yes, you can pop more adventures in there, but unlike with Bond, a lot of the Indy films like to show some quite life-changing moment for Indy. He pretty much emerges from each film a changed man to some extent, and if that continuity continued it kind of gets tougher to keep adding those, especially as we now know when he gets married, discovers he has his only child etc. etc. For me I kind of think that if there were to be a new Indy, then it should probably be a retelling of his life in a new continuity, a bit like how a new Sherlock Holmes often shows similar events to the previous one but in a different way.
It's not about 'expecting or wanting' a timeline: that timeline exists already and has been curated by George Lucas and his successors for the last 40 years, like it or not. Just like it was with Star Wars, Trek, Jaws, Rocky etc.
All of this 'kids today' grumbling doesn't really match up to how it's been for the last half a century or so.
I was unaware of the TV show and I would imagine the majority of those who have watched the movies are too. Even being aware of it's existance doesn't change my feeling that this sort of "continuity" can safely be ignored going forward.
I have watched and enjoyed the first three movies without feeling that Indy's character changed in any significant way from film to film, so it's not an issue for me, I just need a new, younger, Indy. Casting and script will be the key elements that will concern me in any future projects.
Exactly what I want to see, except there is no "new continuity" it's just a new version within the same continuity, done with different actors. As far as I'm concerned there is no relationship between "Basil Rathbone Holmes" and "Jeremy Brett Holmes" other than that they are based on the same source material, they are performers interpreting the same role in their own unique ways. Ditto Connery and Craig et al.
"Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder". Just as many people often interpret a piece of music in a way that may be completely at odds with what the composer intended. It's subjective, I can quite happily ignore George Lucas intentions, in the same way I try to ignore all Marvels multiverse and continuity nonsense. After all, George is far from infallible, he foisted Ja Ja Binks on us!
Each to his own, but I will decide what is "canon" for me
How worrying about timelines or continuity too much can over complicate things unnecessarily
I wouldn't like to see "continuity" stand in the way of making another Indy movie, if there a good tale to be told
Okay, that’s a reboot then. That’s fine.
Well the character development of Indy is fairly front and centre in the films, surely you noticed his relationship with his dad resolves in the third one at least?
If you’re not aware of the old continuity why are you bothered about keeping it?
One minute you don’t care about canon at all and the next you’re deciding your own, it’s a rollercoaster! :D
You must get though that to make a series the producers have to decide on a continuity for themselves, regardless of whether all viewers understand it or not.
That’s why a reboot is probably best then, especially as you have no interest in canon or the films linking to each other, as you’ve explained.
I agree with you. Harrison Ford is Indy and even with the great man himself, DOD struggled at the BO.
I blame Mary Poppins 2.
Nobody remembers this movie, but it ruined the Star Wars franchise when it was released at Christmas.
True dat, but it's the only one of the three I've watched where I was aware of that aspect
I knew nothing about his father from the previous movies. as he was not mentioned, so there is no "continuity" on that subject between the three films, and so it doesn't "resolve" in the third film, it just appears and is a main theme of that one film.
I guess I need to define what I mean by "continuity" - mainly the characters, circumstances and style of story as defined by Conan Doyle in the books. I could include the setting as well, but in fact most of the Basil Rathbone films were set in (then) contemporary times (the 1940s) and I must admit I didn't really notice. Most of the Rathbone films also had stories that were written in the style of Conan Doyle, but not by him.
So for me Indy just needs to be the character I'm familiar with undertaking the kind of quest I'm accustomed to. Other than that the action could be set anywhere from the 1920s to 1950s, but I might struggle to accept an Indy movie set in the 1960s onward
"Canon" in parentheses is intended to be ironic, as no-one else but me will care what I personaly choose to regard as canon.
Other than the MI6 characters and context, is there really any "continuity" from film to film in the James Bond series of the Connery / Lazenby / Moore era?
Apart from OHMSS Bond remains "a still point in a turning world".
The problem with every Star Wars film since "Empire" is that they rely too much on recycling what worked so well for them in the first two films and are afraid to deviate from that established formula.
I haven't seen "Solo" but a reviewer on IMDb commented
"There may well be a way to do a young Han movie but one must understand his character in episode 4. He's a scoundrel who at the last minute joins the good side. It's an inflection point in his life and it gets diminished when he has a trial run in this movie. That's what this is. It's his journey in episode 4 except he leaves before accepting his medal.
Star Wars keeps making the galaxy smaller and more tightly wound. It needs to expand this world but with all the planet hopping, it never really expands anything. It takes all the little snippets of history from the franchise and manufactured a functional story construction. It works but it inspires nothing."
It absolutely does resolve by the end of it, and Indy has undergone character development: he's a different person by the end. Temple of Doom is probably the strongest for that as that's the film we see him transition from being a selfish grave robber to someone more altruistic.
Absolutely, but Bond (in the last century) took a different approach to that of Indy. They wanted a little character development for Indy, the producers of Bond didn't want that. Even then, Cubby there's still a loose continuity at play, they weren't looking to contradict anything from before. Tracy exists, Quarrel had a son, Bond and Felix meet and know each other later, Spectre takes revenge for the death of Dr No etc.
Yes, it is certainly character development, I was just meaning the father / son thing was not a "timeline continuity" developed over several movies and then resolved. it was not foreshadowed in 1 & 2 and was all done and dusted by the end of the third.
But then I never saw him as a "selfish grave robber" in the first place, I've always thought of him as a "reluctant hero". I've never doubted that when push comes to shove, Indy will do the right thing.
Fair point, although, personally, I count Felix as a regular cast member, like M, Moneypenny, Q... and Blofeld / SPECTRE
While on the subject of "continuity" I guess we should also include JW Pepper and Jaws as well...
Never said it was, I'm demonstrating how the Indy movies are more about character development for the main character, as opposed to something like the old Bond films. And when your main character changes with each film, then you're introducing continuity whether you like it or not.
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.
That's right, yes.
He experiences different things and his relationship with other characters may change, which is fine, but he always remains the same person I first liked in the ROTLA.
For me character development is more about watching the character react to different situations or learning about different facets of the character that I didn't know about previously. They don't have to change
I'm not saying that never happens, some movies are a joureys and all about a character changing along the way, but I don't put Sherlock Holmes, James Bond or Indiana Jones in that category.
Yes, and I was originally making a point about "timeline / continuity" not character development.
TOD was a prequel, so there should be no problem making further prequels, that can slot in anywhere along Indys timeline, for those who even care about there being a continuity of timeline.
Write a story, cast an actor and lets get going!
(We can probably have it completed and released before the next James Bond movie gets past pre-production...)
Which is continuity I could certainly have done without!
That can certainly be one angle of it, to explore a character, but I'd say in Indy's case it is often about him learning something and becoming a different, usually better person by the end of the film.
In Temple the 'fortune and glory' material is leaned on quite heavily for a reason; there's a reason why we first meet Indy in that film doing a deal with a gangster for a massive diamond. 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.
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. As we see in the film after Last Crusade. And much the same with Raiders being set after the change they show in Temple.
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.
That doesn't really invalidate it as a part of storytelling though, any more than JW Pepper being in LALD means all of the James Bond films are bad.
For LALD the producers and/or Hamilton realized that they needed to distance themselves from the "Sean" Bond. No martinis', no tuxedo, no wearing of hats (though out of fashion in the 70's anyway). Moore was given some freedom to do slightly different things with the character. As he grew into the role more changes were made. Yes the style of the film changed from MR and FYEO but it was the same Bond. We got some of the Moore comedy bits but more grounded overall.
Since then Dalton, Brosnan and Craig have all done something with the character to steer it differently. Though Dalton and Craig's take is closer than most admit.
My point is if they recast the role. Do we see an Indy without the fedora? Or do we see an Indy who doesn't have a whip? The character is fairly, dare I say, one-dimensional. To me you either make him dead serious and give the film some dark tones like Temple of Doom. Or you go opposite and play up the comedy and lighten it up beyond what Ford did. I don't see much wiggle room here so I am not sure what creative direction they take without comparisons to Ford.
No I didn't, you have misunderstood what I wrote, sorry if it was not clear
"OHMSS wasn't a different direction from Connerys because of Lazanby himself, or because the Producers thought it was time to put Connery out to pasture."
I am well aware of why Connery chose to leave of his own free will at that time
Interesting points about Moore and Tuxedos and Martinis, but they are only cosmetic details. Moore had worn a Tuxedo before several times as the Saint and audiences already thought of him as an "international man of mystery" before he took on the role of James Bond, so he didn't need to establish himself via tropes.
As I said before "James Bond didn't go in different directions because they changed actor, or because the producers thought it was time to change actor, but because that's what the Producers felt was the appropriate stylistic direction to go at the time.
Indy would be no different, they could choose to do a "more gritty" Indy, or someone out there in movie land, writer or director. who grew up loving the original movies, could come up with a good story that fits the character.
However I acknowledge that taking that first step away from the only actor that has so far played the role is a biggie, just ask George Lazenby..."
I have no doubt that Indy will return, the only question is when
Should the producers jump straight back in (like EON did) or wait a while, like Batman producers have tended to do?
To Indy now or Indy later, that is the question?