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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Set in which time frame ? The 30s and 40s ? Present-day ? The original concept was inspired by serials which had been shown in movie theaters in the 30s and 40s, with cliff-hanger endings. If you switch to TV with long-form Indy episodes, you could have cliff-hanger endings. However - the 30s and 40s Indy has been done, and done VERY well. In fact, they also hit the 50s and present-day. Time to switch the whole kit and kaboodle to modern-day ? Boy, whatever they do, it'll be weird if the character is supposed to be Indy, and not a son or other relative or just someone else entirely. Was that the plan with Shia LeBooooof ? Well, poor choice. He was no River Phoenix.
I did as well. It was harmless fun.
I know that Disney can't make more Indy material (movies and TV shows, at least) without their permission. They do own partial rights to it (hence their studio logo on DOD in the beginning).
I know that a prequel movie series was talked about before River Phoenix's death. I think that Mutt was looked at as the lead for the fifth movie originally. That arguably changed when CS was less popular than hoped. Then Shia badmouthed the movie, and continued his crazy rants and being mean and full of his ego. So his possible leading man of the movie went bye-bye.
As for a reboot, it could honestly go anywhere. As for setting Indy present day, I think it's doable. It would just be very hard to pull off, honestly.
I enjoyed it, and it seemed to give Indy the comeback he needed over the last two movies.
I hope First Light strikes the right balance and we get action but not endless shoot ups. I applaud the game developers of Indy from not doing a shoot'em up. That was never Indy. Action and suspense yes, but never mowing down baddies by the hundreds.