[ SECRET POST #3798 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3798 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 38 secrets from Secret Submission Post #544.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

01. http://i.imgur.com/sOx7RC1.png

[morieris]

Same.

But unless they would have cast someone I absolutely adore, I wasn't going to see a fifth movie period. Besides bringing an elderly man closer to death, what can IJ 5 do that The Mummy can't do next month? Or Transformers? It's got to take place in the modern day.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't understand why it has to take place in the modern day at all

Would you mind explaining where you're coming from, I think I'm just not understanding something

[morieris]

I will admit to only having watched two of these movies in full and not really liking them, does Crystal Skull not take place in the modern day? Are they just stuck in some perpetual 70's era time?

[(Anonymous)]

The first three take place in the 1930s. The last one takes place in the 1950s. Did you not notice the Nazis?

[morieris]

I had to check which one that was; I didn't watch that one. But it appears my main point was moot anyway so w/e.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's really easy to say "Just make it like the new Star Wars movies!" But it's kind of hard to figure out what that actually means, especially in the context of Indiana Jones, which (unlike Star Wars) has never really been about an overarching serial plotline and universe. But I do agree that Harrison Ford is too old to be an action-adventure lead.

Other than that, I just want to see as many Indiana Jones-style adventure movies as possible tbh. I don't care whether they're part of the canon or not. Just make as many of those motherfuckers as you can.

[(Anonymous)]

"I think it's really easy to say "Just make it like the new Star Wars movies!" But it's kind of hard to figure out what that actually means, especially in the context of Indiana Jones..."

It's not hard to figure out what the OP means by it, though. Especially because they describe what they mean right in the text of the secret itself:

"new director, new writers, a nod to the original films, but with a focus on a new lead and a new direction for the franchise"

Now I'm not saying that would be easy to accomplish, but none of that seems particularly dependent upon a serial plotline and universe.

[(Anonymous)]

I guess my point is - it's pretty easy to see what makes the new Star Wars movies Star Wars Movies. They have a ton of the same characters, they're in the same universe, they're dealing with the same themes and continuing a lot of the basic matter and Good And Evil And Force Stuff.

I think it's a lot harder to answer the question of what would make a new Indiana Jones movie an Indiana Jones movie. You can pretty easily point to the distinctive characteristics of Star Wars movies, even compared to other science fiction movies. But what are the equivalent characteristics that set Indiana Jones movies apart from other adventure movies? I'm not sure there are any. They're just really well-executed and fun examples of the genre. So when you reboot the Indiana Jones movies, except with a new lead, what are you actually left with? What are you actually rebooting? What are the central, distinctive characteristics of Indiana Jones that you carry over and which make it a reboot rather than an unrelated movie that happens to have a character with the same name? And I genuinely don't actually know what the answer to those questions is.

So that's what I'm trying to get at. What does "a new direction for the franchise" actually mean in the specific context of Indiana Jones? I think that question is a lot harder to answer than it is for Star Wars. I'm not sure there is an answer.

[(Anonymous)]

*shrugs* I guess I'm not really seeing the difficulty here. Indiana Jones is a professor of archaeology who does all the usual boring academic stuff, but every once in a while he gets a lead on the location of a treasure and goes off to find it. It's a plotline that works when set in the 1940s, but it'll also work just fine now.

A new direction could be any number of interesting possibilities. Indy got into this thing of searching for Biblical relics, i.e. the Ark of the Covenant, the Grail, etc. but there are plenty of other legends and cultures to explore. You could give Indy a sidekick who didn't suck and who lasted more than one movie. You could give Indy a female companion who was more than just his girlfriend and damsel and distress. You could make Indy a woman. You could go younger and see what he did before he became a college professor and how he got into the adventuring business.

I think it has just as much potential to be rebooted and reworked as the James Bond movies, but we're used to seeing a new Bond every decade or so so it doesn't seem strange to us.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that you can - and should - make all of those movies. And I want to be clear that I'm not saying it would be bad to do them, or somehow against the spirit of Indiana Jones. I just... at that point, what actually does it gain by calling the character "Indiana Jones" instead of something else? At that point, it's just, like, kind of a meaningless tagline, if it's reduced to nothing more than just "person who goes to cool places to fight Nazis and get stuff". And I don't know what else there is to fit in there.

I mean, they could play into the academic stuff. I actually wish they'd had more of the academic stuff - I think one of the problems with Crystal Skull is that there's very little actual academic Smarty Pants Indy stuff in it. But at the same time, it's hardly an actual hallmark of the franchise, is it? Even in the first 3 movies, it's a fairly minor element.

*shrug* I just think it's harder than it seems to reboot Indiana Jones without turning it into a completely generic adventure movie or completely changing it. I'm not hostile to the idea, and even in the worst case scenario, I have no problem with them making more generic adventure movies, because I love adventure movies. I'm just saying. Star Wars seems wayyyyyy easier to reboot.

[(Anonymous)]

I thought Crystal Skull was fun.

[(Anonymous)]

It is honestly the only Indiana Jones movie that I have ever even had interest in, let alone like...

My parents were big fans of the originals so yes, I have seen them all. Repeatedly.

[(Anonymous)]

Me too.

I understand it's not supposed to be deep or anything. I like it because it's a silly popcorn movie.

[randomdrops]

Crystal Skull was awful. Jar Jar Binks level of awful imo. You know, my first reaction to a new Indiana Jones movie was excitement, because I adore the originals. But when I think upon it further I realize I don't even really want a new one. I am totally satisfied with the original movies. I'd love more "archaeologist explorer" type movies, but I don't see why it has to be IJ and not something new. If only execs and studios would actually want to make something new and not just rehash the old classics.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm cool with Indiana Jones: The Next Generation, as long as it's not Shia Lebeouf. Maybe a former student taking on the mantle? Or perhaps The Young Marion Ravenwood Adventures?

[(Anonymous)]

Both ideas would be excellent.

[dahli]

I feel the only way it would work would be by rebooting the franchise and making up new adventures instead of redoing the old ones.

[(Anonymous)]

As a franchise I think Indiana Jones is a non starter now. We know too much about colonial appropriation, about how early treasure hunters like him were really bad to the people's whose history they were stealing and real archeologists and professors whose job is nothing like that, his mighty white hunter aspect of his character is just yuck now. You could get away with that twenty years ago, but not now. Not any more. If you went into an Indy movie and watched all that, you'd have to be ignoring too much real history and all the unpleasant implications thereof.

Those sort of globe trotting adventurers just don't work any more.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know, I think it would require very small changes - if any - to remove a lot of those aspects of the character. I mean, just instead of saying "It belongs in a museum!" just have him say something about how it belongs with the indigenous people. Boom. Bob's your uncle.

Obviously, that doesn't change the reality of early archaeology and the many fucked up aspects thereof, but you can at least remove those elements from the character of Doctor Jones. And there's definitely nothing stopping globe trotting adventurer characters more generally from existing.

[(Anonymous)]

If anything that is worse because it is usurping the agency of indigenous peoples and saying that what they really need is just wait for a white man to come help them out. All hail Whitey. It is also airbrushing out the history part just so we can all appreciate the white guy so there is a fundamental level of dishonesty at play there too.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, I'm not saying it's perfect. People would make the criticism, and it would be a valid criticism. But I don't think it's a fundamental enough issue to where it would doom the whole enterprise. Nothing is perfect, nothing represents reality perfectly, and at least you're down to the point where you're no longer actively valorizing artifact theft.

And again, even if you think those issues doom Indiana Jones, I don't think that rules out other similar characters.

[arcadiaego]

I think it is possible to work with those things - actually the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles were sometimes much more thoughtful. (I'm thinking especially of the Versailles episode with TE Lawrence.)

[arcadiaego]

Agreed. I think there's potential for a good retro style adventure movie (although admittedly The Mummy did do that - still, it was a good while ago) but I don't want to see any more Indy. The Last Crusade was the end of it, as far as I'm concerned.

[mrs_don_draper]

Well, the Indy movies have a habit of producing good odd number films and awful even numbered films, so maybe this one will work out the same way?