[ 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

[(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 guess we agree to disagree. If Star Wars could manage it - well, there's a lot more fandom nostalgia and peoples' childhoods at risk there, so any change is a huge deal. While I know people love the original Indiana Jones trilogy, I don't think there's quite the same baggage with that franchise.

"... at that point, what actually does it gain by calling the character "Indiana Jones" instead of something else?"

I'm not seeing this as an issue, mostly because you can say that about ANY reboot or continuation that occurs long after the original movies have finished, including Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, etc. You don't have to reinvent the wheel each time, and I think any of the ideas I mentioned in my previous comment would be an interesting change... and that's enough for me.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not seeing this as an issue, mostly because you can say that about ANY reboot or continuation that occurs long after the original movies have finished, including Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, etc. You don't have to reinvent the wheel each time, and I think any of the ideas I mentioned in my previous comment would be an interesting change... and that's enough for me.

Well, but like... all of those reboots have really obvious answers to the question, "What makes this like Star Trek" (or Star Wars or Ghostbusters). And the point I'm making, and fair enough agree to disagree, is that I don't think the question "What makes this thing like Indiana Jones" is as easy to answer as you'd instinctively think. I guess.