A follow-up to your points

Posted by BMan from ppp2a-18.ruralnet.net on August 17, 1999 at 16:45:34:

In Reply to: Re: In Defense of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles posted by ROB T. on August 16, 1999 at 21:54:46:

Thanks for your reply to my post. I want to further discuss some of your points.

: I only watched a few episodes because I was disappointed in the direction that the show took.
: The show purports to be about Indy's younger adventures and how they shaped the man we would later know but they seemed false; here we have a young man who would become a college professor but he never seems to attend school or study?

You assert that we never see young Indy study or go to school, and that it is out of character for someone who will grow up to be a professor. Your assertion is wrong. In the Corey Carrier episodes where young Indy accompanies Henry on a world-wide lecture tour, a very strict tutor accompanies the Jones’ to provide for Indy’s education. Many of his explorations in these shows come about from conflicts with the authority of his tutor, Miss Seymour. The last scene of "Travels with Father" shows Indy leaving for the University of Chicago to begin his schooling as an archaeologist. You wanted more action, yet feel not enough of Indy’s educational upbringing was portrayed. You may not be able to have it both ways.

: If George Lucas wanted to make a TV show that taught history to young people he would have done a better job by starting with a fresh character instead of trying to have this show ride the coattails of the Indiana Jones movies. He misunderstood what we in the audience come to Indiana Jones looking for. We wanted adventure and action, not life lessons and historical references and glued together meetings of historical figures.
: The "Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" didn't work because instead of following the basic tenets of telling a good story, he opened a history book and said, "How can we push Indy into this story?"

Indeed, perhaps Lucas did not understand what TV audiences were looking for. However, this may be more of a failing of us as TV viewers than of Lucas. I think that he wanted to expose people to a fascinating era of history that a lot of people wouldn’t take the time themselves to explore. For the most part, the audience didn’t want that exposure- their loss, in my opinion. You feel it diluted the mythos of Indy, that Lucas should have used another character instead. However, if he couldn’t interest people in history by using a character with almost universal name-recognition and appeal, what chances would he have had using a new, unknown character? And even that wouldn’t have removed the interactions with historical figures that struck you as gimmicky.

: In the end he cheated the Indy fans and misrepresented history by shoehorning a fictional character into it.

Any work of fiction, be it movie, book, or TV show that occurs in the real world has fictional character inserted into it. That does not necessarily diminish history. Did Spielberg diminish World War II by making a movie with fictional soldiers on a fictional mission in the middle of a real battle where thousands of men died? I don’t think so. I can’t think of anything in the YIJC that diminished actual historical events at all. As one example, it treated the horrors of World War I and trench warfare very seriously. I may be wrong, and look forward to be corrected if so.

: It didn't work because he was not telling Indy's story.

You claim that the series didn’t work because it wasn’t telling Indy’s story. It didn’t work for you because it wasn’t telling the story of Indy that you wanted. It worked for me for the most part, because it did tell the story that I wanted. Evidently, it told the story of Indy that George Lucas wanted to tell, and for better or worse, his vote counts for a lot more than either yours or mine when it comes to the direction of this franchise.

Again, thanks for your comments regarding my initial post.

BMan

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: Thanks for your reply to my post.  I want to further discuss some of your points.

: : I only watched a few episodes because I was disappointed in the direction that the show took.
: : The show purports to be about Indy's younger adventures and how they shaped the man we would later know but they seemed false; here we have a young man who would become a college professor but he never seems to attend school or study?

: You assert that we never see young Indy study or go to school, and that it is out of character for someone who will grow up to be a professor.  Your assertion is wrong.  In the Corey Carrier episodes where young Indy accompanies Henry on a world-wide lecture tour, a very strict tutor accompanies the Jones’ to provide for Indy’s education.  Many of his explorations in these shows come about from conflicts with the authority of his tutor, Miss Seymour.  The last scene of "Travels with Father" shows Indy leaving for the University of Chicago to begin his schooling as an archaeologist.  You wanted more action, yet feel not enough of Indy’s educational upbringing was portrayed.  You may not be able to have it both ways.

: : If George Lucas wanted to make a TV show that taught history to young people he would have done a better job by starting with a fresh character instead of trying to have this show ride the coattails of the Indiana Jones movies. He misunderstood what we in the audience come to Indiana Jones looking for. We wanted adventure and action, not life lessons and historical references and glued together meetings of historical figures. 
: : The "Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" didn't work because instead of following the basic tenets of telling a good story, he opened a history book and said, "How can we push Indy into this story?"

: Indeed, perhaps Lucas did not understand what TV audiences were looking for.  However, this may be more of a failing of us as TV viewers than of Lucas.  I think that he wanted to expose people to a fascinating era of history that a lot of people wouldn’t take the time themselves to explore.  For the most part, the audience didn’t want that exposure- their loss, in my opinion.  You feel it diluted the mythos of Indy, that Lucas should have used another character instead.  However, if he couldn’t interest people in history by using a character with almost universal name-recognition and appeal, what chances would he have had using a new, unknown character?  And even that wouldn’t have removed the interactions with historical figures that struck you as gimmicky.

: : In the end he cheated the Indy fans and misrepresented history by shoehorning a fictional character into it.

: Any work of fiction, be it movie, book, or TV show that occurs in the real world has fictional character inserted into it.  That does not necessarily diminish history.  Did Spielberg diminish World War II by making a movie with fictional soldiers on a fictional mission in the middle of a real battle where thousands of men died?  I don’t think so.  I can’t think of anything in the YIJC that diminished actual historical events at all.  As one example, it treated the horrors of World War I and trench warfare very seriously.  I may be wrong, and look forward to be corrected if so.

: 
: : It didn't work because he was not telling Indy's story.

: You claim that the series didn’t work because it wasn’t telling Indy’s story.  It didn’t work for you because it wasn’t telling the story of Indy that you wanted.  It worked for me for the most part, because it did tell the story that I wanted.  Evidently, it told the story of Indy that George Lucas wanted to tell, and for better or worse, his vote counts for a lot more than either yours or mine when it comes to the direction of this franchise.

: Again, thanks for your comments regarding my initial post.

: BMan

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]