Posted by Stephen from 18.104.22.168 on June 05, 1998 at 05:00:36:
In Reply to: Brother, can you spare a dime? posted by Cap'n Paul on June 05, 1998 at 02:13:01:
: : I agree that three is not the "end all to be all" for this series of films. There is no reason why there can't be another story that could take into account his age and yet still provide the thrills and spills we have come to love.
: Having said that, I think there is limit, however, on the Indy saga. I base this statement on the fact that the Indy world has written itself into the limiting sphere of the 1930's and, at best, maybe the '40's. As the writers McCoy and MacGregor have discovered, the Indy timeline can get pretty damn crowded in this decade. So while the James Bond series just adapts to each new decade, the Indy tale is trapped in the '30's. But hey, that's why we love it right? It was a time of art deco, gangsters, uncharted regions of the globe, lost tribes/peoples, great nationalist movements in Europe, Nazis, fascists, beautiful "dames" and men wore hats. It makes for great story telling but you're never going to see as many Indy films like the James Bond series. The timeline would get all screwed up and totally unbelievable. -CP
I don't know a time span of two decades (the 30s and 40s) would
necessarily result in a crowded and screwed up timeline. Look, for
example, at the Sherlock Holmes stories. They generally take place
over approximately the same number of years and there are a hundred
or so adventures! (all in a timeline which remains consistent).
If you figure each of the previous Indy adventures took place over the
period of no more than a week or so, you could fit many stories within
a 20 year period.
Post a Followup: