Re: What Makes INDY....

Posted by Roses4jezabel from spider-we073.proxy.aol.com on September 05, 2000 at 03:17:38:

In Reply to: What Makes INDY.... posted by New Jersey Hughes on September 04, 2000 at 13:08:07:

Jersey,
I'm enjoying it, too. You made many fine points. Even if I, the self-professed "ultimate fan", were to see Indy in some other breed of outfit I don't think I'd buy it. Harrison Ford "played" Indiana Jones, but Indy is what he is; a fictional character. True, Bond had a considerable headstart in literature before making the transition to cinema, but I don't feel that matters. Until the reader (or viewer) is offered visual representation everyone is free to harbor their own ideaized image of a character, the only true version being that which exists in the mind of the original author. Because of this I don't feel that it matter how a thing gets started, only where it goes. As I stated in my original post, the world changed radically following WWII; socially, economically, culturally and etc. (I watch WAY too much History Channel). Moving from the 1920's-30's into the post-war world was the equivalent of stepping out of the wild West into modern society. Because of this I feel that is necessary to confine the story lines to the 1930's, possibly 40's. The only other option, in my opinion, is tell more of a backstory. Given these things, Ford is too old. He's too old to keep the story chronologically close to the other three films. "Raiders" took place in 1936, "Last Crusade" in 1938; two years apart. In reality these two films were made nearly a decade apart. Do you look ten years older now than you did last year? Probably not. Even that was too big a stretch for me. True, it will never be the summer of 1981 again and, in the fictional realm of Indiana Jones, it will never be 1936 again. Perhaps I jumped the gun a bit in my post. Sure, I'd love to see a decent story of an aging Indy, I just don't think they can write one. Brace yourselves; truth be told, I didn't care for "Last Crusade" at all, and I question their ability to move the character forward. With the rich and exciting life Indy has led (which has only been hinted at) I suggest that they move the character 'backward', which is where my "Ford is too old" theory really comes in. I say 'hinted' because I shudder to even acknowledge the existence of "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" and do not associate them with Indy at all. Someone suggested that Ford carry on until he's too old and have Indy just ride off into the sunset. This would be even more difficult to write, as "wrapping things up" is one of the most poorly done things in Hollywood. If you don't believe me then go see "Highlander: Endgame" (JEEEEEESUS, what a TURD!).
Now for more blasphemy; I think Lucas just doesn't give a damn anymore. He's made his money, he's comfortable and he simply doesn't care. Just look at the majority opinion of "Episode 1" vs. the original "Star Wars" trilogy. Breaking into the business initally, as Lucas was doing at that time (Speilberg, too), forces writers to do their best work. When you reach a certain level I think it's human nature to relax. Look at Lucas strictly as a writer for a moment. To date, he's really only turned out seven acomplished works as opposed to other writers like King, Rice, Koontz, Clancy who have libraries of masterpieces to their credit. Lucas seems to have little faith in his talent. He never anticipates the success of his work and thus, when asked to elaborate on it, he falls short. Most of my opinions are based, I guess, on fear; fear that Indy will some how be tarnished with one wrong stroke of a writer's pen, a writer who I feel no longer puts his heart and soul into his work. Aside from Indy "Highlander" is high among my all-time favorite stories and, over the course of three mediocre sequels and a TV series that sucked until the third season, I've watched the franchise evolve into a joke. I don't know what I'd do if that happened to Indy. Well, that's my two-cent rant for the day.....

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: Jersey,
: I'm enjoying it, too. You made many fine points. Even if I, the self-professed "ultimate fan", were to see Indy in some other breed of outfit I don't think I'd buy it. Harrison Ford "played" Indiana Jones, but Indy is what he is; a fictional character. True, Bond had a considerable headstart in literature before making the transition to cinema, but I don't feel that matters. Until the reader (or viewer) is offered visual representation everyone is free to harbor their own ideaized image of a character, the only true version being that which exists in the mind of the original author. Because of this I don't feel that it matter how a thing gets started, only where it goes. As I stated in my original post, the world changed radically following WWII; socially, economically, culturally and etc. (I watch WAY too much History Channel). Moving from the 1920's-30's into the post-war world was the equivalent of stepping out of the wild West into modern society. Because of this I feel that is necessary to confine the story lines to the 1930's, possibly 40's. The only other option, in my opinion, is tell more of a backstory. Given these things, Ford is too old. He's too old to keep the story chronologically close to the other three films. "Raiders" took place in 1936, "Last Crusade" in 1938; two years apart. In reality these two films were made nearly a decade apart. Do you look ten years older now than you did last year? Probably not. Even that was too big a stretch for me. True, it will never be the summer of 1981 again and, in the fictional realm of Indiana Jones, it will never be 1936 again. Perhaps I jumped the gun a bit in my post. Sure, I'd love to see a decent story of an aging Indy, I just don't think they can write one. Brace yourselves; truth be told, I didn't care for "Last Crusade" at all, and I question their ability to move the character forward. With the rich and exciting life Indy has led (which has only been hinted at) I suggest that they move the character 'backward', which is where my "Ford is too old" theory really comes in. I say 'hinted' because I shudder to even acknowledge the existence of "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" and do not associate them with Indy at all. Someone suggested that Ford carry on until he's too old and have Indy just ride off into the sunset. This would be even more difficult to write, as "wrapping things up" is one of the most poorly done things in Hollywood. If you don't believe me then go see "Highlander: Endgame" (JEEEEEESUS, what a TURD!). 
: Now for more blasphemy; I think Lucas just doesn't give a damn anymore. He's made his money, he's comfortable and he simply doesn't care. Just look at the majority opinion of "Episode 1" vs. the original "Star Wars" trilogy. Breaking into the business initally, as Lucas was doing at that time (Speilberg, too), forces writers to do their best work. When you reach a certain level I think it's human nature to relax. Look at Lucas strictly as a writer for a moment. To date, he's really only turned out seven acomplished works as opposed to other writers like King, Rice, Koontz, Clancy who have libraries of masterpieces to their credit. Lucas seems to have little faith in his talent. He never anticipates the success of his work and thus, when asked to elaborate on it, he falls short. Most of my opinions are based, I guess, on fear; fear that Indy will some how be tarnished with one wrong stroke of a writer's pen, a writer who I feel no longer puts his heart and soul into his work. Aside from Indy "Highlander" is high among my all-time favorite stories and, over the course of three mediocre sequels and a TV series that sucked until the third season, I've watched the franchise evolve into a joke. I don't know what I'd do if that happened to Indy. Well, that's my two-cent rant for the day.....

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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