Posted by Laurie Jensen from proxy2.frmt1.sfba.home.com on November 10, 1998 at 07:16:58:
In Reply to: Here is a few fun questions... posted by HF605 on November 10, 1998 at 00:35:13:
: Alright, this isn't trivia because I don't know these answers, so who ever wants to answer with opinion or actual fact, GREAT!
: 1)Why does Indy have a different girl in all three moives?
: 2)If ToD was one year before Raiders what happend to Short Round in that year?
: 3)In the books Indy supposedly got married then his wife died, do you guys agree with that?(I know I don't)
: 4)Do you think Indy's clothes were expensive back then?(they sure are now)
: 5)What do you think of the book line?(I found alot of it too far fetched like the Enterior World)
: I appreciate your answers.
Ok, I'll play.
1)Well, they had to have a different actress in TOD because it was a prequel, and Indy and Marion weren't in contact in 1935 (this, btw, is the official explanation). Let's also remember that Lucas always envisioned Indy as something of a ladies man, which means romantic variety. From a dramatic standpoint, a new relationship is seen as more exciting than a old one, which is why soap characters change lovers like underwear. This time honored Hollywood philosophy didn't really pan out for the series, however. Personally, I found the Willie and Elsa romances total duds, but that's not the main draw of these pictures anyway, so I just try to ignore it. But I want Marion back if we have Indy IV.
2)This has always irked me. I can understand why Shorty isn't mentioned in Raiders, since TOD was conceived and filmed after Raiders, but why couldn't there have been a at least a passing reference or cameo by Shorty in LC? No mention was made about Marion's whereabouts either, even though Lucas himself anointed her Indy's soulmate. Did she dump Indy? Did he dump her? Is she dead? Is she in the Bermuda Triangle with Shorty and Willie? We got to see Marcus and Sallah , so why can't we have closure with our other old favorites (I don't lose sleep, though, wondering about Willie). Hopefully, Indy IV will answer some of these questions, and bring the movies closer together. The series is really hurt by this lack of continuity; very little seems to tie these films together.
3)I don't buy it either. Indy was a young, randy, independent, adventuresome guy with an absentee, distant father, and a long dead mother. Not exactly the type of man who would enter into an early marriage. The romance in the book also didn't come off as the kind of love that would entice Indy into a lifetime committment; McGregor isn't likely to start writing romance novels anytime soon. And having her die is just a copout-see, we can show Indy has DEEP feelings but then we can quickly free him for more couch tangoing. Unlike others, I could see Indy entering into a late marriage, when he was feeling his mortality coming on and was more secure in his relationship with dad, but not in his turbulent twenties.
4)Probably not. One of the things were paying for with the Indy items is their uniqueness. Fedoras, whips, flat soled work boots, and wool pants were everyday, very available items in the 1930's. Everyone wore a hat; my greatgrandfather was an ordinary dock worker, and he doned a fedora every single day. Most shoes were basically flat soled-the grip sole didn't really take over until the 70's or 80's. Whips were still an integral part of cattle ranching, not just a fun hobby for enthusiasts. Most pants were made out of wool and double flap pockets were not unusual (not to mention unpleated legs). Hand tailoring was the rule rather than the exception; heck, people still made a lot of their own clothes. All and all, Indy's clothing wasn't anything outrageous for his time frame and probably could be had for a reasonable price back then.
5)The bookline is ok, nothing exceptional. There is a variance of quality, but I wouldn't say any of the books are outstanding or really capture the essence of the Indy character or films. To be fair though, the printed page doesn't lend itself well to the kind of visual storylines of the movies, so the authors must compensate for this with more talk, less action. The emphasis is naturally different given the contrasting mediums.
Post a Followup: