Would you watch a 5th Indiana Jones movie starring "Mutt" as the new Indiana?

that's always been one of the things that irks me. okay, sure, Shia's an alright dude and ive liked a couple of his other flicks. but for some reason i just can't see him as the 'son of Indiana Jones'. Indiana Jones, a guy so cool the ONLY man that could possibly be his father was James Bond, so we go on down the line and we get... uhm... Even Stevens? no. just... no.

1)this is the grognard in me talking, but if it means we stop getting movies like KotCS, then yes. stop now.
2)most of the fun in the franchise is in the pulp feel of the movie, a feeling they failed to recapture with their latest outing, and one i dont see them being able to run with using just Mutt. worse, is that he'll NEVER be his own character, my gripes aside, he's always going to be "the son of Indiana Jones" as far as any future movies go.
3)not with George and Stephen at the helm. can someone else do a good IJ movie? yes, i just don't know if i want someone else to do it, and unlike with the various franchises where they've switched actors in the main role, i think it's too early to just change the lead and NOT find it too jarring to enjoy a reboot of the series. maybe 10 or 20 years down the line, but not right now.

I think the prosecution rests....

That makes two of us. I also had absolutely not the slightest problem with Crystal Skull moving into alien territory. It makes sense to me. Serials in the 30's/40's were about adventure in foreign lands, Alan Quartermainn tales were all the rage. In the 50's, people began to be frightened of Russians, the Bomb, and slime creatures from outer space.

Why is it acceptable for Indy to be an overblown serial hero when it's the 30's but not in the 50's? Being nuked in the fridge and surviving is absolutely not one iota stupider than opening the Ark of the Covenant and having it melt people's faces off. I checked the Bible up and down and it doesn't say anywhere it does anything magical. How are the semi-intelligent monkeys any worse than the silly racist representations in Temple of Doom?

I'm totally okay with Indy being a hero for two generations, and there's no reason his universe would not move along to aliens. He lives in a universe clearly based on the serials of our real world.

While I think "Nuh-nuh-nuh-n-n-n-n-n-noo! Nonono!" was a questionable choice, his character is no different than the rebel without a cause hero who finds a cause in defending the town from the alien invasion... which nobody believes him when he says it's happening. His character is a STAPLE of 1950's adventure archetypes.

Yes, I would go see Mutt Williams, without a question. Indiana Jones was active with the Nazis... it's time for his son to step up and take care of the commies/the bomb/aliens. I even like his signature weapon... fencing. Look people, Harrison Ford is too old to keep this up. So is his character. Let go of your nostalgia filter, and just have a good time.

I like your ideas, and you make very good points. But I think that there is a big difference between the b-movies of the 50's 60's and the pulp actions adventures of the 30's-40's. Indy is about high adventure, mixed with detective work, b-movies were more about scream teens and monsters. Would it be fun to see Mutt in a monster of the week movie, or see Mutt take on the Blob, or the Incredible Shrinking Mutt? Sure, it would be fun, but it wouldn't be an Indy movie.

Which goes to the basic question, would you watch an Indiana Jones movie with Mutt as an Indy character, no. But with your idea, where he is a Steve McQueen to the Blob, or watch him run down the Pacific Coast Highway screaming that the pods are coming the pods are coming? Yeah, but why make that movie? Why not just make a new character, one that is more interesting, and make a new franchise?

I kinda think the entire intent of this was to create a spinoff series based on the son of Indiana Jones. I don't think they ever had the slightest intent to make him carry on in the exact same manner as his father did... he can't. He's not his father. His father was a 30's serial hero, the pragmatic gentleman (his day job, anyway) adventurer. Mutt is a 50's biker rebel with a heart of gold. They are both iconic representations of the genres they come from.

The reason you'd make that movie is the exact same reason the Indiana Jones movies were made in the first place. Indy's series were a love song to the serials of the 30's. Mutt's would be a love song to the communist plots/radioactive monsters/alien invaders. I got this impression even from the previews, and I went into Kingdom expecting this. I got what I expected. Over the top action in that signature Lucas/Spielberg style that bridged the gap between the two eras.

The torch was passed, even if the hat was not. Again I don't think Shia was an excellent choice, but Ford was criticized as not believable as Indiana when Raiders came out. time will tell, and I, for one, am willing to give it a chance.

It doesn't help any when you have absolute idiots like Parker and Stone saying Indiana was "sexually assaulted" when Kingdom was full of just as many stupid wallbangers as every other one in the series. But then, your mileage may vary, as I found South Park stopped being funny after season 11 or so. Too interested in going "see how edgy we are?" and not interested enough in making an interesting story while being edgy.

By the way, you might wanna go back and catch a few more of the iconic 50's movies. they tend to be a lot more like Kingdom than purely scream teens and monsters. Reducing the genre to that is like reducing 30's serials to "Mighty whitey saves the day".

Here's the problem.

A massive amount of the viewers didn't WANT to see a 50's B-movie genre film.

They wanted to see a 30's era Pulp Serial.

It's actually a pretty well known phenomena. People do often CLAIM they want "new and different", but the reality is they really want "more of the same".



-k

yes, but in the case of Indiana Jones, the folks making the movie are trying to pull a bait and switch. "Hey, this has Indy's name in the title! Did you like his other movies! Well then we're calling this one 'Indy and the macguffin' to get you to watch THIS movie!" and then proceeded to try and use it as a jumping board for a new character.

Riiight, like Voyager, Enterprise, and Nemesis hadn't already ruined Star Trek. I'd say Abrams' movie was a vast improvement over those three abortions.

Oh yeah, and no to the OP.

ill take many of the episodes of both Voyager and Enterprise over Abrahms' version of Trek. yeah, the ending of both series were craptacular. but there more than a handful of decent episodes during each season on both shows. for Nemesis, all i can say is that it wasn't that bad. it just wasn't that good.

Originally Posted by VoodooGirl [*]Watching out for the Spinning Disco Portal of D00M!*

dirty heathen! the new Mummy movies were awesome! that's it, we read from ancient books at dawn! have at ye!

er, i mean. they were pretty good.

But that youthful viewpoint has been explored already in 'The young adventures of Indiana Jones', it would of been kinda repetitive imho.


Considering how much i hate Brendan Fraser's acting in those movies, I did actually enjoy a fair bit of The Mummy trilogy !.
Even in the third movie 'TOTDE' when the gorgeous and talented Rachel Weitz didn't reprise her role, she was replaced by Maria Bello who was pretty good and seemlessly portrayed Evy with the same spirit of character.

Oh, and that beautifully sung song by the American-born Chinese rock star Helen Feng from her band Pet Conspiracy and Ziyo (who sings dressed up up as the nightclub singer near the finale).

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

That would be the best option in my opinion. Maybe a nickname rename as well.

You mean, like Lawrence Kasdan, who worked closely with Lucas early in his career. This is not to say that Kasdan always made the right decisions or had the best ideas, but when you're bouncing ideas around three guys like Spielberg, Lucas and Kasdan, you generally will come out on top.

In the case of "Crystal Skull," there didn't seem to be anybody there to say, "Hey, George, maybe those cute little anthropomorphized prairie dogs aren't such a good idea" or "George, maybe we should cut the whole scene with the monkeys, because it's really pretty stupid."

God it's been that long!?

Man I'm old.

While I might give you a few episodes of Voyager, there wasn't a single decent episode of Enterprise. It was all complete crap.

Well he calls himself Mutt, and Indiana takes his name from his childhood pet dog Indiana. Mutt could always adopt the Indiana nickname to honor his dad.

Still like I posted previously, its clear that Indiana is going to shove Mutt back into school and get his education up to speed and get him to graduate. Mutt as I previously posted shows as being at the "angry young adult" stage of life when guidance from a father would be a bit important to help shape him up and keep him on the right side of the law.

Mutt could then join the service and be in the Korean War and then start traveling the world and have similar adventures to his father.

Or it could be said that between movies he traveled the world with his dad and had even more adventures with him. Kind of on the job training as it were.

Keeping the character Mutt isn't a bad thing, just reshape the character bit and if necessary recast him.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Exactly. There are many ridiculous scenes in all the movies, but fonzi suddenly turning into tarzan and employing a monkey army was WAY beyond any of them and just plain dumb. And I don't have a problem with the movie being about aliens and I don't have a problem with the actor who played mutt. There were other scenes that were pretty ridiculous, the fridge scene for one, but the monkey one was, again, just plain dumb.

Another poster suggested it's the same as the ark scene where it was melting off peoples faces, but it's just not. The arc scene is different in that we accept that the supernatural exists in these movies, and the arc is explained to have supernatural powers, so when its opened and starts turning nazis into butter, its obviously a hard scene to accept in the real world but it works in a movie where you accept the supernatural. But when a kid greaser suddenly has the agility of tarzan, for no explainable reason even inside a movie where we accept the supernatural, and can command an army of monkies, again with no explanation as to how even inside of a movie where we accept the supernatural, then you go from 'hard to believe' to just plain dumb.

And I agree that lucas is a creative genius overall, hell, he created some of the best movies of all time in star wars and indiana jones. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have some really bad ideas, that can be negated with the right collaborators (see empire strikes back).

Like many things in all 6 Star Wars movies, I just chalk up the prairie dogs, monkeys/tarzan scene and the army ants as Lucas showing off his CGI tech.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Hell No!!, Come on Dr.Jone is a Comic-Book, Novel and Movie Legend, if they made him into the Next Indiana Jone. I go out to George Lucas House and kill him for ruining another classic Movie.