It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I think I might revise my guess on the year: I'm going for 1962 :)
https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1450793/Indiana-Jones-5-setting-1960s-Steven-Spielberg-Harrison-Ford
They are quoting him from 2018 though: it's a completely new script which Mangold has written for the movie now.
I think the 60s is likely however, early 60s judging from those cars on set.
Oh, good Lord. You'd think I would read the whole article before I posted this nonsense. I usually try not to be that person! Haha.
Also @Zekidk no need to conflate “cancel culture” with changing sensibilities around modern day casting. They’re two completely different things.
I agree, that was a risk and it was averted successfully. It was a good performance.
This is a lot of crap. There’s never been any indication Mutt was ever going to be the heir to the adventure. In fact, the very ending of CRYSTAL SKULL disputes that when Indy grabs his hat back as if to say “nope, I’m the star”.
I called ‘62 back on April 16th.
It was a massive year as far as events of the world go.
Well, UK took sometime to recover from the war and the average Joe either had no car at all or an older car, unlike the US in early-mid 60's, so perhaps that's the answer.
This is a photo of 1962 London.
Quite probable and possible that the cars of the time aren't all Minis and E-type Jags.
I've faith in a big film production getting things like this correct. I try not to over analyse these things myself. Not till I have more info, or have seen the film.
Minis were on sale from '59 so they would hardly be out of place.
Yes indeed: I'm not saying it's definitely set in the 50s or early 60s, just that they're going for a postwar look rather than a swinging 60s look. They can still be going for that look and setting it in '65 or something- it's just an aesthetic choice.
These cars certainly create a feel which chimes more with the original '30s set Indy films moreso than a load of cars from 1963 or so would.
Well the 60’s didn’t start swinging until the second half of the decade; pre-65 looks likely.
I don't get why some get so hit up about something, that we don't know all the details of yet.
Yep, I tend to agree. Maybe it's exactly 20 years after the events the film shows in the 40s or something.
Well you're posting about it too - and even finding photos to post! :D
It's just fun to speculate, that's what messageboards are for.
The older cars etc. in postwar UK will contrast well with a more glamorous early '60's New York - US. I'm thinking of the first couple of seasons of Mad Men. Suits, cars, cocktail bars, crooners.
Yeah that would be nice: fingers crossed for a bit of that. I liked the hint of that NYC high society we got in Donovan's apartment in Crusade.
It would be fun to see a bit of playboy Indy again, as we saw in the opening of Temple of Doom.
Yes, 100% agree. Indy ordering a dry martini in a cool NY cocktail bar.
Yeah I think part of the original idea of the character from Spielberg & Lucas was that he'd be three guys in one: the adventurer, the professor and the playboy. But I guess because they kept going back to the Raiders template we didn't see much of the third one.
Apologies. The article I read said they were period motorcycles, and that a third bike -- they suggested it was a Harley -- of a more recent production, was present and that the rider appeared to be giving direction. I didn't inspect the photo provided, because the camera vehicle blocked the view of the motorcycles. But, thanks.
No need to apologise! :) It's fair enough to take them at their word. Maybe it is for Indy if they're doing some scene set in the present day, although I must admit I hope they don't!
Yes, I recall the ending quite well, with Mutt spotting the hat on the floor in the church wherein Marion and Indy just got married. Did the moment of Indy retrieving his hat provide clarity, or raise ambiguity ? As artists and producers often say, such questions are for the audience. Things like that can be included just as part of the entertainment.
In reference to Mutt's presence in the story, I wrote "WHATEVER S. Spielberg MIGHT have had in mind" 9emphasis added this time). I recall contemporaneous articles wherein commenters mused about what was then reasonably estimated might be Harrison Ford's last go-round as Indy, and whether the presence of Shia L -- at the time still on an ascent, roles-wise -- was for anything more than an appearance as that character in that film, the son of Marion and Indy.
You’re just making crap up because of some weird dislike over Mutt and the actor.
I am not making anything up. My lack of appreciation of IJATKOTCS is widely shared, not the least of which for the appearance of Mutt in the story. It paled in comparison with River Phoenix portraying Indy as a kid in IJATLC.
People are always speculating that everyone will be Abner: Anthony Hopkins’ name came up today so inevitably he’s suggested for Abner too :D
I think T Jones is just a new character, I like new characters. The initial trilogy only had two returning support characters in the whole thing.