The Indiana Jones Thread

[Silver Nemesis]

One of the best scenes in The Last Crusade is where Indy has to pass the three trials in the Temple of the Sun to reach the Grail. But it always bugs me how extremely unfair those trials are.

So the clue to the Breath of God trial is "Only the penitent man will pass." The penitent man kneels, right? Ok. By kneeling, he avoids being decapitated. But what about the second blade? The one that comes up from below?

There's nothing in the clue about that.

Moving on to the second trial. The Name of God. "Only in the footsteps of God will he proceed." Indy has to spell out 'Jehovah', but in Latin Jehovah begins with an 'I'. As anyone who studied Latin at school will know, the reason Jehovah was spelt with an 'I' is because there was no letter 'J' in the early Latin alphabet. After 'J' was introduced, 'J' and 'I' were used interchangeably, as were 'V' and 'W'. But once 'J' entered the Latin alphabet it was perfectly acceptable to spell Jehovah with a 'J'. Indy would only need to spell it with an 'I' if this was the early Latin alphabet in which 'J' didn't exist. But the stones on the ground clearly reflect the later Latin alphabet. How do we know this? Because one of the stones has a 'J' on it.

If it was the early Latin alphabet, there wouldn't be a 'J' stone. So it should have been acceptable for Indy to spell Jehovah with a 'J'. I once pointed this out to my dad, who's a huge Indy fan, and his theory is that the Grail Knight, who was born sometime in the Middle Ages, added the 'J' stone to trick people. That's a plausible explanation, but it's still sadistically unfair.

The final trial is the Path of God. "Only in the leap from the lion's head will he prove his worth." This one's not too bad. My only issue with it is that in order for the bridge to blend in with the backdrop, you would presumably have to approach it at precisely the right time of day, when the sun was at the exact angle for the shadows to correspond. At any other time of day, the shadows painted on the bridge wouldn't match the background, and the shadow of the bridge itself might be visibly projected against the cave wall. That would probably make it the easiest of the three trials to pass.

Again, it's a brilliant sequence, and I like how it tests Indy's intellect rather than his brawn. He is a scholar, after all. But if it were me, I never would have made it past the first trial.

Yes, I'm aware of Peter David's critique of Raiders that the movie ends the same way whether Indy is in it or not (which The Big Bang Theory later cribbed for itself). But since my investment in the series is so minimal, fine details like that don't matter to me. I just want to enjoy the action sequences, frankly.

I saw this criticism repeated a lot after it was referenced on The Big Bang Theory. But wouldn't the Nazis have acquired the Ark if Indy hadn't taken it to America? Belloq and his cohorts are eradicated after opening the Ark, but not every Nazi is present for that scene. The U-boat crew, for instance, knew that the Ark had been taken to that island, and none of them were killed during the finale. When Belloq failed to report in, wouldn't the Germans have simply gone back and collected it?

One might argue that even if the Nazis did learn from Belloq's mistake they wouldn't have been able to weaponise the Ark's power. But they still would've had possession of it. By taking it to the US, Indy deprived them of the Ark. In that sense, he did actively change the outcome of the story.

Speaking of the U-boat, another issue some fans highlight in Raiders is that the Germans would likely have submerged at some point during their journey to the island. Yet Indy survives on top of the U-boat without drowning. This was addressed in the original script, which describes Indy tying himself to the periscope using his whip and then being dragged along the surface after the U-boat submerges. I gather this scene was included in the comic book adaptation.

If the U-boat captain looks familiar it's because he's played by Michael Sheard, who one year earlier had portrayed Admiral Ozzel in The Empire Strikes Back. Sheard's role in Raiders was meant to be bigger, and to make amends for cutting it down Spielberg later cast him as Hitler in The Last Crusade.

Also on the trivia front, watch the Hitler scene carefully and you can glimpse Heinrich Himmler among the Nazis observing the book burning. The actor playing Himmler in that scene is Ronald Lacey, who previous played Toht in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

While acknowledging that Fate Of Atlantis is a particularly high watermark, my sense is that Indy has overall better comics than Star Wars. It's a quantity vs. quality thing. Fewer Indy comics exist. But the overall quality level is fairly high. Whereas probably the majority of Star Wars comics are... well, not very good.

We should be thankful that Disney-era Lucasfilm hasn't formed an 'Indiana Jones Story Group' and flooded bookshelves with dreadful IJ comics and novels. If only Star Wars had been so fortunate.

My only real quibble about the story is that you pretty much would've needed to adapt it into a film by 1995 at the latest. Because after that, Ford aged out of playing the character at this stage in his life. But otherwise, it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to see this succeeding as a film.

Fate of Atlantis is meant to take place in 1939, one year after the events of The Last Crusade. Harrison Ford aged exceptionally well, so he still could've pulled it off in his early fifties without looking too old. Indy should probably appear slightly older than his real age anyway, given all the rough times he's been through. But adapting Fate of Atlantis any later than 1995 would've been pushing it.

To tangent a bit, at one point M. Night Shyamalan developed an idea for a fourth Indiana Jones movie. I suppose this would've been between 1999 to 2001. Night has always been a little cagey about the specifics of his idea.

I've always wondered how a Night Indy movie would've played out. Because by 1999/2000, he seemed to be firmly into his auteur career and out of the script-for-hire business. But Spielberg would have directed the film, nobody disputes that. So, I've always had a lot of questions about this.

In the end, whatever happened happened and the movie obviously never got made. But more than most other Indy 4 concepts, I've always been curious about Night's.

I've not heard much about Shyamalan's proposal. I imagine Lucas would've been too busy directing the Prequel Trilogy at that time to worry about Indiana Jones. And I don't think Spielberg would've wanted to direct the movie without George, which makes me wonder how seriously they took Shyamalan's pitch. It would be interesting to hear more about it.

You know, I might just have to make a project for myself and download these. From what I gather, the "Young Indy Restored" Youtube channel is about the only way to watch these episodes adequately restored. As the DVD set that was put out in 2008, feature edited versions per George Lucas.

Admittedly, I wasn't a persistent viewer of the "Young Indiana Jones" series, but I would check it out from time to time. I do recall being very surprised seeing Harrison Ford appear for a segment, since I wasn't expecting it, as a older and bearded Indiana Jones. I later read that he was filming "The Fugitive" at the time. Explaining the BTS reason for the beard. A pretty cool moment, and memory for sure.

I'm also tempted to re-watch some of the series, and to replay The Fate of Atlantis and read the comic adaptation. As colors says, there's a lot of extra lore out there for fans to excavate if they want more Indy adventures. Does anyone remember the old Young Indiana Jones books that predated the TV show? I never read them myself, but my brother did. The images of Indy on some of the covers looked a bit like River Phoenix.

Thanks for elaborating on that, and that's pretty cool Short Round became a successful adventurer like Indy. Seemed like it was always in his trajectory. He clearly idolized Jones in TOD, and even to the point where he was shadowing his body language. With TOD being (I think) the first film I saw in the franchise, his absence and being essentially omitted from TLC, KOCS, and now Dial, just leaves me unfulfilled as opposed to what 'could have been'. Even something like a simple line of dialogue in "The Last Crusade" where Jones mentions that he sent an 'associate' to boarding school or something to that effect would have sufficed. Though I agree that seeing an adult Short Round in either KOCS or Dial would have been great (in the grand scheme, perhaps being sent to boarding school caused some friction between Short Round and Indy, but when the chips are down, they know they have each other's backs). Recently, any time you see Harrison Ford and Ke Huy Quan together, they genuinely seem very comradely around one another. Just a shame they never had a reunion in a film. If even just briefly.

Imagine how formidable Short Round would've been as an adult. As a kid, he was able to take on multiple grown men in combat and get the better of them. As a grownup, I imagine him being like Wang Chi from Big Trouble in Little China. Seeing him and Indy fight side by side in the following scene is like watching Batman and Robin in action.

Is Short Round proof that Robin could work in a dark movie, provided there's a note of comic relief?

[thecolorsblend]

I saw this criticism repeated a lot after it was referenced on The Big Bang Theory. But wouldn't the Nazis have acquired the Ark if Indy hadn't taken it to America? Belloq and his cohorts are eradicated after opening the Ark, but not every Nazi is present for that scene. The U-boat crew, for instance, knew that the Ark had been taken to that island, and none of them were killed during the finale. When Belloq failed to report in, wouldn't the Germans have simply gone back and collected it?

Now that I've got the Insidious series wrapped up (for the time being), I was planning to make my way through Raiders through Crystal Skull. So, I'll touch base with you about this later.

Still, I don't think this is a plot hole worth losing sleep over. The importance of Raiders goes beyond that kind of stuff. It's Spielberg and Lucas at the height of their powers, Ford is hungry and has something to prove and the movie is just PLEASURE to watch. So, if you ask me, questioning the plot mechanics too much sort of misses the point a little bit.

Speaking of the U-boat, another issue some fans highlight in Raiders is that the Germans would likely have submerged at some point during their journey to the island. Yet Indy survives on top of the U-boat without drowning. This was addressed in the original script, which describes Indy tying himself to the periscope using his whip and then being dragged along the surface after the U-boat submerges. I gather this scene was included in the comic book adaptation.

Don't mistake me for an expert on the Kriegsmarine. But I was under the impression that the U-boats spent a LOT of time on the surface and even did the majority of their sailing above the surface. They only submerged for combat operations. So, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that Jones could've hitched a ride on the U-boat without drowning or getting caught because it wasn't submerged.

Obviously, modern submarines can stay submerged for much longer stretches of time. But that's a capability that those old U-boats might not have had. I swear to think I read somewhere that they didn't. But don't hold me to that.

We should be thankful that Disney-era Lucasfilm hasn't formed an 'Indiana Jones Story Group' and flooded bookshelves with dreadful IJ comics and novels. If only Star Wars had been so fortunate.

It is a sad situation with Star Wars.

Still, the few good EU pieces still exist. Daley's Han Solo trilogy, Crispin's Han Solo trilogy, that Star Wars quarterly comic (Star Wars Tales?), Shadows Of The Empire and other things that truly were worthwhile. Even if Lucasfilm now disregards that stuff, nothing says that we fans have to do the same.

I've not heard much about Shyamalan's proposal. I imagine Lucas would've been too busy directing the Prequel Trilogy at that time to worry about Indiana Jones. And I don't think Spielberg would've wanted to direct the movie without George, which makes me wonder how seriously they took Shyamalan's pitch. It would be interesting to hear more about it.

I don't think availability would've been that big of a problem, frankly. Lucas was able to write and produce two Indy films while completing two different Star Wars films. Observe:

1977- Star Wars
1979- More American Graffiti (producer)
1980- Kagemusha (producer)
1980- The Empire Strikes Back (producer)
1981- Raiders Of The Lost Ark (producer)
1983- Return Of The Jedi (producer and uncredited co-director if you believe the rumors)
1983- Twice Upon A Time (producer)
1984- Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom (producer)

For Spielberg's on part, he wasn't resting on his laurels either.

1977- Close Encounters Of The Third Kind
1979- 1941
1981- Raiders Of The Lost Ark
1982- E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
1982- Poltergeist (co-director, I don't care what anybody says)
1983- Twilight Zone: The Movie (co-director)
1984- Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom

Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan were hammering out the characters, story details, action set pieces and so forth for Raiders as early as 1978. It seems believable enough that Lucas and Spielberg gave Kasdan enough meat to get started on the Raiders script, Kasdan tinkered with it with oversight and/or revisions directly from Lucas and Spielberg with everything teed up and ready to go for filming to commence in June 1980... by which time, both directors had presided over four films between the two of them.

All of this is a long way of saying I totally believe that Lucas wasn't so preoccupied with the prequels that he couldn't have made time to develop another Indy movie.

Certainly, from about July to December 1999, Lucas would've had time to at least review IJ4 story ideas/pitches.

And frankly, I think he would've had a motive to do it as well. Beyond money, I mean. Lucas had made his Star Wars merchandising partners a LOT of promises. Chief among them was that the prequels would be released consecutively in 1997, 1998 and 1999.

Obviously, he wasn't able to keep that particular promise. Even so, the retail channels and distribution had been set aside for him anyway.

He was able to somewhat mollify his tie-in partners with the Shadows Of The Empire multimedia project. But they still wanted stuff to sell. And Lucas knew he wouldn't have much of anything aside from The Phantom Menace in 1999 and Attack Of The Clones in 2002.

So, one additional motive Lucas could've had in 1999 in develop another Jones feature was to get another Lucasfilm production up and going. No, it wouldn't be a Star Wars property. But it would be a chance for the merchandisers to cash in on something. Ever the businessman, I think that's something Lucas would most certainly have been conscious of.

My hunch is that Lucas took the meeting with Night in the summer of 1999 hoping that the pitch could result in a movie they could release in 2001. An Indiana Jones 4 toy line and other merchandise would've probably made his partners very happy indeed.

Which raises the question of why it didn't happen. I have no idea if Night's proposal is the only one that Spielberg and Lucas heard. But either way, I would wager that there was something about Night's pitch that one of the core three (Spielberg, Lucas and Ford) objected to. Business with Indy always depended on a unanimous decision. If just one of them vetoed an idea, that was the end of it.

To start wrapping up this blabber fest, my point is that I don't think the Star Wars prequels would've been an impediment since Lucas typically had at least three to six months in 1999 and 2002 (if no other time) to shepherd IJ4 along.

As to Lucas's tie-in partners, there's a strong argument that inflation alone took care of the profits they missed out on in 1998, 2000 and 2001. It doesn't sound like anybody ever went broke from going into business with George Lucas.

As I've said before, when Lucas's time comes, he'll most likely be eulogized as a director/producer. And that is a travesty to the man's true vocation. My contention is that we haven't seen media business acumen of Lucas's caliber since Walt Disney.

[thecolorsblend]

Raiders Of The Lost Ark rewatch is paused so I can write this.

I don't actually remember when the last time I watched Raiders might've been. I'd GUESS at least ten years. But it could be more than that.

And in all this time, I guess I'd forgotten how good the performances are. Ford's charm practically drips off the screen. But all of the cast is delivering their A-game.

What a treat!

[Kamdan]

Seeing him and Indy fight side by side in the following scene is like watching Batman and Robin in action.

Is Short Round proof that Robin could work in a dark movie, provided there's a note of comic relief?

I absolutely share this sentiment. Indy and Short Round along with the relationship Dick Tracy and The Kid shared in the 1990 film had me wholeheartedly agree that a true Boy Wonder could be pulled off in a Batman feature. I read most of the Golden Age era comics and thought that was the best approach to the character without all of his "holy-this-or-that" statements that he became known for. Good writing and characterization is key. They tried this with Zorro's son in The Legend of Zorro and he came off extremely irritating.

[The Dark Knight]

Dial of Destiny is a nice surprise because, as with any movie now, Reactionary YouTube Culture Warriors were dedicated to destroying the film's reputation before it was ever released, choosing to wave anonymous Reddit posts around like a stuttering end-times prophet standing at a street corner. Everything is a 'woke' conspiracy and Kathleen Kennedy is under your bed waiting for you to close your eyes. So, of course DOD ends up exceeded expectations. It is imperfect, but those imperfections mostly boil down to a bit of distracting CGI and a slightly soggy middle that could have used Michael Kahn's tighter, more efficient editing. Harrison Ford gives one of his most committed performances, and how can one not fall in love with Phoebe Waller-Bridge?

I'm just going to say it. I find it too long and occasionally on the bland side, but Dial of Destiny is a better film, and legacy film, than The Flash. Even if that's because Dial of Destiny is a solo film dedicated to Indiana Jones (Batman was a side character in The Flash), I'm judging what we actually see. They're now both one and done, likely never to return.

Spielberg and Lucas weren't involved, but Williams was. Neither Burton or Elfman were there for Keaton's return, even though his theme remains. We get a de-aged Indy in his prime, shortly after Last Crusade - and nothing of the sort with Keaton. I find Waller Bridge annoying, but if we're really having this conversation her competition is Ezra Miller.

Dial of Destiny makes a point of Indy's age and physical limitations, whereas Keaton puts on the suit and fights like a 30 year old.

Both backstories are valid but Dial has even more meaning behind personal pain:  Mutt was killed in Vietnam and Marion wanted a divorce through that. Indy is also a man of ancient history and relics living in the space age. Indy's old flame is not just mentioned but actually appears. Nothing of the sort with Bruce and Selina. Indy also ends the film alive.

It's not perfect, and it's probably not a film I'd watch much compared to the first three particularly, but part of me is glad knowing it exists. It's far from being what the rumors alleged it to be. Virtually none of those were true, and if they were, they've been excised out. I don't think Dial of Destiny or even Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are comparable to what happened with the Star Wars sequel trilogy. They're on another level.

Indy as a franchise is tidier than Star Wars, warts and all. I do feel compelled to get in to the comics and other franchise media. I also have the DK Indiana Jones The Ultimate Guide which I bought around the time of Skull, which is really fantastic. It has cross sections of locations and battles like the Star Wars books had, and it's a good source for Indy's backstory and history.

[thecolorsblend]

TOD rewatch completed.

It's... better than I remembered. But there's just no comparison between this and Raiders.

Still, it does give Indy a character arc. From fortune and glory to a more mature, ethical approach.

The gore in this film is what it is. Between Spielberg's horror phase and Lucas's divorce, it's not hard to guess the origin of someone's heart getting ripped out.

I echo what others have said. Ke Huy Quan should've been brought back as Short Round. Even if it was just a cameo appearance or something, that character deserved some kind of follow-up. That would've been a pretty natural fit for Crystal Skull, frankly. Alas...

I wish the same could be said for Kate Capshaw. She did what was in the script and what Spielberg directed her to do. But the character of Willie remains insufferable. Strange to think that over a hundred actresses auditioned for the part and she won out. But life is full of bitter truths, I suppose.

Like I say, TOD is better than I remember. But it's probably never going to be my favorite of the bunch.

The Last Crusade comes tomorrow. Or some time this weekend, at any rate.

[thecolorsblend]

Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade

Man, this one holds up.

My only real gripe is Elsa. Allison Doody did a great job with it. The problem is the character herself. She's neither fish nor fowl. She's a Nazi sympathizer. So, right there, you already know the audience is against her and there's no way Indy can truly love her.

Yes, she denies any affection for Germany. But as far as she knows, the Joneses are just as capable of finding the Grail as the Germans. So, why didn't she join forces with the Joneses?

At the same time, she's clearly not an evil person. She could've sold Indy out to the Germans during the big celebration thing. But she didn't.

In the end, she's too wholesome to be a femme fatale but too villainous to be a viable love interest for Jones. Worse, there's no redemption arc for her either.

Elsa is not a deal-breaker. I'm just saying she's the aspect of the movie that I just can't get past. But otherwise, the movie is a ton of fun and it's just as good as you remember.

Crystal Skull at some point this weekend.

[Silver Nemesis]

Don't mistake me for an expert on the Kriegsmarine. But I was under the impression that the U-boats spent a LOT of time on the surface and even did the majority of their sailing above the surface. They only submerged for combat operations. So, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that Jones could've hitched a ride on the U-boat without drowning or getting caught because it wasn't submerged.

Obviously, modern submarines can stay submerged for much longer stretches of time. But that's a capability that those old U-boats might not have had. I swear to think I read somewhere that they didn't. But don't hold me to that.

My grandfather was a theoretical physicist who helped design the Royal Navy's first nuclear submarine, and I recall him saying something to the effect that U-boats weren't really submarines. Not technically. I'm not sure exactly what the technical distinction is, but I think it had something to do with subs functioning more efficiently underwater, while U-boats functioned more efficiently on the surface. The journey the U-boat took in Raiders was a comparatively short one, with no enemy ships around, and it would've been faster travelling on the surface. So it's perfectly plausible that it wouldn't have submerged.

I think some viewers interpret the use of the periscope to indicate that the U-boat was under water, but periscopes were sometimes used to get an elevated view even when vessels were on the surface. Moreover, we never see the U-boat submerge in the movie, and when it arrives at the dock it's clearly moving on the surface.

Even so, the scene with the U-boat submerging was filmed. Here's Harrison Ford clinging to the periscope.

One detail I always liked about the ending of Raiders is the pillar of fire that emerges from the Ark, which recalls how the Book of Exodus describes God appearing before the Israelites. Given Spielberg's Judaism, that's clearly an intentional allusion.

It is a sad situation with Star Wars.

Still, the few good EU pieces still exist. Daley's Han Solo trilogy, Crispin's Han Solo trilogy, that Star Wars quarterly comic (Star Wars Tales?), Shadows Of The Empire and other things that truly were worthwhile. Even if Lucasfilm now disregards that stuff, nothing says that we fans have to do the same.

I used to enjoy the Star Wars comics back when Dark Horse held the publishing rights. Some of the stories were unremarkable, but there were still plenty of classics. Dark Empire, Tales of the Jedi and Boba Fett: Enemy of the Empire are some of my favourites. The original Marvel comics from the seventies and eighties were decent too.

I tried getting on board with the new Marvel era of SW comics after Disney bought Lucasfilm, and I bought the first batch of collected editions for the various different series. They just didn't click with me. I can never forget the old EU I'd spent so many years enjoying. Eventually I'll either sell those Disney-era comics online or give them to a charity shop. But there are certain Dark Horse Star Wars comics from the old EU that I'll always enjoy re-reading.

I wish the same could be said for Kate Capshaw. She did what was in the script and what Spielberg directed her to do. But the character of Willie remains insufferable. Strange to think that over a hundred actresses auditioned for the part and she won out. But life is full of bitter truths, I suppose.

I don't have strong feelings about the Willie character. Her feminine vulnerability offers a strong counterpoint to the tougher and more tomboyish Marion, but her constant screaming can be grating. At times she makes Vicki Vale seem stoic. I don't mind her, but I'm not particularly fond of her either.

There's a detail I never noticed in the scene where Willie and Short Round are first captured by the Thuggees. Watch carefully and you can see that while Short Round is grabbed, Willie actually gets away from them. There was meant to be a sequence following this where Willie returns to the palace and tries warning everyone about the temple, only for Indy, now under the control of Mola Ram, to refute her claims and capture her. You can learn more about this sequence in the following video.

At the same time, she's clearly not an evil person. She could've sold Indy out to the Germans during the big celebration thing. But she didn't.

In the end, she's too wholesome to be a femme fatale but too villainous to be a viable love interest for Jones. Worse, there's no redemption arc for her either.

I'd argue that she does work as a femme fatale, thanks to one shot in the movie. This one.

Elsewhere she's squeamish and displays signs of conscience, hinting that maybe she's not as ruthless as her Nazi allies. But the way she smirks when Donovan doubles over in pain convinces me that she picked the wrong cup on purpose in order to kill him. It's very subtle, but I think Spielberg pans over to that reaction shot to show us how coldblooded and calculating Elsa really is. She only starts screaming when Donovan grabs hold of her. Prior to that, she observes his pain with the hint of a smile. Her next line after Donovan's death is, "It would not be made of gold" – which shows that she knew what she was doing when she picked a gold chalice. Apparently the novelisation also hints that both she and Indy knew it wasn't the Grail.

You could argue that she did this to help Indy and deny Donovan the Grail – that maybe she's a good bad guy, or a bad good guy – but she's still a manipulative double-crossing liar, and (if my interpretation of the scene is correct) a killer. So I reckon she fits the description of femme fatale, and it's for that reason she's never redeemed. At least that's my take.

Just as Willie contrasts with Marion, Elsa contrasts with both of her predecessors. The trilogy does a good job of presenting audiences with three very different leading ladies. Unlike the Bond movies, where 90% of the women are interchangeable.

[Silver Nemesis]

One of the things I admire about the Indiana Jones movies is that they're the product of a successful collaboration between two auteur filmmakers. Compared with Poltergeist, where Spielberg's input clearly dominated that of Tobe Hooper, we find a far more balanced collaboration in the Indy films. I can clearly see Spielberg's input, but I can just as easily detect Lucas's hand. In fact if anything, I'd be inclined to say that Lucas was the dominant creative force on those movies. It was his baby after all. He came up with the concept, plotted the storylines, produced them, and oversaw the expansion of the lore across different media through projects like the LucasArts games and Young Indy TV series.

Lucas could have directed Raiders himself, and I get the impression he was planning to do so before the stress of making Star Wars impacted his health (he wouldn't direct another film after that until The Phantom Menace two decades later). Had he directed Raiders, it would've lost all the wonderful ingredients that Spielberg brought to the table, and the finished product wouldn't have been as good. But it would still have existed. Without Lucas, however, there would be no Indy.

I'm not taking anything away from Spielberg. They're as much his films as Lucas's, and that's the point I'm getting at. Both filmmakers clearly got along well, respected one another's talent, knew one another's boundaries, valued one another's input, were willing to accommodate one another's ideas, and the result speaks for itself.

It makes me sad to think of all the films Lucas might have made over the past decade if he hadn't stepped down after Red Tails (2012). I'd love it if he made a comeback. Imagine if he founded a new production company, a true spiritual heir to Lucasfilm, and spent five to ten years belting out new movies before riding off into the sunset for good. Not Star Wars or Indiana Jones films, but completely new projects. He wouldn't even need to direct them. He could just write and produce. He's almost 80 now, so it's unlikely to happen. But you never know – Eastwood's still directing and he's 93. George has got another 14 years before he reaches that milestone. And he's certainly got the money to finance such a comeback.

After seeing how badly the Lucasfilm IPs have been mishandled by other filmmakers, I imagine fans would generally be more respectful and appreciative of Lucas now than they were eleven years ago. At least I hope that would be the case.

I wonder if there's a parallel universe in which Lucas directed Raiders and Tom Selleck played Indy. If so, would it have been any good?

[Kamdan]

Lucas could have directed Raiders himself, and I get the impression he was planning to do so before the stress of making Star Wars impacted his health (he wouldn't direct another film after that until The Phantom Menace two decades later).

I wish we knew more about Philip Kaufman's involvement with Raiders of the Lost Ark who is credited with developing the story with Lucas and was always subsequently credited for the characters. The only real concrete detail we have is that Kaufman was the one who came up with the Ark of the Covenant being the McGuffin. I wonder if he was originally slated to direct as well, but once Spielberg showed his interest in directing, Lucas went with him instead. A similar incident happened when John Milius was supposed to direct 1941, but when Spielberg read the script, he said he wanted to do it, and everyone obliged, because the movie's budget could increase.