What’s Past is Prologue: A Fanboy’s Guide to the Future-Past of “Indiana Jones”

“What is past is prologue.” — William Shakespeare, “The Tempest,” Act II, Scene I

Accepting the Legend of Our Lifetime award at the Rakuten TV Empire Awards in London on March 18th, Steven Spielberg announced that “Indiana Jones 5” would begin principal photography in the UK in April 2019.

And, predictably, news of Indiana Jones’ return in 2020 was met with worldwide cinephile mockery, most of it rather blatant age bias directed at its star, Harrison Ford, and recriminate cluelessness of its creators by those still reeling from the half-assed redemption-proof debacle that was “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” a mere decade ago. 

Hell hath no fury like a franchise that doesn’t know when to call it quits. Or is there?

Is there still enough crack in that whip for just one more globetrotting adventure to avert a 77-year-old leading man from hanging up his wide-brimmed sable fedora for good? That’s a fair question. An even better question, how does Disney continue to profit off of this dusty franchise beyond the aging of its star and onward for years to come?

There’s really only one logical route to go — and, if done right, that route could reap potential billions for The Mouse House. 

Reaching a marketing and distribution agreement with Paramount in December 2013 for all future “Indiana Jones” installments and retaining ownership rights stemming from its $4.05 billion acquisition of Lucasfilm Ltd. a year prior, Disney’s best interests are certainly in keeping the franchise alive and kicking for several decades to come. But how does one do that when the title character is nearly 80-years-young? Simple — think backwards. 

And by that, I mean PREQUELS.

Taking Indiana Jones back in time not only saves the franchise, it literally gives Disney the unlimited creative freedom it needs to keep it going for decades. And “Indiana Jones 5” would make the perfect bridge to launch this long-term adventure.

Prequels with this franchise are hardly a new idea. Random House Publishing imprint Bantam Books was on to something back in the 1990s with their dozen or so “Indiana Jones” prequel novels written by Rob MacGregor, Max McCoy and Martin Caidin, each set within a pre-“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” timeframe. They were each fun excursions published at a time not long after it was believed Indy had appeared in his last big screen adventure. And since both George Lucas and Spielberg had no interest in continuing the film series post-“Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,” pulp novels became the next best thing for those in need of a fix — hey, creativity is limitless and paper’s cheap.

But as time wore on and even Lucas’ ultra-expensive, albeit brilliantly-produced “The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles” for ABC came and went after just a couple of seasons and several cleverly edited tv films between 1992 and 1995, it looked like the “Man with the Hat’s’ ride into the sunset at the end of “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” was a one way ticket.

Babe Ruth once famously said “Heroes get remembered, but legends never die.” Indiana Jones, as both hero and legend, would definitely don the fedora yet again. But when?

Both the Lucas and Spielberg camps remained silent, even after several “Indiana Jones” screenplays from the likes of Jeffrey Boam, David Koepp and Frank Darabont each leaked online in the early 2000s to pervade the furtive depths of fan anticipation for another Indiana Jones film. Darabont’s outstanding “Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods” script, the closest to what would eventually become “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” definitely rules the pack — a stellar screenplay I find myself re-reading from time-to-time. Man, what could have been...

2008 unleashed the Koepp-scripted “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” an overhyped disappointment of an installment in the film franchise that, despite some good-natured tips of the fedora to its series predecessors, caused more harm than good. But despite its nearly $787 million global box office haul, the tepid critical reception of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” from fans around the world certainly spelled doom for Indy’s future.

And here we are a decade later learning Spielberg will be making (and most-certainly without George Lucas) a fifth installment. And despite his years, Harrison Ford is certainly up for the challenge. But really — if Disney and Lucasfilm want to keep this franchise going on far beyond Ford, they’ve got to turn back the clock.

And, as not only a lifelong fan of this franchise, but someone sporting at least a minute shred of common sense, here’s my take on two things that could be done to allow Indiana Jones to flourish for decades more.

First, seeing that “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” taking place in 1935, is already a prequel to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,” the franchise should focus on 1925 through 1930. Bring us back to how Indiana met Professor Abner Ravenwood’s exotic firebrand of a daughter Marion (portrayed by Karen Allen in both “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”) and further develop Indy’s scholarly relationship with fellow archaeologist, Marcus Brody. How did Indiana befriend Sallah Mohammed Faisel el-Kahir (portrayed by John Rhys-Davies in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”)? What sparked the antagonistic discordance between Jones and French archaeologist René Emile Belloq pre-“Raiders of the Lost Ark?”

So much background to address amidst a limitless cache of uncovered historical artifacts and edge of your seat adventure. As fans, we don’t need these answers — we just want them. And in exchange for our box office dollars, our requests should be heard.

Second, cast a complete unknown in the role of a younger Indiana Jones. The last thing this franchise needs is to have a well-known actor take Ford’s fedora — it’s a unnecessary distraction from the story being told that this new phase of Indiana Jones does not need. I’ve often had this discussion with others, only few of whom agree with me on the casting of an unknown. They firmly believe the likes of Chris Pratt or Bradley Cooper would be ideal. In some ways, OK, I guess…but keep in mind Indiana Jones is a fully self-sustaining brand and one that needs little marketing to promote itself. With or without a major star, it’ll still reap a fortune. So why pay for a major star when you don’t need one?

I also often get the argument that the franchise would die if they continued it without Harrison Ford. Funny, millions of James Bond fans said the same thing back when Sean Connery called it quits for good after “Diamonds Are Forever” in 1971. In fact, between 1973s “Live and Let Die” and 2015s “SPECTRE,” the James Bond franchise grossed roughly $6.5 billion in global box office revenue — again, I might add, AFTER Sean Connery abandoned the brand.

Even forty indelible years in a role allows wiggle room for the sake of reality and, of course, making money. Believe me, audiences will accept a young Indiana Jones, especially if it’s an unknown crackin’ the whip for the sake of fortune, glory and the International Treaty for the Protection of Antiquities.

So that’s really all there is to it. Of course, you need to remember I’m merely a fanboy and all of the above is nothing but a child-like wish list for the sake of the future of one of the most enduring, exciting and inerasable screen heroes in modern film history.

We most definitely will see Indiana Jones again, even past the fifth film in the series come 2020. As to how we’ll see him and for how much longer is anyone’s guess. For the most part, I trust Lucasfilm and Disney to get it right — however they’ll do it, it’ll get done. I, for one, would very much love to continue seeing Indy’s new big screen adventures for the rest of my long, long years no matter who takes over the role.

But I do know this — no matter who dons it, I’ll forever idolize that man in the hat.