Club Obi Wan

Who's idea was it for Indy to wear the bag over the jacket? Besides the fact that he has worn it under his jacket for 30 years and there is no need to change it.....It makes no sense. Go put your gear on and throw the bag over the jacket, all it does is get in the way. Any ideas why they decided to change this?

Not yet. Hopefully it will be revealed when we see the film in May.

Regards! Michaelson

What scares me is that its just one of those things they changed for no reason. You know what I mean, like Indy wearing a tie or something like that.

I think it's got to have something to do with getting stuck on that tank barrel in LC. It remains to be seen if it will actually come up in dialoge.

Like I said, (and apparently not very well ), we don't KNOW there's 'no good reason' for the change, so let's wait and see.

Regards! Michaelson

It was done so they wouldn't have to read a thousand posts about how all the new toys aren't SA.

"Legos! Why did it have to be legos?!"

Regard! Michaelson

Serial Hero wrote:It was done so they wouldn't have to read a thousand posts about how all the new toys aren't SA.

That is a good point, I noticed that, but I don't think Lucas really gives a #### what the fans think, never has.


The tank barrel theory might also have something to do with it. That scene has always bothered me because there is no way the bag could've gotten over the peeled back barrel, and then through the magic of editing it some how comes off even though the barrel is being driven into the side of the ledge.

I just don't like change, this is probably the last time we will see Indy in a new adventure so I want to see him in the gear like its always been.....call me crazy.

No one's gonna make any of you start wearing your bags a different way just because of this. Wear 'em how you want. I don't even wear mine on the left side! The car door would crush my camera that way.

You do that too Sable? I thought I was the only one!

It makes no sense. Go put your gear on and throw the bag over the jacket, all it does is get in the way

Uh, actually, if you check around, most people generally find it easier to work with the bag if it's over their coat - that way if you want to take it off you don't have to remove your coat first.

Any ideas why they decided to change this?

What I'm more interested to hear is why you're bothered so much by it. It's like worrying about whether Ford has leather or cloth shoe laces - nearly irrelevant.

but I don't think Lucas really gives a #### what the fans think, never has.

No he doesn't. And that's why I respect him; he makes his movies his ways, and remains true to his vision no matter what people think of him. :junior: -M

The thing that'd make the most sense is there's a moment in the film where he has to take the bag off, and they decided it just looked plain silly if he had to slip his jacket off, take the bag off, and then put the jacket back on rather than just take it off.

I only own and use the bag and jacket out of the Indy gear, and I always carry it over the jacket. I just take the bag off a lot more than I do the jacket, so it makes a lot more sense that way for me. So I think it can be equally practical too.

But I'd imagine it's in there for convinience in a shot or so. I'd be very suprised if it came up in dialogue! "Hey, Indy, didn't you use to wear that bag under your jacket 20 years ago?" "Yes, but I changed my mind after I got it caught on a tank." It'd really go against the idea of not filling the film with reference to old movies.

So it's probably just for convinence. I don't see it as a particularly huge deal anyway. I mean, after twenty years, it's suprising he even has all the same equipment. Slight changes in how he wears it is something I'd expect. In twenty years I can't imagine I'll be wearing my clothes in the exact same way.

Uh, actually, if you check around, most people generally find it easier to work with the bag if it's over their coat - that way if you want to take it off you don't have to remove your coat first.

Uh, well....everybody in here is hung up on SA so I'm surprised that MOST people would wear it that way.

What I'm more interested to hear is why you're bothered so much by it. It's like worrying about whether Ford has leather or cloth shoe laces - nearly irrelevant.

It bothers me because it's the way it's always been and now they are messing with it. I suppose you wouldnt mind if Indy ran around in a brown top hat either.....it's still a hat.

No he doesn't. And that's why I respect him; he makes his movies his ways, and remains true to his vision no matter what people think of him. :junior: -M

You can respect him all you want, but if you spit in the face of the people who made you a success then you are bound to produce abortions like the new Star Wars movies. After seeing those can you see why I may be a bit worried? I've waited a long time for this and I just don't want it messed up. It's just my opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Did they ever actually explain the "over the barrel" mistake in LC?

I was watching it again the other day and thought that perhaps they intended to have him snag the bag strap on one of the "spines" of the exploded barrel muzzle, but perhaps changed their minds when they needed to do the "wall scrape" scene and realized it would put the stuntman/actor in danger.

Russ

It's just a bag strap! Not the end of the world!

Uh, well....everybody in here is hung up on SA so I'm surprised that MOST people would wear it that way.

There was a poll done here a while back and a pretty good portion of those who responded said they found it more convenient to wear the bag on the outside.

It bothers me because it's the way it's always been and now they are messing with it. I suppose you wouldnt mind if Indy ran around in a brown top hat either.....it's still a hat.

No, I would mind that. Because that would be changing the gear. They aren't changing the gear, just the way in which he wears one of the less prominent elements of it. It really isn't a big deal.

After seeing those can you see why I may be a bit worried?

Personally, I enjoyed the prequel trilogy. They weren't as good as the original series, but they had their merits. You can argue that, for better or worse, Lucas' stubbornness created the prequel trilogy, but it's equally true that such stubbornness created many of Lucas' classics as well - the studios wanted to make a lot of changes to many of Lucas' earlier films and if he'd been willing to tell the story any other way but his own, movies like Star Wars, THX1138 and American Graffiti wouldn't be the films they are today.

Besides, it's really jumping to conclusions to assume that Lucas was the one who decided to make the change. It could have been anyone. Stephen might have decided it looked better, the costumer might have forgotten that in the previous films it was worn under and worked the change into their concept sketches. Or perhaps Ford decided that the bag strap dug into his shoulder when he wore it under the jacket. Who knows? :junior: -M

Let's just agree to disagree. I just want to see Indy the way I've seen him the past 3 movies. It's not a huge deal, I guess I'm just a hardcore conservative. If it plays into the story fine...but I doubt it. Ya'll have a nice day.

Vivli wrote:I mean, after twenty years, it's suprising he even has all the same equipment.

jeremy3178 wrote:I just don't like change, this is probably the last time we will see Indy in a new adventure so I want to see him in the gear like its always been.....call me crazy.

I agree with both of you on these issues. Half of me is with Jeremy 100%. For some strange reason, I'm bugged by the idea of having the bag strap over the jacket. It looked so much 'better' under it. It may be impractical in terms of convenience, but it is still signature-Indy. I never understood why he had it under the jacket, but then somehow it makes him even that much more his own character.

In regards to Vivli's comment, this represents the other half of my brain. All this WONDERFUL Indy gear aside, doesn't it make sense that he would change it up in twenty years? Cloth gets worn, bags (and their straps) can break (especially a fifteen year-old gas mask bag not intended for such regular, daily use). When my dad pulled his Vietnam gear out of a chest in the Nineties (albeit it was thirty years on at that point - not twenty), most of the canvas had hardened and his leather goods were much more brittle. We would all be b*tching if Indy's gear changed (myself included). On the same note, however, I would expect him to be wearing slightly different clothes, and maybe have a different bag, etc. Maybe Indy himself is trying to be as screen accurate to his original outings as possible!! Indy: "Gotta make sure it's THIS make of the Mark VII, so I have that little metal bit on the side...Gotta make sure the shirt has the accent material going down each side..." I just find it interesting that we were all able to accept Young Indiana having different gear than his older self. We should be equally able to accept an older Indy with a slightly modified wardrobe. As long as the bloody hat remains!!!

And it still goes on! This debate still amazes me. I started a thread about this not so long ago here: viewtopic.php?t=26162

jeremy3178 wrote:Let's just agree to disagree. I just want to see Indy the way I've seen him the past 3 movies. It's not a huge deal, I guess I'm just a hardcore conservative. If it plays into the story fine...but I doubt it. Ya'll have a nice day.

For all we know he might only wear the jacket for a fraction of the movie.

There's still of him just wearing the shirt in multiple locations, so who knows.

Does having a bag strap outside of the jacket affect the story?

No.

Ultimately the story is what will make or break Indiana Jones IV.

Michaelson wrote:Like I said, (and apparently not very well ), we don't KNOW there's 'no good reason' for the change, so let's wait and see.

Regards! Michaelson

Michaelson,

I just wanted to let you know that at the very least i read your posts and agree. Lets not throw the baby and the bath water out just yet. Let wait for the movie.

Just think what a mess the right shoulder of your jacket would be if you wore a strap over it for 30 years. I get marks on some of my jackets from a seatbelt after a while.

Forget about Indy and his bag for a minute....................................................How many of us wear bags under our jacket on a daily basis?
Steve

Steve27752 wrote:Forget about Indy and his bag for a minute....................................................How many of us wear bags under our jacket on a daily basis?
Steve

I do.

Indy is getting old you know and the arthritis is setting in. Reaching around under his jacket causes joint pain so he must make it easier to access his "bag'o goodies."

BendingOak wrote:

Michaelson wrote:Like I said, (and apparently not very well ), we don't KNOW there's 'no good reason' for the change, so let's wait and see.

Regards! Michaelson

Michaelson,

I just wanted to let you know that at the very least i read your posts and agree. Lets not throw the baby and the bath water out just yet. Let wait for the movie.

I appreciate that too, B-Oak!

HIGH regards! Michaelson

I don't care what anybody says. The new strap placement is 100% screen accurate because it's from the Indy 4 movie. I mean, wearing a leather jacket in the desert was a stupid idea, but .....

"Yeah, but it's a dry heat..."

Sorry, wrong film.

Personally, don't really care where the strap is worn. The "overall"
look is the same, whether the strap is on top the jacket or under it, whether the holster has the plug or is sewn shut... it's a design in evolution.

Just look at the changes in US Airforce uniforms from WWII to the 1970s.
Lots of changes.

As far as I'm concerned, it's all good.

Just so long as Indy's not wearing a Zoot suit.

Russ

It is a little strange that after three films they would make this, I don't know, "Costume change"?

Also, is it just me, or does Michaelson seem to know something?

Don't mess with us man!

(Under the Plymouth I go... )

Michael B

Just remember thought that the first 3 films took place in a span of what... 3 years or so? (1934-1936?)

The new film takes place in the 1950s, and is made 19 years after the last one. Stands to reason (as has been discussed to death already) there would be a few changes someplace.

Russ

I'm just hoping the "little changes" aren't a sign of some other larger changes. When these Hollywood types start tinkering....especially with Indy....it bothers me. Didn't mean to stir up a hornets nest, but that's what this place if for right?

Just remember thought that the first 3 films took place in a span of what... 3 years or so? (1934-1936?)

Close: 1935-1938. So yeah, 3 years. :junior: -M

jeremy3178 wrote:What scares me is that its just one of those things they changed for no reason. You know what I mean, like Indy wearing a tie or something like that.

A tie like say in Temple of Doom or Last Crusade?

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1022466304/tt0097576

Maybe there is a reason. Let's wait and see before we proclaim the sky is falling.

Yeah, the tie in LC. Didn't like it and it wasn't necessary with the rest of the regular gear.

I'm not saying the sky is falling either, I'm sure the movie will be great....it's just more of a pet peeve.

Steve27752 wrote:Forget about Indy and his bag for a minute....................................................How many of us wear bags under our jacket on a daily basis?
Steve

I wear mine under of course....as for on a daily basis, negative. I admit I only wear all my gear once a year, Halloween, call me crazy.

From the images we've seen so far, it's not the only bag he wears in parts of the movie. If Indy wears his new bag over his jacket, why would he choose to wear his original bag under his jacket? Perhaps it would make Indy seem a bit too image conscious to imagine him deciding to wear one bag under and one over. Plus Ford might have felt a bit strange with one underneath and the other on top, and it was just more comfortable to wear both over the jacket.

Sounds like a good theory....as long as he still wears his underwear under his pants it's all good.

jeremy3178 wrote:Sounds like a good theory....as long as he still wears his underwear under his pants it's all good.

Yeah.... I don't think we're going to have to worry about that one.

<------------This is me laughing....at a joke.

Yeah.... I don't think we're going to have to worry about that one.

Although Canyon probably wouldn't care either way. :junior: -M

hey now i have afew complaints with this discussion for a start,
you keep talking about indy shouldnt have the tie in last crusade think for a bit, ok now indy wants to get into the castle so he does with best to dress up as micey moue only kidding so he dresses up as a lord so he borrows elsas beret and tie he looks lordish so he gets in castle and then then he proably forgets about he is waring a tie i do that alot or he wants to make a good impression for meeting his father. so there! just think please.

and the jacket/bagstrap buisness
i dont really care but i think having it under the jaket gets the bag out of the way when fighing/swinging.

Lightning wrote:I think it's got to have something to do with getting stuck on that tank barrel in LC. It remains to be seen if it will actually come up in dialoge.

yeah thats the same thing i thought about when i first saw the photos. but did you guys also notice the gun belt buckle is the opposite way too???

check it out here....

http://www.theraider.net/films/indy4/ga ... ij4_01.jpg


thanks, joey

Giben wrote:hey now i have afew complaints with this discussion for a start,
you keep talking about indy shouldnt have the tie in last crusade think for a bit, ok now indy wants to get into the castle so he does with best to dress up as micey moue only kidding so he dresses up as a lord so he borrows elsas beret and tie he looks lordish so he gets in castle and then then he proably forgets about he is waring a tie

The tie doesn't bother me like the bag does, at least he lost the tie for the last sequence of the movie. Like I've said before it's not a huge deal, it's just a pet peeve. On top of it just looks weird, look in the trailer when he slugs the Russian, it looks like the bag is going to fly all the way around.

yeah thats the same thing i thought about when i first saw the photos. but did you guys also notice the gun belt buckle is the opposite way too???

#### it man, I didn't notice...now i have something else to ##### about. haha. That is strange though.

When I wear the bag, I rarely take it off. It usually just hangs there at my hip, and I move it onto my lap or position it behind me if I sit down. So I'm in the "under the jacket" school.

They've been tweaking with the outfit in every movie since Raiders.

Temple: New holster, different gunbelt, black bag strap.
Crusade: New web belt, black tie, press-studded jacket.
Kingdom: New bag placement, reversed gunbelt.

We've had many, many years to get used to this. It does not affect the appeal of the character.

You bring up a good point, ca. Folks seem MUCH more passionate about the bag strap placement than they do about the belt, holster, or other differences of the costume which changed from movie to movie. I wonder why? It still amazes me how nuts some folks get driven over the bag strap placement.

To be honest, Rick, the new bag placement isn't my cup of tea personally but I accept it as canonical and in NO way will it impact on how I enjoy the film.

Also, is it just me, or does Michaelson seem to know something?

Trust me, Michaelson isn't called the "knower of things" for nothing - there is much he is a purveyor to...

I understand this isnt the first change. And I'm not saying it will affect my enjoyment of the movie or the character. I just dont like how they change not WHAT he wears but HOW he wears what he's always worn. Like I said it's just a peeve.

Mulceber wrote:

but I don't think Lucas really gives a #### what the fans think, never has.

No he doesn't. And that's why I respect him; he makes his movies his ways, and remains true to his vision no matter what people think of him. :junior: -M

And that's why we got Jar Jar Binks and the garbage known as Star Wars Episodes I, II and III. The guy has a wonderful imagination but he can't write or direct to save his life. That's why I am still holding out hope that Indy IV will live up to expectations.

And that's why we got Jar Jar Binks and the garbage known as Star Wars Episodes I, II and III.

It's also why we got Han, Luke, Princess Leia, Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, stormtroopers, C3PO, R2D2, Obi-Wan Kenobi (and thus Club Obi-Wan), Lando Calrissean, the Millenium Falcon, the Death Star, Star Destroyers, Boba Fett, Slave I, Jabba the Hutt, Grand Moff Tarkin and last but absolutely not least, Indiana Jones. That's check and mate! :junior: -M