Image 01 Image 03

No, Indiana Jones Should Not Be Turned into a Woman

No, Indiana Jones Should Not Be Turned into a Woman

“We’d have to change the name from ‘Jones’ to ‘Joan.’ And there would be nothing wrong with that.”

Do I really have to say this? Apparently so.

The culture wars are exhausting. The best parts of life once meant to be an entertaining escape are now plagued with revisionary idiocy. Not even Indiana Jones is safe.

In a recent interview about his newly released flick, Ready Player One, Director Steven Speilberg was asked if he’d consider making Indiana Jones a chick (in so many words).

“We’d have to change the name from ‘Jones’ to ‘Joan.’ And there would be nothing wrong with that,” he said.

From The Sun:

The director knows he would risk fan fury by casting an actress in the role made famous by Harrison Ford, 75, but he believes it is time the explorer took “a different form”.

In an exclusive interview, Spielberg nodded when asked if this new-look Jones could be female, and added: “We’d have to change the name from Jones to Joan. And there would be nothing wrong with that.”

The 71-year-old has been a vocal champion of the Time’s Up campaign for gender equality in the movie industry — and is no stranger to powerful women.

His mother Leah, who died last year aged 97, raised him and his three sisters almost single-handedly because his workaholic engineer father Arnold, now 101, was rarely around.

And he has been married to actress Kate Capshaw, 64, since 1991, after meeting in 1984 when she starred in the second Indiana Jones film in 1984.

He said: “My mom was strong. She had a voice, she had a very strong opinion.

“I have been very lucky to be influenced by women, several of whom I have just loved madly — my mom and my wife.”

Filming for the fifth movie in the Indiana Jones franchise is due to begin in April next year.

But Spielberg said: “This will be Harrison Ford’s last Indiana Jones movie, I am pretty sure, but it will certainly continue after that.”

That is when the director will decide on whether to go ahead with “Joan” — and once again lead the way in putting words about Hollywood equality into action.

Is there anything neo-feminism isn’t ruining? Is it too much to ask that we are allowed to enjoy watching a rugged, handsome antiquity-saving professor always clumsily in over his head without the storyline being hijacked in the name of equality? Because it’s not equality. It’s whiny, sad, and unoriginal. Equality? Why not remake Wonder Woman with a male lead? If it sounds plain stupid, that’s because it is.

Not to mention the fact that in the storyline, Indiana Jones eventually marries Marion Ravenwood (first seen in Raiders of the Lost Ark), one of the scrappiest, stubborn, amazingly independent women in adventure filmdom.

And Lara Croft (new Tomb Raider film coming out this year). Remember her? A brilliantly buxom antiquity-protecting badass. She’s constantly warding off cis, white, patriarchal figures who try to kill and manipulate her in order to save priceless pieces of history. Did I mention she’s saved the world more than once? And bonus, she has her own film franchise.

I have tremendous respect for Spielberg and I love his Indiana Jones series (minus the fourth installment), but leave Indiana Jones alone, dammit.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Ok, and Laura Croft tomb raider she now be a guy…

Do the SJWs have to ruin everything?

This is why I support the draft. Too many people have too much time on their hands.

Too late, Steven, it’s already been done:

The only reason this kind of nonsense works is that our civilization works so amazingly well.

Strip one microscopic layer of it away, and all of a sudden you’d have “ladies” wanting “gentlemen”.

    rabidfox in reply to Ragspierre. | April 5, 2018 at 7:42 pm

    Except they don’t know how to be gentlemen. Just jerks.

      Ragspierre in reply to rabidfox. | April 5, 2018 at 7:59 pm

      Yes. But gentlemen still exist, and some of the jerks would convert in the right circumstances. Consider that people are idiotic because the cost of idiocy in our very advanced civilization is so low.

      Think of the people who actually elect to live in diapers as adult “infants”. Couldn’t happen in any slightly more “natural” society. Same with “transgenders”. All of this weirdness is ONLY possible because our culture is so successful that “crazy” pays no existential costs.

      Valerie in reply to rabidfox. | April 5, 2018 at 8:16 pm

      Go to any event involving elaborate costumes, and watch the lovely manners on the part of the gentlemen come out.

      Men enjoy the flirtatious aspect of good manners, and they would use those manners a lot more, if they were encouraged by the women around them.

      As for the jerks, well, as long as a lady simply crosses them off her list with no fuss, we are all good. Life is far too short to waste a second thought on them.

      Exiliado in reply to rabidfox. | April 6, 2018 at 12:01 am

      I try to be a gentleman all the time, but nowadays it has become difficult. It’s not easy to find the ladies that appreciate it.

      Arminius in reply to rabidfox. | April 6, 2018 at 6:05 am

      I’m going to have to gently express a difference (notice the tie-in?) from what my compadre Exiliado said. And I don’t believe I’m saying anything he wouldn’t have said. It doesn’t matter if the lady appreciates it or not. You must be a gentleman all the time. Especially when it is difficult. Gentleman doesn’t mean wimp.

irishgladiator63 | April 5, 2018 at 7:53 pm

Umm…why would they have to change the last name to Joan? His first name is Henry isn’t it? You would have to name her Henrietta Jones.

Also, I’m totally fine with Indiana Jones being a girl as long as Harrison Ford plays her.

rustyshamrock | April 5, 2018 at 7:56 pm

Jese-Louise! Let’s ckeck ALL the boxes and make her black, Jewish and Native American while we’re at it?

This sort of crap is one of the reasons why I don’t watch new movies any more, and haven’t for over twenty years.

Tonight’s movie: Rio Lobo (1970) John Wayne, Jorge Rivero, Jennifer O’Neill

    Ragspierre in reply to Rusty Bill. | April 5, 2018 at 8:05 pm

    I can recommend several “recent” movies…

    13 Hours

    Zero Dark Thirty

    and the just released “Chappaquiddick”

      B__2 in reply to Ragspierre. | April 6, 2018 at 1:56 am

      “Chappaquiddick”? Isn’t that a movie about a young women who destroyed the US Presidential prospects of an extrovert young man from a superhero family by deliberately getting in his car at an inopportune time? Stripped of his ultimate goal by the actions of this oxygen-loving white person, he attempted to redress the imbalance by his later sponsoring of the 1965 Immigration Act to sharply reduce the proportion of white European immigrants by opening the immigration gates to welcome in an almost unlimited number of multicultural non-whites.

      Am I reading too many leftist SJW movie review sites? /sarc

      Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | April 6, 2018 at 6:18 am

      I have a slightly different list.

      Flags of Our Fathers

      Letters From Iwo Jima

      American Sniper

      The 15:17 To Paris

      Yes, there’s a theme here. All were directed by Clint Eastwood. And the thing is, I’m not really much of a fan. I can take his westerns or leave them. But he is a veteran, and I find he handles those types of movies with a great deal of sensitivity.

rustyshamrock | April 5, 2018 at 8:00 pm

Oh! And cast Elizabeth Warren for the part!!!

one of the scrappiest, stubborn, amazingly independent women in adventure filmdom.

Who, as I recall, was only in business in the first place because archaeology treasure hunting and barkeeping had been her dad’s business.

Ditto for Lara Croft. Good old dead Dad’s old business.

For that matter, ditto for Angelina Jolie. (Except for the “dead” part.)

All following dutifully—not to meniton, unimaginatively—in daddy’s footsteps.

And as the increasingly oleaginous Spielberg obligingly says, there’s nothing wrong with that.

But let’s see some minimal respect for the English language, and stop pretending that these fantasies have anything to do with “independence”. Like rape, abuse, and career, even the word independent has been debased to unintelligibility when women have their say. Though I suppose when applied to men it still means something—at least, rape and abuse sure do.

BrokeGopher | April 5, 2018 at 8:21 pm

How come they’re never in a hurry to turn villains into women?

    daniel_ream in reply to BrokeGopher. | April 5, 2018 at 8:50 pm

    Well, they do. Increasingly in genre media they’ve been emasculating the male hero and making the villain tick off all the SJW boxes, generally because the villain is the more interesting and meatier part. Of course, this also increasingly means the psychotic, murderous, irredeemably evil villains are portrayed as handicapped lesbian women of colour (or some such). Which has its own Unfortunate Implications.

      ‘Buffalo Bill’, transwoman antagonist, of Silence of the Lambs, especially with Jodie Foster being the protagonist?
      Sharon Stone’s LGBT antagonist character in Basic Instinct?

      Both of these suffered criticism by activist groups for apparently implying all LGBT+ characters are murderous as well.

Why do you care so much? You can still watch the originals.

I can’t wait until they do a remake of Wonder Woman with a man as the lead. Ving Rhames would be FABULOUS!

When a women’s world cup soccer team needs a tune up, the occasionally find a middle school or junior high boys team to play. While there ain’t nothing like a dame, dames ain’t hero material.

Let ’em do it:the movie will bomb.

But then, hollywood is a propaganda machine for the left, so for them, it’s something in the pipeline for children to be influence by on Susan Rice’s Netflix when they’re taking a break from their BSDM activities.

Vote with your pocketbook, gang. Do you pay for Susan Rice’s netflix?

I thought Lara Croft fit the bill, equal and complementary, and was well received by the movie-going public.

Imagine if someone wrote a biography featuring Fauxcahontas Warren as Indian Warren-Jones.

I fail completely to see how this ruins anything. The original Indiana Jones movies won’t suddenly vanish in a puff of smoke. And any other male actor will never be Harrison Ford, so any other Indiana Jones movie would be just as likely to be better or worse than the originals because it would be different from the word “go” matter how blatantly they attempted to rip off the original, or vere wildly from previously accepted theme.

Reimagining Jones as Jones is no more sacriligious than any other of the countless Hollywood remakes of everyone’s favorite film’s over the last century. BUT, is it necessary? Absolutely not.

If Speilberg and Co. want equality for women in Hollywood, then they need to develop films which are for their dreamed-of new cadre of female stars as original and enticing as the previous generation of films were for Harrison Ford and his male counterparts. Simply ripping off (aka remaking rebooting whatever) an existing film because feelings is utterly facile and deeply demeaning to the same women Speilberg and Co. claim are (or more correctly *should* be) treated and showcased as equally as men. Speilberg and Co. are literally pulling the rug out from under themselves by baldly stating that women can’t succeed in Hollywood unless they are handed a gold mine without any of the prerequisite digging.

Sorry, Jones and Joan.

The last “Indy” movie was utterly awful, a pale imitation of the greatness of the prior three. It stands to reason that any new film, infected as it will inevitably be with Leftist sermonizing, a la the truly awful “The Last Jedi,” will be just as bad.

I also refuse to patronize any of Steven Spielberg’s movies, at this point, he being a major Dumb-o-crat donor who is unable to reconcile the Dumb-o-crat’s hatred of Israel and its increasingly prominent and unabashed anti-Semitism, with his Party funding and activism.

How about turning him into a treasonous puss?

Obama can have the starring role.

Fake-wife michelle can play Mola Ram.

Now I’m expecting Jane Bond.

    oldgoat36 in reply to georgfelis. | April 6, 2018 at 11:16 am

    There is already a push to replace Daniel Craig with a black actor, so it might be a little while… though given their propensity to have to try to appease their SJW selfs, I wouldn’t be shocked to see they make him gay or a transgender… gotta keep up with the times dontcha know?

Caitlen Jenner, surgery raider?

Hollywood is so bereft of new ideas and material that they keep doing remakes.
I am also sick of a side of political correctness with my popcorn.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to lc. | April 6, 2018 at 1:23 pm

    It isn’t just the politiical correctness. I, for one, am sick to death of the dialog being one endless stream of F this, S that, MF-ing something else. Enough already!

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to lc. | April 6, 2018 at 1:23 pm

    It isn’t just the politiical correctness. I, for one, am sick to death of the dialog being one endless stream of F this, S that, MF-ing something else. Enough already!

selfhelpforbastards | April 6, 2018 at 9:08 am

After that last Indiana Jones movie the Marxists can have it.

Alan McIntire | April 6, 2018 at 10:07 am

Actually, “Jones” is a family name, so Indiana Jones COULD be female. Considering all the events that have happened in the world, REMAKING ANY movie is a sign of writer or producer stupidity. I never watch remakes.

As an example of a possible movie plot, just check the results of the 2018 Olympic skiing marathon. One of the skiers gets tangled up, falls, and begins the race about 50 yards in last place. He went on to win the race.

Another possible movie plot based on actual history: In 1823, trapper Hugh Glass was mauled by a grizzly bear. It looked like he was a goner, but the leader of the expedition didn’t want to desert him, so he offered Tom Fitzgerald and Jim Bridger a bounty to look after Hugh Glass until he died. Hugh Glass didn’t die quickly, Fitzgerald and Bridger were sweating it out because they were in hostile indian terrritory. Finally, they convinced themselves that Hugh Glass was dying, so they took his blanket and rifle, and left him.
Hugh Glass survived the bear attack, was able to get by on his survival skills with no weapons until he met a group of friendly Pawnee who helped him, and about 6 months later he arrived in the trappers camp, ready to kill Fitzgerald and Bridger for deserting him. Fitzgerald had joined the army in the interval, so he was protected from an outright murder. The other trappers talked Hugh Glass out of killing Jim Bridger, who was a teenaged boy at the time.

An acquaintance of mine claimed to know some descendants of Hugh Glass, who were also members of the Pawnee tribe.

What I see in all this is that Hollywood is short on ideas and originality. They know that the first Indiana Jones movies were hits, so they transgender the role with the hope they can recapture a big box office turnout.

Most times the remakes, which they do with different races of people, different genders, and so on, while sprinkling in the liberal dogma of SJW, and the remake doesn’t create the hit they are sure is coming.

I read a ton of books, so many original stories, characters, which would translate well into movies if they don’t alter them too much. Yet we get a rehash of so many of the same old stories that it doesn’t entice viewers to come in. Movies is a big dollar industry, so while they put out a number of pablum type movies that center around their bubble world, they need movies which are almost guaranteed hits because they are remakes of older hits. Or retreads of successful characters. Movie watching has gone down in recent years, so their desire to remake great older flicks become greater.

I just don’t understand why they feel they have to replace an iconic type character with a different race or gender when there are plenty of roles people of whatever race or gender could take new and become those iconic type on their own. This is not a lot different than racial appropriation, with the belief that it is the name and story, rather than the unique dynamic that the original actor/actress brought to a great story which made the film.

In the end, it is a conservative approach to making movies (ironic, no?) that leads them to do things like this, without truly understanding what drives people to these hit movies in the first place.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to oldgoat36. | April 6, 2018 at 1:25 pm

    Maybe they shold try satire remakes more offen. Zero Hour, from 1957, was satirized perfectly in “Airplane!”

Maybe not a visible physical transformation, but they could reorient his sexual bias to conform with the feminine gender, or make him bisexual, both feminine and masculine gendered.

buckeyeminuteman | April 6, 2018 at 1:27 pm

Spielberg really nuked the fridge with that 4th movie. I have no desire to see another one. Just stop already. Same with all these Star Wars movies Disney is pumping out every year.

Isn’t it a sort of incredible sexism that they can’t imagine a female hero that’s independent brave etc. without copying or cribbing off of a pre-existing male one? Why is ‘cultural appropriation’ the only way they can imagine a strong independent woman in film? Create your own damn hero’s.

Why can’t they just get Tia Carrere to do a Relic Hunter movie. I liked that show (even bought the DVDs from Amazon Canada).

It’s already got a woman of color as the star, so everybody’s happy.