Indiana Jones IV

[transfan52]

If you're watching them sequentially, let us know if you notice any drastic difference in tone between Raiders and Last Crusade.

I do notice the last crusade has more over the top action but also takes itself less seriously most of the time than raiders but also has a good serious element to the plot line especially at the end of the movie when he mentions gods name from his fathers diary and the whole moral of the choosing of christs cup scene. Overall I think the third movie is the best so far.

[Roy Focker]

So does anyone know if this going to be on the IMAX sized screens in their area? I don't think it will be on mine.

[Duke Togo]

*face palm*

Lucas: 'Indy 5' a Possibility

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356282,00.html

George Lucas tells me it’s more than a strong possibility there will be a fifth "Indiana Jones." He says that he and director Steven Spielberg have left the door open for a sequel to "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."

Lucas, looking dandy with slicked-back gray and white hair in a snappy tuxedo, was a guest Thursday night at Paramount/DreamWorks’s party for "Kung Fu Panda" at the 61st Cannes Film Festival.

The swell event was set up on the pier across from the Carlton Hotel, where the studio spared no expense recreating sets and treating guests to haute Chinese cuisine. There was even one of the 40 pandas from the publicity stunt the day before, dancing in the crowd to Carl Carlton’s old hit "Kung Fu Fighting."

Lucas had a lot to say about the new "Indy" and its future.

"I haven’t even told Steven or Harrison this," he said. "But I have an idea to make Shia [LeBeouf] the lead character next time and have Harrison [Ford] come back like Sean Connery did in the last movie. I can see it working out.

"And it’s not like Harrison is even old. I mean, he’s 65 and he did everything in this movie. The old chemistry is there, and it’s not like he’s an old man. He’s incredibly agile; he looks even better than he did 20 years ago, if you ask me."

Lucas says he’s not concerned about early mixed buzz on "Crystal Skull."

"This movie is the exact same experience as the other three were. The difference is, the novelty of discovery is gone. I get worried when I hear fans say they’re expecting something different that will change their lives. This is 'Indiana Jones' just as you remember him."

But that’s exactly the gamble Spielberg and Lucas took with reviving their icon. Expectation grows into a frenzy and then no one in that frame of mind can be satisfied.

You already can see this with "Sex and the City: The Movie" and it hasn't even opened everywhere. Fans and even some critics want some transcendent experience. They almost seem upset that all they got was … "Sex and the City."

Lucas has been here before, when he revived and extended the "Star Wars" series. The build-up to the release of the fourth installment (aka now Chapter 1), "Phantom Menace," was huge until it reached a fever pitch. Then, almost before it could be absorbed, "Phantom Menace" became the target of scorn from fanatics. Computer-generated character Jar Jar Binks was public enemy No. 1.

But "Star Wars" continues to thrive. In August, Lucas says, he’s releasing an animated 90-minute "Star Wars" movie to theaters via Warner Bros. called "Clone Wars." It will be followed in September by an animated series on the Cartoon Network and TNT.

"No one wanted it," he told me. "Every studio rejected it, including Fox, and I’m very loyal to them. They have right of first refusal. Eventually I brought it to Warners. It’s the first time that three components of the studio have acted together. It’s very exciting.

"But the story is that everyone said, 'No one gets this. It’s just … 'Star Wars.'' I said, 'That’s right, It’s just 'Star Wars.' Just like this is … 'Indiana Jones.''"

Oh, yes, and by the way: If "Crystal Skull" breaks records when it opens on May 22, Lucas could wind up having his name on a fourth title in the all-time box office top 10 (it would be Spielberg’s second).

"But these movies — the 'Indiana Jones' ones — were never big hits right away. They were always slow starters that built up to big numbers," Lucas insisted.

I don’t think that will be the case with this one. And the notion that a sequel already is playing around in his head should only fuel the heady numbers about to be posted.

[Chewie]

Yeah, even though he's quoted as saying something along the lines of "don't get your hopes up, I want you to like the originals better".

GL is a douchebag and he knows it.

[Lord of Tetris]

Yeah, even though he's quoted as saying something along the lines of "don't get your hopes up, I want you to like the originals better".

GL is a douchebag and he knows it.

There was a funny interview with Lucas and Spielberg on Jo Blo, which I will summarize/paraphrase below:

Lucas: "Don't be surprised if this movie isn't what you were expecting. I've been through this before, and I can't guarantee this is what fans will be looking far. The movie might not be that great."

Spielberg: "Don't listen to him. I directed it, and I think the movie is pretty good."

Pretty hilarious. This interview was text only, no video, but I think Spielberg was jovial while Lucas was genuinely reliving the summer of 1999.

As for Indy 5...I'm of the mind that any Indy is good Indy. Indys 1-3 are classic film making, and, well, the reviews for Indy 4 might be mixed, but Spielberg has never let me down. As long as Spielberg thinks he can keep making good Indy movies, I say we're ready for another Indy trilogy.

HOWEVER!

I said that any INDY is good Indy. INDIANA JONES. HENRY JONES JR. Mutt is not "good Indy." He's not even Indy. Having Shia LaBeouf's character become the new main character precludes Indy 5 as being Indy 5. It would be like Q becoming the main character of the next 007 movie. These movies are about INDY! I'd rather see Indy recast as a young 30-something, or to have Sean Patrick Flannery take over the role, than to see another character in the title role.

I know lots of people think having an Indy 5 is preposterous, and I can see where they're coming from. Personally, I think as long as the movies remain GOOD and about Dr. Jones, I'll watch them. I'm not agreeing with the haters, but if Lucas proceeds with Shia as the main character and Indy becoming like Sean Connery's character, then jeez...hand me the pitchfork and torch, and I'll join the next man in protest of Indy 5. I haven't read any spoilers, but I sincerely hope Shia's role is more like Short Round (a supporting character) than like Ryan Reynolds in Blade 3 (a "supporting character" that was clearly being primed to have the "main character" torch passed along to him).

Speaking of Short Round...anyone miss him? Again, I haven't read any spoilers, so I don't know if Shia's character "Mutt" is Indy's son, his student, some kid, or whatever. But from the looks of things, it looks like Mutt is yet another kid sidekick. Why not get Short Round back? I know he's almost 40 by now, but I thought Indy and Shorty made a great team, and their comraderie was second-to-none.

Edited May 17, 2008 by Lord of Tetris

[Alpha OTS]

GL is a douchebag and he knows it.

He is, but he has too many yes-men around him to know it.

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/2008051...1095996000.html

Money quote:

"In its earliest incarnation, Lucas proposed an all-out alien flick called "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars." Spielberg and Ford didn't like that idea, and it took more than a decade of wrangling to come up with a story all three could live with."

[bsu legato]

Oh noes! The Times Online reviews KOTCS...and the review is positive?!

The first newspaper review: ignore all the gossip, the new Indiana Jones film is worth the wait

Clearly this is part of some Lucasian conspiracy. John Harlow was probably paid off with unsold Jar-Jar figures to write that positive review.

[dizman]

As much as I hate to say it Indie probably will get good reveiws all around even if the movie is terrible, it's a franchise everyone loves and no one wants to be "that guy" and say that the CGI effects look fake or the story is kinda silly. I myself will be go out and watch the movie (probably on release day) just cause of my deep love for the rest of the series (except for temple of doom, that was kinda bad ).

[Hurin]

Oh noes! The Times Online reviews KOTCS...and the review is positive?!

Clearly this is part of some Lucasian conspiracy. John Harlow was probably paid off with unsold Jar-Jar figures to write that positive review.

There were positive reviews of Phantom Menace as well. We actually just heard someone say that Last Crusade is better than Raiders upon recently watching both. Heck there are still Star Wars fans who claim there's really no difference between any of the movies and that they're all essentially equal in quality and tone. In other words, some people aren't terribly discriminating.

The linked review (which, while "positive" overall, seems mostly preoccupied with the film's business potential and isn't exactly effusive in any real praise for the film on its merits) mentions that the best part of the film "for fans of the series may be" watching Indy's fatherly relationship bloom with his son. . . and then compares it to the similar development between Indy and his dad in Last Crusade. If you wanted to see the anti-hero from Raiders pine for his daddy's love and be a goody-goody throughout a two hour family-safe series of pratfalls and puns, then Last Crusade was a movie just for you. Hope you enjoyed it. You'll probably enjoy this one too.

[transfan52]

There were positive reviews of Phantom Menace as well. We actually just heard someone say that Last Crusade is better than Raiders upon recently watching both. Heck there are still Star Wars fans who claim there's really no difference between any of the movies and that they're all essentially equal in quality and tone. In other words, some people aren't terribly discriminating.

The linked review (which, while "positive" overall, seems mostly preoccupied with the film's business potential and isn't exactly effusive in any real praise for the film on its merits) mentions that the best part of the film "for fans of the series may be" watching Indy's fatherly relationship bloom with his son. . . and then compares it to the similar development between Indy and his dad in Last Crusade. If you wanted to see the anti-hero from Raiders pine for his daddy's love and be a goody-goody throughout a two hour family-safe series of pratfalls and puns, then Last Crusade was a movie just for you. Hope you enjoyed it. You'll probably enjoy this one too.

LOL the last crusade is a fairly violent movie... Indie is killing people all the time and enjoying it lol I wouldnt really call that family friendly. especially when he shoots a luger through three men at once... kinda graphic to say the least.

[Hurin]

LOL the last crusade is a fairly violent movie... Indie is killing people all the time and enjoying it lol I wouldnt really call that family friendly. especially when he shoots a luger through three men at once... kinda graphic to say the least.

I don't equate violence with being non-family-friendly. Especially the "look, they're shot and instantly dead and fall down" with no blood or consequences. That's considered graphic now?

In fact, only very recently have we as a culture decided that depictions of fighting, violence, and/or war somehow permanently damages a kid and makes them into sociopaths. Up until about 20-25 years ago, children's literature and other forms of children's entertainment were replete with often casual and (some might even say) extreme violence.

Plus, does anyone in the movie die that isn't a Nazi or a Nazi-sympathizer?

[Uxi]

There were positive reviews of Phantom Menace as well. We actually just heard someone say that Last Crusade is better than Raiders upon recently watching both. Heck there are still Star Wars fans who claim there's really no difference between any of the movies and that they're all essentially equal in quality and tone. In other words, some people aren't terribly discriminating.

Or rather, some people can't get the rosy colored glasses from their raped childhoods off? I rank the Star Wars movies VI, III, I, II, V, IV

I do Like Last Crusade the best of the Indy Trilogy, too.

[bsu legato]

Empire Online's first reactions are quite positive, although they still have yet to post a full official review.

The BBC is also giving it a thumbs up.

My optimism level is raised from "skeptical" to "guarded."

[bsu legato]

In other words, people who disagree with me aren't terribly discriminating.

I think this is what you meant to type, H.

[baronv]

I picked up Indy with the Fertility Idol today. It pretty much has the same joints like the current SW action figures (I wouldn't be surprised if it were the same designers ). I counted 20 points of articulation and looks really cool on my desk! He comes with two styles of whips (one he uses and the other made to be stored on a loop on his belt), a colt pistol with really bulky holster to keep it in, shoulder bag, molded leather jacket arms and the golden idol from Lost Ark. It's a great toy and ya'll shold pick it up.

Do you know if this Indy figure you have matches up in size with the GI Joe 25th anniv. figures? Would think of getting him if he fits in size enough with the Joes so they can go raid Corba's fortress for treasure!

[Hurin]

I think this is what you meant to type, H.

I'm not quite sure what's so wrong in pointing out that people who don't discriminate between different styles, tone, or content aren't very. . . (wait for it). . . discriminating. Sorry that you find that so offensive or see it as some egotistical character flaw on my part.

As for calling me "Douchy McDouchebag" (in the quote citation). . . you sure that's allowed here? Or is it just allowed for the last remnants of the "old boys network?"

H

[Hurin]

Or rather, some people can't get the rosy colored glasses from their raped childhoods off? I rank the Star Wars movies VI, III, I, II, V, IV

I do Like Last Crusade the best of the Indy Trilogy, too.

If it were nostalgia, I'd still love Return of the Jedi (as you do, ranking it first) as much as I did when I was a kid. Ditto for Temple of Doom. I actually found Raiders to be quite dreary and off-putting as a kid. . . I think it was all the sand. Yet as I grew up, I recognized its merits.

Some repeatedly make this charge of it being "all nostalgia", as though it trumps all other evidence or reason, and just simply "proves" that those who are critical or discriminating between the movies are just empty-headed reactionary fanboys.

Yet, given that my opinions about the original movies have actually changed as I aged, the charge of "rosy colored childhood" nostalgia doesn't apply. In my particular case, what were my favorites as a kid are now my least favorite.

Yet, rather than the "nostalgia" theory, one other pattern does indeed hold. . . as Lucas has aged, and at the point where he became a father, his movies got more schticky, and more directed at the lowest common denominator in the audience (and kids). There's just no avoiding the fact that the tone and cinematic sensibility changed (so far, irreversibly) in RotJ and Last Crusade. And, IMHO, you have to be very undiscriminating (or blinded by hatred of all things "fanboy-like") to not notice (or care about) the distinction. That's not an insult, that's the definition "undiscriminating."

That you prefer those later movies is another matter. I have no problem with folks liking the more "kiddy-oriented" movies of those franchises. But to me, the real "fanboys" are those who scream "fanboy" themselves (or do all but that nowadays) while themselves demonstrating a fanatical devotion to the franchises in question. Everyone should (of course) feel free to prefer whichever movies strike their fancies. But some "real fanboys" are so far gone that they actually claim that there's really no difference between any of the movies in tone, quality, or content. That's fanboy-ism.

H

[Uxi]

It's the height of hubris for you to claim you and the other prequel haters are "discriminating" while those that like (if not prefer) them lack in such skills.

From an artistic/merit point of view, all of the Star Wars (and Indiana Jones) movies are all vapid and just about worthless. That applies to the vast majority of popular science fiction (and fantasy), as well. Lucas' genius is mostly in visuals and SFX and somewhat less in the synthesis he used from the original elements he has always openly admitted to. Ultimately all of these movies are about a recreation of the serials he watched and enjoyed as a kid. That material is undeniably campy and every Star Wars and Jones movie has done it justice. Seeing anything more in to these movies is the very definition of fanboyism.

It's the self delusion into seeing substance in IV or V or Raiders while claiming Lucas lost his touch or some such tripe, when he's only improved on the strengths in his craft. The ultimate fanboy is one who thinks he could have done it "better" on some aesthetic issue that has never been a strength in the subjects in question, certainly not in intent, and smacks of circular logic at best, if not the outright fallacy I think it is.

But if you want a popcorn munching action flick, the Star Wars (and Indiana Jones) movies are the cream of the crop and, for the most part, each one gets better. Gone are the strings on the TIE Fighters and good riddance.

[Hurin]

It's the height of hubris for you to claim you and the other prequel haters are "discriminating" while those that like (if not prefer) them lack in such skills.

Sorry you feel that way. . . but it sure is ironic given your own dismissive positions towards those who have disagreed with you about this in the past. . .

And, for the record, it's not about the prequels (as I'd think you'd understand by now). . . RotJ is not a prequel. Nor is Last Crusade and most of the egregious parts of Temple of Doom (though it does take place in the fictional timeline before Raiders). Though, of course, all those do come later than a certain chronological demarcation point where most see a change in the tone of these movies.

From an artistic/merit point of view, all of the Star Wars (and Indiana Jones) movies are all vapid and just about worthless. That applies to the vast majority of popular science fiction (and fantasy), as well. Lucas' genius is mostly in visuals and SFX and somewhat less in the synthesis he used from the original elements he has always openly admitted to. Ultimately all of these movies are about a recreation of the serials he watched and enjoyed as a kid. That material is undeniably campy and every Star Wars and Jones movie has done it justice. Seeing anything more in to these movies is the very definition of fanboyism.

Who's attributing masterpiece status to them? It's like you're arguing against what you wish I were saying rather than what I'm actually saying.

It's the self delusion into seeing substance in IV or V or Raiders while claiming Lucas lost his touch or some such tripe, when he's only improved on the strengths in his craft.

Again, who's attributing "substance" to any of them? I'm merely saying that some of his movies are intended to make small children squeel with glee while some of his movies are intended to make young adults say: "That's cool." You apparently like the ones that make small children squeel with glee. Good for you. But there's a difference between those two types of movies. A difference you consider it the "height of hubris" to notice and see no problem with utterly dismissing as the rantings of a fanboy deluded by nostalgia. It's funny that you are throwing around the word "hubris" when you're the one who's always been dismissing the views of others out-of-hand all along as the rants of anti-Lucas/prequel fanboys.

The ultimate fanboy is one who thinks he could have done it "better" on some aesthetic issue that has never been a strength in the subjects in question, certainly not in intent, and smacks of circular logic at best, if not the outright fallacy I think it is.

Look, this isn't rocket science. . . as both trilogies progress, there are more painful one-liners, teddy bears, farting, burping, puns, falling down, winking/mugging at the camera, kids, and Jar-Jar. If you can't at least acknowledge that distinction, there's nothing left to discuss. You're setting up straw men now and attacking positions nobody has taken.

But if you want a popcorn munching action flick, the Star Wars (and Indiana Jones) movies are the cream of the crop and, for the most part, each one gets better. Gone are the strings on the TIE Fighters and good riddance.

Guess what. . . that you set your criteria for judging the films based on whether you can see "strings on the TIE Fighters" leads me to believe that you're not terribly discriminating.

[Uxi]

Sorry you feel that way. . . but it sure is ironic given your own dismissive positions towards those who have disagreed with you about this in the past. . .

Pot, this is kettle, over. We've obviously beaten this to death. Not sure what sort of response you hoped to evoke with your type of post. As you're questioning BSU on rules, look up trolling?

And, for the record, it's not about the prequels (as I'd think you'd understand by now). . . RotJ is not a prequel. Nor is Last Crusade and most of the egregious parts of Temple of Doom (though it does take place in the fictional timeline before Raiders). Though, of course, all those do come later than a certain chronological demarcation point where most see a change in the tone of these movies.

You've opined this theory before. I think ANH and ESB are just as silly as Raiders and ROTJ and ultimately the same type of movie.

Who's attributing masterpiece status to them? It's like you're arguing against what you wish I were saying rather than what I'm actually saying.

You are, though maybe not intentionally... just by the structure of your argument against the newer movies you don't like.

Again, who's attributing "substance" to any of them? I'm merely saying that some of his movies are intended to make small children squeel with glee while some of his movies are intended to make young adults say: "That's cool." You apparently like the ones that make small children squeel with glee. Good for you. But there's a difference between those two types of movies. A difference you consider it the "height of hubris" to notice and see no problem with utterly dismissing as the rantings of a fanboy deluded by nostalgia. It's funny that you are throwing around the word "hubris" when you're the one who's always been dismissing the views of others out-of-hand all along as the rants of anti-Lucas/prequel fanboys.

Yes, I labelled certain arguments as that. The raped childhood types are exemplary of the fanboy rant. If I wasn't clear, the "height of hubris" was not your opinion (which we've all been exposed to here many times, but your implication that anyone who can't notice your criticisms is lacking in "discrimination." We've seen your arguments in the past, and as you alluded, I've ridiculed it in the past. You had to have known your post would inspire a reaction... so the only question is whether you forgot me and the others who have debated you on this at least a half dozen times... or if you were trolling to dig it up again.

It can be fun from time to time, but your reaction to what you should have expected is surprising. Unless you're just aping mock outrage and I'm misreading it.

In the interests of a friendlier SW and Indy, I'd suggest you avoid such odious posting unless you're prepared to reap what you sow.

[Hurin]

Starting from the bottom:

Yes, I labelled certain arguments as that. The raped childhood types are exemplary of the fanboy rant. If I wasn't clear, the "height of hubris" was not your opinion (which we've all been exposed to here many times, but your implication that anyone who can't notice your criticisms is lacking in "discrimination." We've seen your arguments in the past, and as you alluded, I've ridiculed it in the past. You had to have known your post would inspire a reaction... so the only question is whether you forgot me and the others who have debated you on this at least a half dozen times... or if you were trolling to dig it up again.

Pot, this is kettle, over. We've obviously beaten this to death. Not sure what sort of response you hoped to evoke with your type of post. As you're questioning BSU on rules, look up trolling?

What sort of response did I hope to illicit? How about one where you actually address what I'm saying rather than "ridiculing" positions nobody is taking. And, by the way, it's not trolling to point out that some people's opinions differ from yours. . . and it's not my fault that you get all butt-hurt when someone says that you aren't discriminating in your preference of SW/Indy films. Has it not occurred to you that the manner in which you openly "ridicule" (your word) the positions of others, call names, and demean the person making the argument ("fanbody") while actually (conveniently) not addressing the substance of what they're saying (such as how nostalgia doesn't apply) is far worse than merely pointing out that those who don't discern a difference in tone/content between the films aren't very discriminating. So, I'm not sure I need to look up "troll". . . though you apparently need to look up "discriminate," "discerning," and "hypocrisy."

You've opined this theory before. I think ANH and ESB are just as silly as Raiders and ROTJ and ultimately the same type of movie.

And you've said this again and again as well. And I still think you're so caught up in the broad strokes and obsessing about their genre that you aren't able to discern any details. . . such as farts, burps, teddy bears, and other means by which the movies began pandering to children rather than to young adults. This seems tied to the fact that you think that the movies have only gotten better as they've gone along. That you think they are better is your opinion and we obviously just have different tastes in movies. That you absolutely refuse to acknowledge any difference in tone or content as cataloged by me and many others repeatedly here and elsewhere does indicate that you are not very discerning or discriminating. . . or that you are so partisan or demagogic in this argument that you can't even give an inch. . . which is more and more looking to be the case to me. Which, of course, makes you calling others "fanboy" absolutely priceless.

You are, though maybe not intentionally... just by the structure of your argument against the newer movies you don't like.

Well, that's convenient for you. So, by noting differences between any two movies and stating an opinion that those differences make one movie "better" than the other, in your world, one of those movies is automatically (yet unintentionally) being called a "masterpiece." Now, I realize that you have to believe this for your position and arguments to make any sense. But it clearly isn't the case. So, at this point, you're flailing about and I really don't see the point in addressing this disingenuous contention of yours. Pointing out that I think some things are better than other things does not mean that any of them are masterpieces, or even all that good. . . it's merely pointing out differences. And those differences often cause people to prefer one thing over another.

Which, begs the question, if they're all the same. . . how can you rank them the way you do? Or rank them at all? What factors make some more worthy in your mind than others? Surely it can't be the special effects only (which would really make you undiscerning). So, if they're all the same (yet have only gotten better? WTF?). . . how can Phantom Menace be so much better than ESB? How can you rank them at all? Why bother?

I believe I've pointed this out before. But it's always funny to me when you try to play this whole "They're all throw-away movies and you're all fanboys for judging them at all" card. You originally attempted to do so years ago while pretending that you weren't all that into the Star Wars movies. Only later, via other threads and posts, it gradually came out that you are a pretty rabid Star Wars fan prone to having pre-written essays on how midichlorians aren't really all that damaging to earlier concepts of the Force (etc.) and privy to even the most obscure SW trivia and minutia. At which point, all those you decry as "fanboys" for not uncritically loving all the movies as much as you do just sorta shake their heads at the irony of it all.

It can be fun from time to time, but your reaction to what you should have expected is surprising. Unless you're just aping mock outrage and I'm misreading it.

In the interests of a friendlier SW and Indy, I'd suggest you avoid such odious posting unless you're prepared to reap what you sow.

Outrage? Who's outraged? You're pretty much the only one I see getting upset because you don't like being told that your position is --by its nature-- undiscriminating. Again, I can't help it that such an accurate description of your dogmatic and willfully obtuse opinion bothers you so much. But it is indeed accurate.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I... just wanna see Indy...

Edit: I should probably also say that I'm not expecting this movie to be the second coming of Raiders. I just want to see some whip cracking, some Nazi... I mean commie... punching, some corny dialog and some crazy fantastical mythical thing happen. I guess unlike other movie franchises I'm more enamored with the character of Indy than his actual adventure, and I am really interested in seeing an older Indy.

If I want Raiders I can always pop in the DVD.

Now the one thing I WILL wantonly complain about is the lack of Raiders on Blu Ray. I mean, come ooooooooooon. They were supposed to release this already!

[Alpha OTS]

Edit: I should probably also say that I'm not expecting this movie to be the second coming of Raiders. I just want to see some whip cracking, some Nazi... I mean commie... punching, some corny dialog and some crazy fantastical mythical thing happen. I guess unlike other movie franchises I'm more enamored with the character of Indy than his actual adventure, and I am really interested in seeing an older Indy.

That's pretty much what I'm hoping for. When you hear the theme, that's all you really want to see. I just hope the "alien" stuff isn't over explained to the point of removing the mythical aspects.

[Twoducks]

They showed Raiders on TV this weekend. The temple sequence in the beginning sure has lost a lot of the punch it had since the last time I saw it. Today we have fake looking CG and yesterday we had fake looking stone temples...

Kinda felt bored on some parts but maybe it was because I was tired. Had they done a trilogy marathon I would have turned the TV off half way.

Either way, the music was awesome as ever and hearing it on the big screen will make the ticked worthwhile.

Edit:

That's pretty much what I'm hoping for. When you hear the theme, that's all you really want to see. I just hope the "alien" stuff isn't over explained to the point of removing the mythical aspects.

Hell yeah!!

BTW, is this another mile long OT Hurin bitching thread?

Edited May 19, 2008 by Twoducks

[dizman]

BTW, is this another mile long OT Hurin bitching thread?

As long as he has someone to argue with then yeah .

[Vermillion21]

Do you know if this Indy figure you have matches up in size with the GI Joe 25th anniv. figures? Would think of getting him if he fits in size enough with the Joes so they can go raid Corba's fortress for treasure!

Nah, the Indiana Jones figures are slightly shorter than the 25th anniversary Joes and less poseable.

[JsARCLIGHT]

The reviews are trending positive it seems. RT.com is tracking around a 79% positive. I take that as kind of a good sign.

[Mr March]

One of my trusted review sites just gave Indy 4 a glowing review. But like I said before, I would have been going to this particular film anyway. I'm much more willing to take a chance on Spielberg and Lucas than most other director/producer teams. With luck, it won't be as bad as Temple of Doom.

[bsu legato]

With luck, it won't be as bad as Temple of Doom.

Bite your tongue. Doom rocks.

I ran across an interesting analysis of the first three films (the Indy OT, if you will) HERE. It should be considered required reading, especially for those who merely want to discuss things on a "ZOMG...wtf is with Macrus Brodeee?" level.

[Hurin]

Bite your tongue. Doom rocks.

I ran across an interesting analysis of the first three films (the Indy OT, if you will) HERE. It should be considered required reading, especially for those who merely want to discuss things on a "ZOMG...wtf is with Macrus Brodeee?" level.

Good stuff. Though, IMHO, that third guy really needs to realize, however, that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. He layers on so many meanings to every little plot point and minor event in Crusade that I really think he might need to just relax and realize that George and Steven were probably just trying to tell an adventure story. It's just a cigar. As you pointed out, he doesn't care about the slapstick, or Marcus Brody's lobotomy, or the mugging for the camera because he's too busy proving his over-wrought theses. I get the feeling he likes what he (so assertively) contends the movie is overtly trying to say to him more than he actually appreciates the movie as an Indiana Jones adventure movie. He's analyzing it as literature and as a message, not as a film. Certainly not as an Indiana Jones film. And absolutely 100% certainly not in any relation to the prior films in the series.

The Temple of Doom guy seems to have his head on a bit straighter. His assertions of deeper meaning seem quite a bit more plausible to me. And, as I've stated before, at your behest bsu, I re-watched Doom a few years ago and tried to be less critical, and found myself liking it much more. It ain't Raiders by a long shot, but it isn't all that bad.

As for the guy analyzing Raiders. . . I hate to say it because I'm sure it will sound pompous. . . but I felt like I was reading my own posts (in condensed fashion) here over the years. The a-retentive ass-clown (douchebag?) in me is tempted to go back to my older posts and compare the two, point-by-identical-point.

An interesting question to me is how the guy who wrote the analysis of Raiders would feel towards Last Crusade. Or the fellow who analyzed Doom for that matter. Clearly, each person wrote about a movie they liked. They weren't asked to write about the movies they didn't like (or prefer). I'd be more interested in hearing what each of them had to say about all three.

The guy who loves Raiders clearly just loves it and explains why (and clearly alludes to problems he has with the latter two and later Lucas/Spielberg movies/decisions). The guy who reviews Doom has some real problems with it (including leaving the "plausibility" of the admittedly implausible Raiders behind), explains those problems, and then explains how Doom overcomes them. He too goes into some deeper "meanings" in the movie and some analysis that is a bit high-brow and would make any Professor of English feel right at home. But it's not completely over-the-top and it's accessible to the average viewer/reader. The guy analyzing Last Crusade, however, is just off in his own "close reading" hyper-intellectual dream world. You're right, he doesn't give a crap about "what happened to Sallah". . . cuz he's too busy trying to demonstrate how very intellectual he is and how every little event in the film has some deeper intellectual meaning that ultimately redounds to his view of how the movie should be understood by those who understand it properly. In other words, he gives the movie (and himself) way too much credit.

So yeah, that particular guy is talking about Crusade on a "different level." But by its nature, that "level" bypasses noticing any flaws or even criticizing it. He's just attributing meaning to it, as he sees it.

Wasn't there someone around here though who is constantly telling us that these are popcorn movies and that it's stupid to attribute any real meaning to them?

[Hurin]

Doing a bit of link-surfing from bsu's original link. . .

This post, "The Quiet Moments in Raiders of the Lost Ark" and its accompanying commentary, really spells out where Raiders is in a class by itself.

Yet, I'm struck by how much this poster feels Last Crusade is the best of the series because it's just so gosh-darned funny and makes him feel so nostalgic. He points out how the actors all just seem to be having such a good time and savoring the "banter." I lost track of how many times he cites some "hilarious" quip, gag, or situation. (nearly all of which strike me as corny).

Note how the arguments for each movie's greatness and/or superiority are so divergent. Few people cite the "banter" or "humor" or (obviously) the "wonderful connection between father and son" in their praise of Raiders. Raiders is praised by a different criteria altogether. But suffice it to say that "hilarity" isn't why I adore Raiders as much as I do.

They're apples and oranges I guess. Some people like one or the other. . . and some people refuse to acknowledge a difference.

To me, the apple is so different than the orange that I don't really even consider themselves to be part of the same dietary group anymore. Which gives this whole "which is the best of the series" a sort of bizarre undertone. If Last Crusade wasn't ostensibly the same character from Raiders, I'd have absolutely no problem with that movie and chalk it up to corny, family-friendly fluff.

[transfan52]

I think your being a bit to critical of the last crusade it seems. Although it appears from your comment that raiders is the best movie and that every movie should be that way dont you think itd be kinda boring if every movie were in the same mood as raiders was?

Part of the Indie series that I always liked was the suttle humor in the movies... heck even raiders had some humor. Like when indie shoots a guy who does all this fancy stuff with a sword and some of the fight scenes too and the way people get killed and get knocked out. Intentional or not you have to admit some of those scenes have humor in them.

I think the directors realized this after seeing raiders for the first time and decided to focus more on this sort of thing with the temple of doom and although alot of scenes in that movie are overdone or over the top they are still funny IMO. The same with the last crusade, the humor isnt laugh out loud funny bit its noticeable and gives you a chuckle here and there.

The movies arent a comedy by any means but theyre well balanced and not too gritty. Thats what I think locas and spielberg wanted IMO.

Edited May 21, 2008 by transfan52

[Hurin]

We must have a different understanding of the word "subtle" because to my way of thinking, there is nothing subtle about the humor in Last Crusade.

Edit: JsArclight and I have largely already covered the difference in the subtlety of "Indy humor." Rather than re-hash. . . I'll just link.

Edit 2: Quote Dump. . .

No, I'm not saying it's not hokey. . . but it's nowhere near as hokey as the stuff wedged into just about every scene of Last Crusade. From the Librarian with the stamp. . . to the Nazi pilot who inexplicably flies his plane into a tunnel (there's a mountain around those, ya know). . . and then stoically looks down at the "Jones boys" as his plane skids beside them all while he heads to his fiery death. . . to the "no ticket" scene in the blimp. . . to everything Marcus Brody does or says. . . the list goes on and on. . . I just don't see a guy in the sound room adding the sound of a yelping dog to be on the same level as the dollops of ass-hatery that take place in nearly every scene of Crusade.

I mean, half that list, I'm thinking. . . what's the problem? A perfect example is the "love you" on the eyelids. Compare that subtle moment in Raiders to how, in Last Crusade, they have his all-female class swooning at him (some looking almost like zombies) both in class and in his office shortly thereafter. So, once again, it's a question of degree. Though you can sit down and watch Raiders with an eye for the hokey, for every moment in Raiders there are several moments in Crusade that are much more egregiously "over the top" in ways that Raiders (to my mind) never even approaches.

A great example of the difference in tone and the emphasis put on "humor" between the three movies are the love scenes. The scene in Raiders takes place on the ship and simultaneously makes Indy look bad-ass and vulnerable, it's realistic (showing what we then think to be the aftermath of the adventure. . . all his wounds, aches, and pains), and becomes quite touching. It begins with some humor, and ends with some humor. But the humor isn't the point of the scene. Compare that to the love scenes in the other two movies which are pure slapstick. They're both paced like action sequences and accompanied by the "goofy" music to let us know that it's all supposed to be fun (and funny!) while the particpants make attempts at "Moonlighting" banter.

[Mr March]

Bite your tongue. Doom rocks.

I ran across an interesting analysis of the first three films (the Indy OT, if you will) HERE. It should be considered required reading, especially for those who merely want to discuss things on a "ZOMG...wtf is with Macrus Brodeee?" level.

Doom to Doom, mwuhahahaha

Very nice articles. It is kinda sad that Spielberg and Lucas think of Doom as a failure for all the wrong reasons. But what can fans really do when we're outnumbered 1,000 to 1 by the average movie-goer who doesn't know any better. I do share in lamenting the changes that Spielberg and Lucas have done to their own films. It's just tragic really; they are doing things to their films that in their youth they would have fought tooth and nail against. Just imagine a young Spielberg being told by a censor to remove the guns from his government agents in ET or Lucas being told by a waffling studio executive that Han firing first can't be allowed. Oh how the mighty have fallen

Anyway, a great read and thanks for the link. For once, you've made yourself useful bsu, for which I blame EXO

[Uxi]

The reviews are trending positive it seems. RT.com is tracking around a 79% positive. I take that as kind of a good sign.

Indeed, I've noticed that, too. Growing far less skeptical than I was originally. Still a bit annoyed at lebouf being in this but shouldn't be too hard to get over it.