Indiana Jones IV

[Hurin]

Movies that I can think of are Terminator 2: Judgment Day, pretty much every James Bond movie (Dr. No was good but kind of lame compared to later ones like Thunderball and Goldfinger), Toy Story 2, Road Warrior, (for me) Empire Strikes Back, Dawn of the Dead and some (myself) say Godfather 2. I could probably go on and on but there is definite "history" of sequels surpassing their original in both box office and popularity.

Amen.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I pre-purchased tickets for the last show being shown on Monday. I'm trying to go during a time when there will be fewer kids, fewer fanatics and fewer people in general. Then again I'm an antisocial movie watcher... I want it to be me and the movie with nobody else around to affect my viewing. There have been so many movies I've gone to in the past where some dipshits in the audience marred my enjoyment due to them constantly getting up and crossing in front of me, cat calls at the screen and other such goofiness.

And yes I'm that guy in the movie saying "babies don't like movies!" when your stupid baby starts crying because the movie is too loud.

I'm spoiled by my home theater.

And try as I might I'm trying to go into this thing neutral. It's getting hard when every internet post I read is hate.

[Twoducks]

OK, all of the support and bashing of this film got me to thinking...can or has there ever been a sequel (that has been released more than a few years after the original) to a succesful movie that meets or exceeds our enjoyment of the earlier film? It seems that our expectations will always be more demanding with newer films than the earlier ones, and the earlier films tend to become classics that are set on high pedestals.

Star Wars Episode 1 is a great example of a film that couldn't possible meet audience expectations as the original trilogy has become a yardstick by which to judge sci-fi films. I can only think of one film that met/exceeded our expectations of the original: Aliens (1986).

The problem is that we've been hyped for decades by pop culture that the original Indiana or the SW trilogies are the $hit. Pop culture turned them into “legends” so toping that is near impossible compared to doing a sequel of something recent like Spider-man or X-men.

Their “greatness” also hits them in the foot if you really aren’t a fanboy of them. Raiders fell from my pedestal last week when I resaw it. Great action scenes with a fun simple story in-between punches and a VERY charismatic character; but that's it, it didn't make the world a better place or elevate film to a higher artform. I’ve seen a lot of fun movies like that but since Indiana Jones I is supposed to be the definition of “adventure” it falls short of its own greatness and end up not satisfying me.

[Hurin]

The problem is that we've been hyped for decades by pop culture that the original Indiana or the SW trilogies are the $hit. Pop culture turned them into "legends" so toping that is near impossible compared to doing a sequel of something recent like Spider-man or X-men.

The issue I have with this contention and the post it's addressing is that most people I know who are critical of the prequels are also critical of Jedi, Temple of Doom, and (to a lesser extent) Last Crusade.

It's not quite so simple as it all being nostalgia or pop culture somehow twisting our perceptions. And the change in tone and content of the SW and Indy films after ESB/Raiders is actually somewhat representative of what happened to film overall as the "blockbuster" era of Hollywood began.

And, of course, nobody (here) has ever said that Raiders changed the world or transcended film. People have merely pointed to it as an excellent adventure film that differs in tone and content with its successors. Some prefer it. Others don't. And yet others claim that there is no difference.

[Necron_99]

I was going to go see this tonite, but I bought tickets for Iron Man again. I'll wait until this shows up on Netflix.

[eugimon]

I think a lot of people forget that Indiana Jones was never meant to be serious, it was an homage and riff of old B action movies.

Having said that, i do agree that there was a big change in tone from the first movie to the sequels. But this is the first of the sequels where I understood the change. Indy is older and the world is a different place and the movie reflects that. I may not like some of the tonal changes, but I understand where they came from.

The wierd animal theme though... blegh, that just smacks of ewoks.

[Alpha OTS]

The wierd animal theme though... blegh, that just smacks of ewoks.

Was South Park ahead of the curve again?

Episode 609 Free Hat

Later at the premiere, as the movie begins, Stan tells his friends (all of whom are tied to poles) to look away from the screen, warning them that the film will be terrible. They do, while the rest of the audience continues watching the film. At first, they're awed by the film, but upon seeing the Hovitos who chase Indiana Jones were digitally changed to Ewoks, they react negatively. They then realize the new version is awful.

[HoveringCheesecake]

I'm not a huge Indiana Jones fan, but I saw this yesterday and I was disappointed. The last third of the movie was just silly.

[EXO]

I think a lot of people forget that Indiana Jones was never meant to be serious, it was an homage and riff of old B action movies.

I never forgot that but I think what people really forgot was that Raiders took that and elevated it to a whole new genre.

[Twoducks]

I enjoyed Speed Racer's hokiness and silliness more than I did Indiana IV's. I guess the original stuff like the car-fu scenes or the other visual elements they played with in Speed made for a more fresh and new product than the reused Indiana formula.

[funkymonkeyjavajunky]

It depends upon personal preference but generally speaking, sequels are rarely good. Most of us have lived through hundreds, perhaps thousands of Hollywood sequel abuses. More often than not, a sequel = garbage. And for a certain portion of fandom, even superior sequels cannot improve upon the original simply because the first film was original while any sequel will always be retreading old territory.

Having said that, there are several examples of sequels as good or better than the original (at least in my opinon). Films like Terminator 2, Aliens, The Empire Strikes Back, The Two Towers, X-Men 2, and a few others come to mind. But as a film fan for some 20+ years now, these are all too rare exceptions.

I'd debate over Two Towers being better than Fellowship of the Ring, but agree to everything else you say. The few good sequels vs. the many bad ones. Anyway, I plan to see Indy IV in a few hours and don't plan on overcomparing it to other films, but just enjoy the ride.

Edited May 23, 2008 by funkymonkeyjavajunky

[Mr March]

Anyone can debate anything. Each example I posted could be called into question if one wanted to. It's just that those examples are generally accepted "as good or better than" more often than not. Nonetheless, I think the point is clear. I intend to see Indy 4 as well (currently planned for Saturday evening), but I'm more dreadful than I am hopeful. Which isn't so bad, it'll make me that much easier to please going in with low expectations

[Roger]

Anyone can debate anything.

No, they can't.

[eugimon]

No, they can't.

given that now you're debating whether or not you can debate anything.. I think you just proved Mr. March's point.

[Roger]

given that now you're debating whether or not you can debate anything.. I think you just proved Mr. March's point.

No, I didn't.

[Roger]

SPOILERS...

For those of you who couldn't suspend your disbelief for certain scenes or the plot macguffin, consider the first three films and what they establish as "reality" within the Indiana Jones universe:

Temple of Doom: Hinduism is real.

Raiders: Judaism is real.

Last Crusade: Christianity (and possibly Islam, by extension) is real.

To add "extradimensional aliens are real" to that list isn't much of a stretch, isn't it? And once you've done that, you can pretty much forgive every scene where Indy should have broken his tail bone, drowned, gotten electrocuted, etc.

(Especially if you consider that there could be "higher powers" looking out for him.)

Edited May 24, 2008 by Roger

[eugimon]

No, I didn't.

[bsu legato]

No, I didn't.

Oh look, this isn't an argument. It's just contradiction!

[eriku]

Just watched it tonight. I expected a fun and cheesy action flick in the spirit of the first three Indy movies and that's exactly what I saw. I view Indy movies in pretty much the same light as Lupin III episodes and movies. I've never thought they intended themselves to be taken too seriously.

[eugimon]

Just watched it tonight. I expected a fun and cheesy action flick in the spirit of the first three Indy movies and that's exactly what I saw. I view Indy movies in pretty much the same light as Lupin III episodes and movies. I've never thought they intended themselves to be taken too seriously.

exactly. There's stuff to nit pick but I still had a lot of fun and there were some great Indiana Jones moments.

[Uxi]

Wait, so according to you, nothing can "logically" be diminished by something unless that something "caused" it?

No, I just expect your arguments to be logically composed from it's premises. You are apparently incapable of distinguishing causation from correlation. There are people who can help you with that. I can merely enjoy pointing out when you miss that. As far as mocking any supposed "essays" I might have constructed, you should look up hypocrite yourself since you've openly admitted to citing my posts on other boards. What would that make you? A plagarist? I sense you getting a bit testy... hopefully you're smiling as you're writing your posts as I am, though.

So, just to get this straight, in your topsy-turvy, Lucas-gets-better-with-age, prequels are the best world, you can explain largely how something here-to-fore mystical works, attribute its "motor" to a biological, tangible organisms in our blood, and then in the same breath say that it's illogical and irrational to assert that doing so diminishes the mystery and mysticism surrounding it?

All the MC's do is give a pseudo-scientific way to rephrase "the Force is strong in my family." There is simply no jusification to jump to any other conclusion given the few mentions of them in any SW movie or any EU that I'm aware of.

All the while, of course, you ignore an even more basic point. . . it's horrible writing (as described above) designed to just establish something (Anakin's relative power vs Yoda, Obi-Wan, etc.) which we all would have rather seen established over the three movies via some good storytelling.

This is a very simple question that even you should be able to follow: Where was relative power established again? Justify your leap in logic that midichlorians represent a Jedi's relative power versus a Jedi's relative potential. Despite your conclusion (unsubstatiated by the dialog in the movie or any EU), the only thing established by midichlorians was that some some untrained freak slave kid had more midichlorians than one of the greatest living Jedi Masters. You certainly don't think either Obi-wan or Qui-gon thought that Anakin was more powerful than Yoda when that line was mentioned in the movie do you? Do you really think Lucas intended to say that Anakin was more powerful than Yoda or the Emperor even at any point in Revenge of the Sith?

As for me "straying from the topic at hand". . . I was tying the midichlorians and the change they introduce upon our understanding of the Force back to what many feared would happen to Indy. You, my friend, simply feel the need to defend your beloved (and preferred) SW Prequels and anything Lucas has ever done with no mention of Indy whatsoever. So if you feel the need to continue this, please take it to a SW thread. But if you do, please try to do better than ignoring the point and just impugning the rationality and logic of others while being irrational and illogical yourself.

You're right, you were on topic. You take any chance you can to deride anything Lucas... Indy is obviously connected to that, as you yourself have done. I obviously (and have repeatedly stated as such) don't think Doom or Raiders were ever intended to be taken any more seriously than Last Crusade, the same as Phantom Menace was always intended to the same 10 year old audience that A New Hope was. Lucas has always been about recreated the 1930s serial schlock that he enjoyed so much as a kid himself.

If you could make a post without mentioning "raped childhoods" (a phrase I've never uttered), that would be swell too.

No, you simply play a semantic game (which is your typical modus operandii, as BSU called you out on way back when) to the same effect:

QUOTE (Hurin @ Oct 31 2003, 02:18 PM)

<<I've said it before and I'll say it again: George Lucas needs to stop f'ing with my childhood.>>

http://macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?show...ost&p=48121

I proise, I'll restrict my future mocking of your actual words to be wrt to Lucas just F*cking with your childhood, if you'd really prefer it, though. It is pretty amusing that the arguments haven't changed in 5+ years. Thankfully that didn't get lost in the last h4x0r attack. That was a pretty fun thread (and ironically enough also with the subject title Indiana Jones).

I understand that it clearly pains you tremendously to see your very favorite movies criticized in any way.

Not at all. I enjoy a decent debate and have never shied from ridiculing the ridiculous. You have always provided ample enjoyment, especially in the latter (if not the former).

[Uxi]

I think a lot of people forget that Indiana Jones was never meant to be serious, it was an homage and riff of old B action movies.

More specifically the 1930s serials that Lucas himself enjoyed as a kid. Both Star Wars and Indiana Jones.

Having said that, i do agree that there was a big change in tone from the first movie to the sequels. But this is the first of the sequels where I understood the change. Indy is older and the world is a different place and the movie reflects that. I may not like some of the tonal changes, but I understand where they came from.

Eh. Some of the characters were seemingly lobotimized (especially Brody) for the last movie, but I really don't think there is a difference in tone. Substantially, they all boil down to the same plotline with differences in details and differences in which treasure it is, which chic he is pursuing and who the sidekick is.

[Hurin]

No, I just expect your arguments to be logically composed from it's premises. You are apparently incapable of distinguishing causation from correlation. There are people who can help you with that. I can merely enjoy pointing out when you miss that.

Nice dodge. But we'll get back to your misuse of causation vs correlation soon. . .

As far as mocking any supposed "essays" I might have constructed, you should look up hypocrite yourself since you've openly admitted to citing my posts on other boards.

Ummmm, I've admitted to what exactly? For someone who's always lecturing others on how words must be read with no other possible, reasonable alternative, you sure do leap to some bizarre conclusions. Why exactly am I a hypocrite now? Do you know what the word means? Have I ever made fun of you for looking up my posts on other boards? Do you think I have looked up your posts on other boards? Would those two factors combined have made me a hypocrit? Oh well, I suppose it doesn't matter since I've done neither. Rather, I refer to your own mention of said essay here on MW. Regardless. . . you're meandering sorta aimlessly now.

What would that make you? A plagarist? I sense you getting a bit testy... hopefully you're smiling as you're writing your posts as I am, though.

Okay. . . now look up plagiarism. And while you're at it, take note of the spelling. I don't normally mock spelling mistakes or typos. But for some reason, that tickled me.

Honestly though. I don't think even you know what you're talking about now. I refer back to your own mention of an essay you have apparently written, and that somehow makes me a hypocrit and a plagiarist?

All the MC's do is give a pseudo-scientific way to rephrase "the Force is strong in my family." There is simply no jusification to jump to any other conclusion given the few mentions of them in any SW movie or any EU that I'm aware of.

Oh, well, if you say there is no reason to "jump" to any other conclusion because you (erroneously and inappropriately) claim that causation and correlation must be taken into account, then I guess we're done here. Midichlorians don't cause the Force to exist. . . so we can't talk about anything else! You there! Thinking your own thoughts and reaching rational, reasonable conclusions. . . didn't you hear me? Uxi has told you the only meaning you can derive from those words. . . and that meaning is "The force is strong in my family". . . what? No. Midichlorians don't "cause" the force. So we might as well all stop thinking for ourselves. Uxi has covered it. We can all go home.

Let me help you out here since you seem to like to throw around pseudo-intellectual jargon that you don't really seem to grasp. . .

The phrase "correlation is not causation" is usually used in circumstances where someone is mistakenly assuming that because two events happened concurrently or sequentially, that one event "caused" the other event. For example. . . global warming. There has long been a theory that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global temperatures to rise. CO2 levels have risen. And global temperatures have risen. Does that mean the theory is now proven? No. Because there are also other possible causes. While the theory is likely to be correct, just the fact that one preceded the other does not necessarily mean that one caused the other.

Now, you seem to want to tie this into what I said about midichlorians. But sweet merciful crap, you've done a terrible job doing so. And I don't honestly think you can. As I've said, introducing such a tangible mechanism for the force necessarily reduces its mystery. It's also bad writing. You can continue to misuse "causation" and "correlation" as some sort of pseudo-intellectual smoke-screen to obfuscate the fact that you're actually now babbling pure nonsense, but anyone carefully reading this exchange (both of them) has by now noticed that you've stopped making sense.

This is a very simple question that even you should be able to follow: Where was relative power established again? Justify your leap in logic that midichlorians represent a Jedi's relative power versus a Jedi's relative potential. Despite your conclusion (unsubstatiated by the dialog in the movie or any EU), the only thing established by midichlorians was that some some untrained freak slave kid had more midichlorians than one of the greatest living Jedi Masters. You certainly don't think either Obi-wan or Qui-gon thought that Anakin was more powerful than Yoda when that line was mentioned in the movie do you? Do you really think Lucas intended to say that Anakin was more powerful than Yoda or the Emperor even at any point in Revenge of the Sith?

Wow. You're right. That is a simple question. It's also one heck of a pretty straw man you've set up. And, actually it's totally irrelevant. You're actually taking the time to point out that the scene is in reference to Anakin's potential power. As though a seven year-old isn't aware that Anakin couldn't very well have taken on Yoda as soon as he hopped out of his Pod Racer in the middle of TPM? You accuse me of engaging in semantics below. . . but you take the cake above.

Clearly, the scene where Anakin's count is announced to be higher than "even Master Yoda's" is in there for a reason. Writers need to be economical with their dialogue. I said it was in there to demonstrate "Anakin's relative power vs Yoda, Obi-Wan, etc." So you decide to put the word "potential" in bold and write a paragraph as though you have a point? What was that point again? Oh, that I didn't use the word "potential" myself because I figured anyone with the intellect of a lima bean would understand that it is implied.

Wow man. Just. . . wow. That's all you have? You wrote a paragraph on that? With no hope of actually tying it back into anything larger? Not only are you desperately clawing for any type of point, but it's not even a good point.

You're right, you were on topic. You take any chance you can to deride anything Lucas... Indy is obviously connected to that, as you yourself have done. I obviously (and have repeatedly stated as such) don't think Doom or Raiders were ever intended to be taken any more seriously than Last Crusade, the same as Phantom Menace was always intended to the same 10 year old audience that A New Hope was. Lucas has always been about recreated the 1930s serial schlock that he enjoyed so much as a kid himself.

Again, another straw-man. Who's taking them "seriously?" I merely contend that they are different and that their tone and content differs. I contend that some are better than others (shame on me! I must be a fanboy!) You inexplicably contend that there are no real differences and yet still refuse to acknowledge a simple question such as how you can so vociferously prefer one movie over another when they're all essentially the same.

No, you simply play a semantic game (which is your typical modus operandii, as BSU called you out on way back when) to the same effect:

QUOTE (Hurin @ Oct 31 2003, 02:18 PM)

<<I've said it before and I'll say it again: George Lucas needs to stop f'ing with my childhood.>>

http://macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?show...ost&p=48121

I proise, I'll restrict my future mocking of your actual words to be wrt to Lucas just F*cking with your childhood, if you'd really prefer it, though. It is pretty amusing that the arguments haven't changed in 5+ years. Thankfully that didn't get lost in the last h4x0r attack. That was a pretty fun thread (and ironically enough also with the subject title Indiana Jones).

So. . . I didn't say it. And your point is that I didnt say it. Thanks for that.

Look, it's really simple. You (and many others across the web) seem to have developed an overt hatred of the reactionary, hyper-critical "fanboy" that felt entitled to whatever movie they had in their heads long before Lucas had ever even started producing any of the prequels. You've gotten so sick of hearing those guys talk about "raped childhoods" and act so "betrayed" by George Lucas that you've pretty apparently over-corrected to the point where you're just as bad. . . except on the other side. But, at least the fanboys you so loathe actually bother to address the movies on their merits. While you just attack the "fanboys."

No matter how grounded in facts, examples (scenes, dialog, interviews, etc.), or in-depth comparisons, you and your fellow travellers will merely dismiss it all as "rosy colored nostalgia." When that charge is addressed (as I've personally done here numerous times only to be met by silence from you), rather than ever give any rational, cogent argument for the merits of your preferred movies, you just move onto some other attack on the person ("raped childhoods" blinding us, etc.). Where have you ever talked about the redeeming quality of Jar-Jar binks, puns, prat-falls, or fart jokes that you seem to adore? Where have you ever said: "I prefer TPM or AOC because I find the following scenes compelling. . . and much better than the analogous scenes in ANH or ESB." Your hated "fanboy" tormentors are always willing to compare and contrast. Yet you rarely are. You'll write essays about midichlorians and nonsense about correlation vs causation where it doesn't apply. But you won't just come out and scrutinize dialog, scenes, tone, or specific content of the movies you profess to like so much. Instead, you take the easy way out and manage to make yourself believe that somehow the easily-pleased, undiscrimating fan who loves everything is somehow better than the critical "fanboy" you loathe.

Which leads us to this "they're all the same" nonsense. You have to believe that (no matter how absurd it is) because it's your "out." As long as they're all the same, there's no point in comparing them. . . and you won't ever feel the need to figure out or explain why you seem to like the movies that are most aimed at the lowest common denominator and six-year-old kids. That's awfully convenient for you. You can't defend or even really praise the movies on their own merits. So, rather than try to do so, you take that which has at least some merit and merely assert that its on the same level as your beloved tripe. This allows you to attack the fanboys you detest without ever having to actually make any real argument. Very nice and tidy. But it's also willfully disingenuous. . . or terribly undiscerning.

Calling others "fanboys" is just your way of avoiding ever having a decent, honest discussion or "defending" your preferred films on their merits. And you do this because --on some level-- you realize that you actually prefer fart jokes, pratfalls, puns, and Jar-Jar along with your lightsabers and spaceships.

Now, this is not a SW thread. And it's not Hurin and UXI's private playground. Now, you get the last word. I will not respond and this will be over. I trust that any allegations of hypocrisy and/or plagiarism (wtf?) you choose to level will be just as bizarre and groundless as those above were exposed to be. I'm also confident that by now it's apparent that you like to throw around intellectual buzzwords where they don't even apply in order to mask that you actually have very little to say that is grounded in any solid, logical foundation. It also seems apparent to me that any point you do actually manage to make is usually so pedantic that it is totally irrelevant to any larger point at hand. Basically, I trust that any response from you will just be more of the same and I've got better things to do over my long weekend than point such things out to you over and over again. Your avowed goal here is merely to ridicule. And since I've lost all respect for your arguments as well as your taste in movies (yes, finally), further discussion is meritless. But if you feel the need to respond, feel free.

I'd also urge the usual "hey, you guys suck, this is OT!" folks to keep it to themselves while we get this thread back on track. It only hurts. It doesn't help.

[lord_breetai]

Do you really think Lucas intended to say that Anakin was more powerful than Yoda or the Emperor even at any point in Revenge of the Sith?

Hi, just wanted to point out that this is explicitly not stated to be the case; as Palpatine tells Yoda that Lord Vader will become more powerful then both of them. That means that he has not yet reached that level.

Was a fun debate to read, anyway. I'm going to see the new Jones movie this weekend, I will post my thoughts here thereafter.

Edited May 24, 2008 by lord_breetai

[Uxi]

Honestly though. I don't think even you know what you're talking about now. I refer back to your own mention of an essay you have apparently written, and that somehow makes me a hypocrit and a plagiarist?

It was a good thing, sheesh. You were complimentary, and we were in a rare agreement on an issue where you liked one of my opinions/arguments and you quoted me to another board. Force "conservationists" or some such. Search can't find it and the PMs are gone, too. Looks like it may have been before 2003, probably lost with the old boards. Plagarism was intended in the humorously, but apparently you forgot the reference.

The phrase "correlation is not causation" is usually used in circumstances where someone is mistakenly assuming that because two events happened concurrently or sequentially, that one event "caused" the other event. For example. . . global warming. There has long been a theory that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global temperatures to rise. CO2 levels have risen. And global temperatures have risen. Does that mean the theory is now proven? No. Because there are also other possible causes. While the theory is likely to be correct, just the fact that one preceded the other does not necessarily mean that one caused the other.

To use your global warming example, the analogy to the MC debate would be instead that possibility that the increased temperature caused the Co2 levels to rise, instead. Obviously we know that to not be the case for that specific instance (wrt Global Warming), but we have a better "body" of "EU" (as it were). Realistically the debate is over the cause of the CO2. Cars? Volcanoes? Whether the activities of man make a dent... or not.

Back to midichlorians, you seem to think that a high concentration of them is the cause for greater strength in the Force and this is the part on which I don't agree that we know which way the causality progresses from and to.

Clearly, the scene where Anakin's count is announced to be higher than "even Master Yoda's" is in there for a reason. Writers need to be economical with their dialogue. I said it was in there to demonstrate "Anakin's relative power vs Yoda, Obi-Wan, etc." So you decide to put the word "potential" in bold and write a paragraph as though you have a point? What was that point again?

Sorry, I thought you could connect the dots on your own: my point wrt causation versus correlation is that we still do not know if more MCs cause greater (potential) power in the Force or if greater potential in the Force causes more MC's. That was certainly not established in TPM, nor anywhere else. Qui-Gon conjectures that this must mean that Anakin is the chosen one from prophecy. Yoda (and the rest of the Jedi Council) is clearly skeptical of that viewpoint and chooses not to train him. The rest of the council (at least a majority) apparently changes their mind.

Who's taking them "seriously?" I merely contend that they are different and that their tone and content differs. I contend that some are better than others (shame on me! I must be a fanboy!) You inexplicably contend that there are no real differences and yet still refuse to acknowledge a simple question such as how you can so vociferously prefer one movie over another when they're all essentially the same.

You are, apparently. My order of preference is of very slight (if not insignificant) degree while you are quite clear in your disdain of what you see as the less refined humor. Obviously when Star Wars IV or V are on HBOHD, I'll usually watch at least a little of it, just as I would if VI or III were on. I just don't find any of them terribly sophisticated in anything other than SFX and eye candy. Juvenille humor abounds in all of the SW and Indy movies... None of it is Homer or Ovid... a fart joke isn't any better than "what a wonderful smell you've discovered" nor is Jar-Jar stepping in poodoo less sophisticated than a walking carpet "roaring at a mouse droid," which then runs away. Maybe it is Homer. Simpson, that is, who's done all of the above.

But yeah, Star Wars is as no good for artistic or educational merit wrt taken seriously than Indy is meant to be taken seriously as a study on archeology. Both are great to much popcorn on to 1080p and booming 7.1, if not also the ocassional video game or RPG.

So. . . I didn't say it. And your point is that I didnt say it. Thanks for that.

You only said something so amusingly similar that it would be pedantic to point out the minutia in difference from having your childhood "raped" versus just being "F*cked with." You're welcome.

Look, it's really simple. You (and many others across the web) seem to have developed an overt hatred of the reactionary, hyper-critical "fanboy" that felt entitled to whatever movie they had in their heads long before Lucas had ever even started producing any of the prequels. You've gotten so sick of hearing those guys talk about "raped childhoods" and act so "betrayed" by George Lucas that you've pretty apparently over-corrected to the point where you're just as bad. . . except on the other side. But, at least the fanboys you so loathe actually bother to address the movies on their merits. While you just attack the "fanboys."

Hate? Don't give yourself so much credit. Wry amusement at best to mockingly ridiculed at worst. I think you may have projected, Freudian-style there, some of your own thoughts, though. "Betrayal?" So very interesting.

Which leads us to this "they're all the same" nonsense. You have to believe that (no matter how absurd it is) because it's your "out." As long as they're all the same, there's no point in comparing them. . . and you won't ever feel the need to figure out or explain why you seem to like the movies that are most aimed at the lowest common denominator and six-year-old kids.

Already addressed and FTR, I think it's 10 year olds, not 6.

FWIW, I like RotJ the most as an adult because of the Redemption angle and specifically it's echos in everything from Bram Stoker's Dracula to more theological angles. On a more visceral level it takes everything I might like about the first movie and does it better: better lightsaber duel, better space battle, and better SFX all around. RotJ also has more emotion invested in its climax than any other SW movie except possibly Leia's "I love you" in TESB and Obi-wan's anguished "You were the chosen one!" in ROTS. I have no trouble ignoring Chewiw's tarzan yell any more than I do Motti's sideburns or Cliff Clavin on Hoth.

I like Last Crusade the best from my undergrad fascination with the History of the Crusades (even if the history in that Indy movie is complete rubbish, especially when they're talking about Alexandretta and siege taking over a year and the complete destruction of the town, I can't help but roll my eyes - the Siege was Antioch, it did take over a year, it wasn't destroyed but conquered, etc etc). I can happily ignore the english that the Knight learned somewhere, though (though i enjoy making quips about it, as I did a page or two back). Less sophistimicated, I laugh my ass off at the nasty Nazi who gets crushed around like a rag doll as his tank goes over the edge. Always good to see Nazis getting crushed. And how can you go wrong with Han Solo and his pops James Bond?

Great article/ebook on just about all of the myths of the SW trilogy (on just about every subject here, but also touches on the myths of the serial style "Adventures of Luke Skywalker" Lucas originally wanted to the 12 episode treatment to the "trilogy of trilogies" to the "Tragedy of Darth Vader" that is his current speal, but also on the difference in style from Ep V, etc) that I caught on my slashdot RSS feed earlier this week:

http://www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com/book.html

I'd also urge the usual "hey, you guys suck, this is OT!" folks to keep it to themselves while we get this thread back on track. It only hurts. It doesn't help.

Edited May 24, 2008 by Uxi

[lord_breetai]

originally put this as an edit in my last post but since Uxi posted while i was editing, I'll re-add it down here.

I don't think Uxi was trying to say that you weren't aware that it meant potential power, rather that he's saying that the Force itself can still be a mysterious force, even if there is the existence of a microscopic creature. There's nothing precluding the Midicholorians from being themselves mystical; it's not stated that the Jedi know exactly on what mechanism the MCs communicate with the force, or how that is passed along to the host organism. They simply know that, in life they have discovered these tiny bodies and they can accurately predict who does and who does not have the potential to be a Jedi simply by scanning them at birth. In that way it's not that bad of a plot device because it kills two birds with one stone; it establishes Anakin as the chosen one, and at the same time explains how the Jedi order can find new recruits within the first few years of the child's life. The only other way would be if a Jedi visited every child born in the core worlds to sense them, so this provides us an out.

But again that does not deprive the Force of any mysticism; after all MCs are in the blood which is the source of power in quite a few forms of mysticism. Also there were beliefs about tangible and physical signs that someone was a witch in mid evil times, but that didn't mean they thought witches were natural or could be understood by science. Witches also can have animal familiars who help them perform their magical feats; And since the mechanism for MCs is not explained there's nothing to say they aren't a mystical life form, like a microscopic familiar. Do MCs create the Force? Yes, of course they do, since the Force is created by "All living things". The prequal movies do refer to the force in mythical and mystical terms, referring to the 'netherworld' of the Force, when Qui-Gon comes back... Netherworld, sounds rather mysterious and mystical doesn't it?

I do not particularly like the prequel movies myself... and I don't like the MC concept either, but you can make a valid argument for it.

[Uxi]

Yeah, you about hit on it. More specifically, MC's are said to be in teh cells. It's not something you can do with a blood transfusion (unless you could put them in every cell in your blood, if not your whole body). And we still don't know if life (and/or the Force) creates the MC's or if MC's create life (or the Force). Saying Fred Jedi has 5,000 or whatever MC's while Yoda, one of the greatest has some number greater than Fred but less than 20,000 but some untrained slave kid has more than that is purely meant to give a "uh, wtf, over?" and for qui-gon to get his crazy theory going and be prepared to defy the council. Thus, the only part that bugs me about MC's is the way Jake Lloyd carefully pronounces the word (correctly but different from how Liam Neeson just pronounced it). IOW, it was obviously scripted rather than 'natural' acting.

I should be going to see Indy 4 today, though.

Edited May 24, 2008 by Uxi

[lord_breetai]

And I'll officially end my short involvement in this debate too... with one last comment.

Obi-wan: Hey Qui-gon, what does the scouter say about his Midichlorian Level?

Qui-gon: It's over 9000!

Obi-wan: What 9000?

DBZ was definitely mystical, with Chi, spirits and afterlife but still had a quantitative, scientific method of determining power... (though that wasn't really a good thing).

[Hurin]

So. . . back to Indy please.

[eriku]

Does anyone know which Indy toys are coming in the future? I'm really hoping for a figure of

the alien

from the end of Crystal Skull. I'd LOVE a

crystal skeleton

version, too.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Does anyone know which Indy toys are coming in the future? I'm really hoping for a figure of

the alien

from the end of Crystal Skull. I'd LOVE a

crystal skeleton

version, too.

The

crystal skeleton on a throne

is the mail away figure for the new 3" Indy toy line. If you buy the figures they come with little cardboard crates that contain stickers you collect to mail in.

(This is a picture of the mail away figure: SPOILER LINK Mailaway Figure Photo SPOILER LINK)

[eriku]

The

crystal skeleton on a throne

is the mail away figure for the new 3" Indy toy line. If you buy the figures they come with little cardboard crates that contain stickers you collect to mail in.

Ah, that's what's in those crates. I haven't bought any of the figures yet but that mail away is a good incentive to get them all.

[wolfx]

Just watched it. I dunno how to place it but i didn't enjoy it as much as I thought i would.

And the aliens bit is .... 0.o

[Alpha OTS]

Heh, I picked up a couple of the new Indy figures just for the artifacts. Yes, I wanted an Ark and a Gold Temple Idol that badly.

[lord_breetai]

The

crystal skeleton on a throne

is the mail away figure for the new 3" Indy toy line. If you buy the figures they come with little cardboard crates that contain stickers you collect to mail in.

(This is a picture of the mail away figure: SPOILER LINK Mailaway Figure Photo SPOILER LINK)

oooh 3"? that would make an awesome set piece in a GI Joe diorama... put a normal body on it and it could be used for recreating one of the battles in Arise! Serpentor Arise!

And ah... yes... will see Jones tomorrow for sure.