Indiana Jones 4

[Batutta]

Yeah, totally. The power has to be invisible, cause it is invisible (in the real world).

Good point.

God or aliens, you could believe in them but noone knows for sure. So it's unrealistic to show them too much on screen. And it takes away from the mystery.

In Raiders this is perfect, cause noone actually knows anything about the Ark at the end.

Just that it's made of gold, that it carries some weird sand inside and that it kills Nazis.

Atlantis will be tough, cause "the Atlantis" will be the ultimate mystery, and not some artifact... Maybe they can invent some artifact that would help Indy find Atlantis.

Oohh, it definitely should be Atlantis, I say we start a petition and send the results to Spielberg.


P.S. And for the record, I believe in God and the aliens. :cheesy:

If you want to boil it down, the theme of the first three movies is "Evil is vanquished because of the courage and righteousness of the hero." Righteousness is key and where they deviated in Crystal Skull. In the climax of Raiders, Indy kept his eyes shut and was spared the wrath of god. In Temple of Doom, he called on Shiva to vanquish Mola Ram. In Last Crusade, he took a leap of faith and chose the correct grail cup. All of these rely on a the idea of a supernatural deity and Indy being on the right side of good and evil. In Crystal Skull, Indy survives basically because he can run faster.

 

[Batutta]

More food for thought. I was thinking how action films have changed between the time the first Indy films came out, and what I realized is since The Matrix, many of the successful action films have centered on some kind of existential question rather than a plot macguffin like the ark of the covenant. In The Bourne films it's literally "Who Am I?" In The Matrix it's "Who and where am I?" Even in Superhero films like Spider-Man, Batman Begins and Iron Man, the character undergoes some kind of existential dilemma regarding his identity, "What kind of man am I?" This existential musing adds an extra dimension to the heroics. In the case of The Matrix sequels they ended up drowning in it, although they kind of left Neo with nowhere to go at the end of the first one.

 

[filmguy123]

If you want to boil it down, the theme of the first three movies is "Evil is vanquished because of the courage and righteousness of the hero." Righteousness is key and where they deviated in Crystal Skull...

More food for thought. I was thinking how action films have changed between the time the first Indy films came out, and what I realized is since The Matrix, many of the successful action films have centered on some kind of existential question rather than a plot macguffin like the ark of the covenant...

Two great observations that I hadn't thought of.

In regards to the first point, it is another subtle thing that makes SKULL just feel off to anyone discerning enough to tell. You know, I notice that pretty much every argument for KOTCS simply revolves around it being entertaining, and rarely mentions much else. Statements of it being true to the series are usually not backed up or weak, and while it may seem that way to casual observer who is less geeky than people like us, to anyone who knows film or Indy more than casually, it is certainly not the case, and is just plain unforgivable IMO...

As for the second point, I guess you could say the macguffin in Bourne is his identity; the macguffin in the matrix is freedom ...? In any case, it certainly is a notable shift in focus.

 

[karapetkov]

As for the second point, I guess you could say the macguffin in Bourne is his identity; the macguffin in the matrix is freedom ...? In any case, it certainly is a notable shift in focus.

Freedom as a macguffin, hahah, that's the first time a see it interpreted that way.

Or choice.

Cause freedom is the obvious mcguffin in Braveheart, for example.

Lol.

It makes sense, but it's funny.

 

[filmguy123]

Just thinking outside the box... why can't a macguffin be something intangible?

 

[staticrevenger]

I've read the Raider's script some time ago; did we read the same one? I may have just forgotten, and I was younger then - but what are you referring to?

sorry. faulty memory. it was a weird feather, not a huge feather.

 

[Batutta]

Just thinking outside the box... why can't a macguffin be something intangible?

It can be, as long as it's something both the protagonist AND antagonist want and struggle over. Only the humans in The Matrix want freedom, same with the Scots in Braveheart.

 

[Batutta]

sorry. faulty memory. it was a weird feather, not a huge feather.

Yeah, that would've ruined it completely.

 

[Erik Olson]

Harrison Ford in a big ol pimp hat. I would have rather dealt with that vision than the unfortunate Skull. At least I would've known Spielberg was going for comedy.

e

 

[Batutta]

I was being sarcastic. If you read on, you will see in this version the only reason for the feather was so he could hide the map in it. It's not a permanent adornment.

 

[Adam J McKay]

Went and checked it out tonight. I seriously think it's one of the worst films I have ever seen, yes even worse the Figgis's "Hotel". What was that shot on? Becaus the dynamic range was garbage, the story was not compelling enough for me to not notice all the visually unappealing everything. I seriously want my 9 dollars and 2 hours of my life back. There are only 3 Indiana Jones films. The same goes with Star Wars.

 

[SPZ]

I never knew Indy had such a cult following, to the point of "Star Wars" level. Different narratives. Star Wars is, somehow, IMO, a bit pretentious with its "chinese cookie" philosophy. Not to say its not relevant and says important things, but its done in a cheesy way. "do, or do not, there is no try"... Indyana Jones was never pretentious. It was conceived as a popcorn action adventure, a sort of American "Bond", IMO.

This one is over the top. True. But this is immediately established in the first minutes of the film. He's a superhero, larger than life. In fact, this is what makes this movie shine. Indiana Jones is not a Comic or Cartoon hero, but a genuine film hero.

As for the plot, I can half agree with the use of the Soviets. But bear in mind this: SPOILER

Were was the Nuclear test being done? Exactly. Those were the times of mass Paranoia. Look at how the FBI is portrayed in the movie. In fact, the whole existence of the area 51 is contradicting the "Land of Freedom"that's the essence of the USA.

END SPOILER

I sincerely liked the Cate Blanchett character. It was a Stylised stereotype- a mix of Bond Girl with SM fetish

Something Sir Max Mosley, of F1 fame, would certainly enjoy. (this joke is for anyone into F1 and up to date on its current affairs )

Yes, the ending was poor and felt rushed. But, come on, where the other Indies that much of cinematic masterpieces? They where top entertainment, and the first one has the value of creating an Iconic character that defined an era.

Indy 4 is Spielberg's and Lucas attempt to show Hollywood that people still want to have fun at the movies, with pure, unpretentious old fashioned almost CGI free entertainment. With cheese

EDIT- Anyone noticed how they cleverly used old "fight ADR" from the 80íes, seventies? The sound effects were "old school"... Everything was done in a way that cleverly took you to a different "era" of film...

 

[Batutta]

Indy 4 is Spielberg's and Lucas attempt to show Hollywood that people still want to have fun at the movies, with pure, unpretentious old fashioned almost CGI free entertainment. With cheese

There's nothing wrong with that, they just did it poorly, at a level of quality not up to par with the other sequels and certainly not the first film.

 

[filmguy123]

And even if it was poorly done, it would be more forgivable if it even felt like Indiana Jones. Everything was off... especially the visuals...

 

[CaptainMench]

You know, Batutta and Filmishguy, the more you talk the less respectable you are. Honestly. We know you hated the film. 500 posts and 250 of them are your silly responses like those above.

I'd like to thank Neal Trout for reminding me of this quote:

"If they made movies instead of talking about making movies,
and if all classes on theory were rigorously forbidden,
I could imagine a film school being very valuable indeed."
-Orson Wells, 1967

CaptM

 

[Erik Olson]

The fight and sound effects mix was pretty good, but there was dialogue that absolutely didn't match the shot or was the worst ADR I've ever witnessed. The punches were absolutely trademark Indy and I love those particular sound effects.

It's not like Skywalker Sound (or whatever they call it now) doesn't have the facility to do a proper mixdown.

e

 

[Batutta]

You know, Batutta and Filmishguy, the more you talk the less respectable you are. Honestly. We know you hated the film. 500 posts and 250 of them are your silly responses like those above.

I'd like to thank Neal Trout for reminding me of this quote:

"If they made movies instead of talking about making movies,
and if all classes on theory were rigorously forbidden,
I could imagine a film school being very valuable indeed."
-Orson Wells, 1967

CaptM

Captain, how come every time you open your mouth you are criticizing someone else? Somebody stated an opinion, and I was just countering with another opinion. How does that make me less respectable? This is a FILM DISCUSSION board. Where we DISCUSS film. You're acting like I'm making fun of someone's child. It's a movie, one I didn't like, and I'm explaining why.

 

[Matt Sconce]

I enjoyed the film. Not the best Indy flick, but a fun addition to the series.

 

[Batutta]

"If they made movies instead of talking about making movies,
and if all classes on theory were rigorously forbidden,
I could imagine a film school being very valuable indeed."
-Orson Wells, 1967

CaptM

You seem to be confusing theory with craft. When I go see a movie, I expect a certain level of craftsmanship on ALL levels. The crafting of this film's screenplay was subpar for all the reasons I mentioned. If my criticisms sound high-minded it's because writer's deal with abstractions, structure and intellectual concepts more than any other branch of the filmmaking process. That's what makes them writers, and is part of their craft. It's not "theory", as you so derisively keep stating. The problem with too many movies these days is people think they can just throw down a bunch of amusing skits and call it a film without thinking about what it all means.

 

[slimjimmed]

You know, Batutta and Filmishguy, the more you talk the less respectable you are. Honestly. We know you hated the film. 500 posts and 250 of them are your silly responses like those above.

I'd like to thank Neal Trout for reminding me of this quote:

"If they made movies instead of talking about making movies,
and if all classes on theory were rigorously forbidden,
I could imagine a film school being very valuable indeed."
-Orson Wells, 1967

CaptM

This is the Film Discussion forum on a filmmaking site!!! If you don't want to talk about how movies are made or theory behind it then you are going to be pretty disappointed.

You seem to be the one who is being out of line calling people unrespectable, etc.

If you want to defend the film then you will have to come up with a way that is not insulting or attacking people or that does not say that criticism and theory are bad so we shouldn't talk about it further.