Indiana Jones 4

Ahh! Took me a couple hours, but I think I pinpointed what I thought was missing from the film. (If someone in the last 557 posts said the same thing, forgive me.)

Did anyone really think the aliens would be in any way menacing at the end? Indy wasn't rushing to any uncerainty; he just had to keep the Russians at bay long enough to have the aliens solve the problem for him.

Which, I guess, is what he did in the first one, too. Whoa! He was superfluous to the ending in both!

But it was fun getting there.
 
I think that nobody knew what would happen if the Ark was actually opened.

And what did happen makes any human superfluous.

I find it a good ending, cause the hero tries everything in his human limits [even for indy there's limits], fails, but then the "power of God" intervenes in the favor of Good.

A kind of deus-ex-machina ending, but the whole story is about a "deus-ex-machina", so...

Not so effective in Skull, though.. but... it's fun.
 
The writers weren't beholden to the power of the Ark. They could have done anything they wanted.

It's not "kind of" a deus ex machina ending; it's the literal definition of a deus ex machina ending.
 
Yep, pretty much. :)

But if the story is about the Deus dude himself, maybe they have a bit more liberty on that.

It worked for me, at least.
 
David Jimerson said:
The writers weren't beholden to the power of the Ark. They could have done anything they wanted.

It's not "kind of" a deus ex machina ending; it's the literal definition of a deus ex machina ending.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned previously, all of the first three films end with a supernatural power being summoned, and Indy surviving because he's on the right side of good of evil. Crystal Skull has no explicit concept of God or good and evil which I think is one of its fundamental flaws and why the ending doesn't work as well. Yes, Raiders is the very definition of a Deus Ex Machina, but it works thematically. I think one of my teachers said that a truly great piece of art breaks one traditional rule and makes it work.
 
I love Raiders as much as the next guy -- and like many, it was the movie which made me want to make movies -- but the truth of it is, Indy doesn't even need to be in it for the same resolution. If he's not there at all, the Nazis get the Ark, open it, and melt, all the same. He didn't defeat them.

Kinda the same here -- no Indy, the Russians get the skull, find the lost city, reconnect the skull . . . and the same thing happens.

The best that can be said is that he made it easier for the Nazis and the Russians to get the point where they get dusted.

The difference being, though, that the Ark was kind of scary all by itself, and we as the audience didn't really know what would happen or to whom when it was opened. But no one at any point would have thought that the aliens would be scary. Heck, they might well have been the same ones from CE3K (though I'm glad that wasn't made explicit).
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I keep seeing everyone throw around the phrase but am wondering if it's being used properly ?

I don't see anything in the INDY films that relate to this definition; we knew about and were warned of the powers of the Ark, the Temple Stones as well as the Grail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina
Click to expand...

Indy didn't defeat the Nazis. God did, through the Ark. I suppose you could say it didn't just happen out of the blue, because the power of God was hinted at throughout the film, but in a way it was pretty contrived, because God could have smote the Nazis (through the Ark, I mean) at any point along the way, whether or not the Ark was even opened.

(Of course, the whole idea that the Nazis could use the Ark to their ends was kinda laughable on its face, anyway. God isn't obliged to do their bidding just because they have a gilded wooden box.)
 
I love Raiders as much as the next guy -- and like many, it was the movie which made me want to make movies -- but the truth of it is, Indy doesn't even need to be in it for the same resolution. If he's not there at all, the Nazis get the Ark, open it, and melt, all the same. He didn't defeat them.

Kinda the same here -- no Indy, the Russians get the skull, find the lost city, reconnect the skull . . . and the same thing happens.

The best that can be said is that he made it easier for the Nazis and the Russians to get the point where they get dusted.
Click to expand...

Ahhh .. but it was INDY who found the Ark. Without that, the NAZI's may have been 'digging in the wrong place' forever.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
Ahhh .. but it was INDY who found the Ark. Without that, the NAZI's may have been 'digging in the wrong place' forever.
Click to expand...

And it was Indy who found the first skull by noticing how magnetic it was... Otherwise the Russians would have been opening boxes forever (they might have found Jimmy Hoffa in there, or maybe a point to Indy 4).
 
J.R. Hudson said:
Ahhh .. but it was INDY who found the Ark. Without that, the NAZI's may have been 'digging in the wrong place' forever.
Click to expand...

That's what I just said -- he enabled them. But then, he only got to it first because he rescued Marion's amulet. Had he not been there, Toht would have gotten it; the Nazis would have found the Ark, and the ending still would have been the same.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I keep seeing everyone throw around the phrase but am wondering if it's being used properly ?

I don't see anything in the INDY films that relate to this definition; we knew about and were warned of the powers of the Ark, the Temple Stones as well as the Grail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina
Click to expand...


We didn't know if these powers were really real, until the end.

It could have been a "superstitious hocus-pocus", as Indy said (and originally believed).

I think it was a very cool twist to first show the sand [which kinda indicates that this Ark is a fake] and then to have the ghosts come out.

And actually we have a kind of open ending, cause nothing is actually known about the Ark. It remains a Nazi-killing enigma.

But your point is valid, IMO, cause we were warned, and therefore it isn't 100 % deux-ex-machina.

The important thing is that it works.

If something's dumb, but it works, then it's not dumb. :)

Actually, after Raiders, Indy should have become a believer, because of all the funky sh*t that got out of the Ark.

In Crusade, Indy says "I've heard this bedtime story before", expressing again his scientific disbelief in the hocus-pocus, but this is inconsistent, cause the Ark should've been a proof for him that the supernatural exists.

Oh, whatever...

...

Hahah, I remember the Donnie Darko script, where R. Kelly uses "deux-ex-machina" ambiguously.

I'm pretty sure that one of the meanings behind his use of the term is:

"OK, fellow screenwriters, I admit that the script is not perfect". :)

But nevertheless, Donnie Darko also works. :)
 
I haven't read the article yet (just got it in the mail), but I was incredibly annoyed with the blatant disregard for natural light sources. IE when Indy and Mac were first pulled out of the trunk - the sun to their backs yet there was a very bright key light set on their faces...

I did appreciate the following warehouse scene, however.

I can deal with movies that may not flow with my style, but the "look" of this film felt sloppy and entitled. Maybe I've just been spoiled with No Country/There Will Be Blood...


Edit: This post can be ignored...apparently this post was fused into this thread from another thread in the Cinematography section.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top