Indiana Jones And The Lost City Of Jaded Fans by chrisisall

bullwhip bump

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 4:28 AM

ZEEK

I just finally put 2 and 2 together. chrisisall is butters!

If you haven't seen the South Park episode where they rip the new Indy then that won't make much sense. It's a pretty hilarious episode though. You should check it out.

For the record I haven't seen the new Indy and I don't think I ever will. I'm done with Lucas.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 4:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

For the record I haven't seen the new Indy and I don't think I ever will. I'm done with Lucas.

Dude, this is what I'm talking about- it's not like he's Satan or anything, and anyone who likes the earlier Indy movies should remember the line from Temple Of Doom: "Yes, I understand it's power now." THAT right there tells you this is just popcorn nonsense!!! If you try to groove to any other level, in the words of Skywalker, you are sadly mistaken.

No one knows how to just have fun anymore...

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 5:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

If you haven't seen the South Park episode where they rip the new Indy then that won't make much sense.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/latest-south-park-hates-on-indy-
4-will-paramount-spielberg-lucas-protest/
Oh now, that is just so wrong....

My sense of humour only goes so far....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 5:22 AM

...These are cynical times my friend and people find it easier to mock than to applaud. Just look at TV. It's littered with people gladly allowing themselves to be humilitated in front of a criticizing public. The mass populace have lost their dignity in front of the 'all-seeing, 'all knowing' camera, (The 21st century 'eyes of God') and they do so gladly. Whatever befalls the camera's lense is forfeit, fair game to a blood thirsty, soulless society who speak in safe soundbites - yet say nothing.

So we've become accustomed to ridiculing that which flickers in front of us wether it be TV, or cinema. Good or bad is irrelevant. It's the 'bark' that counts.

If you're the kind of person who watches an Indiana Jones film scrutinizing the legitimacy of the action, then you're better off not going at all. This aint the film for you. Much like the folks who watched Edward Scissorhands and came out wondering how he went to the bathroom...

Flames flying into the heavens with charred Nazi's in it is no more substantial than Indy surviving a nuclear blast! It's a flight of fantasy - a moment of pure cinema.

Indy 4 never stood a chance with these people...

This world is no more for dreamers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 6:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

Indy 4 never stood a chance with these people...

This world is no more for dreamers.

Take heart friend- Indy 4 was the (EDIT: third) highest grossing flick of 2008; we cannot be alone in our appreciation of the whip-wielder!

Simplepleasuresisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 6:44 AM

I didn't hate it, but it's my least favorite of the series. And not becuase of aliens, old Indy, or over-use of CGI (though that did get annoying).

My problems were:

1) It got too silly. Starting with the groundhogs - which would have been fine once, but really bugged my by their third appearance. The fridge bit is so over-the-top and implausible that it took me out of the movie completely for a bit. Shia and his army of monkees coming to the rescue, and the jeep jump into the treetop stretched it as well.

2) No sense of danger. In all the other movies, there was alsways a feeling of real danger toward the characters. There were stakes. This time, it all felt so staged and hokey, that never once did I buy that something bad could actually happen to anyone (compare this with the feeling at the end of Serenity, where I was convinced every single character was doomed).

3) The script - Too much exposition. In the prior films, there was generally one big expository scene, usually near the beginning, that set up the MacGuffin, and then the story flowed from there. This time, they stop and explain, in unnesesary detail, what is going on, and how, several times. Just not very efficient storytelling.

4) Characters use - Ray Winstone's character did essentially nothing, and was pretty pointless. And Indy himself, while great to see, was more or less a passive character. He almost never took action himself, and was mainly just swept up in the actions of others. And, he had literally no bearing on the end of the film. He could have gone home after the ant scene, and the plot would have essentially played out the same.

5) The fake look of it all. Even that which was shot live-action looked fake after all the digital processing. That might be how some movies do it these days, but it's hardly a requirement. And after all Spielberg's talk about not going overboard with the CGI, was a dissapointing easthetic choice.

Those were my main problems.

And for those who say that anyone critisizing the movie isn't into the spirit, isn't a dreamer, or whatever - I find that not only insulting, but disengenuous. Just because something has fantastical elements, does not mean that just ANYTHING can happen, without thought to reason or internal logic. For those who would call those of us who critisize such things haters or "jaded" or whatnot - I'd respond by asking if you just eat up anything handed to you, as long as it has the right name in the title.

Like comparing the energy from the Ark to the fridge bit. Yes, it's a fantastical story, but one of the first rules of writing - even for a fantasy - is to remain true to the rules of the given world. The "power of God" lashing out from a supernatural religious artifact, is not the same as a human being - who has been shown to be human with all the physical limitations that implies - surviving something that no human could survive (setting aside the idea that that one fridge - and nothing else at ALL survived the blast) is not the same thing.

And one final thing - while it may have been the third highest grossing movie of the year - it's still the least successful movie of the series, in terms of ticket sales (adjusted gross).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I didn't hate it, but it's my least favorite of the series. And not becuase of aliens, old Indy, or over-use of CGI (though that did get annoying).

My problems were:

1) It got too silly. Starting with the groundhogs - which would have been fine once, but really bugged my by their third appearance. The fridge bit is so over-the-top and implausible that it took me out of the movie completely for a bit. Shia and his army of monkees coming to the rescue, and the jeep jump into the treetop stretched it as well.

2) No sense of danger. In all the other movies, there was alsways a feeling of real danger toward the characters. There were stakes. This time, it all felt so staged and hokey, that never once did I buy that something bad could actually happen to anyone (compare this with the feeling at the end of Serenity, where I was convinced every single character was doomed).

3) The script - Too much exposition. In the prior films, there was generally one big expository scene, usually near the beginning, that set up the MacGuffin, and then the story flowed from there. This time, they stop and explain, in unnesesary detail, what is going on, and how, several times. Just not very efficient storytelling.

4) Characters use - Ray Winstone's character did essentially nothing, and was pretty pointless. And Indy himself, while great to see, was more or less a passive character. He almost never took action himself, and was mainly just swept up in the actions of others. And, he had literally no bearing on the end of the film. He could have gone home after the ant scene, and the plot would have essentially played out the same.

5) The fake look of it all. Even that which was shot live-action looked fake after all the digital processing. That might be how some movies do it these days, but it's hardly a requirement. And after all Spielberg's talk about not going overboard with the CGI, was a dissapointing easthetic choice.

Those were my main problems.

And for those who say that anyone critisizing the movie isn't into the spirit, isn't a dreamer, or whatever - I find that not only insulting, but disengenuous. Just because something has fantastical elements, does not mean that just ANYTHING can happen, without thought to reason or internal logic. For those who would call those of us who critisize such things haters or "jaded" or whatnot - I'd respond by asking if you just eat up anything handed to you, as long as it has the right name in the title.

Like comparing the energy from the Ark to the fridge bit. Yes, it's a fantastical story, but one of the first rules of writing - even for a fantasy - is to remain true to the rules of the given world. The "power of God" lashing out from a supernatural religious artifact, is not the same as a human being - who has been shown to be human with all the physical limitations that implies - surviving something that no human could survive (setting aside the idea that that one fridge - and nothing else at ALL survived the blast) is not the same thing.

And one final thing - while it may have been the third highest grossing movie of the year - it's still the least successful movie of the series, in terms of ticket sales (adjusted gross).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Well Storymark I hope you don't think I'm insulting you. That's not my intention. Not at all. We're all entitled to our opinion of course. I'm happy to concede that there are hugely preposterous notions in Indy 4, and of course that's not going to sit well with people. Fair enough. Can't force people to like things. However same can be said when Raiders came out, it too had for it's time as equally preposterous ideas, but that exaggeration is what made it so fun. In Indy 4 the exagerration is there and then some, because frankly it needed to notch up a gear, but for some reason people aren't as comfortable with it in this film. I'm at a loss why.

I must disagree with you about fantasty adhering to a rule. That's how it came to be in the first place. It conflicts with the rules. And it's those rules being broken that make a fantasy so enjoyable. In Toy Story we know toys don't move and talk, but that absurdity is what make it so charming. If you were sat with some person who leant over and they said to you: " This movie is dumb, toys don't speak!" ....You'd be incredulous!

I would agree with you had I been watching Apocalypse Now and then suddenly Kurtz starts doing a musical number in the middle of the scene, because that would be out of context. Apocalypse Now is established in reality and therefore needs to hold to true to that.

Indy surviving a nuclear blast isn't out of context because it's already in the land of the absurd. Some people don't believe there was ever such a thing as an Ark in the first place so right off the bat you've lost those folks. Unless they relent their grip on reality and let themselves go with the adventure. Now of course that doesn't mean that you take whatever is dished out to you, (and I don't by the way); but sitting down having something nutritious to eat is of a greater importance than going to see a fantasy film in the cinema. But from some of the acerbic criticism dished out Indy's way you'd think people believe it the other way around.

Anyway. Meant no harm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 7:55 AM

I liked the movie.. I enjoyed the others... I guess it's because I like the willing suspension of disbelief and honestly it's just for fun.. why get so caught up in finding flaw and dissecting angles that you miss the fun...

and as for the uninvolved in the action.. he was no more uninvolved than Sean Connery was mainly because they're both too damn old to be the action and flash action hero... now they're more about the thought and the adventure

____________________________________________

Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage."
Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.”-Dave Barry

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 8:39 AM

WASHNWEAR

I think - and this has pretty much already been said - that everybody has a different threshold for fantasticity, whimsy, etc. I find (not surprisingly) that as I grow older, my willing suspension of disbelief requires a lot more sucking-up to.

The thing about "Indy & Shia Go to Skull Castle" that I allowed to pretty much set the tone for the rest of the movie - before the prairie-dogs -as-Ewok-stand-ins, before the big Indestructible Fridge Ride - was the liberties taken with the principle of magnetism. I could've lived (I think) with chasing clouds of gun powder around the warehouse. What got me was the way some metallic objects - guns, bullets, etc. - seemed to be more (or less) affected by the magnetic dingus from one cut to the next. It was kinda like Steve and George were saying, "Hey - this franchise is so big we can get away with thumbing our noses at things like magnetism." By the time we got to the fridge and the Ewo - er, prairie dogs, I was damn near already a goner.

It was like my childlike sense of guileless wonder moved and left no forwarding address when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

I must disagree with you about fantasty adhering to a rule. That's how it came to be in the first place. It conflicts with the rules. And it's those rules being broken that make a fantasy so enjoyable. In Toy Story we know toys don't move and talk, but that absurdity is what make it so charming. If you were sat with some person who leant over and they said to you: " This movie is dumb, toys don't speak!" ....You'd be incredulous!

You are missing my point. I didn't say fantasy has to adhere to "rules" in a general sense that apply across the board. But they do need to adhere to the rules of the world they themselves present. Toys talking in Toy Story isn't a problem, bvecause that's what the movie is about. But if they, in Toy Story 3, have a talking dog, after establishing that dogs act just like dogs in the first 2, then they'd be breaking their own rules.

In Back to the Future, we accept the time travel, but would question the suddenly introduction of aliens or vampires. We accept River having super-human skills in Firefly, but we'd balk if suddenly they introduced magic.

By the same token, Raiders was about a quest for a supernatural object, which turned out to have supernatural properties. But Indy was a man - nothing supernatural about him. And for that matter, the world around him played by hightened, but still fairly realistic rules. The MacGuffins all had supernatural properties, but the supernatural was limited to those objects. t was still a more or less normal world around those objects.

That is where I thought KOTCS failed. Indy surviving an absurd sitation in such a way is completely different from there being an Arc of the Covenant - totally different criteria. There was no longer a sense that the story was set in something that could be considered even a hightened version of the real world.

You can have things be as fantastical as you wish, but you need to stay within the bounds established by that fantasy. When you just start thowing things in willy-nilly, you loose any sense of internal logic.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 8:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
I think - and this has pretty much already been said - that everybody has a different threshold for fantasticity, whimsy, etc. I find (not surprisingly) that as I grow older, my willing suspension of disbelief requires a lot more sucking-up to.

The thing about "Indy & Shia Go to Skull Castle" that I allowed to pretty much set the tone for the rest of the movie - before the prairie-dogs -as-Ewok-stand-ins, before the big Indestructible Fridge Ride - was the liberties taken with the principle of magnetism. I could've lived (I think) with chasing clouds of gun powder around the warehouse. What got me was the way some metallic objects - guns, bullets, etc. - seemed to be more (or less) affected by the magnetic dingus from one cut to the next. It was kinda like Steve and George were saying, "Hey - this franchise is so big we can get away with thumbing our noses at things like magnetism." By the time we got to the fridge and the Ewo - er, prairie dogs, I was damn near already a goner.

It was like my childlike sense of guileless wonder moved and left no forwarding address when we got here!

The magnetism stuff bothered me after a while, as well. I liked the gunpowder scene and stuff, but the completely random nature of the magnetism - working when it suited the plot, basically - struck me as lazy writing. Especially later on, when somehow burlap would shut down the magnetism.

Which goes back, again, to my point about being true to the logic established by the movie. Setting aside it not adhering to the internal logic of the prior films, it couldn't even stay consistant within the one film itself.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 8:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MSB:

and as for the uninvolved in the action.. he was no more uninvolved than Sean Connery was mainly because they're both too damn old to be the action and flash action hero... now they're more about the thought and the adventure

Sorry, but that's simply not true. Connery wasn't an active character because that's not who his character was. He wasn't the type to stick his neck out, he was a scholar, not an adventurer. That is not the case with Indy, even at that age.

Plus, Ford actually did more stuntwork in this one than the previous films, which can be seen in the special features. It had nothing to do with his age. It comes down to the writing.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 9:16 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Let me go out on a limb to say that the only Star Wars I enjoyed was the original and the only Indy was the original.

But, I will probably get the new Indy from Netflix and give it a go

JustSayinIsall

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 9:46 AM

Storymark - you say it's breaking the rules of it's own fantasy but really it isn't. What Indy 4 has done is merely tie in the 50's paranoia of visitors from another world with that of the religious myth of the ancient Mayan's, who believed on the evidence of their folklore, in visitors from the heavens. Now this can be translated in many ways of course, but Lucas and Spielberg decided, given the era (50's) that Indy was in at that stage to link the two lores with the alien route. Just as they linked, the Nazi's with ancient occult/religion.

It took the preoccupation of both it's current timelines: Nazi's in the case of Raiders, and Aliens in the case of the Crystal Skull, and blended them with a relevant ancient history.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything particularly but just stating why it worked for me I guess.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Storymark - you say it's breaking the rules of it's own fantasy but really it isn't. What Indy 4 has done is merely tie in the 50's paranoia of visitors from another world with that of the religious myth of the ancient Mayan's, who believed on the evidence of their folklore, in visitors from the heavens. Now this can be translated in many ways of course, but Lucas and Spielberg decided, given the era (50's) that Indy was in at that stage to link the two lores with the alien route. Just as they linked, the Nazi's with ancient occult/religion.

It took the preoccupation of both it's current timelines: Nazi's in the case of Raiders, and Aliens in the case of the Crystal Skull, and blended them with a relevant ancient history.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything particularly but just stating why it worked for me I guess.

Uh, did you even read what I wrote? I said I had no problem with the alien angle. That is not in any way even related to my problems with the film.

I agree with you, that the alien stuff worked as a parallel to the Nazi's and religious artifacts.

Unfortunetly, none of what you wrote applies to anything I actually said....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 10:26 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, here's the deal - y'all got good points, every one of ya, but it seems to me that folks are missing the context.

Indy is pulp, flat out cheese recycled from golden age pulpmags of "high adventure" and is thus a B-movie with pretentions of grandeur to begin with.

That ain't to say it's bad, like I am fond of saying about other franchises, sure it's cheese, but yanno, it's some damn good cheese!

I got dragged to see this one - the only thing I wanna see of Lucas, by choice, is a public execution of the fan-screwing punk, but I digress...

So I got dragged to it, wasn't expecting to like it, wincing at the mere thought of Lucas's grimy hands ruining another franchise... and yet, I did feel that I got my moneys worth (for once) so I don't have any complaints.

I think you folk are expecting a bit much from the series given it's origin and context.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 10:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I think you folk are expecting a bit much from the series given it's origin and context.

-F

I tire of that rationelle, myself. Yes, it's inspired by pulp, but that doesn't mean it has to be dumb. There is good cheese, and bad. I still think Indy 4 is closer to good than bad, but that doesn't mean that flaws cannot be discussed.

I mean, Firefly is just a space western, right? What's the difference between it, and that Starhunter series with Michael Pare?

The answer: A Lot.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:
Uh, did you even read what I wrote? I said I had no problem with the alien angle. That is not in any way even related to my problems with the film.

I agree with you, that the alien stuff worked as a parallel to the Nazi's and religious artifacts.

Unfortunetly, none of what you wrote applies to anything I actually said....

Well I read it - but clearly read the wrong thing into it. So be it. My bad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 11:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

It took the preoccupation of both it's current timelines: Nazi's in the case of Raiders, and Aliens in the case of the Crystal Skull, and blended them with a relevant ancient history.

Yes, yes, well put Som.

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 11:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I still think Indy 4 is closer to good than bad, but that doesn't mean that flaws cannot be discussed.

Obviously you are not part of the Lost City Of Jaded Fans, just a critical observer, then.

At least the CGI groundhogs didn't laugh or burp, eh?

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 11:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

2) No sense of danger. In all the other movies, there was always a feeling of real danger toward the characters.

I see where you get this, Story, and even agree to a degree...the staged thing you mention seemed to me a result of over-planning, like they had to make the live action match the animated storyboards too slavishly. On-the-spot creativity suffered some, IMO. But again, this is the way of big-budget flicks in general today. "They don't make 'em like they used to" is true mostly, Joss not included there...

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 11:47 AM

Hey I liked the groundhogs... they're cute:)

____________________________________________

Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage."
Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.”-Dave Barry

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 11:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I see where you get this, Story, and even agree to a degree...the staged thing you mention seemed to me a result of over-planning, like they had to make the live action match the animated storyboards too slavishly. On-the-spot creativity suffered some, IMO. But again, this is the way of big-budget flicks in general today. "They don't make 'em like they used to" is true mostly, Joss not included there...

I think you've got a good point, there.

Which is odd, in this case. Spielberg, when he made the original Indy movies, was the king of pre-planning. He knew what he was going to shoot long before getting there. He used storyboards out the wazoo. So, he's shown himself capable of producing something organic, even with that degree of planning.

However, he pretty much abandoned that style when he did Saving Private Ryan, opting to choose his shots much more on-the-fly, and continued to work in that manner, since.

With this Indy, it seems he went back to that old style, but couldn't quite get the feel for it that he used to have.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 11:49 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

groundhog lover

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Spielberg, when he made the original Indy movies, was the king of pre-planning. He knew what he was going to shoot long before getting there.

I'm thinking that sword fight from Raiders- which turned into a gunshot pretty quick on the fly, and provided us with the series best funny moment.
They used to be able to deviate from the plan...

Overthinking Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 5:33 PM

REGINAROADIE

I'm with you on this one, chris.

In my write-up for the summer, I listed it as "The One People Had A Problem With, But I Liked". I'd rehash why I felt it was as worthy as the first three, but you pretty much nailed it on the head. And your off-key moment was the only moment I had as well that made me cringe. Did it ruin my appreciation of the film? No. Is it better than RAIDERS or LAST CRUSADE? No. Is it better than TEMPLE OF DOOM (which both fans and filmmakers agree that it was a very dark misstep that even an amazing third act couldn't absolve)? Arguably yes.

I just think that when it comes to Lucas, I think nothing short of him being burnt at the stake or crucified will quench the bloodlust from the STAR WARS fans, which I do not count myself as anymore because of them.

I always saw STAR WARS as more of a generational thing. I think I only saw the original trilogy a handful of times when I was really young, so I don't remember the tiny details that so many older fans obsess about. Like Han shooting first instead of Greedo. I always saw this as a non-issue, and yet everyone was willing to cry foul over this. I saw the revised trilogy when I was 12, so to me Greedo always shot first. And the prequels were no better or worse than the original trilogy.

But when all you hear about something you like is that it's an abomination that shits all over a holy text and that one man has personally raped numerous generations of their childhood, you tend to resent and feel left out from the people who will not shut up and who take it far too seriously, which in turn turns you off of the very thing you like. When every commentary track for an episode of SPACED devolves into Edgar Wright and the guest commentator frothing at the mouth over the prequels, the first few times it's funny, but after a while it gets disheartening, which makes Jessica Stevensons comments that it wasn't that bad a breath of fresh air.

George Lucas didn't rape my childhood. It's the legion of bitter, jaded and cynical fanboys and their overblown complaining that did it for me.

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 5:43 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

"Let me just say that a hell of a lot of love and heart went into Frank Darabont’s rejected 'Indiana Jones and the City of Gods' script. There is NO question that his script would have been THE film Indy fans were waiting for. There is also NO question about its superiority of craftsmanship over Koepp’s or most likely any other draft." - Quote from http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2008/06/50-strengths-of-darabonts
-draft.html

The MysteryManOnFilm blog gives 50 reasons why "City of the Gods" is a better script than "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Too, too bad that George Lucas went with a different screenwriter. You can read the screenplay for "City of the Gods" to decide for yourself. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Purported_Indiana_Jones_4_original_screenpla
y_draft

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 20, 2008 9:49 PM

SINGATE

Reginaroadie,

You have completely nailed so many things I have been saying for years. I don't have a problem with people criticizing Lucas or anyone else. As far as I'm concerned everything should be able to stand critical analysis. God knows there are problems with the prequels and with this last Indy movie. My major gripe is that so many people nowadays are absolutely consumed with not only pointing out legimate faults, but also picking apart every last detail so that they cannot admit there is even a shred of quality to the film or TV show in question. I'm really at a loss to explain this phenomenon. Is it modern cynicism? Hatred? Perhaps the need to prove that the critic's taste is so evolved and enlightend that almost nothing is good enough for him/her?

_________________________________________________

We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by two:
"Let me just say that a hell of a lot of love and heart went into Frank Darabont’s rejected 'Indiana Jones and the City of Gods' script. There is NO question that his script would have been THE film Indy fans were waiting for.

Okay, REALLY good (great even) script, but Imma say it again for the cheap seats: I LIKED CRYSTAL SKULL!
I choose not to live in fantasy land where the movie I approve of gets made. CS is what we got- watch it or don't.

Jeeze! It's not OUR character!!!

Example: I don't care for Kirk having a son in Star Trek, so I don't watch those movies very often- I go with TMP & Undiscovered Country usually, the series more often than that...but I'm not gonna rip Trek movies apart for the direction that I PERSONALLY would not have taken (although I might go off a little on Khan's hair & the obvious lack of hairspray on Ceti-Alpha Six...heh heh).

Chillisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:04 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by singate:
My major gripe is that so many people nowadays are ... picking apart every last detail so that they cannot admit there is even a shred of quality to the film or TV show in question. I'm really at a loss to explain this phenomenon. Is it modern cynicism? Hatred? Perhaps the need to prove that the critic's taste is so evolved and enlightend that almost nothing is good enough for him/her?

Something is wrong with the world and people don't know who's bad decisions are to blame. People are angry at George Lucas and they don't really know precisely why. I know why. Lucas had a near perfect script rewritten to make room for actor Shia LaBeouf, pronounced hoo-tha-fuk-nose, the bastard son of Indy. People, not thinking clearly, attack Lucas with their little fists and beat him to a bloody pulp while "picking apart every last detail" - it is ugly and disgusting to watch the mob attack. Because Lucas doesn't read, he'll never feel the attack. When a real expert criticizes George Lucas, it is beautiful and delightful to read. http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2008/06/50-strengths-of-darabonts
-draft.html

It is not hatred or modern cynicism. People are striking out wildly and irrationally, futilely hoping to hurt the leaders who are to blame. Kind of like Mal and Zoe, but with a much lower rate of success.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:56 AM

Am I the only one concerned with just how seriously some folk are taking this Indy film?

I know this is a cliché but really if you guys think you can do better - really, DO BETTER. Otherwise it's all just hot air and nonsense....

I'm challenging any of you out there who think you know what to have done with Indy 4, to write a two page treatment for Indy 5. Just two pages or more if you like - your choice.... Let me see who can do it? Lets see what you geniuses can come up with?

I'll be totally honest with you - if I think it's great I'll say so. Hand to my heart. No bull. I'll gladly eat humble pie...

...Because I'm all manner of perplexed with people so bizarely angry at Lucas and what he chose to do with HIS own creation... It's just plain weird.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:59 AM

Oooo, excellent challenge Som!!!

Who's up to the task?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:25 AM

ZEEK

page 1 "call"
page 2 "joss"

What do I win?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
page 1 "call"
page 2 "joss"

What do I win?

Brilliant!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:51 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
I'm challenging any of you out there who think you know what to have done with Indy 4, to write a two page treatment for Indy 5...Lets see what you geniuses can come up with?

...Because I'm all manner of perplexed with people so bizarely angry at Lucas and what he chose to do with HIS own creation... It's just plain weird

Will the real George Lucas please submit a two page treatment for Indy 5? Everyone can enter the contest. The prize is having your treatment made into Indy 5. TheSomnambulist will judge the winner. Lucas is allowed to hire anyone (even Joss Whedon) to write his entry. Please remember, no one but Lucas can win. It is the primary rule. Adjust your expectations accordingly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:58 AM

Originally posted by two:

Quote:
Will the real George Lucas please submit a two page treatment for Indy 5? Everyone can enter the contest. The prize is having your treatment made into Indy 5. TheSomnambulist will judge the winner. Lucas is allowed to hire anyone to write his entry. Please remember, no one but Lucas can win. It is the primary rule. Adjust your expectations accordingly.

given up already?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 5:13 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

I've got a Indy 5 treatment where actor Shia LaBeouf, the bastard son of Indy, is raped by Reavers, skinned alive, then eaten. I can't submit it until I figure out how to get a PG-13 rating for an inherently NC-17 concept.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 5:18 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Better concept for the next Indy movie: Shia LaBeouf, Indy's bastard, is captured and raped by Reavers, causing him to become one. Indy rescues him, uses bull whip to re-normalize Shia. When that fails, Indy puts a bullet between his son's eyes. Very sad moment for Indy. There is an Oscar in that for George Lucas and no more Shia LaBeouf in Indy 6. Do I win a prize? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000184/awards

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 5:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Spielberg, when he made the original Indy movies, was the king of pre-planning. He knew what he was going to shoot long before getting there.
I'm thinking that sword fight from Raiders- which turned into a gunshot pretty quick on the fly, and provided us with the series best funny moment.
They used to be able to deviate from the plan...

Overthinking Chrisisall

But even that wasn't a deviation for creative reasons. Ford suggested it, because he was too sick to pull off the fight as planned.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
Am I the only one concerned with just how seriously some folk are taking this Indy film?

I know this is a cliché but really if you guys think you can do better - really, DO BETTER. Otherwise it's all just hot air and nonsense....

Sorry, but that's horseshit. Are you going to say you've never critisized a film, ever? Or a song, TV show, book, anything? And if so - I guess that means you've made a film, written a song, and so forth?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:12 AM

hmmm cool idea write our own script... though Zeek has the right idea and then some:)

I loved that improve scene in the first Indy where he shoots the sword fighter.. see an actor working when he's sick can really work out for you:)

____________________________________________

Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage."
Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.”-Dave Barry

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:32 AM

Storymark wrote"

Quote:
Sorry, but that's horseshit. Are you going to say you've never critisized a film, ever? Or a song, TV show, book, anything? And if so - I guess that means you've made a film, written a song, and so forth?

Of course I've critisized films, books, tv and music... I have no problem with people doing that. Hell I've critisized this film too, there are a number of things I don't like about it either. But when all the dust has settled it's just a film and getting all worked up about it seems so senseless.

and for the record I haven't directed a film, but I have directed a music video, written/produced three albums, had illustrations published in books and am currently pitching a TV pilot with the BBC. I'm sure I'll get turned down because it's such a hard thing to get right - and honestly I'm no writer, but I'm trying. (Not that that excuses me from anything particularly but you did ask.)

I guess I just don't understand why people seem to get so angry at a film.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 7:19 AM

I'm not really angry about the film, per se. But I have gotten very tired of having to defend my own critical thoughts. I like the movie, but every time I point out one of (what I feel) many flaws (all of which were unnessesary, and easy to avoid), I get assailed with all this "It's just a movie" or "You don't get it" or "But it's just blah blah blah".

Well, I am a filmmaker, so I take movies seriously. Even pulpy ones, especially when they are a continuation of a series that got it right in the past.

And even just as a film fan, I still consider it an art form, and thus worthy of discussion and critique.

And really, I don't think anything is above thoughtfull critique. Some films are so bad as to not warrant the effort, but that's not the case here. Just because something is mean to be fun, doesn't mean it needs to be dumb - which is territory I felt this film dipped into at several points.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 7:22 AM

Sigh I just realized if they pick up your pilot those of us across the pond are stuck waiting for it to hit BBCA... I really wish there was some way to get actual BBC feed via sattelite( ok tried several spellings and none looks right)... sigh
Fingers crossed for you Somnambulist:)

____________________________________________

Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage."
Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.”-Dave Barry

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 7:34 AM

Originally posted by MSB:

Quote:
Sigh I just realized if they pick up your pilot those of us across the pond are stuck waiting for it to hit BBCA... I really wish there was some way to get actual BBC feed via sattelite( ok tried several spellings and none looks right)... sigh
Fingers crossed for you Somnambulist:)

Wow. Thanks MSB. That's most kind of you. :D

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 7:54 AM

HUGS of course sweety... I mean I'd ask you to record it for me, but what with the region 1 to 2 change..or wait 2 to 1 change... anyway I am sure you wrote a great pilot:)

____________________________________________

Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength; loving someone deeply gives you courage."
Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.”-Dave Barry

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 8:31 AM