The Offical KotCS Magazine

eroc

New member
no there is not. no 3rd act of another story. after i drop off my daughter, i'll post the quote by i think steven that tells how it begins unlike the other 3.
 

eroc

New member
Spielberg: "When our story begins,
we find Indiana Jones in a not customary place-that was George's idea. George said, 'This time, I'd like to introduce Harrison playing Indy in the trunk of a car.' I said, 'That's fine by me-I haven't seen that before! All the opening sequences [of the Indiana Jones movies] are sort of like the third act of another movie you didn't get to see."


Koepp:
"In this film, Marion is a focus of the search; Indy doesn't know it, but she is what he's been searching for over the last twenty years."
 
Last edited:
eroc said:
Spielberg: "When our story begins,
we find Indiana Jones in a not customary place-that was George's idea. George said, 'This time, I'd like to introduce Harrison playing Indy in the trunk of a car.' I said, 'That's fine by me-I haven't seen that before! All the opening sequences [of the Indiana Jones movies] are sort of like the third act of another movie you didn't get to see."


Well that's pretty damn disappointing. I knew the blame should be rightfully directed at Lucas. He has lost his mind.
 

eroc

New member
Agent Spalko said:
Well that's pretty damn disappointing. I knew the blame should be rightfully directed at Lucas. He has lost his mind.


Lucas:
"...Yes Chewbacca is a girl! However, Indiana Jones obviously isn't!
 

Perhilion

New member
When you think about it it is the 3rd act of an adventure, just a different type of adventure. Mac and Indy have already been pursued and kidnapped by the Russians, now we come in at the 3rd part.
 

eroc

New member
except for one thing...it's not a different adventure. it is connected to the main plot of the film. so it really makes it act 1 of the story.
 
But the prologues have been almost completely independent from the main plot of the films, almost like a "movie-within-a-movie." All we are doing here is coming into the story already in progress. All of the setup has been removed. There is no prologue.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Agent Spalko said:
But the prologues have been almost completely independent from the main plot of the films, almost like a "movie-within-a-movie." All we are doing here is coming into the story already in progress. All of the setup has been removed. There is no prologue.

Each time we've gotten something a little different.
In Raiders, the beginning was completely independant of the main plot. In Temple, it began at the end of another adventure and segued into the ''current'' adventure, and in LC, we got a prologue of a prologue and then the current adventure. This one is a bit different, breaking the forumula a bit.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Agent Spalko said:
Well that's pretty damn disappointing. I knew the blame should be rightfully directed at Lucas. He has lost his mind.

Spielberg and Ford went along with it, so I guess they've lost their minds too. Anything that's different is automatically bad, no matter how well it may be handled. Sequels, should, instead, be remakes of the originals.
 
A bit? Ha! It's completely deviating from the Indy template. Even in Raiders we meet Belloq in the prologue to establish his character later in the film, in Temple of Doom we are introduced to Shortie and Willie during the prologue and in Crusade we meet Indy's father in the prologue when he was a boy. The least they could have done was introduce Mac's character on some previous adventure with Indy and how and where they had known each other from.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Agent Spalko said:
A bit? Ha! It's completely deviating from the Indy template. Even in Raiders we meet Belloq in the prologue to establish his character later in the film, in Temple of Doom we are introduced to Shortie and Willie during the prologue and in Crusade we meet Indy's father in the prologue when he was a boy. The least they could have dome was introduce Mac's character on some previous adventure with Indy and how and where they had known each other from.

Why? We don't know where Indy met Belloq (well we do from the novels but that's a different story), or how Indy got involved with Lao Che. Mac and Indy meeting may be told of in a later part in the movie.

Also, this is in a way a third act of an adventure--We don't know how Indy ended up in the trunk of the car, or what led him to this point, or why he undertook the adventure he's currently in.

Just because it ''deviates'' from the template doesn't make it bad. It's called originality. Keep repeating the same formula, it gets stale. As you said in another post, you'd have loved to see Indy search for another Biblical artifact. That'd be the third time he's searched for a biblical artifact, and the 4th time that same intro style is used. That's stale, and that's what happend to Bond.
 

eroc

New member
Raiders112390 said:
Why? We don't know where Indy met Belloq (well we do from the novels but that's a different story), or how Indy got involved with Lao Che. Mac and Indy meeting may be told of in a later part in the movie.

Just because it ''deviates'' from the template doesn't make it bad. It's called originality. Keep repeating the same formula, it gets stale. As you said in another post, you'd have loved to see Indy search for another Biblical artifact. That'd be the third time he's searched for a biblical artifact, and the 4th time that same intro style is used. That's stale, and that's what happend to Bond.

Hey, I'm completely fine with the deviation, it helps 4 stand alone from the OT.
 
But it's not Indy. The point was it establishes the introduction of Indy's character in Raiders and his nemesis Belloq. We didn't need much exposition for Lao Che because it was a sub-story but it does introduce Willie and Shortie and in Crusade it sets up the father/son relationship central to the main story. I'm already disappointed. Menaced again.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
eroc said:
Hey, I'm completely fine with the deviation, it helps 4 stand alone from the OT.

I know, but it seems like a lot of people are thinking this film is a piece of sh*t without even seeing it, and it gets me angry when people are closed minded about a film or judge it before they see it with their own eyes.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Agent Spalko said:
But it's not Indy. The point was it establishes the introduction of Indy's character in Raiders and his nemesis Belloq. We didn't need much exposition for Lao Che because it was a sub-story but it does introduce Willie and Shortie and in Crusade it sets up the father/son relationship central to the main story. I'm already disappointed. Menaced again.

This would be setting up the main theme of the story as well: the Russians, Crystull skulls etc.

I'm getting the feeling this film will probably be like a second ToD, in terms of reaction. Some will love it (like me and others), others will hate it. But the Lucas haters might call it un-canon simply because Lucas was involved.
Why don't you just watch the film and see how it all works on the big screen? I forgot, you'll just read it on paper, dismiss how it sounds on paper, and not have an open mind about it.

I mean, you haven't seen the film and how it all gells out on the screen and you're already proclaiming menaced again and blah blah blah. Shows what an open mind you have.
 

eroc

New member
I think everything is going to be fine. Time has passed. Indy don't adventure like he used to. This adventure will be all you need!
 
Top