Thoughts or feedback?

HJTHX1138

New member
You make a good point.

They've all been individual adventures, seems like KOTCS tried to break that by giving "Raiders" an arc, so to speak, other than that I totally agree though.
 

calakutha

New member
HJTHX1138 said:
You make a good point.

They've all been individual adventures, seems like KOTCS tried to break that by giving "Raiders" an arc, so to speak, other than that I totally agree though.

Thanks for the reply (y)

I think Spielberg and Lucas perhaps worried KOTCS wouldn't be embraced, so they tossed in a lot of throwbacks to Raiders and the other films (Indy's desk was full of photos of past characters) and made it a reunion movie, of sorts.
 
Irregardless or just Regardless...?

Which is why they've been sold as "The Adventures of Indiana Jones."

In an article regarding semantics there's no mention of the use of "Quadrillogy", "Tetrology", or the most awkward and fan devisive label to come off the pen of the maker:

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.

A good first pass.

Though the very nature of words and language are evolutionary to the extent that slang becomes a part of the lexicon.

With this in mind, its by repitition that this basterdizing of the english language remains a sad state of affairs.

That The Oxford English Dictionary added Jedi and Klingon in 2002 really lessens the impact of the improper use of Trilogy.


An all around four "star"(n)
Not for the article mind you

calakutha said:
I think Spielberg and Lucas perhaps worried KOTCS wouldn't be embraced, so they tossed in a lot of throwbacks to Raiders and the other films (Indy's desk was full of photos of past characters) and made it a reunion movie, of sorts.
Plenty to read about on that topic around here...
 

calakutha

New member
Good points, Rocket Surgeon. It is the very bastardization of language via pop culture lexicon that I was attempting to shine a spotlight on. But, it is much easier to let a giant snowball continue to roll downhill than it is to push it back up.

In an article regarding semantics there's no mention of the use of "Quadrillogy", "Tetrology", or the most awkward and fan devisive label to come off the pen of the maker:

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.

That made me laugh. ;)
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
Montana Smith said:
Original Trilogy + unplanned KOTCS tacked on at a late stage.

Eh? Didn't the original 'plan' (or contract) involve five films?

Besides, I never got the impression that the Beards were thinking that far ahead when they did each film; they just focussed on one film at a time.
 

calakutha

New member
Toht's Arm said:
Eh? Didn't the original 'plan' (or contract) involve five films?

Besides, I never got the impression that the Beards were thinking that far ahead when they did each film; they just focussed on one film at a time.

I've never heard that. But, I don't doubt that Lucas wrote some outline that was somewhere around 4000 pages and that Spielberg said, "George, let's just go ahead and do the first 200 pages, then do the rest at a later date. Of course, of course, George, they'll all get made. How about 5 films? Is 5 a good number for you?"
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Toht's Arm said:
Besides, I never got the impression that the Beards were thinking that far ahead when they did each film; they just focussed on one film at a time.

They knocked out three movies within a decade, at the end of which Indy rode off into the sunset and Spielberg considered that was the end of the matter...
 

calakutha

New member
Montana Smith said:
They knocked out three movies within a decade, at the end of which Indy rode off into the sunset and Spielberg considered that was the end of the matter...

It wasn't a sunset. It was actually the crystal skulls glowing ominously decades in the future. Weird...
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
Calakutha, the contract with Paramount was initially for five films.

And Montana Smith, yes, they intended LC to be the final film. I'm just saying that they didn't 'plan' a trilogy to begin with. Maybe it's all semantics, but that was my point. :)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Toht's Arm said:
Calakutha, the contract with Paramount was initially for five films.

And Montana Smith, yes, they intended LC to be the final film. I'm just saying that they didn't 'plan' a trilogy to begin with. Maybe it's all semantics, but that was my point. :)

Yes, referring to the 'original trilogy' is something you do in retrospect after the third, and seemingly last one, came out. For almost two decades, as far as I was concenred, it was a trilogy.

The Ark appearing in TLC was like a bookend linking back to ROTLA. So, I suppose it was natural that it would have to reappear in KOTCS when it became the new bookend.
 

Darth Vile

New member
I never really thought of the original 3 movies being a trilogy, in the character/story arc sense we think of a trilogy. Obviously there were 3 movies, but they were also quite standalone and seperate stories... whereas something like the original Star Wars movies felt like one single story (albeit 'A New Hope' was standalone).

I'm sure at the time (pre TLC) Lucas, Ford and Spielberg probably thought that as long as the charcter remained popular, there was no real reason to end it after the 3rd movie. By the 3rd they (the filmakers) probably just felt that they were ready for something different rather than them thinking the character of Indy had reached his natural end.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
replican't said:
of course they're a trilogy - there's three of them and they all have Indiana Jones in them.

And even if you go by the 'Trope' definition, it's still one man's story, spanning the years 1912-1938, told in part through flashback. The appearance of the Ark in TLC is a defining moment which links the last to the first.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
The appearance of the Ark in TLC is a defining moment which links the last to the first.

I'd say we get that first in TLC with the Venice catacomb wall painting of the Ark. ;)
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
So, what we've got here is a trilogy of films... consisting of Raiders, LC and KotCS.

ToD is a separate part, a prequel. Which makes about dozen kinds of sense, actually, considering it's the only film in the series that contains no references to other pieces in the continuity and apart from the hero, doesn't share any character appearances with the rest.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
So, what we've got here is a trilogy of films... consisting of Raiders, LC and KotCS.

ToD is a separate part, a prequel. Which makes about dozen kinds of sense, actually, considering it's the only film in the series that contains no references to other pieces in the continuity and apart from the hero, doesn't share any character appearances with the rest.

Then there would be no 'original' in original trilogy. Which also makes about a dozen kinds of sense, as KOTCS is a replay of the themes in TLC.

TOD is just out of sequence. Just as TLC jumps back to 1912 before continuing chronologically.

But looking at it as ROTLA, TLC and KOTCS + TOD is a novel approach.
 
Top