But the genesis for both scenes (Bttf and Kotcs) is the movie "The Atomic Kid" (1954) with Mickey Rooney:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWGsryWhxIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWGsryWhxIA
Nuked Fridges
- Thread starter kongisking
- Start date
Montana Smith
Active member
Wilhelm said:
I understand that from the earlier posts, Wilhelm. I was making some searches to see if I could find Blake Edwards' script for The Atomic Kid, but couldn't find it.
The Rooney film gives the premise for the 1981 BTTF, which then seems to be the direct inspiration for KOTCS.
Bob Gale says in the special Empire magazine about Bttf that the idea of the Doomtown comes from the first draft of Back to the Future.
BOB GALE: "We were fascinated by all the nuclear tests. They would build these fake little town in the desert and blow them up. If you remember the opening of Indiana Jones IV, where do you think that idea came from? It came from Back to the Future"
It will be interesting to know if that idea comes from Spielberg for the SaucerMen script or from George Lucas "inspired" by Spielberg telling him about the refridgerator from Bttf and his memories watching "The Atomic Kid" in the 50s. And what thinks Zemeckis about "stealing" him the fridge idea, maybe Spielberg asked him for permission for using the concept or he forgot where that came from 20 years after.
But I don't think that Zemeckis liked Indy 4:
ZEMECKIS: "There's no Bttf IV and there shouldn't be a Bttf IV. I don't think there should ever be a fourth sequel to anything. Three is a dramatic number. It's a three act structure. Four is even. Four is boring."
EMPIRE MAGAZINE APRIL 2010.
BOB GALE: "We were fascinated by all the nuclear tests. They would build these fake little town in the desert and blow them up. If you remember the opening of Indiana Jones IV, where do you think that idea came from? It came from Back to the Future"
It will be interesting to know if that idea comes from Spielberg for the SaucerMen script or from George Lucas "inspired" by Spielberg telling him about the refridgerator from Bttf and his memories watching "The Atomic Kid" in the 50s. And what thinks Zemeckis about "stealing" him the fridge idea, maybe Spielberg asked him for permission for using the concept or he forgot where that came from 20 years after.
But I don't think that Zemeckis liked Indy 4:
ZEMECKIS: "There's no Bttf IV and there shouldn't be a Bttf IV. I don't think there should ever be a fourth sequel to anything. Three is a dramatic number. It's a three act structure. Four is even. Four is boring."
EMPIRE MAGAZINE APRIL 2010.
Indy's brother
New member
I have to say, and maybe it's nothing, but at 1:21 in that video when Rooney says "At least they've got a phone" while walking into a room full of mannequins, it was eerily similar to Indy's "Have you got a phone" or whatever it was he said in KOTCS's doomtown house.
Exulted Unicron
New member
Wilhelm said:
The thing is, what can they do for BTTF IV? They can';t bring back Fox and I doubt that Thomas Wilson, Lea Thompson, Chris Lloyd and the rest of the cast are interestd in returning right now. Since last i recall, Lloyd has pretty much retired
You're right. And Star Wars and Back to the Future are trilogies with a common narrative (To be concluded in Part 2 etc), but Indiana Jones are individual stories, like James Bond.
I'm sure that Zemeckis didn't like Indy 4, but in recent years his movies are boring with his motion capture obsession. I prefer the Spielberg form the 2000s (Minority Report, Munich, Catch me if you can, War of the worlds) with a variety of styles and stories.
I'm sure that Zemeckis didn't like Indy 4, but in recent years his movies are boring with his motion capture obsession. I prefer the Spielberg form the 2000s (Minority Report, Munich, Catch me if you can, War of the worlds) with a variety of styles and stories.
Wilhelm said:
Great stuff.
This is why the endless attempts to rationalize KOTCS are so pointless: It's a movie that pays tribute to an implausible genre. Not a genre that was concerned with gritty realism or that relied heavily on innovative stuntwork. Instead, one that placed a higher value on surreal fantasy, imagination, and visual effects.
And it does so with a character that became immortal in his previous adventure. (No doubt someone just read that sentence, missed the point entirely, and is now eager to point out that he was only briefly immortal.)
I'm sorry, but if you take a character like Indiana Jones and drop him into a fantastic world from the 1950s, you shouldn't be surprised when logic sails out the window in a fridge.
Ajax the Great
New member
James said:
I agree with you. But I think that the criticisms are less directed at the implausibility of the 50s genre, and more aimed at the choice to pay homage to it instead of using the 30s style again. I think that Lucas and co. thought that we all looked at the OT as an homage to Republic Serials so that we would expect CS to be an homage to the 50s B-movies. But I don't think that audiences had that expectation. The style of the OT was not identified by the public as a serial style, since that style had been laid to rest for 50 years. They simply identified it as the Indy style. That became their expectation.
mattzilla2010
New member
@ James: Bravo, sir. Bravo. I was thinking along those exact same lines but you worded it perfectly.
@ Ajax: Great point that hadn't occured to me before but makes perfect sense.
@ Ajax: Great point that hadn't occured to me before but makes perfect sense.
Ajax the Great said:
It's perfectly understandable, since we are talking about two very different genres. Ironically, if you look at the most common complaints about KOTCS, those are the very qualities that make it so much like a B movie from the era.
However, while I agree that it's probably the fundamental problem many fans had, I'm not sure they actually realize that distinction. It's not uncommon to see someone say they accept the B movie premise, then go on to suggest the various ways they think it should've been changed to a serial.
But as you said, it all boils down to fan expectations and what they consider the true goal of this franchise. Is it to forever adapt a 1930s style using 1980s technology? A love letter to pulp in all its various forms? Or is it simply to provide old-fashioned entertainment repackaged for the entire family? Obviously, everyone's mileage will vary, and we all know that's the only one that really counts.
Montana Smith
Active member
James said:It's perfectly understandable, since we are talking about two very different genres. Ironically, if you look at the most common complaints about KOTCS, those are the very qualities that make it so much like a B movie from the era.
However, while I agree that it's probably the fundamental problem many fans had, I'm not sure they actually realize that distinction. It's not uncommon to see someone say they accept the B movie premise, then go on to suggest the various ways they think it should've been changed to a serial.
But as you said, it all boils down to fan expectations and what they consider the true goal of this franchise. Is it to forever adapt a 1930s style using 1980s technology? A love letter to pulp in all its various forms? Or is it simply to provide old-fashioned entertainment repackaged for the entire family? Obviously, everyone's mileage will vary, and we all know that's the only one that really counts.
Movie goers are a lot more critical today than they were in the 1930s. Expectations are so much higher. If you watch a 1930s pulp serial, such as those churned out by Republic, they're laughably bad. So appallingly bad that you watch them just to see how bad they can get.
Terrible acting. Terrible direction. Terrible scripts. Men in nappies and shower caps running from carboard robots. All that Indiana Jones retains of the pulp serial nostalgia is the period and the impossible cliffhangers. This is pulp repackaged for a more discerning audience.
Contained within the scope of the 'impossible cliffhanger' are the scenes which make no sense if we were to set them in the real world. In the 1930s Flash Gordon there are men dressed as escapees from the early nineteenth century, alongside pantomime Robin Hoods armed with swords, flying in rocket ships. It makes no sense, but to a depression era 1930s audience it was wild escapism.
With an Indiana Jones film we have to accept that that there will be also be wild and inexplicable scenes, otherwise it wouldn't be pulp. With KOTCS the escapism has broadened to encompass the wide-eyed optimism of the 1950s that was coming to terms with the wonders of that double-edged sword known as atomic power. It was only natural that Indy would encounter this atomic power up close, and to survive it in a far-out fashion becoming of the B-movie genre that inspired the film.
Indy's brother
New member
James said:
No other installment of this series has strived so hard to project a particular era as KOTCS did. Part of the reason that the OT films are so timeless is that the approach to their time is more casual, much less self conscious; I also understand the self-conscious thing with KOTCS, it had been 19 years, but we're all over the hump now. We need a 5th film now that everyone's in for it. I understand why SS and GL felt the need to re-establish the character, and try to reinvent the feel because of the "new" place in time for Indy. It was simply unnecessary, but as creators instead of viewers/fans, they couldn't see it.
It doesn't explain everything, but it's the best I've got.
Montana Smith
Active member
Indy's brother said:
I agree with you that there was a very conscious effort to keep telling the audience that we're in the 1950s. I think that comes down to a combination of Lucas' obsession with the '50s, and the idea that the audience needed to be told that Indy is no longer in the 1930s (as if we needed to be told over and over again!)
Right from the start we have the music and the hot rod, which is like Lucas' homage to his own American Grafitti. Mutt dressed as Brando complete with the cap just looked like a camp parody, and is probably the image that ruined him as a character from me. From the moment I saw him I wanted him out of the film.
Looking in hindsight now, I think that Lucas was shoe-horning his personal obsession into an Indy movie. Like killing two birds with one stone: giving the world another Indy outing, whilst also indulging his own love of the 1950s.
We may have Spielberg to thank for keeping KOTCS as on track as it was. If Spielberg hadn't been keeping Lucas on a short leash, we would have seen the full-blown Indiana Jones versus the Saucer Men, in full B-Movie mode.
Indy's brother
New member
Montana Smith said:
Yeah, "George, we all get it, you like the 50's, and you like space stuff". Luckily, I think (hope) that he can't cram much more of that stuff in another IJ film. Whether or not he's got it out of his system, these elements can't be milked for much more mileage than he's already gotten into this franchise. Thankfully. Now we as fans, and the trio as creators can all get down to business and get things rolling again. All we are waiting on is GL to have his list of "must haves" and hire a writer. Somebody tell him that the clock is ticking for f***'s sake!
Montana Smith
Active member
Indy's brother said:
The clock is definitely ticking, and the saving factor of KOTCS was that, from my personal viewpoint, the character of Indy himself (as portrayed by Harrison) was still very much intact. His character is preserved and consistent with the original trilogy, whilst the body itself may be less well preserved, so there's still the opportunity to see another legitimate chapter in the chronology of Indy's life.
However, by the time Indiana Jones V does emerge, Indy will no doubt be in the 1960s, so I hope George won't start to get obsessional abnout telling the audience they're in another decade now. It could so easily go down the Austin Powers route (which was good for comedy, but not so good for Indy).
Montana Smith
Active member
indyrcks said:
It would really depend on the quality of the story itself. With KOTCS George was being self-indulgent with his love of the '50s, whereas the original three films were quite naturally set in the 1930s. Indy V will no doubt be 1960+, and George will be in danger of describing the 1960s to us. To avoid that I'd like to see Indy taken out of civilization, and its all-too obvious cultural references, and put him into the wilderness where the period will be less evident. He also has to ditch his annoying son, and leave Marion at home.
Darth Vile
New member
Montana Smith said:
I agree, the actual time setting should simply be a back drop to the adventures rather than a focal point of the movie. Everything other than the intro/college scene of KOTCS could have been set in the 40's.
I actually think Lucas struck a good balance in the last film of showing how Indy's world had changed in the post WWII era 1950's and also how it had affected him. It was important to establish that new world that Indy now lives in. Once they leave America, it's Indy back in his element again. The first 3 films had the rise of Hitler and Nazism and the pre-communist world of Shanghai on display. Those movies say a lot about the 30's and the social and political climate of that time just as Crystal Skull does about its time period.
I get that we all want to just focus on Indy running around with his fedora and bullwhip taking on the bad guys but in order that adventure to work, it has to adhere to the circumstances of the time period our hero is in. I'm not saying we should have Indy going to Woodstock and getting high or something like that but the 60's were a turbulent time and a time of change for everyone including globe trotting archaeologists. Heck the whole field of archaeology experienced a big shift during the 60's. These are things we just can't ignore because we want cut to the chase.
I get that we all want to just focus on Indy running around with his fedora and bullwhip taking on the bad guys but in order that adventure to work, it has to adhere to the circumstances of the time period our hero is in. I'm not saying we should have Indy going to Woodstock and getting high or something like that but the 60's were a turbulent time and a time of change for everyone including globe trotting archaeologists. Heck the whole field of archaeology experienced a big shift during the 60's. These are things we just can't ignore because we want cut to the chase.
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
Montana Smith said:
Great idea, remote outposts that time forgot. Something more familiar to him/technology HE's familiar with. It would be interesting to see him rely on the time honored tested and true in a back and forth of some kind with the new.