Darth Vile said:
Yes - I don’t believe the violence in KOTCS is that far removed from the originals, and as you state… it’s not as if TOD was ‘Hostel’ right? That’s not to say that I don’t consider the violence in KOTCS to be toned down somewhat. What's irreconcilable about that? Not everything has to be so cut & dried.
No, not everything, but if the violence in Indy4 was noticeably "toned down" in both your and my view compared to the original trilogy, how then can we disagree so vehemently on the "far removed" part? What it tells me is that we obviously disagree on how much Indy4 is toned down. To me, being noticeably toned down from the trilogy sets Indy4 apart in significant way, simply by virtue of the fact that it effectively excludes an element that every other installment in its franchise
includes. That
is irreconcilable with the idea that the
violence is not far removed from the original trilogy. If you think that the final movie itself is not far removed from the trilogy despite the violence disparity, then that's different, but talking specifically about violence you seem to be occupying two sides of an argument, when you can only be on one.
Darth Vile said:
As far as the “brave and laudable decision” statement is concerned. One can make a bold choice without it necessarily being the right choice. The fact that you get a “kick” out of that assertion makes me wonder if you ever had exposure to such choices/decisions…
Wow, you never miss an opportunity to be condescending, I'll give you that.
I'll ask you this: Is an Indiana Jones movie really the right place to be making statements about gun control? Keep that stuff where it belongs - outside of my escapism. I'd argue that if you're not willing to make an Indiana Jones movie that has the fundamental elements of all the other Indiana Jones movies...then you're simply not willing to make an Indiana Jones movie.
I'd also love to know what, to you, makes Spielberg's decision to minimize the deaths by bullets "laudable," especially considering the place he's electing to make this statement.
Darth Vile said:
I refer to the tolerance levels within movie. Quite evidently, the fact that we see soldiers burning to death/being eaten by ant’s means that Lucas/Spielberg had determined a prerequisite tolerance level for graphic violence. The notion that there is less death count on screen, underlines what the tolerance level was probably set at.
I agree.
Darth Vile said:
It’s clever, I suppose, because it managed to convince you that it’s “graphic” without there being any real substance to it i.e. it’s an illusion.
News flash: All of cinema is an illusion. The fact that we aren't given the unnecessarily gory details of Pat Roach's various fates does not somehow make the violence "implied" instead of graphic.
Darth Vile said:
Seeing Belloq’s head explode, I’d argue is graphic… as is Donovan withering away with age, as is someone burring to death on screen (even if only fleeting). Think of the difference between Janet Leigh’s demise (Psycho) and Kevin Bacons demise (Friday the 13th). If we can’t distinguish between the two, then I’m not sure how we can progress this point.
Holy jumping Mother of God in a sidecar with chocolate jimmies and a lobster bib, talk about addressing an argument that never existed until you made it up. Does the fact that the graphic violence in an Indiana Jones movie is portrayed differently than would be the case in an R-rated slasher movie (which otherwise has identical sensibilities, right?) somehow change the fact that it's graphic violence? To you it would, I guess, but those of us on Earth don't see it that way. Showing a guy descending into a rock crusher and showing large amounts of blood splatter against a swastika is very much "graphic violence," as it is in fact shown on-screen.
It's the same reason I'd argue that Psycho's shower scene is graphic violence too (and people surely saw it as such back then) - it is the onscreen depiction of a woman being stabbed to death. The fact that the knife never seems to connect with Janet Leigh (or her nude double) upon closer inspection isn't relevant. That Hitchcock's clever direction, editing, and use of sound effects causes us to think we've seen more than we did doesn't somehow make the violence "implied." It's like me saying that the actors playing the Russians weren't really set on fire, or that Ronald Lacey wasn't actually melted in front of a camera. If the notion that these deaths are "illusions" is a revelation or breakthrough, I'm afraid you're the only one just experiencing it.
And the argument about the graphic violence in the Indy movies and Psycho being handled with more taste/tact/cleverness than Friday the 13th belongs to an argument of which I'm not a participant.
Darth Vile said:
An assumption is supposition (no matter how well educated it may be)… an opinion is a judgment. One can demonstrate that KOTCS is inferior/superior based upon what is there on screen. One cannot really demonstrate that KOTCS is inferior/superior based upon what is not there…
Sure you can, if what's not there is established by the three preceding movies to be indisposable elements of the Indiana Jones franchise.
Darth Vile said:
My perception is that you believe Spielberg/Lucas made bad judgments/artistic choices across the board… be it in the choice of lighting, the amount of gore/violence, screenplay, dialogue, action, visual effects etc. etc. Have I misread your posts???. Have I got you wrong all this time???
Which is, of course, exactly the same as implying that I condemn "every artistic choice of being a mistake." I think what you said speaks for itself.
Darth Vile said:
Hmmm - I thought my views were clear and established. I believe you over analyze to find fault, rather than to find explanations for artistic choices. Furthermore, I believe you sometimes over analyze and over critique to bait and create argument where it isn't required.
And let me just help you out by telling you that you're completely wrong, and that there's no shame in it.
Darth Vile said:
I’m quite happy to play the game, and I find most of the conversations interesting and the disagreements amusing… but please don’t pretend to have some higher moral ground.
Well, since you said "please," I'll stop. Oh wait, I never started, and it's just another characteristic of personal hostility you've attributed to me and cannot be talked out of, or even explain. Convenient.
Darth Vile said:
I’m not sure this was something we ever disagreed on i.e. the why??? I think what we were debating was the how… as in how significant is it to the scene? How could it's increased significance have improved the scene etc?
It would have improved the scene for the reason
the both of us have stated - it would have delivered on an idea that the scene implied would be by the very existence of the vehicle. If you don't want to do anything with the jungle cutter, don't have it. Problem solved.
Darth Vile said:
I think we are talking at cross purposes. I’m taking about a potential legitimate reason for reducing/cutting its significance in the movie. Again, I think we’re both in agreement that its inclusion suggests more than what time it’s actually given.
As am I. What I'm trying to tell you is that I can't think of a legitimate reason, yet you suggested you can, since you've brought up the notion more than once. I'm asking you to give me an example.
Darth Vile said:
I’m not sure what you are asking for here. Do you want me to list your observations that I believe to be irrelevant/unimportant? I’m not sure how productive that would be…
And why, pray tell, would they be unproductive to list? Wouldn't they presumably illustrate how supposedly pointless a substantial portion of my posts are, if not to me than to everyone else reading? And if it's unproductive, why even make the remark you did, which you knew at the very least would lead to the result you're reading right now?
Darth Vile said:
I’m giving an opinion and making an observation… That similar to the tank chase in TLC, the weaker elements within the jungle chase don’t necessarily undermine the actual set piece (when viewed in context). I’d sooner not have to see Mutt get his gonads bashed by jungle foliage (and I believe it to be a misjudged choice)… but similar to Marcus/Henry Jones Senior rumbling with Nazi’s; it doesn’t really impact my overall enjoyment.
And I maintain that this observation is pointless, as it fails to take into account the overall quality of the scene. Is the Marcus/Henry stuff as misguided as the ball-smacking? If everything around those moments in their respective set pieces equally entertaining? You would have to voice your opinion on that stuff as well for the argument to mean anything more than "I noticed this."