When I said above he's about 500 characters, that's more the performance of Ford - he's never playing the same character from scene to scene, because there IS NO CHARACTER.
I really don't agree with this, Indy may change slightly from movie to movie but 'scene to scene'? And 'there IS NO CHARACTER'? I'd say Indy is a better defined character than those in 99% of action movies...plus Lucas has described Indy IV as a 'character piece' so they'd better invent a character for Indy sharpish...
Originally Posted by Matinee Idyll
You're right, he ain't Forrest Gump. Very observant.
Originally Posted by Matinee Idyll
I learnt more about 20th Century History and people from YIJC than from my History Classes at school. I found it wonderfully engaging, and a real stepping stone for me into the past. Holy **** - was I Lucas' intended audience? And I enjoyed the program? Hell. What a complete failure the show was.
In defence of YIJC, it was intended to be 'edutainment'. Now, whether you regard that as a good or bad concept is irrelevant. I learnt a ****load from it, more so than watching anything bar documentaries on television. It got me interested in history, learning about the world around me. In that regard, it was absolutely successful - personally, I don't give a **** if he differs from what YOU thought Indy SHOULD be... I don't mean that as offence
None taken, and I'm glad you enjoyed it, the few that i saw, however, I did not. Maybe if they'd tried the series without Indy, i.e. adressed the same historical-educational topics from the perspective of an unrelated character, it would have been a different story, but I just feel it tarnished one of cinemas most beloved characters (with or without him actually being or having a 'character'!)
Indy is a better defined character than those in 99% of action movies
Of course he is, but I hardly think the 'characters' played by Sly and Van Damme are really why you'd watch one of their films in the first place. It's about the action.
...and in the 'action' field, the three Indy films can't be beat... by anything.
Young Indy really highlighted the 'adventure' aspect of Indy - which is really why I watched Indy in the first place, not the action element.
If you're still willing to be swayed mate; try and track down "Curse of the Jackal", "London, 1916", "Austria, 1917" and "The Somme, 1916" - more than worthy of the Indy of the films. Either the romantic (London), or the 'action' parts you seem to like so much.
"Austria, 1917" in particular I can see you digging - totally worthy of the films, got this dark, wartime espionage trip going on, great fun.
These are glorious television, some of the best I've ever seen.
I'm sure some episodes are really entertaining, for me, though, they're not worthy of being part of the Indy 'legacy'.
I'll possibly catch them on DVD and give them another shot whenever they're released - one of my friends is a BIG YIJC fan so I'll borrow them from her. They may serve as an (albeit watered down) Indy fix while I wait for part four...
She's a bit of a computer-phobe- been trying to get her to join the Raven for ages.
I can't remember the exact episodes, it was when they were first shown on BBC1 in the UK, about 1993 - I was really excited about seeing the Indy TV series - I remember the one with Ford (obviously) and I got an episode free when i bought the Indy trilogy on VHS - the Phantom Train of Doom??, I wasn't really impressed
"I wasn't really impressed"
Download the rest from bit-torrent or eMule... you'll be even less impressed
"it's below you"
Fat lot you know... and who's "Clint"?
I just got off the plane in Kauai and went to check The Raven one last time before I head back out on the trail. I laughed outloud when I read that you,Clinton,were trying to pass off putting the e before the i in "Spielberg" as sarcasm,thats not having a clue about grammar. Your use of "Spewberg" would be sarcasm. Its too much hypocrisy for one forum for you to go on correcting other Raven members grammar,especially because you continue to use terrible grammar like in your last post in Open Discussion when you misspelled "Liable".......Im not going to correct you anymore and you shouldnt correct anybody else's grammar,your karma just ran over your dogma. MatineeIndy you said that Indy was never just one character and he was 2-dimensional,then right after that you say his character became a cynical badass,to me thats character and sometimes the strongest in an action flick. Ford developed the Indy character with continuaty and growth throughout the three films,he was not a different character everytime,he had gone through changes like every human. I think River wanted to contribute to this well defined action character,you could see the willingness in his performance.
Quite right, they do detract the more you know them - but Indiana Jones has very little 'to him' as a character to begin with. He's not supposed to, he's B-movie pulp. LC offered alittle depth in his relationship with his father, but really, what you see is what you get. When I said above he's about 500 characters, that's more the performance of Ford - he's never playing the same character from scene to scene, because there IS NO CHARACTER. There wasn't supposed to be. Young Indy is just another facet of this, another one of Indy Jones' characters - a gateway to history in this case. And it worked perfectly.
I can actually agree with this.. some what. He does have more character than most action movies, but he is still just an action character..
Also I just want to say "Curse of the Jackel" was really cool!
Ford developed the Indy character with continuaty and growth throughout the three films,he was not a different character everytime,he had gone through changes like every human.
So the reason he's little more than a 'cynical badass' in Raiders of the Lost Ark, a 'dark, mysterious adventurer' in ToD and a 'bumbling oaf' in Last Crusade isn't because Lucas and Spielberg wanted the Indy films to take a turn into comedy? - it's actually because Harrison had some really deep, intense character arch going on?
Harrison is at the mercy of the scriptwriters - so too was Sean Patrick Flannery. Some of the Young Indys were dramas, some comedys, some great, some awful... like the films really. I liked that about them - Indy was never the 'same', he was an experiment.
Sorry I spelled your name wrong in the last post there. I totally have to hold my ground on this one. I believe Harrison was "born" for the Indy role and that he is continuing to fulfill his karmic role by doing Indy 4. See Indy to me is something so powerful and evident in my every day life that I understand the concept that if I were to be in my fathers presence,who is a true adventurer himself,that I may get nervous and act as a "bumbling oaf" also,yet at the same time strive in front of my father to save the world. Indy was presented with different situations and so he acted differently. Both George and Spielberg have been quoted saying that it was Harrison's charisma that made it work,and I full heartedly agree with both of them.
I wish you the best adventures day to day,life is short and brilliant we need to get out there and have are own adventures,we are actually just writing our own great screenplay by living it,good to have you aboard pirate!! Indy is the force!!! Roll on.