TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Indiana Jones Trilogy
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-14-2012, 01:52 PM   #1
calakutha
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 15
Thoughts or feedback?

An article about how calling the first three IJ films a trilogy is wrong. Not written as a hater, just saying that it is incorrect.

I'd love to hear your feedback

OT...Oh, Please

calakutha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 01:57 PM   #2
HJTHX1138
IndyFan
 
HJTHX1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 141
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.
HJTHX1138 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 02:02 PM   #3
calakutha
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by HJTHX1138
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

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.
calakutha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 02:09 PM   #4
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,888
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"
Not for the article mind you

Quote:
Originally Posted by calakutha
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...
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 02:45 PM   #5
calakutha
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 15
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.

Quote:
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.
calakutha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 09:47 PM   #6
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Montana Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,469
Original Trilogy + unplanned KOTCS tacked on at a late stage.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2012, 10:30 PM   #7
Toht's Arm
IndyFan
 
Toht's Arm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
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.
Toht's Arm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 12:40 AM   #8
calakutha
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toht's Arm
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?"
calakutha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 02:14 PM   #9
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Montana Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toht's Arm
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...
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 03:19 PM   #10
calakutha
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
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...
calakutha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 10:28 PM   #11
Toht's Arm
IndyFan
 
Toht's Arm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 135
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. :-)
Toht's Arm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 11:01 PM   #12
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Montana Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toht's Arm
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.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 04:36 AM   #13
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
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.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 04:39 AM   #14
replican't
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 737
of course they're a trilogy - there's three of them and they all have Indiana Jones in them.

Next thread please.
replican't is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 12:29 AM   #15
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Montana Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by replican't
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.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 03:14 AM   #16
Indy's brother
IndyFan
 
Indy's brother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In the Map Room playing with a laser pointer
Posts: 3,024
Rather than arguing semantics, how about we just sidestep the whole thing and agree that OT stands for Original Three. Better?
Indy's brother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 03:24 AM   #17
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Montana Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy's brother
Rather than arguing semantics, how about we just sidestep the whole thing and agree that OT stands for Original Three. Better?



Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 04:17 AM   #18
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
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.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 04:45 AM   #19
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,469
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.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 04:57 AM   #20
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Montana Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
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.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 09:19 AM   #21
Indy's brother
IndyFan
 
Indy's brother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In the Map Room playing with a laser pointer
Posts: 3,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
it's the only film in the series that contains no references to other pieces in the continuity

Cairo Swordsman notwithstanding...
Indy's brother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 09:23 AM   #22
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Montana Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy's brother
Cairo Swordsman notwithstanding...

Good point. Indy made amends for his mistake the year before.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 03:04 PM   #23
calakutha
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by replican't
of course they're a trilogy - there's three of them and they all have Indiana Jones in them.

Next thread please.

By your own logic, Indiana Jones is not a trilogy because it requires three and there are four films. That was my point.
calakutha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 03:47 PM   #24
Indy's brother
IndyFan
 
Indy's brother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In the Map Room playing with a laser pointer
Posts: 3,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by calakutha
By your own logic, Indiana Jones is not a trilogy because it requires three and there are four films. That was my point.

Originally, there were three. That's the logic of it, man.

How about OT=Original Trio. Better?
Indy's brother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 07:35 PM   #25
calakutha
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy's brother
Originally, there were three. That's the logic of it, man.

How about OT=Original Trio. Better?

Sold. Copyright that asap.
calakutha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13 PM.