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
Wilhelm said: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
Wilhelm said: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.
Wilhelm said: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
James said: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.
Ajax the Great said: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.
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.
James said:This is why the endless attempts to rationalize KOTCS are so pointless: It's a movie that pays tribute to an implausible genre.
Indy's brother 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 said: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.
Indy's brother 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!
indyrcks said:So you think Indy in the 1960s would be a bad idea
Montana Smith 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.
Montana Smith said: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.