A High Five for Indy V!

RedeemedChild

New member
Pale Horse said:
This discussion demonstrates why noir is always touted by venerated members (past and present) of this forum.

Tough gritty soul wrenching performances always come from characters who experience loss. Marion was a fireball in Raiders, because (as she was presented by the screenwriter) she lost her dad, and Indy too...that's how we found in the Raven Bar. Lost and empty. That made her real.

Mutt had no loss in his life either. The story arc shown he had an absent (step) father in Collin (Williams) and a loopy mother. He's an adult adolescent at best, mimicking James Dean 'just to be bad'....

Surely he's privileged, but no real loss.

Indy V needs to be filled with loss. Lots of it. Like Rocket says, real consequence, real emotion, real pain. Only then will we find our hero redeemed and will we get the redemption we're looking for.

It's the only way back into the garden, so to speak. (For when you eat of the tree, you will surly die...) That is why I high five this plan.

That's a nice way of looking at it Pale Horse.

I for one, would like Indiana Jones 5 to be have a Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn feel to it or for maybe have a story plot similar to that of Star Trek III: The Search For Spock, in which something precious to Mutt is lost and must be regained.

For example:

Indy 5 could open up in a very mythological setting behind the stone cold walls of a Gothic/Medieval castle in which a cloaked figure is vowing to overtake the world and plunge it into eternal darkness and escape her imprisonment.

Back in the modern world Mutt is riding about on his motorcycle when he notices a broken bridge up ahead and then stops on the brink of the washed out and broken stucture and dismounts from his bike. There on the ground beside him is a bag with a note attached to it informing the reader that inside is a box that contains vast evils and must not be opened for it imprisons the power of darkness.

Howbeit our young and brash Mutt thinks that it's all a hoax and opens this box and unleashes great chaos and the rise of the evil. Marion has been captured by the Dark Guardians and Mutt with Indiana Jones as his mentor must grow up and rescue her in less than 48 hours and return the dangerous artifact AKA "Pandora's Box" to the abyss which is none other than Bermuda's Triangle.
 

James

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:
Tough gritty soul wrenching performances always come from characters who experience loss.

Of course, Indy loses more in the first act of KOTCS than he has in any previous film: His friends, his country, his reputation, his livelihood, his family, etc. Whereas Marion sought to get back to the US in ROTLA, Indy willingly decides to abandon it.
 

RedeemedChild

New member
James said:
Of course, Indy loses more in the first act of KOTCS than he has in any previous film: His friends, his country, his reputation, his livelihood, his family, etc. Whereas Marion sought to get back to the US in ROTLA, Indy willingly decides to abandon it.

While Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a good film as far as just watching a movie for pure entertainment is concerned it had no where moral benefit. The movie had a poorly written script and in a way it seemed as if the whole movie was just trown together without any real thought or analytical thinking or even logic for that matter.

When one watches a movie they should come away feeling good about what they've just watched. A person should be able to say "I really enjoyed that movie and not only was I entertained but I was educated and inspired to think deeply about social, political, historical and everyday life matters."

At lest that is my opinion and that is why I enjoy Star Trek because that is exactly what it causes me and others that I know to say after watching a Star Trek program or movie and the same goes for National Treasure, Jurassic Park, David Copperfield and movies like The Day After Tomorrow or The Day the Earth Stood Still. The first three Indiana Jones movies also did that for me and it was because of Indiana Jones that I became a serious viewer of the History Channel and National Geographic Channel. It was also due to Indiana Jones that I took a renewed interest in the Biblical stories in the Bible such as Noah's Ark and the Staff of Moses along with the Garden of Eden and respected Biblical/Historical sites such as Jerusalem and the Dead Sea.

As far Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is concerned while the movie was indeed enjoyable it did not do much for the human mind as far giving the viewer something meaningful to go away with. On the other hand I've head some people say it was a death blow to the Indiana Jones franchise.

Furthermore for parents who wanted to introduce their children to Indiana Jones it was a real back stab because of the unnecessary over the top use of profanity. I applaud J.J. Abrams Star Trek because it was a better attempt at reviving and introducing a well loved franchise to the a new generation. The movie has no where near as much profanity as KOTCS did and it was stimulated the viewers mind.

Hopefully Indiana Jones 5 will be much better.
 

Robyn

New member
RedeemedChild said:
Furthermore for parents who wanted to introduce their children to Indiana Jones it was a real back stab because of the unnecessary over the top use of profanity. The movie has no where near as much profanity as KOTCS did and it was stimulated the viewers mind.

Hopefully Indiana Jones 5 will be much better.

kotcs had too much profanity?? There was wayy more profanity in Raiders.. It didn't bother me, I thought most of the time when profanity was used in Raiders it was in a funny way
 

James

Well-known member
RedeemedChild said:
When one watches a movie they should come away feeling good about what they've just watched. A person should be able to say "I really enjoyed that movie and not only was I entertained but I was educated and inspired to think deeply about social, political, historical and everyday life matters."

Well, this is really a discussion for another thread. My point was that, regardless of how much loss is featured in the plot, it's still going to be unfolding in an Indiana Jones movie. And like it or not, they're simply not that deep.

Fans have been lamenting the camp and pulp factors for over 25 years and three sequels. At what point is it okay to acknowledge, "You know, that actually is a major part of the formula."?

Prior to KOTCS, the Indy sequels were almost treated like stylistic experiments by many fans. They expected Indy 4 to be a more direct successor to ROTLA as opposed to more of the same. It's easy to understand how this happened, since the franchise had been dormant for so long.

However, KOTCS clearly established that the controversial aspects of TOD and LC were no fluke. For better or worse, this is how Lucas and Spielberg view the character (and universe) of Indiana Jones.

But again, this is veering off on a tangent better suited to a more general Indy 5 thread. I'm just surprised that so many still expect Indy 5 to deviate from established canon.
 
I completely agree with what you're saying, James. And I certainly do not EXPECT them to veer from what they've been doing.

But I will say that if they did turn things in a different direction, while striking a balance between too dark and heavy and too light and campy, then in my opinion they could make something very special with Indy V.
 

Deadlock

New member
RedeemedChild said:
Honestly I don't like Jar Jar Binks, however Marion is on a whole different platform. Marion Ravenwood is one of my favorite Indiana Jones Franchise characters and I like her.

Good grief. :rolleyes:

I hate to get didactic, but you've left me no choice...

Burn this into your brains: Good storytelling is not, not, NOT about showing likeable characters in agreeable situations. CONFLICT (and its emotional effect on the audience) is the heart of drama.

(It's okay if you can't get your mind around that... Neither could the Indy IV development team. Somewhere along the way, somebody swapped in the word "SPECTACLE" where I had "conflict", and thus...)

So, whether or not Pale Horse, or I, or anyone else LIKES Marion, should NOT matter in considering if killing her off is a good story idea. Actually, let me correct myself... because the point of a film or screenplay is to get an emotional response, it is often beneficial (and I would argue NECESSARY) to kill a likeable character because they are likeable and because of the effect that that has on the story (and thereby the audience). Yes, kids, even in mainstream movies. What would the Fugitive, Old Yeller, Braveheart, or Gladiator be without the death of one or more palatable characters? (Which is not to say that killing a good guy is the ONLY way to create conflict, or that doing so can't be silly, ineffective, manipulative, trite, or otherwise botched hideously.)

Pale Horse said:
Indy V needs to be filled with loss. Lots of it. Like Rocket says, real consequence, real emotion, real pain. Only then will we find our hero redeemed and will we get the redemption we're looking for.

All the ooshy-skooshy Marion wuv in this thread only reinforces the dramatic potential of offing her. I wouldn't do it out of spite, but as a splash of cold water in the face of an audience made complacent by low-conflict, consequence-free movies (cough *Crystal Skull* cough).

That said, despair not fuzzy-wuzzy types... it is my belief that Master Pale Horse remains a Quixotic figure, and that all the painful possibilities of real drama will be kept a safe distance from any future chapters in the Indy saga. The Neighborhood of Make-Believe is safe. The ultimate victory is yours.
 

James

Well-known member
robisindy said:
But I will say that if they did turn things in a different direction, while striking a balance between too dark and heavy and too light and campy, then in my opinion they could make something very special with Indy V.

I'm in agreement with that, and actually do expect them to try a different approach next time out. I just have a feeling it won't deviate too far from the established formula. They may tone down the lighter moments, but it will likely be very similar to the previous "Indiana Jones and the" movies. The fact that Spielberg believed KOTCS was constructed "just like" the previous entries suggests as much.

Lucas and Spielberg simply come to the table with a completely different agenda than the average fan. The latter is generally more concerned with incorporating what he learned in film school than what Doc Savage encountered 70 years ago. I'm not suggesting either approach is less valid, just that there's a rather obvious- and fundamental- difference at work.
 

Crack that whip

New member
Deadlock said:
Good grief. :rolleyes:

I hate to get didactic, but you've left me no choice...

Burn this into your brains: Good storytelling is not, not, NOT about showing likeable characters in agreeable situations. CONFLICT (and its emotional effect on the audience) is the heart of drama.

(It's okay if you can't get your mind around that... Neither could the Indy IV development team. Somewhere along the way, somebody swapped in the word "SPECTACLE" where I had "conflict", and thus...)

So, whether or not Pale Horse, or I, or anyone else LIKES Marion, should NOT matter in considering if killing her off is a good story idea. Actually, let me correct myself... because the point of a film or screenplay is to get an emotional response, it is often beneficial (and I would argue NECESSARY) to kill a likeable character because they are likeable and because of the effect that that has on the story (and thereby the audience). Yes, kids, even in mainstream movies. What would the Fugitive, Old Yeller, Braveheart, or Gladiator be without the death of one or more palatable characters? (Which is not to say that killing a good guy is the ONLY way to create conflict, or that doing so can't be silly, ineffective, manipulative, trite, or otherwise botched hideously.)



All the ooshy-skooshy Marion wuv in this thread only reinforces the dramatic potential of offing her. I wouldn't do it out of spite, but as a splash of cold water in the face of an audience made complacent by low-conflict, consequence-free movies (cough *Crystal Skull* cough).

That said, despair not fuzzy-wuzzy types... it is my belief that Master Pale Horse remains a Quixotic figure, and that all the painful possibilities of real drama will be kept a safe distance from any future chapters in the Indy saga. The Neighborhood of Make-Believe is safe. The ultimate victory is yours.


All that's fine and good, but none of that appeared to be the stated purpose of killing her off in the OP. The OP posited it would be like killing off Jar Jar Binks, the single most despised character in the entire Lucasfilm universe. This assumes that a) Marion actually is widely regarded with anything like the contempt felt in many, many corners for Jar Jar, and b) that killing off a character (ostensibly a "good" character in the narrative, yet one for which it's understood by the filmmakers the audience wants to see offed simply because they find her annoying) will yield dramatic weight like of the sort you ably describe. I don't think either of these assumptions is well-supported.

I also get the feeling at least some of the desires occasionally expressed here (not necessarily by you or the original poster, but generally) to see Marion exit the picture in Indiana Jones and the Fifth Movie are motivated not by a sincere desire for dramatic weight, but rather to avoid seeing their hero "tied down" to just one love interest for the remainder of the series. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think some viewers feel a bit put out at the idea their hero won't continue to make new conquests indefinitely, and that the string of fresh new twentysomething flavors of the month has come to an end (yeah, I know Kate Capshaw was 30 by the time her installment was released, but still).

I'm more than willing to see bad things happen to good people in the name of good drama; as I've said before, I think The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles is quite possibly the finest Indy production since Raiders of the Lost Ark, and there's more darkness and loss there than in the movies. I just think that if Marion were to be killed off, it should have serious weight and not be blown off, or done for the wrong reasons in the first place. I have my doubts as to whether that would happen, and also whether at least some fans (again, not necessarily the ones in this thread) might wish for it because they honestly want a movie with more dramatic weight.
 

Robyn

New member
Deadlock said:
Good grief. :rolleyes:

I hate to get didactic, but you've left me no choice...

Burn this into your brains: Good storytelling is not, not, NOT about showing likeable characters in agreeable situations. CONFLICT (and its emotional effect on the audience) is the heart of drama.

(It's okay if you can't get your mind around that... Neither could the Indy IV development team. Somewhere along the way, somebody swapped in the word "SPECTACLE" where I had "conflict", and thus...)

So, whether or not Pale Horse, or I, or anyone else LIKES Marion, should NOT matter in considering if killing her off is a good story idea. Actually, let me correct myself... because the point of a film or screenplay is to get an emotional response, it is often beneficial (and I would argue NECESSARY) to kill a likeable character because they are likeable and because of the effect that that has on the story (and thereby the audience). Yes, kids, even in mainstream movies. What would the Fugitive, Old Yeller, Braveheart, or Gladiator be without the death of one or more palatable characters? (Which is not to say that killing a good guy is the ONLY way to create conflict, or that doing so can't be silly, ineffective, manipulative, trite, or otherwise botched hideously.)



All the ooshy-skooshy Marion wuv in this thread only reinforces the dramatic potential of offing her. I wouldn't do it out of spite, but as a splash of cold water in the face of an audience made complacent by low-conflict, consequence-free movies (cough *Crystal Skull* cough).

That said, despair not fuzzy-wuzzy types... it is my belief that Master Pale Horse remains a Quixotic figure, and that all the painful possibilities of real drama will be kept a safe distance from any future chapters in the Indy saga. The Neighborhood of Make-Believe is safe. The ultimate victory is yours.

Hey! Raiders was AWESOME without the death of Indy or Marion and it wasn't fuzzy wuzzy! Unless it's like Rocket said where they kill a loved character only to bring them back.. I just disagree.. I think you guys are making Indy wayy too dark, I want some drama-action too but it can't be too dark! Indy is suppose to still keep a certain amount of lightheartedness to keep it fun.. and even though Mutt isn't one of my favorite I still would never kill him off! You guys need to stop being such downers! I mean I sure don't feel like being depressed after I'm done watching an Indy movie!

And "tied down"??? Marion didn't tie Indy down in Raiders! That's why she's his perfect partner
 
Last edited:

Deadlock

New member
Crack that whip said:
I just think that if Marion were to be killed off, it should have serious weight and not be blown off, or done for the wrong reasons in the first place. I have my doubts as to whether that would happen, and also whether at least some fans (again, not necessarily the ones in this thread) might wish for it because they honestly want a movie with more dramatic weight.

I agree.

Ultimately, not only is a dark Indy 5 unlikely, but it's also probably wrong even if the Powers That Be were amenable to the idea. A heavy Indy 5 would likely be an over-correction that would leave a bad taste after the preceeding meringue of Crystal Skull. The bar has been set, and with the financial rewards garnered by the last flick, there's no reason to raise it.
 

Robyn

New member
Alright that's it... I've had it.. this thread has just gotten too dark and depression.. I'm gonna have to add some love in here.


15194445.jpg
image77w.jpg
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Pale Horse said:
How anyone can say that Marion in KOTCS is a compelling and story advancing character with depth and interest is beyond me.
Without Marion, as Indy says, "shooting me won't get you anywhere." For whom is he saving the world anyway? Better make her barefoot and pregnant to raise the stakes higher. And what guarantee does the audience have you'll let him keep any meager reward at the end of 5?
Pale Horse said:
CGI of Eden and Sword powers
That's why you never stash a magical Macguffin in your pants...
000084ba
 

Robyn

New member
Moedred said:
Without Marion, as Indy says, "shooting me won't get you anywhere." For whom is he saving the world anyway? Better make her barefoot and pregnant to raise the stakes higher. And what guarantee does the audience have you'll let him keep any meager reward at the end of 5?


Ah.. Finally someone's talking sense!;)

Allow me to quote the KOTCS novel

*He heard a shout from around the corner behind him. It was Marion.
Indy pushed backward against the pull, one hard step at a time. It was as if the air around him had become warm molasses, flowing toward the abysmal hole. He fought against it with all his will, driven not so much by pure survival as by something more important. For the First time in his life he had a reason to live(Marion!)*
 

Hanselation

New member
R. I .P Indy

Ladys and Gentleman,

you expect another Indiana Jones Movie with Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones?
Come on, - be honest:
Nothing new at ComicCon,
Shia just blew just hot air with his "they have cracked the story" because of publicity for Transformers 2,
Producer Frank Marshall knows nothing about it,
Lucasfilm earns much more money with the to me meanwhile boring Star Wars-Franchise

Indy 5? For me this ship has sailed! :(

8da2_12.JPG
 
Top