Sons of Darkness: 12 Years Later

agentsands77

New member
Rob Smith said:
I think what I'm getting at is this... it isn't impossible that Lucas paid tribute for the simple fact that my script, in the end, did catch his eye, and he's been trying to plant seeds against my script since day one... a year after my screenplay was posted (mid 97)
Impossible? No. Improbable? Yes.

Rob Smith said:
Lucas was telling foreign news that Indy would have a son, and later, that the skull was always the Mcguffin... yet Saucer Men From Mars has no sign of a skull... but... again... who knows.
Lucas has said that it always had the same MacGuffin, but he never specifically mentioned the skull. In THE COMPLETE MAKING OF INDIANA JONES, he refers to the aliens themselves as the MacGuffin, so I think that's maybe what he was referring to there. And he does claim he got the idea for using the crystal skull from the abandoned Young Indiana Jones episode (and that episode's development is documented).

But at any rate, just 'cause I'm kind of down on your belief that Lucas is either raiding or referencing your ideas, don't take it too harshly. SONS OF DARKNESS is, by far, the best Indiana Jones fan script I've ever read, and it's better than the few leaked unproduced scripts we have (excluding the Darabont and Nathanson drafts, which have apparently leaked, but not in a big way, so I haven't read either).
 
Last edited:

Rob Smith

New member
Interesting note...

In 95 when I sat down to write SOD, I wasn't aware of Saucer Men or Genesis Deluge (the novel), and just went with my gut and what felt right... reading over the script now, I see the trilogies influence... but there's enough for it to stand on its own. And if Lucas was going the route of Indy's son with Marion, then I think I handled the idea better in my script - how Indy was introduced to his son in the new film was almost an afterthought, and didn't work at all.

It's hard to believe Marion would've kept Indy's son a secret from him for 20 years...

I hope the Darabont script is leaked some day. I'd really like to read it. Spielberg called it the best draft since Raiders...

What the hell is Lucas thinking these days? His endless homage to the serial adventures he grew up with is tired and not very clever... we get it already. It's almost an excuse for bad work. And can someone please tell me why the new film is getting great reviews, because the hardcore reviewers are snubbing it.
 

agentsands77

New member
Rob Smith said:
It's hard to believe Marion would've kept Indy's son a secret from him for 20 years...
I can believe it.

Rob Smith said:
I hope the Darabont script is leaked some day. I'd really like to read it. Spielberg called it the best draft since Raiders...
There's controversy over it. Knowing what was in it, it was every bit as over-the-top as KINGDOM (even more so in some places), but was apparently better put-together.

Rob Smith said:
What the hell is Lucas thinking these days? His endless homage to the serial adventures he grew up with is tired and not very clever... we get it already.
Well, it is the core of the Indiana Jones franchise.

Rob Smith said:
And can someone please tell me why the new film is getting great reviews, because the hardcore reviewers are snubbing it.
Because generally, I think people are enjoying the movie. It's really the fans who are disappointed.
 

Rob Smith

New member
Oh well...

can't please everybody...

Overall, I think the shared ideas are better executed in my script... but... I'm sure everybody's got an opinion on this too. ;)
 

Peacock's-Eye

New member
What I like about the Koepp script is that it factors in Ford's performance - no amount of OPE* can improve on that, and IMO Ford pulled it off brilliantly, as did Shia. They made me believe - that's cinema.

*oral plot exposition.
 

Rob Smith

New member
Exposition...

There was far too much exposition in KOTCS in my opinion, and it was handled clumsily. Look at the brilliant way exposition was revealed in Raiders.

Look, I'm not here to crap on KOTCS - for that go check out Mystery Man On Film -- that guy's got more time on his hands than me -- he wrote the 50 Flaws of Indy 4... and as much as I hate to admit it... he's right on many points.
 

Peacock's-Eye

New member
It's easy to get tripped up when it comes to explaining the mythology behind a fantasy object - but when it counted, I thought the CS script was excellent - the character scenes especially.

Hey, you're the one who said "I think I did a better job." That's raising the issue, I think. One day you'll sell a script or complete a film and everyone will get to see how much better you can do it. Them's the rules of the game.
 

indytim

Member
agentsands77 said:
There's controversy over it. Knowing what was in it, it was every bit as over-the-top as KINGDOM (even more so in some places), but was apparently better put-together.

If the stories are to be believed that in Darabont's script the skull dramatically increases the size of snakes and ants, and then a gigantic snake swallows Indy only to have himself cut his way out through its belly then I'm glad it got tossed. That's far worse than getting nuked in a fridge!
 

Rob Smith

New member
Not to toot my own horn...

But talking about exposition... look how I handled it in SOD... it was revealed through dramatic scenes and was "discovered" along the way... and the biggest challenge I faced writing SOD was how to reveal the legend (or backstory) of the Unclean Son... then it hit me -- tell it as a ghost story to Abner (Indy's son) during the base camp scene...

Indytim - the nuke/fridge scene was simply insulting, period -- in fact, Indy survives so many body-mutilating scenes in the new film that one has to eventually say...okay, I guess he's superman now. At no point in the trilogy (other than Doom's drop from an airplane - which pushed it) did I question Indy's abilities or the reality of the scene...

Peacock - you tell no lies, sir. ;)
 

Peacock's-Eye

New member
The fridge doesn't bother me.

In LC Indy is garroted with a chain for like 5 minutes straight on top of a moving tank - he pops up without even a scar! He then gets his face rubbed against the pleated wheels of the tank!!! No scar! Nothing! He launches himself from a plane on an inflatable raft in TOD and cures himself of terminal poisoning in about 5 seconds flat thanks to a fictional "antidote". In Raiders he recovers from the truck chase in a single night - and hey, he even finds time to make love to Marion - and then he rides a submarine periscope for untold miles! How do you avoid divine wrath by closing your eyes?? Isn't that a little childish if considered critically? How can someone have their heart ripped out & still go on living? Why does fire free you from psychedelic hypnosis? How can the Hebrew religion, the Hindu religion, Voodoo & medieval Christianity all be literally true?

There is nothing realistic about this character.

In Young Indy he meets every famous person in existence between 1908 & 1920.

No incarnation of this character could possibly exist!

Hey, that's what I like about him.
 

Rob Smith

New member
Movie reality...

Peacock - the trilogy established a reality within reality (or movie reality) but I never questioned what was going on in that reality. I'm not comparing fictional events with life as you and I know it. What I'm saying is that the new movie violates its own reality and crosses over into cartoon land -- where Indy feels no pain, encounters no real danger (he survives a nuke for heaven's sake), and no real jeopardy is felt. At least in the trilogy there was tension, drama, action -- all driving the films forward. But the new film falls flat for me. But that's me.

If you found KOTCS as good or better than that's your prerogative. I'll stick with the trilogy. In fact, I think it's time for another viewing of Raiders... just to cleanse the palette. ;)
 

Peacock's-Eye

New member
Indy sure looks like he's in pain when Dovchenko's knocking him around in Area 51 or the jungle. And when he rolls out of the 'fridge. And a dozen other places. I just don't see how this one is different from the others. It seems like people are going out of their way to separate it out.
 

Peacock's-Eye

New member
Heh heh.
Sure you want to be screenwriter?
Just look at these boards - it's like being shark bait!
Maybe it's better to remain 'safely anonymous'...
 

Rob Smith

New member
Nuke in SOD...

compare the nuke scene in KOTCS with SOD - mine comes at the end (another little similarity). My nuke scene emphasizes the power and destructive force of an atomic weapon and becomes a REAL danger to Indy and the world. But the nuke scene in KOTCS was set up as a site-gag, or comic relief.

Sorry... but the new movie doesn't live up to its predecessors and Lucas and Spielberg - IMHO - forgot what excited them about the Indy character in the first place.
 

Peacock's-Eye

New member
I finished SOD. This is just my opinion, but...

1. Was the pagination correct? 177 pages? Dude, that's like a 4 hour movie! 90 pages is average for a feature film of about 1hr 45mins.

2. I'm sure you learned alot writing this & that you're more recent, original stuff is head & shoulders above this. It's impressive for its ambitious scope. But the characters seemed flat to me, and there was way too much dialogue.

3. The story takes far too long to wind up to the pitch.

IMO, KCS is a far more polished entertainment, very sure of its footing (even when it goes places some of the audience don't want to follow). SOD is an interesting experiment, and daring to try and break into screen writing with a spec script for an established series (pretty much a huge no-no). But I can't see Lucas coveting a 200 page fan script for 12 years and seeding a huge production with references to torment a single freelance writer!
 

Rob Smith

New member
Mate...

of course the new movie is polished entertainment... they spent 20 years developing it and another 185 mil to produce it... my script was a second draft written 12 years ago, and it certainly doesn't reflect my abilities today...

re: page count - the film would've been about 3 hours at that page count - a minute per page is approximate. With trimming... it would've sat at 2.5 hours... isn't that the running time of the new film.

Thanks for the great feedback though. :)
 

Rob Smith

New member
Clarification...

I'm NOT in anyway suggesting Lucas took my screenplay and produced it page by page... I'm simply putting forth the idea that he paid homage to my script because of our sordid history and because the new movie shares elements with my script... that's all. :)
 

Peacock's-Eye

New member
Um, "1 minute per page" just doesn't work in the real world - ever. Sometimes it's more, sometimes it's less. And you don't count for cuts in a screenplay - that's for the shooting script. 177 pages gets you a heap o' movie, like "Lawrence of Arabia"!

>>I'm simply putting forth the idea that he paid homage to my script because of our sordid history and because the new movie shares elements with my script.<<
That's what I said, dude. "Seeding references"...
 
Top