What has the world come to?
- Thread starter JP Jones
- Start date
Bjorn Heimdall
Active member
I just hope they won't have a particular need to top that scene.
Mickiana said:
There's a similar escape in Last Crusade - when Indy climbs up the cliff when he's presumed dead after the tank falls off. (It's also a very implausible and wholly unexplained escape.) The reason I think it works in Last Crusade is it's for the sake of a gag - the scene is depicted from the perspective of Marcus, Henry Sr., and Sallah. By comparison, the payoff to Indy climbing out of the fridge is...a staring contest with a CGI praire dog? (Though, admittedly, the mushroom cloud moment is great.)
The Drifter
New member
Udvarnoky said:
Did you know that there is a deleted scene showing Indy hanging on some vines after the tank went over and climbing up them?
Cole
New member
The plausbility is pretty much a whole other discussion in itself.
Of course it pushes the limits of plausibility. But is it within the realm of this pulp action-style genre? In my opinion, it is.
If it goes a little too far for you, fine...........I just don't think the whole sequence should be dismissed as a result, because it's so well crafted. And I think you have to acknowledge the "pulpy" origins of the series. These movies were never 100% grounded in realism.
Of course it pushes the limits of plausibility. But is it within the realm of this pulp action-style genre? In my opinion, it is.
If it goes a little too far for you, fine...........I just don't think the whole sequence should be dismissed as a result, because it's so well crafted. And I think you have to acknowledge the "pulpy" origins of the series. These movies were never 100% grounded in realism.
Darth Vile
New member
deckard24 said:Yeah, but aside from a few other scenes like: the TOD raft, waterfall, and mine car jump, the movies felt a bit more grounded in realism. Sure the action is extreme, and the stunts over-the-top (ie. the Raiders truck chase), but overall I never found myself rolling my eyes like I did in Skull. TOD is the closest to Skull in terms of ridiculous unbelievable moments, but they did after all prove on Mythbusters, that the raft jump from the plane was possible.Now the waterfall, that might be another story, but people have survived falls over Niagra in the past, so who knows? The mine car jump though takes the prize, second to the fridge.
I'm not saying I want Jason Bourne style action in Indy, but there was something more reality based to the action in Raiders and LC that added to the believability of the films. This all helped you buy into the supernatural elements of the film, despite their implausibility. If the action is over-the-top but verges on being possible, then I'll buy some of the more fantastical elements of the story. But, if the action is so outlandish that it sets the whole tone for the film as just a big cartoon, then I'm not gonna buy into anything else thrown at me.
I'd have to say that 99.9% of TOD is based on ridiculous and very implausible situations... from the jump out of the club Obi-Wan window straight into a waiting car, to surviving a bridge being cut in half (which we know would shatter every single bone in your body if you held on). But as other posters have said, I'm not even sure implausibility = inferior set piece. However, I would say that I do have a preference for the action in Raiders, which probably due to budget constraints, required simpler/more straight forward (but just as effective) set pieces.
On a side note... Mythbusters was discussed in another thread. I think the conclusion/consensus reached was that it demonstrated the TOD life raft scenario could not be survived, rather than it could (and that's not even taking into account the plunge over the cliff following the fall from the plane).
So ultimately, if one likes the premise behind the escapades in TOD, one should logically like those in KOTCS (unless it's an application thing - which is a different argument). I personally find it difficult to distinguish between the outlandish events of TOD/TLC and KOTCS... which of course doesn't mean one can't have a preference over the other (because they all contain great set pieces of varying degrees).
Last edited:
Lonsome_Drifter said:
Interesting. Either way though, the design of the scene is the same. And Indy still climbs up the vine in the final cut anyway.
Also, I agree with the general sentiment about implausibility. You can't call Indy4's set pieces inferior to the previous movies' due to implausibility, when that's pretty much with these movies are all about. My take is that Indy4's set pieces were inferior due to a lack of spark. The momentum and breathlessness of the other films simply wasn't there. I think in general what Indy4 lacks is less tangible than what most of the proponents and detractors cite.
I see what you're saying, and yes TOD is full of ridiculous and over-the-top escapes and action scenes, but I still say the fridge wins by a long shot! The rest of Skull is actually more akin to Raiders and LC, in terms of more slightly grounded action scenes, whereas TOD probably wins the most cartoonish prize, but that works for me. From the get-go with the Club Obi Wan escape, the raft jump, the Pankot dinner scene, heat ripping scene, etc.., the film has the tone of almost a darker parody of Raiders. With that being said, I can just have fun with the film and not take it as seriously, whereas Skull goes back and forth with wanting to be more dramatic and poignant at times, throwing off the viewer.Darth Vile said:I'd have to say that 99.9% of TOD is based on ridiculous and very implausible situations... from the jump out of the club Obi-Wan window straight into a waiting car, to surviving a bridge being cut in half (which we know would shatter every single bone in your body if you held on). But as other posters have said, I'm not even sure implausibility = inferior set piece. However, I would say that I do have a preference for the action in Raiders, which probably due to budget constraints, required simpler/more straight forward (but just as effective) set pieces.
On a side note... Mythbusters was discussed in another thread. I think the conclusion/consensus reached was that it demonstrated the TOD life raft scenario could not be survived, rather than it could (and that's not even taking into account the plunge over the cliff following the fall from the plane).
So ultimately, if one likes the premise behind the escapades in TOD, one should logically like those in KOTCS (unless it's an application thing - which is a different argument). I personally find it difficult to distinguish between the outlandish events of TOD/TLC and KOTCS... which of course doesn't mean one can't have a preference over the other (because they all contain great set pieces of varying degrees).
First you have the Warehouse scene and rocket sled escape, over-the-top sure, but somewhat plausible. Then the fridge comes along (the crowning achievement in ridiculous Indy moments), followed by the serious interrogation scene, poignant firing of Indy at Marshall, the sad moment of reflection of loss in his personal life, the Mutt bike chase (more grounded in realism), the serious/tear jerker scene of Mutt crying in Ox's cell, and so on, until the big jungle chase complete with monkey vine swinging action. It's just a jumbled mess, that doesn't seem sure what kind of Indy film it wants to be, more serious but fun, or all out campy slapstick. LC suffered from this same problem, mixing serious moments with one satirical/Abbot and Costello moment after another.
As for the Mythbusters episode, I though the conclusion was the raft jump from the plane could work? The waterfall was speculative though. I'll have to look up the thread you are referring to.
Last edited:
Darth Vile
New member
deckard24 said:
I agree with you that KOTCS (as one would probably imagine) seems to be a hybrid of all the previous Indy movies, whilst not quite being its own thing. However, I am not sure how significant this element is... because I always expected that Spielberg/Lucas would try and take all the best elements of the others movies and fit them in. So I personally don't find it an issue when KOTCS attempts to blend the more serious action of Raiders, the general silliness/campness of TOD and the ensemble character piece/schmaltziness of TLC. How successful it blends these elements is open to debate.
That's true, most expected KOTCS to be a hybrid best-of film, with successful elements snatched from all 3 original films. And yes, the overall success is really open to debate and opinion. For me it's not a success, with the exception of a few moments that are terrific, the warehouse escape, Doomtown leading up to the fridge, the FBI interrogation, and the train scene and bike chase. The rest is another story!Darth Vile said:
Well maybe not everyone expected it, but looking back on the buzz about the film prior to the release, there seemed to be an assumption that Spielberg was trying to recreate what was successful about the first three. Not to mention, Spielberg made it clear they were "making one for the fans", and Lucas and Marshall made references to elements of Raiders and LC, not so much TOD. The teaser poster was reminiscent of TOD, the father/son element definitely tapped into LC, and the early sneak pics of the warehouse indicated a major link to Raiders.Udvarnoky said:
Now whether or not people wanted that, I don't know? I can only make an educated guess that based on the discussion prior to the film's debut, most hoped it would be close to as good as Raiders, and at least on par with TOD an LC.
I guess what I'm addressing here is not so much the notion of Indy4 trying to borrow what worked best in the previous movies, but rather some of these terms being used: "hybrid," "best of." These are terms I think accurately described the film, but I just don't understand how anyone could think it's a good thing.
I agree it's by no means a good thing, and I for one hoped we would get a film as good as TOD, better then LC, and at least 3/4 as a good as Raiders. Unfortunately we got a film that's not on par with any of them! I don't know if Spielberg, Lucas, and Marshall sat around trying to figure out how to make a 'frankenstein' of an Indy movie, but it sure feels like they tried?Udvarnoky said:
Darth Vile
New member
Udvarnoky said:
I think the best sequels either try and tell a different story (The Godfather Part II), or reinvent the initial concept (Aliens). KOTCS was always going to be "more of the same" as that's the approach the other sequels took. In fact, I'd probably argue that KOTCS, to a large extent, had its hands tied. After all, it was the first Indy movie in circa 20 years, and it was retaining the same actor in the leading part... Therefore, it was never predisposed to do or be anything ?new?, but almost more of ?do you remember what this was like??. Does that justify the approach? Not really... But it does mean that the approach taken is expected, unsurprising and is somewhat logical (given the success of the other movies).
I'd agree with you... a "hybrid" or "the best of" approach can only hinder the artistic choices one makes, and will probably (even if it's good) result in an inferior product to the original. As we've discussed many times, my preference would be for a new Indy movie to be radical and dramatically alter/reinvent it's style and approach. For example (being a little facetious), as I mentioned in another thread, what about a drum n bass score as opposed to a passe Williams symphonic one? That would certainly make it more modern, and I would genuinely like to see that version on screen? but I don?t think that would ever be a Lucas/Spielberg/Ford production.
Ultimately, we never really got that departure from the past or dramatic progression in style?, which is a shame. However, I would position that statement by saying all the Indy sequels suffer from this (to varying degrees), but KOTCS suffers the most because of its position/relation in time to the others.
Cole
New member
"Hybrid" or "collaberative process?" Probably the same thing regarding this discussion, but the words carry different connotations.
Sequels are like walking a tightrope............you want them to be fresh and new, but you still want to retain elements that made the first one popular.
If Lucas had his way.........we would've delved more into the alien stuff. Spielberg & Ford made the concept more "palatable" to them. So now, we have an Indy film that is reminiscent of the earlier ones, but with a whole new type of McGuffin.
So to me......the whole collaberative process was for the best.
Every Indy movie film is going to follow a general plotline: Indy going after a mysterious artifact. It's just the type of McGuffins, villains, settings, cultures, the people Indy meets, and the adventures are different.
Sequels are like walking a tightrope............you want them to be fresh and new, but you still want to retain elements that made the first one popular.
If Lucas had his way.........we would've delved more into the alien stuff. Spielberg & Ford made the concept more "palatable" to them. So now, we have an Indy film that is reminiscent of the earlier ones, but with a whole new type of McGuffin.
So to me......the whole collaberative process was for the best.
Every Indy movie film is going to follow a general plotline: Indy going after a mysterious artifact. It's just the type of McGuffins, villains, settings, cultures, the people Indy meets, and the adventures are different.
kongisking
Active member
mr.kotcs said:
I think I just found my new best friend. You and me are now officially blood brothers (without the blood, of course...)
monkey
Guest
Indy IV should never have been made.
Crystal Skull was over the top. It was I think just a money making venture.
Indiana Jones was always best left 'unresolved'.......'unfinished'......
Crystal Skull neatly "tied up" all the loose ends. Too bad, ...better to have left them loose.
Plus it had Aliens!! For shame!
Spielberg and Lucas Failed utterly!
It's really amazing when you think about it. They could have succeeded more, if they had done nothing.
Let me just go back to that opening scene in Raiders again........"South America..1936"....
That's Indiana Jones!
The fact is that there could have been (could be?) many more very successful Indiana Jones movies and stories. But Spielberg and Lucas need to let it go.
Put the character back where he belongs, and give him story lines that make sense. THEN, make movies!!
Just my opinion.
Crystal Skull was over the top. It was I think just a money making venture.
Indiana Jones was always best left 'unresolved'.......'unfinished'......
Crystal Skull neatly "tied up" all the loose ends. Too bad, ...better to have left them loose.
Plus it had Aliens!! For shame!
Spielberg and Lucas Failed utterly!
It's really amazing when you think about it. They could have succeeded more, if they had done nothing.
Let me just go back to that opening scene in Raiders again........"South America..1936"....
That's Indiana Jones!
The fact is that there could have been (could be?) many more very successful Indiana Jones movies and stories. But Spielberg and Lucas need to let it go.
Put the character back where he belongs, and give him story lines that make sense. THEN, make movies!!
Just my opinion.