Blooper reels

Indy's brother

New member
Rick-Rolls, Rocket? Really? :rolleyes: Let's hope that's the last time we see that, your wit is easily bigger than that.

Stoo, it's only vexing on the surface. Though most people like Indy on some level, the number of those that would dedicate as much time obsessing over the films like we do is much smaller. Especially smaller than those that like to talk about their sexual lifestyle online. The real comparison would entail finding out how many users Sissy Dude has on that site.

Oh, and What R U Eating right now, btw?
 
Indy's brother said:
Rick-Rolls, Rocket? Really? :rolleyes: Let's hope that's the last time we see that, your wit is easily bigger than that.

Hey, not everything can hold a candle to the brilliant standard set by the "yo mamma" thread the past few days. It's not like people are just replacing words with "yo mamma" in lieu of actual jokes!

But really if you watch the whole video, there IS some exclusive Indy content...you have to play it really loud to hear the secret message too.
 

Indy's brother

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Hey, not everything can hold a candle to the brilliant standard set by the "yo mamma" thread the past few days. It's not like people are just replacing words with "yo mamma" in lieu of actual jokes!

Most of those posts are basically the same: "Yo mamma so dumb, she thinks this joke is the best way to up my post count and get an avatar!"

And even if there is a hidden Indy reference in that link, I'll take a pass on trying to find it. Anyway, you got me twice. "Ha ha ha...son of a...." I guess you can be proud of that.
 
Indy's brother said:
Most of those posts are basically the same: "Yo mamma so dumb, she thinks this joke is the best way to up my post count and get an avatar!"

And even if there is a hidden Indy reference in that link, I'll take a pass on trying to find it. Anyway, you got me twice. "Ha ha ha...son of a...." I guess you can be proud of that.

They're NOT jokes...the recent "contributors" are lazy hacks and I was trying to point that else with my own posts. It's the Indy Balls thread now...

There's a DOOSY of a hidden Indy link...not as earth shaking as Stoo's release, but...wow. Only out done by the audio tip.:hat:
 

Stoo

Well-known member
VioletIndy said:
Wow... It would take a real Indiana Jones to find these...
Our resident darling, Violet, hasn't been around much lately but a YouTube commentator (who must be her since she signed off as VI) posted that she has seen photos of the prank in some books. This begs further investigation! I'm very curious about the quality of these images and am waiting for her reply...
Indy's brother said:
I guess it could be hard for some in the gay community to accuse Barbara Streisand of being homophobic.
Rocket Surgeon said:
It's remarkable what a fan boy will turn a blind eye to in order to hold on to the heroes of their mispent youth!
Rocket Surgeon said:
Sissy Dude...sissy dude. Wow, of all the things to be sensitive about! S&M/Bondage is less offensive than a word.
Get a load of this: Before being posted on the gay porn Sissy Dude, another Streisand website (Barbra Archives) posted a transcript and left out the "I feel like a faggot!" line as well. (While it's entirely possible Sissy copied it from there, it's not likely considering he embedded the video & text only a couple of hours after Moedred posted the revised transcript in this thread.) It appears that whoever hosts Barbra Archives also wants to sweep it under the carpet. 'Archives'...yeah, sure.:rolleyes:
Indy's brother said:
Stoo, it's only vexing on the surface. Though most people like Indy on some level, the number of those that would dedicate as much time obsessing over the films like we do is much smaller. Especially smaller than those that like to talk about their sexual lifestyle online. The real comparison would entail finding out how many users Sissy Dude has on that site.
The # of people who post on the gay porn Sissy Dude site = *1* and that is the site host, himself. It's a visual blog with only small amounts of text. Just how many 'viewers/voyeurs' it has is anybody's guess...

Even so, compare The Raven with your own Indy 5 Facebook page, The Barbra Streisand Forum (where people dedicate their time obsessing over her), the toy geeks and Spanish Indy fans. The measly Raven count still comes out at the BOTTOM of the pile. As of yesterday:

The Barbra Streisand Forum: 140 hits (in *6* days)
Sideshow Freaks: 153 (in 10 days)
Indiana Jones Comunidad Fan Española: *302* hits (in 11 days)
Indy 5 Facebook: 146 hits (in 12 days)
The Raven: 69 hits (in 12 days)

So far, only 7 people (8 including me) have bothered to comment here. 60 Ravenheads watched the clip and have nothing to say about this legendary, rare piece of Indy history?:confused: One would think that the interest would've been larger and generated more conversation.:( (That's O.K. because now I know who to share the next blooper with privately.;))
 

Indy's brother

New member
I'll be honest Stoo. Ya got me. I don't think that being an Indy fan automatically means that someone's gotta love this, but you're right. Comparatively the video has been ignored here, and I don't have a rational explanation for it. :confused:
 

JuniorJones

TR.N Staff Member
I think many people within our community, like myself, apprechicate the release of the blooper clip as another part of an extended Indiana Jones experience.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Indy's brother said:
I'll be honest Stoo. Ya got me. I don't think that being an Indy fan automatically means that someone's gotta love this, but you're right. Comparatively the video has been ignored here, and I don't have a rational explanation for it. :confused:

Especially since archaeology is the science of uncovering evidence that would previously have lain undiscovered.

The clip is a piece of Indy folklore, and I'd have thought more Indy fans would be moved to say at least something about it. :whip:
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
The surprise over the number of results from Sissy Dude's tumblr page got me wondering whether the 177 referrals from that page were somehow standing in for the entirety of tumblr referrals. Whether that's the case or not, it looks like the original tumblr posting of the video is this one, belonging to a user named Biotech. From there, Fu-- Yeah Carrie Fisher reblogged it, resulting in three more reblogs, Sissy Dude first, and then two others, Some Twine and Changin And How, the former of whom suggests that "the description of this video should read 'this is the best 1:25 minutes of footage ever captured ever'."

And, for what it's worth, here's the Streisand forums thread on the subject.

Apart from theforce.net (nothing all that interesting there, as its just an off-shoot of our own thread about the '95 Super Bowl halftime show), the posting of the link to Stoo's video at chud.net (scroll to the bottom of this page) includes this commentary:

Litmus Configuration said:
That's just one part of a bigger gag reel. I got to see the RAIDERS/DOOM gag reel when Frank Marshall screened it at WorldCon in 1984. It was actually pretty funny. It opens with the first Paramount dissolve shot from RAIDERS, with Indy stepping into frame to gaze upon the Peruvian mountain...only to slip and stumble down the hill. There's also a bit where the "nocturnal activities" flirtation scene is performed by Harrison Ford and...Steven Spielberg. I don't remember much else but it was funny at the time.

Apparently, they later added LAST CRUSADE gags to it. And who knows? Maybe they added some CRYSTAL SKULL gags after that.
 

Junior Jones

New member
To be honest I was underwhelmed by it. I had read about it here and was interested in seeing it, but it didn't live up to expectations. The video is blurry, and without a transcript the sound is unintelligible. Definitely a case of expectation overshadowing realization.
 

digitalfreaknyc

Active member
Indy's brother said:
You're not talking about when I did it on the 28th, are you? I remember seeing that it was also "shared" on FB either that day or a day later by someone on my friend list, but I don't remember who.

I honestly anticipated that the "faggot" line would be noticed by someone, and that (given the times we live in) it's utterance would have been more vehemently scorned, rather than just cut out. Perhaps this blogger was either tolerant of the time that it was shot, or that it came from Barbara, or both. Of course, this video was only recently set loose into the wild, there's still plenty of time for someone to get their panties in a twist over it. I guess it could be hard for some in the gay community to accuse Barbara Streisand of being homophobic. If Ford had said it in the clip for example, his career would have been over the day it was uploaded.

What an intelligent, well thought out response. I'm not thrilled that Babs said it but this was 1984 and she's a huge gay icon. I guess I can let it slide.

And, for the record, I find a derogatory slang word much more offensive than someone wearing leather.
 

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
Stoo said:
Our resident darling, Violet, hasn't been around much lately but a YouTube commentator (who must be her since she signed off as VI) posted that she has seen photos of the prank in some books. This begs further investigation! I'm very curious about the quality of these images and am waiting for her reply...

Yes it was me (yeah, I haven't been around much- mostly due to the fact I keep forgetting my bloody password every time the cookie disappears! And have been reading around here, mostly coz I've had little to say that wasn't already being said.... and there wasn't much going on... till Stoo decided the shake things up so to speak!).

In terms of the books, as I said, they were "The Films of Harrison Ford" and may have also been "The Films of Steven Spielberg" pub in the late 90s- early 2000's. The images were not much better than what we see in the video here. A little clearer but not by much. I also read about the prank in a George Lucas bio- don't remember the author's name but the cover was black and silver with black and white photo of 1970s George next to a camera in the desert. Almost as detailed as Moedred's descriptions actually.

In any case, certainly appreciate seeing this. Thought this would be locked up forever (or at least till after Spielberg's death, considering the obsession with minimal bts stuff, like never showing deleted scenes!).
 
digitalfreaknyc said:
And, for the record, I find a derogatory slang word much more offensive than someone wearing leather.

For the record I didn't make ANY reference to the wearing of leather vs the word faggot.

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
Sissy Dude...sissy dude. Wow, of all the things to be sensitive about! S&M/Bondage is less offensive than a word.

I'm surprised at the sensibilities, (if that term even applies) that would censor a word but be comfortable with sadomasochism.

Sticks and stones love, or bondage and pain...
 

digitalfreaknyc

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
For the record I didn't make ANY reference to the wearing of leather vs the word faggot.



I'm surprised at the sensibilities, (if that term even applies) that would censor a word but be comfortable with sadomasochism.

Sticks and stones love, or bondage and pain...

What's wrong with S&M??? It's a personal choice.
"Faggot," however, is derogatory.
Really, it's apples and oranges but if you really want to compare the two, one is hurtful and the other isn't.
 
digitalfreaknyc said:
What's wrong with S&M???
This is a joke right? "a greased, naked woman on all fours with a dog collar around her neck and a leash, and a man's arm extended out...holding on to the leash and pushing a black glove in her face to sniff it." "You should have seen the cover they wanted to do. It wasn't a glove, believe me!"

Anyhoo, the question was one of sensitivity, and the "S" in S&M is pleasure in inflicting pain.

Hence the sticks and stones love.

digitalfreaknyc said:
It's a personal choice.
Is there never a victim?

digitalfreaknyc said:
"Faggot," however, is derogatory.
"Faggot" is not always derogatory.

George Chauncey's Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, says that the terms fairy, faggot, and queen were used by homosexuals to refer to men who were ostentatiously effeminate.

But you make my point for me. The word offends you more than the physical victimization, (NOT always consensual) of a person.

digitalfreaknyc said:
Really, it's apples and oranges but if you really want to compare the two, one is hurtful and the other isn't.
So you're hurt by the word faggot and not by the lash of the whip?
 

digitalfreaknyc

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
This is a joke right? "a greased, naked woman on all fours with a dog collar around her neck and a leash, and a man's arm extended out...holding on to the leash and pushing a black glove in her face to sniff it." "You should have seen the cover they wanted to do. It wasn't a glove, believe me!"

Anyhoo, the question was one of sensitivity, and the "S" in S&M is pleasure in inflicting pain.

Hence the sticks and stones love.

Is there never a victim?

"Faggot" is not always derogatory.

George Chauncey's Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, says that the terms fairy, faggot, and queen were used by homosexuals to refer to men who were ostentatiously effeminate.

But you make my point for me. The word offends you more than the physical victimization, (NOT always consensual) of a person.

So you're hurt by the word faggot and not by the lash of the whip?

This isn't even worth responding to. You're attempting to argue semantics.

I'm gay and I'm completely offended by the word faggot. You may not agree with it but, unless you're gay as well, I really don't give a **** what you think.
S&M is a personal sexual choice that people WILLINGLY involve themselves in. Yes, it is ALWAYS consentual. If it's not consentual then it's not S&M: it's rape or assault.
 

Indy's brother

New member
I'm offended by Carrie's whole look in that scene. Very unflattering. Ill-fitting, bad color-scheme for her fair-skin tones, not to mention you don't see an ounce of skin. Someone should have told her that she's prettier than that.....


I never understood the fashion of the 80's
 
digitalfreaknyc said:
This isn't even worth responding to. You're attempting to argue semantics.
Absolutely!

digitalfreaknyc said:
I'm gay and I'm completely offended by the word faggot.
I will never call you one.


digitalfreaknyc said:
You may not agree with it but, unless you're gay as well, I really don't give a **** what you think.
That is remarkably close minded. I'm interested in language and mores, that you don't care what I think on the matter if I'm NOT gay makes you prejudiced AND discriminatory.

digitalfreaknyc said:
S&M is a personal sexual choice that people WILLINGLY involve themselves in.
I would refer you to Sadists namesake and his victimization of women.

digitalfreaknyc said:
Yes, it is ALWAYS consentual.
You're wrong, it's not.

digitalfreaknyc said:
If it's not consentual then it's not S&M: it's rape or assault.
Who's arguing semantics now?
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Back on topic, please. We took a similar detour in the Raiders story conference transcript thread regarding George's "weasel-faced, thin-mustached Arab professors" and "an affair with her when she was eleven." The creative process works best with few boundaries and we're fortunate for this peek inside. The goal is to see and hear more, like the gag reel details from 1984.

Stoo, would the transcript fit in the video's info box? It would help new viewers follow along...
 

digitalfreaknyc

Active member
I think the lack of interest has less to do with the film and more to do with the quality of it. It's an Nth generation VHS copy of something that was originally videotaped from a screen. Now, I'm not knocking Stoo's contribution because it's clearly never been leaked before. However, considering the fact that one needs subtitles to understand what is being said and the video is pretty bad, it's not going to really garner much enthusiasm.
 
Top