Jungle Cutter

Morning Bell

New member
I thought the jungle cutter was pretty cool and I do wish it had been utilized a bit more. I thought it was cool the way that Indy destroyed it but having a fight on top of it or something first would have been neat too.
 

Goonie

New member
I remember seeing an aerial shot of some of the vehicles during filming. I remember seeing the Duck, but I can't remember if they actually built a Jungle Cutter prop, or was it all CGI?

Perhaps some of you remember those photos, they were some of the first leaked to the internet.
 

WrathofGod

New member
The Magic Rat said:
I'm sorry, but that's BS and complete fan fiction.


Fake or not, i'ld rather see a gruesome Jungle cutter fight then Mutt swinging with Monkeys or getting his nuts whacked.:eek:
 

Gobi-1

Well-known member
I would have love to see the Jungle cutter involved with more of the action but I think they didn't to avoid any comparisons with the tank sequence from the Last Crusade.

However to make up for it I would love to see them have a giant snow plow/slow blower for Indy 5.

Don't eat the red snow. ;)
 

Darth Vile

New member
I too am not one for "what if's"... But what I'm actually interested in knowing is why they didn't use it??? Did they try including it in the action, but it didn't work? Did they never contemplate using it in a specific action scene? And if so, why even have it there? Are there outakes/storyboards that suggest it may have factored more (the pre-viz suggests it never got to that stage)?
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
It's a good point. The only use it serves in the actual film is to explain how the Russians are getting through an unexplored rain forest...even though after it's blow it up they're all speeding through magical clear roads (which isn't something that would ever bother me in a movie like this, but I think the fact that the Jungle Cutter exists only as long as it takes for Indy to locate a bazooka makes it stand out much more). Or, maybe that gag where the spinning blade nonviolently bounces down the caravan was supposed to be worth it? Was Spielberg trying to make some environmentalist message, that the Russians were totally bad because they were decimating the Amazon? (Who cares within the context of a movie like this?!)

The simple matter is that they screwed up. To me "What ifs" become important when the missed opportunity is so huge, obvious, and distracting that it actually takes away from the enjoyment from the movie. As for why they didn't do anything with the jungle cutter? My disconcerting gut instinct is that Spielberg was opposed to the violence that would come out of it or worse, failed to think of it at all.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
It's a good point. The only use it serves in the actual film is to explain how the Russians are getting through an unexplored rain forest...even though after it's blow it up they're all speeding through magical clear roads (which isn't something that would ever bother me in a movie like this, but I think the fact that the Jungle Cutter exists only as long as it takes for Indy to locate a bazooka makes it stand out much more). Or, maybe that gag where the spinning blade nonviolently bounces down the caravan was supposed to be worth it? Was Spielberg trying to make some environmentalist message, that the Russians were totally bad because they were decimating the Amazon? (Who cares within the context of a movie like this?!)

The simple matter is that they screwed up. To me "What ifs" become important when the missed opportunity is so huge, obvious, and distracting that it actually takes away from the enjoyment from the movie. As for why they didn't do anything with the jungle cutter? My disconcerting gut instinct is that Spielberg was opposed to the violence that would come out of it or worse, failed to think of it at all.

I can't believe it's a violence thing, because it doesn't have to be violent (or at least no more violent than what was already on show in KOTCS). It doesn't help that there were several leaked pictures of it during production... and I think we all made a big assumption that it was going to be central to an even bigger set piece. Saying that, even it's introduction (foilage being cut up into splinters) seems to be a statement of intent.. but which never plays out. Strange...

I have to say I'm more inclined to think that something just didn't work on set, so they decided to go the other way... but that said, where are the production shots showing an alternative chase/fight?
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I don't think there was an alternate version, except maybe at a script level at some point. As for the Jungle Chase being used to its full potential having violence akin to the rest of the film, I really can't agree. Having a Russian end up falling into the blades, even if it happens offscreen, is way more violent than anything in the rest of the movie. Closest thing would be Dovchenko's fate, but it's simply not as visceral.

Darth Vile said:
It doesn't help that there were several leaked pictures of it during production... and I think we all made a big assumption that it was going to be central to an even bigger set piece.

Was it that big an assumption though? Wouldn't utilizing such a vehicle in a big way in an Indiana Jones movie seem head-slappingly obvious? Even if I'd never seen a leaked picture, I still would have been pretty taken aback in the theater by the fact that this giant destructive machine was blown up before anything could be done with it. It was plain distracting that it was handled that way. I just have a hard time believing that the same guy who directed the first three films could have let that idea slip past him. But then, I also wouldn't have believed it if you'd told me that Indy would go down three waterfalls with zero tension or that the head villain of the movie's fate would amount to some purple fire and quick transformation into dust particles.
 

nitzsche

New member
The idea sounds like it would be awesome, but then you have to consider the motivation behind trying to hijack or destroy the vehicle. Why would Indy need to get to the jungle cutter?

When he went after the tank in Last Crusade, there was a reason - to rescue Henry and Marcus.

But Indy's goals in KotCS are different. He's trying to rescue Ox and get the skull.

Now, I could see maybe the chase weaving in and out of vehicles and maybe a jeep of soldiers getting rammed by the jungle cutter or something, but for Indy to try and commandeer the jungle cutter, there would have to be a narrative reason.

Just the act of firing on it with an RPG and disabling many vehicles in the convoy served more of a purpose. Indy always tries to cause a diversion or some chaos in order to gain the upper hand.
 

WrathofGod

New member
I was glad to see Indiana Jones finally get to use a rocket launcher after not using on in Raiders. But a nice bit of direction "For the fans" could have been Indy looking in the back of the truck and finding that weapon he never got to use! Imagine the possible look on Indy's face when he recognized his old friend...the rocket launcher.:D

Anyway the absence of the Tree Cutter fight was a shame...and i never got my look.
And sadly that was the ONLY time Indy fired a weapon:confused:
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
nitzsche said:
The idea sounds like it would be awesome, but then you have to consider the motivation behind trying to hijack or destroy the vehicle. Why would Indy need to get to the jungle cutter?

Oh come on now. Everything in these movies is a big excuse to get some crazy set piece started. If Indy needs a reason to get on the Jungle Cutter (which, as you point out, is only one option), you give him one. Just like Raiders gave him an excuse to duke it out with a Nazi around a rotating plane with a giant propeller, or Temple provided mine cart tracks for the excuse of putting Indy on a rollercoaster ride.

And the tank chase in Last Crusade is equally arbitrary. Not because Marcus and Henry Sr. are in the tank, but because there's a tank in the first place. Why a freaking tank? (Even Indy observes it as kinda weird.) Well, to do an awesome tank chase, of course. Marcus and Henry Sr. were just the reason the screenplay concocted to get Indy involved, just like having the skull being in the hands of someone on the jungle cutter, or giving the Russians incentive to use the jungle cutter as a weapon against Indy's vehicle, or whatever, would have been perfectly fine excuses for the Indy4 screenplay to do with that giant, cool-looking, expensive prop what was obvious should have been done.

But now we're suddenly worried about "motivation" regarding elements within set pieces in a series where such things are established to be of little importance. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the motivation the movie supplies for actual story beats? Like, say, in the film's entire third act?

nitzsche said:
for Indy to try and commandeer the jungle cutter, there would have to be a narrative reason.

Just like there was a "narrative reason" for the Russians to have an RPG in the first place, or, more to the point, to store it in the back of the jeep where the enemies are being held captive, enemies who have proven time and time again to be impossible to contain. You know as well as I do that the movie included an RPG because it was cool, plain and simple. And if they would have gotten the jungle cutter more involved, no matter the explanation, it would have been for the same reason.
 
Last edited:

WrathofGod

New member
Udvarnoky said:
Oh come on now. Everything in these movies is a big excuse to get some crazy set piece started. If Indy needs a reason to get on the Jungle Cutter (which, as you point out, is only one option), you give him one. Just like Raiders gave him an excuse to duke it out with a Nazi around a rotating plane with a giant propeller, or Temple provided mine cart tracks for the excuse of putting Indy on a rollercoaster ride.

And the tank chase in Last Crusade is equally arbitrary. Not because Marcus and Henry Sr. are in the tank, but because there's a tank in the first place. Why a freaking tank? (Even Indy observes it as kinda weird.) Well, to do an awesome tank chase, of course. Marcus and Henry Sr. were just the reason the screenplay concocted to get Indy involved, just like having the skull being in the hands of someone on the jungle cutter, or giving the Russians incentive to use the jungle cutter as a weapon against Indy's vehicle, or whatever, would have been perfectly fine excuses for the Indy4 screenplay to do with that giant, cool-looking, expensive what was obviously should have been done.

But now we're suddenly worried about "motivation" regarding elements within set pieces in a series where such things are established to be of little importance. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the motivation the movie supplies for actual story beats? Like, say, in the film's entire third act?


LOL! :D We can always find a logical reason for a Tree Cutter Fight, let's see? As stated before, Under the orders of Spalko the tree cutter tries to take out Marion, Indy and Mutt's truck -let's call it the family RV.

OR Spalko hitches a ride on the Tree Cutter whilst in possession of the Skull.

OR Maybe the Jones family are locked in a cage attached to the tree cutter.

OR The tree Cutter threatens the Monkeys habitat and Indiana returns the previous favor and attacks the occupants, maybe the monkeys return like the Ewoks.:confused:
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
How about the scenario in which Mac is actually a double agent, reveals such to Indy, and then finds his life threatened by the jungle cutter, because he's outlived his usefulness? Indy goes forth to rescue his old friend. Easy. And better writing across the board, besides.
 

WrathofGod

New member
Attila the Professor said:
How about the scenario in which Mac is actually a double agent, reveals such to Indy, and then finds his life threatened by the jungle cutter, because he's outlived his usefulness? Indy goes forth to rescue his old friend. Easy. And better writing across the board, besides.


I don't know, we've already seen him betray indy, double agent or not...let's dice him!:D


Suddenly a classroom full of kids excitedly start chanting: Dice him!, Dice him! ,Dice him! ,Dice him!
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
I don't think there was an alternate version, except maybe at a script level at some point. As for the Jungle Chase being used to its full potential having violence akin to the rest of the film, I really can't agree. Having a Russian end up falling into the blades, even if it happens offscreen, is way more violent than anything in the rest of the movie. Closest thing would be Dovchenko's fate, but it's simply not as visceral.

So are you saying that you believe it?s required violence levels would have made it unfilmable for KOTCS? If that?s the case, then maybe we have our answer. However, I don?t necessarily agree with that. A Nazi falling onto the treads of a tank and being crushed underneath (TLC) seems to be within the violence tolerance levels of KOTCS. I?m sure they could have applied those same levels of violence. If the action/set piece worked, then the levels of violence become largely academic (as it can be reduced/increased as the director wants).

On another similar note? I find the barbequing of several Russian soldiers far more graphically violent than, for example, Pat Roach being crushed under the rock crusher (TOD). The TOD example may be more cleverly directed/edited, as the violence is implied rather than shown? but interested to know your view. Can implied violence be graphic? If so, then perhaps KOTCS is more graphically violent than we give it credit for???

Udvarnoky said:
Was it that big an assumption though? Wouldn't utilizing such a vehicle in a big way in an Indiana Jones movie seem head-slappingly obvious? Even if I'd never seen a leaked picture, I still would have been pretty taken aback in the theater by the fact that this giant destructive machine was blown up before anything could be done with it. It was plain distracting that it was handled that way. I just have a hard time believing that the same guy who directed the first three films could have let that idea slip past him. But then, I also wouldn't have believed it if you'd told me that Indy would go down three waterfalls with zero tension or that the head villain of the movie's fate would amount to some purple fire and quick transformation into dust particles.

I?m not saying it?s an unjustifiable assumption, but it?s an assumption nonetheless (and big if we believed it were to be as significant as the tank). It?s not as if Lucas or Spielberg said ?Yep - there is a great set piece on top of a jungle cutter?. Missed opportunity? Yep perhaps (not yet understanding the reasons of omission). Mis-sold? I don?t believe so. I remember prior to the release of TLC, snippets being released about action aboard a Zeppelin. My initial thought was ?cool? we?re going to see Indy escaping an exploding airship?? but obviously it never panned out that way, and the Zeppelin was quite insignificant in the end.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
Oh come on now. Everything in these movies is a big excuse to get some crazy set piece started. If Indy needs a reason to get on the Jungle Cutter (which, as you point out, is only one option), you give him one. Just like Raiders gave him an excuse to duke it out with a Nazi around a rotating plane with a giant propeller, or Temple provided mine cart tracks for the excuse of putting Indy on a rollercoaster ride.

Agree completely. However, that doesn?t necessarily mean it work's in practice. If included/incorporated, it could have just been an additional scene for us to squabble over. ;) Hence my interest in understanding whether it was ever an option and if so, what point was it dropped? For me, to drop it/disregard it because it doesn't work is part of the movie making process, and it acceptable. To never identify/assess it's potential merits for what is, an action scene, would be rather short-sighted.

Whatever the reason, and potential set piece aside (can?t remember who suggested it), but I?d much rather have Mutt commandeering the jungle cutter to get to Indy/Spalko, than using the monkeys and vines option. But hey ho.
 

deckard24

New member
Once again decisions on the part of Spielberg, Lucas, and Co., this time the poor use of the jungle cutter, say so much regarding the overall lackluster feel of KOTCS. As has already been mentioned numerous times, why include such a tremendous potential action piece, to only blow it up within minutes of its onscreen debut? The fact that no one even got injured, or at least appeared to by the flying wreckage of it, is beyond me! There was so much potential, but sadly it was wasted. How the same guy that directed the first three installments, as well as movies like Jaws, Close Encounters, and War of the Worlds failed to capitalize on such a great set piece is a mystery to me?!

It's just yet another reason that KOTCS feels tame in comparison to the other films!
 

WrathofGod

New member
deckard24 said:
Once again decisions on the part of Spielberg, Lucas, and Co., this time the poor use of the jungle cutter, say so much regarding the overall lackluster feel of KOTCS. As has already been mentioned numerous times, why include such a tremendous potential action piece, to only blow it up within minutes of its onscreen debut? The fact that no one even got injured, or at least appeared to by the flying wreckage of it, is beyond me! There was so much potential, but sadly it was wasted. How the same guy that directed the first three installments, as well as movies like Jaws, Close Encounters, and War of the Worlds failed to capitalize on such a great set piece is a mystery to me?!

It's just yet another reason that KOTCS feels tame in comparison to the other films!

Couldn't agree more, a perfect opportunity for suspense and action, instead we get fencing lessons, monkey vine swinging and groin whacking jokes. Arg.:mad:
 

deckard24

New member
WrathofGod said:
a perfect opportunity for suspense and action, instead we get fencing lessons, monkey vine swinging and groin whacking jokes. Arg.:mad:
Sad but true!

Yeah I keep forgetting or blocking out moments like Marion giving fencing pointers, or the ridiculous overuse of groin whacking jokes! The vine swinging is a whole other story, and the more I think of it, the more mystifying it is that it was actually in the film!
 

Darth Vile

New member
deckard24 said:
Once again decisions on the part of Spielberg, Lucas, and Co., this time the poor use of the jungle cutter, say so much regarding the overall lackluster feel of KOTCS. As has already been mentioned numerous times, why include such a tremendous potential action piece, to only blow it up within minutes of its onscreen debut? The fact that no one even got injured, or at least appeared to by the flying wreckage of it, is beyond me! There was so much potential, but sadly it was wasted. How the same guy that directed the first three installments, as well as movies like Jaws, Close Encounters, and War of the Worlds failed to capitalize on such a great set piece is a mystery to me?!

It's just yet another reason that KOTCS feels tame in comparison to the other films!

I'd have to disagree as, on the whole, I think the jungle chase is a pretty darned good action scene... and IMHO, is a better action scene than many of the other summer releases provided us with. I certainly can't think of any better action scenes in 'Close Encounters' and 'War of the Worlds'. That said, there was certainly room for Spielberg to up the anti in this section of KOTCS.
 
Top