Cole said:My camp? Is this some sort of competition?
So now you're taking comments out of context and applying them to everyone who likes the movie? How convenient.
Keep digging that whole further, buddy.
Cole said:I never said you can't dislike the movie..........I just said your analogy is dumb.
Funny, you talking about intolerance of other people's opinions. You know, you writing this dandy a few minute ago:
"And that is why others, like myself, cannot bring ourselves to like something on a merely superficial level."
Hypocrite.
The discussion in this thread shows that members of The Raven Message Board are a diverse and international community. However, it appears that the discussion has strayed from the original topic or does not remain true to the Indiana Jones style. It is important to stay on topic and within the Indiana Jones/Raven T.O.S., so as to prevent confusion among those participating in the discussion or visiting this site for the first time. This topic is moderated and future off-topic discussion could lead to the unfortunate closing of this thread.
Wilhelm said:It's the first and only pyramid in the series. An archaeologist like Indy needs to be in a pyramid in one of his adventures.
Montana Smith said:It's funny that you should mention that, as I just posted a picture of the original ROTLA novel in another thread.
The back cover shows a pyramid!
The unknown artist thought there should have been pyramids, too!
Darth Vile said:LOL... One of main qualms with Raiders (if being uber critical) is that it's major location is basically generic desert/desert roads. You'd think the one thing you'd have to show, if a major section of the movie is supposed to be in Cairo/Egypt, is a pyramid. I agree with those who thought KOTCS should have been a bit more adventurous in it's location shooting. However, Raiders demonstrates that it's not nearly as important as it may appear (or as important as some may think). Rather, it's the illusion of multiple locales.
Same one for Indian locations for Pancot...kongisking said:Remember the oft-told story by Robert Watts about him asking Spielberg if they were shooting any pyramids, and when Berg said no, Watts happily said that they didn't have to go to Egypt then? I always smile at Watts' grin when he retells this anecdote.
ResidentAlien said:Such an idiotic argument and I'm baffled each and every time I hear it. All the apologists have become a real broken record with that nonsense.tambourineman said:Its just a movie. Damn some people are drama queens.
Even though I think they made some big mistakes, I dont know how any Indy fan couldnt find something to enjoy about the movie and not get a kick out of seeing Indy again after so many years. I was excited enough just to see him do the bookends for that Young Indy episode.
It's like saying, "I haven't eaten a pizza in a long while, but I'll be content with Pizza Hut because it has dough, cheese and sauce-- It at least has the ingredients and since I like pizza, I'll like this."
Ingredients do not make the pizza, clearly. It's the skill by which the ingredients are combined. It's why Pizza Hut will only ever make pizza by name, it's why KOCKS will only ever be Indiana Jones by name.
kongisking said:People that deny Indy 4's existence are like people that refuse to acknowledge a relative of their best friend because they think he is an inferior human being.
I'm SO going to be butchered for that comment...Bring on the insults!
mattzilla2010 said:No, I don't pretend it didn't happen, because I quite enjoyed it actually.
I also quite enjoy Pizza Hut, so take that for what you will.