THE BIG BANG: Raiders story conference transcripts!!??

Robyn

New member
Lonsome_Drifter said:
Yes, you are making sense.
But, IMO (I'm gonna catch hell for this!) Temple of Doom was perfection for me. But, as you said, Raiders was perfect for you. I guess the reason why the others are of lower caliber for you is that it's nigh impossible to catch lightning in a bottle. For you they did it once, but who can do it more? Is there any series of movies out there that had every sequel perfect?

I do have to say that's really shocking to see you say that TOD was perfect! But I still don't think it was a once in a life time lighting strike that made everything come together perfect for Raiders.. It's because they tried so hard , it can be done again
 

Darth Vile

New member
ronicle said:
I do have to say that's really shocking to see you say that TOD was perfect! But I still don't think it was a once in a life time lighting strike that made everything come together perfect for Raiders.. It's because they tried so hard , it can be done again


Do you not think there is even a remote possibility that part of the reason ?Raiders? is so good is that it?s the first movie? Is it not conceivable that no matter the quality of a sequel, by it?s very nature; the character and situations must repeat themselves to some extent? Is it not probable that all those initial ideas and concepts were distilled into one single movie, and whatever comes next is, by it's nature, secondary?

I?d posit that the overriding difference for me is that each situation and set piece within ?Raiders?, is unique and fairly unexpected. This is largely due to the fact that it didn?t have anything to follow i.e. it was the forerunner to the rest.

Now don?t get me wrong, all things considered, I still believe ?Raiders? to be the perfect template, and overall best Indy movie (and one of the best action/adventure movies ever)? But you can?t just disregard the views of many others who believe TOD, TLC or even KOTCS to be a better movie for them. Indeed, my girlfriend (who only saw Raiders about a year ago), thinks it?s inferior to TOD and TLC. Believe me when I say she?s an intelligent and discerning woman (otherwise she wouldn?t be with me ;) ), but for her ?Raiders? simply isn't as good as "the one with Shorty" or "the one with his dad" (her words).
 

Robyn

New member
Darth Vile said:
Do you not think there is even a remote possibility that part of the reason ?Raiders? is so good is that it?s the first movie? Is it not conceivable that no matter the quality of a sequel, by it?s very nature; the character and situations must repeat themselves to some extent? Is it not probable that all those initial ideas and concepts were distilled into one single movie, and whatever comes next is, by it's nature, secondary?

No I don't think it's because it's the first, actually two movies come to mind where the sequel was more perfected then the first... Terminator 2, Aliens..

Indeed, my girlfriend (who only saw Raiders about a year ago), thinks it?s inferior to TOD and TLC. Believe me when I say she?s an intelligent and discerning woman (otherwise she wouldn?t be with me ;) ), but for her ?Raiders? simply isn't as good as "the one with Shorty" or "the one with his dad" (her words).

It shocks me that someone could think Raiders to be inferior to TOD :confused: I think even S&L think TOD to not be as good as the rest of the Indys

I get what your saying though
 
Darth Vile said:
Not sure I’d 100% agree with that...

Do you not think there is even a remote possibility that part of the reason ‘Raiders’ is so good is that it’s the first movie?

Is it not conceivable that no matter the quality of a sequel, by it’s very nature; the character and situations must repeat themselves to some extent?

I’d posit that the overriding difference for me is that each situation and set piece within ‘Raiders’, is unique and fairly unexpected. This is largely due to the fact that it didn’t have anything to follow i.e. it was the forerunner to the rest.

...I still believe ‘Raiders’ to be the perfect template,

Give them another sit down, you never know.

There are a great many things that make Raiders best, it set the tone, of course, being first is a part of it.

Sequels rely on returning, not repeating. Depends on the script, is it a character sequel, story sequel...only one element must return, repeat, no.

I agree with ronicle, if they sat down with a screenwriter for a week working and poaching the Raiders transcript instead of just poaching it,ToD would have been a better movie. I like ALL the prologues using the James Bond template, but the only template they should have used from Raiders was script development.

George hired Kasdan because he has good feelings about people.

ToD screenwriters went two for two following up ToD with their sequel of the same tone...Howard the Duck.

(Sorry I kept away as long as I could but this was the direction Lucas was heading, next up: EWOKS! yeeeeeaaaaaa!!!)
 
Last edited:

Robyn

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Give them another sit down, you never know.

There are a great many things that make Raiders best, it set the tone, of course, being first is a part of it.

Sequels rely on returning, not repeating. Depends on the script, is it a character sequel, story sequel...only one element must return, repeat, no.

I agree with ronicle, if they sat down with a screenwriter for a week working and poaching the Raiders transcript instead of just poaching it,ToD would have been a better movie. I like ALL the prologues using the James Bond template, but the only template they should have used from Raiders was script development.

George hired Kasdan because he has good feelings about people.

ToD screenwriters went two for two following up ToD with their sequel of the same tone...Howard the Duck.

(Sorry I kept away as long as I could but this was the direction Lucas was heading, next up: EWOKS! yeeeeeaaaaaa!!!)

Yep this is what I was trying to say about Lucas too, he did great when he was on Raiders, but after that he just went howard the duck on us....
 

Darth Vile

New member
ronicle said:
No I don't think it's because it's the first, actually two movies come to mind where the sequel was more perfected then the first... Terminator 2, Aliens..

It shocks me that someone could think Raiders to be inferior to TOD :confused: I think even S&L think TOD to not be as good as the rest of the Indys

I disagree 100%… and don’t take this the wrong way (as it’s just banter), but it’s ironic that you can’t understand why people may prefer other Indy movies over ‘Raiders’, but you quite readily pronounce that ‘Aliens’ is more “perfected” than ‘Alien’. ‘Alien’ will always be the movie that moviemakers aspire to. ‘Aliens’ is a lesson in how to turn a concept on its head and introduce large-scale action (and it's a great idea for that)… but it’s not a better movie. ‘Terminator 2’, great action movie… but it’s really only a glossy re-working of the first.

But again, I'm glad people have differing tastes... otherwise we'd be automotons. ;)

Rocket Surgeon said:
There are a great many things that make Raiders best, it set the tone, of course, being first is a part of it.

Sequels rely on returning, not repeating. Depends on the script, is it a character sequel, story sequel...only one element must return, repeat, no.

Return/repeat… I think we’re talking semantics. We all know what’s largely expected of Indy movies e.g. high adrenalin action, pitfalls, humor and booby traps. And you can see from some of the responses here on these boards, that many people didn’t even like the idea of going with a sci-fi 1950’s vibe. So I’m not sure what chance Lucas/Spielberg had at creating 3 sequels that were individually unique. It’s not like TOD could have ever been a “kitchen sink drama” (although they could have tried). The bottom line is that ‘Raiders’ was a well-made action/adventure movie, and to outdo it (or even make a comparable movie), you inevitably have to ramp those elements up rather than turning it on it's head.

Are the 3 'Raiders' sequels inferior? In many respects… yes. Was this a foregone conclusion? I’d have to say yes... largely because Indiana Jones was always a “high concept” creation. There was never really anything worth exploring for a sequel other than “more action, different locale”.
 
Darth Vile said:
Return/repeat? I think we?re talking semantics. We all know what?s largely expected of Indy movies e.g. high adrenalin action, pitfalls, humor and booby traps. And you can see from some of the responses here on these boards, that many people didn?t even like the idea of going with a sci-fi 1950?s vibe. So I?m not sure what chance Lucas/Spielberg had at creating 3 sequels that were individually unique. It?s not like TOD could have ever been a ?kitchen sink drama? (although they could have tried). The bottom line is that ?Raiders? was a well-made action/adventure movie, and to outdo it (or even make a comparable movie), you inevitably have to ramp those elements up rather than turning it on it's head.

Are the 3 'Raiders' sequels inferior? In many respects? yes. Was this a foregone conclusion? I?d have to say yes... largely because Indiana Jones was always a ?high concept? creation. There was never really anything worth exploring for a sequel other than ?more action, different locale?.


Are you creative at all? Do you produce anything? Imagination and work is the key. Whereas I would have been happier WITHOUT aliens, there could have been a way to make it work, better...as I mentioned if they poached the raiders transcripts AND brainstormed, Tod would have stood a better chance then just poaching and delegating to the Howard the Duck team.

I'm not talking semantics, I'm making the distintion of content vs context.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Are you creative at all? Do you produce anything? Imagination and work is the key. Whereas I would have been happier WITHOUT aliens, there could have been a way to make it work, better...as I mentioned if they poached the raiders transcripts AND brainstormed, Tod would have stood a better chance then just poaching and delegating to the Howard the Duck team.

I'm not talking semantics, I'm making the distintion of content vs context.

I am very familiar with creativity and the production of it (that's how I make my living). How about you???

My view is that 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is not the epitome of substance over style that some would have us believe. Indeed, I know many people who would argue the complete opposite about it (but not I).

So if you are arguing from a point where you are defining 'Raiders' as "perfection"... that's one thing. If you believe that it's simply an intelligent, well crafted action/adventure movie (as I believe)... that is something else. The latter I believe, makes all the Indy movies (to a large extent) comparable. For example, the gulf between 'Raiders' and 'Citizen Kane' is markedly larger than the gap between 'Raiders' and 'TLC' (IMH). As you say, it's about context...
 

Robyn

New member
Darth Vile said:
I disagree 100%… and don’t take this the wrong way (as it’s just banter), but it’s ironic that you can’t understand why people may prefer other Indy movies over ‘Raiders’, but you quite readily pronounce that ‘Aliens’ is more “perfected” than ‘Alien’. ‘Alien’ will always be the movie that moviemakers aspire to. ‘Aliens’ is a lesson in how to turn a concept on its head and introduce large-scale action (and it's a great idea for that)… but it’s not a better movie. ‘Terminator 2’, great action movie… but it’s really only a glossy re-working of the first.

Oh I CAN understand why people may "prefer" the other Indy movies! But that's why I said prefering one over the other has nothing to do with which film was the more perfected one.. I say Aliens and T2 were more perfected then the first ones because both sequels took it to the next level instead of equaling or not trying hard enough, they tried even harder and out did the first ones

I'm pretty sure this is an argument I'm never gonna win, but I do get what your trying to say ;) and it's fun debating!
 
Darth Vile said:
I am very familiar with creativity and the production of it (that's how I make my living). How about you???

...and you can't see how some more persperation and inspiration would have done ToD justice?

I do...can you be creative and inspired and not glean that from the question?

Darth Vile said:
So if you are arguing from a point where you are defining 'Raiders' as "perfection"... that's one thing.

Raiders is hardly perfection

Darth Vile said:
It's simply an intelligent, well crafted action/adventure movie [that] makes all the Indy movies (to a large extent) comparable.

For example, the gulf between 'Raiders' and 'Citizen Kane' is markedly larger than the gap between 'Raiders' and 'TLC' (IMH).

As is the gulf between Raiders and It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World!
Please...the point is ToD was rushed, re-heated, left-over table scraps.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
...and you can't see how some more persperation and inspiration would have done ToD justice?

I do...can you be creative and inspired and not glean that from the question?

C'mon... a requirement for "more perspiration/inspiration" could be leveled at almost anything (even Raiders). Remember we are commenting with hindsight (which is easy to do). One of the elements of being creative is understanding what your objective is and knowing when to take a step back and "let it go"...

I think it's a given that TOD contains many elements that were left over from Raiders. And by the very nature of being "left over", they must have been considered secondary.

I think we are looking at this from two different sides, but basically agreeing the same thing i.e. TOD is not as good. Where we differ is that I don't see it as neglect/lack of care, or lack of craftmanship per se, but rather that all the best ideas had already been used.

Therefore Lucas/Spielberg used the opportunity to up the action/pace/humor and overall 'B-Movie' feel, in order to produce something that could co-exist with Raiders (but wasn't necessarily competing). Ergo, it was inevitable that the sequels would be somewhat inferior.


Rocket Surgeon said:
As is the gulf between Raiders and It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World!
Please...the point is ToD was rushed, re-heated, left-over table scraps.

LOL... And here I am, the one who loudly berates TOD on these boards, defending it. The irony...
 
Last edited:
Darth Vile said:
C'mon... a requirement for "more perspiration/inspiration" could be leveled at almost anything (even Raiders). Remember we are commenting with hindsight (which is easy to do). One of the elements of being creative is understanding what your objective is and knowing when to take a step back and "let it go"...
Check out some of the ToD extras, Lucas said specifically that you never know what you're going to get until you go to edit in respect to plot direction. So I don't give your "understanding objective" comment creedence. They threw what ever they could think of on the spot up on the wall and left poor Mike Kahn to edit the mess. He has a great comment about fishing footage to make some dialogue work!

Darth Vile said:
I don't see it as neglect/lack of care, or lack of craftmanship per se, but rather that all the best ideas had already been used. Therefore Lucas/Spielberg used the opportunity to up the action/pace/humor and overall 'B-Movie' feel, in order to produce something that could co-exist with Raiders. Ergo, it was inevitable that the sequels would be somewhat inferior.
You see it as: Second best ideas, lets shift gears.

I see it as: Here Bill and Gloria, I can't be bothered, take this transcript and bring me back something I'll like. Ok, this is ok, keep this...go away and try again. Ok, this I like...go away and try again. Ok hell let's give it a go!

The only thing that made it "inevitable" was that they planned to capitalize of the success of Raiders, the work they didn't put into it left it flat.

Darth Vile said:
LOL... And here I am, the one who loudly berates TOD on these boards, defending it. The irony...

Ah, you just like to contradict me!
 

SterankoII

New member
I see it as: Here Bill and Gloria, I can't be bothered, take this transcript and bring me back something I'll like. Ok, this is ok, keep this...go away and try again. Ok, this I like...go away and try again. Ok hell let's give it a go!

I see it more like: "Here Bill and Gloria, my wife left me for the guy who built the big glass ceiling in my library at Skywalker Ranch. Now she's divorcing me and taking half my fortune. Life sucks. The world sucks. Come back with the next Indy movie."

And what the hell is this "Matrix punch" in TOD that's so 'unrealistic' people are talking about? All the action was done on set!

I'm going to agree with The New Yorker's The New Yorker's Pauline Kael's assessment of TOD:
In this follow-up to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, Steven Spielberg creates an atmosphere of happy disbelief: the more breathtaking and exhilarating the stunts are, the funnier they are. Nobody has ever fused thrills and laughter in quite the way that he does here. Momentum has often been the true-even if not fully acknowledged-subject of movies. Here it's not merely acknowledged, it's gloried in. The picture has an exuberant, hurtling-along spirit. Spielberg starts off at full charge in the opening sequence and just keeps going, yet he seems relaxed, and he doesn't push things to frighten us. The movie relates to Americans' love of getting in the car and taking off-it's a breeze. Harrison Ford is the archeologist-adventurer hero; Ke Huy Quan plays his child sidekick Short Round; and Kate Capshaw is the gold-digger heroine. The plot involves them with an odious boy maharajah and with Mola Ram (an anagram for Malomar), the high priest of a cult of Kali worshippers who come right out of the 1939 adventure comedy GUNGA DIN. This is one of the most sheerly pleasurable physical comedies ever made. A Lucasfilm Production, from a story idea by George Lucas, and a script by Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz. The score by John Williams is too heavy for the tone of the film, and it's too loud.

And Roger Ebert's:
Steven Spielberg's "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" is one of the greatest Bruised Forearm Movies ever made. You know what a Bruised Forearm Movie is. That's the kind of movie where your date is always grabbing your forearm in a viselike grip, as unbearable excitement unfolds on the screen. After the movie is over, you've had a great time but your arm is black-and-blue for a week.

This movie is one of the most relentlessly nonstop action pictures ever made, with a virtuoso series of climactic sequences that must last an hour and never stop for a second. It's a roller-coaster ride, a visual extravaganza, a technical triumph, and a whole lot of fun. And it's not simply a retread of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," the first Indiana Jones movie. It works in a different way, and borrows from different traditions.

This is the most cheerfully exciting, bizarre, goofy, romantic adventure movie since "Raiders," and it is high praise to say that it's not so much a sequel as an equal. It's quite an experience. You stagger out with a silly grin -- and a bruised forearm, of course.
 
Last edited:
SterankoII said:
I see it more like: "Here Bill and Gloria, my wife left me for the guy who built the big glass ceiling in my library at Skywalker Ranch. Now she's divorcing me and taking half my fortune. Life sucks. The world sucks. Come back with the next Indy movie."

Hey, that's fine, it's just as good as my rendition of why the script was weak.

SterankoII said:
And what the hell is this "Matrix punch" in TOD that's so 'unrealistic' people are talking about? All the action was done on set!

The very cool Indy/minecart lamp reveal...that ends with Neo punching agent smith, I mean ends with the thuggee sliding through 15 feet of gravel...INDY SUPERHERO! Yeaaaaay!!

I'm going to agree with The New Yorker's assessment of TOD And Roger Ebert's...

That's fine, I'll make my own determinations, but Siskel was better then Ebert!;)
But he was!
 

The Drifter

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
The very cool Indy/minecart lamp reveal...that ends with Neo punching agent smith, I mean ends with the thuggee sliding through 15 feet of gravel...INDY SUPERHERO! Yeaaaaay!!

Hey, that was one of my favorite parts in the movie!
 

Darth Vile

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
The very cool Indy/minecart lamp reveal...that ends with Neo punching agent smith, I mean ends with the thuggee sliding through 15 feet of gravel...INDY SUPERHERO! Yeaaaaay!!

Lonsome_Drifter said:
Hey, that was one of my favorite parts in the movie!

To be honest, IMHO, it's a moment that best defines the movie. Love it or not, it does underline the movie makers intent. I.e. An action hero who is crossing over into superhero territory. A republican serial type pastiche turning into a comic book.
 

SterankoII

New member
And I LOVE Comic Books! That's why I like it. The whole movie is like an Alex Schomburg come to life and it's awesome:

home_captain_america.jpg


I love Indy punching that guy and sliding across the floor.

I love Short Round stepping on that guy to get into the mine cart,

and I LOVE Indy stopping the mine cart with his feet, it smoking, him going "Water! Water" and a whole flood coming right at him!

I LOVE ALL OF THAT!

Sorry if you don't.
 
Last edited:

Robyn

New member
SterankoII said:
I love Indy punching that guy and sliding across the floor.

I love Short Round stepping on that guy to get into the mine cart,

and I LOVE Indy stopping the mine cart with his feet, it smoking, him going "Water! Water" and a whole flood coming right at him!

I LOVE ALL OF THAT!

Sorry if you don't.

I loved all of those things too! Those things are not the problem with tod
 

The Drifter

New member
ronicle said:
I loved all of those things too! Those things are not the problem with tod
Well, what is? You say you felt they put no passion in it. Do you feel the same about Crusade and Kingdom?
 
Top