"For the last 1/3rd of the movie, Indy just stands around looking at ***"

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
If it was irrelevant, why include it, especially in a movie where we're always trying to "quicken the pace?" The FBI subplot of the movie may have been underplayed, but it was still given enough attention to suggest to the audience that it would serve more of a purpose than it ultimately proved to.

I don?t think the scenes/dialogue were irrelevant. I think, as indicated in my last post, they served a purpose to set the scene and underline Indy?s emotional state. It was the further examination/focus, which you suggest was needed, that I believe was largely irrelevant. That?s not to say it couldn?t have been more interesting (or made the movie better)? just that it wasn?t required. Those scenes were enough for me, to convey that Indiana Jones (circa 19 years on from the events of TLC) was a bit disconnected and lost.

Udvarnoky said:
Gahhhhhhhhh. Why? Because "there is a definite feel of beginning, middle and end?" So what? Every movie should have that - it's a fundamental of screenwriting.

James and Darth Vile, I'm genuinely interested in hearing what about the pace of Indy4 that makes it so strong from your perspectives.

Ultimately the pacing (in an Indiana Jones movie at least), is all about letting the story unfold without feeling like you are looking at your watch between set pieces. It?s not that I think KOTCS pacing was exceptional; just that I think the movie had a natural momentum that, for example, TLC lacked in it's first hour. Regardless of overall quality of the movie, I felt that the pacing of KOTCS carried me through the 2 hours with ease. Narratively speaking, I didn?t feel short changed in any way (that?s not to say the script didn?t have it?s faults), and the flow between scenes and locales seemed appropriate.
 

James

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
All of those beats are established in the "indefinite leave of absence" scene at Marshall and in the subsequent scene at Indy's house.

I'm fairly sure George Lucas (and perhaps even Spielberg) has called all of the Indy films B-movies, or at least homages to them. I also don't know how much stock we can put into the film makers on-record (can you supply these off-record quotes?) comments about their current movie.

James and Darth Vile, I'm genuinely interested in hearing what about the pace of Indy4 that makes it so strong from your perspectives.

But the "leave of absence" is the direct result of the FBI investigation. So the interrogation definitely serves a purpose. I also agree with Vile that Indy's war record is providing a backstory more than any big motivation for the character. (Much like the later Pancho Villa reference.)

No, I don't have any exact quotes about the off the record stuff. It's merely what was reported in the wake of the film's opening weekend and online backlash. I do recall that Nikki Finke was one of the people that reported on it, though. The context was that, despite the backlash, the inside word was that Lucas and Spielberg genuinely thought they had made a great Indy film. (And were therefore a little suprised by the criticism.)

My point about the homage stuff is that Lucas and Spielberg set out to make a B movie- not another 1930's serial cliffhanger- and constantly spoke about that fact. And both were very pleased with the end result. So logically, we have to assume that KOTCS is what they think Indy is like as a B movie. In light of that, do I think Spielberg edited the film based on how he believes those old B movies were paced? Or what "B movie pacing" should constitute? Absolutely. It just seems like a logical assumption to make, if I am going to try and guess why the film's climax is so rapid-fire.

As for the pacing, I think it pretty much speaks for itself. The film certainly moves at a steady clip, and is almost non-stop once the Jungle Chase begins. So yes, I think it flows a lot smoother than LC- which waits for the appearance of Henry Sr. before it really gets moving. Am I trying to argue that this somehow makes it a better film? Not really, because it's obviously a subjective argument. Some prefer KOTCS' rapid pace, while others may have opted for a slower rate with more development.
 

James

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Those scenes were enough for me, to convey that Indiana Jones (circa 19 years on from the events of TLC) was a bit disconnected and lost.

Exactly. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to interpret what information we are given in KOTCS. When you consider how methodically some fans over-analyze the original films, I'm not even sure why it would be up for debate.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Indy Croft said:
can everyone please stop the gossips now? All of us are fans not enemies, lets just drop this huge war between haters and lovers

That's not what this is at all. At least, I don't feel that Darth Vile or James' posts are in any way malicious, and I like to think mine aren't either. It's possible to be passionate without being hateful. Sorry if you feel otherwise, but the good news is that you don't have to read this.

Darth Vile said:
I don’t think the scenes/dialogue were irrelevant. I think, as indicated in my last post, they served a purpose to set the scene and underline Indy’s emotional state. It was the further examination/focus, which you suggest was needed, that I believe was largely irrelevant.

The interrogation scene suggested consequences for Indy that never happened (consequences greater than his being fired in the very next scene). What I'm suggesting is that the focus on this angle was too great, not lacking, because it had an entire scene devoted to it only to drop it immediately after. For the scene to have been left in, some kind, any kind, of reference to Indy's federal suspicions should have been made by the end of the film (which does not require pages of dialogue, as the suggestion seems to be). My real argument is that, at least if the subplot was going to be handled in the way that it ultimately was, the scene should have been cut altogether. Indy's disconnect is still made quite clear elsewhere in the film.


Darth Vile said:
flow between scenes and locales seemed appropriate.

There's where we disagree the most. I thought Indy4 felt very episodic, which is the complete opposite of having a flow. I still feel like the entire cemetery sequence felt disconnected from the rest of the film. Not in the sense that we didn't learn important information in it, but in the sense that the transitions were barely north of nonexistent. We go from the prison cell straight to Chauchilla and from Chauchilla straight to the Amazon campsite. I never got the sense that Indy and Mutt were traveling any further than the next soundstage.

I also felt that the highs and lows of Indy4 were awkwardly, even arbitrarily placed. It's not just a matter of having cool down periods between the action pieces. A lot of the exposition in the movie is unnecessarily complicated and weirdly timed. Indy's epic monologue about the conquistadors in the crypt felt like the script's attempt to explain an overly convoluted plot point, rather than unveiling a mystery that was worth being that complicated in the first place.

James said:
But the "leave of absence" is the direct result of the FBI investigation. So the interrogation definitely serves a purpose.

Even without the rewriting that would have been done after the removal of such a scene at the screenplay level, it's very easy to infer what the interrogation scene wants to tell us with the Dean Sanforth scenes alone. I mean, he tells Indy the feds ransacked his office. In the scene at Indy's house, the situation about the government's communist hysteria is conveyed point-blank. All of those themes would remain perfectly intact with zero confusion.

James said:
The context was that, despite the backlash, the inside word was that Lucas and Spielberg genuinely thought they had made a great Indy film. (And were therefore a little suprised by the criticism.)

There's a big difference between pleased with the final result and believing that they made a great Indy film. But even if you did provide these quotes, the fact remains that I'm okay with disagreeing with a movie's film makers. Spielberg apologized for Temple of Doom, which I still consider to be one of the most fun movies ever made.

James said:
My point about the homage stuff is that Lucas and Spielberg set out to make a B movie- not another 1930's serial cliffhanger- and constantly spoke about that fact. And both were very pleased with the end result. So logically, we have to assume that KOTCS is what they think Indy is like as a B movie. In light of that, do I think Spielberg edited the film based on how he believes those old B movies were paced? Or what "B movie pacing" should constitute? Absolutely. It just seems like a logical assumption to make, if I am going to try and guess why the film's climax is so rapid-fire.

I think when you say "B-movie" you're really trying to say "shoestring 1950s scifi," but my definition of a B-movie is simply a movie with a modest budget - a category that 1930s and 1940s serials fall squarely into.

The problem with the movie's final act is not with its overall pacing, but with the pacing of the individual scenes. My issue is not that it is "rapid fire" but that the ideas are underdeveloped and utterly wasted. That's not something I'm prepared to blame on 1950s B-movies.

James said:
As for the pacing, I think it pretty much speaks for itself. The film certainly moves at a steady clip, and is almost non-stop once the Jungle Chase begins. So yes, I think it flows a lot smoother than LC- which waits for the appearance of Henry Sr. before it really gets moving. Am I trying to argue that this somehow makes it a better film? Not really, because it's obviously a subjective argument. Some prefer KOTCS' rapid pace, while others may have opted for a slower rate with more development.

I don't think the movie movies steadily at all. Last Crusade may have accelerated at around the 1/3 mark, but Indy4 seems to move exclusively at either zero or 100mph. We get either action scenes or scenes of pure exposition, and unlike in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where giving us moments of slow-down creates a balance, the placement of thrill and chill moments seem jumbled together without much of a strategy.

All said and done, I don't know if I'd say the pace of Indy4 is faster. Maybe more goes on, but as far as moving the plot and providing excitement, Indy4's screenplay does not deliver.
 

James

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
We go from the prison cell straight to Chauchilla and from Chauchilla straight to the Amazon campsite.

Even without the rewriting that would have been done after the removal of such a scene at the screenplay level, it's very easy to infer what the interrogation scene wants to tell us with the Dean Sanforth scenes alone.

But even if you did provide these quotes, the fact remains that I'm okay with disagreeing with a movie's film makers.

I think when you say "B-movie" you're really trying to say "shoestring 1950s scifi," but my definition of a B-movie is simply a movie with a modest budget - a category that 1930s and 1940s serials fall squarely into.

One area I would've enjoyed seeing more of is the riverboat journey- especially since that type of scene was in earlier drafts (Monkey King; Saucermen).

I'm not sure having the Dean relay the information would've carried the same punch. The interrogation scene is much harsher and jarring, as Indy is essentially portrayed (and dressed) as a criminal. We receive backstory about what Indy was doing during the war, as well as his involvement at Roswell a decade earlier. Omitting this scene would've also opened up questions about Indy's exposure to the bomb's fallout.

I don't see any problem in disagreeing with the filmmakers. My point was to clarify that KOTCS is their interpretation of a 1950's B movie. So it's not unreasonable to suggest that Spielberg probably feels he kept the pacing true to the genre. It was certainly what I felt, just being a fan of those types of films. Sure, my ideal finale would've been far different, but it would've also stuck out like a sore thumb in this movie.

And when I refer to B movies, I mean the actual films cited by Lucas. It goes beyond just having a modest budget, since that could refer to most of the films produced in the 30's-50's. I think the real litmus test is that the genre typically favored escapism over realism- and this influence can clearly be seen in KOTCS. Obviously, we can see how this would be at odds with what people have come to expect in 2008.

A few extra lines here or an extra scene there would've gone a long way towards satisfying modern audiences, but it wouldn't have necessarily been any truer to the genre. Should there have been a brief scene with the military exonerating Indy at the end? For most viewers, the answer is probably yes. But was it really necessary to understand the plot? Not really. And it's not a stretch to assume that Spielberg may have thought, "Well, most of the films I remember watching as a kid wouldn't have bothered with it."

Does that mean you have to agree with him? Absolutely not. But it's not as though myself or Darth Vile are simply making up these story ideas. Most critics and fans picked up on them as well. This suggests that there's enough information being conveyed on the screen to relay the intended plot points (ie. Indy as a man out of time; his subsequent isolation; etc). Now, whether or not someone feels it's enough or prefers more is entirely subjective.
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
That's not what this is at all. At least, I don't feel that Darth Vile or James' posts are in any way malicious, and I like to think mine aren't either. It's possible to be passionate without being hateful. Sorry if you feel otherwise, but the good news is that you don't have to read this.

Totally agree with you. This is how differences of opinion should be discussed i.e. rationally and with some modicum of intelligence I hope. ;)

Udvarnoky said:
The interrogation scene suggested consequences for Indy that never happened (consequences greater than his being fired in the very next scene). What I'm suggesting is that the focus on this angle was too great, not lacking, because it had an entire scene devoted to it only to drop it immediately after. For the scene to have been left in, some kind, any kind, of reference to Indy's federal suspicions should have been made by the end of the film (which does not require pages of dialogue, as the suggestion seems to be). My real argument is that, at least if the subplot was going to be handled in the way that it ultimately was, the scene should have been cut altogether. Indy's disconnect is still made quite clear elsewhere in the film.

Not sure I agree. As I see it, the biggest potential consequence (as fitting for an Indy movie and his character) is that he losses his job and his academic reputation is sullied. I’m not sure what other consequences would be appropriate. Imprisonment perhaps? Possibly – but that would take the movie down a different road completely. My simplistic reading of that plot/story strand, was simply that the Feds forced his dismissal from his teaching post. Without any family (or so he thinks), he feels dysfunctional and has nothing left to stay around for.

Udvarnoky said:
There's where we disagree the most. I thought Indy4 felt very episodic, which is the complete opposite of having a flow. I still feel like the entire cemetery sequence felt disconnected from the rest of the film. Not in the sense that we didn't learn important information in it, but in the sense that the transitions were barely north of nonexistent. We go from the prison cell straight to Chauchilla and from Chauchilla straight to the Amazon campsite. I never got the sense that Indy and Mutt were traveling any further than the next soundstage.
But isn’t an Indiana Jones movie “episodic” by it's nature? The movies always start with the last reel of the previous adventure. So when I state that KOTCS has a "good flow", I mean within context of how an Indy movie works. I do understand what you mean when you reference the cemetery scene… but I think that’s comparable to Venice – Austria – Berlin (TLC), or even US – Nepal – Cairo (ROTLA). Besides, there has to be an opportunity in the movie to show the map and the red line… :D

Udvarnoky said:
I also felt that the highs and lows of Indy4 were awkwardly, even arbitrarily placed. It's not just a matter of having cool down periods between the action pieces. A lot of the exposition in the movie is unnecessarily complicated and weirdly timed. Indy's epic monologue about the conquistadors in the crypt felt like the script's attempt to explain an overly convoluted plot point, rather than unveiling a mystery that was worth being that complicated in the first place.

It’s certainly one of the wordier expositional scenes. And as much as I enjoy that whole segment, if I were looking to trim a couple of minutes of exposition from KOTCS, it would have been there (to be replaced with some form of booby trap). And again as a comparison, I would compare that particular scene to the catacombs (TLC) i.e. largely perfunctory, but interesting nonetheless.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
James said:
I'm not sure having the Dean relay the information would've carried the same punch. The interrogation scene is much harsher and jarring, as Indy is essentially portrayed (and dressed) as a criminal. We receive backstory about what Indy was doing during the war, as well as his involvement at Roswell a decade earlier.

You may have found the "punch" of the interrogation scene to be necessary (a worthwhile but different discussion), but all of the information it conveyed was still superfluous. Indy's WWII backstory is already hinted at in the opening scene, as is his involvement in the Roswell incident.

James said:
Omitting this scene would've also opened up questions about Indy's exposure to the bomb's fallout.

We both know that the people who have problems with the fridge scene were hardly satisfied by the scrub down. Conversely, the people who likes the fridge scene didn't need any more explanation than the "lead lined" text on the fridge's interior. Nothing would have really changed.

James said:
I don't see any problem in disagreeing with the filmmakers. My point was to point out that KOTCS is their interpretation of a 1950's B movie.

Okay, I'm with you there.

James said:
So it's not unreasonable to suggest that Spielberg probably feels he kept the pacing true to the genre.

I wouldn't presume to know what Spielberg felt, but I do know that original intention and what actually ends up happening aren't always the same thing. Furthermore, I don't really care how true the pacing of the movie is to 1950s B-movies as much as a care about whether or not the pacing was effective, and didn't think it was.

James said:
And when I refer to B movies, I mean the actual films cited by Lucas. It goes beyond just having a modest budget, since that could refer to most of the films produced in the 30's-50's. I think the real litmus test is that the genre typically favored escapism over realism- and this influence can clearly be seen in KOTCS. Obviously, we can see how this would be at odds with what people have come to expect in 2008.

You're not giving open-minded audiences enough credit. I think audiences will in general like things that work and dislike things that don't. To say that Indy4 is dependent on intimate knowledge of 1950s B-movies is to absolve Indy4 of any responsibility of being an independently good movie. None of the little kids who saw and fell in love with the Indiana Jones movies knew what the hell 1930s serials or pulp magazines were, and not all of the adults did either. Yes, knowing the influences of a movie will certainly help in understanding and appreciating it better, but the film must succeed on its own before it can succeed in any other way. Just because I think Indy4 does a good job of capturing the essence of a 1950s B-movie doesn't de facto mean it was a great movie. It only means that it did a good job of capturing the essence of a 1950s B-movie.

James said:
A few extra lines here or an extra scene there would've gone a long way towards satisfying modern audiences, but it wouldn't have necessarily been any truer to the genre. Should there have been a brief scene with the military exonerating Indy at the end? For most viewers, the answer is probably yes. But was it really necessary to understand the plot? Not really. And it's not a stretch to assume that Spielberg may have thought, "Well, most of the films I remember watching as a kid wouldn't have bothered with it."

So it's modern audiences you're against, is it? If only those uneducated modern audiences would have appreciated the movie's immaculate embodiment of 1950s B-movies they would have seen the light? I've seen 1950s B-movies, and I understand, I suspect, a good deal of the references, but not every single decision behind this movie was made from the mindset of paying them homage, and the emulation wasn't nearly as perfect as you suggest. And while I do not think it's a stretch to fathom that Spielberg may have been thinking along those lines about the necessity of the FBI subplot, I do think it's a stretch to assume it. Neither of us has access to the shooting script, but I wouldn't be surprised if the ending was exactly on the page as it was on the screen.

Oh, and I can't speak for "modern audiences," but if you think "a few extra lines here or an extra scene there" were the changes I'd make to this movie, you greatly misinterpret me.

James said:
Does that mean you have to agree with him? Absolutely not. But it's not as though myself or Darth Vile are simply making up these story ideas. Most critics and fans picked up on them as well. This suggests that there's enough information being conveyed on the screen to relay the intended plot points (ie. Indy as a man out of time; his subsequent isolation; etc). Now, whether or not someone feels it's enough or prefers more is entirely subjective.

There's more to good screenwriting than making sure the audience understands the plot (which I did not say Indy4 failed to do). If you think my issue was that the movie didn't relay its intended plot points, then you wasted your time typing that paragraph. What the movie didn't do was relay these plot points in ways that were consistently effective or competent.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Not sure I agree. As I see it, the biggest potential consequence (as fitting for an Indy movie and his character) is that he losses his job and his academic reputation is sullied. I’m not sure what other consequences would be appropriate. Imprisonment perhaps? Possibly – but that would take the movie down a different road completely. My simplistic reading of that plot/story strand, was simply that the Feds forced his dismissal from his teaching post. Without any family (or so he thinks), he feels dysfunctional and has nothing left to stay around for.

I don't know what consequences the movie could have cooked up, but they might have started with: anything. If the FBI really did think Indy was in cahoots with the Russians, taking away his job would hardly be where they'd stop. Why not have the Feds keep an eye on him somehow, like maybe by having an agent tailing him and Mutt in Peru? (What does Indy do, after all, but meet up with the Commies again?) Or maybe Mac could have turned out, in a final revelation, to have been working for the government all along, and informing Indy that he would be cleared? (At least that alternative fate for Mac would have been in service to the story and not just have just felt like a lame ripoff of Elsa's demise.)

Now, you could argue that such developments would have made for unnecessary additions to the plot, and maybe I don't disagree, but the thing is you don't introduce something with the weight that the interrogation scene does and not follow through with it. Simply showing Indy getting fired would have satisfied all of main ideas the movie ultimately was trying to. The fact that the interrogation scene has that "punch" that James points out it feel like it was setting up more of a purpose than it ultimately did. Either fulfill the promise implicit with the scene, or lose it altogether.

Darth Vile said:
But isn’t an Indiana Jones movie “episodic” by it's nature? The movies always start with the last reel of the previous adventure. So when I state that KOTCS has a "good flow", I mean within context of how an Indy movie works. I do understand what you mean when you reference the cemetery scene… but I think that’s comparable to Venice – Austria – Berlin (TLC), or even US – Nepal – Cairo (ROTLA). Besides, there has to be an opportunity in the movie to show the map and the red line… :D

True, an Indiana Jones movie is by nature more episodic than most, but Indy4 takes the concept to new heights. I don't agree with the examples you cite from the previous movies, which leads me to believe you don't really understand what I mean. Indy knows where The Raven is Nepal to meet Marion, and where the Cairo marketplace is. Why does he know where Chaucilla Cemetery is, and how did he and Mutt get there? I don't consider these details unnecessary or not worth showing. They're in a foreign land, being tracked by the Soviets, and are headed to a destination that isn't exactly a hop skip and a jump from the market. Give us even a few seconds of showing their journey rather than cutting straight to the CGI helicopter shot just to show us how cool it is that you can cut from the scratch outline to the identical structure of the actual cemetery from overhead.

At the end of the prison cell scene, Indy has Mutt sweep the floor and uncover a sort of schematic of Chaucilla Cemetery that Ox had somehow etched into the floor. Indy explains by telling Mutt that the scratches represent the cemetery where Orellana was buried to which Mutt responds, "I thought you said Orellana disappeared and no one found his grave?" to which Indy shoots back, "Well, it looks like Harold Oxley did."

That last line is delivered like it's supposed to have some kind of impact, or serve as a "Aha!" moment, but instead it's just confusing, with the audience thinking... "Uh, you didn't really answer Mutt's question." Not only were we not given a clear idea of how Indy can recognize the cemetery based on the scratchings, we also don't see how he can put two and two together that it being the resting place of the conquistadors is what Ox was trying to tell him. Yes, in retrospect I can easily buy the fact that Indy, being an archaeologist, would easily recognize the distinctive layout of Chauchilla, and I can also accept that the missing information was probably in a segment of Oxley's riddle that we're never made privy to. The problem is that this is not the sort of thing we should only be able to figure out during the car ride home. We're simply not given enough information and the movie loses us, not because it's being clever, but because simply of bad writing.

More infuriating than the fact that this little lead-in to the graveyard didn't work was the fact that if it was handled correctly, it would have made for a great little detective bit. The movie sets up a mystery that a bunch of Spaniards were buried in an Indian cemetery for inexplicable reasons, and then at the end of the graveyard scene we learn why. The thing is, the mystery is not properly set up in the first place. In Indy's crypt speech we essentially learn the setup and the explanation for the burial mystery at the same time, defeating the whole point. Overall, the bit in the cell just struck me as a scene that was like "Yeah, just go with this, even if it doesn't make any sense."

That contributes to the sequence's irritating "episodic" feel more than anything. Since the movie doesn't bother to let us in on what's going on, we're left with watching characters hopping to a bunch of faraway locations without really caring why. We knew exactly why Indy had to go from Nepal to Cairo, and from Venice to Brunwald. We're not involved with Indy and Mutt's quest because we're not sure what the hell it even is.

Darth Vile said:
It’s certainly one of the wordier expositional scenes. And as much as I enjoy that whole segment, if I were looking to trim a couple of minutes of exposition from KOTCS, it would have been there (to be replaced with some form of booby trap). And again as a comparison, I would compare that particular scene to the catacombs (TLC) i.e. largely perfunctory, but interesting nonetheless.

Again, I really don't agree with your "mirror scenes" from the other movies. When Indy and Elsa reached Sir Richard's Tomb, it didn't turn out that he was buried with the tablet behind his head, which was found and taken oh and then brought back and also the knights were buried there and not somewhere else because they killed each other off on the way back to their homeland but you see these other people found them and buried them in their own cemetery but you see they didn't take the loot because that wasn't important anditreallymakessenseifyouthinkaboutit.

I don't think that "perfunctory" even begins to describe the cemetery scene as a whole, but, well, let's save that.
 
Last edited:

James

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
To say that Indy4 is dependent on intimate knowledge of 1950s B-movies is to absolve Indy4 of any responsibility of being an independently good movie.

So it's modern audiences you're against, is it? If only those uneducated modern audiences would have appreciated the movie's immaculate embodiment of 1950s B-movies they would have seen the light? not every single decision behind this movie was made from the mindset of paying them homage, and the emulation wasn't nearly as perfect as you suggest.

Oh, and I can't speak for "modern audiences," but if you think "a few extra lines here or an extra scene there" were the changes I'd make to this movie, you greatly misinterpret me.

If you think my issue was that the movie didn't relay its intended plot points, then you wasted your time typing that paragraph. What the movie didn't do was relay these plot points in ways that were consistently effective or competent.

The entire B movie issue was triggered by the following quote I made:

I'm not really sure why Spielberg went that route. It's arguably Indy's largest discovery yet, and the audience is basically just rushed through with little time to take it all in. My assumption is that it's a side effect of trying to imitate the pacing of a 1950's B movie. The entire film does a very good job of finding that groove

As a result, I think we may be talking in circles here. No, I don't believe an intimate knowledge of B movies is required to watch KOTCS, or that its emulation of that genre automatically makes it a great film. But what I do believe is that Spielberg was heavily inspired by those films, and that inevitably affected the end result.

My comment about the "extra lines" was a reference to this comment you made:

If there was just one extra line in there, or any attempt at an explanation that played into the character traits you discussed above, we wouldn't even be having this argument.

The idea of a minor scene at the end- to tie up the blacklist subplot- was also frequently mentioned in fan reviews. So there are undoubtedly a great deal of people who would've been satisfied by even small attempts to explain the plot more. The question of whether it was actually necessary is fairly subjective, though.

The above quote also relates to my comments about the story points: "or any attempt at an explanation that played into the character traits you discussed above".

The implication was that the traits were not sufficiently explained. My point was that the information was still up on the screen- as evidenced by the fact that many fans and critics picked up on those traits. I realize they weren't developed to everyone's satisfaction, but that too falls under the heading of being subjective, imo.

Am I trying to suggest- throughout any of this- that it was a "perfect" film and that you're simply wrong? Not at all. I'm only interested in offering different viewpoints of what is already present in the film- not what is lacking. So while the film certainly has its share of flaws, I still feel it had a level of depth- particularly in the characterization of Indy- that has been undervalued in favor of dwelling on the flaws. (And I'm not referring to this particular thread, but the film's reception in general.)
 

StoneTriple

New member
Darth Vile said:
As I see it, the biggest potential consequence (as fitting for an Indy movie and his character) is that he losses his job and his academic reputation is sullied. I?m not sure what other consequences would be appropriate. Imprisonment perhaps? Possibly ? but that would take the movie down a different road completely. My simplistic reading of that plot/story strand, was simply that the Feds forced his dismissal from his teaching post.

In fact, weren't the feds pushing for harsher consequences for Indy but Stanforth offered up his own job to lessen their focus on him? Wasn't that what set up the scene in Indy's house where the two of them are discussing how much the world has changed? Both were at a turning point in their lives, largely because of the government.

Sorry, it's been a few months. I'll get a refresher tomorrow. ;)
 

Indy Croft

New member
Udvarnoky said:
That's not what this is at all. At least, I don't feel that Darth Vile or James' posts are in any way malicious, and I like to think mine aren't either. It's possible to be passionate without being hateful. Sorry if you feel otherwise, but the good news is that you don't have to read this.


well it's just difficult for me to take negative reviews that's all:(
 

James

Well-known member
Getting back to the original subject of Indy 'not doing enough'...

It's ironic that Ford's age was ridiculed for years, only to end up being such a non-issue in the finished film. Suddenly, everyone's complaint was that he didn't do enough!

But what exactly is the precedent for a 65-year-old action star? Off the top of my head, I'm not sure I can think of an actor who has delivered a more physically demanding performance than Ford in KOTCS. If I'm not mistaken, when Eastwood was 65 he was making The Bridges of Madison County. Charles Bronson remained in pretty solid shape, but his bread and butter was shooting people.

John Wayne's late period is probably the gold standard here- especially with films like True Grit or Big Jake- but even those were made prior to his turning 65. He was 65 when he starred in The Cowboys, but that was a film that addressed aging and didn't require many stunts. Of course, Wayne also relied fairly regularly on stunt men, as was the standard practice at the time.

Am I missing someone obvious here, or does Ford have a pretty strong case for the 'old action star' title?
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I'm pretty sure the physicality of the performance is not what people have been complaining about. It's certainly not my issue. I think Ford did as much physical work in this one as he did in any of the others.

The problem, again, is at the writing level, but I guess it's easier to just lop the people who had problems with the film in the same category as the twelve year olds on the internet who made the Indiana Jones Senior Citizen jokes for years before the film came out. Most people agree that Ford was one of the best aspects of the film, and I think any one with common sense can understand why having an elderly Indiana Jones works in a way that an elderly James Bond or Jason Bourne would not.
 
Last edited:

James

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
I'm pretty sure the physicality of the performance is not what people have been complaining about.

I guess it's easier to just lop the people who had problems with the film in same category as the twelve year olds on the internet who made the Indiana Jones Senior Citizen joke for years before the film came out.

As Indy said in the diner: "Take it easy." ;)

It wasn't a question about the film's merits, or a labored attempt to defend the film for the umpteenth time. The question is simply what kind of precedent exists for a 65-year-old man to be running, jumping, and fighting as much as Ford does here. Given the original topic of this thread- which was centered around Indy's activity level in the film- it seemed like a good place to pose it.

(But since you mentioned it, Ford's age was a running joke for virtually everyone- not just kids on the internet.)
 

Crusade>Raiders

New member
James said:
Am I missing someone obvious here, or does Ford have a pretty strong case for the 'old action star' title?

Sylvester Stallone was born in '46, and he's still kicking ass and ripping off heads in Rambo.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I do think it's worth pointing out that not only does the consensus view seem to be that Indy did a lot of physical stuff in this film, but, in contrast with your observation that most felt he didn't do enough, some people felt that there was too much of it. From today's DVD Verdict review:

You have a rich universe to play in and end up making reference to much of what came before, so where's the disconnect? Believability. We never fear for Indy's well-being. He's more indestructible now at 60 than ever before—surviving an atomic blast in a refrigerator, a motorcyle wipeout, hearty poundings from a handful of younger and tougher adversaries, plunging down three waterfalls, and walking away from all without a scratch? It's ridiculous. Look back at Raiders where he was shot and beaten to within an inch of his life, or Temple of Doom where he was poisoned and mind-controlled, or Last Crusade where his father was left for dead and the only way to save him was to find the chalice. If there's no threat to your hero(es), there's nothing for your audience to grab onto.

I'm sure the way some people will react to this quote is, "Here's just another guy who didn't get that silliness is a staple of an Indiana Jones movie." But notice that when the reviewer talks about "Believability" he not referring to something being realistic. (For God's sake, he cites the cartoony Black Sleep of Kali moment as part of his argument.) Yes, the previous movies had moments as ridiculous as all of the above, but Indy4 does not seem to be concerned with there being actual stakes or peril, so the action feels more perfunctory and yes, over-the-top than it otherwise would.

Anyway, just playing devil's advocate here and illustrating that there were people who thought Indy did too much from a physical standpoint just as there were people who thought he didn't do enough. Again, from my perspective, the presence of physicality was not my issue, but rather the exclusion of other factors that would have made the physicality more worthwhile. I suspect this is the sort of sentiment that a lot of the misguided "Nuke the Fridge" people might be sharing if they actually knew how to express themselves in a constructive way.
 
Last edited:

Major West

Member
The last third of the movie unless I'm mistaken includes the Jungle chase and big fight scene, and Indy is pretty active in that. After that there's only about 20 minutes of film left.

I think you'll find he doesn't do much near the end of Raiders either. He's captured and tied to a pole.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Major West said:
I think you'll find he doesn't do much near the end of Raiders either. He's captured and tied to a pole.

Thanks for the recap, Major West. However, you're referring to the end of Raiders as opposed to the last thirty minutes of it. The scene where the ark is opened is analogous to the scene where Indy reaches the skull chamber. While Indy was facing nonexistent obstacles represented by the natives and obelisk in Indy4, he was sneaking onto a submarine, beating up a Nazi to steal his uniform, and threatening the entire group of bad guys with a bazooka in Raiders.

That Indy is in general pretty much a passive force during the climactic showdown is a staple of the saga (though I guess we could call Temple of Doom the exception), and no one was surprised that Indy4 followed suit. No need to attack arguments that were never made.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I realize that, and I think you realize that I'm not the guy who started the thread, but what you don't seem to realize is that the scene where Indy is strapped to the pole in Raiders does not constitute the last third of the movie.
 
Top