TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-07-2008, 01:00 AM   #26
blueseattle
IndyFan
 
blueseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by effin
I'm still not convinced the ark plays a prominent role.

I'm not either. I'm moreso on the side that I enjoy having the ark being carted away at the end, lost forever in the warehouse. I prefer it staying that way. It adds mystery.

Maybe the warehouse might just be coming back for other items?
blueseattle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2008, 01:13 AM   #27
snake_surprise
IndyFan
 
snake_surprise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueseattle
I'm not either. I'm moreso on the side that I enjoy having the ark being carted away at the end, lost forever in the warehouse. I prefer it staying that way. It adds mystery.

Maybe the warehouse might just be coming back for other items?

I don't disagree with you at all, but this thread is speculation on what it COULD be not what we WANT it to be.

I wish Lucas would leave the Ark alone, but I really doubt it.
snake_surprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2008, 05:22 AM   #28
peterlally
IndyFan
 
peterlally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 245
Well here is my crackpot theory... While looking for a crystal skull in the warehouse they accidently uncover the ark and Indy tugs the brim of his hat at it and thats it.

Either that or Indy gets nabbed trying to steal something from the warehouse and he gets hauled in front of the ark which they are experimenting on. Which could be the scene where he is being held by two soldiers in the desert and looks like he's about to fill his pants.
peterlally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2008, 09:54 AM   #29
1ord3vil
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 64
At this point, I'm beginning to suspect that they might commit one of the most common and fatal mistakes sequel moviemakers never ever seem to learn from: Throwing in an overabundance of plot devices in an attempt to compensate for a poor macguffin or storyline in the hopes that pushing things over the top will "add up" to something worthwile.

This has never failed to ruin a movie, yet screenwriters, directors and producers line up to commit this tired old mistake over and over.

Let's just for the sake of all that is good and noble hope that they DON'T try to fit the Ark, saucer aliens, crystal skull power and Aztec antenna death rays into the same movie, with a goofy wedding at the end.
1ord3vil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 10:35 AM   #30
1ord3vil
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 64
About the Ark: I really can't see this being the MacGuffin of another movie and it would probably be better to just imbue the crystal skull with whatever powers are needed for the story rather than use the same thing over again.

I can see the Ark being referenced in the movie though, even though that too has already been done, in LC.

An opening scene containing the Ark could be pretty cool. Something along the lines of the army conducting a research experiment to harness the Ark's power. The experiment fails and the opening scene ends with the Ark being destroyed in a nuclear explosion.
1ord3vil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 11:51 AM   #31
sandiegojones
IndyFan
 
sandiegojones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,251
I kind of felt the Ark would be a place that the Crystal Skull could be stored away in at the end of the film. Maybe only the power of God can contain it's power? Something powerful like the Skull needs to be in a secured place with "top men".
sandiegojones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 12:48 PM   #32
effin
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 148
here's a stretch, but I think the macguffin is the crystal skull.
effin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 01:19 PM   #33
snake_surprise
IndyFan
 
snake_surprise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 237
It could be the skull itself, but that does not correspond with what Lucas said.

He said that the macguffin has been sitting in front of his face the "whole time". He has also CONSISTENTLY talked about the crystal skull, the history behind it, etc...in separate discussions.

As I mentioned earlier, why would Ford and Speilberg balk at the macguffin if it were the skull? I think they were so apprehensive because of the 'risk' in using something already used...aka the Ark.

I think there are two treasures here...the Ark and the skull. The Ark is the driving force behind the skull, and the search thereof.
snake_surprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 02:02 PM   #34
jasperjones
IndyFan
 
jasperjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 300
the mcguffin is the skull. The mcguffin is literally the object that everybody is after. The ark in Raiders, The Death star plans in Starwars, the Skull in Kingdom. Aliens and ancient civilisation will be part of the plot (and the ET angle fits in very well with 1950's obsession of the space race etc) but the mcguffin will be the skull. I'd say that's pretty clear from what we know and people are making far too much out of the fact that Lucas used what is a very common film-making term in that article. If he'd just said the thing that everyone's after there wouldn't be this debate over it because we already know what everyone's after - the crystal skull.
jasperjones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 02:18 PM   #35
sandiegojones
IndyFan
 
sandiegojones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,251
I agree. I think the title gives it away!

I was only suggesting where the Ark may fit in (if it does in fact show up in the film).
sandiegojones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 02:27 PM   #36
jasperjones
IndyFan
 
jasperjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 300
you could well be right. Certainly the warehouse suggests that. If used well I think it would be pretty cool.
jasperjones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 02:49 PM   #37
commontone
IndyFan
 
commontone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperjones
you could well be right. Certainly the warehouse suggests that. If used well I think it would be pretty cool.

OK, I'm just gonna keep pointing this out until people stop assuming and address it. The picture of the warehouse in VF looks nothing like the Raiders warehouse--the ceilings are way too low, among other differences. At this point it is simply a big low-ceilinged space with crates in it, totally generic. We can speculate it will be CGI'd into the Raiders warehouse somehow, but we don't know that.

I just wish people would stop saying, "Well, given that the Raiders warehouse is back..." That's a big empty assumption. It's like seeing a picture of the jungle and assuming we'll see the same temple from the beginning of Raiders.
commontone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 02:59 PM   #38
snake_surprise
IndyFan
 
snake_surprise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperjones
the mcguffin is the skull. The mcguffin is literally the object that everybody is after.

Not necessarily. It can simply be a way/tool to keep the plot moving forward. I do think that Indy, et. al., will certainly be gunning for the skull, but I have a hunch that the Ark kicks it off (in terms of story design).

Quote:
Originally Posted by commontone
OK, I'm just gonna keep pointing this out until people stop assuming and address it. The picture of the warehouse in VF looks nothing like the Raiders warehouse--the ceilings are way too low, among other differences. At this point it is simply a big low-ceilinged space with crates in it, totally generic. We can speculate it will be CGI'd into the Raiders warehouse somehow, but we don't know that.

I just wish people would stop saying, "Well, given that the Raiders warehouse is back..." That's a big empty assumption. It's like seeing a picture of the jungle and assuming we'll see the same temple from the beginning of Raiders.

Keep in mind that the 'original' warehouse was a matte paining, so it really didn't exist. You mention CG...couldn't they utilize that to give the illusion of a higher ceiling? Seems pretty plausible to me, anyway.

I agree that this is an assumption, for sure...but if there were pictures of cast members alongside the village in India from TOD, couldn't we assume that the sankara stones were back? What about a picture of Shia in front of the grail temple in real life Jordan (Petra). Why would it be out of bounds to assume the grail is back?

I think the warehouse is such a seminal set/location/image in Indy lore, and I would be utterly shocked if The Beards used that location or setting for anything but the inclusion of the ark.
snake_surprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 03:27 PM   #39
commontone
IndyFan
 
commontone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 556
I see your point, but a warehouse is a lot more generic than a temple or village. There are tons of adventure movies that feature spaces with crates, or barrels..those are just standard backdrop objects for places like military bases or "hideouts."

The VF picture actually looks more like a shipping center, or loading dock to me, than a secret warehouse. I'm just not sold that it's the Raiders warehouse. Could be, but is far from a safe assumption IMO.
commontone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 03:37 PM   #40
sandiegojones
IndyFan
 
sandiegojones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,251
I looks just like the Raiders wherehouse to me. I watched that part again recently!

I think the ceiling is the actual studio ceiling and will be digitally enhanced to appear more like it does in Raiders.
sandiegojones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 03:43 PM   #41
commontone
IndyFan
 
commontone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandiegojones
I think the ceiling is the actual studio ceiling and will be digitally enhanced to appear more like it does in Raiders.

Yup, we've been talking about that.

The other consideration I thought of is that we know they have filmed on the Downey sound stage...being a former space shuttle plant, it has cavernous, steel-beamed ceilings just like the matte painting in Raiders. Also, in Raiders the crates are stacked higher, hence the higher ceilings. So on the Downey stage they could actually stack the crates several high, even if they're going to multiply them and alter things digitally later. But with those options available, they chose to just put a bunch of crates stacked low in a smaller room? Doesn't make sense.
commontone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 04:15 PM   #42
snake_surprise
IndyFan
 
snake_surprise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by commontone
But with those options available, they chose to just put a bunch of crates stacked low in a smaller room? Doesn't make sense.

The photo session for VF doesn't necessarily mean that the set seen thereof is the same set in the films. Same goes for the other pics. Those are modified sets with still photography in mind, not film at 24 f/s. Maybe the photographer didn't need/want a high stack of crates. Who cares, to be honest.

I will say that the ending scene of Raiders is more significant than you allude to at this point. Scorsese is always talking about a seminal shot to end films with...he even described the last shot of Raiders as a perfect scene/ending to that movie. That warehouse is not just the place where the Ark is...it is more symbolic of that...it ties the film and the plot together on several levels. I would put that long pull-back shot up there with ET on the bike going across the moon (even though that is not the end of ET).

Spielberg is an extremely calculated director. I really doubt he would happen to casually throw in a setting already seen (or a setting similar if not THE warehouse) just for the heck of it. Keep in mind, they have also used the crate imagery in early marketing displays...this stuff is planned out to the most finite detail, that is why I do not think is it just another warehouse, especially in the Indy film canon.
snake_surprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 04:36 PM   #43
commontone
IndyFan
 
commontone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by snake_surprise
I will say that the ending scene of Raiders is more significant than you allude to at this point.

I didn't think I was suggesting that the scene isn't important. I don't think that at all, anyway, I love that scene in Raiders, and have no problem with them revisiting the warehouse in the new film.

All I'm saying is, however plausible it is that the warehouse will be in the new film, and whatever evidence might be interpreted as pointing in that direction, we shouldn't be talking about that like it's a fact.

That picture of crates doesn't confirm that it's the Raiders warehouse any more than Shia and Karen Allen standing together confirms they're mother and son.
commontone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 05:34 PM   #44
jasperjones
IndyFan
 
jasperjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 300
I'm not saying for sure that the raiders warehouse is in this but it looks similar to me, not to mention the crate used in the early marketing and that all the early spoiler scoops alluded to the warehouse and the ark featuring, that's all. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong. We'll find out in May! Can't wait!
jasperjones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 06:13 PM   #45
snake_surprise
IndyFan
 
snake_surprise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by commontone
I didn't think I was suggesting that the scene isn't important. I don't think that at all, anyway, I love that scene in Raiders, and have no problem with them revisiting the warehouse in the new film.
I should have used a different word than 'important'...I did not do a good job with word choice. At any rate, I would probably define that setting/scene/location as more seminal to the series than most settings in the three films.

And like you, I would have no problem with that setting revisited at all...or the Ark for that matter, if it were handled well. I am weary of it simply because it is Lucas we are talking about, plain and simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commontone
All I'm saying is, however plausible it is that the warehouse will be in the new film, and whatever evidence might be interpreted as pointing in that direction, we shouldn't be talking about that like it's a fact.
I agree completely. I am speculating on the side of the Ark and the warehouse being part of the film, given the subject matter and title of this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commontone
That picture of crates doesn't confirm that it's the Raiders warehouse any more than Shia and Karen Allen standing together confirms they're mother and son.
Point taken, but the crate scenario is only more believable simply because we have 'seen' it (or something VERY similar) before.
snake_surprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2008, 06:15 PM   #46
CB27
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 16
I'm starting to think that alot of this stuff might be Lucas trying to intentionally mislead the fans in order to better conceal the real plot. I mean, almost every marketing thing we've seen thus far points to the ark being involved, but it's always just a little off( the wrong though suspiciously close number on the crate, the differences in the warehouses, etc.) It's not a bad idea on his part since he's already managed to get so many people convinced that the ark is involved in this movie. After all, this is the guy who filmed "Return of the Jedi" under the title "Blue Harvest."
CB27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:24 PM.