agull said:
And what do say about the quotes from the makers about Indiana Jones and believeable action-scenes? Can't yoo see the difference in quality between the real Indy-Movies and "Skull"?
There is no character development or something. Indy is not really Indy in this movie but the reason is very bad screenwriting.
Indy is no superhero - he can't survive Nuke the fridge...
Do you think 20 years before "Crusade" Henry Jones senior was like Indy in "Raiders"?
We need only listen to Lucas in 1979:
"That is the progression we have to do. It's hard to come up with. The trouble with cliff hangers is, you get somebody into something, you sort have to get them out in a plausible way. A believable way, anyway. That's another important concept of the movie — that it be totally believable. It's a spaghetti western, only it takes place in the thirties. Or it's James Bond and it takes place in the thirties. Except James Bond tends to get a little outrageous at times. We're going to take the unrealistic side of it off, and make it more like the Clint Eastwood westerns. The thing with this is, we want to make a very believable character. We want him to be extremely good at what he does, as is the Clint Eastwood character or the James Bond character. James Bond and the man with no name were very good at what they did. They were very, fast with a gun, they were very slick, they were very professional. They were Supermen."
There you go - Lucas said Indy was going to be like Joe/Manco/Blondie or Bond, whom he described as "Supermen".
When George says "believeable" its apparent that he's referring to the internal logic of ROTLA. ROTLA was
not a believable world in terms of our history: it was an invented world, which took its influences from ours. To believe in each scene of
Raiders we have to forget the anachronisms, and we have to accept that Indy will survive against all odds.
Lucas says the words "believable" together with "Spaghetti western" and "James Bond". So you can see that his version of "believable" doesn't equate to reportage. Neither Spaghetti westerns or James Bond were intended to be documentaries on westerns or spies. There were stylized movies, just as
Raiders was styled after the pulp serials.
That's the nature of the beast, and it was Lucas' beast whether we like or not. When you've created a character as popular as Indy you'll have your own chance to dictate how he appears and the cliffhangers he faces. As it is, Lucas and Spielberg have that right.
That cannot be denied.
And why should Henry Sr. be like Indy?
If you ever watched the Young Indiana Jones series you'll know that Henry Sr. was not a reckless adventurer. But then I suppose the Young Indy series isn't an Indy series, since Indy isn't in that either!