Cinemassacre Defends KotCS

Montana Smith

Active member
agull said:
Well, we all know that "Skull" is not the movie the makers wanted to do. They can't accept this movie either. I guess you know what the makers think about "Indiana Jones" and believeable action-scenes...

Yes, I wrote my thoughts on that in the other thread.

To "hate" something is a very strong and determined opinion. My view is that even if there are small parts of something that appeal to you, then the overall feeling for it cannot be hate, but something reduced to the disappointment that the rest wasn't as likable.

agull said:
By the way: I'm not Bruhn - but I found these great Quotes on facebook and imdb. He is right about the most things...

If you aren't Bruhn, then there's hope that some middle ground may be broached. Or, if you were Bruhn, then I can accept that a person can change and evolve over time, just as Indy aged, and found himself in the 1950s, lonely and probably longing for the past.
 
agull said:
Well, we all know that "Skull" is not the movie the makers wantedt to do.
Raiders wasn't the movie they wanted to do either, so much was cut or unusable, it wasn't entirely what they intended either.
agull said:
They can't accept this movie either.
That's just silly, Spielberg and Ford may have done it grudgingly, but they did it, and publicized the positives as they saw it. Apparently they found worthwhile reasons, (even if money was one).
agull said:
By the way: I'm not Bruhn - but I found these great Quotes on facebook and imdb. He is right about the most things...
Are you related?;)
 

agull

Guest
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"?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
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? :confused: 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! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Mod note

Please, people. Refrain from connecting one Internet nickname to another based simply on circumstantial evidence. It's about a big violation against good netiquette as "pure" trolling is. Leave making connections to those who have proper tools for it.


That being said, we don't even need that connection to remove an unwanted person from the premises. Sankara wasn't banned because we found a connection to someone - he was banned because he behaved in a manner that went against the upkeep's interpretation of the board rules (though he made us aware that the way he interpreted them was different - too bad that means jack squat against ours).

So we really don't need to find any proven connections to whoever agull is, or isn't. All we need is him behaving in a manner that goes against our rules in our house.
 
Last edited:

Cole

New member
Great quote Montana Smith!!

As an avid Clint Eastwood fan, I know I most certainly have never seen the Sergio Leone films as realistic or believable.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Cole said:
Great quote Montana Smith!!

As an avid Clint Eastwood fan, I know I most certainly have never seen the Sergio Leone films as realistic or believable.

Yes, there's a certain similarity between the world of Lucas' Indy and Sergio's characters.

Sergio felt that the idea of the old west had been corrupted by the sanitized Hollywood movies of the '50s. So, what he did, primarily in Spain and Italy, was re-imagine the old west with all its grim realities of dust, dirt, poverty, and horror, but retained the Hollywood idea of the mystical 'superhuman' gunfighter. He packaged all this in a very stylized manner, with Ennio Morricone's incredible sound track.

Lucas, likewise, took the idea of the pulp serials, which in their day were generally sanitized adventures, and injected the grim realities of dust, dirt and horror, but retained the pulp idea of the mystical 'superhuman' hero. He packaged all this in the style of a pulp serial, with John Williams' incredible sound track.

Where both Sergio and Lucas see the superhuman qualities, is in the things they do best. They take damage, they bruise, they bleed, yet they have a much higher than average sense of intuition and skill at what they do. Intuition warns them of dangers. Sergio's characters were superhumanly accurate and fast; Lucas' Indy was superhumanly lucky.
 
agull said:
Please read the quotes again. The makers said that "Indy" means believeable action-scenes with real stunts.
That means Temple isn't an Indy film because of the Life Raft "Parachute" and the Mine Cart "Rail Jump".

Thanks for clearing that up! Temple sucked anyway...and there was no character development.


Indy would NOT put up with a whning shrew like Willie.

Temple is not an Indy film bcause there's no Indy in it.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
That means Temple isn't an Indy film because of the Life Raft "Parachute" and the Mine Cart "Rail Jump".

Thanks for clearing that up! Temple sucked anyway...and there was no character development.


Indy would NOT put up with a whning shrew like Willie.

Temple is not an Indy film bcause there's no Indy in it.

I'm really starting to like you, Rocket. :cool:
 

teampunk

Member
really, there is no real indiana jones films. since the dogs name is indiana and i doen't remember seeing a dog in any of the movies, there is no such thing as an indiana jones movie.:)
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
teampunk said:
really, there is no real indiana jones films. since the dogs name is indiana and i doen't remember seeing a dog in any of the movies, there is no such thing as an indiana jones movie.:)

He did have a cameo in the beginning of that other fake Indiana Jones movie, the Last Crusade, I'm pretty sure.

;)
 

agull

Guest
The raft-scene was the weakest action-scene of the real Indy-Movies because it was to over the top. But only over the top not implausible like Nuke the fridge. Same with the minecar-jump.

We can live with one or two over the top-scenes but the problem is that almost every action-scene in skull is implausible.

And as we all know: Indy means believeable action and stuntscenes. Read the quotes from the makers again.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Dr.Jonesy said:
He did have a cameo in the beginning of that other fake Indiana Jones movie, the Last Crusade, I'm pretty sure.

;)

TLC wasn't an Indy movie because James Bond was in it. :p

Was ROTLA an Indy movie? I don't think Indy was in it, as he doesn't look like the character on the cover of the novel that came out before the movie:

DSCN3652.jpg


DSCN3653.jpg


I mean, Indy ought to have a shoulder holster and a military cartridge belt; there should have been a tank and pyramids in ROTLA, and all the Germans should have been SS. :confused:

agull said:
And as we all know: Indy means believeable action and stuntscenes. Read the quotes from the makers again.

And I can be repetitive, too:

Montana Smith said:
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.

Lucas has a different idea of believability. Just how believable is the action in a Spaghetti western, or in a James Bond movie?

Just how believable is Indy's 'stunt-fedora' that always returns to him despite what just happened?

The only difference between KOTCS and ROTLA in the regard of believability, is that the cliffhangers are bigger. Nuking the fridge is just as believable as a man who leaps into the sea and hangs onto a U-Boat, believing that it won't submerge and drown him. Do we assume that Indy was insane? No, we assume that since he's a pulp character he has a much greater chance of surviving outrageous actions.

How believable was it for the body of the German plane to overtake Indy and his dad in the tunnel in TLC? All these are style statements, expressions of the pulp genre. Lucas & co. put Indy into danger, then come up the solution to get him out again. It's a formula. Indy isn't real. His world isn't real.
 
Last edited:
Top