Jungle Cutter

Darth Vile

New member
WrathofGod said:
Couldn't agree more, a perfect opportunity for suspense and action, instead we get fencing lessons, monkey vine swinging and groin whacking jokes. Arg.:mad:

For me, as much as I disliked the application of the fencing scene (as in principle it's still a sound concept), and the vine swinging shenanigans (which even in theory is dodgy)... they seemed to mirror, or ape (excuse the pun), the Henry Jones Senior/Marcus fight in the tank (TLC) i.e. a mild distraction from the real action that Indy is involved in.

KOTCS is the worst offender for sure, in that there is little value in both the fencing scene or vine swing, but I do recall initially disliking how the tank scene cut back and fourth between the action orientated external stuff, and the internal silly stuff with Henry and Marcus.

My point??? Although KOTCS gets it so wrong with those particular elements, it does use the same template as the best action scene in TLC. And if you can forgive those elements, the jungle chase is a pretty good set piece.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
So are you saying that you believe it’s required violence levels would have made it unfilmable for KOTCS? If that’s the case, then maybe we have our answer.

I think it's only one possible answer, but it's food for thought at the very least. I don't know why you accept it as a possible answer though, when you've made it clear that you think Indy4 is more or less on the same level as the other movies with regard to violence.

Darth Vile said:
However, I don’t necessarily agree with that. A Nazi falling onto the treads of a tank and being crushed underneath (TLC) seems to be within the violence tolerance levels of KOTCS.

So where are the analogous moments in Indy4? Quite a few subordinate Nazis were offed in the tank chase, but there were zero dispatched Russians in the jungle chase (who were at worst punched or thrown off cars), and then Spalko's driver in the ant scene. Dovchenko's death is analogous to Colonel Vogel's fall off the cliff.

Darth Vile said:
I’m sure they could have applied those same levels of violence. If the action/set piece worked, then the levels of violence become largely academic (as it can be reduced/increased as the director wants).

Well I agree that the fundamental concern should absolutely be whether or not the set piece "works," but whether or not the level of violence is academic is up to the individual viewer, and is what I was trying to figure out with the "all about gore" thread. Obviously it wasn't academic for a lot of people.

Darth Vile said:
On another similar note… I find the barbequing of several Russian soldiers far more graphically violent than, for example, Pat Roach being crushed under the rock crusher (TOD). The TOD example may be more cleverly directed/edited, as the violence is implied rather than shown… but interested to know your view. Can implied violence be graphic? If so, then perhaps KOTCS is more graphically violent than we give it credit for???

Wow, that's a pretty...interesting...view. Still, to each his own. If Indy4 fully satisfied you in the realm of violence, then I'm at least as envious as I am confused.

Darth Vile said:
I’m not saying it’s an unjustifiable assumption, but it’s an assumption nonetheless (and big if we believed it were to be as significant as the tank). It’s not as if Lucas or Spielberg said “Yep - there is a great set piece on top of a jungle cutter”.

Oh, I'm not arguing against that at all.

Darth Vile said:
Missed opportunity? Yep perhaps (not yet understanding the reasons of omission).

The reasons for omission, assuming there was an omission at all (which we have no evidence of), are completely unrelated to whether or not it was a missed opportunity, so I don't see where the "perhaps" comes into play.

Darth Vile said:
Mis-sold? I don’t believe so. I remember prior to the release of TLC, snippets being released about action aboard a Zeppelin. My initial thought was “cool… we’re going to see Indy escaping an exploding airship”… but obviously it never panned out that way, and the Zeppelin was quite insignificant in the end.

Did anyone say it was mis-sold? I think it was "mis-sold" in the sense that based on the other movies, when I see a giant cool-looking vehicle/piece of machinery in an Indy film I expect to be used extensively as part of a set piece, or at least otherwise used for a purpose more substantial than: nothing. No one is accusing Spielberg, Lucas, or the marketing department of claiming something about the jungle cutter and delivering something else though. Not sure why you'd even bring that idea up.

Darth Vile said:
Agree completely. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean it work's in practice. If included/incorporated, it could have just been an additional scene for us to squabble over. ;)

So, in other words, there's no excuse.

Darth Vile said:
Hence my interest in understanding whether it was ever an option and if so, what point was it dropped? For me, to drop it/disregard it because it doesn't work is part of the movie making process, and it acceptable. To never identify/assess it's potential merits for what is, an action scene, would be rather short-sighted.

To me the "why" is not that interesting. Better use of the jungle cutter was not there, and it should have been. That's really what it comes down to.

Darth Vile said:
Whatever the reason, and potential set piece aside (can’t remember who suggested it), but I’d much rather have Mutt commandeering the jungle cutter to get to Indy/Spalko, than using the monkeys and vines option. But hey ho.

I don't really care who commandeers it, or if anyone commandeers it. I'd be open to whatever the hell Spielberg would have felt like doing to put the jungle cutter to actual use. There's a million ideas, and each is as good as the other.

Darth Vile said:
KOTCS is the worst offender for sure, in that there is little value in both the fencing scene or vine swing, but I do recall initially disliking how the tank scene cut back and fourth between the action orientated external stuff, and the internal silly stuff with Henry and Marcus.

My point??? Although KOTCS gets it so wrong with those particular elements, it does use the same template as the best action scene in TLC.

I don't see how that changes anything or is a particularly important observation. Are we supposed to appreciate poor segments of a movie for what it attempted to do, or for what its influences are?
 

The Man

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
For me, as much as I disliked the application of the fencing scene (as in principle it's still a sound concept), and the vine swinging shenanigans (which even in theory is dodgy)... they seemed to mirror, or ape (excuse the pun), the Henry Jones Senior/Marcus fight in the tank (TLC) i.e. a mild distraction from the real action that Indy is involved in.

But it's Indy himself who's positioned as the mild distraction for the majority of the jungle chase.
 

kongisking

Active member
Oh, shut it, all of you. God, I am SO sick of you people (subtley) ripping the limbs off Crystal Skull. Stop your damn crusade against Indy 4. We know you despise the thing, so can you be quiet now? I'm furious that, all these months later, us fans are arguing and complaining about stupid things like "missed opportunities", "groin jokes", "vine swinging", "nuked fridges", "monkeys", "sword lessons", etc. Jesus, has the old flicks EVER received this much abuse?

This is a trend that has become heartbreakingly-common in Hollywood. The original creators decide to appease the fans by making a new movie starring a popular creation of theirs, waste blood and sweat and tears making a whole damn movie, and when it's released what do us fans do?

WE **** ON THEM AND DAMN THEM AND CURSE THEM AND GIVE THEM HATE MAIL AND DEATH THREATS AND SAY THEY RAPED OUR CHILDHOOD AND RUINED OUR LIVES AND IN SHORT SHOW ABSOLUTELY ZERO APPRECIATION FOR EVEN THINKING ABOUT MAKING THIS FILM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**** us fans. We're a bunch of cruel, unappreciative bastards with no hearts. Our idols try to give back to the people that made their movies hits in the first place, and we reply with a big whopping F-YOU. We are mean, hurtful, unfair and have NO RIGHT to give judgement on a film like KOTCS or the Star Wars Prequels. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

But the saddest thing here is that everything I have typed here is just going to be ignored and ridiculed and teased, while you asswipes refuse to listen to reason and continue to drown in your hatred and condemn Spielberg and Lucas for the rest of your days without even thinking of just how mean you are being. A true fan would LOVE KOTCS and the Prequels, not strangle them to death!!!!!!!

Screw you all! I don't care if I'm permanently kicked out by the moderators. I will NOT just stand back and watch as this terrible unfairness continues. If no one will stand up for KOTCS, then I WILL UNTIL I DIE, DAMMIT!!!!!!

You guys disgust me. Rot in hell, you selfish monsters. :mad: :mad: :mad:
 

deckard24

New member
I'd have to disagree as, on the whole, I think the jungle chase is a pretty darned good action scene...
It's not a terrible action scene, and there are some intense moments, specifically when they are near that beautifully rendered CGI cliff, but overall it just feels so tame compared to the other films! Not one Russian soldier got shot, run over, fell off the cliff, or ripped apart by the flying debris of the jungle cutter! If I'm mistaken I'll stand corrected, but I don't think one person even died during the whole chase, as opposed to the multiple deaths in the Raiders truck chase, the TOD mine cart roller coaster ride, and the tank chase in LC. Once again a body count doesn't make a movie, but when a film that is an installment in a series veers in a different direction with one of its most crucial elements, the big chase, it's going to be found lacking! If the jungle cutter had been used for more then just an explosion sequence, or if one of the ducks had gone off the cliff, or if some of the soliders had been shot or run over, I honestly think a lot of people would be singing a different tune. The jumping from vehicle to vehicle was cool, but it became more of a chance to showcase Mutt's talents then show us just how much of a badass Indy still was!
and IMHO, is a better action scene than many of the other summer releases provided us with

Yeah it's better then the chase from The Mummy 3, but it's pretty even in my opinion with the somewhat lackluster chase in The Dark Knight. Other then that I can't think of any other big chase scenes from the summer releases, can you?
I certainly can't think of any better action scenes in 'Close Encounters' and 'War of the Worlds'. That said, there was certainly room for Spielberg to up the anti in this section of KOTCS.

You're right, Close Encounters and War of the Worlds weren't the best examples of major action scenes by Spielberg, but moreso examples of great uses of set pieces. For just basic big action scenes there aren't really many to go on where Spielberg's filmography is concerned, maybe the chase of the T-Rex in Jurassic Park or the chase of the shark by the Orca in Jaws? Still, those are more chase scenes then action scenes, so I guess the Indy films are where it's at!
 
Last edited:

IndyFan89

Member
Just another area where KOCS lacked. The Desert Chase and Belly of the Steel beast didn't get rid of a set piece with major potential at the beginning of the scene, just shows that Spielberg was being lazy.
 

StoneTriple

New member
IndyFan89 said:
The Desert Chase and Belly of the Steel beast didn't get rid of a set piece with major potential at the beginning of the scene, just shows that Spielberg was being lazy.

I dug the way the cutter was handled. It was Indy being much more efficient than in the past. No more going after the guys on horseback and fist fighting them - while getting beaten up, shot, and nearly killed in the process. This was Indy using an available weapon and taking care of the cutter before it even had a chance to become a headache.
 

nitzsche

New member
You know, I just re-watched this scene and I am now convinced Indy had no idea what he was going to hit with the RPG.

We see him take aim and fire and then the rocket hit the jungle cutter, but then you notice as the blade starts rolling and doing its damage, the procession of vehicles down the jungle corridor are pretty fairly spaced.

First the water truck and then another truck get sliced... a couple jeeps swerve out of the way. Indy is far at the rear and suddenly they see the blade coming at them bouncing. At this point you can't really see any of the other vehicles ahead of them - they are pretty far back.

I think Indy was just aiming to hit any of the vehicles ahead of them, which makes this a lucky shot that did far more damage than expected.

Pretty reckless move considering Oxley was in one of those vehicles.
 

EvilDevo

Member
deckard24 said:
If I'm mistaken I'll stand corrected, but I don't think one person even died during the whole chase

There is at least one body on the ground after the jungle cutter explodes. Look for it as Spalko hands off the skull to Mac.

Which makes me realize Indy does indeed fire a weapon and kill a guy after all in this movie. There. Haters: you can finally stop hating ;)

Of course, this guy could just be out of commission from all the vodka from the night previous...

In that situation, jungle floor does sound pretty tempting.

...who hasn't been there, right?
 
Last edited:

deckard24

New member
EvilDevo said:
There is at least one body on the ground after the jungle cutter explodes. Look for it as Spalko hands off the skull to Mac.

Which makes me realize Indy does indeed fire a weapon and kill a guy after all in this movie. There. Haters: you can finally stop hating ;)

Of course, this guy could just be out of commission from all the vodka from the night previous...

In that situation, jungle floor does sound pretty tempting.

...who hasn't been there, right?
Thanks for the heads-up! I'll have to look for it... sometime, considering I'm in no real hurry to watch Skull anytime soon!;)
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
I think it's only one possible answer, but it's food for thought at the very least. I don't know why you accept it as a possible answer though, when you've made it clear that you think Indy4 is more or less on the same level as the other movies with regard to violence.

Why wouldn?t I accept it as a possible answer? I?d like to think I?m open to any possible explanation. Besides, it?s not my answer? it was yours. Personally, I think they could have incorporated a jungle cutter fight scene that kept within the violence tolerance levels already established in the movie. Wether it would have worked, sadly, can only be conjecture at this point.

Udvarnoky said:
So where are the analogous moments in Indy4

I?m not sure whether that?s a rhetorical question or not? as I thought that?s what we were trying to understand e.g. why refrain/step back from gun play, but quite happily show someone being killed/eaten by ants?

Udvarnoky said:
Wow, that's a pretty...interesting...view. Still, to each his own. If Indy4 fully satisfied you in the realm of violence, then I'm at least as envious as I am confused.

I?m confused? Which do believe is more graphically violent? Seeing a man engulfed in flames and burning to death? Or seeing someone?s death only as a reaction on someone else?s face i.e. Willie, and then a simple blood smear on a rock crusher? For me, it's a no brainer as to which is more graphically violent.

Udvarnoky said:
The reasons for omission, assuming there was an omission at all (which we have no evidence of), are completely unrelated to whether or not it was a missed opportunity, so I don't see where the "perhaps" comes into play.

Because a "missed opportunity" assumes that something would have been improved. With the greatest of respect, you don?t know that to be the case. For example, if the monkey scene hadn?t been included in the final cut, I would not have referred to it as ?a missed opportunity?, but rather a narrow escape?

Perhaps ?omission? is the wrong word in this case? Instead, was it an oversight (which I think we?d both agree would be lax on Spielberg/Lucas? part) or was it an artistic decision not to incorporate the jungle cutter into a bigger set piece (rhetorical question)?

Udvarnoky said:
Did anyone say it was mis-sold? No one is accusing Spielberg, Lucas, or the marketing department of claiming something about the jungle cutter and delivering something else though. Not sure why you'd even bring that idea up.

?Mis-sold? was my terminology not yours. I was posing a rhetorical question for my own responce. But ultimately, like it or not, a filmmaker can?t mitigate against your or my assumptions.

Udvarnoky said:
So, in other words, there's no excuse.

No excuse for what? Not including it in more action???


Udvarnoky said:
I don't really care who commandeers it, or if anyone commandeers it. I'd be open to whatever the hell Spielberg would have felt like doing to put the jungle cutter to actual use. There's a million ideas, and each is as good as the other.

It was a suggestion of how it could have been incorporated, logically, to greater use. What?s wrong with that?

Udvarnoky said:
I don't see how that changes anything or is a particularly important observation. Are we supposed to appreciate poor segments of a movie for what it attempted to do, or for what its influences are?

It was a simple observation that, similar to the main set piece in TLC, it was interwoven with fairly redundant moments of secondary action. When did we start chalking up rules for prioritizing the importance of observations? I'm not excusing it, I'm observing that it follows a similar template to the tank chase.
 

Darth Vile

New member
The Man said:
But it's Indy himself who's positioned as the mild distraction for the majority of the jungle chase.

I don't believe that to be the case (although I stand to be corrected).
 

Insomniac

New member
The Magic Rat said:
I'm sorry, but that's BS and complete fan fiction.
Give me a good reason why Hasbro would make a vehicle for the action figure if was just supposed to be blow up?

Besides Hasbro screwed up the line!
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Why wouldn?t I accept it as a possible answer? I?d like to think I?m open to any possible explanation. Besides, it?s not my answer? it was yours. Personally, I think they could have incorporated a jungle cutter fight scene that kept within the violence tolerance levels already established in the movie. Wether it would have worked, sadly, can only be conjecture at this point.

All I meant was that you've made it clear that in your mind Indy4 was more or less on the same level of violence as the other movies, yet you're willing to believe the possibility that Spielberg rejected an idea quite in line with the other movies on the basis of it being too violent for this movie. My point is, do you think Spielberg was holding back or not? I'm trying to figure out where you sit on this, because it sounds like you're trying to sit everywhere.

Darth Vile said:
I?m not sure whether that?s a rhetorical question or not? as I thought that?s what we were trying to understand e.g. why refrain/step back from gun play, but quite happily show someone being killed/eaten by ants?

It was not rhetorical. Like I just told you, Dovchenko's death is the equivalent of Colonel Vogel going off the cliff with the tank. So, where is Indy4's version of all the Nazi's who get offed along during the course of the tank chase? We had Indy killing three guys with one bullet, a guy who got crushed, a vehicle with Nazis in it that got crushed, a guy inside the tank who gets hit in the forehead by a ricocheting bullet... What did Indy4 have? The three guys who fell onto the ground when the duck went airborne? I really don't think I'm over analyzing it here - literally no one died in Indy4's centerpiece chase sequence. And if you count the ant sequence as the chase's climax, it's still only the one subordinate. There's nothing confusing about this.

Darth Vile said:
I?m confused? Which do believe is more graphically violent? Seeing a man engulfed in flames and burning to death? Or seeing someone?s death only as a reaction on someone else?s face i.e. Willie, and then a simple blood smear on a rock crusher? For me, it's a no brainer as to which is more graphically violent.

I don't know if your term for "graphically" violent requires on screen carnage (did the other movies ever really have that aside from the one moment in each movie, usually at the climax?), but I don't think it's even debatable who got the grislier demise. Which is a more unusual/bizarre way to go - getting fed through a rock crusher or being immolated? Seeing some writhing actors being torched by some CGI flames doesn't quite have the punch of a guy, even just implied, fed through a roller.

Darth Vile said:
Because a "missed opportunity" assumes that something would have been improved. With the greatest of respect, you don?t know that to be the case. For example, if the monkey scene hadn?t been included in the final cut, I would not have referred to it as ?a missed opportunity?, but rather a narrow escape?

That you compare the monkey scene even conceptually to what's being suggested about the jungle cutter tells me that you and I are not on the same page. I also think that it's worth noting that your definition of "missed opportunity" in fact strictly denies the existence of missed opportunities, since they can't be "proven." If you want proof that something along the lines I'm talking about can work, simply look at all of the other Indiana Jones movies. If you want to argue something more specific than that, you're only arguing with yourself.

Darth Vile said:
Perhaps ?omission? is the wrong word in this case? Instead, was it an oversight (which I think we?d both agree would be lax on Spielberg/Lucas? part) or was it an artistic decision not to incorporate the jungle cutter into a bigger set piece (rhetorical question)?

Again, I really don't care about the "Why?" I only care about the result, and the effect that it had on the final movie.

Darth Vile said:
?Mis-sold? was my terminology not yours. I was posing a rhetorical question for my own responce. But ultimately, like it or not, a filmmaker can?t mitigate against your or my assumptions.

Not sure what you're arguing against here. Even if your rhetorical question wasn't directed at me, I think I'm still allowed to make comments on it.

Darth Vile said:
No excuse for what? Not including it in more action???

Correct.

Darth Vile said:
It was a suggestion of how it could have been incorporated, logically, to greater use. What?s wrong with that?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, last time I checked. I just want to make it abundantly clear that I'm not suggesting that there was one correct solution to the jungle cutter issue and that I know what it is. I just know that it was a pretty obviously oversight and one the Spielberg shouldn't have made, and that if he hadn't it would have resulted in a better set piece.

Darth Vile said:
It was a simple observation that, similar to the main set piece in TLC, it was interwoven with fairly redundant moments of secondary action. When did we start chalking up rules for prioritizing the importance of observations? I'm not excusing it, I'm observing that it follows a similar template to the tank chase.

But again, why make the observation, if the template is ultimately superficial and unimportant?
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
All I meant was that you've made it clear that in your mind Indy4 was more or less on the same level of violence as the other movies, yet you're willing to believe the possibility that Spielberg rejected an idea quite in line with the other movies on the basis of it being too violent for this movie. My point is, do you think Spielberg was holding back or not? I'm trying to figure out where you sit on this, because it sounds like you're trying to sit everywhere.

Have I??? Please see below. Perhaps you should read the responces within your own thread… ;)

Darth Vile said:
I’ve been thinking about this one quite a bit, because we’ve been discussing some elements within other threads.

I think it’s a fair statement to say that KOTCS is probably less graphically violent that it’s predecessors.

If we are talking about generic violence/body count, then I do think Spielberg/Lucas took a conscious decision to step back from portraying that type of violence on screen. In a world where gun crime is common place (even in the UK), that decision is a brave and laudable step to take. At this stage, I’m not sure whether that decision ultimately hurts the movie, or makes it inferior to the others… but clearly it’s a risk, and clearly the notion that KOTCS is less violent than previous installments is a valid one.

I think I’ve been fairly consistent on this.

Udvarnoky said:
It was not rhetorical. Like I just told you, Dovchenko's death is the equivalent of Colonel Vogel going off the cliff with the tank. So, where is Indy4's version of all the Nazi's who get offed along during the course of the tank chase? We had Indy killing three guys with one bullet, a guy who got crushed, a vehicle with Nazis in it that got crushed, a guy inside the tank who gets hit in the forehead by a ricocheting bullet... What did Indy4 have? The three guys who fell onto the ground when the duck went airborne? I really don't think I'm over analyzing it here - literally no one died in Indy4's centerpiece chase sequence. And if you count the ant sequence as the chase's climax, it's still only the one subordinate. There's nothing confusing about this.

Who said it was confusing? You made an observation… and I’m simply trying to understand the rationale behind what led to Lucas/Spielberg’s artistic decision, on which, your observation is based.

Udvarnoky said:
I don't know if your term for "graphically" violent requires on screen carnage (did the other movies ever really have that aside from the one moment in each movie, usually at the climax?), but I don't think it's even debatable who got the grislier demise. Which is a more unusual/bizarre way to go - getting fed through a rock crusher or being immolated? Seeing some writhing actors being torched by some CGI flames doesn't quite have the punch of a guy, even just implied, fed through a roller.

I think they are fundamentally different. Implied violence versus graphic violence. If you believe implied violence is empirically the same as graphic, then it kind of undermines some of the observations… because I’d posit that KOTCS has more scenes of implied violence than it does explicit/graphic e.g. the U.S soldiers being killed at the airbase, Russians caught up in the atomic blast etc. I’d actually argue that the TOD example is probably a more clever use of editing/directing technique… but that in itself doesn’t make it more violent per se (as it's mostly implied).

Udvarnoky said:
That you compare the monkey scene even conceptually to what's being suggested about the jungle cutter tells me that you and I are not on the same page. I also think that it's worth noting that your definition of "missed opportunity" in fact strictly denies the existence of missed opportunities, since they can't be "proven." If you want proof that something along the lines I'm talking about can work, simply look at all of the other Indiana Jones movies. If you want to argue something more specific than that, you're only arguing with yourself.

I’m arguing a principle. Your definition of a missed opportunity seems to be based on an assumption you hold… Personally, I don't believe every artistic choice to be a mistake, and I don't automatically assume that Lucas/Spileberg's decisions were wrong (although I happily acknowledge that the movie is far from perfect).

Udvarnoky said:
Again, I really don't care about the "Why?" I only care about the result, and the effect that it had on the final movie.

I find that odd, as you know my feelings towards your level of over analysis and the granularity of understanding you seem to seek.

Udvarnoky said:
Not sure what you're arguing against here. Even if your rhetorical question wasn't directed at me, I think I'm still allowed to make comments on it.

Of course you are allowed… and I’m glad you did. I wasn’t arguing against anything – I was simply stating that I was raising/and answering a question myself i.e. did they mis-sell/big up a set piece?

Udvarnoky said:

Well of course there could be a legitimate reason i.e. that, for whatever reason, they didn’t believe the jungle cutter worked. Ergo, they took an artistic decision to go in a different direction. That's not an excuse, it's an informed choice (if indeed it was ever made).

Udvarnoky said:
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, last time I checked.

Fine.

Udvarnoky said:
But again, why make the observation, if the template is ultimately superficial and unimportant?

That same question can be applied to a number of your observations my friend. I’d argue that it is relevant - because I believe (regardless of the elements that don’t work) that the tank chase is the best set piece of the series. I’m drawing comparisons, and that the sum of the parts ultimately make for a good set piece (regardless of shortfalls).
 

The Man

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
I don't believe that to be the case (although I stand to be corrected).

His brazen leap into the Commies' duck promised much, but once he'd taken them out and headlocked Mac, Indy remains sedentary. The action is focused mainly upon Mutt, Marion and Spalko.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Have I??? Please see below.

I'm familiar with your post (and still get a kick out of the "brave and laudable decision" part), but I'm also familiar with other posts you've made to the effect that you don't really agree with the notion that Indy4 is far removed from the original trilogy with regard to the level of violence. I just don't understand how those two viewpoints can be reconciled.

Darth Vile said:
Who said it was confusing? You made an observation? and I?m simply trying to understand the rationale behind what led to Lucas/Spielberg?s artistic decision, on which, your observation is based.

You used the eaten alive by ants death scene in Indy4 as an argument that Indy4 wasn't less inclined to violence in general so much as it was to "gun play." This still doesn't account for the fact that no Russian meets a fatal end at any point during the jungle chase. Not by gunshot, not by getting run over, not by falling off the cliff, not by being attacked by wild animals - nothing.

I understand that you and I are trying to figure out the same thing, I assure you. But you're slipping in some additional arguments that I'd care to address as well, that's all.

Darth Vile said:
I think they are fundamentally different. Implied violence versus graphic violence. If you believe implied violence is empirically the same as graphic, then it kind of undermines some of the observations? because I?d posit that KOTCS has more scenes of implied violence than it does explicit/graphic e.g. the U.S soldiers being killed at the airbase, Russians caught up in the atomic blast etc. I?d actually argue that the TOD example is probably a more clever use of editing/directing technique? but that in itself doesn?t make it more violent per se (as it's mostly implied).

It's "implied" I guess, but I don't know what makes it particularly clever editing/direction, because I don't know how much farther you could have expected them to go without going into totally gratuitous Hostel territory. I mean, were they actually supposed to show a loose shot of the Thuggee's body as it's being obliterated? Does that really even have a place in an Indiana Jones movie? The image of the Thuggee descending under the roller and the subsequent shot of the blood is still pretty "graphic" on some level. It's akin to the propeller scene in Raiders. The blood spattering all over the swastika is a graphic image (to the point where that shot is often removed when I catch the movie on TV), but I mean, should actually showing the guy get chopped up really have even been considered (even if it was in any way feasible from an effects standpoint)? Having soldiers bathed in CGI fire is just a fundamentally less cringe-inducing image. Part of what makes a lot of the deaths in the Indy movies grisly is the fact that they're unconventional, not the idea of death itself. Any death would be horrifying in real life, but in an escapist summer movie, people being abruptly burned alive is pretty standard business.

Darth Vile said:
I?m arguing a principle. Your definition of a missed opportunity seems to be based on an assumption you hold?

I wouldn't call it an assumption so much as an opinion, and a well-educated one I might add considering the back-up in the form of the first three movies. But that we're all arguing personal opinion here isn't really something we should even have to debate, is it?

Darth Vile said:
Personally, I don't believe every artistic choice to be a mistake,

But I do, right? I mean, there would be no other reason for you to have typed that.

Darth Vile said:
and I don't automatically assume that Lucas/Spileberg's decisions were wrong (although I happily acknowledge that the movie is far from perfect).

"Assume" is such a weird word to use here. I assert that their decision was wrong in the case of the jungle cutter.

Darth Vile said:
I find that odd, as you know my feelings towards your level of over analysis and the granularity of understanding you seem to seek.

I really don't know what your feelings are. Honestly, I always interpreted your previous references to my "over analysis and the granularity of understanding" as just you trying to be baiting/contrary when in a bind, especially since you never really attempted to explain why you thought that was the case.

Darth Vile said:
Of course you are allowed? and I?m glad you did. I wasn?t arguing against anything ? I was simply stating that I was raising/and answering a question myself i.e. did they mis-sell/big up a set piece?

Well, I think the way I'd put it is that by even putting such a vehicle in the movie, they set up an expectation that they failed to deliver on. Its lack of use as part of a set piece is particularly noticeable thanks to the fact that it doesn't even have a real use otherwise. Why is the jungle cutter in the movie? To illustrate a practical purpose (making a path through an unexplored jungle) that the movie instantly throws out the window anyway? Was it really just for that one gag of the spinning blade bouncing down the caravan? Why, really, was it in the movie? That is not the kind of question an audience member should have to ask.

Darth Vile said:
Well of course there could be a legitimate reason i.e. that, for whatever reason, they didn?t believe the jungle cutter worked. Ergo, they took an artistic decision to go in a different direction. That's not an excuse, it's an informed choice (if indeed it was ever made).

Well where we obviously disagree is on the subject of whether or not there could have been a legitimate reason for including that vehicle and not including a real purpose for it. Since one could "of course" exist, do you mind giving a hypothetical example?

Darth Vile said:
That same question can be applied to a number of your observations my friend.

Instead of just saying that like the observations you're alluding to are obvious, why don't you simply point them out? And don't say it's because you don't want to open the door for petty bickering - that's exactly what the purpose of that sentence was.

Darth Vile said:
I?d argue that it is relevant - because I believe (regardless of the elements that don?t work) that the tank chase is the best set piece of the series. I?m drawing comparisons, and that the sum of the parts ultimately make for a good set piece (regardless of shortfalls).

What's the connection though? Saying that the "template" between the two set pieces are comparable and that the jungle chase is a good set piece by the sum of its parts are two totally rational, but completely separate, arguments. You're suggesting that the superficial similarities between the jungle chase and the tank chase implies some obvious conclusion about the quality of the jungle chase, and that's where you lose me.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
I'm familiar with your post (and still get a kick out of the "brave and laudable decision" part), but I'm also familiar with other posts you've made to the effect that you don't really agree with the notion that Indy4 is far removed from the original trilogy with regard to the level of violence. I just don't understand how those two viewpoints can be reconciled.

Yes - I don?t believe the violence in KOTCS is that far removed from the originals, and as you state? it?s not as if TOD was ?Hostel? right? That?s not to say that I don?t consider the violence in KOTCS to be toned down somewhat. What's irreconcilable about that? Not everything has to be so cut & dried.

As far as the ?brave and laudable decision? statement is concerned. One can make a bold choice without it necessarily being the right choice. The fact that you get a ?kick? out of that assertion makes me wonder if you ever had exposure to such choices/decisions?

Udvarnoky said:
You used the eaten alive by ants death scene in Indy4 as an argument that Indy4 wasn't less inclined to violence in general so much as it was to "gun play." This still doesn't account for the fact that no Russian meets a fatal end at any point during the jungle chase. Not by gunshot, not by getting run over, not by falling off the cliff, not by being attacked by wild animals - nothing.

I refer to the tolerance levels within movie. Quite evidently, the fact that we see soldiers burning to death/being eaten by ant?s means that Lucas/Spielberg had determined a prerequisite tolerance level for graphic violence. The notion that there is less death count on screen, underlines what the tolerance level was probably set at.

Udvarnoky said:
It's "implied" I guess, but I don't know what makes it particularly clever editing/direction, because I don't know how much farther you could have expected them to go without going into totally gratuitous Hostel territory.

It?s clever, I suppose, because it managed to convince you that it?s ?graphic? without there being any real substance to it i.e. it?s an illusion. Seeing Belloq?s head explode, I?d argue is graphic? as is Donovan withering away with age, as is someone burring to death on screen (even if only fleeting). Think of the difference between Janet Leigh?s demise (Psycho) and Kevin Bacons demise (Friday the 13th). If we can?t distinguish between the two, then I?m not sure how we can progress this point.

Udvarnoky said:
I wouldn't call it an assumption so much as an opinion, and a well-educated one I might add considering the back-up in the form of the first three movies. But that we're all arguing personal opinion here isn't really something we should even have to debate, is it?

An assumption is supposition (no matter how well educated it may be)? an opinion is a judgment. One can demonstrate that KOTCS is inferior/superior based upon what is there on screen. One cannot really demonstrate that KOTCS is inferior/superior based upon what is not there?

Udvarnoky said:
But I do, right? I mean, there would be no other reason for you to have typed that.

My perception is that you believe Spielberg/Lucas made bad judgments/artistic choices across the board? be it in the choice of lighting, the amount of gore/violence, screenplay, dialogue, action, visual effects etc. etc. Have I misread your posts???. Have I got you wrong all this time???

Udvarnoky said:
I really don't know what your feelings are. Honestly, I always interpreted your previous references to my "over analysis and the granularity of understanding" as just you trying to be baiting/contrary when in a bind, especially since you never really attempted to explain why you thought that was the case.

Hmmm - I thought my views were clear and established. I believe you over analyze to find fault, rather than to find explanations for artistic choices. Furthermore, I believe you sometimes over analyze and over critique to bait and create argument where it isn't required. I?m quite happy to play the game, and I find most of the conversations interesting and the disagreements amusing? but please don?t pretend to have some higher moral ground.

Udvarnoky said:
Well, I think the way I'd put it is that by even putting such a vehicle in the movie, they set up an expectation that they failed to deliver on. Its lack of use as part of a set piece is particularly noticeable thanks to the fact that it doesn't even have a real use otherwise. Why is the jungle cutter in the movie?

I?m not sure this was something we ever disagreed on i.e. the why??? I think what we were debating was the how? as in how significant is it to the scene? How could it's increased significance have improved the scene etc?

Udvarnoky said:
Well where we obviously disagree is on the subject of whether or not there could have been a legitimate reason for including that vehicle and not including a real purpose for it. Since one could "of course" exist, do you mind giving a hypothetical example?

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I?m taking about a potential legitimate reason for reducing/cutting its significance in the movie. Again, I think we?re both in agreement that its inclusion suggests more than what time it?s actually given.

Udvarnoky said:
Instead of just saying that like the observations you're alluding to are obvious, why don't you simply point them out? And don't say it's because you don't want to open the door for petty bickering - that's exactly what the purpose of that sentence was.

I?m not sure what you are asking for here. Do you want me to list your observations that I believe to be irrelevant/unimportant? I?m not sure how productive that would be?

Udvarnoky said:
What's the connection though? Saying that the "template" between the two set pieces are comparable and that the jungle chase is a good set piece by the sum of its parts are two totally rational, but completely separate, arguments. You're suggesting that the superficial similarities between the jungle chase and the tank chase implies some obvious conclusion about the quality of the jungle chase, and that's where you lose me.

I?m giving an opinion and making an observation? That similar to the tank chase in TLC, the weaker elements within the jungle chase don?t necessarily undermine the actual set piece (when viewed in context). I?d sooner not have to see Mutt get his gonads bashed by jungle foliage (and I believe it to be a misjudged choice)? but similar to Marcus/Henry Jones Senior rumbling with Nazi?s; it doesn?t really impact my overall enjoyment.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Yes - I don’t believe the violence in KOTCS is that far removed from the originals, and as you state… it’s not as if TOD was ‘Hostel’ right? That’s not to say that I don’t consider the violence in KOTCS to be toned down somewhat. What's irreconcilable about that? Not everything has to be so cut & dried.

No, not everything, but if the violence in Indy4 was noticeably "toned down" in both your and my view compared to the original trilogy, how then can we disagree so vehemently on the "far removed" part? What it tells me is that we obviously disagree on how much Indy4 is toned down. To me, being noticeably toned down from the trilogy sets Indy4 apart in significant way, simply by virtue of the fact that it effectively excludes an element that every other installment in its franchise includes. That is irreconcilable with the idea that the violence is not far removed from the original trilogy. If you think that the final movie itself is not far removed from the trilogy despite the violence disparity, then that's different, but talking specifically about violence you seem to be occupying two sides of an argument, when you can only be on one.

Darth Vile said:
As far as the “brave and laudable decision” statement is concerned. One can make a bold choice without it necessarily being the right choice. The fact that you get a “kick” out of that assertion makes me wonder if you ever had exposure to such choices/decisions…

Wow, you never miss an opportunity to be condescending, I'll give you that.

I'll ask you this: Is an Indiana Jones movie really the right place to be making statements about gun control? Keep that stuff where it belongs - outside of my escapism. I'd argue that if you're not willing to make an Indiana Jones movie that has the fundamental elements of all the other Indiana Jones movies...then you're simply not willing to make an Indiana Jones movie.

I'd also love to know what, to you, makes Spielberg's decision to minimize the deaths by bullets "laudable," especially considering the place he's electing to make this statement.

Darth Vile said:
I refer to the tolerance levels within movie. Quite evidently, the fact that we see soldiers burning to death/being eaten by ant’s means that Lucas/Spielberg had determined a prerequisite tolerance level for graphic violence. The notion that there is less death count on screen, underlines what the tolerance level was probably set at.

I agree.

Darth Vile said:
It’s clever, I suppose, because it managed to convince you that it’s “graphic” without there being any real substance to it i.e. it’s an illusion.

News flash: All of cinema is an illusion. The fact that we aren't given the unnecessarily gory details of Pat Roach's various fates does not somehow make the violence "implied" instead of graphic.

Darth Vile said:
Seeing Belloq’s head explode, I’d argue is graphic… as is Donovan withering away with age, as is someone burring to death on screen (even if only fleeting). Think of the difference between Janet Leigh’s demise (Psycho) and Kevin Bacons demise (Friday the 13th). If we can’t distinguish between the two, then I’m not sure how we can progress this point.

Holy jumping Mother of God in a sidecar with chocolate jimmies and a lobster bib, talk about addressing an argument that never existed until you made it up. Does the fact that the graphic violence in an Indiana Jones movie is portrayed differently than would be the case in an R-rated slasher movie (which otherwise has identical sensibilities, right?) somehow change the fact that it's graphic violence? To you it would, I guess, but those of us on Earth don't see it that way. Showing a guy descending into a rock crusher and showing large amounts of blood splatter against a swastika is very much "graphic violence," as it is in fact shown on-screen.

It's the same reason I'd argue that Psycho's shower scene is graphic violence too (and people surely saw it as such back then) - it is the onscreen depiction of a woman being stabbed to death. The fact that the knife never seems to connect with Janet Leigh (or her nude double) upon closer inspection isn't relevant. That Hitchcock's clever direction, editing, and use of sound effects causes us to think we've seen more than we did doesn't somehow make the violence "implied." It's like me saying that the actors playing the Russians weren't really set on fire, or that Ronald Lacey wasn't actually melted in front of a camera. If the notion that these deaths are "illusions" is a revelation or breakthrough, I'm afraid you're the only one just experiencing it.

And the argument about the graphic violence in the Indy movies and Psycho being handled with more taste/tact/cleverness than Friday the 13th belongs to an argument of which I'm not a participant.

Darth Vile said:
An assumption is supposition (no matter how well educated it may be)… an opinion is a judgment. One can demonstrate that KOTCS is inferior/superior based upon what is there on screen. One cannot really demonstrate that KOTCS is inferior/superior based upon what is not there…

Sure you can, if what's not there is established by the three preceding movies to be indisposable elements of the Indiana Jones franchise.

Darth Vile said:
My perception is that you believe Spielberg/Lucas made bad judgments/artistic choices across the board… be it in the choice of lighting, the amount of gore/violence, screenplay, dialogue, action, visual effects etc. etc. Have I misread your posts???. Have I got you wrong all this time???

Which is, of course, exactly the same as implying that I condemn "every artistic choice of being a mistake." I think what you said speaks for itself.

Darth Vile said:
Hmmm - I thought my views were clear and established. I believe you over analyze to find fault, rather than to find explanations for artistic choices. Furthermore, I believe you sometimes over analyze and over critique to bait and create argument where it isn't required.

And let me just help you out by telling you that you're completely wrong, and that there's no shame in it.

Darth Vile said:
I’m quite happy to play the game, and I find most of the conversations interesting and the disagreements amusing… but please don’t pretend to have some higher moral ground.

Well, since you said "please," I'll stop. Oh wait, I never started, and it's just another characteristic of personal hostility you've attributed to me and cannot be talked out of, or even explain. Convenient.

Darth Vile said:
I’m not sure this was something we ever disagreed on i.e. the why??? I think what we were debating was the how… as in how significant is it to the scene? How could it's increased significance have improved the scene etc?

It would have improved the scene for the reason the both of us have stated - it would have delivered on an idea that the scene implied would be by the very existence of the vehicle. If you don't want to do anything with the jungle cutter, don't have it. Problem solved.

Darth Vile said:
I think we are talking at cross purposes. I’m taking about a potential legitimate reason for reducing/cutting its significance in the movie. Again, I think we’re both in agreement that its inclusion suggests more than what time it’s actually given.

As am I. What I'm trying to tell you is that I can't think of a legitimate reason, yet you suggested you can, since you've brought up the notion more than once. I'm asking you to give me an example.

Darth Vile said:
I’m not sure what you are asking for here. Do you want me to list your observations that I believe to be irrelevant/unimportant? I’m not sure how productive that would be…

And why, pray tell, would they be unproductive to list? Wouldn't they presumably illustrate how supposedly pointless a substantial portion of my posts are, if not to me than to everyone else reading? And if it's unproductive, why even make the remark you did, which you knew at the very least would lead to the result you're reading right now?

Darth Vile said:
I’m giving an opinion and making an observation… That similar to the tank chase in TLC, the weaker elements within the jungle chase don’t necessarily undermine the actual set piece (when viewed in context). I’d sooner not have to see Mutt get his gonads bashed by jungle foliage (and I believe it to be a misjudged choice)… but similar to Marcus/Henry Jones Senior rumbling with Nazi’s; it doesn’t really impact my overall enjoyment.

And I maintain that this observation is pointless, as it fails to take into account the overall quality of the scene. Is the Marcus/Henry stuff as misguided as the ball-smacking? If everything around those moments in their respective set pieces equally entertaining? You would have to voice your opinion on that stuff as well for the argument to mean anything more than "I noticed this."
 
Top