General Indy 5 Thread - rumors and possibilities

Lance Quazar said:

I can't imagine that anyone could convincingly argue that "last crusade" had more action than "Raiders."

Click to expand...

I guess you'd have to add up all the minutes where some sort of action takes place. That of course doesn't mean its "better". Cinema's are full of movies which contain wall to wall action... but are they any good?

Lance Quazar said:

I can't imagine that anyone could convincingly argue that "last crusade" had more action than "Raiders."

Click to expand...

The airplane fight alone has so many action elements:

The fist fights (plural), compounded by the pilot with the gun
The spinning plane and propeller
The truck load of Nazis
The gas/fire
Marion Trapped/shooting a truckload of Nazis

As the action develops the danger compounds...

Quality, quantity...

...and the truck chase is yet to come...

tocksic said:

No offense, but I think WE are the normal guys here, because we like the movie how it is, how it has ever been, how it was intended to be made and how millions and millions of fans and critics think it is simply perfect for almost 30 years. YOU and those people who need quick, unreflected, mindless action and less as possible talking (even if it's relevant for suspense, storytelling and pace) are those who are not normal. Claiming "you" would be the normal ones concerning this movie is an absurdity buddy. After reading all you said I think the Transformers movies must be the right choice of entertainment for you.

Click to expand...

Obviously something I said has stuck a nerve for a few people. Why do you guys keep implying that I hate
Raiders because there is a great story interlocked with the action. Raiders is one of the masterpieces of the 20th century in film, but when watching the last maybe 10 minutes of it, I felt deprived of an action scene. My suggestion is that they take the scene where Indy wants to blow up the ark and transplant it in the final scene, leaving the empty space for 1 final action scene. You guys seem to be whining that you don't want a tremendous action scene. As for my "normal" comment, I was just pointing out that myself and about 80% of the population my age don't come to an action /adventure movie all psyched for the "kick-ass" talky moments. Please tell me you have a vague idea of what I'm talking about because I don't want to keep defending myself.

JP Jones said:

Obviously something I said has stuck a nerve for a few people. Why do you guys keep implying that I hate
Raiders because there is a great story interlocked with the action. Raiders is one of the masterpieces of the 20th century in film, but when watching the last maybe 10 minutes of it, I felt deprived of an action scene. My suggestion is that they take the scene where Indy wants to blow up the ark and transplant it in the final scene, leaving the empty space for 1 final action scene. You guys seem to be whining that you don't want a tremendous action scene. As for my "normal" comment, I was just pointing out that myself and about 80% of the population my age don't come to an action /adventure movie all psyched for the "kick-ass" talky moments. Please tell me you have a vague idea of what I'm talking about because I don't want to keep defending myself.

Click to expand...

I know what you are talking about, but to me it doesn't make sense at all. Indiana Jones movies are no action movies in the first place. They are adventure movies!

Would you say "Rear Window" needs more blood and stuff, because nowadays people your age think a thriller should be done this or that way, because nowadays we got "Silence of the Lambs" and "Seven"?

Raiders was done in 1980/81 as an adventure flick with a religious background. It's about the story, it's about the characters and it's about developement of suspense - not about unreflected action for its own sake. And at that time it was perfect! Still is. Just because people like you got spoilt by modern action movies, there is no point in saying the modern rules should have been applied to a movie that is a completely different ball park. Would Raiders have been done like you say, the ending would have been rushed, it would have been pushed and it would have been shallow. Like someone said before: Action should serve the story. Action should not only be there to help people who have a short attention span understand the ongoings. We're not whining about not wanting a tremendous action scene. We are only trying to tell you, that there is no need for an action scene at that point in the movie! If your only justification for an action scene at that point consists of "I don't really want to hear someone talk longer than 15 seconds, I prefer seeing stuff getting blown up." I can only assume you might just not be right in the Indiana Jones fandom.

If you don't like to defend yourself, don't go to a forum (the purpose of such is to discuss things) about the Indiana Jones series and present a pretty provocative assumption about one of it's most beloved episodes.

tocksic said:

I know what you are talking about, but to me it doesn't make sense at all. Indiana Jones movies are no action movies in the first place. They are adventure movies!

Would you say "Rear Window" needs more blood and stuff, because nowadays people your age think a thriller should be done this or that way, because nowadays we got "Silence of the Lambs" and "Seven"?

Raiders was done in 1980/81 as an adventure flick with a religious background. It's about the story, it's about the characters and it's about developement of suspense - not about unreflected action for its own sake. And at that time it was perfect! Still is. Just because people like you got spoilt by modern action movies, there is no point in saying the modern rules should have been applied to a movie that is a completely different ball park. Would Raiders have been done like you say, the ending would have been rushed, it would have been pushed and it would have been shallow. Like someone said before: Action should serve the story. Action should not only be there to help people who have a short attention span understand the ongoings.

If you don't like to defend yourself, don't go to a forum (the purpose of such is to discuss things) about the Indiana Jones series and present a pretty provocative assumption about one of it's most beloved episodes.

Click to expand...

I understand what your saying, you think today everything is action, action, action, and no one cares about story or characters. You got that right; Raiders is probably the most well-made adventure movie ever, but that doesn't mean It's the most enjoyable. If you look back ,I gave the example of Jurassic park. That movie balances the quantities of action and story better than Raiders. Not nessacarily quality, but quantity. Raiders has the perfect type of action, but it juuuuuuuuuuuuust doesn't have the right balance of quantities to call it perfect.

JP Jones said:

I understand what your saying, you think today everything is action, action, action, and no one cares about story or characters. You got that right; Raiders is probably the most well-made adventure movie ever, but that doesn't mean It's the most enjoyable. If you look back ,I gave the example of Jurassic park. That movie balances the quantities of action and story better than Raiders. Not nessacarily quality, but quantity. Raiders has the perfect type of action, but it juuuuuuuuuuuuust doesn't have the right balance of quantities to call it perfect.

Click to expand...

Come on! You can't seriously compare Raiders to Jurassic Park and demand to apply the same measure. It's a completely different movie, with a completely different intension, with a diferent way of storytelling and with one hell of a different background (1930's/40's tv-adventure-serials vs. a 1990 Michael Chriton thriller - wich Dino Park originally was). It's like comparing E.T. to Close Encounters. Both have aliens. Both are from Spielberg, both could be seen as sci-fi, but still have a different intention and realization.

Well, I'm out of this debate. I more and more do think you're just baiting. This is just so too odd.

Darth Vile said:

I guess you'd have to add up all the minutes where some sort of action takes place. That of course doesn't mean its "better". Cinema's are full of movies which contain wall to wall action... but are they any good?

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, "Last Crusade" does have a fairly long stretch of nearly continuous action from the escape from Castle Brunwald to the arrival in Iskenderun.

If only that awesome sequence wasn't interrupted by those terrible "talking" scenes on the zeppelin with Indy and Henry. Imagine how much better that would have been if they were fighting and shooting Nazis during the entire trip!

You could still have integrated the dialogue into the action sequence.

Same with Iskenderun. Why have Sallah just driving them around town when they could have been shooting and punching their way all through those horribly boring conversations?

Man, those films really dropped the ball!

JP Jones said:

If you're one of those people who like story MORE than action, I don't know what to tell you other than NORMAL people like me only use the "talky" scenes to get what's going on, and I don't embrace them like some of you guys.

Click to expand...

"Crystal Skull" is your favourite Indy movie and this can't be exactly be described as "NORMAL". Never thought I'd see the day where someone thought Raiders didn't have enough action.

Darth Vile said:

Seems to me that when Raiders first came out, the only other movie that could match it in the action stakes was Star Wars: ANH (which was obviously released a few years prior).

Click to expand...

War movies? James Bond?

Lance Quazar said:

You could still have integrated the dialogue into the action sequence.

Click to expand...

Bwahaha! I'd like to type out a spoof of this but dont' have the energy.

Indy 5: Too bad Ronny Coutteure passed away. We could have had Indy & Remy on one last team-up. Remy could have been stuffing his face with some Belgian sweets and smeared some chocolate over part of an ancient map by accident, obscuring a vital clue...

I've always found the first half of Jurassic Park boring when it comes to rating action. Certainly not so with Raiders. I guess it depends on how you define "action scene". A fight is an action scene, so is a chase. A shoot out as well. But you can also have much subtler action scenes. To me, the climax of Raiders is an action scene as well: the ark shooting out those rays, Belloq exploding, Toth and Dietrich melting away. Actually, I'd hardly call that "subtle"

Stoo said:

War movies? James Bond?

Click to expand...

Really? I don?t think Moonraker/For Your Eyes Only (the closest contemporaries of Raiders) were comparable to what Raiders had to offer. In fact, I?d go as far as to say Raiders was everything those movies were not. As far as war movies are concerned, I can?t think of any contemporary movies to Raiders that matched it in the action quality stakes.

Johnny Nys said:

I guess it depends on how you define "action scene". A fight is an action scene, so is a chase. A shoot out as well. But you can also have much subtler action scenes. To me, the climax of Raiders is an action scene as well: the ark shooting out those rays, Belloq exploding, Toth and Dietrich melting away. Actually, I'd hardly call that "subtle"

Click to expand...

I?d agree, Raiders climax is hardly sedate? However, playing devils advocate, I?d say that TOD, TLC and KOTCS all strive to push the action further into overdrive (sometimes at the expense of other things). I still think Raiders has the right balance, although as already mentioned, I can quite understand why someone may think different.

Darth Vile said:

Really? I don’t think Moonraker/For Your Eyes Only (the closest contemporaries of Raiders) were comparable to what Raiders had to offer. In fact, I’d go as far as to say Raiders was everything those movies were not.

Click to expand...

They're not that different. I wouldn't say that they are as good as Raiders, but the action is top notch: the car chase in FYEO is brilliant (the best of any Bond film, I'd say); as is the ski chase; there's some amazing stunt work (a guy hanging off a helicopter; a huge rope fall on the side of a cliff) and even Moonraker has the ground-breaking skydiving sequence. And then tonally I'd say that Octo***** is very similar to Raiders- it even does a scene from Temple of Doom before Indy does!

Action-wise Raiders has, what? Six action scenes (and I'm being generous and giving the Idol's Temple as one). FYEO has eight or so that I can think of. Raiders' action scenes were great and brilliantly conceived and directed, but good high quality action scenes weren't a new concept.


EDIT: I can't believe the swear filter edited out the word ***** i.e. cat. This would be an American board then!

emtiem said:

EDIT: I can't believe the swear filter edited out the word ***** i.e. cat. This would be an American board then!

Click to expand...

Don't worry, cu t gets dropped as well. At least you still get your John Thomas, as in Willie,or stiffie, tally wacker...how does the rest of that song go?

emtiem said:

They're not that different. I wouldn't say that they are as good as Raiders, but the action is top notch: the car chase in FYEO is brilliant (the best of any Bond film, I'd say); as is the ski chase; there's some amazing stunt work (a guy hanging off a helicopter; a huge rope fall on the side of a cliff) and even Moonraker has the ground-breaking skydiving sequence. And then tonally I'd say that Octo***** is very similar to Raiders- it even does a scene from Temple of Doom before Indy does!

Action-wise Raiders has, what? Six action scenes (and I'm being generous and giving the Idol's Temple as one). FYEO has eight or so that I can think of. Raiders' action scenes were great and brilliantly conceived and directed, but good high quality action scenes weren't a new concept.


EDIT: I can't believe the swear filter edited out the word ***** i.e. cat. This would be an American board then!

Click to expand...

Oh I was never trying to suggest that Raiders invented high quality action, but rather that it was doing something different with it that made Bond of his day seem somewhat dated. IMHO - Raiders was to For Your Eyes Only as something like Die Hard was to Temple of Doom i.e. it set the tone/style of immediate contemporary action movies to follow.

Darth Vile said:

Oh I was never trying to suggest that Raiders invented high quality action, but rather that it was doing something different with it that made Bond of his day seem somewhat dated. IMHO - Raiders was to For Your Eyes Only as something like Die Hard was to Temple of Doom i.e. it set the tone/style of immediate contemporary action movies to follow.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong. But didn't Doom come out in 1984, and Die Hard in 1988? So how did Die Hard set the tone/style for Temple?

MaverickKing said:

I could be wrong. But didn't Doom come out in 1984, and Die Hard in 1988? So how did Die Hard set the tone/style for Temple?

Click to expand...

Not what I really meant. I meant that Raiders made its competition (including Bond) look a bit dated and tired... Other movies then took the lead e.g. Rambo, Terminator, Lethal Weapon and Die Hard... and they became the more favoured types of action movie by the mid 80's. By the time TLC came along, many already considered Indy (and that stylistic approach) to be past his best.

Darth Vile said:

Oh I was never trying to suggest that Raiders invented high quality action, but rather that it was doing something different with it that made Bond of his day seem somewhat dated. IMHO - Raiders was to For Your Eyes Only as something like Die Hard was to Temple of Doom i.e. it set the tone/style of immediate contemporary action movies to follow.

Click to expand...

Hmm, really not seeing that. Raiders was hardly something to push for something new: the whole idea behind it was to be retro in a way. It was slicker than the Bonds thanks to Spielberg's skill, but it didn't really bring anything all that new in terms of action. It was famously a reaction to Bond, and really it's doing the same thing.

It's a great film but its main influence was in the realm of taking summer blockbusters to the next level: big glossy funny exciting family entertainments- it didn't really rewrite the book for action movies as, as you say, Die Hard did.
I don't really know what you're saying: Bond's action at the time was poor? How was it dated?

emtiem said:

Hmm, really not seeing that. Raiders was hardly something to push for something new: the whole idea behind it was to be retro in a way.

Click to expand...

I think it was “retro” in that its premise was based on the Saturday morning matinees/serials of another era (just as Star Wars was). But, just like Star Wars, Raiders managed to make a concept rooted in nostalgia seem both contemporary and relevant (with big glossy production values).

Raiders didn’t invent the "action genre", nor did it invent the "thinking mans action genre"… but I do think it blended cutting edge action/humor/stunts and special visual effects to a point where it felt, and was pecerived, like something new and fresh... and could be considered as "re-inventing action movies for the 80's".

As far as For Your Eyes Only is concerned… I mention it because I think it was probably, at the time, the only other (similar) movie that could compete with Raiders in terms of budget and box office. So what I was trying to say, in a round about way, was that (at the time) Harrison Ford/Indiana Jones represented the future of action/adventure movies, and Roger Moore/James Bond sort of represented the past. Of course, 30 years later, ole’ Harrison now firmly represents the past and the likes of Daniel Craig represent the future.

emtiem said:

It's a great film but its main influence was in the realm of taking summer blockbusters to the next level: big glossy funny exciting family entertainments- it didn't really rewrite the book for action movies as, as you say, Die Hard did.
I don't really know what you're saying: Bond's action at the time was poor? How was it dated?

Click to expand...

I agree that Raiders was a new defining point for what a “blockbuster” should look like, but that in itself has a direct influence on how later movies would try and ape its success and copy its style (otherwise I don’t think we’d still be talking about it now).

Darth Vile said:

As far as For Your Eyes Only is concerned? I mention it because I think it was probably, at the time, the only other (similar) movie that could compete with Raiders in terms of budget and box office. So what I was trying to say, in a round about way, was that (at the time) Harrison Ford/Indiana Jones represented the future of action/adventure movies, and Roger Moore/James Bond sort of represented the past. Of course, 30 years later, ole? Harrison now firmly represents the past and the likes of Daniel Craig represent the future.

Click to expand...

I think 'the past' is the wrong term to use: FYEO was hardly outdated, otherwise it wouldn't have been successful. You could perhaps say 'established'; Raiders is basically a Bond film but delivered with more flair and polish. On an action basis, as we're talking about; the action scenes in themselves weren't on another level above what was being seen at the time.

Darth Vile said:

I agree that Raiders was a new defining point for what a ?blockbuster? should look like, but that in itself has a direct influence on how later movies would try and ape its success and copy its style (otherwise I don?t think we?d still be talking about it now).

Click to expand...

Not really: we're still talking about For Your Eyes Only too! A film doesn't have to be ground-breaking to be good or remembered.

emtiem said:

I think 'the past' is the wrong term to use: FYEO was hardly outdated, otherwise it wouldn't have been successful. You could perhaps say 'established'; Raiders is basically a Bond film but delivered with more flair and polish. On an action basis, as we're talking about; the action scenes in themselves weren't on another level above what was being seen at the time.

Click to expand...

I think we're just talking semantics. Bond is/was a huge franchise, but Roger Moore's interpretation of the character (and the stylistic interpretation of the Bond movies during that phase), was approaching the end of its shelf life... It tried "getting back to basics" with FYEO, which is praise worthy, but they'd really sort of lost their way by then (Octop*ssy and View to a Kill were soon to follow)...

I'd still argue that Raiders was by far the best action movie of its day. We all still seem to put scenes such as the german mechanic fight and truck chase top of our favourite lists. Beat for beat/note for note... perhaps there is not much between any action movie, but its the overall package that makes the difference wouldn't you say?

emtiem said:

Not really: we're still talking about For Your Eyes Only too! A film doesn't have to be ground-breaking to be good or remembered.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed - but we both know that Raiders is a little more special than simply a "good" movie. Its imitated by other movies even today, circa 30 years later. However, there is always the possibility that these movies are no where near as good as I (and we) believe them to be

You sure do like talking on the Tilt-a Whirl...next stop the dance floor! Then the number wheel, perhaps the Ferris wheel...Oh F-it! (takes the whack-a-mole mallet swings wildly).

Learn to express yourself, perhaps, maybe...possibly. It's all, it's nothing! What I meant was, it could have been...

Rumor has it this thread will stop hosting your over indulgent impusive wild tangents!

Possible?

Thought not.