A new reedit of "Skull"...

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
Montana ? Thanks for the reply....

I wouldn't argue with your assessment, Darth, since the way we each view a film is, to use your words, naturally

Darth Vile said:
very subjective

What will work for one, won't work for all. Which was the dilemma that faced Lucas and Spielberg when they approached the project of KOTCS.

I would agree with you about Shorty not being a very engaging character. For me he was the weakest point of TOD, and a sign of the times in which that film was made.

:hat:
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
I wouldn't argue with your assessment, Darth, since the way we each view a film is, to use your words, naturally



What will work for one, won't work for all. Which was the dilemma that faced Lucas and Spielberg when they approached the project of KOTCS.

I would agree with you about Shorty not being a very engaging character. For me he was the weakest point of TOD, and a sign of the times in which that film was made.

:hat:

Agreed. Also forgot to mention that I think a lot has to do with the qualities the actual actors bring. For example, I think Karen Allen would have been equally good at playing a night club singer... and I think the reason a lot of people actually like the character of Marion (the quality of Raiders notwithstanding) is not because of Marion's substance on paper/within the dialogue, but what Allen brings naturally with her performance. Would Marion have been as popular played by Kate Capshaw?

Imagine Mutt played by River Pheonix as he was at the time of TLC. Would that have improved KOTCS any? Would that have made Mutt a more engaging character and the father/son dynamic more akin to TLC? Not that I dislike Shia... but I don't think he's an 'intense' kind of character actor that could make Mutt appear complex in very few words... but that's another discussion. ;)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
Agreed. Also forgot to mention that I think a lot has to do with the qualities the actual actors bring. For example, I think Karen Allen would have been equally good at playing a night club singer... and I think the reason a lot of people actually like the character of Marion (the quality of Raiders notwithstanding) is not because of Marion's substance on paper/within the dialogue, but what Allen brings naturally with her performance. Would Marion have been as popular played by Kate Capshaw?

Imagine Mutt played by River Pheonix as he was at the time of TLC. Would that have improved KOTCS any? Would that have made Mutt a more engaging character and the father/son dynamic more akin to TLC? Not that I dislike Shia... but I don't think he's an 'intense' kind of character actor that could make Mutt appear complex in very few words... but that's another discussion. ;)

Acting choices, yes...

what-else-should-family-guy-make-fun-of-20100211034828207-000.jpg


"Indy! - Lady only here 'cause she humping director."
 

kongisking

Active member
Darth Vile said:
Imagine Mutt played by River Pheonix as he was at the time of TLC. Would that have improved KOTCS any? Would that have made Mutt a more engaging character and the father/son dynamic more akin to TLC? Not that I dislike Shia... but I don't think he's an 'intense' kind of character actor that could make Mutt appear complex in very few words... but that's another discussion. ;)

I've always held a suspicion that half the reason Mutt is so unpopular is purely because he is played by Shia LaBeouf. When I asked a friend if Mutt would have been a better character if played by anyone else than Shia, he took about a half-second to mumble, not very convincingly, "no." He went on to say that Mutt's character should have been how James Kirk was in JJ Abrams' Star Trek: a heroic person with a good moral compass, but lacking in a firm direction and positive support.

He claimed that, as shown on screen, Mutt was a wimp, a pathetic loser trying to kid himself into thinking he's cool and hip, while looking like a buffoon compared to his old man. But this was precisely what I enjoyed; I think it's hilarious that the son of Indiana Jones is a little bit of a crybaby and a hotshot. That being said, we do get to see Mutt mature throughout the film, and witness him taking his first lessons in badassery (the motorcycle chase, the duel). I want to see more of Mutt learning how to become an "action hero" in Indy 5.

Like I said, I thought Mutt was a fun and likable addition to the cast, and I now love the idea of Indy having offspring because of all the potential for character development it implies.
 

Sea Monarch

New member
kongisking said:
When I asked a friend if Mutt would have been a better character if played by anyone else than Shia, he took about a half-second to mumble, not very convincingly, "no."
He claimed that, as shown on screen, Mutt was a wimp, a pathetic loser trying to kid himself into thinking he's cool and hip, while looking like a buffoon compared to his old man. But this was precisely what I enjoyed; I think it's hilarious that the son of Indiana Jones is a little bit of a crybaby and a hotshot. That being said, we do get to see Mutt mature throughout the film, and witness him taking his first lessons in badassery (the motorcycle chase, the duel). I want to see more of Mutt learning how to become an "action hero" in Indy 5.

Like I said, I thought Mutt was a fun and likable addition to the cast, and I now love the idea of Indy having offspring because of all the potential for character development it implies.

Couldn't agree w/ you more, Kong. Everybody's looks wimpy compared to Indy. He's like a timex watch! But Mutt was neither wimpy nor pathetic. And come on, Derr! Thinking and/or acting like he's cool or hip is exactly what that kind of "tough guy" teen does in real life. Mutt captured a "young heroic teen w/ a good moral compass" very well. Well meaning teens, try to mask those insecurities that we all face at that age, with that "hotshot", tough guy mask. But he's not some emotionless, "untouchable", cardboard, blowhard, as evidenced in his barely contained feelings of worry and heartache for Oxley's safety in the Peruvian asylum.

He's an emotional teen (as most are), trying to figure out who is, and trying to mask his insecurities, still doing the best he can to be what he perceives a Man to be, as he grows up into that man, more and more everyday. We do see him become more mature, and more of a Man as he helps bear responsibilities and rises to the challenges he is faced with.

I also thought it was hilarious, and true to character when he whined about Marion getting "to drive last time".:D And in all fairness he earns the image a bit, as he is a real Biker, that knows his way around a Motorcycle, and not just some poser. Not to mention his skills with Blades. Gotta give credit where due.

Conversely, I think it would have been a mistake, and unrealistic, not to mention boring, had he been portrayed as having it all together. Remember, he hasn't even known Indy, so don't expect him to be just like him. And just think, they almost went the opposite extreme with Mutt (according to the making of...features), which I suspect, would have ultimately been a more boring choice.

It seemed to me also, that some had an unsubstantiated bias against Shia, before going in, (The loud minority). But I think Shia was great in the role. He portrayed Mutt effectively. Faults, strengths, insecurities, and all.

Darth Vile said:
Imagine Mutt played by River Pheonix as he was at the time of TLC. Would that have improved KOTCS any? Would that have made Mutt a more engaging character and the father/son dynamic more akin to TLC?

Darth, I agree with alot of other things you've said on this post,and others, that perhaps I can mention in near future. I humbly point out however, that comparing Shia and River's performances is akin to apples and oranges. Not only are they different actors (obviously). But they are portraying different characters. Shia should not portray Mutt the way River portrayed Young Indy, Unless SSpielberg had wanted it. This would most likely be boring and redundant.

And were River called upon to play Mutt instead, he (rightly) would have played him as a slightly whiny hothead, as needed, unless Spielberg wanted to go another direction. And again, Mutt is not the same person as Indy. Different environment, different circumstances.

kongisking said:
He (Kong's buddy) went on to say that Mutt's character should have been how James Kirk was in JJ Abrams' Star Trek: a heroic person with a good moral compass, but lacking in a firm direction and positive support.

As much as I enjoyed The latest Star Trek, despite, and somewhat because of the Star Wars posing, I find the young Kirk shot where he jumps from the car to be more and more unbelievable and annoying with repeated viewing. It's tries too hard to be cool, and is just so cheesy and over the top!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Drifter

New member
I apologize for going off-topic. But, SM; I can't tell where you're quoting someone and when you're not.
That post is very hard to read.
(PM me, if you need help learning how. Also, mods feel free to delete this post if you desire. Again, I apologize.)
 

Darth Vile

New member
Sea Monarch said:
Darth, I agree with alot of other things you've said on this post,and others, that perhaps I can mention in near future. I humbly point out however, that comparing Shia and River's performances is akin to apples and oranges. Not only are they different actors (obviously). But they are portraying different characters. Shia should not portray Mutt the way River portrayed Young Indy, Unless SSpielberg had wanted it. This would most likely be boring and redundant.

And were River called upon to play Mutt instead, he (rightly) would have played him as a slightly whiny hothead, as needed, unless Spielberg wanted to go another direction. And again, Mutt is not the same person as Indy. Different environment, different circumstances.

I was more highlighting the fact that with age and the passing of time, we imbue movies with qualities that were not necessarily there originally. For example, we often discuss the well-written characters of Marion and Sallah in Raiders. My point being is that Marion, IMHO, is largely a 2-diemnsional rather clichéd feisty female type. Her written character isn’t particular intelligently written… However it’s Karen Allen’s performance and natural charm, and our perception of that performance that makes the character appear stronger. Perhaps where Raiders lucked out more than anything else was in its casting??? Would a Tom Selleck/Sean Young version of Raiders work in the same way? I think not...

My point about the Mutt Williams character isn’t that he’s a poorly conceived/written character per se; rather it’s more to do with our perception of the actual performer/actor… in this instance Shia.
This isn’t of course meant to defend poor dialogue/direction (there are lots of it); it’s merely used to highlight the fact that we sometimes give more credit to the older movies than they sometimes merit and don’t necessarily extend that courtesy to the newer ones... but that's nostalgia for yer. ;)
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Lonsome_Drifter said:
I apologize for going off-topic. But, SM; I can't tell where you're quoting someone and when you're not.
That post is very hard to read.
(PM me, if you need help learning how. Also, mods feel free to delete this post if you desire. Again, I apologize.)

Sea Monarch, I took the liberty of fixing the quote tags in your post, so it'll be clear. If you don't know - and to save you needing to ask - all you need do to is click the quote button in a post and you'll get a new "reply to" page opening with that text included. If you want to quote multiple people in the same post, you can follow that procedure and then simply copy the second (or third, or fourth, or whatever) bit of quoted material into the main post. (You can also type in the quote tags yourself, especially useful for breaking up a single person's post into multiple quote portions. I'll leave you to figure that out for yourself, when the time comes that you need it.)
 

kongisking

Active member
Perhaps the fact that Mutt was so heavily based on Marlon Brando was a factor in his unpopularity?
 
Last edited:

kongisking

Active member
Sea Monarch said:
Couldn't agree w/ you more, Kong. Everybody's looks wimpy compared to Indy. He's like a timex watch! But Mutt was neither wimpy nor pathetic. And come on, Derr! Thinking and/or acting like he's cool or hip is exactly what that kind of "tough guy" teen does in real life. Mutt captured a "young heroic teen w/ a good moral compass" very well. Well meaning teens, try to mask those insecurities that we all face at that age, with that "hotshot", tough guy mask. But he's not some emotionless, "untouchable", cardboard, blowhard, as evidenced in his barely contained feelings of worry and heartache for Oxley's safety in the Peruvian asylum.

He's an emotional teen (as most are), trying to figure out who is, and trying to mask his insecurities, still doing the best he can to be what he perceives a Man to be, as he grows up into that man, more and more everyday. We do see him become more mature, and more of a Man as he helps bear responsibilities and rises to the challenges he is faced with.

I also thought it was hilarious, and true to character when he whined about Marion getting "to drive last time".:D And in all fairness he earns the image a bit, as he is a real Biker, that knows his way around a Motorcycle, and not just some poser. Not to mention his skills with Blades. Gotta give credit where due.

Conversely, I think it would have been a mistake, and unrealistic, not to mention boring, had he been portrayed as having it all together. Remember, he hasn't even known Indy, so don't expect him to be just like him. And just think, they almost went the opposite extreme with Mutt (according to the making of...features), which I suspect, would have ultimately been a more boring choice.

It seemed to me also, that some had an unsubstantiated bias against Shia, before going in, (The loud minority). But I think Shia was great in the role. He portrayed Mutt effectively. Faults, strengths, insecurities, and all.



Darth, I agree with alot of other things you've said on this post,and others, that perhaps I can mention in near future. I humbly point out however, that comparing Shia and River's performances is akin to apples and oranges. Not only are they different actors (obviously). But they are portraying different characters. Shia should not portray Mutt the way River portrayed Young Indy, Unless SSpielberg had wanted it. This would most likely be boring and redundant.

And were River called upon to play Mutt instead, he (rightly) would have played him as a slightly whiny hothead, as needed, unless Spielberg wanted to go another direction. And again, Mutt is not the same person as Indy. Different environment, different circumstances.



As much as I enjoyed The latest Star Trek, despite, and somewhat because of the Star Wars posing, I find the young Kirk shot where he jumps from the car to be more and more unbelievable and annoying with repeated viewing. It's tries too hard to be cool, and is just so cheesy and over the top!

Thanks, pal. Good to see someone liked Mutt as much as I did.And though I too loved JJ Abrams' Trek, I too found Young Kirk leaping from the car to be ludicriously corny. That shot belongs in a Michael Bay flick. :sick:

After thinking about all the criticism KOTCS gets, I decided to simply go ahead and make a series of guidelines for how to write a good adventure story, based on the general expectations of fans of the genre.

The hero must show initiative throughout the story.

The hero must have a strong personal motivation.

Any main female character must have at least one moment in which they show themselves to be competent women, or at the very least have the potential to be so.

There must be one set piece per act.

There should be at least one instance of escalating tension, in which things go from bad to worse (as in, a domino effect of bad things building up to a hopelessly horrible situation).

The main antagonist(s) must have at least one moment of despicable villainy, to justify their role as bad guy in the story.

The villain(s) must have a driving goal, a desired outcome.

There cannot be too many supporting characters, to the point where it distracts from the main protagonists. Any that do arise in the course of the story must have a reason for existing; they either aid the heroes in a way they could not have done so themselves, or they provide important information (though it is recommended you avoid outright ?exposition characters?).

There must be a moment in which the hero appears to have lost, and there is no hope of survival, thus making it even more amazing and heroic when they are able to make it out in one piece.

Humor must be balanced with equal amounts of menace and genuine danger, so as to keep the threat level believable and intense.

Set pieces must serve some larger purpose other than action for action?s sake. They should be either important events in the plot, or defining character moments.

The MacGuffin must have some personal importance to the protagonists, to justify their desire to possess it.

The plot must feel like a natural progression, in which things happen because they were inevitable. But at the same time, it is encouraged that you strategically place unexpected events or revelations in order to keep the story from becoming totally formulaic, plotting-wise.

The climax must be an important defining moment for the hero, in which they have to make some kind of monumental choice.

The ending should be enlightening in some way.
 

IAdventurer01

Well-known member
Kong, Did you just set out to define Raiders with your post? One way or the other, I entirely agree with you. Those are all elements of a well done adventure! (y)
 

Indy's brother

New member
I'd be interested in viewing any one of these KOTCS re-edits, but every time I try, I just get this message:

VLC can't recognize the input's format
The format of 'file:///Users/ericsheagren/Downloads/coloneldredd_indy4_FDR_AVI_MU.rar' cannot be detected. Have a look at the log for details.

Maybe I'm an idiot (which is entirely possible), but there must be an easy way to do this that escapes me.
 
Top