TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-15-2007, 04:26 PM   #26
Professor Jones
IndyFan
 
Professor Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 507
I believe the theme of Crystal Skull itself cannot just be "bad" or "good" authomatically, neither because some other fiction use it for some stories. It's obvious that all depends on how that theme is developed in the movie.

I must say, though, that I'd love another "catholic/christian/jewish" theme, because it would follow the path of the two most beautiful movies of the serie (in my opinion). I believe that certain lacks of Temple Of Doom were depending just on that emptiness of meaning of the three Sankara stones compared to the Ark or the Grail.

The goodness of the choice of these two last artifacts depended on the fact that they immediately evoke some deep meaning and rise some fantasy in everybody's mind, with no need to consult any book or any... Wikipedia! The fact that we needed to search for "Crystal skull" in a search-engine just demonstrates how that McGuffin could be a flop and how it'll need to be filled up with some meaning and some fantasy by the Authors of the next movie... so that's why the goodnes of ITS choice will depend purely on the solidness and the reliability of the plot.

As for the Atlantis connections I don't know... It could be nice a wink to the FoA game/comic, but I don't know if they'll decide to put it in. I don't know why but I've got the feeling that Spielberg and Lucas will not keep in great consideration the Indy's adventures that are not told in their movies for the next chapter of the saga. And I believe that they want to make a movie that's purely fruit of their own hands. So the only autoreferencial moments I can imagine are the ones related to the previous movies and not to comics, games or novels.

Besides, a reference to a video-game, for as glorious it could be (like FoA), for me would be a little too out of focus in an elegant movie. I say that because cinema is an art, and every reference to other arts increases it's cultural and elegance level, while video-games are entertainement and a reference to them in a movie would certainly low its level from art to entertainment.

I think we fans could perfectly survive without links to video-games or merchandising in the next Indy movie. But that's just an opinion of course.
Professor Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 04:41 PM   #27
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
OKay so assume he's looking for 13 skulls. Are they all in one place, like in a pile on the floor in a jungle temple? or is Indy running around through the whole movie collecting 13 individual skulls? i think the mcguffin should be ONE artifact.
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 04:46 PM   #28
sarah navarro
IndyFan
 
sarah navarro's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by HovitosKing
OKay so assume he's looking for 13 skulls. Are they all in one place, like in a pile on the floor in a jungle temple? or is Indy running around through the whole movie collecting 13 individual skulls? i think the mcguffin should be ONE artifact.
maybe hes getting all 13 back from the Russians,but that sounds to close to the Temple of Doom doesnt it?
sarah navarro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 04:50 PM   #29
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
yeah i just don't see crystal skulls happening here. the ark, maybe. skulls, no. i see this one as a Livingstone-type expedition (thus the "Property of Dr. Jones" supply crate) into the South American jungle in search of an individual artifact of great importance and power which lies hidden there. i don't see him chasing russians, probably the other way around. deep into the heart of darkness, with a killer Max McCoy-like temple and incredible chase scenes. this way, in the jungle, he's timeless. the updates of 1950's society remain almost totally obscured and it's just Indy and his gear like in the old days.
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 05:22 PM   #30
ResidentAlien
Guest
 
ResidentAlien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Jones
Besides, a reference to a video-game, for as glorious it could be (like FoA), for me would be a little too out of focus in an elegant movie. I say that because cinema is an art, and every reference to other arts increases it's cultural and elegance level, while video-games are entertainement and a reference to them in a movie would certainly low its level from art to entertainment.


Fiiirst, Indy is not "high-art." It can't be as it is inherently cheap thrills entertainment as those were it's roots in Pulp Literature. Yes, I do think Indy is well made. Yes, there is some brilliantly expressive lighting in the first two films and excellent thematic material... still not high art though.

As for video games being a lesser medium... uhm... what?!

Hell, FOA is better written and thematically stronger than ANY of the films. Not to mention it has all those brilliantly drawn backgrounds... FOA not being art? Uh... what?
ResidentAlien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 05:29 PM   #31
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
too bad there can't be a Raven grand premiere screening, only for Raveners, on opening night. i'd fly in for that.
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 05:37 PM   #32
Professor Jones
IndyFan
 
Professor Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResidentAlien
Fiiirst, Indy is not "high-art." It can't be as it is inherently cheap thrills entertainment as those were it's roots in Pulp Literature. Yes, I do think Indy is well made. Yes, there is some brilliantly expressive lighting in the first two films and excellent thematic material... still not high art though.

As for video games being a lesser medium... uhm... what?!

Hell, FOA is better written and thematically stronger than ANY of the films. Not to mention it has all those brilliantly drawn backgrounds... FOA not being art? Uh... what?

Art is art. How high it is depends on the point of view. But some kind of expressions can be considered art by definitions, such as poetry, music and paintings... How high you decide, on the base of your tastes and personal character.

Video games ARE NOT art. That's by definition. As I said they're "entertainment". You can say they're art but that's your opinion, and not a definition. Cinema is art by definition, no matter how high.

I'm sorry for my english, but I'm italian and it's quite difficult to find the right words to explain such "abstract" concepts.
Professor Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 05:43 PM   #33
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
Define "art" for me, since you referred to its definition. That's something even philosophers in aesthetics (a recognized sub-discipline of philosophy) admittedly can't do.
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 05:47 PM   #34
ResidentAlien
Guest
 
ResidentAlien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Jones
Video games ARE NOT art. That's by definition. As I said they're "entertainment". You can say they're art but that's your opinion, and not a definition. Cinema is art by definition, no matter how high.

Art is defined as any imitation of life. Video Games are therefore art. Some could even argue that they're the truest form of art. Art is also defined (by some) as the quest for perfection. So video games are an imitation of life that allows the admirer to live a more "perfect" life through their interaction. Now whether games are good or bad art is another matter entirely. But your argument is flatly wrong. You just don't seem to understand the meaning of art.
ResidentAlien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 05:54 PM   #35
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
Some would say that "life" is an imitation of perfection, therefore anything we create is an imitation of an imitation. Art is nothing more than a fluid concept that each of us interprets for ourselves. No definition stands up to much scrutiny. I wouldn't hesitate to consider a video game art. After all, it's merely an interactive portrait, isn't it? Does the quality of being "interactive" prevent a work from being art?
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 06:11 PM   #36
Professor Jones
IndyFan
 
Professor Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResidentAlien
You just don't seem to understand the meaning of art.

I change topic... this is too difficult for me.
Professor Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 06:23 PM   #37
sarah navarro
IndyFan
 
sarah navarro's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,560
so yah ...those crystal skulls arent they great?
sarah navarro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 06:24 PM   #38
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
crystal skulls = LAME x 13

lol
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 06:58 PM   #39
chapter11
IndyFan
 
chapter11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 171
Quote:
Video games ARE NOT art. That's by definition. As I said they're "entertainment". You can say they're art but that's your opinion, and not a definition. Cinema is art by definition, no matter how high.

I disagree with this definition. Novels and movies are "entertainment," too. Video games in general, and FOA specifically here, can be considered stories -- interactive stories, which could arguably make them a higher form of art -- that are comprised of all of the same elements that make movies and novels art: things like plot, dialogue, characters, motivations, deeper meanings, etc.

A top-notch puzzle adventure game like FOA is like a marriage between a movie and a novel, with the added element of interactivity ... you could more easily argue it's a "higher" form of art than either movies or novels separately.

Quote:
I must say, though, that I'd love another "catholic/christian/jewish" theme, because it would follow the path of the two most beautiful movies of the serie (in my opinion). I believe that certain lacks of Temple Of Doom were depending just on that emptiness of meaning of the three Sankara stones compared to the Ark or the Grail.

How very Judeo-Christian of you! In what way are the Sankara stones empty compared to the Ark or Grail? Culturally and religiously, they hold a similarly significant a place for the Indian characters in that film as the Christian relics in the other two movies. I think Indy comes to realize this at the end:

"Now you understand the power of the stones?"
"Yes, I understand."

This exchange isn't just about the literal "power" of the stones as objects, but their mystical, religious, symbolic and practical relevance as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HovitosKing
crystal skulls = LAME x 13

LOL. Touche.

Last edited by chapter11 : 08-15-2007 at 07:11 PM.
chapter11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 11:15 PM   #40
No Ticket
IndyFan
 
No Ticket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South America, 1936
Posts: 2,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapter11

How very Judeo-Christian of you! In what way are the Sankara stones empty compared to the Ark or Grail? Culturally and religiously, they hold a similarly significant a place for the Indian characters in that film as the Christian relics in the other two movies. I think Indy comes to realize this at the end:

"Now you understand the power of the stones?"
"Yes, I understand."

This exchange isn't just about the literal "power" of the stones as objects, but their mystical, religious, symbolic and practical relevance as well.


I think he means, like what I meant when I said they didn't sound very interesting... is that they are not widely known of in history like the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail. They are some rocks in some village in India that we've never heard of before. Inherently they seem pretty dumb, but they had a hidden power, although we don't see much of it. Indy has to have something to go after, but that doesn't necessarily make or break the movie in itself. There's just something awesome about going after something like the Ark of the Covenant... an object on earth with the power of God.

That's why topping that is so difficult. Last Crusade took a similar path and used the Holy Grail, another widely known object with the power of God... but still not as good a mcguffin as the Ark. Since the "Holy Grail" is technically fictional.
No Ticket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2007, 02:57 AM   #41
Professor Jones
IndyFan
 
Professor Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapter11
How very Judeo-Christian of you!

I've registered this forum to have a quiet and friendly conversation. I'm quite a calm guy and I must say it's the second time I've been personally attacked on this topic. Those tones are quite disappointing and I find them not proper to a gentlemen's conversation. I accept disagreement and misunderstanding because of my poor acquaintance with english, but I cannot accept such a tone. Please consider that I'm writing that in a very soft way, just as a friend would do and not with anger. Just a consideration.

I must thank NoTicket for having perfectly interpretated my thoughts: that means they were not so obscure.
Professor Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2007, 06:04 PM   #42
chapter11
IndyFan
 
chapter11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Jones
I've registered this forum to have a quiet and friendly conversation. I'm quite a calm guy and I must say it's the second time I've been personally attacked on this topic. Those tones are quite disappointing and I find them not proper to a gentlemen's conversation. I accept disagreement and misunderstanding because of my poor acquaintance with english, but I cannot accept such a tone. Please consider that I'm writing that in a very soft way, just as a friend would do and not with anger. Just a consideration.

I really didn't mean to offend you. I simply wanted to point out that it's very Christian-centric, in my opinion, to imply that only Judeo-Christian artifacts can have the proper symbolic power to be worthy of Indy's pursuit. I disagree with the assertion. I did not mean to insult you, and I'm sorry if you feel you were being personally attacked.

Quote:
I think he means, like what I meant when I said they didn't sound very interesting... is that they are not widely known of in history like the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail.

When I saw Raiders as a kid I'd never heard of the Ark of the Covenant! Still loved the movie.
chapter11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 01:33 AM   #43
Johnny Nys
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 298
Exactly! Suppose the Indy movies hadn't been made. Would the same number of people have the same amount of information about either the ark or the grail? Or Atlantis for that matter? I don't think I would. The grail perhaps from playing other games like "Gabriel Knight 3" and because of Dan Brown, Atlantis maybe through the Disney movie (even though I never saw it), but otherwise I'm sure I'd still be ignorant of them all.

I'm only 28, so I wasn't consciously around before the movies came out. I saw them at a later age, but I can tell you I never heard of any one of those objects before. Generally speaking, did people in those days before the movies actually know about those objects?

Suppose not. Then isn't it possible this new Indy movie will introduce us to another one and make us aware of it?

Think about it. Suppose they choose an object or place that's already widely known. I'm thinking of clichés like the ark of Noah, Excalibur, El Dorado, and such. Whatever spin they give it will clash with the view each person already has on it.

So I'm for some obscure object still tied to a major religion. It doesn't have to be popular already; let the new movie make it popular, by showing its significance, what it can do.
Johnny Nys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 02:40 AM   #44
No Ticket
IndyFan
 
No Ticket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South America, 1936
Posts: 2,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Nys
I'm only 28, so I wasn't consciously around before the movies came out. I saw them at a later age, but I can tell you I never heard of any one of those objects before. Generally speaking, did people in those days before the movies actually know about those objects?

Suppose not. Then isn't it possible this new Indy movie will introduce us to another one and make us aware of it?

Think about it. Suppose they choose an object or place that's already widely known. I'm thinking of clichés like the ark of Noah, Excalibur, El Dorado, and such. Whatever spin they give it will clash with the view each person already has on it.

So I'm for some obscure object still tied to a major religion. It doesn't have to be popular already; let the new movie make it popular, by showing its significance, what it can do.

Well... the Ark of the Covenant was not WIDELY known, but if you were to read the Bible you would probably have heard of it. Don't take that as me saying you don't read it or that you should or whatever. I'm saying that it's in there and it's a pretty well known part of the Bible. It had the POWER of GOD on EARTH! How cool?! The Sankara Stones are just fictional and are brown rocks that glow. That doesn't mean they are completely boring, just less interesting than a real artifact that supposedly existed in real life. In addition, the Holy Grail (best known for me in Monty Python besides Last Crusade) is a good mcguffin ONLY because it is almost as good as the Ark, except it has no real ties to reality as it is also a fictional artifact.

That said, WHAT Indy goes after is important. It makes the story more compelling when it has large ties to religion... for me it does anyway. I'm not saying I want that, I'm just saying the mystical unknown and direct link to God and Jesus the Ark and Grail portrayed was a bigger factor than the role the Sankara Stones played in TOD.

I would imagine the new film will probably not be as good as those mcguffins, but like I said, it doesn't really make or break the film. It just can make the story a tad more interesting. I can't wait to find out what this movie is called and what the heck Indy is going after. lol.
No Ticket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 10:39 AM   #45
chapter11
IndyFan
 
chapter11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Ticket
That said, WHAT Indy goes after is important. It makes the story more compelling when it has large ties to religion...

I agree with that. I think where we differ is whether that religion needs to be Christianity. Personally, if Indy is going after some Mayan or Aztec artifact with equally interesting mystical powers, I think that would be a little more compelling because it's different than Raiders and Last Crusade.
chapter11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 11:21 AM   #46
effin
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 148
agreed!!!!

change it up people!!!
effin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 12:53 AM   #47
No Ticket
IndyFan
 
No Ticket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South America, 1936
Posts: 2,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapter11
I agree with that. I think where we differ is whether that religion needs to be Christianity. Personally, if Indy is going after some Mayan or Aztec artifact with equally interesting mystical powers, I think that would be a little more compelling because it's different than Raiders and Last Crusade.

I really don't think it NEEDS to be Christianity. Christianity is just the most dominant form of religion in the world, or at least in MY world it is... the United States. But I think it shouldn't be another Holy Bible related artifact like Noah's Ark or whatever, because that HAS been done TWICE in two other Indiana Jones movies.

So I agree it should be something different. I'm not entirely sure Crystal Skulls will be a cool idea, but I'm sure whatever Indy goes after will be pretty cool once we see it in the movie.
No Ticket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 11:37 AM   #48
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Ticket
I really don't think it NEEDS to be Christianity. Christianity is just the most dominant form of religion in the world, or at least in MY world it is... the United States.

Which is why a non-Christian McGuffin would be so welcomed. Also, the McGuffin of all Christian McGuffins has already been found (holy grail). Let's go after something equally important to some other group.

Last edited by HovitosKing : 08-18-2007 at 11:43 AM.
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 08:44 PM   #49
MichaelDath
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 12
Crystal Skull? Mmm. Certainly interesting I will say, but I'm hoping for a return of the ark.
MichaelDath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 02:15 PM   #50
Professor Jones
IndyFan
 
Professor Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapter11
I really didn't mean to offend you. I simply wanted to point out that it's very Christian-centric, in my opinion, to imply that only Judeo-Christian artifacts can have the proper symbolic power to be worthy of Indy's pursuit. I disagree with the assertion. I did not mean to insult you, and I'm sorry if you feel you were being personally attacked.

No problem chapter11. Thanks for your words. I was just meaning what NoTicket has well explained: artifacts that find their roots in history, in religion (any religion I mean) or even in ancient books or stories, for the fact itself they're known by a part of us yet before the Indy movie that talks about them are surely more fascinating because they can evoke some meanings (and... how can I say it in english "contenuti"....) that derive us from already knowing the artifact.

Artifacts purely invented for the movie aren't capable of such an operation because, since the first time we know them it's when we see the movie, they cannot evoke no meaning or stories or images or remembering....

Quote:
Originally Posted by chapter11
When I saw Raiders as a kid I'd never heard of the Ark of the Covenant! Still loved the movie.

Obviously it can happen that somebody hasn't heard of an historical or old fictional artifact before, but that's an exception: the Authors of the movie know very well that most people will almost have heard about the McGuffin.

I mean, the Crystal Skulls doesn't seem to be so evocative for me, but maybe they're appreciated and well known from a lot of people. I just say that in my modest opinion it's far more easy that a man (not a kid: me neither have heard about the Ark when I first saw Raiders: I was a kid!!!!) knows the Ark, or the Grail than the Crystal Skulls... so I'd hope in the next movie they'll use a McGuffin (statistically) as much famous... that's all!
Professor Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM.