Indy's brother
New member
Wow, the novelization sounds awesome!
Indy's brother said:Wow, the novelization sounds awesome!
Ajax the Great said:I read the novelization fairly soon after seeing the movie and was tremendously disappointed - not at the novel, but at the movie. The novel was everything CS could have and should have been. It emphasized Indy's humanness, both physically and emotionally. I remember the part where he puts Oxley in Marion's truck after he fights Dovchenko in the ant scene. Marion offers a wisecrack but he barely acknowledges it and plumps down in the truck, completely worn out. I liked the way Rollins handled that. I also liked the extended scene in Indy's house with the Dean. The way the book portrayed the Red Scare and Indy's involvement with it was almost a character study, and it was really nice.
Ajax the Great said:I read the novelization fairly soon after seeing the movie and was tremendously disappointed - not at the novel, but at the movie. The novel was everything CS could have and should have been. It emphasized Indy's humanness, both physically and emotionally. I remember the part where he puts Oxley in Marion's truck after he fights Dovchenko in the ant scene. Marion offers a wisecrack but he barely acknowledges it and plumps down in the truck, completely worn out. I liked the way Rollins handled that. I also liked the extended scene in Indy's house with the Dean. The way the book portrayed the Red Scare and Indy's involvement with it was almost a character study, and it was really nice.
Darth Vile said:With movies such as Indiana Jones and Star Wars, as they are such an audio/visual experience, the finished movies always have the potential to be so much more than the novels ever could (and in most cases they are). In this case though I'd agree with you. The KOTCS novel allows a little more insight into the thoughts of Indy, Spalko et al, which adds weight to the overall drama.
Again we have to remember that the movie is translated from the script as opposed to the novel (i.e. the novelist has more opportunity to embellish)... but in the case of KOTCS, I believe several significant vignettes were cut from the script/movie. Ultimately, I think Spielberg wasn't as successful, at transposing the ideas from the page to the big screen, as he was with the earlier movies... be it in the threat of corrupt government officials, the roller coaster ride of the jungle chase or the mystery/suspense of Akator.
That said, I'm trying to objectively critique a movie that I enjoyed... and I still think KOTCS was a good effort in recapturing the spirit and excitement of a 1980's Indy movie...
Montana Smith said:The novel has a whole lot more prologue, with Indy and Mac being captured, but I think Lucas wanted to jump right in with his obsession with hot rods and '50s boy racers. Both he and Spielberg were also probably too preoccupied with tailoring the film simultaneously to older fans and to a younger audience who didn't have the privilege of growing up with the character of Indy. As such they didn't end up with a Saville Row suit, but a mixture of styles. The '50s played too heavily as a character in its own right, rather than as a natural backdrop for Indy.
Ajax the Great said:I agree. The 50's were a character for the whole first part of the movie, instead of just being a context.
The film just wasn't exciting. To this day, even though I know the movies inside out, the OT keeps me on the edge of my seat. You forget that you're watching a movie that you've seen a hundred times, the experience is so rich that you give up your preconceptions and enjoy it one more time. CS never did that for me.
In movies, you generally know that they aren't going to kill the main character right in the middle, because then there wouldn't be a movie. So to overcome that preconception, you have to build excitement and danger. Raiders did just that - we all knew Indy wasn't going to die, and the filmmakers did too. So, they decided to beat Indy within an inch of his life. The huge mechanic kicked his ass, he got shot, punched in his wound, thrown out of a windshield, dragged behind a truck, and walloped by a mirror. In Temple, you had the Thuggee and the voodoo doll. LC hung him from the side of a tank, beat him with a shovel, and poured rocks and rubble all over him.
In CS, when Spalko was about to push Indy over a cliff, I yawned. We all knew he wasn't going over the cliff. There wasn't any urgency to the action.
Indy's brother said:Spalko could have been a more suitable villian if we had seen her more actively involved in their murderous exploits. SS made the decision not to show american soldiers or Uga Warriors getting mowed down on screen. This could have been at least a little more effective if we saw her at least give the order to kill once or twice, instead of her implying her authority over these actions by her mere rank. At least a comment about it would have given her more menace. That's why the great shot of her drawing her sword in the jungle chase scene lacked any real weight. "Oh SNAP! she's drawing her sword!...that was never once used to do anything much more other than threaten people with..." even her duel with Mutt seemed like she was just showing off her fencing ability, rather than really trying to hurt him.
I've said it before, in film, if the camera doesn't see it, it didn't happen. Especially when it comes to violence. We see Mola Ram rip the still beating heart out of a man's chest with his bare frickin' hand, and then it spontaneously combusts in his grip while he smiles gleefully. I'm not saying that IJ movies are supposed to be a gory splat-fest, but there should have been some level of the percieved threat that the other films had. Otherwise we are painfully aware that Indy will come out unscathed no matter what. And what fun is that?
Edge: TOD
Montana Smith said:It comes to the point, for me, that Spalko was more appealing than villainous, so that her punishment by the Interdimensionals was an expression more of their vindictive cruelty, than a justified end for her. I felt that characters such as Belloq and Toht deserved their fate, so their ends were more satisfying to watch. I wanted Spalko to live, as I thought there was so much more she could offer storywise in the future.
Ajax the Great said:why didn't Mutt take the machine gun mounted on the front of the truck Marion was driving?
Indy's brother said:The obvious answer is for the sword fight, but that's ignoring that Mutt couldn't do both. Run out of bullets, have a feed-jam, not know how to use it, etc...then sword-play. It would've played better, and made more sense.
Ajax the Great said:I kind of like the idea of Spalko and Dovchenko in reversed roles.
Spielberg never shows violence in a cartoon context anymore. There were a lot of really cartoony, and somewhat graphic deaths in the OT. That's because Spielberg was a kid's director. He loved the cheap, pulpy thrills. After making movies like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, he is a completely different director. Any real violence is always done for drama, not for excitement. Maybe that's what CS was lacking. When the Russians kill the guards at Area 51, we never see anything. We never see the Ugha get killed. The scene where we see their bodies did give Spalko more edge, but it could have done more. Maybe Spielberg doesn't like to exploit violence, because it's immature. But the fact is, this is an Indy picture. Half of it is about violence-related thrills and cartoon violence.
I'm not saying that violence should be there for the sake of violence; it should advance the plot in some way. In CS, the absence of violence seemed to detract from the plot. Why didn't Indy kill the cemetery warrior? Or, in the Jungle Chase, instead of picking up the sword, why didn't Mutt take the machine gun mounted on the front of the truck Marion was driving?
kongisking said:Um, not that I want to argue with you, as I happen to think you have an excellent point, but are you saying Dovchenko's demise WASN'T cartoony and graphic and over-the-top disgusting? Spielberg still has that childish sense of "oh, how nasty can I make this death? Hee-hee!", he just doesn't do it as blatantly as before. Yes, KOTCS was somewhat lacking in the villainy department, but I see this as a natural reaction to all the heat TOD got for its super-duper violence. So it's actually our faults that Spielberg holds back so much, because the last time he dared to go awesome, we slammed him to the point of regret and guilt!
Nice goin', fans! Grrrrrrrrrr!!!!!
Steven Spielberg said in 1989, "I wasn't happy with Temple of Doom at all. It was too dark, too subterranean, and much too horrific. I thought it out-poltered Poltergeist. There's not an ounce of my own personal feeling in Temple of Doom." He later added during the "Making of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" documentary, "Temple of Doom is my least favorite of the trilogy. I look back and I say, 'Well the greatest thing that I got out of that was I met Kate Capshaw. We married years later and that to me was the reason I was fated to make Temple of Doom."
Ajax the Great said:I agree. The 50's were a character for the whole first part of the movie, instead of just being a context.
Ajax the Great said:The film just wasn't exciting. To this day, even though I know the movies inside out, the OT keeps me on the edge of my seat. You forget that you're watching a movie that you've seen a hundred times, the experience is so rich that you give up your preconceptions and enjoy it one more time. CS never did that for me.
They dropped the ball in that respect...Ajax the Great said:In movies, you generally know that they aren't going to kill the main character right in the middle, because then there wouldn't be a movie. So to overcome that preconception, you have to build excitement and danger. Raiders did just that - we all knew Indy wasn't going to die, and the filmmakers did too. So, they decided to beat Indy within an inch of his life. The huge mechanic kicked his ass, he got shot, punched in his wound, thrown out of a windshield, dragged behind a truck, and walloped by a mirror. In Temple, you had the Thuggee and the voodoo doll. LC hung him from the side of a tank, beat him with a shovel, and poured rocks and rubble all over him.
It was said else where and rightly so, when Marion drove them off the cliff she had that stupid grin on her face. It didn't seem like the actors came to the table with as much creativity and challenged the material like they did in Raiders.Ajax the Great said:In CS, when Spalko was about to push Indy over a cliff, I yawned. We all knew he wasn't going over the cliff. There wasn't any urgency to the action.
kongisking said:Um, not that I want to argue with you, as I happen to think you have an excellent point, but are you saying Dovchenko's demise WASN'T cartoony and graphic and over-the-top disgusting? Spielberg still has that childish sense of "oh, how nasty can I make this death? Hee-hee!", he just doesn't do it as blatantly as before. Yes, KOTCS was somewhat lacking in the villainy department, but I see this as a natural reaction to all the heat TOD got for its super-duper violence. So it's actually our faults that Spielberg holds back so much, because the last time he dared to go awesome, we slammed him to the point of regret and guilt!
Nice goin', fans! Grrrrrrrrrr!!!!!
Indy's brother said:It's too bad that these are his feelings on TOD, as it showed us just how much capacity these films have for that sort sort of violence, making the subsequent two installments feel a little watered down in comparison. I could say that this quote is 21 years old, and that maybe he doesn't feel this way anymore. But then I can watch CS and see that his feelings haven't changed a bit. If anything, time has solidified his opinion.
Ajax the Great said:Oh, man - I completely forgot about Dovchenko. In the graphic department, he probably takes the cake in CS.
...
Has the reception of ToD changed over time/reviewings? The first time I was exposed to the OT, it was my least favorite - now it's right behind Raiders.
Montana Smith said:As for Dovchenko being carried away by the ants, the concept is horrific, but it plays out in a comic fashion, like the deaths at the end of Raiders. Mola's heart ripping scene was more graphic, and being inflicted on a victim we presume to be innocent, it was all the more disturbing.