The Young Indy Chronicles were really really bad...
- Thread starter CrimsonTree
- Start date
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
I'm not talking about the framing of a scene so much as I'm talking about the character directions he gives during filming. I've been going over the various "making of" features/films and such, and Spielberg's directions strike me as a big big element missing from the equation.Raiders112390 said:
From coaching Karen Allen on being wasted to screaming..."when I say bigger you give me increments in millimeters..."
Imagine for a moment he worked with Flannery, however flawed Flannery might be I think Spielberg has a great bedside manner, even if he resorts to (Friedkin extremes) dropping dead slimy snakes on you to get the desired response, I have no doubt he could get some Indy out of him...
In short: like losing the perspective Old Indy gives to each individual story, (as Stoo and Montana point out), this is Indiana Jones sans the Spielberg perspective.
The sensibilities of the varied directors are bound to rub the rails. Not being a fan of Rick McCallum, it's easy for me to say: he wasn't a good resource for character continuity.
Consider the order of shooting, the varied directors, the true individuality of each script, television...SPF did an pretty good job.
Last edited:
Rocket Surgeon said:
He did a good job with what he was given, but there should have been consistency with the writers, directors and with the order of shooting. It seems towards the end they were beginning to get sloppy, for example Henry, Sr having blue eyes in the Travels with Father movie in 1996.
Having different directors who had no real knowledge of the fine points of Indy or the series (which is what the show was all about, showing his background and the fine points about him) and writers who weren't really all that familiar with Indy as well leads to a real inconsistent feel to the series, and some of the writers didn't have any clue as to what Indy's personality was like as shown by their writing. At times, it feels like what you'd think Young Indy would be like, and other times it feels like you're watching this other character who happens to have the same name.
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
Funny thing, they did a "Story Transcript" -like collaboration before they filmed. All the writers were together and Lucas approved and scratched content. In some cases they advised on other stories. One has to consider they weren't filmed/aired as a time line of Indy's life...Raiders112390 said:
This sort of minutia doesn't bother me, I'm more interested with being immersed in the story. Unless his contact lenses glowed or were a solid color, it wouldn't have bothered me.Raiders112390 said:
I'm sure they screened the films, and I'm sure they devolved him...they weren't continuing the Indy story, they were going back and examining some of his formative moments. Well, personalities change and unless you're his daddy or mommy, it's unlikely you'll have unconditional love for all aspects of someone else's child...and really he is Lucas' baby.Raiders112390 said:
That sounds about right. It sounds just like someone who is finding out who and what they like and what kind of person they are.Raiders112390 said:
I have to add, I think Crystal Skull prepped me for liking Young Indy. I shied away for many reasons, but I love the character. With each film I've seen an increase in content/style that I've had to dismiss to enjoy those aspects which I think are Indiana Jones, (mainly Harrison Ford). Without Harrison other apsects had to be explored...
Last edited:
Montana Smith
Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Being an educational exercise (in both history and optimism), the Young Indy series cuts off before Indy becomes the cynical rogue.
The two projects are distinct in their intentions, yet linked by name. It's really set up so you can take them or leave them.
Jeremiah Jones
Member
Of course it should, but that was originally the intention of the Chronicles, to go right up to Temple, we'd see Indys first day as a college professor, why he decides to always have a whip on his belt, where he got that leather Jacket, which time traveller gave him a 2nd world war gas mask bag.
In fact, I think the reason they never used the raiders march in the bits we have is because, like Casino Royale's use of the bond theme, they were building up to it.. imagine, the first time we see Indy in full indy gear, the theme thumping from the speakers... theres indiana jones...
Also, recently theres been the revelation that it was planned for Remy to die of thirst in his search for the peacocks eye, imagine how much more cynical that would make Indy?
I'm saying alot here, but regarding SPF, he did a good job, I guess, but much of the character consistancy would have come down to him, as an actor myself I know that it doesn't matter whats going on in the script, you can make any line of dialog suit any character. Think of all the ways one could say 'I hate snakes jock, I hate 'em' terrified, petulant, humorously, ironic, the way Ford says it, screaming it out, angrily, unbelievably, makes Indiana Jones.. he makes it a truism.. an angry fearful truism.. in my opinion Sean is great towards the chronological beginning of his stint as Indy, London, Verdun, the Somme, the Mata Hari Affair, Oganga, amazing amazing stuff, my most fervent wish is that after the war we had seen an altered Indy.. winds of change almost teases at a change in the man, mystery of the blues seems to confirm it, but then Hollywood follies, hes as naive and daffy as ever, scared of the cowboys in that saloon, seeming to take in wyatt earps commentary on shooting with a face that you could hardly believe ever saw death, let alone probably has already killed more men then Earp ever cocked a rifle at... maybe the change would have worked if he'd been assured of the shows future, but as the actor playing Indy, it was primarily up to him to make us believe that.
For my money I think Sean was cast, like George cast Anakin Skywalker, and Luke before him, because he has a sense of wide eyed naiveté, and he does, we can feel what its like, through him, to live through the early 20th century, unforunately, whenever Sean tries to look cool, tries to be hard bitten and world weary, i.e. working in Petrograd, helping sixtus and xavier, he just seems to be faking it. Its all in the eyes, and from reading interviews with sean taken at the time of filming, I don't think he had it in him to understand Indiana Jones, why knowledge is so important to the man, how a knowledge of history can lend a cynicism about the present, because you've seen it a thousand times before. Sean is great at Young Indy, but a knowledgeable, worldly wise, cynic? No. I don't think so.
In fact, I think the reason they never used the raiders march in the bits we have is because, like Casino Royale's use of the bond theme, they were building up to it.. imagine, the first time we see Indy in full indy gear, the theme thumping from the speakers... theres indiana jones...
Also, recently theres been the revelation that it was planned for Remy to die of thirst in his search for the peacocks eye, imagine how much more cynical that would make Indy?
I'm saying alot here, but regarding SPF, he did a good job, I guess, but much of the character consistancy would have come down to him, as an actor myself I know that it doesn't matter whats going on in the script, you can make any line of dialog suit any character. Think of all the ways one could say 'I hate snakes jock, I hate 'em' terrified, petulant, humorously, ironic, the way Ford says it, screaming it out, angrily, unbelievably, makes Indiana Jones.. he makes it a truism.. an angry fearful truism.. in my opinion Sean is great towards the chronological beginning of his stint as Indy, London, Verdun, the Somme, the Mata Hari Affair, Oganga, amazing amazing stuff, my most fervent wish is that after the war we had seen an altered Indy.. winds of change almost teases at a change in the man, mystery of the blues seems to confirm it, but then Hollywood follies, hes as naive and daffy as ever, scared of the cowboys in that saloon, seeming to take in wyatt earps commentary on shooting with a face that you could hardly believe ever saw death, let alone probably has already killed more men then Earp ever cocked a rifle at... maybe the change would have worked if he'd been assured of the shows future, but as the actor playing Indy, it was primarily up to him to make us believe that.
For my money I think Sean was cast, like George cast Anakin Skywalker, and Luke before him, because he has a sense of wide eyed naiveté, and he does, we can feel what its like, through him, to live through the early 20th century, unforunately, whenever Sean tries to look cool, tries to be hard bitten and world weary, i.e. working in Petrograd, helping sixtus and xavier, he just seems to be faking it. Its all in the eyes, and from reading interviews with sean taken at the time of filming, I don't think he had it in him to understand Indiana Jones, why knowledge is so important to the man, how a knowledge of history can lend a cynicism about the present, because you've seen it a thousand times before. Sean is great at Young Indy, but a knowledgeable, worldly wise, cynic? No. I don't think so.
Last edited:
Montana Smith
Active member
Jeremiah Jones said:
That was perhaps the biggest omission in the series. It would have been a natural link from the carefree youthful Indy to Harrison's more mature and cynical older Indy.
If we take the TV series as canon it leaves us looking for an event more life-changing than the brutality and stupidity of the Great War, which finally changes Indy's outlook.
Jeremiah Jones said:
It's all the pitch of his voice, actually.
Imagine some of the lines where Indy is being ''cool'' or hard bitten in ToD, played by an actor with the same pitched voice as SPF--Higher than Harrison's.
For example when he says: "I suggest you give me with you owe me...Or anything goes."
Imagine SPF saying that same line. I don't think no matter how he tried it, it wouldn't carry any of the menace that it does when Harrison says it. Why? Different voices.
Harrison has a naturally growly, commanding, authoritative sort of voice. SPF does not.
Stoo
Well-known member
Raiders112390, here's a thread for you: Is the Mole on Indy's neck Canon????
Stoo said:
Look, they're canon and I accept them as such, I just wonder at what may have been had another actor played.
Like I said, some days I absolutely love them, others not so much. I'm kind of bi polar when it comes to them.
I think no new Indy stuff is making me a bit crazy lol.
But yeah, I love them generally, I just know they're not perfect. But then IMO nothing in the Indy series is 100% perfect outside of Raiders.
So, yes, they're canon and SPF is Young Indy and that was Indy's life from 1908-1920.
Off topic but I'm actually one of the probably rare few who enjoy the Cory Carrier Young Indy movies slight more than SPF's. I don't know why exactly I like them better, but I do know I love the interaction of Indy, Henry and Anna.