At least one of my friends had my back last night

lairdo

Member
So, I was out at dinner last night with two high school buddies - we've all been friends for 30 years or so. And I think I mentioned I had done some stuff for the Indycast recently, and that's how we got on the subject.

Anyway, friend D calls KOTCS a "disaster." And of course, I start in "what are you talking about, how many times did you see it, etc, etc, etc." (Do the last bit of that in a Yul Brennar King and I voice. Anyway, so friend J jumps in and cuts me off and just tells D he is nuts. The movie was great and get over it. End of conversation, no debate required or allowed.

And that ended that. Sometimes the direct way is the best way. And I wouldn't call J a huge fan. Just a smart person.

Friend J is on the good list today!

Laird
 
lairdo said:
And that ended that. Sometimes the direct way is the best way. And I wouldn't call J a huge fan.Friend J is on the good list today! Laird

Oh my Brother! Did you not even get a reason why?
 
Rocket Surgeon said:
Oh my Brother! Did you not even get a reason why?

Reason?! Psssshaw. Who needs reason. It was GREAT. No need to justify, no need to be open to debate or opposing viewpoint. It was just great. And what I really liked about it was... well... it was great. OK? Get it? Great. Psh.
 

lairdo

Member
I think ResidentAlien pretty much summed up the depth of the conversation! I think D saw he was out numbered by superior forces and retreated from the field of battle.
 
lairdo said:
I think ResidentAlien pretty much summed up the depth of the conversation! I think D saw he was out numbered by superior forces and retreated from the field of battle.


Superior?


It sounds like the cliche of the meat-headed bully and his posse turning the poor little guy upside down and shaking him for loose change.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
arkfinder said:
The only part I can't defend is Mutt & the monkeys sceen swingin' on the vines (n) .

Hey, those monkeys were just doing their thing, it's what monkeys do - they swing! The film would have improved if Mutt had lost his grip and plunged to his death, though. :dead:
 

Peru1936

New member
Montana Smith said:
Hey, those monkeys were just doing their thing, it's what monkeys do - they swing! The film would have improved if Mutt had lost his grip and plunged to his death, though. :dead:

But they not only swing, they are able to tell the good guys from the bad guys, and therefore attack the bad guys.

The scene was silly, I'd say the most ridiculous of the entire series, and a challenge of my beloved suspension-of-disbelief. I'm very willing out of pure entertainment and fun to suspend my disbelief for things like crystaline interdimensional beings, magical Sankara stones, a massive rolling booby-trap, a 700 year old knight, a nuked fridge, and even a Judeo-Christian god, but it's tougher to do so with a troop of monkeys swinging on vines with the minor hero who eventually only attack the antagonists.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Peru1936 said:
But they not only swing, they are able to tell the good guys from the bad guys, and therefore attack the bad guys.

The scene was silly, I'd say the most ridiculous of the entire series, and a challenge of my beloved suspension-of-disbelief. I'm very willing out of pure entertainment and fun to suspend my disbelief for things like crystaline interdimensional beings, magical Sankara stones, a massive rolling booby-trap, a 700 year old knight, a nuked fridge, and even a Judeo-Christian god, but it's tougher to do so with a troop of monkeys swinging on vines with the minor hero who eventually only attack the antagonists.

The Monkey in Raiders was a Nazi... Think yourself lucky that it wasn't an army of gorillas ('The Monkey King'). Never underestimate the capability of a monkey - they've seen the bad guys cutting down their jungle, now they're getting their own back - or there were just more Russians to pick on.
 

tambourineman

New member
From memory the monkey "attack" seemed random, I dont remember them telling the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. Its just that it was the bad guys who were there when they swung out of the jungle.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Peru1936 said:
But they not only swing, they are able to tell the good guys from the bad guys, and therefore attack the bad guys.

The scene was silly, I'd say the most ridiculous of the entire series, and a challenge of my beloved suspension-of-disbelief. I'm very willing out of pure entertainment and fun to suspend my disbelief for things like crystaline interdimensional beings, magical Sankara stones, a massive rolling booby-trap, a 700 year old knight, a nuked fridge, and even a Judeo-Christian god, but it's tougher to do so with a troop of monkeys swinging on vines with the minor hero who eventually only attack the antagonists.

It's really not the idea/premise that is at fault, but the execution I think. If you are willing to accept those other things you list above, then there really isn't a limit as to what you will be comfortable with (which is a positive thing)... but if the execution is off, it can turn a believable premise into jarring experience. For me, to date with Indy movies... it's mine carts, ancient knights and swinging/sword fighting Mutts that have seemed somewhat too incredulous (but primarily because of their execution). :)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
It's really not the idea/premise that is at fault, but the execution I think. If you are willing to accept those other things you list above, then there really isn't a limit as to what you will be comfortable with (which is a positive thing)... but if the execution is off, it can turn a believable premise into jarring experience. For me, to date with Indy movies... it's mine carts, ancient knights and swinging/sword fighting Mutts that have seemed somewhat too incredulous (but primarily because of their execution). :)

All four movies are full of jarring moments - but I find that they only jar if you try to force real-world sensibilities onto the situations. Indy only works because it dispenses with the real world. They don't go as far as being dream-like, but obey their own internal logic.

I look on it that just as George created the Star Wars universe, he also created the Indiana Jones universe. Star Wars was a long time ago in a galaxy far away, and Indy is not so long ago, in an earth not so far away.
 

Peru1936

New member
While I agree that suspending disbelief for a mystical/interdimensional crystal skull would also need one to suspend disbelief for other things, there are limits. There has to be a reasonable, comfortable end (as far stretched as that may go) and it has to fit into the sleeve of good storytelling.

I respectfully disagree that the premise was not at fault - it was a pretty lame idea, suspension of belief aside - or that the attack was random - why didn't they attack Mutt, because they have the same haircut? That goes beyond suspension of disbelief into the realm of poor writing.
 
Poor, poor, poor writing... really.

The only part I can't defend...

... starts with the number 51 written on the gates of a warehouse, and finishes just a couple seconds before the appearence of a flying saucer, near the end of the film...
 

Dr Bones

New member
It's easier to suspend disbelief when it's something fantastical like the ark, an elaborate booby trap, the grail's powers etc as we have no real point of referrence in reality...but when simple things like monkies start doing out of the ordinary or even impossible it is harder to accept.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
All four movies are full of jarring moments - but I find that they only jar if you try to force real-world sensibilities onto the situations.

I disagree with your characterization. There is very little at all that is "jarring" in the first three films within the context that those movies create for themselves.

One could argue (convincingly, I'm sure) that there is very little that is less "realistic" in KOTCS than in the other films.

However, the movie is full of dissonant and phony moments throughout.

But take a look at the other films. The opening sequence in "Raiders", whilst filled with all kinds of obviously unrealistic moments, sets the stage for what follows. A universe is created and its rules are put in place.

The rest of the movie is consistent with the tone and parameters established in the beginning. Sure, there are plenty of "unrealistic" moments, but nothing that stretches the "credibility" of what has already been establish. It's consistent and it makes sense within the rules it creates.

We go along for the ride. Nothing really "takes us out of the movie" or stands out as being a particularly inconsistent, awkward or inappropriately "fake" moment. We have made a pact with the filmmakers to stretch our credibility to a very specific degree. We will suspend disbelief only so far - and the filmmakers never go back on their promise.

In fact, one of the things that made Indiana Jones such an endearing and memorable character off the bat was the degree to which the filmmakers gave at least the appearance of vulnerability to the guy. Indy has phobias. He is fallible, utterly failing in the opening sequence and consistently throughout the film. Indy shows pain, he gets knocked on his ass. He does incredibly, mind-blowing things, but later on has to recuperate and nurse his wounds.

All of these qualities serve as a very effective counter to the far-fetched events and stunts and actions of the story. We're grounded, in a sense, and, while few human beings could ever really do what Indy accomplishes, we find him a believable - even relatable - hero.

I would argue that the subsequent two sequels, particularly "last crusade", stretch the template that "Raiders" had established with increasingly fanciful happenings, which venture more towards the cartoonish. They are stretching our suspension more and more.

But it doesn't really break until the fourth movie. By that point, the filmmakers have left behind all pretense of making Indiana Jones a relatable, vulnerable hero in situations which we can believe in. Or at least not actively DISbelieve in.

There's a reason "Nuke the Fridge" entered the lexicon. At that point and from that point forward, the Indiana Jones team seems to have given up and gone back on those promises they made way back in 1981 with "Raiders."

One could argue that getting flung a mile or two in a metal fridge and surviving is no less plausible than jumping a massive gap in an out of control mine cart only to land perfectly on the tracks on the other end.

But the filmmakers make no concessions, as in earlier films, to ground Indy with flaws and vulnerability (though I think that trend really began in earnest in "Last Crusade", but fortunately there wasn't anything as outlandish in that movie to really break the spell.)

Story, plot and stunt elements in KOTCS are frequently (if not consistently) take the movie into "implausible" and cartoonish territories the other films did not dare to tread. And they abandoned any attempts to balance that by making the character himself believably human.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Peru1936 said:
I respectfully disagree that the premise was not at fault - it was a pretty lame idea, suspension of belief aside - or that the attack was random - why didn't they attack Mutt, because they have the same haircut? That goes beyond suspension of disbelief into the realm of poor writing.

I'm not sure how the premise is any worse than numerous events that happen in the first 15 mins of TOD or TLC, but that's selective memory for yer. ;)
 

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
Maybe Mutt can speak monkey....:p

Or the monkeys think that he's the leader or something (even better, he's the Monkey King!). :rolleyes:

Sorry, the scene really can't be justified other than a lame attempt at trying to do something either funny and in it's way harken back to a rejected element from previous scripts (being the army of gorillas from "Monkey King", which lets face it, was a terrible script, but a fun side read).
 
Top