Finn said:
Original Tomb Raider the game was popular mainly because it was what it was, a hugely innovative and good video game for its time. Its plot elements paid huge respects to the Indy films, but they didn't define that genre of gaming. Actually, if we're to go down this road, we'd actually find Indy game the Infernal Machine little too much a TR rip-off, not vice-versa. The movies were made to cash in on the success of the games, not Indy.
I agree with all of this. I do think that without Indy, there is no Tomb Raider, and as you mention, without Tomb Raider there would be no Infernal Machine.
In reading interviews with Hal Barwood, he goes on the record by saying how LucasArts/Lucas wanted to capitalize on the Tomb Raider-esque games/engine and scrapped plans for the next Indy graphic adventure (Iron Phoenix), legal issues with Germany and Nazi portrayal aside.
But there are two different issues here: graphical approaches in games and influences thereof, and story material/content/plot devices.
Finn said:
The Mummy is a mixed bag to me.
Same here. My biggest issue is the Brenden Frasier character. I think I can safely use the term 'rip off' here in comparison with Indy (even in the simplest ways including costume, era, etc...). Worst of all, I cannot get over the acting by Fraser...just doesn't fit to me. It was worth watching, but I am over it at the same time.
Finn said:
One of the things we could wonder is that would even KotCS be getting to us if The Mummy hadn't shown us there's still market for adventure.
Again, you open a new can of worms in terms of discussion, Finn.
The Beards have the luxury of putting their name on anything and people will come. The big three making this movie have never really lost together, and with people complaining about the Prequels (me included) and Spielberg's films being more 'earthy' lately, this seems smart to do from a marketing standpoint. Or it could be that Lucas kept pushing his idea and he always gets his way.
Finn said:
Anyway, Joe is probably completely right to say that the game reminds him of Indy, I never wanted to argue that. I simply said that it's likely not proper to call it a rip-off, as that term in my mind has somewhat a negative undertone. It's practically a synonyme for stealing, which drawing from the general pool of genre principles IMO isn't.
That is all I was trying to get across. I know there are nerdier people out there like you and me who know more about this topic and Indy than 99% of the population, but people like us do not matter...its the 99% that matter. As a filmmaker I have to keep reminding myself this. It can work the other way, unfortunately. A film or game can come out with an original idea, but if the general perception is that it is unoriginal, then the material is labeled unfairly...but so be it. Look at
The Prestige and
The Illusionist. Someone may avoid one, claiming one to be a clone of the other. More research would point out that the stories are based on older written material independent of one another, but alas, people don't care or want to take the time to do the research into that, and for the most part, I don't blame them.
Finn said:
Have you thought that in similar manner some of the the newer franchises take the best bits of Indy and threw in some of their own ideas to cook up something of their own. Indy draws from someplace, they draw from someplace. As a species, humans aren't as individualistic as they like to think. They tend to emulate. When it comes to defining a rip-off, I like to look into the creator's motives rather than the creation itself.
I do think this. However there is some grey area, as another forumer pointed out. I will say though, that Indy takes the best bits of several sources, whereas some newer material in media just takes the best bits from Indy and the rest is just convulsed ideas mixed within. I think of
The Mummy in this way.
Finn said:
If we look at the newest Bond flick, Casino Royale, I figure it wouldn't have been made the way it came out without the eventual success of the Jason Bourne franchise. But can we truly call the new Bond a Bourne rip-off as it's part of a lot older franchise? This business is really full of shades of grey if you ask me...
You bring up a great point with Bourne, it certainly impacted the Bond franchise especially from an aesthetic standpoint. But the main elements of Bond have not changed since 1962 (the films).
On an unrelated note, I was talking with a cameraman over the Holidays who is close with the tech crew of the Bourne series and he and I went on and on about the editing and framing of the Bourne movies, in terms of how annoying it can be. They need to pull the camera back, let the action/sequence speak for itself. Anyone can film a fight scene with extreme close ups of flailing arms, legs, etc...and edit with .4 seconds on each shot, 40 shots in a row, and cartoonish sound effects to boot.
Sorry, I digress.
I do really like the Bourne films, for the record.