TheRaider.net
 

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-20-2010, 01:12 PM   #176
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
In the 1980s all vehicles on film exploded even if you just looked at them wrong.
Exemplified in the film 1984 film, "Top Secret", where the troop car (from 'Raiders') lightly touches the fender of a Ford Pinto and....KaBOOM!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
Rough Egyptian roads could have had the same devastating effect on that cargo.
For that story, see the excellent "The Wages of Fear" (1953) and "Sorcerer" (1977).
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 01:26 PM   #177
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
[quote=Stoo]Exemplified in the film 1984 film, "Top Secret", where the troop car (from 'Raiders') lightly touches the fender of a Ford Pinto and....KaBOOM!



I remember seeing this sad end to a cultural icon! The Pinto looks like the car we called the 'Capri' over here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
For that story, see the excellent "The Wages of Fear" (1953) and "Sorcerer" (1977).

Was that the same Sorcerer with the music by Tangerine Dream?
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 03:32 PM   #178
Paden
IndyFan
 
Paden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Desert Wastes
Posts: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by michael
I'd say The Last Crusade had a very "down to earth" feel to it, probably because they went back to the "Raiders formula."
I agree that they went back to the Raiders formula in terms of story structure. Raiders and Crusade share the same "grand quest across multiple continents" framework, which gave the latter film a comfortable familiarity to fans of Raiders. However, some of the elements in Crusade, for myself, really detracted from the movie feeling as gritty as the first. For instance, the character of Marcus Brody goes from being one of Indy's respected colleagues to serving as comic relief, all the way up to the film's close. While I can accept Brody as something of a sequestered academic, his gross incompetence really seemed at odds with the man we met in Raiders. In addition, some of the action sequences (the plane in particular comes to mind) seemed more in keeping with the inflatable raft/mine cart sequences from Temple of Doom. So while I would agree that some aspects of Crusade hearkened back to Raiders, others definitely were more in line with the different tone begun in Temple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Jonesy
That being said, I do feel that the series has progressed and TOD, LC and KOTCS were natural progressions. That's one of the reasons I think the film was received so well with critics/casual fans; they just saw it as 'another Indy sequel and a good adventure'. They viewed it in a much more simple way. Whereas some of the mixed hardcores wanted the film to be just so. And I found when I picked KOTCS to pieces, it took away from my enjoyment of the film, and the previous sequels. And that isn't right.
Well said. Being one of the "mixed hardcores", I definitely came into my first viewing of KOTCS with a mixture of expectations and trepidations, all of which really detracted from the experience. Throughout the movie, I had an ongoing internal dialogue involving what I thought should have been done or what I thought should have been excluded. Needless to say, I left the theater with a bad taste in my mouth. Since then, I've made a concerted effort to enjoy the movie strictly on its own merits and have developed a much kinder opinion of it as a result. Even so, I'm still a die hard partisan of Raiders and to a certain extent, will always wish that all of the sequels had stuck closely to the tone of that first installment.
Paden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 06:16 PM   #179
Cole
IndyFan
 
Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paden
I agree that they went back to the Raiders formula in terms of story structure. Raiders and Crusade share the same "grand quest across multiple continents" framework, which gave the latter film a comfortable familiarity to fans of Raiders. However, some of the elements in Crusade, for myself, really detracted from the movie feeling as gritty as the first. For instance, the character of Marcus Brody goes from being one of Indy's respected colleagues to serving as comic relief, all the way up to the film's close. While I can accept Brody as something of a sequestered academic, his gross incompetence really seemed at odds with the man we met in Raiders. In addition, some of the action sequences (the plane in particular comes to mind) seemed more in keeping with the inflatable raft/mine cart sequences from Temple of Doom. So while I would agree that some aspects of Crusade hearkened back to Raiders, others definitely were more in line with the different tone begun in Temple.

Well said. Being one of the "mixed hardcores", I definitely came into my first viewing of KOTCS with a mixture of expectations and trepidations, all of which really detracted from the experience. Throughout the movie, I had an ongoing internal dialogue involving what I thought should have been done or what I thought should have been excluded. Needless to say, I left the theater with a bad taste in my mouth. Since then, I've made a concerted effort to enjoy the movie strictly on its own merits and have developed a much kinder opinion of it as a result. Even so, I'm still a die hard partisan of Raiders and to a certain extent, will always wish that all of the sequels had stuck closely to the tone of that first installment.
Interesting.......a franchise as iconic and beloved as Indiana Jones belongs to the public in some sense. So I do think as a result of this public "ownership" so to speak, many have their own ideas on what should have been done. They have their own idea on what they would have done. And it takes away from the experience.

'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' - considered one of the greatest films of all-time and it's one of my favorites today. But when I first saw it in high school? Hated it. I had just read the book, loved it, and the film simply couldn't compare to the grand expectations and to the movie I had created in my head. It took a few more years and a fresh new perspective to appreciate what they did with the film, and I think with in time, many might feel the same towards 'Crystal Skull.'
Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 06:17 PM   #180
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paden
I agree that they went back to the Raiders formula in terms of story structure. Raiders and Crusade share the same "grand quest across multiple continents" framework, which gave the latter film a comfortable familiarity to fans of Raiders. However, some of the elements in Crusade, for myself, really detracted from the movie feeling as gritty as the first. For instance, the character of Marcus Brody goes from being one of Indy's respected colleagues to serving as comic relief, all the way up to the film's close. While I can accept Brody as something of a sequestered academic, his gross incompetence really seemed at odds with the man we met in Raiders.

I personally don't get the bad rap that TLC gets over its portrayal of Brody and Sallah. Sure they both get a few more comedic moments/pratfalls in TLC but, IMHO, Marcus Brody is an infinitely better character in TLC... with some truly classic lines e.g. "I'd rather spit in your face" etc. Also worth noting who Spielberg/Lucas first had in mind to play Sallah in Raiders. That gives an idea of the way they originally wanted Sallah played i.e. more of a comic foil.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 07:27 PM   #181
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paden
I agree that they went back to the Raiders formula in terms of story structure. Raiders and Crusade share the same "grand quest across multiple continents" framework, which gave the latter film a comfortable familiarity to fans of Raiders. However, some of the elements in Crusade, for myself, really detracted from the movie feeling as gritty as the first. For instance, the character of Marcus Brody goes from being one of Indy's respected colleagues to serving as comic relief, all the way up to the film's close. While I can accept Brody as something of a sequestered academic, his gross incompetence really seemed at odds with the man we met in Raiders. In addition, some of the action sequences (the plane in particular comes to mind) seemed more in keeping with the inflatable raft/mine cart sequences from Temple of Doom. So while I would agree that some aspects of Crusade hearkened back to Raiders, others definitely were more in line with the different tone begun in Temple.

Well said. Being one of the "mixed hardcores", I definitely came into my first viewing of KOTCS with a mixture of expectations and trepidations, all of which really detracted from the experience. Throughout the movie, I had an ongoing internal dialogue involving what I thought should have been done or what I thought should have been excluded. Needless to say, I left the theater with a bad taste in my mouth. Since then, I've made a concerted effort to enjoy the movie strictly on its own merits and have developed a much kinder opinion of it as a result. Even so, I'm still a die hard partisan of Raiders and to a certain extent, will always wish that all of the sequels had stuck closely to the tone of that first installment.

You're one of the first posters on this site that I have ever had a hard time disagreeing with.

I went into KOTCS the same way as you. And I remember people applauding as the lights went up and asking myself "What are they applauding for?" since I had such mixed and confused emotions about it.

It really saddened me back in May '08 how most everyone I knew loved the film or at least thought it was worthy and fun, and some ranked it above TOD (Some even LC) and I didn't care much for it. However, after my second viewing, I thought it was great. It just needed to digest. Sort of like the time I saw the last 2. I didn't love them from the get-go, either.

And I do think that the casuals do own this series in a huge way. They own the film business, because the ticket sales into the millions isn't the money of die hard film fans, they're of everyday people going to see a good movie and be entertained. There are alot more casuals than hard-cores and always will be. And the thing about the casual fan is that they can have a better time enjoying something and cherishing it. Whereas we have to pick it apart and know every fault and failure, and it detracts from our experience.

Casual fans and everyday movie-goers and Indyfans loved it. But people like us who take time to be on a message board and collect memorabilia, had a more diverse reception of the film.

Hell, I got 3 friends with KOTCS as their favorite. The other 2 friends live TOD, and the rest are into ROTLA or LC. And these people grew up with the series too. But they didn't live and breathe it. And that's what I think makes a difference. I never see a shelf of Indiana Jones films with many left. All 4 films have only 1 or 2 copies left. And that shows something.

And about the sequels, I think each Indy sequel takes what was before it and mixes it with its own new way. TOD took some of ROTLA's grit and combined it with horror/comedy, LC took ROTLA's formula and TOD's comedic touch with Marcus/Sallah (sadly), and KOTCS took some of ROTLA's grit, TOD's way of trying new things, and LC's family reunion feel and humor whilst adding its own Sci-Fi '50s twist.

They always take what was before them and mash it with what's new. And whilst like Paden says, I do wish they would've stuck with the ROTLA feel and grit. But that didn't happen. So I can either take 'em or leave 'em. And I'll take 'em, thank you!

Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 12:28 PM   #182
Gabeed
IndyFan
 
Gabeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I personally don't get the bad rap that TLC gets over its portrayal of Brody and Sallah. Sure they both get a few more comedic moments/pratfalls in TLC but, IMHO, Marcus Brody is an infinitely better character in TLC... with some truly classic lines e.g. "I'd rather spit in your face" etc. Also worth noting who Spielberg/Lucas first had in mind to play Sallah in Raiders. That gives an idea of the way they originally wanted Sallah played i.e. more of a comic foil.

The jokes themselves aren't bad--the lie Indy tells about Marcus knowing every local custom and a dozen languages, and then the quick cut to Marcus being woefully lost in the Iskenderun train station is one of the funniest parts of the entire series. It is, however, just so woefully inconsistent with his personality in the first movie that it ultimately irks me. The dumbed down Sallah irks me as well. We go from a helpful digger who is able to offer a farsighted, cryptic warning on the balcony in Cairo in Raiders to a guy who calls a tank a "steel beast" in Last Crusade.
Gabeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 01:06 PM   #183
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabeed
The jokes themselves aren't bad--the lie Indy tells about Marcus knowing every local custom and a dozen languages, and then the quick cut to Marcus being woefully lost in the Iskenderun train station is one of the funniest parts of the entire series. It is, however, just so woefully inconsistent with his personality in the first movie that it ultimately irks me. The dumbed down Sallah irks me as well. We go from a helpful digger who is able to offer a farsighted, cryptic warning on the balcony in Cairo in Raiders to a guy who calls a tank a "steel beast" in Last Crusade.

Yep... but how much screen time did Brody get in Raiders? Circa 5 minutes I'd guess at... he's a secondary character. To lock his personality down into that brief appearance in Raiders is to do his characters potential much injustice. I think TLC established rather well that 'in the field' Brody is like a fish out of water. He's much more akin to his character in Raiders in the college, Venice library and Venice apartment scenes (and even the scenes inside the Grail Temple he is pretty serious).

As for Sallah... I think the line about being in "the belly of the steel beast" is quite poetic and in keeping with his persona from Raiders. Again, in Raiders, upon inspection, Sallah is only serious for a couple of scenes (key scenes I'd admit), but for the rest he's a bit loud and oafish.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 02:12 PM   #184
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Yep... but how much screen time did Brody get in Raiders? Circa 5 minutes I'd guess at... he's a secondary character. To lock his personality down into that brief appearance in Raiders is to do his characters potential much injustice. I think TLC established rather well that 'in the field' Brody is like a fish out of water. He's much more akin to his character in Raiders in the college, Venice library and Venice apartment scenes (and even the scenes inside the Grail Temple he is pretty serious).

Good points, Darth. TLC is the first time we see Marcus out of his element, so we shouldn't really have a preconceived idea of how he should act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
As for Sallah... I think the line about being in "the belly of the steel beast" is quite poetic and in keeping with his persona from Raiders. Again, in Raiders, upon inspection, Sallah is only serious for a couple of scenes (key scenes I'd admit), but for the rest he's a bit loud and oafish.

Before I read the comments about the "steel beast" line, it never occurred to me that it might have been out of character. Sallah was larger than life, so the line does have a poetic quality, as you note.

It's a shame that in KOTCS some of the characters seemed a bit flat in comparison, as though they got neglected while the search was on for the next big cliffhanger.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 05:07 PM   #185
Gabeed
IndyFan
 
Gabeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Yep... but how much screen time did Brody get in Raiders? Circa 5 minutes I'd guess at... he's a secondary character. To lock his personality down into that brief appearance in Raiders is to do his characters potential much injustice. I think TLC established rather well that 'in the field' Brody is like a fish out of water. He's much more akin to his character in Raiders in the college, Venice library and Venice apartment scenes (and even the scenes inside the Grail Temple he is pretty serious).

As for Sallah... I think the line about being in "the belly of the steel beast" is quite poetic and in keeping with his persona from Raiders. Again, in Raiders, upon inspection, Sallah is only serious for a couple of scenes (key scenes I'd admit), but for the rest he's a bit loud and oafish.

If you've seen Iron Man 2, you may remember Samuel L. Jackson's character, Nic Fury. He's on-screen for a short while himself, but the mood of his character is nevertheless established--he's rather no-nonsense, is urging Tony Stark to join his team, etc. If he were to become comic relief in a sequel to Iron Man 2, would that not be jarring? Keep in mind that I've never read a comic book in my life, so bringing up Nic Fury's backstory (whatever it may be) is irrelevant in this context--my conclusion is based on the movies alone. I have no problem with considerable development of a character like Marcus who was minor in a previous movie. I can see the potential humor of an academic being rather awkward out in the field. I just think they lathered it on a bit too thick. It's a stretch for me to consider the man who gives sage advice and states he would go after the Ark himself in serious tones in the beginning of Raiders is the same ungainly, confused, crazy man who yells out "FOLLOW ME, I KNOW THE WAY, HHHHAAAAAAAAAA!!!" and starts to topple off his horse in the end of Last Crusade. All dignity gone.

And I don't buy the "poetic" explanation for the steel beast quote. You may see it that way, but I feel almost certain that the intention was "Stupid Sallah's never seen a tank before."
Gabeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 05:35 PM   #186
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabeed
If you've seen Iron Man 2, you may remember Samuel L. Jackson's character, Nic Fury. He's on-screen for a short while himself, but the mood of his character is nevertheless established--he's rather no-nonsense, is urging Tony Stark to join his team, etc. If he were to become comic relief in a sequel to Iron Man 2, would that not be jarring? Keep in mind that I've never read a comic book in my life, so bringing up Nic Fury's backstory (whatever it may be) is irrelevant in this context--my conclusion is based on the movies alone. I have no problem with considerable development of a character like Marcus who was minor in a previous movie. I can see the potential humor of an academic being rather awkward out in the field. I just think they lathered it on a bit too thick. It's a stretch for me to consider the man who gives sage advice and states he would go after the Ark himself in serious tones in the beginning of Raiders is the same ungainly, confused, crazy man who yells out "FOLLOW ME, I KNOW THE WAY, HHHHAAAAAAAAAA!!!" and starts to topple off his horse in the end of Last Crusade. All dignity gone.

And I don't buy the "poetic" explanation for the steel beast quote. You may see it that way, but I feel almost certain that the intention was "Stupid Sallah's never seen a tank before."

It's all about ones interpretation... but I don't think for a second Lucas/Spielberg were trying to turn Brody into some "crazy man" idiot. As already mentioned, watch TLC and count how many times Brody is being serious i.e. the college scenes, Henry Jones Seniors house, the entire Venice section, inside the Grail temple. He only gets to do some light weight stuff in the Iskenderun station scene, aboard the tank and the "follow me" bit at the very end. The character certainly gets more screen time in TLC, but I don't think it's spent establishing him as a bumbling incompetent.

As for Sallah... yes he's played a lot more lightweight (which is reflective of the movie in general)... but I think that they already establish him as a bit of a loveable fool in Raiders e.g. "holy smoke my friends I'm so pleased you're not dead" etc. And as already mentioned, remember who they wanted to originally play Sallah? The character was not conceived as being an intellect, but instead as a simple sidekick/comic foil.
Darth Vile 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 11:48 PM.