"For the last 1/3rd of the movie, Indy just stands around looking at ***"

Crusade>Raiders

New member
Thats my biggest complaint of Kingdom. The CGI didn't really bother me, the fridge thing was COMPLETELY overblown(pun not intended), even the aliens werent that big of a stretch compared to "giant golden box that contains death angels that melt faces and giant lasers". Its the fact that for the last 1/3rd of the movie, Indy just stands around looking at ****. He's Indiana ****ing Jones! The greatest film character in cinema history! He should be whooping ass and busting caps and solving riddles and stuff. Not letting the other superflauous characters take the reins.
 

deckard24

New member
Crusade>Raiders said:
Thats my biggest complaint of Kingdom. The CGI didn't really bother me, the fridge thing was COMPLETELY overblown(pun not intended), even the aliens werent that big of a stretch compared to "giant golden box that contains death angels that melt faces and giant lasers". Its the fact that for the last 1/3rd of the movie, Indy just stands around looking at ****. He's Indiana ****ing Jones! The greatest film character in cinema history! He should be whooping ass and busting caps and solving riddles and stuff. Not letting the other superflauous characters take the reins.
Unfortunately the character of Indy in KOTCS was written as a hybrid of Indy and Henry Sr.! Everything from the scowling at LaBeouf during the motorcycle chase, to the fumbling around during the camp escape as LaBeouf took charge, reeked of Henry Sr. from LC! I know that was what they were going for, and that Indy had aged and maybe saw things a bit differently, but Indy's recklessness was what made him Indy for Christ's sake! Having him rekindle his relationship with Marion I can see, because he's always been a big softy where women were concerned, but having him lose a lot of his edge is in my opinion just crappy writing in order to shoehorn in LaBeouf's character!
 

torao

Moderator Emeritus
I just moved those posts above over here. (Thanks for the emotional outburst, Crusade>Raiders/deckard. I hope you don't mind the move.)I think this issue needs its own thread. I see this complaint pop up a lot, even among those who could enjoy CS for what they say it was. (And I personally think of it as probably the biggest problem, misstep or misunderstanding of the film.)

Crystal Skull introduced an older Indiana Jones. A man from another pre-atomic era. It's "not as easy as it used to be", the deaths of Marcus and his father make him realize his own mortality and in a violent political climate he isn't even allowed to teach anymore.
Frank Marshall said in an interview before the film's release that during all the time we haven't seen him Indy has learned things. Did he mean that he's become a more cautious man, more like his father? Declaring things as "intolerable"? Prefering to stay out of trouble?

Does the script manage to justify the fact that Indy is barely doing anything once they use the rubber-tree-lift and unknowingly head for the falls? (You could argue that the lack of his actions start way earlier.)
 
Last edited:

The Man

Well-known member
He was only following orders from the magnetic alien's head. Perhaps it felt a man of his vintage needed rest. Plenty of rest...

Besides, he did open the throne-room door with the crystal bonce. I, for one, have waited years for that moment...
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Part of the problem is having to share action moments with Shia, who was being groomed as Ford's future successor. The part somebody mentioned, where Indy actually complains about being rescued from the campsite by Mutt, feels very out of character. I don't buy it as an "evolution" of his character, either. His illogical attitude was supplied by the need to give Shia a spotlight moment, plain and simple. Giving him some characteristics of his father is not the same as making him a completely different character than the one we know and love just because it's the most convenient way to accomplish whatever it is the current scene needs to accomplish.

But I think the bigger problem is just bad screenwriting in general. Even with Indy sacrificing some moments for Shia, the movie simply missed easy opportunities for Indy to be Indy, especially in the final third. I've made these points before, but here they are again.

- Why, in the part where they're being chased by the Ugha warriors, would they end the scene so anticlimactically? Literally nothing happened by the time the scene had ended. They spent god knows how much building a giant temple, they have all these painted extras armed with those crazy rope weapons, and it wasn't in service of a damn thing. Why couldn't Indy have been the one who saved them? The skull could still have been what drove the natives away, but why not actually introduce a problem, like the characters needing to reach the skull, for somebody to solve? It was suggested by somebody somewhere that the natives could have captured the heroes and strung them up on posts and they have to work together to retrieve the skull before they're eaten/sacrificed/burned alive/whatever. Do you see how much better that part of the movie would have been if anything actually happened? As it plays in the actual movie, the natives part felt like an idea born out of a brainstorming session that nobody decided to actually expand upon. Giving the sequence actual suspense, tension, and Indy getting to do something would have been so easy, but they just didn't do it. When I saw the image of Indy being chased by natives on the poster, I was like, "Oh man, this is going to be a great Indy moment." The images I saw in the actual movie felt like they were inspired by the poster, rather than the other way around.

- What was the point of the obelisk puzzle, if it was solved by Oxley before the characters ever got there? Why couldn't Indy have had to interpret Oxley, or figure the puzzle out on his own, or face any kind of conflict? Nothing happened. The whole scene was just this special effect of the pillars rising and coming together. And again, it's a really impressive practical effect and likely very expensive, but no one gives a damn because it's a payoff without a setup. If the characters actually had to do anything significant in order to open the temple, then maybe that money shot would have felt like an awesome reward and not just some random image that I was looking at on a screen. Again, the obelisk was just an idea that they didn't make a scene out of, even though the opportunities pretty much write themselves. It all happened too fast, just like the disappearing stairs scene that came next (though my problem with that isn't related to Indy not taking charge so I won't go into it now).
 

No Ticket

New member
HONESTLY. I saw right through their attempt to make Indy into a Henry Sr. It was so obvious. But I don't really think Indiana Jones would have evolved into his father.

Why? Because even when his father was younger they were completely different people. "The professor was never giddy, even when he was a school boy." (I'm not basing that quote as some kind of proof, but I'm mentioning it for fun)

... what I was hoping to see was a bit of a bitter Indiana, lonely in his older age despite his adventures and teaching. And then he discovers his son and it awakens some youth in him. I was hoping to see him doing a lot more towards the end of the film.

I didn't see it. I too felt, as I was watching the film, that he was just standing around too much.
 

nitzsche

New member
The escape from the camp and Indy's reaction worked well for me because it was obvious to Indy they didn't have the upper hand and an advantage in escaping at that particular moment.

Mutt says, "Someone had to do something!" and Indy says, "Something else would have been good!"

As it is, they are running into the jungle at night with no supplies, no map, no skull -- nothing.

Indy just wasn't ready to make a move yet. He certainly would have though, at the right moment.

It was hot-headed and showed Mutt's impatience and recklessness which is perfect for a young greaser.

Indy's reaction is like "Dude, we've got nothing - what are we doing?"
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
nitzsche said:
Indy's reaction is like "Dude, we've got nothing - what are we doing?"

Oh I get that, and when I say "illogical" I mean it doesn't feel true to his character more than I do that there's no reasoning behind his motivations.

But I must say, I wasn't following Indy's logic from the very beginning of the scene, when he was willingly helping the Ruskies with no plan at all, much like he was at the beginning of the film. It just seems to be like he should have been up to something, even if he was biding his time. Even though Indy makes things up as he goes along, in his own words, he's still always got something up his sleave, even if it's desperate and even it's not all that hot an idea.
 
Last edited:

James

Well-known member
nitzsche said:
The escape from the camp and Indy's reaction worked well for me because it was obvious to Indy they didn't have the upper hand and an advantage in escaping at that particular moment.

Exactly. People get so focused on Mutt being Indy's son that they seem to forget he is also Marion's. Mutt's impetuous escape plan perfectly mirrors the one Marion concocted in ROTLA. In both cases, they were only thinking about getting out of the camp- and not the desert/jungle that surrounded them. (The irony, of course, is that Marion later accuses Indy of not thinking too far ahead!)

Udvarnoky said:
Oh I get that, and when I say "illogical" I mean it doesn't feel true to his character more than I do that there's no reasoning behind his motivations.

But I must say, I wasn't following Indy's logic from the very beginning of the scene, when he was willingly helping the Ruskies with no plan at all, much like he was at the beginning of the film.

I would argue that it is true to his character, as Indy usually had his doubts when forced to follow someone else's lead. This was true regardless of whether it was Henry Sr., Sallah, Marion, etc.

As for Indy cooperating with the Russians, I saw that as his passion for knowledge taking over. He reverts to professor mode several times in the film, and it's clearly evident when he is wrapped up in solving Oxley's riddles. Remember, this is an archaeological find that he once risked his own life trying to discover. It's entirely logical for him to become so wrapped up in the quest, that he momentarily forgets the larger predicament.

One of the very first things we learned about Indy (in the opening of ROTLA) is that he is not the best judge of character. We also know he is willing to form an uneasy alliance if it will aid him in the ultimate goal. There's a moment in Hangar 51 where we literally see Indy go from captor to leader. He realizes he cannot immediately escape, and if he must assist the Russians, it's going to be on his own terms. When the opportunity to formulate a plan presents itself, we see him immediately switch back into survival mode.

Udvarnoky said:
Why, in the part where they're being chased by the Ugha warriors, would they end the scene so anticlimactically? Literally nothing happened by the time the scene had ended. They spent god knows how much building a giant temple, they have all these painted extras armed with those crazy rope weapons, and it wasn't in service of a damn thing.

I agree. Instead of taking a cue from LC's finale, I think Lucas should've borrowed a page or two from the old Monkey King script. I always liked the epic nature of that script's finale. Here there was a similar opportunity to have Indy vastly outnumbered- but ultimately accepted- by a lost tribe.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
James said:
As for Indy cooperating with the Russians, I saw that as his passion for knowledge taking over. He reverts to professor mode several times in the film, and it's clearly evident when he is wrapped up in solving Oxley's riddles. Remember, this is an archaeological find that he once risked his own life trying to discover. It's entirely logical for him to become so wrapped up in the quest, that he momentarily forgets the larger predicament.

If the movie had explained Indy's "mood swings" as well as you do for it, I would never have had a problem, but I just don't see much of that in the actual film. Indy's passion for knowledge doesn't really account for the fact that five minutes after saying, "Drop dead, comrade" he's leading everyone to the crate. Yes, there are explanations that can be made, and he was buying time but I think just some moment of him being obviously reluctant to lead the Soviets to what they wanted would have made a world of difference. This is after all the same movie that goes on to display to us Indy's unbending patriotism, even in the face of false accusations and a mandatory leave of absence from his job. The fact of the matter is that Indy did willfully help KGB agents rob the military warehouse of the object they were after, and the movie didn't do a good enough of job of explaining to us why Indy let it go as far as it did. If there was just one extra line in there, or any attempt at an explanation that played into the character traits you discussed above, we wouldn't even be having this argument.

One of the very first things we learned about Indy (in the opening of ROTLA) is that he is not the best judge of character.

Absolutely, and they carry that character flaw through all the films. I was very amused when Mac first revealed his betrayal to Indy, since it showed that Indy never got any better in this regard and still, as Belloq puts it, chooses the wrong friends. What I won't do though is use the fact that I liked that moment to defend the poor handling of Mac as a character after the Hangar 51 scene, just like I wouldn't use Indy's tendency to get wrapped up in his quest to forgive pretty blatant and frustrating issues that, corrected, could have otherwise yielded better scenes. A person actively looking for problems in a movie will no doubt find them, just like anything can be explained if you're desperate enough to provide an explanation. Nothing changes what's actually in the movie.

He realizes he cannot immediately escape, and if he must assist the Russians, it's going to be on his own terms. When the opportunity to formulate a plan presents itself, we see him immediately switch back into survival mode.

To me this section of the movie is matter of poor execution rather than a lack of understanding of the character. The idea of Indy being in over his head and always "making things up as he goes along" may have been well represented in the warehouse scene, but it wasn't handled as well as it ought to have been. I think the main problem is that the audience was ahead of the script. When we see Indy asking for the Russian's ammunition, the first thing that came to our heads (or a lot of people's heads, I think) was "Aha, Indy's up to something!" because that's exactly the sort of trickery we'd expect Indy to be pulling. At that point we're paying attention to see what Indy has up his sleeve with what appears to be some sort of ruse to outsmart the bad guys. When it turns out that, no, the request for gunpowder really was just exactly what it appeared to be, it was disappointing. It was an issue of the audience being able to come up with a better situation for Indy than the screenplay was, and in real time, not in retrospect after thinking things through (which is the kind of scrutiny we know an Indiana Jones film isn't meant to survive under anyway). A lot of the entertainment in the previous films comes from the surprise of what happens compared to what we expected. In Indy4 there were too many occasions where, at best, scenes played out exactly as we would have assumed. (See: waterfalls)

The follow-up moment of Indy punching the guy while he was distracted was not out of character, but it was definitely anticlimactic. The thing is, even though Indy's plans are often desperate and never work out exactly right, he's still always thinking. That Indy's punching gambit really was the only thing he had cooked up while helping the Russians in the warehouse is simply wasted potential. Like, in Temple of Doom when Indy cut the rope bridge, his options were limited and his actions reflected that, but it was also a creative, unexpected solution to a problem we were actually interested in. Punching that guy in the warehouse while he wasn't looking just doesn't cut it. The fact that it can be explained by examples of Indy's behavior in the past movies doesn't change the fact that it was an utterly unexciting moment where an exciting one should have been in its place.

Again, it's not the idea that's the problem, it's just that it should have been more to it, or should have been a payoff to better material. It's in a way my same issue with the Ugha warriors scene. The idea was good, and they could have ended it the exact same way, with Oxley holding the skull up. It didn't necessarily need to have Indy being some sort of superhuman badass and leading everyone to safety. But they didn't even try to make a scene out of it, to explore any of the infinite possibilities anyone with an imagination can pull out of a situation with Indy being captured by a bunch of natives. At all. In the 80s Spielberg would never have gotten away with making a scene as expensive as that without milking it for what it was worth. It's also not an issue of it being overtly bad. I don't think there's any bad scene in Indy4, but I got so tired of seeing mediocre ones that something crazy and totally out of left field (successful or unsuccessful) would have been welcomed.
 
Last edited:

James

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
he was buying time but I think just some moment of him being obviously reluctant to lead the Soviets to what they wanted would have made a world of difference. This is after all the same movie that goes on to display to us Indy's unbending patriotism, even in the face of false accusations and a mandatory leave of absence from his job. The fact of the matter is that Indy did willfully help KGB agents rob the military warehouse of the object they were after, and the movie didn't do a good enough of job of explaining to us why Indy let it go as far as it did.

The deleted scene (threatening Mac's life) may have provided the moment of reluctance you were looking for, although I still felt they covered it well enough. Indy's acknowledgement that it won't be "as easy as it used to be" telegraphs that it will take him longer than expected to find a way out.

I'm also not convinced Indy's patriotism is actually much of an issue in the film. I know many read a lot into his "I like Ike" retort, but I just saw it as Indy trying to be as defiant as possible- and not really being able to come up with anything better. As for his Army encounter, I felt it played on his dislike of "bureucratic fools" more than anything else.

Now I do agree that the film is guilty of taking a sort of cinematic shorthand, in that it naturally assumes the viewer already has a familiarity with the character. I mean, none of my explanations are really desperate attempts to explain the plot holes. Or even stuff I had to sit around and try to work out. They're just the reactions I had in the theater, based on what I had previously seen of the character.

But here is where a lot of fans probably become divided. For example, I felt Ford's reaction to the "Yeah, but did he deserve them" line told us everything we needed to know about the purpose of that scene. However, many fans would've likely preferred pages of dialogue to clearly drive the point home. (Then again, it's a bit like watching Sudden Impact (the 4th Dirty Harry film), and saying, "Wait, why did Dirty Harry just treat the suspect like that?" ;) )

Overall, this is where it would be nice if Spielberg believed in doing dvd commentaries. I agree with you that the entire Akator sequence is rushed, and I'm not really sure why Spielberg went that route. It's arguably Indy's largest discovery yet, and the audience is basically just rushed through with little time to take it all in. My assumption is that it's a side effect of trying to imitate the pacing of a 1950's B movie. The entire film does a very good job of finding that groove, and certainly seems to flow better than LC. So after the rapid pace that had preceeded it, the type of 'epic" scene I would've preferred may have been deemed unnecessary.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
James said:
The deleted scene (threatening Mac's life) may have provided the moment of reluctance you were looking for, although I still felt they covered it well enough. Indy's acknowledgement that it won't be "as easy as it used to be" telegraphs that it will take him longer than expected to find a way out.

I'm also not convinced Indy's patriotism is actually much of an issue in the film. I know many read a lot into his "I like Ike" retort, but I just saw it as Indy trying to be as defiant as possible- and not really being able to come up with anything better. As for his Army encounter, I felt it played on his dislike of "bureucratic fools" more than anything else.

Sounds to me like it's a matter of different people reading lines of dialog in different ways. I think you're selectively reading way more into the "Not as easy as it used to be" line than was intended and yet don't see "I like Ike" as anything more than a meaningless retort, but hey, everyone having different interpretations of that kind of thing is one of the beauties of movies.

I don't see how you can say that Indy's patriotism isn't something the movie is trying to convey, though. Indy's remark about "all those years of spying on the Reds," his seasoned war record, and his "Drop dead, comrade" all send a pretty clear message. It might be defiance, but what do you think is motivating it? You think he just despises the Ruskies for their accents? I do agree that his patriotism isn't a major issue in the film as a whole, but it's absolutely a major part of the opening scenes.

But here is where a lot of fans probably become divided. For example, I felt Ford's reaction to the "Yeah, but did he deserve them" line told us everything we needed to know about the purpose of that scene.

I felt it was an excellent way of telling us all we needed to know about how Indy felt about the situation, but I don't know if I'd say it justifies the scene's existence. The interrogation scene is one of many in the film that I enjoyed in a self-contained way, but it never really felt like it had a place in the big picture. Sure, it's the scene where Ford gets to see Spalko's file, but it all just seems like an excuse to have that nice 50s image of two intimidating FBI agents hovering over their suspect; beyond that it doesn't serve much of a purpose at all. Much has already been made of how the subplot of Indy's FBI scrutiny is conveniently ignored once he leaves the states. If they had no intention of going anywhere with the angle, it should have just been dropped. It's just another undeveloped idea. "Hey would it be cool if we did blank in the movie?" but without going anywhere with it.

However, many fans would've likely preferred pages of dialogue to clearly drive the point home.

Or not. (Seriously, you're not actually trying to imply that Indy4 is a poster child for subtlety and "less is more" are you?)

My assumption is that it's a side effect of trying to imitate the pacing of a 1950's B movie. The entire film does a very good job of finding that groove, and certainly seems to flow better than LC. So after the rapid pace that had preceeded it, the type of 'epic" scene I would've preferred may have been deemed unnecessary.

I dunno, there's only so far the "it's trying to imitate a 1950s B-movie" defense can take you. I mean, you think even the movie's pacing is an homage? I just don't buy that.

Obviously, a lot of 1950s B-movies are really bad, just like most B-movies of any era, but I'm not going to chalk up Indy4's bad points as being some ingenious and under appreciated attempt to emulate the ineptitude of those films. It doesn't fly with me. The goal was to emulate the spirit of 1950s pulp, not the quality. If Raiders had been made like a totally faithful emulation of old serials, mainstream audiences would never have accepted it.
 
Last edited:

Bvance

New member
Here are the things that Indy does for the last 1/3 of the movie if I recall correctly. I assume that the last third begins after he beats up Dovchenko and they end up in the river:

1. Points out to everyone what "three times it drops" means, after Oxley basically gives it away.

2. Says he must return the skull alone, but then everyone else comes along. So that part could have been something awesome.

3. Explains to everyone about the paintings on the wall and what they mean.

4. After running away from the tribes men, picks up a rock and begins to open the obelisk, along with everyone else.

5. Is the first one to discover that the stairs at Akator were retracting and that everyone had to get moving.

6. Fortunately, he stood in the front of everyone while they walked through Akator, so kind of like a leader.

7. Explained the 'treasure' room to everyone.

8. Used the skull to open the door.

9. Translated the Mayan for Spalko.

10. Saved Oxley and marion by pushing them out of the throne room, and then diving out with Mutt.

11. Tried to save Mac with his whip.

12. Puts it all together at the end with his "knowledge is treasure" line.

13. Says a couple of wise cracks, kisses Marion.

14. Gets married and saves his fedora from Mutt.

So, as you can see, he doesn't just stand around, but he doesn't do what we have expected him to do from the other 3 films.

You'll notice that the above list uses the word 'explain' A LOT! That is mostly what Indy does, is explain things, that honestly because of the writing don't need to be explained at all.

His role is basically Oxley's personal translator to explain to everyone what Oxley was talking about.

So, there is a basic outline of what he did during the last part of the movie.
 

James

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
The interrogation scene is one of many in the film that I enjoyed in a self-contained way, but it never really felt like it had a place in the big picture. Sure, it's the scene where Ford gets to see Spalko's file, but it all just seems like an excuse to have that nice 50s image of two intimidating FBI agents hovering over their suspect; beyond that it doesn't serve much of a purpose at all.

I dunno, there's only so far the "it's trying to imitate a 1950s B-movie" defense can take you. I mean, you think even the movie's pacing is an homage? I just don't buy that.

The prologue (and interrogation scene, specifically) sets up the entire stakes that Indy will play for in the subsequent adventure. Namely, it takes away his life. He's betrayed and begins to question his friends. His country blacklists him. And he loses the one constant he has- his beloved teaching position. He actually begins this quest with nothing to return home to, which is why the wedding finale is far more appropriate than many fans consider it.

This is probably why I didn't read too much into the "all those years of spying on the Reds" line. I thought the real heft of it was contained in the follow-up line: "I thought we were friends." There's a sadness to Indy's statement that suggests a more personal concern in the scene. After all, this isn't just another hired hand that has decided to stab him in the back. It's someone he's known for over a decade.

Am I reading entirely too much into some of this? Perhaps. But do you really think Harrison Ford didn't have these kinds of thoughts in the back of his mind when playing the material? Sure, he realizes this is all kid's play, but he also knows just how far a hint of depth can go in these films.

I agree that the "it's only a B movie" excuse can only extend so far, but I do think it's applicable to the film's pacing. Spielberg has said that he made numerous edits to the film, and was continually trying to quicken its pace. Meanwhile, Lucas says he was repeatedly telling everyone involved, "Guys, it's a B movie. It's a B movie."

Now we could argue all day about what we think "1950's B movie" should constitute, but all that really matters is what the idea meant to the filmmakers. Lucas said he wanted it to be a "B movie". He also said he feels that it "works like crazy". So he obviously thinks the film is a great homage to B movies. And both Lucas and Spielberg have been quoted- on and off the record- as being pleased with the final result.

Fans may feel an Indy movie should only duplicate the spirit of the genre, but the reality is that the filmmakers may have been thinking otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Kingsley

Member
Kudos to Urdanovsky and James for the kind of discussion you have!

You are nailing it. Strengths and weaknesses of the new movie... In a civilized, smart and challenging way.

I am nearer to Urdanovsky's point of view. But I get the way James sees and understands the movie. If only those little details he mentions, and that can make a big difference, were in the actual movie! But they aren't.



............
Oh, and hey, what's the problem with LC pace?
 

nitzsche

New member
From the time Indy throws Oxley in the back of the truck and Marion goes over the cliff all the way to the end of the wedding scene is about 30 minutes. So it's not quite 1/3 of the movie.

I think the climax to KotCS most resembles LC in that there is a puzzle, a trap, a hold up by the villain, some witnessed mayhem, attempt to save someone, and final illumination.

I'd say KotCS has a more textured and thrilling climax than LC, but LC has a more emotionally weighted climax.

Indy was mainly witness to the final moments of Raiders as well. In fact, the great truck chase was the last major action Jones was involved in. You have the romantic and comedic moments on the ship, Indy swimming to the sub, trying to rescue Marion, and then witnessing the wrath of God.

Temple seems to be the only one where Indy is throwing fists all the way up to the end.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
Sounds to me like it's a matter of different people reading lines of dialog in different ways. I think you're selectively reading way more into the "Not as easy as it used to be" line than was intended and yet don't see "I like Ike" as anything more than a meaningless retort, but hey, everyone having different interpretations of that kind of thing is one of the beauties of movies.

I don't see how you can say that Indy's patriotism isn't something the movie is trying to convey, though. Indy's remark about "all those years of spying on the Reds," his seasoned war record, and his "Drop dead, comrade" all send a pretty clear message. It might be defiance, but what do you think is motivating it? You think he just despises the Ruskies for their accents? I do agree that his patriotism isn't a major issue in the film as a whole, but it's absolutely a major part of the opening scenes.

I think you are spot on in stating that people will read different things into a piece of dialogue/acting etc. Personally speaking, I think much of the dialogue relating to the Russians in the opening scene, is merely a cinematic device to suggest a past history rather than explain a history. They could have delved a lot deeper into that relationship. They could have played the whole movie with the angle of Indy?s allegiances being scrutinized/under suspicion? but neither was the driver of this particular movie. Therefore, it was rather underplayed and largely irrelevant. Was it a missed opportunity? Possibly. I think we?ve debated before how an ?Indy on the run? movie a la ?The 39 Steps?, ?North By North West?, would make a great premise for an Indiana Jones movie. And it would.

Udvarnoky said:
I felt it was an excellent way of telling us all we needed to know about how Indy felt about the situation, but I don't know if I'd say it justifies the scene's existence. The interrogation scene is one of many in the film that I enjoyed in a self-contained way, but it never really felt like it had a place in the big picture. Sure, it's the scene where Ford gets to see Spalko's file, but it all just seems like an excuse to have that nice 50s image of two intimidating FBI agents hovering over their suspect; beyond that it doesn't serve much of a purpose at all. Much has already been made of how the subplot of Indy's FBI scrutiny is conveniently ignored once he leaves the states. If they had no intention of going anywhere with the angle, it should have just been dropped. It's just another undeveloped idea. "Hey would it be cool if we did blank in the movie?" but without going anywhere with it.
Again, it?s all about interpretation. I think there is certainly enough dialogue in those scenes to misconstrue and assume that the movie will head somewhere else e.g. Indy?s patriotism? but I just interpreted it as a way of establishing Indy?s mindset i.e. feeling out of his time, nothing to show for his years, alone? Which opens up the importance/significance of a partner and family (and all that entails).

Udvarnoky said:
I dunno, there's only so far the "it's trying to imitate a 1950s B-movie" defense can take you. I mean, you think even the movie's pacing is an homage? I just don't buy that.

Obviously, a lot of 1950s B-movies are really bad, just like most B-movies of any era, but I'm not going to chalk up Indy4's bad points as being some ingenious and under appreciated attempt to emulate the ineptitude of those films. It doesn't fly with me. The goal was to emulate the spirit of 1950s pulp, not the quality. If Raiders had been made like a totally faithful emulation of old serials, mainstream audiences would never have accepted it.

I think KOTCS pacing is one of its stronger points. There is a definite feel of beginning, middle and end. There are some expositional scenes in the middle (but I like the quieter moments e.g. market place, Ox?s cell and Orellana?s tomb)? and then the movie moves with gusto from ?The Snake Pit? onward? If the issue is that the faster sections move with too much pace, I think that?s in keeping with the other movies.
 

arkfinder

New member
Crusade>Raiders said:
Thats my biggest complaint of Kingdom. The CGI didn't really bother me, the fridge thing was COMPLETELY overblown(pun not intended), even the aliens werent that big of a stretch compared to "giant golden box that contains death angels that melt faces and giant lasers". Its the fact that for the last 1/3rd of the movie, Indy just stands around looking at ****. He's Indiana ****ing Jones! The greatest film character in cinema history! He should be whooping ass and busting caps and solving riddles and stuff. Not letting the other superflauous characters take the reins.


You'd better rewatch the movie. He doesn't just stand around.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
James said:
The prologue (and interrogation scene, specifically) sets up the entire stakes that Indy will play for in the subsequent adventure. Namely, it takes away his life. He's betrayed and begins to question his friends. His country blacklists him. And he loses the one constant he has- his beloved teaching position. He actually begins this quest with nothing to return home to, which is why the wedding finale is far more appropriate than many fans consider it.

All of those beats are established in the "indefinite leave of absence" scene at Marshall and in the subsequent scene at Indy's house. The movie could have cut from the mushroom cloud to Marshall and not lost anything of real value, except for maybe the part about Spalko's file, which could have been inserted somewhere else. Actually, I'm not sure even that would have been necessary. General Ross's little spiel about how she's "leading teams from the Kremlin all over the world, scooping up artifacts she thinks have paranormal qualities" (paraphrasing) really just feels like a mimic of the scene with the government agents at the beginning of Raiders. The fact that Spalko has an interest in the paranormal and that she's looking for artifacts is made clear in the movie's opening scene. All General Ross does is explain something we've already seen.

Speaking of General Ross, note that the main purpose he serves in the interrogation scene is to defend Indy and basically tell the audience how patriotic he is. Again, I don't think Indy's patriotism is some major message of the film either, but you can't deny that it's given attention.

James said:
This is probably why I didn't read too much into the "all those years of spying on the Reds" line. I thought the real heft of it was contained in the follow-up line: "I thought we were friends." There's a sadness to Indy's statement that suggests a more personal concern in the scene. After all, this isn't just another hired hand that has decided to stab him in the back. It's someone he's known for over a decade.

I feel the same way. I was only quoting the "spying on the reds line" because you may remember at the time I was talking about Indy's patriotism and its relevance to his flip-flop nature in the opening sequence, if not the movie as a whole. Indy's agitation that Mac would betray is country is still evident, however, and is reprised in the tent scene where he demands that Mac tell him "How many good men died because of you."

James said:
Am I reading entirely too much into some of this? Perhaps. But do you really think Harrison Ford didn't have these kinds of thoughts in the back of his mind when playing the material? Sure, he realizes this is all kid's play, but he also knows just how far a hint of depth can go in these films.

I don't think that at all, which is why I didn't suggest it. I never even mentioned that line. I was only pointing out that the two of us see some lines has having more weight than others, which is something that is true of any two perspectives.

James said:
I agree that the "it's only a B movie" excuse can only extend so far, but I do think it's applicable to the film's pacing. Spielberg has said that he made numerous edits to the film, and was continually trying to quicken its pace. Meanwhile, Lucas says he was repeatedly telling everyone involved, "Guys, it's a B movie. It's a B movie."

This is where we absolutely disagree. Pacing is a lot more than a movie being fast or slow. The movie's real pacing issues run deeper and come from the screenplay, rather than the editing. That Spielberg was always trying to "quicken the pace" sounds the same as his approach to the other movies, which didn't breach the two hour mark. The idea of cutting the fat off is part of the Indiana Jones tradition, not just a 1950s B-movie tradition. (Really, you could also consider it a summer blockbuster tradition, albeit one that appears to have been abandoned in this age of self-indulgent escapism.) The fact of the matter is that I think the first three movies are much better paced (regardless of influence) than Indy4 is.

James said:
Now we could argue all day about what we think "1950's B movie" should constitute, but all that really matters is what the idea meant to the filmmakers. Lucas said he wanted it to be a "B movie". He also said he feels that it "works like crazy". So he obviously thinks the film is a great homage to B movies. And both Lucas and Spielberg have been quoted- on and off the record- as being pleased with the final result.

I'm fairly sure George Lucas (and perhaps even Spielberg) has called all of the Indy films B-movies, or at least homages to them. Also, you don't know exactly what Lucas was talking about when he said "It works like crazy," a quote that came from a time when the final screenplay was still being developed. I also don't know how much stock we can put into the film makers on-record (can you supply these off-record quotes?) comments about their current movie. See: Spielberg's defense of Temple of Doom in 1984.

But still, so what? If Spielberg and Lucas think Indy4 is a great movie I reserve the right to disagree with them both, which I've done many times in the past. Call me selfish, but I'd prefer liking the movie myself over Spielberg or Lucas liking it. Last time the subject was brought up, Spielberg still said Last Crusade was his favorite of the series.

James said:
Fans may feel an Indy movie should only duplicate the spirit of the genre, but the reality is that the filmmakers may have been thinking otherwise.

Look, I just think you're using the B-movie influence as an explanation for everything, even when there's no logical reason for it to apply. Whatever a movie's influences are, it's still the responsibility of a movie to be good on its own. If the ineptitude of the pacing really was intended as an homage to the pacing of a 1950s B-movie, then it was horribly misguided.

Darth Vile said:
They could have delved a lot deeper into that relationship. They could have played the whole movie with the angle of Indy?s allegiances being scrutinized/under suspicion? but neither was the driver of this particular movie. Therefore, it was rather underplayed and largely irrelevant.

If it was irrelevant, why include it, especially in a movie where we're always trying to "quicken the pace?" The FBI subplot of the movie may have been underplayed, but it was still given enough attention to suggest to the audience that it would serve more of a purpose than it ultimately proved to.



Darth Vile said:
I think KOTCS pacing is one of its stronger points.

Gahhhhhhhhh. Why? Because "there is a definite feel of beginning, middle and end?" So what? Every movie should have that - it's a fundamental of screenwriting.

James and Darth Vile, I'm genuinely interested in hearing what about the pace of Indy4 that makes it so strong from your perspectives.
 

Indy Croft

New member
can everyone please stop the gossips now? All of us are fans not enemies, lets just drop this huge war between haters and lovers
 
Top