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

Major West

Member
Udvarnoky said:
I realize that, and I think you realize that I'm not the guy who started the thread, but what you don't seem to realize is that the scene where Indy is strapped to the pole in Raiders does not constitute the last third of the movie.

Neither does the last 15 minutes of KOTCS.

Are you trying to be clever?

Did you read my first parargraph?
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
At this point I honestly don't even know if the last sentence of the paragraph in question was added after the fact or not, but nonetheless I hope you can see by re-reading our posts why I'm utterly baffled by what you're saying right now.
 

The Man

Well-known member
The last forty minutes constitutes the very worst that the movie has to 'offer', for either Indy or the viewer. Dull...
 

Major West

Member
Udvarnoky said:
At this point I honestly don't even know if the last sentence of the paragraph in question was added after the fact or not, but nonetheless I hope you can see by re-reading our posts why I'm utterly baffled at what you're saying right now.

You seem to be deluded into thinking I was actually posting in response to your post. When I was replying in answer to the OP.
 

James

Well-known member
Crusade>Raiders said:
Sylvester Stallone was born in '46, and he's still kicking ass and ripping off heads in Rambo.

But Stallone still has a few years to go before hitting 65. He also made a point to scale back the action in the latest Rambo. Aside from a few running scenes, the bulk of Rambo's carnage in that film is achieved with a .50 caliber mounted gun. (This is not to say I don't think Stallone couldn't have done more if he'd wanted to. He's obviously in tremendous shape. But my question was about an existing precedent.)

Udvarnoky said:
I do think it's worth pointing out that not only does the consensus view seem to be that Indy did a lot of physical stuff in this film

Again, I wasn't making a comment on KOTCS itself. Ford gave a surprisingly active performance in the film. He's 65-years-old. I was just trying to recall other examples of an actor being that old, and being required to do as much as Ford does here.

Why you feel that requires an argument about the film's writing or whether or not the action was realistic is beyond me. I realize now that it probably should have been posted elsewhere, but, what can you do? :D
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I know you weren't referring to me, and I don't necessarily agree with the original poster, but when you counter the argument that Indy doesn't do much in the last third of the movie with, "Indy didn't do much when they opened the ark, either!" it's hard for me not to point out the lack of logic in that.
 

Major West

Member
Udvarnoky said:
I know you weren't referring to me, and I don't necessarily agree with the original poster, but when you counter the argument that Indy doesn't do much in the last third of the movie with, "Indy didn't do much when they opened the ark, either!" it's hard for me not to point out the lack of logic in that.

Because I was comparing the last few minutes of Raiders to the last few minutes of KOTCs, after already dismissing the idea that he did little in the last third of the film. Please tell me you understand this basic concept?

I was suggesting the last third of both films were similar. The last 35 minutes or so.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
James said:
Why you feel that requires an argument about the film's writing or whether or not the action was realistic is beyond me.

Because you couldn't help but connect your observation about Indy's physicality in the movie with complaints about Indy's age, which do tie in to the subject of the unbelievability of the action and the root of people's problems with it, etc. If it really was only your intention to talk about action hero precedents then I apologize, but I probably would have left certain things out of your post to avoid confusion.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Major West said:
I was suggesting the last third of both films were similar. The last 35 minutes or so.

Yeah, they're "similar." A dog and a JVC turntable are similar in that they're both comprised of tiny particles call atoms.

Look, I'm done, you win. And I mean, how could you not, when you're dealing with someone like me who can't understand basic concepts.
 

James

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
Because you couldn't help but connect your observation about Indy's physicality If it really was only your intention to talk about action hero precedents then I apologize, but I probably would have left certain things out of your post to avoid confusion.

I thought it was a pretty harmless segue...after all, it is ironic that age became a non-issue. If we were having this discussion over a few drinks, it's the type of casual observation that would've prompted my follow-up question.

But you've nothing to apologize for here. If I didn't hate to start new threads, there wouldn't even be cause for confusion. :D
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Yeah, such are the limitations of an online message board. If we were in fact discussing this movie over drinks in real life, I reckon it wouldn't be anything less than friendly.
 

torao

Moderator Emeritus
Regarding the "climax"-thing...

So let's just call the climax of the Indy flicks those scenes in which Indy has to make a crucial choice regarding his personal life and the quest he's on. Each of the previous installments contains a scene like that:

*In Raiders it's the point at which Indy confronts Belloq/the Ark/Toht and Marion with his Bazooka and threatens to "blow up the Ark" mentioning that all he wants "is the girl". Eventually, though, he isn't able to destroy what is at the core of his obsession.
*In Tod he threatens to throw the stones into the water to save Willie's and Shorty's life.
*Last Crusade merges Indy's archeological quest (although it's more of a reluctance in that regard in this film) with the spiritual quest for his father, which becomes most apparent in the scene in which he has to obtain the grail in order to save his father. There's a second maybe even more climactic scene in Crusade, when he has to choose between his own life and the grail (a symbol for his archeological obsession) while he's dangling at the crevice.


I can't recall a scene in CS, in which Indy is forced to make a crucial choice between his personal life and his quest.

He obviously wants to return the skull and more than anything else -that's what we're shown after they've fallen down the staircase- he wants Marion. The problem is, though, that there is none.
In the last 40 minutes there isn't really any scene in which his love for Marion or Mutt or his will to return the skull are at stake*.

(For example: Darabont had Indy having to choose between the skull's gift and Marion's love. That would imply, though, that Indy's weak enough to actually be tempted by the skull's gift. Indiana Jones, as portrayed in KOTCS seems to be beyond all temptation, though.)


*I mean "He's on a rope bridge and his only chance to escap that mess is to cut it in half"-"the villain is in possession of his love and the artefact of his desire"-"his father is shot, grail could be his death" at stake... Not "we're falling into knee-deep water"-at stake...

------
Darth Vile, James and Udvarnoky, I think your discussion here and in other threads has been a great example of an insightful exchange of opinions and arguments and I'm quite thankful for it. I'm especially grateful that Udvarnoky writes down all the things that I'm just unable to put down as eloquently( ;) ). But this whole back and forth and the insights about what makes an Indy-flick tick is only possible when there are differing points of view...and people to passionately disagree with...such as Darth Vile and James ... It's important that arguments like that are possible and exist on The Raven.
 
Last edited:

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Perhaps Indy's willingness to risk his own life for Mac was intended to have more weight than it actually ended up having, but my feelings on how terribly that scene was handled are well documented. One thing I do like about it though is how it shows Indy trying to save his traitorous friend's life even though Mac's fate is both deserved and self-inflicted. It's a character trait that separates Indy from other action heroes. Bond is a great character, but he's also a sadistic ******* who gleefully kills the bad guys before making some one liner. Indy attempts to save the child beating Thuggee from getting caught in the rock crusher and he in general doesn't get any kind of personal satisfaction out of seeing people eaten by ants or otherwise getting their comeuppance.

Anyway, that was kind of unrelated. I definitely agree with you that one of Indy4's fundamental problems was that nothing ever seemed to be at stake. As I've said before, it's true that in an Indiana Jones movie you know the heroes are going to get out of whatever impossible situation they're in, but the previous movies presented the scenarios in such a way that was actually exciting and you're actually interested in seeing how things turn out, even if Indy's eventual victory is a foregone conclusion. Indy4 winked at the audience knowingly a few too many times. When we're at the point where Marion's life being threatened with a gun is executed as a joke, it's impossible for us to take anything seriously either. That's not the same thing as saying that an Indiana Jones movie is serious business.
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
Now, you could argue that such developments would have made for unnecessary additions to the plot, and maybe I don't disagree, but the thing is you don't introduce something with the weight that the interrogation scene does and not follow through with it. Simply showing Indy getting fired would have satisfied all of main ideas the movie ultimately was trying to. The fact that the interrogation scene has that "punch" that James points out it feel like it was setting up more of a purpose than it ultimately did. Either fulfill the promise implicit with the scene, or lose it altogether.
I think you have sort of answered it yourself. Delving deeper into that element of the story would not have added any real value to the rest of the movie (no matter how interesting the actual concept may be). It?s a little like feeling short changed in Raiders because the Abner/Indy relationship was not fully explored.

Udvarnoky said:
True, an Indiana Jones movie is by nature more episodic than most, but Indy4 takes the concept to new heights. I don't agree with the examples you cite from the previous movies, which leads me to believe you don't really understand what I mean. Indy knows where The Raven is Nepal to meet Marion, and where the Cairo marketplace is. Why does he know where Chaucilla Cemetery is, and how did he and Mutt get there? I don't consider these details unnecessary or not worth showing. They're in a foreign land, being tracked by the Soviets, and are headed to a destination that isn't exactly a hop skip and a jump from the market. Give us even a few seconds of showing their journey rather than cutting straight to the CGI helicopter shot just to show us how cool it is that you can cut from the scratch outline to the identical structure of the actual cemetery from overhead.
I do understand what you mean, I just think you are placing too much significance on it (which is of course your perogative). I have no real interest in seeing how Indy gets to the cemetery, be it by motorbike, hot air balloon or sewage system. It?s enough for me that he knows he must go there.

Udvarnoky said:
At the end of the prison cell scene, Indy has Mutt sweep the floor and uncover a sort of schematic of Chaucilla Cemetery that Ox had somehow etched into the floor. Indy explains by telling Mutt that the scratches represent the cemetery where Orellana was buried to which Mutt responds, "I thought you said Orellana disappeared and no one found his grave?" to which Indy shoots back, "Well, it looks like Harold Oxley did."

That last line is delivered like it's supposed to have some kind of impact, or serve as a "Aha!" moment, but instead it's just confusing, with the audience thinking... "Uh, you didn't really answer Mutt's question." Not only were we not given a clear idea of how Indy can recognize the cemetery based on the scratchings, we also don't see how he can put two and two together that it being the resting place of the conquistadors is what Ox was trying to tell him.
Yep - I think it?s a little too convoluted for it?s own good? but I didn?t find it to be as convenient as the discovery of the entrance to the tomb of Sir Richard in the library (TLC).

Udvarnoky said:
Overall, the bit in the cell just struck me as a scene that was like "Yeah, just go with this, even if it doesn't make any sense."

That contributes to the sequence's irritating "episodic" feel more than anything. Since the movie doesn't bother to let us in on what's going on, we're left with watching characters hopping to a bunch of faraway locations without really caring why. We knew exactly why Indy had to go from Nepal to Cairo, and from Venice to Brunwald. We're not involved with Indy and Mutt's quest because we're not sure what the hell it even is.
I can?t speak for others, but I found it quite easy to understand what led Indy to travel to Nazca, and consequently to the cemetery. I think the script tried a little too hard to make that section mysterious (where over simplification would have been better), but it didn?t hurt the overall story for me, or make me care less about why they were doing it.

Udvarnoky said:
Again, I really don't agree with your "mirror scenes" from the other movies. When Indy and Elsa reached Sir Richard's Tomb, it didn't turn out that he was buried with the tablet behind his head, which was found and taken oh and then brought back and also the knights were buried there and not somewhere else because they killed each other off on the way back to their homeland but you see these other people found them and buried them in their own cemetery but you see they didn't take the loot because that wasn't important anditreallymakessenseifyouthinkaboutit.
I think you are excusing things in the other movies whilst not allowing KOTCS the same. The cemetery and Venice catacombs scenes serve a very similar purpose in overall structure/plot and pacing. There are several elements of the TLC catacombs scene that fail close scrutiny? my only point is that, structurally, the two scenes serve a similar purpose and share a similar pace. I enjoy both.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
Perhaps Indy's willingness to risk his own life for Mac was intended to have more weight than it actually ended up having, but my feelings on how terribly that scene was handled are well documented. One thing I do like about it though is how it shows Indy trying to save his traitorous friend's life even though Mac's fate is both deserved and self-inflicted. It's a character trait that separates Indy from other action heroes. Bond is a great character, but he's also a sadistic ******* who gleefully kills the bad guys before making some one liner. Indy attempts to save the child beating Thuggee from getting caught in the rock crusher and he in general doesn't get any kind of personal satisfaction out of seeing people eaten by ants or otherwise getting their comeuppance.

Script wise... Mac's death is the one true fly in the ointment for me. With a better last line of dialogue, Mac could have redeemed himself (as a great Indy character). * IMHO - He should have let go of the whip and sacrificed himself in order to save Indy... Thus showing Indy the true value of their friendship.

*And I don't often comment about what could/should have been in KOTCS...
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
I think you have sort of answered it yourself. Delving deeper into that element of the story would not have added any real value to the rest of the movie (no matter how interesting the actual concept may be). It’s a little like feeling short changed in Raiders because the Abner/Indy relationship was not fully explored.

Why ignore my point about getting rid of the scene, instead of pretending like you agree with me? Also, I think at this point your example scenes from the previous movies to show how alike Indy4 really is with them are getting kind of desperate. Abner's relationship with Indy under-explored or not, he was an unseen character, and it's not comparable in any obvious way (at least not to me) with what we're talking about..

Darth Vile said:
I do understand what you mean, I just think you are placing too much significance on it (which is of course your perogative). I have no real interest in seeing how Indy gets to the cemetery, be it by motorbike, hot air balloon or sewage system. It’s enough for me that he knows he must go there.

The practicality of Indy getting to the cemetery is not my point. We of course see how Indy got there when the movie shows Mutt hiding his motorcycle behind the branches. My desire to show some of the journey is not to satisfy some logistical itch, but to give a sense of scope the film lacks.


Darth Vile said:
Yep - I think it’s a little too convoluted for it’s own good… but I didn’t find it to be as convenient as the discovery of the entrance to the tomb of Sir Richard in the library (TLC).

The "convenience" is not in question here, at least not by me. Again, you're giving vaguely similar examples from the previous movie for no reason. The little "X marks the spot" puzzle worked because it was simple, fun, and we could actual understand what was going on. In addition to that, it served as a punchline to a joke and never made out to be more than it was. I really don't see how Ox's riddle compares.

Darth Vile said:
I can’t speak for others, but I found it quite easy to understand what led Indy to travel to Nazca, and consequently to the cemetery. I think the script tried a little too hard to make that section mysterious (where over simplification would have been better), but it didn’t hurt the overall story for me, or make me care less about why they were doing it.

The logic that led Indy to travel to Nazca was never once brought up. Beyond that, the two of us agree to disagree.

Darth Vile said:
I think you are excusing things in the other movies whilst not allowing KOTCS the same.

I do not, and think you're just really confused about how I feel, whether it's my fault or yours.

Darth Vile said:
The cemetery and Venice catacombs scenes serve a very similar purpose in overall structure/plot and pacing.

You're being extraordinarily vague here. You've got to tell me what you mean by this. What is "pacing" to you, and what do you mean by "purpose" in this case?

Darth Vile said:
There are several elements of the TLC catacombs scene that fail close scrutiny… my only point is that, structurally, the two scenes serve a similar purpose and share a similar pace. I enjoy both.

"Serving a similar purpose" is I guess not something I disagree with, but it's also incredibly vague and I'm not sure how it's relevant, since the purpose that the scenes in question serve are not really my issue so much as execution. I say the mystery behind the cemetery stuff is needlessly convoluted and you agree, and then point out that scenes in other movies "serve a similar purpose." So what? We're on needlessly convoluted right now. That it bothered me and not you is fine, but don't act like arguing something completely separate somehow bolsters your standpoint.

Darth Vile said:
Script wise... Mac's death is the one true fly in the ointment for me.

The one? Hoo boy, Darth Vile, our huge differences in opinion about this movie ensures great discussion for ages to come. :)
 

James

Well-known member
torao said:
I can't recall a scene in CS, in which Indy is forced to make a crucial choice between his personal life and his quest.

The finale is essentially his biggest choice yet, although admittedly, it's not something that was given much emphasis. Nonetheless, he is offered a chance at the unknown, and instead opts to remain with his friends and Marion.

As Spalko says, Indy has spent his entire life searching for answers. Indeed, that's the very behavior we are shown when Belloq calls Indy's bluff.

So while it isn't dwelled upon in the script, we do see a scenario where Indy- having lost everything at the film's beginning- is given the opportunity to acquire "ultimate" knowledge. It's interesting to consider how the Indiana Jones who got on the train (at the film's beginning) would have reacted to the offer. The Indy of ROTLA- or even LC- would've certainly at least considered it.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
You can read anything between the lines, and while the theme you discuss is certainly there, you're reading of it comes more from you than from what's on screen. I'd give more credit to you for being a thoughtful viewer than I would the script itself. You get out of the movie what you put in. (And it wasn't that the script was being "subtle," it's because the aspect was simply handled badly.) Perhaps somewhere at some point in the writing process that message you're elaborating on is something that somebody was trying to convey, but the lack of emphasis in the final product is exactly the point. There isn't really any defining moment where Indy makes this crucial decision in the face of high stakes. In fact, Indy's decision that "I don't think we wanna go that way" seems more motivated by common sense rather than anything else.

Plus, Indy's thirst for knowledge really seems to be more a belief of Spalko's than a truth of Indy himself, at least in this film. Recall his reaction to Spalko telling him about having "Power...over the mind of Man." He seems pretty consistent in this regard. Yes, when he and Ox were in college they were obsessed with crystal skulls, but in the movie Indy never seems all that interested in the power it offers. In the first half (like at the beginning of all the movies) he considers the supernatural element to be hocus pocus, and after the skull communicates with him he's motivated by its command rather than any personal, selfish drive, at least based on the way the movie presents it. Perhaps making an effort to convey a deep desire to know as Indy's motivation in the final third instead of just having him say "Because it told me to!" would have been a lot better, but unfortunately you weren't the guy who wrote it. We can only work with what's there, not with what could have been.
 
Last edited:

James

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
You can read anything between the lines, and while the theme you discuss is certainly there, you're reading of it comes more from you more than from it.

Perhaps somewhere at some point in the writing process that message you're elaborating on is something that somebody was trying to convey, but the lack of emphasis in the final product is exactly the point.

Judging by the various sources (novelization, comic adaptation, etc.), I believe it was more involved at some point. However, most of it wasn't very good, imo, and I can see what it got omitted.

But I agree the theme is quite subtle in the finished film. And truthfully, it may be one reason why I enjoyed KOTCS as much as I did.
 
Top