THE BIG BANG: Raiders story conference transcripts!!??

SterankoII · Mar 15, 2009

Originally Posted by Darth Vile
What’s certainly interesting about the read is looking at how successful (or not) they were at getting those initial ideas on screen. I’m not sure that they ever fully realized that “ The Man With No Name” and “James Bond” character on screen (even in Raiders).

I think Harrison Ford's casting had a lot to do with the slight change. Harrison Ford is great at being the cool, dangerous badass like when you first see Indy in Raiders, but he's also good at being very funny. When those two sides are balanced and displayed equally like in the first two Star Wars movies and the original Indy trilogy it's great. When it's not....

Stoo · Mar 16, 2009

Rocket Surgeon said:
As I wrote, I'm still reading and nowhere does he call Indy WACKY...except Entertainment Weekly.

James said:
I always thought Lucas was referring to Indy's eccentric nature- as opposed to implying that he's a silly or foolish man. Lucas gave numerous interviews for the film, and the former is the image he always painted of the character. It's one that is apparent in the original transcript as well.

Exactly. I'm with James. What Indy does is out-of-the-ordinary, therefore, "wacky". A few relevant quotes from the transcript:

Lucas: ...he happens to be very good with a bullwhip. It's really more of a hobby than anything else...There are FREAKS who love bullwhips.

Lucas: ...he really got the adventure bug and he just kept doing it...He gets a big commission on the stuff, a big bounty. So he just got into this CRAZY business.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Cue "Wackety Sax" and move Benny Hill over in his coffin...got to make way for Indiana Jones.

Since you like using this so much, just thought you should know that it's "Jackety Sax" with a "J".

Rocket Surgeon · Mar 16, 2009

Stoo said:
What Indy does is out-of-the-ordinary, therefore, "wacky". A few relevant quotes from the transcript:

Lucas: ...he happens to be very good with a bullwhip. It's really more of a hobby than anything else...There are FREAKS who love bullwhips.

Lucas: ...he really got the adventure bug and he just kept doing it...He gets a big commission on the stuff, a big bounty. So he just got into this CRAZY business.

Since you like using this so much, just thought you should know that it's "Jackety Sax" with a "J".

Come on man...you I have some semblance of respect for here! :hat:

I don't want to get into it with you over THIS!

So try not to take me the wrong way! However...

You can take this a milliion ways to Sunday if you cared to but seeing as how Lucas shares more than a few things with the character of Indy, I think you guys are WAY off. They put their heart and soul into Raiders, and everything afterwards was the moneytrain and culled from Raiders. The Complete making of book makes allusions to this point...I believe in the introduction where the disparity in content is addressed. Each of the other movies was floated with a gimmick, ToD, (action distraction), LC (Family ties), CS (Action distraction and Family Ties).

Simply put the time and care wasn't there. The cast of writers alone have their story to tell and the one that stikes me is that they were unwilling to sit down to work it out...they were no longer invested, (emotionally). Lucas had become what he derided. Like Robert Evans to the Godfather.

So when he called Indy Wacky...it just like you read in my other post, among MANY other points; it was an indication of his attitude to a FRANCHISE, not the greater good of a character. It was expedience, GREED and all his patience could muster. He let Indy become Frank Drebin.

Mind you I don't revel in this and I doubt I've shaken you pillar of faith. I wouldn't want to take your enjoyment away, I would however like to hear from someone who understands and possibly agrees with my point. I know they are out there, and I shiver at the thought of mindless Lucas Zombies who will follow Hitler, sorry Lucas mindlessley shouting his name from the rooftops with out even an inkling of dissent. There's far too much glad handing and consumption of the feel good kool aide, and of intolerance to dissent. The penchant to ferret out explanations to simple transgretions is humorour and I hope you see that in my explanations!

But Lucas loves us, you don't know him like I do!

Thanks for the "Jacket" but Wackety seemed to have a better synergy with the whole Wacky premise!

Robyn · Mar 16, 2009

Rocket Surgeon said:
Come on man...you I have some semblance of respect for here! I don't want to get into it with you over THIS!

So try not to take me the wrong way! However...

You can take this a milliion ways to Sunday if you cared to but seeing as how Lucas shares more than a few things with the character of Indy, I think you guys are WAY off. They put their heart and soul into Raiders, and everything afterwards was the moneytrain and culled from Raiders. The Complete making of book makes allusions to this point...I believe in the introduction where the disparity in content is addressed. Each of the other movies was floated with a gimmick, ToD, (action distraction), LC (Family ties), CS (Action distraction and Family Ties).

Simply put the time and care wasn't there. The cast of writers alone have their story to tell and the one that stikes me is that they were unwilling to sit down to work it out...they were no longer invested, (emotionally). Lucas had become what he derided. Like Robert Evans to the Godfather.

So when he called Indy Wacky...it just like you read in my other post, among MANY other points; it was an indication of his attitude to a FRANCHISE, not the greater good of a character. It was expedience, GREED and all his patience could muster. He let Indy become Frank Drebin.

Mind you I don't revel in this and I doubt I've shaken you pillar of faith. I wouldn't want to take your enjoyment away, I would however like to hear from someone who understands and possibly agrees with my point. I know they are out there, and I shiver at the thought of mindless Lucas Zombies who will follow Hitler, sorry Lucas mindlessley shouting his name from the rooftops with out even an inkling of dissent. There's far too much glad handing and consumption of the feel good kool aide, and of intolerance to dissent. The penchant to ferret out explanations to simple transgretions is humorour and I hope you see that in my explanations!

But Lucas loves us, you don't know him like I do!

Thanks for the "Jacket" but Wackety seemed to have a better synergy with the whole Wacky premise!

I agree with you in some ways, and have always wished Steven took over on his own after Raiders.. we would have gotten something other than underground cults and aliens if Lucas had left Indy to Steven, I always felt like Indy belonged more to Steven than Lucas..

I do disagree with you about Frank Drebin, Indy's never been that.

I love the whole series and they are all Indy, but we only have one Raiders... If you know what I mean

Stoo · Mar 16, 2009

Rocket Surgeon said:
Come on man...you I have some semblance of respect for here! I don't want to get into it with you over THIS!

Just trying to keep your disdain for the "Entertainment Weekly" comment relevant to the topic of the TRANSCRIPT. :hat:

Rocket Surgeon said:
So when he called Indy Wacky...it just like you read in my other post, among MANY other points; it was an indication of his attitude to a FRANCHISE, not the greater good of a character. It was expedience, GREED and all his patience could muster. He let Indy become Frank Drebin.

Don't get me wrong either, I do agree that the character/films lost the serious tone but it happened way before 2008, my friend. The struggle for the antidote & fight at Club Obi-Wan is where the goofiness started and it grew worse in "Crusade". If you want to cue "Jackety/Wackety Sax" to any scene, the plane in the tunnel is the perfect place! (Picture Old Indy playing the tune on his sax. His stops mid-song..."Y'know this reminds me of the year, 1938. I was with my father...")

Have your read the entire transcript yet? Most of the comedic gags that would appear later in the films were entirely Spielberg's ideas. Believe me, reading this document has completely flip-flopped my take on things re: wackiness.

ronicle said:
I think the story lines of everything after Raiders could have been so much better if Lucas had stayed out of it and we would have gotten something other than underground cults and aliens.

Let's make the exact, same movie 4 times in a row! I don't even know what else to say to this other than you should read the transcript...

Rocket Surgeon · Mar 16, 2009

Stoo said:
Just trying to keep your disdain for the "Entertainment Weekly" comment relevant to the topic of the TRANSCRIPT.

Cheers!

Stoo said:
Don't get me wrong either, I do agree that the character/films lost the serious tone but it happened way before 2008, my friend. The struggle for the antidote & fight at Club Obi-Wan is where the goofiness started and it grew worse in "Crusade". If you want to cue "Jackety/Wackety Sax" to any scene, the plane in the tunnel is the perfect place! (Picture Old Indy playing the tune on his sax. His stops mid-song..."Y'know this reminds me of the year, 1938. I was with my father...")

Agreed...it seems the " wacky tradition " has turned from a snowflake to an avalanche. (they need a laughing my ass off smiley)

Stoo said:
Have your read the entire transcript yet? Most of the comedic gags that would appear later in the films were entirely Spielberg's ideas. Believe me, reading this document has completely flip-flopped my take on things re: wackiness.

No, not finished yet...I'm savoring it if you will. It's not often we get such a treasure in our hands.

My earlier post reflects my position on Lucas/Spielberg in transition. It was Lucas who would talk Spielberg out of his wacky tree, and then it was Spielberg who talked Lucas out of the Cairo whip/sword duel...there's a fine shifting line of compromise in Raiders which makes the other films come off as over indulged spoiled children.

Stoo said:
Let's make the exact, same movie 4 times in a row! I don't even know what else to say to this other than you should read the transcript...

Trying...desperately...not...to ...fight...

Come on man! Who said the EXACT same movies? Here I go again to the "man with no name" "trilogy".

Hardly the same movie...but the tone was consistent. Raiders was closer to these films then it was to ToD, LC, and CS.

I hate to say it, cause I love the character of Indy in Raiders so, but Sergio Leone's trilogy was better and Raiders belongs as a "kind of" epilogue to that series. Maybe Clint was Indy's grandfather...

Robyn · Mar 16, 2009

Stoo said:
Let's make the exact, same movie 4 times in a row! I don't even know what else to say to this other than you should read the transcript...

I DON'T want the same story/movie 4 times in a row

I want the same perfection 4 times in a row..

The Drifter · Mar 16, 2009

ronicle said:
I DON'T want the same story/movie 4 times in a row I want the same perfection 4 times in a row..

I can understand that.
But, you said you wish Steven took the helm after Raiders, then maybe we would have gotten something other than underground cults and aliens.
I have to disagree with that. I think four movies with nazi as the villian would be boring. I loved the theme of the Thuggee in ToD, and nazi can be cannon-fodder for so long before it gets stale IMO.

Robyn · Mar 16, 2009

Lonsome_Drifter said:
I can understand that.
But, you said you wish Steven took the helm after Raiders, then maybe we would have gotten something other than underground cults and aliens.
I have to disagree with that. I think four movies with nazi as the villian would be boring. I loved the theme of the Thuggee in ToD, and nazi can be cannon-fodder for so long before it gets stale IMO.

I never said I had to have nazi's as the villian, but I don't want heart ripping thuggees either

The Drifter · Mar 16, 2009

ronicle said:
I never said I had to have nazi's as the villian, but I don't want heart ripping thuggees either

I for one loved the darker themes in ToD. To me ToD seems more exotic and full of adventure than any of the other three. What would you have had in the sequels?

Robyn · Mar 16, 2009

Lonsome_Drifter said:
I for one loved the darker themes in ToD. To me ToD seems more exotic and full of adventure than any of the other three. What would you have had in the sequels?

TOD could have been exotic, but it was just too much horror.. I'm not a creative genius, so I'm not saying that I myself could have done better, but they did give us Raiders and that was creative genius, and if they did it so perfect once they could have done it 4 times... the reason why I say Steven could have done better on his own after Raiders is because he said he wasn't keen on making tod so dark, he didn't want to do aliens and he wanted Marion back a lot earlier than kotcs but it was Lucas who wanted the horror for tod, the aliens for kotcs and he was also the one who wanted a different woman for all the Indy's, which I think sucks.. I would have actually loved instead of going back in time for tod for them to pick up where they left off at in Raiders, I would have loved that so much

SterankoII · Mar 16, 2009

Can I just ask why when they made a darker Star Wars movie for The Empire Strikes Back it's okay but when they make a darker Indiana Jones movie it's not? Luke gets his f-ing hand cut off!

I love TOD and glad it's not a retread of Raiders. People just want another one like Raiders but there's no way it can be duplicated. I was eight when I first saw it and the heart ripping thing didn't scare me. As young as I was I knew you needed a heart to live! Also I was along with Indy and knew nothing bad was going to happen to him. I Now Raiders on the other hand, at the end when the angelic ghost suddenly turned monstrous that scared the hell out of me!

and if they did it so perfect once they could have done it 4 times

I really disagree with that. Lightning struck once for that. You don't paint another Mona Lisa or knock off another Beethoven's Ninth or another War and Peace. Everything came togetRaiders was so perfect that any sequel wasn't going to measure up.

I agree with you in some ways, and have always wished Steven took over on his own after Raiders.. we would have gotten something other than underground cults and aliens if Lucas had left Indy to Steven, I always felt like Indy belonged more to Steven than Lucas..

Did you even read the transcript?

I never said I had to have nazi's as the villian, but I don't want heart ripping thuggees either

Wuss.
You have to show how evil these guys are. With Nazis you already know they're evil because of the Holocaust but you couldn't show that in an Indy movie could you?

The Drifter · Mar 16, 2009

SterankoII said:
I love TOD and glad it's not a retread of Raiders. People just want another one like Raiders but there's no way it can be duplicated. I was eight when I first saw it and the heart ripping thing didn't scare me. As young as I was I knew you needed a heart to live! Also I was along with Indy and knew nothing bad was going to happen to him. I Now Raiders on the other hand, at the end when the angelic ghost suddenly turned monstrous that scared the hell out of me!

I agree with you.
Temple of Doom is my favorite of the series, and the heart-ripping scene never scared me much as a kid. But, when I seen the angelic ghost transform into that skull creature and heard the high-pitched screams; I was terrified.

Rocket Surgeon · Mar 16, 2009

SterankoII said:
Can I just ask why when they made a darker Star Wars movie for The Empire Strikes Back it's okay but when they make a darker Indiana Jones movie it's not? Luke gets his f-ing hand cut off!

There's nothing wrong with making it darker...they just took Indy to Toon Town.

SterankoII said:
I love TOD and glad it's not a retread of Raiders. People just want another one like Raiders but there's no way it can be duplicated. I was eight when I first saw it and the heart ripping thing didn't scare me. As young as I was I knew you needed a heart to live! Also I was along with Indy and knew nothing bad was going to happen to him. I Now Raiders on the other hand, at the end when the angelic ghost suddenly turned monstrous that scared the hell out of me!

I'm glad that it was not a retread as well, stop arguing the DUPLICATION, we aren't! Sergio Leone delivered three films of equal weight and tone, not specifically a "trillogy" yet this seems to be the desire for us in the opposing camp.

SterankoII said:
I really disagree with that. Lightning struck once for that. You don't paint another Mona Lisa or knock off another Beethoven's Ninth or another War and Peace. Everything came togetRaiders was so perfect that any sequel wasn't going to measure up.

Again, go watch the westerns Raiders was inspired by, (in part) the way we like it!

SterankoII said:
Did you even read the transcript? Wuss.
You have to show how evil these guys are. With Nazis you already know they're evil because of the Holocaust but you couldn't show that in an Indy movie could you?

You know what? They made Indy into a wuss...how he tried to save the guys who was going to kill him! Puh-Lease, he let the fire in the Raven consume him and then the Flying Wing filet him. In temple he swung (sp) a saw into his side and then tried to save him BiPolar and a Wuss...

you have low standards!

Got to throw this one in; the way he punched a Thuggee as though the temple of Doom was somewhere in the Matrix, I watch Tom and Jerry for that! The only thing they didn't do was play the zylophone on a starving child's ribs! That would have been consistent in tone!

lonesome_drifter said:
But, when I seen the angelic ghost transform into that skull creature and heard the high-pitched screams; I was terrified.

He told you not to look didn't he?

Darth Vile · Mar 16, 2009

Lonsome_Drifter said:
I can understand that.
But, you said you wish Steven took the helm after Raiders, then maybe we would have gotten something other than underground cults and aliens.
I have to disagree with that. I think four movies with nazi as the villian would be boring. I loved the theme of the Thuggee in ToD, and nazi can be cannon-fodder for so long before it gets stale IMO.

I think it’s quite evident from the transcripts who the real intellect is and who is the showman (not that it’s a great surprise). It’s clearly a team effort, but I think its Lucas’ ideas that underpin the movies. Remove that and I’m not sure you’d have that much left.

SterankoII said:
Can I just ask why when they made a darker Star Wars movie for The Empire Strikes Back it's okay but when they make a darker Indiana Jones movie it's not? Luke gets his f-ing hand cut off!

I wouldn’t ever consider TOD to be a “darker” movie than Raiders. It may have dark environments e.g. the mines, but it’s actually a very light and comic book like movie. TESB, for better or worse, is a darker movie than Star Wars ANH, in both tone and cinematography.

SterankoII said:
I love TOD and glad it's not a retread of Raiders. People just want another one like Raiders but there's no way it can be duplicated. I was eight when I first saw it and the heart ripping thing didn't scare me. As young as I was I knew you needed a heart to live! Also I was along with Indy and knew nothing bad was going to happen to him. I Now Raiders on the other hand, at the end when the angelic ghost suddenly turned monstrous that scared the hell out of me!

I am not a huge fan of TOD (although I can still enjoy it), but I agree that at the very least, it manages to not be a simple re-tread of Raiders.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Sergio Leone delivered three films of equal weight and tone, not specifically a "trillogy" yet this seems to be the desire for us in the opposing camp.

Not sure I’d 100% agree with that… as I don’t believe any one of Leone’s trilogy quite matches the quality of ‘Raiders’ (that’s only a personal taste thing of course). Therefore there was always going to be a greater potential for a drop in quality after ‘Raiders’. I also think ‘The Good, Bad and the Ugly’ is the more polished one of the three (but again that’s a personal taste thing), and for me it better epitomizes the “spaghetti western” sub genre that Leone created/inspired.

Robyn · Mar 16, 2009

Rocket Surgeon said:
There's nothing wrong with making it darker...they just took Indy to Toon Town.

I'm glad that it was not a retread as well, stop arguing the DUPLICATION, we aren't! Sergio Leone delivered three films of equal weight and tone, not specifically a "trillogy" yet this seems to be the desire for us in the opposing camp.

Again, go watch the westerns Raiders was inspired by, (in part) the way we like it!

You know what? They made Indy into a wuss...how he tried to save the guys who was going to kill him! Puh-Lease, he let the fire in the Raven consume him and then the Flying Wing filet him. In temple he swung (sp) a saw into his side and then tried to save him BiPolar and a Wuss...

you have low standards!

Got to throw this one in; the way he punched a Thuggee as though the temple of Doom was somewhere in the Matrix, I watch Tom and Jerry for that! The only thing they didn't do was play the zylophone on a starving child's ribs! That would have been consistent in tone!

He told you not to look didn't he?

Wow, I couldn't have said it better Rocket! Seems you and I agree on quite a few things! And I really don't know how to get through to people what we mean about making another perfect Indy like Raiders, it seems no matter how many times it's explained, they think we mean that we want them to copy Raiders!

The Drifter · Mar 16, 2009

ronicle said:
Wow, I couldn't have said it better Rocket! Seems you and I agree on quite a few things! And I really don't know how to get through to people what we mean about making another perfect Indy like Raiders, it seems no matter how many times it's explained, they think we mean that we want them to copy Raiders!

Well, slap me and call me Susan, because I can't wrap my head around what you are implying. I am glad that The Beards took the series to new directions.
You said:

ronicle said:
I DON'T want the same story/movie 4 times in a row I want the same perfection 4 times in a row..

But, before that:

ronicle said:
I agree with you in some ways, and have always wished Steven took over on his own after Raiders.. we would have gotten something other than underground cults and aliens if Lucas had left Indy to Steven, I always felt like Indy belonged more to Steven than Lucas.

I have asked you what you wanted in a sequel. You said you think Steven would have left out the dark themes in ToD and the aliens in Kingdom. What would he have done that was so different and perfect? Most of Raiders was Lucas' own ideas.

Now, maybe I can understand that you do not want the same plot/story/setting four times in a row, but you want perfection. I think that would be a matter of opinion, don't you?
Some say ToD was too dark or Crusade was too slap-stick, while others say that one of those was his/hers favorite of the bunch.

Robyn · Mar 16, 2009

SterankoII said:
I love TOD and glad it's not a retread of Raiders. People just want another one like Raiders but there's no way it can be duplicated. I was eight when I first saw it and the heart ripping thing didn't scare me. As young as I was I knew you needed a heart to live! Also I was along with Indy and knew nothing bad was going to happen to him. I Now Raiders on the other hand, at the end when the angelic ghost suddenly turned monstrous that scared the hell out of me!

I was disgusted by the heart ripping scene not scared... that kind of horror just doesn't belong in an Indy movie.. I want adventure/action/dram/romance not horror..

I really disagree with that. Lightning struck once for that. You don't paint another Mona Lisa or knock off another Beethoven's Ninth or another War and Peace. Everything came togetRaiders was so perfect that any sequel wasn't going to measure up.

So not true.. Raiders was perfect because they put their backs/heart/soul into it and with all the others Lucas was just having fun

Did you even read the transcript?

I haven't finished it yet..

Wuss.

Look who's talking lol the ghost face never scared me..

Robyn · Mar 16, 2009

I have asked you what you wanted in a sequel. You said you think Steven would have left out the dark themes in ToD and the aliens in Kingdom. What would he have done that was so different and perfect? Most of Raiders was Lucas' own ideas.

Lucas did a great job on Raiders, but he got lazy after that.. and his ideas just weren't as good as they were in Raiders

Now, maybe I can understand that you do not want the same plot/story/setting four times in a row, but you want perfection. I think that would be a matter of opinion, don't you?
Some say ToD was too dark or Crusade was too slap-stick, while others say that one of those was his/hers favorite of the bunch.

True everyone has a different favorite... but people pick favorites for different reasons, they don't base favorites on how perfect the film was.. I've heard people pick tod as their fav because it brings them back to certain time in their childhood or they pick LC as their fav because they loved the father/son thing.. people could possibly pick any of the 4 Indy's as their favorite but still recognize Raiders as the most perfect, am I making sense?

The Drifter · Mar 16, 2009

ronicle said:
Lucas did a great job on Raiders, but he got lazy after that.. and his ideas just weren't as good as they were in Raiders

True everyone has a different favorite... but people pick favorites for different reasons, they don't base favorites on how perfect the film was.. I've heard people pick tod as their fav because it brings them back to certain time in their childhood or they pick LC as they fav because they loved the father/son thing.. People could possibly any of the 4 Indy's as their favorite but still recognize Raiders as the most perfect, am I making sense?

Yes, you are making sense.
But, IMO (I'm gonna catch hell for this!) Temple of Doom was perfection for me. But, as you said, Raiders was perfect for you. I guess the reason why the others are of lower caliber for you is that it's nigh impossible to catch lightning in a bottle. For you they did it once, but who can do it more? Is there any series of movies out there that had every sequel perfect?

THE BIG BANG: Raiders story conference transcripts!!??

New member

Well-known member

Guest

New member

Well-known member

Guest

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Guest

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member