RaideroftheArk
New member
Darth Vile said:So it seems to me, the issue is more about how the spectacle is achieved rather than it's premise or implausibility.
I think you pretty nailed it with this statement!
Darth Vile said:So it seems to me, the issue is more about how the spectacle is achieved rather than it's premise or implausibility.
tambourineman said:The problem for me in Skull is the execution, not the idea. This doesnt go for all the suspense scenes, I think much of it was really well done. But I have to wonder what happened with a scene like the waterfall scene. It should have been the most suspenseful and thrilling scene in the film, but its about as exciting and suspenseful as watching someone on a theme park ride.
Montana Smith said:Something that will always diminish suspense in an Indy film, is the expectation that Indy will survive. As with the original pulp serials the hero was always bound to survive, but the suspense was created by the seemingly impossible cliffhanger in which the hero was left at the end of each episode.
It's how the hero will escape that creates the suspense, rather than if the hero will escape.
Ajax the Great said:Great post, you're absolutely right. Another question is "How much abuse is Indy going to take before he wins?" I thought that was something CS neglected. In Raiders and ToD, when he get punched, you felt it. You could see him getting worn down as each fight progressed. In CS, an Indy 20 years older got tackled by a huge Russkie, fell through a glass floor onto a platform, with the Russkie landing on top of him, got beaten with a chain and then almost strangled. And he didn't seem to be in all that much pain. Then during the ant fight, he gets a brutal beating but still manages to pick up Oxley and run alongside and jump into a moving car.
Could a 38 year old Indy have done all that without showing that much pain? I doubt it - so how can he deal with it at age 58?
Ajax the Great said:Great post, you're absolutely right. Another question is "How much abuse is Indy going to take before he wins?" I thought that was something CS neglected. In Raiders and ToD, when he get punched, you felt it. You could see him getting worn down as each fight progressed. In CS, an Indy 20 years older got tackled by a huge Russkie, fell through a glass floor onto a platform, with the Russkie landing on top of him, got beaten with a chain and then almost strangled. And he didn't seem to be in all that much pain. Then during the ant fight, he gets a brutal beating but still manages to pick up Oxley and run alongside and jump into a moving car.
Could a 38 year old Indy have done all that without showing that much pain? I doubt it - so how can he deal with it at age 58?
Darth Vile said:I think it's a careful balancing act... after all, cinematically speaking (even in a Hollywood movie), a circa 65 year old man taking punches and spitting teeth and blood is not that pleasant to witness. Although Ford's still in great shape for his age, most youngsters (including my young daughter) just see him as an adventurous grandfather type figure (whereas I still visualise him in his prime).
Montana Smith said:I mentioned above that the novel is less family-oriented than the film. James Rollins seemed keen to express the pain and the dire threat that Indy faced. He also makes repeated mention of Indy's dodgy hip.
On the rocket sled there's this:
"Dovchenko slowly squeezed his fingers as Jones struggled.
He enjoyed watching the man's face turn blue, then desperate.
This is how you die, Jones.
His captive's eyes went wild. Mashed against the cowling, Jones sought some means of escape. Not this time.
...
Dovchenko felt the heart go out of his captive.
...
Dovchenko tightened the fist around Jones's throat."
The only thing that saves him is kicking the sled’s throttle.
A lot of Russian soldiers die in the book, but I don’t think you get to see that on film. It’s as though the novel is the adult version, and the film the junior version.
Also, in the fridge Indy doesn’t remember hitting the ground:
"In fact, he remembered nothing beyond waking up in the dark, enclosed space. For a terrified moment he thought he’d been buried alive…Then he remembered it all. And his panic grew worse. He fought, shouldered, and kicked at the refrigerator door…Indy stumbled a few steps, struggling to find cool air."
Rollins went as far as he could without rewriting what we actually see on screen. I got the feeling that if he had his way, Indy would have sustained greater injury - which Rocket has argued in the past Indy should rightfully have suffered (by rights the landing was the most dangerous part of his fridge ride. I can accept that his luck factor meant the fridge was blown clear and remained intact, but the landing would have broken bones and puntured organs if undertaken in our world).
During the radiation scrub down, Rollins makes the following comment on Indy:
"So he had a few scars. Who didn't? Each one told a story from a life lived at the shadowy edge of history."
Indy was described as having wandered out of the atomic blast zone "nearly delirious". Of course, on film we don't see that.
Montana Smith said:Seeing Harrison spitting blood into the sink in Blade Runner wasn't pleasant either. It is a careful balancing act, especially now that film-makers are balancing a range of age ratings with marketing concerns.
In Blade Runner you could see Harrison go through the pain and suffering. He went through it in the first three Indy movies, where blood or extreme violence weren't an issue (the Mechanic vs the propellers; the Giant Thuggee vs the grinder; the Turkish solider's head vs the Temple blade trap - all moments of black comedy, or comic horror).
I agree that it's distressing to see an old guy (a grandfather figure) taking punishment. That's why the first appearance of Harrison in KOTCS was shocking to me. He was hurled unceremoniously from the boot of the car to the concrete. After that Lucas and Spielberg shied away from the visual impact of the violence.
Rather than write it out again, here's what I wrote in the KOTCS vs TOD thread:
Darth Vile said:There is no denying that KOTCS is a little bit more family friendly than Raiders and TOD (on a par with TLC I'd say). However, I'm not really sure how important that is as, in regard to the first three, I find TLC a lot more enjoyable than I do TOD.
Seemed to me that Spielberg/Lucas took a conscious step to use Mutt for the "getting beaten up" role as there were a couple of shots very reminiscent of the younger Indy (thinking about Spalko beating him up). And I think it's just one of the considerations when using an older Harrison Ford now i.e. he doesn't look young any more... and seeing an old man getting beat up is not only more uncomfortable for the audience, but a little less believable too (IMHO).
Montana Smith said:That is true - Mutt got a scar on his dad's behalf. It's not that I want to see Indy beaten to a pulp, but as the older Indy can't take the punishment, it's time to change the nature of the scripts. He was always resourceful, if there is an Indy V, then the suspense should build on the mystery rather than the action.
Having Mutt as a proxy Indy would be tantamount to passing the hat, with Indy himself as the Henry Sr. type sidekick. I think there's still life in the old dog, just as there was in Joihn Wayne towards the end of his career. Enough life to create suspense, before that horrible moment if or when Mutt takes over as the new generation (which would really be the end of Indy as I see him).
KOTCS was a full-on action screenplay, in which the older Indy was intended to relive his past exploits. As such, the limitations of age meant that some of the action couldn't be resolved in the manner we were accustomed to, due as much to the sensibilities of age as the physical limitations of age.
Despite the age Indy still has that dominant presence that the older John Wayne had, a wisdom and strength of mind. Suspense could have been created more often without getting into the thorny issue of age vs physical contact. The one exception was exiting the fridge - that was unavoidable physical contact - where Indy could have worn the suffering a little harder, as a badge of surviving the greatest cliffhanger of his life. As he said in ROTLA, it's not the years it's the mileage. The fridge added quite a few extra metaphorical miles!
Darth Vile said:All true enough... I think it's just a question of wether the audience is willing to accept Indiana Jones, as played by Harrison Ford, being less of an action hero figure. And there in lies KOTCS's biggest problem for me (if I'm being uber critical) i.e. the paradox is that Harrison Ford was the best thing about KOTCS (IMHO), but he was also the thing that limited the scope of the movie... because KOTCS had to be an action movie first and foremost... and any action movie that has its leading character played by a circa 70 year old is always going to be difficult to pull off.
With all due respect, I think if anyone knows the Indiana Jones formula better than anyone, it's the guys who created it: George Lucas and Steven Spielberg.MaxPhactor23 said:Now I've been over this time and time again, but there's a huge misconception that comes along with this argument…especially when it seems to be the most cited moment in the entire original trilogy used to defend Crystal Skulls downright cartoon-level silliness. As someone mentioned, the Myth Busters proved that the raft trick is indeed more plausible than meets the eye. In fact apparently it’s downright possible! Plus placed in a literal life or death moment…why not chance it? It’s better than certain death, right?
Now for me Marion’s duck boat cliff dive wouldn’t even be all that bad so long as the “rubber tree” didn’t flyswatter back up to hit our communistic comrades. Now that…that was just impossible! The same can be said for surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge, lead lined or not. It could certainly be argued that even the mine cart jump (seen in Doom) and the miraculous landing back on the tracks, inarguably highly unlikely to ridiculous levels, is still not applicable as it’s indeed still possible, no matter how doubtful. There’s a defining difference between improbability and impossibility.
Crystal Skull had moments of sheer impossibility, heightening the cinematic fun of the improbable (seen in the originals) to be now raised to downright over-the-top levels of escalated cartoon slapstick impossible. The counter-argument around here always turns to the McGuffin, something akin to “Ghosts that melt faces are impossible, I don’t hear you complaining about that!” Yes they are, but I’ve never seen that applicable either. Each Indiana Jones story has been motivated by myth or legend. They all culminate in real myth (yes I’m aware of that being an oxymoron), but were placed in realistic settings like Hilter’s actual interest in archaeology and the occult or the Thuggee cult of India. It's always been a blending of realism with mythology. Much of Crystal Skull’s most unbelievable or unfeasible moments were outside of the fantasy element (that was this stories focal point - the Skulls) and instead were during action scenes, moments the previous films always made improbable, but not outright impossible. Skull broke the Indiana Jones formula established by the originals in more than a few ways.