Indy is....WACKY?!?!

O

OmegaSeamaster

New member
Does anyone here (besides me) think Lucas has gone senile?

Lucas: "Yeah, well, this one, we know that for the fans it won't be the movie that they have been making in their minds for the last 19 years, so they all get bent out of shape. A lot of the critics forget that they didn't like the first three, and so they get off on this one, too — or it's not the Second Coming. And, yeah, we didn't make it bigger and better, we made it exactly the same. So if you loved the other ones, you'll love this one. But if you expect to have F-14s flying under freeways — that isn't there. It's just another period adventure movie with this wacky archaeologist. It's funny. I think it's funnier than the other ones, and it's exciting. So it's got all the stuff that all the other ones have. And Harrison's great in it."

1. So essentially, he's saying the fans won't like it because it won't be what they wanted to see, yet the people who loved the last three (wouldn't that be the fans?) will love it because they made it exactly the same. :confused:

2. A lot of critics forget that they didn't like the last three?!?! Umm, what critics would those be George, besides Pauline Kael? Raiders - 95% FRESH on Rottentomatoes, Temple of Doom - 91% FRESH, Last Crusade - 93% FRESH.

3. There's a lot of words I'd use to describe Indiana Jones...but WACKY?

4. I don't think any of the fans expect F-14s to fly under freeways - just perhaps the occasional UFO flyby or spur of the moment fridge-fallout shelter nuclear bomb escape.

This guy has become so out of touch with film-making in the last two decades, it's scary. Check the link out below, it's a good read. In the article, he really doesn't hold back when talking about his disdain for critics - he's made it personal. He's become so enamored of his own "legend" that it feels like anything he does is above criticism, even when most of it is valid (example - Jar Jar).

http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2000/03/22/lucas/index.html
 
Last edited:
O

oki9Sedo

New member
OmegaSeamaster said:
Does anyone here (besides me) think Lucas has gone senile?

Lucas: "Yeah, well, this one, we know that for the fans it won't be the movie that they have been making in their minds for the last 19 years, so they all get bent out of shape. A lot of the critics forget that they didn't like the first three, and so they get off on this one, too — or it's not the Second Coming. And, yeah, we didn't make it bigger and better, we made it exactly the same. So if you loved the other ones, you'll love this one. But if you expect to have F-14s flying under freeways — that isn't there. It's just another period adventure movie with this wacky archaeologist. It's funny. I think it's funnier than the other ones, and it's exciting. So it's got all the stuff that all the other ones have. And Harrison's great in it."

1. So essentially, he's saying the fans won't like it because it won't be what they wanted to see, yet the people who loved the last three (wouldn't that be the fans?) will love it because they made it exactly the same. :confused:

2. A lot of critics forget that they didn't like the last three?!?! Umm, what critics would those be George, besides Pauline Kael? Raiders - 95% FRESH on Rottentomatoes, Temple of Doom - 91% FRESH, Last Crusade - 93% FRESH.

3. There's a lot of words I'd use to describe Indiana Jones...but WACKY?

4. I don't think any of the fans expect F-14s to fly under freeways - just perhaps the occasional UFO flyby or spur of the moment fridge-fallout shelter nuclear bomb escape.

This guy has become so out of touch with film-making in the last two decades, it's scary. Check the link out below, it's a good read.

http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2000/03/22/lucas/index.html
Click to expand...

1. I think he means if you loved the first three but had a life and didn't obsess over them like a fanboy, you'd go onto this one and love it just as much. If you're a fanboy who's been obsessing about them for 20 years, you'll hate it because its not the film you wanted.

2. Temple of Doom received mixed reviews initially.

3. Its a bad choice of words I agree, but presumably he means wacky as in he's crazy for getting himself into all these situations, and because he has a dogged determination that some people would call crazy.

4. I genuinely haven't a clue why you're taking issue with that one - alot the post-Live Free or Die Hard crowd will be expecting that kind of stuff, and he's making it clear from the outset that this won't have it, it will be old-school like the original three. He's making a valid and worthy statement.

If anything, this interview makes me more optimistic about the new film.....he says its the funniest of the bunch, its exciting, that he was pleased with Harrison Ford's performance.

I genuinely don't understand what your'e fussing about. Are you just another George Lucas hater who tries to criticize everything he says?
 
The Man

The Man

Well-known member
As long as the movie is retro, old-school and has Ford at his best, then I couldn't care less.(y)
 
O

oki9Sedo

New member
Lucas had said stupid things in the past "We're basically going to do The Phantom Menace"* etc, but this certainly isn't one of them - he just stated things as they are.

*Note: I know he didn't mean they're going to make a sh*t, CG-laden film that tarnishes the originals, but that what he meant was that no matter what they do expectations will be too high and too different for the film to be well received by fans.
 
A

Adamwankenobi

New member
Why do people analyze Lucas' words like they have some kind of hidden meaning or code? Everytime he does an interview, people don't just nitpick the usual (his filmmaking abilities, personality, appearance, etc.), they nitpick his words. :confused: He's not exactly a well-spoken person. He speaks in vague half-sentences a lot of the time, and doesn't usually put a lot of thought into his conversations. He knows what he's talking about, but it doesn't seem to come through a lot of the time.
 
MattJones

MattJones

New member
Let's show a little optimism, folks! In a couple months we'll realize whether or not this interview is a prophesy for Indy's downfall or not really indicative of the movie's brilliance. I'd much rather choose the latter, and keep a "glass half full" perspective, then to damn the movie to the Phantom Menace pit before I even get a chance to see it.
 
JerryKing

JerryKing

Member
It's just another period adventure movie with this wacky archaeologist. It's funny. I think it's funnier than the other ones

:sick:

More nails? Hopefully not - Lucas enjoys pinching (adding Christensen and Jar-Jar to "Return of the Jedi" had to be done out of mischievousness... :)). Still, I've actually had this feeling since day one, la Boeuf added weight to it, Marshall's statements put on a few more tons of it, and that painfully horrible moment in the trailer ("Damn, I thought that was closer" - or whatever it was... I've tried to forget...) seemed to be the first true confirmation...

Oh, dear. If all that really does turn out to be true, then... "Attack of the Last Crusades", here we go.
 
loganbush

loganbush

New member
Quote:
Originally Posted by herr gruber
Funnier than the other three.

Last Crusade critics, we could be in trouble.

NOOO!! There goes my Raiders dream. Well at least it's Indy
Click to expand...

GOOD. There its said. Listen, he said funny, not goofy. But I love Last Crusade so I have no problem with this. It'll be fun. No worries.
 
X

xVendetta17x

New member
Last crusade does seem to be the favourite film in the general public
Saying that it's like Last Crusade could just be a marketing ploy
Speilberg said that it's closest to Raiders, so i'm going to trust Speilberg
 
S

Skipper

New member
herr gruber said:
Supercilious. adjective. coolly and patronisingly haughty.
Click to expand...
I wish you had posted that BEFORE I took the GRE. I missed a question because I didn't know what "supercilious" means. :)
 
A

Adamwankenobi

New member
JerryKing said:
More nails? Hopefully not - Lucas enjoys pinching (adding Christensen and Jar-Jar to "Return of the Jedi" had to be done out of mischievousness... :)).
Click to expand...

Technically that wasn't Jar Jar, just a random Gunagan. :cool:

JerryKing said:
and that painfully horrible moment in the trailer ("Damn, I thought that was closer" - or whatever it was... I've tried to forget...) seemed to be the first true confirmation...
Click to expand...

I love that moment. It made me laugh, still makes me laugh, and will surely add to the fun of the warehouse sequence when we see it all put together. (y)
 
A

Adamwankenobi

New member
xVendetta17x said:
Whoa whoa whoa
I new Christensen was in Return of the Jedi, but Jar-Jar?
Which scene?
Click to expand...

There was a shot of a Naboo celebration added to the 22004 DVD release of ROTJ. It was basically a reversal of a shot from TPM, but includes huge crowds in the streets, and a bunch of Gungans cheering on top of a building on the right side of the frame. One of them yells "Wesa free!", and for a long time fans assumed it was Jar Jar saying this, but Lucas has said that wasn't meant to be Jar Jar, just a random Gunagan.

On a related note, a group of sadistic fans hoped it would be made canon that Binks died in the destruction of Alderaan. Again, Lucas denied this, saying that Binks remained a senator after ROTS, and lived on Naboo, and would have no reason to visit Alderaan. I fear Lucas may plan to use him again in the live-action series. :sick:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top