The Haters thread

Rocket Surgeon · Nov 17, 2011

Udvarnoky said:
Jefferson's quote is the single relevant one you provided...

"The deepest depth of vulgarism is that of setting up money as the ark of the covenant." Thomas Carlyle

Really though all I meant was:

Udvarnoky said:
Clearly, it was part of the public consciousness once upon a time.

As well as:

Udvarnoky said:
American people knew their scripture

Which I'd contend went further than 1816...and I'd say there are still more of us left than you might imagine or may enjoy admitting to...

Udvarnoky said:
Spielberg ratified David Koepp's script. He's no more invulnerable to questionable decision-making than us humble Raveners.

I'd never propose otherwise. I must say again: his ability to indulge each and every whim and desire was a major weak link on his own chain.

Udvarnoky said:
Possibly true; definitely irrelevant.

Harldy...most especially if they felt they could not make enough money.

Montana Smith · Nov 17, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
Angels?

Do they customarily spout from the Ark with skulls for faces in the Bible?

Rocket Surgeon said:
The Wrath of God?

Does he manifest himself a murderous bolts of light?

These are plot additions created for the film. The Ark as an object was just the jumping off point.

Rocket Surgeon said:
We come to it at last. They're not fictionalized to a believer, hence providing a level of excitement a non believer could NOT have. Now, did the Germans develop a flying wing? How many were designed? How many were produced? Tested? Can the existence of a similar design in Raiders be disproven? I don't know. I'll bet more people who saw the movie knew about the ark then those who knew the bazooka was a few years early...

The Ark is most definitely fictionalized, unless Lucas and Spielberg had actually witnessed the real one being opened. They created what amounted to an artist's impression - which is exactly what Indy showed the Military Intelligence officers when he opened the Bible. He showed them an impression of the Ark. Lucas and Spielberg then go on to show us their impression.

Rocket Surgeon said:
There is more than one lock to the success of any Indy film.

Without a story there's no interest. Or else an Indy movie could be the edited action highlights, like an unscripted stunt spectacular.

There was just as much freedom with the other movies: where in the New Testament was it written that the Grail would be guarded by an 800 year old knight, along with murderous traps and an invisible bridge?

It would be a bit much to take if you didn't find out that the aliens were behind it all along.

Rocket Surgeon · Nov 17, 2011

Montana Smith said:
Do they customarily spout from the Ark with skulls for faces in the Bible?

God does as he likes...and as the movie professes, no one who has ever seen has lived to tell the tale.

Montana Smith said:
Does he manifest himself a murderous bolts of light?

Why not? He was a burning bush...

How do you think he finally broke the back of Pharoah?

Montana Smith said:
The Ark is most definitely fictionalized, unless Lucas and Spielberg had actually witnessed the real one being opened. They created what amounted to an artist's impression - which is exactly what Indy showed the Military Intelligence officers when he opened the Bible. He showed them an impression of the Ark. Lucas and Spielberg then go on to show us their impression.

It is a movie after all...

Montana Smith said:
Without a story there's no interest. Or else an Indy movie could be the edited action highlights, like an unscripted stunt spectacular.

But what do they start with? The story or the artifact?

Montana Smith said:
There was just as much freedom with the other movies: where in the New Testament was it written that the Grail would be guarded by an 800 year old knight, along with murderous traps and an invisible bridge?

They haven't written the Book of Lucas...yet. Of course the story is important...

Montana Smith said:
It would be a bit much to take if you didn't find out that the aliens were behind it all along.

I think the consensus is that the Aliens were a bit too much to take...

Stoo · Nov 17, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
Proof? Modern society continues to be shaped by the morality set down in the bible. America was transformed by those seeking religious freedom and throughout our short history the bible was used fundimentally as a teaching tool.

Must disagree with you here, Rocket. Not everyone in the Indy audience was born & raised in America nor shaped by the Bible when they first saw the Indy films.

In 1981, I had no idea what the Ark of the Covenant was and "Raiders" introduced me to it. Same goes for the Shiva lingam in 1984. Indy 1 & 2 still blew me away, regardless of my ignorance of those 'artifacts'.

I knew about the Holy Grail in the late '70s (thanks to the Monty Python film) so when I first heard that Indy 3 would be about the Grail, I was a little bit disappointed because it wasn't anything new. However, it wasn't the artifact that ruined the experience in the theatre, it was other stuff...

To me, the Ma-guffinuna-ism, is secondary to the chase so the belief (or non-belief) /acceptance (or unacceptance) of crystal skull mythology is a poor critiscm of Indy 4.

Rocket Surgeon said:
The popularity of the two films owes much to the familiarity of the relics in question.

Urgh! That's a whole other topic of discussion. Don't get me started, boy-o! :whip:

Udvarnoky · Nov 17, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
I'd say there are still more of us left than you might imagine or may enjoy admitting to...

No, Rocket, please - fill in that ellipsis. I want to know why I'd have a problem admitting something like that. Do I have an agenda? Enlighten me.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Harldy...most especially if they felt they could not make enough money.

I was unaware that revenue potential was a factor in this discussion. And anyway, didn't Lucas say in some interview that they weren't making Indy4 for the money, but rather just to have fun? That going to change for Indy5?

Let's be honest: Paramount will be more than happy to help finance an Indy5 if Lucasfilm decides to make it. Yes, even if it's about Thor's Toothbrush.

Darth Vile · Nov 17, 2011

I personally found the Grail Diary to be the most successful MacGuffin of the series.

Udvarnoky · Nov 17, 2011

I personally found the Grail Diary to be the coolest extra to come packaged with a graphic adventure game.

Rocket Surgeon · Nov 17, 2011

Stoo said:
Must disagree with you here, Rocket. Not everyone in the Indy audience was born & raised in America nor shaped by the Bible when they first saw the Indy films.

Without doubt my boy...but undoubitably you read my later qualification: "this side of the Atlantic."

Stoo said:
In 1981, I had no idea what the Ark of the Covenant was and "Raiders" introduced me to it. Same goes for the Shiva lingam in 1984. Indy 1 & 2 still blew me away, regardless of my ignorance of those 'artifacts'.

Everyone has a story, even DiscoLad...

Stoo said:
I knew about the Holy Grail in the late '70s (thanks to the Monty Python film) so when I first heard that Indy 3 would be about the Grail, I was a little bit disappointed because it wasn't anything new. However, it wasn't the artifact that ruined the experience in the theatre, it was other stuff...

"Ruined"? That's a bit harsh, no?

Stoo said:
To me, the Ma-guffinuna-ism, is secondary to the chase so the belief (or non-belief) /acceptance (or unacceptance) of crystal skull mythology is a poor critiscm of Indy 4.

I stand by my opinion that the pop culture revisionist history regarding crystal skulls is too contemporary to hold any real allure. All Crystal Skull did was take a hokey reimagining and cheapen Indy by having him simply explain it away/endorse it.

It holds no appreciable link to anything remotely historical or romantically "lost in the sands of time."

...and I don't consider it that a "poor critiscm."

Stoo said:
Urgh! That's a whole other topic of discussion. Don't get me started, boy-o!

Whoops! Too late!

Udvarnoky said:
No, Rocket, please - fill in that ellipsis. I want to know why I'd have a problem admitting something like that. Do I have an agenda? Enlighten me.

Nothing more insidious than a balance to your pigeonholing people who know their bible to the 19th Century.

Udvarnoky said:
I was unaware that revenue potential was a factor in this discussion.

Well it is.

Udvarnoky said:
And anyway, didn't Lucas say in some interview that they weren't making Indy4 for the money, but rather just to have fun? That going to change for Indy5?

Is this the same George Lucas who testimony before congress included:"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians."?

Udvarnoky said:
Let's be honest: Paramount will be more than happy to help finance an Indy5 if Lucasfilm decides to make it. Yes, even if it's about Thor's Toothbrush.

To paraphrase you: I was unaware that a lack honesty was a factor in this discussion...

If Paramount feels like Thor's Toothbrush is a loser they wouldn't touch it with Odin's Toilet Plunger.

Montana Smith · Nov 17, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
God does as he likes...

God does as the imagination of man permits.

If a beliver can find excitement from reference to something they have an interest in, then a non-believer can do likewise. There are plenty of elements in Raiders that are not the Ark. The Ark is the excuse to use the other elements - 1930s, Hitler's fictional plans, stunts, music etc etc. Any doomsday device could have successfully stood in for 'God's radio', as they did for the early cliffhanger serials, in which something totally invented becomes a threat to the civilized world, an object which the hero must either take control of or destroy.

Rocket Surgeon said:
But what do they start with? The story or the artifact?

Generally a prologue story concerning a lesser artifact.

Chachapoyan Fertility Idol; Nurhachi's Urn; Cross of Coronado; respirator bag full of potsherds.

These are character setting moments - especially so in Raiders - they present Indy's determination and resilience.

The last is different as it sets the tone for KOTCS: Indy unceremoniously bundled in the trunk of car and thrown out onto the ground with his archaeological finds smashed. This is a ground-breaking moment, and one from which Indy is intended to recover. Yet the film constantly knocks him down. It could be the initial grounds which engender hatred for #4.

Rocket Surgeon said:
I think the consensus is that the Aliens were a bit too much to take...

Maybe it's that viewers have preconceived ideas about an Indy movie that Lucas never held to. During the January 1978 Story Conference he spoke about Däniken on three occasions.

George Lucas said:
Our idea was that there must actually be some kind of super high-powered radio from one of Erick Von Daniken's flying saucers. The fact that it's electrical charges makes it vaguely believable.

Unless he was speaking for the others, he prefaced that statement with "Our idea". And he was also concerned with making it more believable by being science fiction.

Stoo said:
To me, the Ma-guffinuna-ism, is secondary to the chase so the belief (or non-belief) /acceptance (or unacceptance) of crystal skull mythology is a poor critiscm of Indy 4.

In a nutshell, that's exactly what I'm arguing.

The audience may find the alien element unacceptable, because they're guided by three films that don't overtly go beyond fantasy into science fiction. Yet that idea was discussed, and from the evidence of KOTCS it never went away. It's tantamount to saying that the world of Indy we knew before 2008 was not the product of Lucas, because he would have done it differently (if he'd had his way).

replican't · Nov 18, 2011

I havent read any of the last 2 pages - too nerdy for my liking - but I can tell you this: If I watch any of the first 3 films, its really easy to grasp the significance and importance of the objects Indy is going after. During Crystal Skull, I just sat there metaphorically scratching my head, thinking "I dont understand what's happening - what is this complicated crap about this skull? What is he talking about? Why are there crop circles? Why is he fighting those things in that graveyard? So is the skull a powerful magnet? Aliens? What the fuck? What's going on?".

It's an action adventure series, not a history lesson. I dont want to be lectured at, just show me some supernatural relgious shit that gives me goosebumps and some cool stunts that make me cheer. Throw in a fit bird and all's good.

Montana Smith · Nov 18, 2011

replican't said:
I havent read any of the last 2 pages - too nerdy for my liking - but I can tell you this: If I watch any of the first 3 films, its really easy to grasp the significance and importance of the objects Indy is going after. During Crystal Skull, I just sat there metaphorically scratching my head, thinking "I dont understand what's happening - what is this complicated crap about this skull? What is he talking about? Why are there crop circles? Why is he fighting those things in that graveyard? So is the skull a powerful magnet? Aliens? What the fuck? What's going on?".

Sounds like this would be more suitable viewing for you.

There might even be a fit bird in there, under all the make-up.

replican't · Nov 18, 2011

Montana Smith said:
Sounds like this would be more suitable viewing for you.

There might even be a fit bird in there, under all the make-up.

Why? I dont think you understand - I am referring to Indiana Jones. Its not The Tree Of Life.

Darth Vile · Nov 18, 2011

Montana/Stoo ? Whilst recognising Rocket?s view that a well chosen object can bring with it a wealth of natural mystery, which can enhance the story (was that your position Rocket?), I?d have to agree with you that ultimately it?s secondary to what else is going on. Thinking about classic McGuffins in some of my favourite movies e.g. From Russia With Love, The 39 Steps, Star Wars etc. they were all pretty bland items in themselves e.g. the Death Star plans, the lector decoder. They simply acted as a facilitator of globe trotting, fights etc? although one could argue that a more interesting artefact will provide more potential.

replican?t - I don?t particularly get why it?s so confusing (although maybe I had the advantage of reading the novel before the movie), but I completely get why it doesn?t work for you. Regardless of whether it?s a crystal skull or feather boa, the filmmakers have to make it work for the audience. I?ve seen enough consternation on these boards to indicate that the skull, as a McGuffin, wasn?t as succesfull as it perhaps should have been. But I think that was down to other factors as opposed to the use of a crystal skull per se.

Udvarnoky said:
I personally found the Grail Diary to be the coolest extra to come packaged with a graphic adventure game.

My nerd quota has gone up as I?m finding that Grail Diary unnaturally cool.

Montana Smith · Nov 18, 2011

replican't said:
Why? I dont think you understand - I am referring to Indiana Jones. Its not The Tree Of Life.

Since you don't seem able to grasp Indiana Jones from your viewing description of KOTCS,

"I dont understand what's happening - what is this complicated crap about this skull? What is he talking about? Why are there crop circles? Why is he fighting those things in that graveyard? So is the skull a powerful magnet? Aliens? What the ****? What's going on?".

I thought you might find something less challenging more beneficial.

Darth Vile said:
They simply acted as a facilitator of globe trotting, fights etc…

I like that word "facilitator".

It's what the writers do with the object that makes a movie stand or fall. As a viewer who wants to invest in the characters, the artifact just needs to convey enough menace or importance to make everything else meaningful. Otherwise I find movies just become an exercise in spectacle, instead of becoming a full package.

replican't · Nov 18, 2011

Montana Smith said:
Since you don't seem able to grasp Indiana Jones from your viewing description of KOTCS,

I thought you might find something less challenging more beneficial.

I'm quite a clever person really, but I dont need my Indiana Jones to be challenging, thankyouverymuch. Put an object with spooky powers at the end of the film and have him run towards it. Put mad stunt-requiring obstacles in the way, chuck in some jokes, the fit bird, the theme tune, a map with a red line on it, a kick ass trial of some sort at the end, et voila.

They could have done all that and made a good Indy 4, even with an ancient Harrison Ford.

Instead, it felt like a Wikipedia page about crystal skulls crossed with Happy Days.

Montana Smith · Nov 18, 2011

replican't said:
I'm quite a clever person really, but I dont need my Indiana Jones to be challenging, thankyouverymuch. Put an object with spooky powers at the end of the film and have him run towards it. Put mad stunt-requiring obstacles in the way, chuck in some jokes, the fit bird, the theme tune, a map with a red line on it, a kick ass trial of some sort at the end, et voila.

They could have done all that and made a good Indy 4, even with an ancient Harrison Ford.

Instead, it felt like a Wikipedia page about crystal skulls crossed with Happy Days.

I have a feeling that's what Lucas and Spielberg thought they were doing. Only something went badly wrong. The mix didn't work. Some of the actors appeared as though they didn't know why they were there.

It's not a truly terrible movie, but even a few degrees off made for a devastating (or underwhelming) effect. Maybe Lucas and Spielberg were rusty, and the WD40 never arrived in time, because the film does falter.

An underwhelming movie won't hold your interest, and would explain why you weren't following the plot. I know that the first time I saw it I couldn't get over the snake in the sand pit, or the acting and dialogue of Ray Winstone and John Hurt, and other moments where I was thinking 'please don't go there...'

It's certainly not a classic, but I can accept it as a legitimate entry in the series.

The only thing challenging with KOTCS was the effort required to remain motivated enough to watch.

Darth Vile · Nov 18, 2011

Montana Smith said:
I have a feeling that's what Lucas and Spielberg thought they were doing. Only something went badly wrong. The mix didn't work. Some of the actors appeared as though they didn't know why they were there.

It's not a truly terrible movie, but even a few degrees off made for a devastating (or underwhelming) effect. Maybe Lucas and Spielberg were rusty, and the WD40 never arrived in time, because the film does falter.

An underwhelming movie won't hold your interest, and would explain why you weren't following the plot. I know that the first time I saw it I couldn't get over the snake in the sand pit, or the acting and dialogue of Ray Winstone and John Hurt, and other moments where I was thinking 'please don't go there...'

It's certainly not a classic, but I can accept it as a legitimate entry in the series.

The only thing challenging with KOTCS was the effort required to remain motivated enough to watch.

"Underwhelming"? Yes to a large degree. "Passé" (which is very much my view)? Absolutely. But a "bad" movie? Not a chance. It certainly could have been better, but not much given that I think many of the problems lie at the door of the format - which is too tired and predictable (coupled with an ageing lead).

Udvarnoky · Nov 18, 2011

It just seems way too dismissive to me to chalk up most of the movie's problems as being inherent to the format. What culpability does the format have in limp set pieces, weak characterizations, murky plotting, disorienting pacing and pedestrian dialog, which were my problems with the movie?

Obviously, we came away from the movie perceiving different weakness, but since the weaknesses you found were tied strictly to the format, I'm curious to hear more.

Rocket Surgeon · Nov 18, 2011

Udvarnoky said:
It just seems way too dismissive to me to chalk up most of the movie's problems as being inherent to the format. What culpability does the format have in limp set pieces, weak characterizations, murky plotting, disorienting pacing and pedestrian dialog, which were my problems with the movie?

Its obvious the Skull provided no:

Darth Vile said:
...wealth of natural mystery...

to "enhance the story."

Darth Vile said:
was that your position Rocket?

Montana Smith said:
Generally a prologue story concerning a lesser artifact.

Door number Three? But there were only TWO doors! You may as well have labeled your escape hatch "The Paramount Logo...

No matter any of our personal baggage, the artifact comes first. Then the story.

As can't scantly scrapes, and Mutt pleads on screen: So, theres a power?

But what was it, why should <strike>WE,</strike> the characters in the film care?

THE fatal flaw was the Skull.

Udvarnoky · Nov 18, 2011

The issues you describe are 150% the province of the screenwriter. It's not like there was any obvious reason to us why the maltese falcon - which itself had an overwrought backstory and vague inherent significance - should be such a strong motivation for the characters who sought it, but it's enough for us to be able to buy that the characters care. Here's a very perceptive observation on Roger Ebert's part in an essay he wrote about The Maltese Falcon:

Ebert said:
The plot is the last thing you think of about ''The Maltese Falcon.'' The black bird (said to be made of gold and encrusted with jewels) has been stolen, men have been killed for it, and now Gutman (Greenstreet) has arrived with his lackeys (Lorre and Elisha Cook Jr.) to get it back. Spade gets involved because the Mary Astor character hires him to--but the plot goes around and around, and eventually we realize that the black bird is an example of Hitchcock's ''MacGuffin''--it doesn't matter what it is, so long as everyone in the story wants or fears it.

How effectively conveyed were the wants and fears of Indy4's characters? The skull itself is way too easy a scapegoat for a problem that run far deeper.

The Haters thread

Guest

Active member

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Guest

Active member

Guest

Active member

Guest

New member

Active member

Guest

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member