At least one of my friends had my back last night

Montana Smith

Active member
Lance Quazar said:
I disagree with your characterization. There is very little at all that is "jarring" in the first three films within the context that those movies create for themselves.

That was what I said, Lance. You used the term "the context that those movies create for themselves", and I referred to them as beyond "real-world sensibilities". I think, so far, we might be agreeing. ;)

If you take the films out of their context, and try to see them as realistic portrayals, then there are plenty of moments that a viewer will find jarring.

I gave up trying to see Raiders as 'real', since that viewpoint just doesn't work on so many levels (physical, historical, natural etc). The same, then, goes for the other three films.

Lance Quazar said:
One could argue (convincingly, I'm sure) that there is very little that is less "realistic" in KOTCS than in the other films.

However, the movie is full of dissonant and phony moments throughout.

That's the nature of the beast now, with Lucas trying to please everybody, from the original fans to the kids who never heard of the character before. I'm hoping that now that Indy has been re-established, Indy V need not go so far to draw young viewers in. I think that Lucas has a tendency to go over the top in his efforts to bring in the kids, whilst still tackling the bigger issues (e.g., The Phantom Menace [/I,]etc). The kids will demand spectacle, otherwise they aren't going to get interested in a geriatric hero.

Lance Quazar said:
But take a look at the other films. The opening sequence in "Raiders", whilst filled with all kinds of obviously unrealistic moments, sets the stage for what follows. A universe is created and its rules are put in place.

The light trap was the moment where a classic adventure tales suddenly promises to be something much more.

Lance Quazar said:
The rest of the movie is consistent with the tone and parameters established in the beginning. Sure, there are plenty of "unrealistic" moments, but nothing that stretches the "credibility" of what has already been establish. It's consistent and it makes sense within the rules it creates.

We go along for the ride. Nothing really "takes us out of the movie" or stands out as being a particularly inconsistent, awkward or inappropriately "fake" moment. We have made a pact with the filmmakers to stretch our credibility to a very specific degree. We will suspend disbelief only so far - and the filmmakers never go back on their promise.

For a long time the being dragged behind the truck stunt bothered me, having read about similar KKK torture and their outcome. That was the moment that stood out as fake - until I began to see Indy as occupying a different context - a semi-real world where heroes can survive intact.

Lance Quazar said:
In fact, one of the things that made Indiana Jones such an endearing and memorable character off the bat was the degree to which the filmmakers gave at least the appearance of vulnerability to the guy. Indy has phobias. He is fallible, utterly failing in the opening sequence and consistently throughout the film. Indy shows pain, he gets knocked on his ass. He does incredibly, mind-blowing things, but later on has to recuperate and nurse his wounds.

All of these qualities serve as a very effective counter to the far-fetched events and stunts and actions of the story. We're grounded, in a sense, and, while few human beings could ever really do what Indy accomplishes, we find him a believable - even relatable - hero..

That was a nod to real world sensibilities, making him more human, more interesting, but he's still more indestructible than a human in our world.

Lance Quazar said:
I would argue that the subsequent two sequels, particularly "last crusade", stretch the template that "Raiders" had established with increasingly fanciful happenings, which venture more towards the cartoonish. They are stretching our suspension more and more.

Temple of Doom was very cartoon-like - black comedy meets horror meets slapstick, and that slapstick continued with Last Crusade. Those elements were also present in Raiders, but with Raiders it was the first film in the series, and it was establishing itself.

Lance Quazar said:
But it doesn't really break until the fourth movie. By that point, the filmmakers have left behind all pretense of making Indiana Jones a relatable, vulnerable hero in situations which we can believe in. Or at least not actively DISbelieve in.

There's a reason "Nuke the Fridge" entered the lexicon. At that point and from that point forward, the Indiana Jones team seems to have given up and gone back on those promises they made way back in 1981 with "Raiders."

Lucas was trying to please diverse sectors. Each outing has to deliver a little bit more, until you find that Indy being dragged behind the truck along a desert road during which he doesn't rip his shirt or his flesh, becomes surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge. Both instances are absurd - and they're just two examples from many across the four films. These movies portray a world that never existed, not 'Saving Private Ryan'.

Lance Quazar said:
One could argue that getting flung a mile or two in a metal fridge and surviving is no less plausible than jumping a massive gap in an out of control mine cart only to land perfectly on the tracks on the other end.

Every cliffhanger Indy survives is the result of luck and coincidence. Each survival requires things to go right, and sometimes they have to go right in perfect sequence. Maybe KOTCS was intended to be the last Harrison Ford Indy film, and they were coming up with the most daring cliffhanger possible.

Lance Quazar said:
But the filmmakers make no concessions, as in earlier films, to ground Indy with flaws and vulnerability (though I think that trend really began in earnest in "Last Crusade", but fortunately there wasn't anything as outlandish in that movie to really break the spell.)

Indy was suffering the effects of age in KOTCS - his hip was giving him gip, and his judgement was off (landing on the wrong vehicle in the warehouse).

Lance Quazar said:
Story, plot and stunt elements in KOTCS are frequently (if not consistently) take the movie into "implausible" and cartoonish territories the other films did not dare to tread. And they abandoned any attempts to balance that by making the character himself believably human.

Since I was forced to see Raiders as implausible, and Temple of Doom as even more cartoon-like, I've grown up with the expectation that an Indiana Jones film will be outlandish. What carries the films is the characterization, and in KOTCS there are moments when Indy is painfully human. It's sad to see a super-hero who was once top of their game becoming older, and accepting that the dream cannot continue forever. If Indy V happens, I think it will play out to be quite sad and sentimental. The end of an era.
 

indyfan85

New member
I would've had your back as well, I hate the way this movie is **** upon by so many people who claim to be Indy fans. I realize there is an entire generational gap going on between the last crusade and kotcs which does perhaps account for much of the hate.

I like that they took a risk with this film, nevermind the whining. it's underrated.
 
indyfan85 said:
I would've had your back as well, I hate the way this movie is **** upon by so many people who claim to be Indy fans. I realize there is an entire generational gap going on between the last crusade and kotcs which does perhaps account for much of the hate.

I like that they took a risk with this film, nevermind the whining. it's underrated.


Yeah. I also hate that people don't agree with me. I mean, what the **** is wrong with everyone? To think that they think they can think differently... My god, the thought!
 

indyfan85

New member
How so?

You did indeed put words into my mouth, I didn't condemn anybodies opinion but there are allot of idiotic complaints all things considered. If you'd like to carry on the discussion try a different method of trolling, you're just boring me at this point.
 
indyfan85 said:
How so?

You did indeed put words into my mouth, I didn't condemn anybodies opinion but there are allot of idiotic complaints all things considered. If you'd like to carry on the discussion try a different method of trolling, you're just boring me at this point.


"Who claim to be Indy fans."


The inference being that their claim to fandom is invalidated if they "**** upon" this movie. Your words, not mine.



But it seems you have A LOT of difficulty with words, don't you? Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on you. You're just "special."
 

indyfan85

New member
ResidentAlien said:
"Who claim to be Indy fans."


The inference being that their claim to fandom is invalidated if they "**** upon" this movie. Your words, not mine.



But it seems you have A LOT of difficulty with words, don't you? Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on you. You're just "special."


No trouble here, I can see you're having some difficulty being original with your quips though. You misunderstood me.

I simply feel that allot of the major complaints I've seen seem ridiculous in the context of the past films. Not that you can't be an Indy fan if you don't enjoy the film, quite the contrary because I enjoy reading opposing viewpoints, however it seems like all you're interested in is spitting venom.

Can we not have a simple discussion about our choices of entertainment without mincing words?
 
indyfan85 said:
No trouble here, I can see you're having some difficulty being original with your quips though. You misunderstood me.

I simply feel that allot of the major complaints I've seen seem ridiculous in the context of the past films. Not that you can't be an Indy fan if you don't enjoy the film, quite the contrary because I enjoy reading opposing viewpoints, however it seems like all you're interested in is spitting venom.

Can we not have a simple discussion about our choices of entertainment without mincing words?


Perhaps I'm not too original, but I can at least compose a message without A LOT of grammatical butchery.



But that's neither here nor there, eh? What's here is that once again there is a faction here on the boards that really seems to resent that people dislike this (****ty) movie. It's really rather juvenile. This entire thread was erected on that idiotic premise and you've done nothing but further it.


"Ridiculous in context"? Says who? I've heard compelling ARGUMENTS on both sides. Debate, you see, not simple dismissal as you advocate.
 

metalinvader

Well-known member
Almost two years on and this debate still continues?GAH!


Must either side try to convince the other the pros/cons of the film?If you liked it,Great.If you hated it,Great.Who really gives a rats ass?Both sides try to shove their dogmatic opinion down the others throat.It's a movie series not a religion folks!


O Sankara, Sankara, wherefore art thou Sankara?
 

indyfan85

New member
ResidentAlien said:
Perhaps I'm not too original, but I can at least compose a message without A LOT of grammatical butchery.



But that's neither here nor there, eh? What's here is that once again there is a faction here on the boards that really seems to resent that people dislike this (****ty) movie. It's really rather juvenile. This entire thread was erected on that idiotic premise and you've done nothing but further it.


"Ridiculous in context"? Says who? I've heard compelling ARGUMENTS on both sides. Debate, you see, not simple dismissal as you advocate.

Oh, gee, a failed flame turns into grammar Nazi. Typical but enough with the shenanigans. If I seemed to question anybodies appreciation of the series based on their opinion of the new movie my apologies then.

I did write up a bit more about my thoughts in the IMDB rating thread so I'll avoid posting them again here. I won't dismiss your opinion, as I see you have written up some compelling arguments against the film yourself in that thread as well, despite being marred in a wall of unbroken text.

Like I said, it was just some of the more redundant arguments that I have beef with. I was actually one who wasn't looking forward to a new Indy movie, KOTCS is what got me back into the series though.
 
metalinvader said:
O Sankara, Sankara, wherefore art thou Sankara?
Now you've done it metalinvader! Dismiss Lucas, Skull, haters and lovers but to misappropriate Shakespeare? That pisses me off!

Juliet isn't asking WHERE Romeo is, she's wondering aloud WHY he's a MONTAGUE!

Don't "F" with The Immortal Bard fart face!

(Just kidding of course...;) )
 

metalinvader

Well-known member
"'Tis a fault to Heaven,
A fault against the dead, a fault to nature,
To reason most absurd when hiding in a fridge."
- William Shakespeare, Hamlet, 1.2


:p
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Yeah, Sankara. Sometimes I wonder what he's doing now. He was overly sensitive to any support of KotCS, ie he couldn't stand it. He was unequivocal in this. So, fellas, if you think we are harsh in our very balanced criticisms of KotCS, boy, you aint seen nothin!

"I have no spur to ***** the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition which overleaps itself and falls on the other side."

Macbeth

NB The censored word is rick prefixed with p and unfortunately this word in its harmless context has been singled out.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Mickiana said:
Yeah, Sankara. Sometimes I wonder what he's doing now. He was overly sensitive to any support of KotCS, ie he couldn't stand it. He was unequivocal in this. So, fellas, if you think we are harsh in our very balanced criticisms of KotCS, boy, you aint seen nothin!

If KOTCS gets any more popular I'll have to join the detractors. :rolleyes:

I wasn't here in the days of Sankara, so it might be fun to go back and read some of his posts.

Seriously, it's hardly worth bursting a blood vessel over, but making an argument for the unlikely is good for the little grey cells, as Poirot would say.

ResidentAlien, I like to think of you as a caged tiger, and every now then a kid comes along and pokes you through the bars with a stick. Then we get to see you roar, which is always good value for money. ;)

Mickiana said:
"I have no spur to ***** the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition which overleaps itself and falls on the other side."

Macbeth

NB The censored word is rick prefixed with p and unfortunately this word in its harmless context has been singled out.

Shakespeare was almost as filthy as Chaucer. :)
 

Peru1936

New member
Mickiana said:
"I have no spur to ***** the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition which overleaps itself and falls on the other side."

Macbeth

NB The censored word is rick prefixed with p and unfortunately this word in its harmless context has been singled out.

An unfortunate indication of the ignoble fear and lack of appreciation for language that's often seen on the net.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Mickiana said:
Yeah, Sankara. Sometimes I wonder what he's doing now.

I remember going on IMDB Indy IV boards, and there was a poster named 'Bruhn' that was as sensitive as Sankara about KOTCS and any support of it.

Then, I matched every post and rant he had with Sankara's posts on The Raven, and they were practically word for word. After Sankara got kicked off, Bruhn admitted being Sankara. But he informed me he's still on The Raven under a new name but keeps his Indy IV hate down a little.

I have a pretty good idea who he is now...:gun:

So that's what happened to Sankara.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
That's great. Sankara is still walking the halls of The Raven, or is that stalking? He definitely must have pulled his horns in, and improved his English! More power to him I say. Sankara, or whoever you are incarnated as now, I'm glad you are still here. I, for one, never wanted you to leave for whatever reason.

"Dressed in an opinion of wisdom...Merchant of Venice
A good heart's worth gold...Henry IV
He did question me, as an honest man should do, for my simple true judgement."...Much Ado About Nothing
 
Top