TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-07-2009, 11:55 AM   #51
deckard24
IndyFan
 
deckard24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDevo
There is at least one body on the ground after the jungle cutter explodes. Look for it as Spalko hands off the skull to Mac.

Which makes me realize Indy does indeed fire a weapon and kill a guy after all in this movie. There. Haters: you can finally stop hating

Of course, this guy could just be out of commission from all the vodka from the night previous...

In that situation, jungle floor does sound pretty tempting.

...who hasn't been there, right?
Thanks for the heads-up! I'll have to look for it... sometime, considering I'm in no real hurry to watch Skull anytime soon!
deckard24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2009, 01:29 PM   #52
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
I think it's only one possible answer, but it's food for thought at the very least. I don't know why you accept it as a possible answer though, when you've made it clear that you think Indy4 is more or less on the same level as the other movies with regard to violence.

Why wouldn’t I accept it as a possible answer? I’d like to think I’m open to any possible explanation. Besides, it’s not my answer… it was yours. Personally, I think they could have incorporated a jungle cutter fight scene that kept within the violence tolerance levels already established in the movie. Wether it would have worked, sadly, can only be conjecture at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
So where are the analogous moments in Indy4

I’m not sure whether that’s a rhetorical question or not… as I thought that’s what we were trying to understand e.g. why refrain/step back from gun play, but quite happily show someone being killed/eaten by ants?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
Wow, that's a pretty...interesting...view. Still, to each his own. If Indy4 fully satisfied you in the realm of violence, then I'm at least as envious as I am confused.

I’m confused… Which do believe is more graphically violent? Seeing a man engulfed in flames and burning to death? Or seeing someone’s death only as a reaction on someone else’s face i.e. Willie, and then a simple blood smear on a rock crusher? For me, it's a no brainer as to which is more graphically violent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
The reasons for omission, assuming there was an omission at all (which we have no evidence of), are completely unrelated to whether or not it was a missed opportunity, so I don't see where the "perhaps" comes into play.

Because a "missed opportunity" assumes that something would have been improved. With the greatest of respect, you don’t know that to be the case. For example, if the monkey scene hadn’t been included in the final cut, I would not have referred to it as “a missed opportunity”, but rather a narrow escape…

Perhaps “omission” is the wrong word in this case… Instead, was it an oversight (which I think we’d both agree would be lax on Spielberg/Lucas’ part) or was it an artistic decision not to incorporate the jungle cutter into a bigger set piece (rhetorical question)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
Did anyone say it was mis-sold? No one is accusing Spielberg, Lucas, or the marketing department of claiming something about the jungle cutter and delivering something else though. Not sure why you'd even bring that idea up.

“Mis-sold” was my terminology not yours. I was posing a rhetorical question for my own responce. But ultimately, like it or not, a filmmaker can’t mitigate against your or my assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
So, in other words, there's no excuse.

No excuse for what? Not including it in more action???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
I don't really care who commandeers it, or if anyone commandeers it. I'd be open to whatever the hell Spielberg would have felt like doing to put the jungle cutter to actual use. There's a million ideas, and each is as good as the other.

It was a suggestion of how it could have been incorporated, logically, to greater use. What’s wrong with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
I don't see how that changes anything or is a particularly important observation. Are we supposed to appreciate poor segments of a movie for what it attempted to do, or for what its influences are?

It was a simple observation that, similar to the main set piece in TLC, it was interwoven with fairly redundant moments of secondary action. When did we start chalking up rules for prioritizing the importance of observations? I'm not excusing it, I'm observing that it follows a similar template to the tank chase.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2009, 01:31 PM   #53
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
But it's Indy himself who's positioned as the mild distraction for the majority of the jungle chase.

I don't believe that to be the case (although I stand to be corrected).
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2009, 01:58 PM   #54
Insomniac
IndyFan
 
Insomniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In another dimension
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Magic Rat
I'm sorry, but that's BS and complete fan fiction.
Give me a good reason why Hasbro would make a vehicle for the action figure if was just supposed to be blow up?

Besides Hasbro screwed up the line!
Insomniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2009, 02:55 PM   #55
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Why wouldn’t I accept it as a possible answer? I’d like to think I’m open to any possible explanation. Besides, it’s not my answer… it was yours. Personally, I think they could have incorporated a jungle cutter fight scene that kept within the violence tolerance levels already established in the movie. Wether it would have worked, sadly, can only be conjecture at this point.

All I meant was that you've made it clear that in your mind Indy4 was more or less on the same level of violence as the other movies, yet you're willing to believe the possibility that Spielberg rejected an idea quite in line with the other movies on the basis of it being too violent for this movie. My point is, do you think Spielberg was holding back or not? I'm trying to figure out where you sit on this, because it sounds like you're trying to sit everywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I’m not sure whether that’s a rhetorical question or not… as I thought that’s what we were trying to understand e.g. why refrain/step back from gun play, but quite happily show someone being killed/eaten by ants?

It was not rhetorical. Like I just told you, Dovchenko's death is the equivalent of Colonel Vogel going off the cliff with the tank. So, where is Indy4's version of all the Nazi's who get offed along during the course of the tank chase? We had Indy killing three guys with one bullet, a guy who got crushed, a vehicle with Nazis in it that got crushed, a guy inside the tank who gets hit in the forehead by a ricocheting bullet... What did Indy4 have? The three guys who fell onto the ground when the duck went airborne? I really don't think I'm over analyzing it here - literally no one died in Indy4's centerpiece chase sequence. And if you count the ant sequence as the chase's climax, it's still only the one subordinate. There's nothing confusing about this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I’m confused… Which do believe is more graphically violent? Seeing a man engulfed in flames and burning to death? Or seeing someone’s death only as a reaction on someone else’s face i.e. Willie, and then a simple blood smear on a rock crusher? For me, it's a no brainer as to which is more graphically violent.

I don't know if your term for "graphically" violent requires on screen carnage (did the other movies ever really have that aside from the one moment in each movie, usually at the climax?), but I don't think it's even debatable who got the grislier demise. Which is a more unusual/bizarre way to go - getting fed through a rock crusher or being immolated? Seeing some writhing actors being torched by some CGI flames doesn't quite have the punch of a guy, even just implied, fed through a roller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Because a "missed opportunity" assumes that something would have been improved. With the greatest of respect, you don’t know that to be the case. For example, if the monkey scene hadn’t been included in the final cut, I would not have referred to it as “a missed opportunity”, but rather a narrow escape…

That you compare the monkey scene even conceptually to what's being suggested about the jungle cutter tells me that you and I are not on the same page. I also think that it's worth noting that your definition of "missed opportunity" in fact strictly denies the existence of missed opportunities, since they can't be "proven." If you want proof that something along the lines I'm talking about can work, simply look at all of the other Indiana Jones movies. If you want to argue something more specific than that, you're only arguing with yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Perhaps “omission” is the wrong word in this case… Instead, was it an oversight (which I think we’d both agree would be lax on Spielberg/Lucas’ part) or was it an artistic decision not to incorporate the jungle cutter into a bigger set piece (rhetorical question)?

Again, I really don't care about the "Why?" I only care about the result, and the effect that it had on the final movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
“Mis-sold” was my terminology not yours. I was posing a rhetorical question for my own responce. But ultimately, like it or not, a filmmaker can’t mitigate against your or my assumptions.

Not sure what you're arguing against here. Even if your rhetorical question wasn't directed at me, I think I'm still allowed to make comments on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
No excuse for what? Not including it in more action???

Correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
It was a suggestion of how it could have been incorporated, logically, to greater use. What’s wrong with that?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, last time I checked. I just want to make it abundantly clear that I'm not suggesting that there was one correct solution to the jungle cutter issue and that I know what it is. I just know that it was a pretty obviously oversight and one the Spielberg shouldn't have made, and that if he hadn't it would have resulted in a better set piece.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
It was a simple observation that, similar to the main set piece in TLC, it was interwoven with fairly redundant moments of secondary action. When did we start chalking up rules for prioritizing the importance of observations? I'm not excusing it, I'm observing that it follows a similar template to the tank chase.

But again, why make the observation, if the template is ultimately superficial and unimportant?
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2009, 05:10 PM   #56
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
All I meant was that you've made it clear that in your mind Indy4 was more or less on the same level of violence as the other movies, yet you're willing to believe the possibility that Spielberg rejected an idea quite in line with the other movies on the basis of it being too violent for this movie. My point is, do you think Spielberg was holding back or not? I'm trying to figure out where you sit on this, because it sounds like you're trying to sit everywhere.

Have I??? Please see below. Perhaps you should read the responces within your own thread…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I’ve been thinking about this one quite a bit, because we’ve been discussing some elements within other threads.

I think it’s a fair statement to say that KOTCS is probably less graphically violent that it’s predecessors.

If we are talking about generic violence/body count, then I do think Spielberg/Lucas took a conscious decision to step back from portraying that type of violence on screen. In a world where gun crime is common place (even in the UK), that decision is a brave and laudable step to take. At this stage, I’m not sure whether that decision ultimately hurts the movie, or makes it inferior to the others… but clearly it’s a risk, and clearly the notion that KOTCS is less violent than previous installments is a valid one.

I think I’ve been fairly consistent on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
It was not rhetorical. Like I just told you, Dovchenko's death is the equivalent of Colonel Vogel going off the cliff with the tank. So, where is Indy4's version of all the Nazi's who get offed along during the course of the tank chase? We had Indy killing three guys with one bullet, a guy who got crushed, a vehicle with Nazis in it that got crushed, a guy inside the tank who gets hit in the forehead by a ricocheting bullet... What did Indy4 have? The three guys who fell onto the ground when the duck went airborne? I really don't think I'm over analyzing it here - literally no one died in Indy4's centerpiece chase sequence. And if you count the ant sequence as the chase's climax, it's still only the one subordinate. There's nothing confusing about this.

Who said it was confusing? You made an observation… and I’m simply trying to understand the rationale behind what led to Lucas/Spielberg’s artistic decision, on which, your observation is based.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
I don't know if your term for "graphically" violent requires on screen carnage (did the other movies ever really have that aside from the one moment in each movie, usually at the climax?), but I don't think it's even debatable who got the grislier demise. Which is a more unusual/bizarre way to go - getting fed through a rock crusher or being immolated? Seeing some writhing actors being torched by some CGI flames doesn't quite have the punch of a guy, even just implied, fed through a roller.

I think they are fundamentally different. Implied violence versus graphic violence. If you believe implied violence is empirically the same as graphic, then it kind of undermines some of the observations… because I’d posit that KOTCS has more scenes of implied violence than it does explicit/graphic e.g. the U.S soldiers being killed at the airbase, Russians caught up in the atomic blast etc. I’d actually argue that the TOD example is probably a more clever use of editing/directing technique… but that in itself doesn’t make it more violent per se (as it's mostly implied).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
That you compare the monkey scene even conceptually to what's being suggested about the jungle cutter tells me that you and I are not on the same page. I also think that it's worth noting that your definition of "missed opportunity" in fact strictly denies the existence of missed opportunities, since they can't be "proven." If you want proof that something along the lines I'm talking about can work, simply look at all of the other Indiana Jones movies. If you want to argue something more specific than that, you're only arguing with yourself.

I’m arguing a principle. Your definition of a missed opportunity seems to be based on an assumption you hold… Personally, I don't believe every artistic choice to be a mistake, and I don't automatically assume that Lucas/Spileberg's decisions were wrong (although I happily acknowledge that the movie is far from perfect).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
Again, I really don't care about the "Why?" I only care about the result, and the effect that it had on the final movie.

I find that odd, as you know my feelings towards your level of over analysis and the granularity of understanding you seem to seek.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
Not sure what you're arguing against here. Even if your rhetorical question wasn't directed at me, I think I'm still allowed to make comments on it.

Of course you are allowed… and I’m glad you did. I wasn’t arguing against anything – I was simply stating that I was raising/and answering a question myself i.e. did they mis-sell/big up a set piece?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
Correct.

Well of course there could be a legitimate reason i.e. that, for whatever reason, they didn’t believe the jungle cutter worked. Ergo, they took an artistic decision to go in a different direction. That's not an excuse, it's an informed choice (if indeed it was ever made).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, last time I checked.

Fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
But again, why make the observation, if the template is ultimately superficial and unimportant?

That same question can be applied to a number of your observations my friend. I’d argue that it is relevant - because I believe (regardless of the elements that don’t work) that the tank chase is the best set piece of the series. I’m drawing comparisons, and that the sum of the parts ultimately make for a good set piece (regardless of shortfalls).
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2009, 05:26 PM   #57
The Man
IndyFan
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mola Ram School Of Cardiology
Posts: 5,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I don't believe that to be the case (although I stand to be corrected).

His brazen leap into the Commies' duck promised much, but once he'd taken them out and headlocked Mac, Indy remains sedentary. The action is focused mainly upon Mutt, Marion and Spalko.
The Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2009, 05:56 PM   #58
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Have I??? Please see below.

I'm familiar with your post (and still get a kick out of the "brave and laudable decision" part), but I'm also familiar with other posts you've made to the effect that you don't really agree with the notion that Indy4 is far removed from the original trilogy with regard to the level of violence. I just don't understand how those two viewpoints can be reconciled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Who said it was confusing? You made an observation… and I’m simply trying to understand the rationale behind what led to Lucas/Spielberg’s artistic decision, on which, your observation is based.

You used the eaten alive by ants death scene in Indy4 as an argument that Indy4 wasn't less inclined to violence in general so much as it was to "gun play." This still doesn't account for the fact that no Russian meets a fatal end at any point during the jungle chase. Not by gunshot, not by getting run over, not by falling off the cliff, not by being attacked by wild animals - nothing.

I understand that you and I are trying to figure out the same thing, I assure you. But you're slipping in some additional arguments that I'd care to address as well, that's all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I think they are fundamentally different. Implied violence versus graphic violence. If you believe implied violence is empirically the same as graphic, then it kind of undermines some of the observations… because I’d posit that KOTCS has more scenes of implied violence than it does explicit/graphic e.g. the U.S soldiers being killed at the airbase, Russians caught up in the atomic blast etc. I’d actually argue that the TOD example is probably a more clever use of editing/directing technique… but that in itself doesn’t make it more violent per se (as it's mostly implied).

It's "implied" I guess, but I don't know what makes it particularly clever editing/direction, because I don't know how much farther you could have expected them to go without going into totally gratuitous Hostel territory. I mean, were they actually supposed to show a loose shot of the Thuggee's body as it's being obliterated? Does that really even have a place in an Indiana Jones movie? The image of the Thuggee descending under the roller and the subsequent shot of the blood is still pretty "graphic" on some level. It's akin to the propeller scene in Raiders. The blood spattering all over the swastika is a graphic image (to the point where that shot is often removed when I catch the movie on TV), but I mean, should actually showing the guy get chopped up really have even been considered (even if it was in any way feasible from an effects standpoint)? Having soldiers bathed in CGI fire is just a fundamentally less cringe-inducing image. Part of what makes a lot of the deaths in the Indy movies grisly is the fact that they're unconventional, not the idea of death itself. Any death would be horrifying in real life, but in an escapist summer movie, people being abruptly burned alive is pretty standard business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I’m arguing a principle. Your definition of a missed opportunity seems to be based on an assumption you hold…

I wouldn't call it an assumption so much as an opinion, and a well-educated one I might add considering the back-up in the form of the first three movies. But that we're all arguing personal opinion here isn't really something we should even have to debate, is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Personally, I don't believe every artistic choice to be a mistake,

But I do, right? I mean, there would be no other reason for you to have typed that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
and I don't automatically assume that Lucas/Spileberg's decisions were wrong (although I happily acknowledge that the movie is far from perfect).

"Assume" is such a weird word to use here. I assert that their decision was wrong in the case of the jungle cutter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I find that odd, as you know my feelings towards your level of over analysis and the granularity of understanding you seem to seek.

I really don't know what your feelings are. Honestly, I always interpreted your previous references to my "over analysis and the granularity of understanding" as just you trying to be baiting/contrary when in a bind, especially since you never really attempted to explain why you thought that was the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Of course you are allowed… and I’m glad you did. I wasn’t arguing against anything – I was simply stating that I was raising/and answering a question myself i.e. did they mis-sell/big up a set piece?

Well, I think the way I'd put it is that by even putting such a vehicle in the movie, they set up an expectation that they failed to deliver on. Its lack of use as part of a set piece is particularly noticeable thanks to the fact that it doesn't even have a real use otherwise. Why is the jungle cutter in the movie? To illustrate a practical purpose (making a path through an unexplored jungle) that the movie instantly throws out the window anyway? Was it really just for that one gag of the spinning blade bouncing down the caravan? Why, really, was it in the movie? That is not the kind of question an audience member should have to ask.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Well of course there could be a legitimate reason i.e. that, for whatever reason, they didn’t believe the jungle cutter worked. Ergo, they took an artistic decision to go in a different direction. That's not an excuse, it's an informed choice (if indeed it was ever made).

Well where we obviously disagree is on the subject of whether or not there could have been a legitimate reason for including that vehicle and not including a real purpose for it. Since one could "of course" exist, do you mind giving a hypothetical example?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
That same question can be applied to a number of your observations my friend.

Instead of just saying that like the observations you're alluding to are obvious, why don't you simply point them out? And don't say it's because you don't want to open the door for petty bickering - that's exactly what the purpose of that sentence was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I’d argue that it is relevant - because I believe (regardless of the elements that don’t work) that the tank chase is the best set piece of the series. I’m drawing comparisons, and that the sum of the parts ultimately make for a good set piece (regardless of shortfalls).

What's the connection though? Saying that the "template" between the two set pieces are comparable and that the jungle chase is a good set piece by the sum of its parts are two totally rational, but completely separate, arguments. You're suggesting that the superficial similarities between the jungle chase and the tank chase implies some obvious conclusion about the quality of the jungle chase, and that's where you lose me.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 06:24 AM   #59
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
I'm familiar with your post (and still get a kick out of the "brave and laudable decision" part), but I'm also familiar with other posts you've made to the effect that you don't really agree with the notion that Indy4 is far removed from the original trilogy with regard to the level of violence. I just don't understand how those two viewpoints can be reconciled.

Yes - I don’t believe the violence in KOTCS is that far removed from the originals, and as you state… it’s not as if TOD was ‘Hostel’ right? That’s not to say that I don’t consider the violence in KOTCS to be toned down somewhat. What's irreconcilable about that? Not everything has to be so cut & dried.

As far as the “brave and laudable decision” statement is concerned. One can make a bold choice without it necessarily being the right choice. The fact that you get a “kick” out of that assertion makes me wonder if you ever had exposure to such choices/decisions…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
You used the eaten alive by ants death scene in Indy4 as an argument that Indy4 wasn't less inclined to violence in general so much as it was to "gun play." This still doesn't account for the fact that no Russian meets a fatal end at any point during the jungle chase. Not by gunshot, not by getting run over, not by falling off the cliff, not by being attacked by wild animals - nothing.

I refer to the tolerance levels within movie. Quite evidently, the fact that we see soldiers burning to death/being eaten by ant’s means that Lucas/Spielberg had determined a prerequisite tolerance level for graphic violence. The notion that there is less death count on screen, underlines what the tolerance level was probably set at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
It's "implied" I guess, but I don't know what makes it particularly clever editing/direction, because I don't know how much farther you could have expected them to go without going into totally gratuitous Hostel territory.

It’s clever, I suppose, because it managed to convince you that it’s “graphic” without there being any real substance to it i.e. it’s an illusion. Seeing Belloq’s head explode, I’d argue is graphic… as is Donovan withering away with age, as is someone burring to death on screen (even if only fleeting). Think of the difference between Janet Leigh’s demise (Psycho) and Kevin Bacons demise (Friday the 13th). If we can’t distinguish between the two, then I’m not sure how we can progress this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
I wouldn't call it an assumption so much as an opinion, and a well-educated one I might add considering the back-up in the form of the first three movies. But that we're all arguing personal opinion here isn't really something we should even have to debate, is it?

An assumption is supposition (no matter how well educated it may be)… an opinion is a judgment. One can demonstrate that KOTCS is inferior/superior based upon what is there on screen. One cannot really demonstrate that KOTCS is inferior/superior based upon what is not there…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
But I do, right? I mean, there would be no other reason for you to have typed that.

My perception is that you believe Spielberg/Lucas made bad judgments/artistic choices across the board… be it in the choice of lighting, the amount of gore/violence, screenplay, dialogue, action, visual effects etc. etc. Have I misread your posts???. Have I got you wrong all this time???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
I really don't know what your feelings are. Honestly, I always interpreted your previous references to my "over analysis and the granularity of understanding" as just you trying to be baiting/contrary when in a bind, especially since you never really attempted to explain why you thought that was the case.

Hmmm - I thought my views were clear and established. I believe you over analyze to find fault, rather than to find explanations for artistic choices. Furthermore, I believe you sometimes over analyze and over critique to bait and create argument where it isn't required. I’m quite happy to play the game, and I find most of the conversations interesting and the disagreements amusing… but please don’t pretend to have some higher moral ground.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
Well, I think the way I'd put it is that by even putting such a vehicle in the movie, they set up an expectation that they failed to deliver on. Its lack of use as part of a set piece is particularly noticeable thanks to the fact that it doesn't even have a real use otherwise. Why is the jungle cutter in the movie?

I’m not sure this was something we ever disagreed on i.e. the why??? I think what we were debating was the how… as in how significant is it to the scene? How could it's increased significance have improved the scene etc?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
Well where we obviously disagree is on the subject of whether or not there could have been a legitimate reason for including that vehicle and not including a real purpose for it. Since one could "of course" exist, do you mind giving a hypothetical example?

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I’m taking about a potential legitimate reason for reducing/cutting its significance in the movie. Again, I think we’re both in agreement that its inclusion suggests more than what time it’s actually given.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
Instead of just saying that like the observations you're alluding to are obvious, why don't you simply point them out? And don't say it's because you don't want to open the door for petty bickering - that's exactly what the purpose of that sentence was.

I’m not sure what you are asking for here. Do you want me to list your observations that I believe to be irrelevant/unimportant? I’m not sure how productive that would be…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
What's the connection though? Saying that the "template" between the two set pieces are comparable and that the jungle chase is a good set piece by the sum of its parts are two totally rational, but completely separate, arguments. You're suggesting that the superficial similarities between the jungle chase and the tank chase implies some obvious conclusion about the quality of the jungle chase, and that's where you lose me.

I’m giving an opinion and making an observation… That similar to the tank chase in TLC, the weaker elements within the jungle chase don’t necessarily undermine the actual set piece (when viewed in context). I’d sooner not have to see Mutt get his gonads bashed by jungle foliage (and I believe it to be a misjudged choice)… but similar to Marcus/Henry Jones Senior rumbling with Nazi’s; it doesn’t really impact my overall enjoyment.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 04:45 PM   #60
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Yes - I don’t believe the violence in KOTCS is that far removed from the originals, and as you state… it’s not as if TOD was ‘Hostel’ right? That’s not to say that I don’t consider the violence in KOTCS to be toned down somewhat. What's irreconcilable about that? Not everything has to be so cut & dried.

No, not everything, but if the violence in Indy4 was noticeably "toned down" in both your and my view compared to the original trilogy, how then can we disagree so vehemently on the "far removed" part? What it tells me is that we obviously disagree on how much Indy4 is toned down. To me, being noticeably toned down from the trilogy sets Indy4 apart in significant way, simply by virtue of the fact that it effectively excludes an element that every other installment in its franchise includes. That is irreconcilable with the idea that the violence is not far removed from the original trilogy. If you think that the final movie itself is not far removed from the trilogy despite the violence disparity, then that's different, but talking specifically about violence you seem to be occupying two sides of an argument, when you can only be on one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
As far as the “brave and laudable decision” statement is concerned. One can make a bold choice without it necessarily being the right choice. The fact that you get a “kick” out of that assertion makes me wonder if you ever had exposure to such choices/decisions…

Wow, you never miss an opportunity to be condescending, I'll give you that.

I'll ask you this: Is an Indiana Jones movie really the right place to be making statements about gun control? Keep that stuff where it belongs - outside of my escapism. I'd argue that if you're not willing to make an Indiana Jones movie that has the fundamental elements of all the other Indiana Jones movies...then you're simply not willing to make an Indiana Jones movie.

I'd also love to know what, to you, makes Spielberg's decision to minimize the deaths by bullets "laudable," especially considering the place he's electing to make this statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I refer to the tolerance levels within movie. Quite evidently, the fact that we see soldiers burning to death/being eaten by ant’s means that Lucas/Spielberg had determined a prerequisite tolerance level for graphic violence. The notion that there is less death count on screen, underlines what the tolerance level was probably set at.

I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
It’s clever, I suppose, because it managed to convince you that it’s “graphic” without there being any real substance to it i.e. it’s an illusion.

News flash: All of cinema is an illusion. The fact that we aren't given the unnecessarily gory details of Pat Roach's various fates does not somehow make the violence "implied" instead of graphic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Seeing Belloq’s head explode, I’d argue is graphic… as is Donovan withering away with age, as is someone burring to death on screen (even if only fleeting). Think of the difference between Janet Leigh’s demise (Psycho) and Kevin Bacons demise (Friday the 13th). If we can’t distinguish between the two, then I’m not sure how we can progress this point.

Holy jumping Mother of God in a sidecar with chocolate jimmies and a lobster bib, talk about addressing an argument that never existed until you made it up. Does the fact that the graphic violence in an Indiana Jones movie is portrayed differently than would be the case in an R-rated slasher movie (which otherwise has identical sensibilities, right?) somehow change the fact that it's graphic violence? To you it would, I guess, but those of us on Earth don't see it that way. Showing a guy descending into a rock crusher and showing large amounts of blood splatter against a swastika is very much "graphic violence," as it is in fact shown on-screen.

It's the same reason I'd argue that Psycho's shower scene is graphic violence too (and people surely saw it as such back then) - it is the onscreen depiction of a woman being stabbed to death. The fact that the knife never seems to connect with Janet Leigh (or her nude double) upon closer inspection isn't relevant. That Hitchcock's clever direction, editing, and use of sound effects causes us to think we've seen more than we did doesn't somehow make the violence "implied." It's like me saying that the actors playing the Russians weren't really set on fire, or that Ronald Lacey wasn't actually melted in front of a camera. If the notion that these deaths are "illusions" is a revelation or breakthrough, I'm afraid you're the only one just experiencing it.

And the argument about the graphic violence in the Indy movies and Psycho being handled with more taste/tact/cleverness than Friday the 13th belongs to an argument of which I'm not a participant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
An assumption is supposition (no matter how well educated it may be)… an opinion is a judgment. One can demonstrate that KOTCS is inferior/superior based upon what is there on screen. One cannot really demonstrate that KOTCS is inferior/superior based upon what is not there…

Sure you can, if what's not there is established by the three preceding movies to be indisposable elements of the Indiana Jones franchise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
My perception is that you believe Spielberg/Lucas made bad judgments/artistic choices across the board… be it in the choice of lighting, the amount of gore/violence, screenplay, dialogue, action, visual effects etc. etc. Have I misread your posts???. Have I got you wrong all this time???

Which is, of course, exactly the same as implying that I condemn "every artistic choice of being a mistake." I think what you said speaks for itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Hmmm - I thought my views were clear and established. I believe you over analyze to find fault, rather than to find explanations for artistic choices. Furthermore, I believe you sometimes over analyze and over critique to bait and create argument where it isn't required.

And let me just help you out by telling you that you're completely wrong, and that there's no shame in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I’m quite happy to play the game, and I find most of the conversations interesting and the disagreements amusing… but please don’t pretend to have some higher moral ground.

Well, since you said "please," I'll stop. Oh wait, I never started, and it's just another characteristic of personal hostility you've attributed to me and cannot be talked out of, or even explain. Convenient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I’m not sure this was something we ever disagreed on i.e. the why??? I think what we were debating was the how… as in how significant is it to the scene? How could it's increased significance have improved the scene etc?

It would have improved the scene for the reason the both of us have stated - it would have delivered on an idea that the scene implied would be by the very existence of the vehicle. If you don't want to do anything with the jungle cutter, don't have it. Problem solved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I think we are talking at cross purposes. I’m taking about a potential legitimate reason for reducing/cutting its significance in the movie. Again, I think we’re both in agreement that its inclusion suggests more than what time it’s actually given.

As am I. What I'm trying to tell you is that I can't think of a legitimate reason, yet you suggested you can, since you've brought up the notion more than once. I'm asking you to give me an example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I’m not sure what you are asking for here. Do you want me to list your observations that I believe to be irrelevant/unimportant? I’m not sure how productive that would be…

And why, pray tell, would they be unproductive to list? Wouldn't they presumably illustrate how supposedly pointless a substantial portion of my posts are, if not to me than to everyone else reading? And if it's unproductive, why even make the remark you did, which you knew at the very least would lead to the result you're reading right now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I’m giving an opinion and making an observation… That similar to the tank chase in TLC, the weaker elements within the jungle chase don’t necessarily undermine the actual set piece (when viewed in context). I’d sooner not have to see Mutt get his gonads bashed by jungle foliage (and I believe it to be a misjudged choice)… but similar to Marcus/Henry Jones Senior rumbling with Nazi’s; it doesn’t really impact my overall enjoyment.

And I maintain that this observation is pointless, as it fails to take into account the overall quality of the scene. Is the Marcus/Henry stuff as misguided as the ball-smacking? If everything around those moments in their respective set pieces equally entertaining? You would have to voice your opinion on that stuff as well for the argument to mean anything more than "I noticed this."
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 09:34 PM   #61
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,882
You guys/gals need to go out and get married immeditely!
Get some pot stickers or whatever they serve at TGI's and make nice!

I love a fight but WOW, there's just too much...

Crystal Skull was week because there was no real danger...I mean could a group that infiltrated a US Gov Top Secret Base that held THE Ark of the Covenant be as bad with automatic weapons as the A-Team?

I have better aim with Nerf Guns!

Spalco sucked because all she did was talk. The sword was a nice affectation, wow Mutt got his very own scar!

Weak! The Ant's had great potential but never delivered...crawling in his mouth was creepy at best!

The first ten minutes of Raiders had three dead bodies! Crystal Skull was powder puff!
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 09:38 PM   #62
EvilDevo
IndyFan
 
EvilDevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckard24
Thanks for the heads-up! I'll have to look for it... sometime, considering I'm in no real hurry to watch Skull anytime soon!

Deckard, you watch it yet? Scene select if you really need to avoid the movie, just watch it! I need to prove somebody wrong today.

(Read as: for once in my life)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
The first ten minutes of Raiders had three dead bodies! Crystal Skull was powder puff!

Skull had 4. Skull FTW.
EvilDevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 10:10 PM   #63
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDevo
Deckard, you watch it yet? Scene select if you really need to avoid the movie, just watch it! I need to prove somebody wrong today.

(Read as: for once in my life)



Skull had 4. Skull FTW.

Yeah, those flaming q-tips, sorry, ruskies were way more graphic than a decomposing corpse impaled on spikes slow turning into camera close up!

You are right there were 4, but then I started thinking, what did Spielberg do to get Raiders from an R rating to PG. He set Belloq on fire!

Skull was POWDER PUFF! ESAD
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 10:17 PM   #64
EvilDevo
IndyFan
 
EvilDevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 492
I was talking about the American guards... "Sorry gentlemen."
I think there was four of them.

Anyway... yes, yes I know. Raiders is vastly superior in terms of, well, everything.
EvilDevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 10:39 PM   #65
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDevo
I was talking about the American guards... "Sorry gentlemen."
I think there was four of them.

Anyway... yes, yes I know. Raiders is vastly superior in terms of, well, everything.

Geez, now we've upped the ante! crap! That makes 8!

Now I got to make the obligitory "faceless victim" argument...

All you see are a couple of bodies being dragged, the cringe factor is...

ah screw it!

I'll get you next time!
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2009, 10:59 PM   #66
EvilDevo
IndyFan
 
EvilDevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 492
To be fair, the rocket sled roastees probably happen much later than ten minutes into the movie... but I'll still gladly accept the win
EvilDevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 02:59 AM   #67
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
No, not everything, but if the violence in Indy4 was noticeably "toned down" in both your and my view compared to the original trilogy, how then can we disagree so vehemently on the "far removed" part? What it tells me is that we obviously disagree on how much Indy4 is toned down. To me, being noticeably toned down from the trilogy sets Indy4 apart in significant way, simply by virtue of the fact that it effectively excludes an element that every other installment in its franchise includes. That is irreconcilable with the idea that the violence is not far removed from the original trilogy. If you think that the final movie itself is not far removed from the trilogy despite the violence disparity, then that's different, but talking specifically about violence you seem to be occupying two sides of an argument, when you can only be on one.

Yawn… This is exactly what I mean by you creating arguments where no argument is required, and where you over analyze simply to bait and critize rather than to enlighten. Please remind me… What clasification/raiting are the Indiana Jones movies? Was KOTCS a U classification? Was TLC an 18??? Or are they broadly defined by a similar classification?
Think of it as a metric ruler broken up into inches, centimeters and millimeters. Violence wise, Indiana Jones falls within the 2nd quarter of that measuring device… and within that quarter, the violence can sit within an inch, centimeter or millimeter of each other. Ergo, the violence can be separated by various degrees, but they still sit within the same section of the measuring device.

In this world you inhabit where everything is so extreme/black and white and absolute, it’s difficult to hold an objective debate without it yet again becoming a pis*ing contest… on this specific point, or any of your previous.

I could go on point for point, but at this stage it seems largely unconstructive. Therefore I'll refrain. It's a real shame.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2009, 08:42 AM   #68
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDevo
To be fair, the rocket sled roastees probably happen much later than ten minutes into the movie... but I'll still gladly accept the win

I'm sure you would...

Skull is Power Puff
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2009, 01:46 PM   #69
oki9Sedo
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,181
Crystal Skull is less violent than Last Crusade. Last Crusade was less violent than Temple of Doom. Temple of Doom was less violent than Raiders.

They got progressively less violent as they went along. However, they only got slightly less violent each time. They're all within the same range.
oki9Sedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2009, 01:48 PM   #70
Insomniac
IndyFan
 
Insomniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In another dimension
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by kongisking

**** us fans. We're a bunch of cruel, unappreciative bastards with no hearts. Our idols try to give back to the people that made their movies hits in the first place, and we reply with a big whopping F-YOU. We are mean, hurtful, unfair and have NO RIGHT to give judgement on a film like KOTCS or the Star Wars Prequels. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

But the saddest thing here is that everything I have typed here is just going to be ignored and ridiculed and teased, while you asswipes refuse to listen to reason and continue to drown in your hatred and condemn Spielberg and Lucas for the rest of your days without even thinking of just how mean you are being. A true fan would LOVE KOTCS and the Prequels, not strangle them to death!!!!!!!

Screw you all! I don't care if I'm permanently kicked out by the moderators. I will NOT just stand back and watch as this terrible unfairness continues. If no one will stand up for KOTCS, then I WILL UNTIL I DIE, DAMMIT!!!!!!

You guys disgust me. Rot in hell, you selfish monsters.
KONG IS KING!!!Hit the nail right on the head!
Insomniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2009, 01:52 PM   #71
Jorbex
IndyFan
 
Jorbex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mexico
Posts: 113
Okay, so I have not read through five pages of posts, but could someone tell me what this flame war has to do with the Jungle Cutter?
Jorbex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2009, 01:58 PM   #72
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorbex
Okay, so I have not read through five pages of posts, but could someone tell me what this flame war has to do with the Jungle Cutter?

Which flame war? The discussions between Darth Vile and Udvarnoky are just about the best thing here these days. There's a lot in them that can be passed over, sure, but they're the deepest engagement we're seeing with anything about this films on the forums today.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2009, 02:19 PM   #73
Jorbex
IndyFan
 
Jorbex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mexico
Posts: 113
Well, I guess this last few posts must not be representative of the whole then. My apologies.
Jorbex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2009, 05:31 PM   #74
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorbex
Well, I guess this last few posts must not be representative of the whole then. My apologies.

To be fair, there have been others who have not, shall we say, been aspiring to the same level of discussion. You'd not be faulted, really, for thinking as you did, in some bits of this, I'd say.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2009, 03:07 PM   #75
kongisking
IndyFan
 
kongisking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Skull Island
Posts: 3,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insomniac
KONG IS KING!!!Hit the nail right on the head!

Thank you very much. I'm glad somebody agrees with me...No, really, I appreciate your support. Thanks, Insomniac!
kongisking is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:54 AM.