Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
That’s not correct. You are bending the truth for your own ends. You asked for my reasons as to why I believe KOTCS better develops Indy’s character. I gave them, and you just keep refuting them ad infinitum.
|
That's unfair. You started your argument by saying that Indy4 had "certainly" more character development than the first two films, and went on to back up that assertion by saying that the character undergoes an evolution that spans all four movies. There's nothing untrue about the latter argument in my opinion, but it is not evidence of the former. I kept refuting you because you changed your argument, and acted as though it was the same all along. I mean, just read our earlier posts!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
So I understand that. But I’m pretty sure there isn’t a movie making law that states… too many plot conveniences and coincidences negate character development. Therefore, I don’t think it’s valid criticism at this point.
|
I had a feeling you wouldn't, but I went ahead and stated it anyway. The reason I feel the handling of the Ox-Marion-Mutt-Indy relationship is indeed extremely relevant to character development is that Indy having a son is a big effing deal in his story arc. The fact that it comes about through the wacky circumstances that Indy4 presents very much compromises the effect it otherwise may have had for me. So yes, in this case I do indeed that bad writing negates, or at least damages, character development.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Again I think your argument is undermined by its contradictory nature. If the above statement were a valid criticism, it should also apply to Henry Jones Senior. Playing by your rules, because Henry Jones Senior is not mentioned in the earlier movies, his character must be ill conceived and badly implemented. I certainly don’t believe that to be the case (although the casting of Sean Connery is hugely contrived).
|
It might be contradictory if Ox and Henry Sr. in any way played the same role in both films. Last Crusade was specifically about Indy's relationship with his father. Mutt, Ox, and Marion are all pretty damn major characters and they're all introduced around the same time. In Indy4, Professor Oxley is merely one piece of an overly complicated puzzle. To me Indy4 is like if in Last Crusade after we meet Henry Sr. for the first time, we also meet Indy's long lost brother
and uncle oh and his uncle is close personal friends with his old flame and he just wasn't aware of thatwouldn'tyouknow.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Why is it so crucial that you must know that level of detail for a bloody Indiana Jones movie??? The other movies certainly don’t go into the minutia of Abner Ravenwood’s history, or when and where Marion and Indy first got it together. You just accept it for what it is. I think you are making it way more complex than it needs to be.
|
Because the character of Indy's son is, like you keep saying, a profoundly important development in Indy's life, the backstory behind it should make more sense than the logic of the movie presents to us. That's in a whole different ballpark than, say, complaining about how the Hovito booby traps worked, or questioning why 99% of the letter stones in the Word of God trial were unbroken. Those are the kind of questions that, yeah, you really aren't supposed to ask in this kind of movie. But then you introduce offspring for Indiana Jones (something they did not have to do), well, that comes with the responsibility of handling it reasonably well. I really don't see why in your mind it's not OK and crossing some line to question the logistics behind Indy's kid, I just don't.
And again, I don't really see how Abner's history is comparable, unless you're suggesting that Abner "presence" was equivalent or nearly so to that of Oxley's purpose in Indy4.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I don’t think it such a leap of logic to assume that a university friend of Indiana Jones would/could have the same career i.e. archaeologist/historian. Archeology is after all a vocational course to study is it not?
|
Well, you were able to reconcile with
one coincidence out of about 10.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I agree it’s a plot device (it’s not rocket science to work that out). But I don’t see how it’s “sloppy” based on what you present.
|
No one needed a crystal ball to predict that. I don't need you to believe that it's sloppy though, so no worries there. I just needed you to see where I was coming from.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Why would you make that claim? Indiana Jones was not played as a pernicious character in TOD or any other movie. If he had been an evil/insidious character at the start of TOD, I may agree with you that TOD contained the best character development. But he wasn’t.
|
First of all, pernicious does not necessarily mean evil/insidious - the head-slappingly obvious point I was alluding to in my response. Second of all, the fact that having Indy being evil at Temple's start would have turned the movie into the best example of character development for Indy in your mind is very eye-opening, and makes everything you've previously said about subtlety worth re-evaluating.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
So again, whilst going into great depth on how you think KOTCS falls short, you validate TOD with a mere couple of paragraphs like it’s a given. Whilst what you state above may be true (from a certain point of view), it’s mostly inferred. It’s certainly not that evident in the dialogue (something that you often take KOTCS to task over).
|
"Validate?" Is this conversation not about Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? I love how you view my preference for Temple of Doom as some kind of "Aha, gotcha!" point, when I've made no secret as how I rank the films. If I had the problems with Temple that I have with Indy4, I'd be discussing them in the exact same way. But I don't, and so you're right, in my mind it is a "given" that Temple is superior, but I'd be happy to discuss
why I feel that way if that's really what you want, but it's the first time you've brought it up! I mean, it'd be one thing if you were actually comparing specifics of Temple to Indy4, but you're not, you're saying, "Your invalidating Indy4 by the same criteria that you're validating Temple!" but without actually saying
how I'm supposedly doing that, so what do you expect me to say?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, and this is the second time in two threads you've done this. If you want to talk about the flaws of Temple of Doom, start a thread about it, and we can yak on there. But don't suddenly act like the defense of Temple of Doom was what this whole discussion was secretly about!
And yeah, Indy's pivotal moment in Temple
is only inferred - that's what makes it powerful. Ever hear of the writing mantra "Show, don't tell?" Indy4 ain't a subscriber. But if you really think that lines of dialogue are required to hammer a movie's theme home, then it's not surprising that Indy4 worked so well for you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
With all due respect, what the f*ck are you going on about? It’s you who asks for validation of every comment and opinion if it doesn’t align with yours. And I don’t sense that is borne out of wanting to understand, but rather as a reason to challenge. This is of course all fine with me, but please don’t try and present yourself as a simple man just expressing an opinion. We know better than that.
|
Dude, what kind of reaction do you expect when you shoot down an
opinion on the basis that it isn't a
fact? If we were arguing over fact,
we wouldn't be having an argument. And frankly, I'm sick and tired of every conversation I have with you devolving into, "Well you know this is all just opinion, so what difference doesn't it make."
I'm asking for validation of every comment and opinion that doesn't align with mine? What I'm asking for is for you to explain your opinion in a way that makes sense. If you want to view that as plain old contrariness, then, well. You gotta believe what you gotta believe, I guess.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Again I have to call you out on it. Where is it written that Indy’s intention was to stick Willie if Lau Che didn’t pay up? Isn’t it more in keeping with his character if it was simply a desperate bluff? Why is it obvious to you that he was quite willing to kill Willie, but he was only pretending with Elsa???
|
When did I ever say or imply that Indy was going to kill Willie if Che didn't turn over the diamond? (Hint: Che
doesn't turn over the diamond in the actual movie, so that question is already answered.) It's absolutely a desperate bluff on Indy's part, making this a classic example of you seeing an argument you want to see rather than what's actually there.
What I did say was that Indy was willing to threaten an innocent woman at the beginning of Temple of Doom - because he did - and that's something that, in addition to other things, shows him as a different character than at the end of that movie or anywhere in the other movies. At least, I don't remember him jamming a fork into random ladies in the other films.
