Eh. I still feel like the aliens are a distraction from what was actually wrong with the film. (Alien-hater is probably a more interesting line of distinction for Stoo's capsule summaries than Mutt-hater, really; I find it hard to muster up strong feelings in either direction about Shia's work.)
Agreed - I thought the crystal skull was a good mcguffin and had no problem with aliens being involved (although I would have prefered a more subtle approach for sure i.e. we didn't have to see em). The issues for me have always been around the direction, the stylistic choices made and the concept of an older Indiana Jones. Sure, KOTCS doesn't have the greatest script in the world, but TOD seemed to get on fine wihout one. Proof of the fact that if you get some great direction of action going on, you can excuse a lot of things. And TOD was a great action movie if nothing else.
Arguably, you could drop Mutt or Marion in addition to Ox. You could completely get away with this if you sufficiently develop Mac, whom we agree was rife with potential. (Seriously, how do you supply the movie with a guy who fought alongside Indy in WWII played by Ray Winstone and NOT exploit him?)
Mac was a criminally under-developed character. There seemed to be little real connection between himself and Indy, and therefore little surprise each time he shifts allegiance. It would have upped the ante if that character had been Remy Baudouin - though sadly it couldn't have been played by Ronny Coutteure. It would have added a personality that at least some fans would have had knowledge of, and the surprise of allegiance shift would have been much greater. As would be the reasons why he was forced to double cross his friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
You would also have to modify the impetus for Indy going to Peru in the first place, but there's a hundred fine ways to do this that don't involve inventing a character who is all of the following at the same time:
1) Old college friend of Indy
2) Expert on crystal skulls
3) Student of Abner Ravenwood
4) Foster father of Mutt
5) Someone who is all of the above without us ever knowing about him because he "stopped talking" to Indy after Marion got jilted
Perhaps you could let Indy go ahead to London as he was planning to and see what he finds there? Perhaps you could really play up the government paranoia angle and have Indy literally chased into Peru?
One major problem with the story was Indy being forced along a route against his will. Some pro-active scenes of his investigation and enquiries, which gradually unravel the plot would have both injected more supsense and given Indy more of a controlling role.
EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
Indy's trying to talk Willie through pulling the release lever out while screaming at her to shut up, consoling Shorty, and trying to brace the spikes with something on his side. The suspense/entertainment has as much to do with how the characters involved are reacting to the danger as it does the danger itself. In the waterfalls scene, where were the frantic attempts to paddle to shore or Indy successfully securing them to a trunk before a bunch of crocodiles/piranhas gum up the works?
Just read this addition to your post. It ties into my last point about suspense. One waterfall plus another danger would have ramped up the scene, rather than simply having three falls to outdo any other waterfall scene in a movie. Even though we know that Indy will survive, we could always be on edge as to whether his companions will also survive (but for that to work, they needed to be companions in whom we invest some level of concern).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Agreed - I thought the crystal skull was a good mcguffin and had no problem with aliens being involved (although I would have prefered a more subtle approach for sure i.e. we didn't have to see em). The issues for me have always been around the direction, the stylistic choices made and the concept of an older Indiana Jones. Sure, KOTCS doesn't have the greatest script in the world, but TOD seemed to get on fine wihout one. Proof of the fact that if you get some great direction of action going on, you can excuse a lot of things. And TOD was a great action movie if nothing else.
There's something in everything you wrote, Darth. Handling and choices play a big part. And the handling seemed to affect the relationships between the characters (and the actors) in KOTCS. The odd party of Indy, Willie and Shorty created a dynamic of antagonism throughout TOD, and the adventure they were on was a truly threatening one, with a legitimate villain. Indy was also making crucial choices. By contrast I didn't feel much for the party in KOTCS, or the situations that supposedly threatened them.
Last edited by Montana Smith : 10-27-2011 at 08:26 AM.
I have to say that I am extremely interested in the crystal skulls (in real life) and when I heard it would be the plot of the fourth Indy, I was psyched because I thought we'd get something worth while that would really flesh out and delve into the mythology of them, but what we ended up with really wasn't even worth while at all. It was a pretty big letdown. If anything, I've lost interst in crytal skulls. (Whereas my interest for the Ark is still really high)
I have to say that I am extremely interested in the crystal skulls (in real life) and when I heard it would be the plot of the fourth Indy, I was psyched because I thought we'd get something worth while that would really flesh out and delve into the mythology of them, but what we ended up with really wasn't even worth while at all. It was a pretty big letdown. If anything, I've lost interst in crytal skulls. (Whereas my interest for the Ark is still really high)
Disappointing insofar as the skull in the story wasn't revealed as a fraud?
What the fuck was it? A see through skull? Why? How come it could it make ants avoid Indy when he's having a scrap? How come putting it in a bag made it stop working? Why couldn't it just order one of those monkeys to take it home?
What the fuck was it? A see through skull? Why? How come it could it make ants avoid Indy when he's having a scrap? How come putting it in a bag made it stop working? Why couldn't it just order one of those monkeys to take it home?
What a load of bollocks.
That's not much of a criticism replicant... unless you have the same issue with the Ark i.e. how come you're ok if it's got its lid on??? Were the angels hiding in the Ark all the time? And if so, didn't they get bored waiting in there for centuries without TV or 3G phones? Etc. etc.
The McGuffin is as good as the storytelling, period. The idea that there's any implicit strength/weakness to the object itself is silly to me.
While that's true to an extent, it's also true that different artifacts leave open different storytelling possibilities. This is most clearly true in all of the resonances they wrung out of having the Grail in Last Crusade.
Now, I'd argue that the film that did the most with its MacGuffin for thematic purposes and motifs, after Crusade, is Crystal Skull. But it's not absurd to claim that Raiders is a better film than Crystal Skull while nevertheless claiming that the Ark could have more easily been stood in for by another artifact of equivalent stature and notoriety than the Skull could have. Indeed, such a recognition could serve to mount a defense of your own position from an angle suggesting that MacGuffin madness is one of the more absurd pieces of both our own conversations and the thought processes of Lucas and his collaborators.
While that's true to an extent, it's also true that different artifacts leave open different storytelling possibilities. This is most clearly true in all of the resonances they wrung out of having the Grail in Last Crusade.
But that resonance was conjured by the storytellers, not the Grail itself. That different artifacts imply different storytelling possbilities doesn't change the fact that the possibilities are always there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
Now, I'd argue that the film that did the most with its MacGuffin for thematic purposes and motifs, after Crusade, is Crystal Skull. But it's not absurd to claim that Raiders is a better film than Crystal Skull while nevertheless claiming that the Ark could have more easily been stood in for by another artifact of equivalent stature and notoriety than the Skull could have.
To what use was the crystal skull's stature and notoriety put that it could not have been replaced? Whether the artifact has a real world equivalent or is product of someone's imagination (as the Sankara stones were), the mythology behind them is always a work of originality, so the relevance of it being familiar to the public doesn't really go beyond being a superficial hook. To be sure, real world history and legends are entwined with the make believe in constructing the artifact's backstory - that's one of the most enjoyable aspects of all the Indiana Jones films - but it's not like changing the crystal skull to the jade pectoral would have precluded that.
Obviously, I'm playing devil's advocate here - I would not have switched the crystal skull out with another artifact. It's a cool, somewhat well known diety carving that should have worked wonderfully with the movie's story. But I think it's pretty clear that whatever implicit merit that any given artifact supposedly packs is negligible against what the writers actually do with it. There's thematic relevance with the grail to the father/son story, but it still took a competent writer(s) to make it resonate.
As you suggest, the ark of the convenant itself probably wasn't important to a lot of people outside the context of the movie. The movie made it important and compelling. That's Kasdan, Spielberg and Lucas who summoned the intrigue - the golden box with the cherubs on it was nothing more than a tool. What's that expression about a poor carpenter?
There were a number of intriguing ideas associated with the skull, but ideas are worthless if they're not corralled into something with more focus than Indy4 proffers. While I'm no fan of his attitude, replican't's underlying point that the skull became an all-purpose conflict resolver is valid. Yeah, you can get away with just deciding to let the crystal skull repel ants, scare away killer natives and open chambers, but in addition to such laziness robbing those problems of more inventive and character driven solutions, it also serves to devalue the skull as an interesting artifact, because it makes its "rules" feel improvised. There's a point where skull stops being nebulous in the sense of "This is cool and mysterious!" and becomes, "Wow, they never did actually figure out what they wanted to do with this, did they?" Darth, justifying that laziness by pointing out that no one raises believability issues with the ark's powers is a false premise - it is not an issue of suspending disbelief, and the ark is not put to comparable use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
Indeed, such a recognition could serve to mount a defense of your own position from an angle suggesting that MacGuffin madness is one of the more absurd pieces of both our own conversations and the thought processes of Lucas and his collaborators.
I agree with this part. The importance that Lucas assigns to simply "finding the right McGuffin" if various interviews are anything to go by doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Whether the artifact has a real world equivalent or is product of someone's imagination (as the Sankara stones were), the mythology behind them is always a work of originality, so the relevance of it being familiar to the public doesn't really go beyond being a superficial hook.
The Sankara Stones were based on the Lingam, to which Lucas et al added a mythology, just as they added to the opening of the Ark.
The Skull diverges from the previous three films in that it's based on a much more recent phenomena: historical revisionism via ancient aliens. To the western world it's quite possible that aliens and skulls have more resonance than the Lingam. Yet the latter has more of mythological feel to it. KOTCS moves Indy from the realms of fantasy into that of science fiction. That can be unsettling unless you buy into the weird nature of his world (which made itself felt more strongly in some of the earlier comic tales).
But in the context of a discussion that ponders the exploitation of an artifact's "stature and notoriety," changing the name is as good as making it up.
But in the context of a discussion that ponders the exploitation of an artifact's "stature and notoriety," changing the name is as good as making it up.
They didn't change the name. They were referred to as "sivalinga" in the film.
The Ark and the Grail may be more 'notorious' to Christians, Jews and Moslems, but TOD set the standard that not every Indy movie would have an artifact of the stature of the Ark.
I've written before that Lucas could mythologize Thor's toothbrush, but it would still be an Indy movie. The artifact isn't important. It's just an object to quest for and fight over. What is important are the character relationships and situations that arise from the quest. That's where KOTCS failed to a large extent.
I couldn't disagree more. The popularity of the two films owes much to the familiarity of the relics in question.
You could make a film about less familiar or invented relics, but then you'd have Temple and Skull...which were the worst. In order.
They may have been a way to handle the stories better, (Temple and Skull), but I believe the Ark and the Grail bring much sway to the proceedings.
I couldn't disagree more... more.
TOD is a great film. The Ark and the Grail were essentially meaningless to me, just as the Sankara Stones were doubly meaningless. Yet the films were no less exciting to watch. After all, they're just fairy tales, based on fairy tales. KOTCS is no different - it's just based on a more modern fairy tale.
The Lord of the Rings was no lesser a tale because the Ring never existed.
It's also easy to overlook the fact that the Ark of the Convenant became universally known largely because of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Obviously, it was anything but obscure in certain circles, but I was raised Catholic and prior to seeing the movie as a kid I'm pretty sure the only biblical ark I was aware of was the one Moses captained.
The Ark and the Grail were essentially meaningless to me, just as the Sankara Stones were doubly meaningless. Yet the films were no less exciting to watch.
I'd say you'd have to find some meaning (at some time) if they were to be "no less exciting to watch." I don't see how you could say they were just as exciting to you as they would be to a believer...
I've a feeling we've covered this ground before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
After all, they're just fairy tales, based on fairy tales. KOTCS is no different - it's just based on a more modern fairy tale.
I appreciate your stance, but "fairy tale" has a specific meaning to me which doesn't quite apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
The Lord of the Rings was no lesser a tale because the Ring never existed.
Rings is hardly a fair comparison. They exist on wholly different plains intersecting most superficially.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
It's also easy to overlook the fact that the Ark of the Convenant became universally known largely because of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Obviously, it was anything but obscure in certain circles, but I was raised Catholic and prior to seeing the movie as a kid I'm pretty sure the only biblical ark I was aware of was the one Moses captained.
I'll agree in as much as it brought it back into the public conscious...and more prominently.
Last edited by Rocket Surgeon : 11-17-2011 at 02:18 PM.
What is your evidence that it was ever part of the public consciousness?
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.
Leviticus 25:10... "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof" is inscribed on the Liberty Bell and on a plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty.
Abraham Lincoln said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand" (Matthew 12:25).
Matthew 5:14..."Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid" was adapted by John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630, JFK and Ronald Reagan.
The Bible, it's stories and code are inexorably linked with the United States.
I hope that's enough for this side of the Atlantic. There's even more in Europe.
An example of the Ark itself Thomas Jefferson wrote "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched."
I'd say you'd have to find some meaning (at some time) if they were to be "no less exciting to watch." I don't see how you could say they were just as exciting to you as they would be to a believer...
I would say that the films are no less exciting to watch as an unbeliever as they would be for a believer. There's action, adventure and danger. The quest for each artifact is given importance by those involved in their hunt. It means something to the characters, and oddly enough the only one the creators chose to explain and fully expose was the alien one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
I've a feeling we've covered this ground before.
Like a Saturday morning cartoon, we're bound to fight, and fight again, and again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
I appreciate your stance, but "fairy tale" has a specific meaning to me which doesn't quite apply.
At the very least Indiana Jones deals with the unsubstantiated. His big four adventures revolve around objects given mythical importance, and not simple historical objects that will sit in a museum and never do anything spectacular. That's the real hook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
Rings is hardly a fair comparison. They exist on wholly different plains intersecting most superficially.
Indy must have gone after plenty of artifacts in the expanded universe that have no direct comparison in the real world. The skill is in creating the situations that they promote. For me KOTCS of all the films failed most in that regard. The failure wasn't the skull itself, but the story and characters it became central to.
The Bible, it's stories and code are inexorably linked with the United States.
Swell. But back to what we were actually talking about...
The Ark of the Convenant isn't much more than a glorified footnote in the Old Testament, if memory serves. Being well versed in the Old Testament pretty much disqualifies you as Joe Public right off the bat, and yeah, I say that knowing that the majority of the U.S. identify themselves as Christian. There's a big difference between calling the Bible your scripture and being able to compete in a trivia-off on the Book of Exodus. That's really all I'm getting at - "public consciousness" of the ark is a hard sell given a universe where Raiders never existed.
