I think whilst you make interesting points, you yourself can see problems with that line of thought.
As you imply, TOD seems to epitomize a movie that falls short on narrative structure, character development and “heart”.
Wow, I apparently applied implied that TOD was not only all of those things, but that it epitomizes them? Surely you yourself can see problems with that line of thought.
Wow, I apparently applied implied that TOD was not only all of those things, but that it epitomizes them? Surely you yourself can see problems with that line of thought.
"What a vivid imagination."
Strange response???
You stated "I'm not sure how that accounts for the greatness of Temple of Doom". The inference is that you think TOD is good despite it lacking some qualities e.g. "heart", a "story" etc. I thought that was a reasonable interpretation of your post.
If that basic interpretation is correct... it sort of undermines your argument of what constitutes a good movie.
The inference is that you think TOD is good despite it lacking some qualities e.g. "heart", a "story" etc. I thought that was a reasonable interpretation of your post.
That I think TOD is good "despite it lacking some qualities" is not an unreasonable interpretation. Once you start citing specific qualities (found, apparently, out of thin air), and go on to conclude that I think the movie EPITOMIZES the lack of those qualities, you've gone off the rails and into some mythical land where you can (incorrectly) read people's minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
If that basic interpretation is correct... it sort of undermines your argument of what constitutes a good movie.
Well, your basic interpretation was far from correct. But I'm just curious - 'cause I got a short memory - what exactly was my argument of what constitutes a good movie? Remind me.
Oh, I loved the camp interrogation. I was actually surprised they were taking the film into that type of far-out, psychic territory.
Same I loved that scene, it was quite eerie. I was a bit let down the story never really got that eerie again, not helped by the skull being used to hit people during the jungle chase as if it was invaluable.
TOD and KOTCS are deffo the most pulp, but i selected KOTCS because of the tarzan swinging scene, the alien (not that all alien concepts are actually pulp), and also the scene where he stands in front of the levitating saucer.
That I think TOD is good "despite it lacking some qualities" is not an unreasonable interpretation. Once you start citing specific qualities (found, apparently, out of thin air), and go on to conclude that I think the movie EPITOMIZES the lack of those qualities, you've gone off the rails and into some mythical land where you can (incorrectly) read people's minds.
You’ll have to excuse me… as it’s sometimes difficult to interpret the points you try to make. You stated that TOD was “great”… You clearly believe that Spielberg had little “heart – story wise” in TOD. So from someone who is fast to criticize lack of explanation/substance, your view seems a little contradictory to what you post elsewhere (or at least that’s how it appears in the written form).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
Well, your basic interpretation was far from correct. But I'm just curious - 'cause I got a short memory - what exactly was my argument of what constitutes a good movie? Remind me.
To be honest, I’m not really sure what you think. Again - One minute you are over-analyzing the minutia and complaining about “inept story-telling”… The next, that “breathless energy”, is enough to forgive any shortcomings of a movie that you like.
You’ll have to excuse me… as it’s sometimes difficult to interpret the points you try to make. You stated that TOD was “great”… You clearly believe that Spielberg had little “heart – story wise” in TOD. So from someone who is fast to criticize lack of explanation/substance, your view seems a little contradictory to what you post elsewhere (or at least that’s how it appears in the written form).
The only thing I said was that Spielberg didn't have his heart in the storyline to Temple of Doom to the same extent he did of Last Crusade - and that comes from him. Since everything I supposedly said/implied beyond that is just you jumping to conclusions, it's not that hard to imagine why you're finding it contradictory to things I actually said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
To be honest, I’m not really sure what you think. Again - One minute you are over-analyzing the minutia and complaining about “inept story-telling”… The next, that “breathless energy”, is enough to forgive any shortcomings of a movie that you like.
You're assuming that I think the shortcomings TOD has are the same as the shortcomings I think Kingdom has - a pretty wacky assumption. That being the case you really don't have anyone else to blame but yourself for feeling confused.
The only thing I said was that Spielberg didn't have his heart in the storyline to Temple of Doom to the same extent he did of Last Crusade - and that comes from him. Since everything I supposedly said/implied beyond that is just you jumping to conclusions, it's not that hard to imagine why you're finding it contradictory to things I actually said. .
So that implies what? You seem to be suggesting that TOD is inferior to TLC because Spielberg didn't have his heart in the movie... Isn't that used as a common attack on KOTCS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
You're assuming that I think the shortcomings TOD has are the same as the shortcomings I think Kingdom has - a pretty wacky assumption.
No I don't assume that. Clearly you believe KOTCS to be inferior to TOD. I'm not questioning your opinion... I'm questioning your logic. You excuse TOD with two simple words, whilst analysing every detail of KOTCS.
From my perspective it appears that you are stating KOTCS = because of X, Y and Z. TOD = because of it's "breathless energy". So you seem to undermine your analytical approach in a sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
That being the case you really don't have anyone else to blame but yourself for feeling confused.
I think you should try applying that to yourself (given that you've mentioned your confusion with several scenes from KOTCS).
Last edited by Darth Vile : 11-10-2008 at 05:43 AM.
So that implies what? You seem to be suggesting that TOD is inferior to TLC because Spielberg didn't have his heart in the movie... Isn't that used as a common attack on KOTCS?
!
I'm not doing that at all. Look at you. I like TOD over TLC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
No I don't assume that. Clearly you believe KOTCS to be inferior to TOD. I'm not questioning your opinion... I'm questioning your logic. You excuse TOD with two simple words, whilst analysing every detail of KOTCS.
That's just how you want to see it - I can't help you there. Something you apparently still haven't figured out is I didn't write the post you're analyzing to argue why I think TOD is a better movie than KOTCS, because before you and I went at it this thread was about something rather different. You've decided to construe a post as being a big argument about why TOD is better than KOTCS that in reality was not, and for whatever reason you can't get past that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
From my perspective it appears that you are stating KOTCS = because of X, Y and Z. TOD = because of it's "breathless energy". So you seem to undermine your analytical approach in a sentence.
I'm always happy to hear your perspective. Frankly, I don't feel the need to defend my "analytical approach," because what I was writing about and what you assumed I was writing about are two different things. If you really want to have an argument about the merits of TOD versus the merits of KOTCS and whatever double standards you think I'm applying in my opinion of both, feel free to make a thread about it. For now, I think we've hijacked TheMutt92's thread long enough, so I'll end here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I think you should try applying that to yourself (given that you've mentioned your confusion with several scenes from KOTCS).
Yes, that's totally relevant to this and not in any way changing the subject.
Last edited by Udvarnoky : 11-10-2008 at 09:26 AM.
The way I see it, KOTCS had a good story and story potential, but didn't delve in to it enough (towards the end of the movie) - but TOD had a much simpler story, and didn't need to delve much in to it. I think both movies are the most colourful and pulp of the 4, and to be honest, despite KOTCS's lack of exploration in to the story it gives (I just think the end bit, some more talk of Akator would have been good, some more psychic interaction), and TOD's simple storyline - which didn't especially need delving in to, I think both films pretty much balance even.
I tend to, and will watch them in the order of release, and to me, all seem to compliment one another in that order.
I feel Temple is the most pulp of the four. Several things jump out at me as pulp novel;
Meeting the heavy & his goons in the night club to make the exchange. It's a perfect "I got the stuff - you got the dough?" type of scene.
The vile of antidote for the poison
The shoot-out in the streets of Shanghai - complete with a street-wise kid driving the car.
"Call him Dr. Jones...doll"
"Fortune and glory, kid"
The evil human-sacrifice cult in the caves below the mysterious palace.
That said, I think Kingdom has the most pulpy single shot of the four - Indy standing in front of the saucer. Kingdom itself, however, is much more grounded in what was very much on the minds of Americans in the 1950s - UFOs and communists. Those may seem pulpy now, but back then both were seen as very real threats.
I think the fact that Last Crusade is unanimously considered the least pulpy explains why it seems to be the most well-liked film among general, non-fan audiences. The pulp analysis also probably explains why TOD and KOTCS are generally rated the least popular Indy films. The general public seems to have an aversion to pulp, considering it synonymous with cheesiness. Hence you see films like Sky Captain, Speed Racer, The Shadow, The Phantom, Flash Gordon, Grindhouse, Rocketeer and even Matinee (a love letter to pulp if not pulp itself) all flop or underperform at the box office. Indy, Star Wars, and the Pirates films seem to be the big exceptions to this rule. I think the general public is just so ignorant of what "pulp" is that when a film too directly homages it, satirizes it, or plays off it in some way, they either don't get it or are actively turned off. It's hard to imagine how they look at these films if they're not consciously aware the ideas are not meant to be new, but are homaging old films and stories. People who are familiar with pulp might enjoy seeing these old-fashioned concepts revisited out of nostalgia, but others might think they're just too outlandish. They may look on most pulp-inspired films the way that even Indy fans look at the nuked fridge scene. Now clearly the popular modern pulp films like Indy rise above their pulp roots for most audiences somehow, but it does seem audiences prefer the less pulpy elements even of these films.
because of X, Y and Z. TOD = 
because of it's "breathless energy". So you seem to undermine your analytical approach in a sentence.
