Location: England (you can get all kinds of transport there ... boat, plane, anything)
Posts: 324
Jay Mohr jokes about Indy IV at this week's Interactive Achievement Awards
Comedian Jay Mohr hosted the Interactive Achievement Awards (annual video games event, if you didn't know) this past week and he had this to say about Indy IV ...
"I finally got the Indiana Jones sequel I wanted. It's called Uncharted 2. No fridges. No monkeys. No f**king Shawn Labeef or whatever the hell he is. Who is this? Where did he come from? Just a man and his stubble, the way it ought to be when you're home alone playing a video game."
I don't know why everyone says Uncharted is the same as Indiana Jones.
They are alike in that there is an everyman protagonist searching for an ancient treasure that potentially possesses some great power.
However, Uncharted has always been more about gunplay. Where as Indy has been more about fist fights. Another key difference is although the character of Nathan Drake is basically good he takes from the past only to gain a profit for himself. Indy's methods are similar, but he is trying to preserve the past for others.
I could name other distict differences between the characters but I felt that that was the biggest.
Location: England (you can get all kinds of transport there ... boat, plane, anything)
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Col. Jones
Nathan Drake is basically good he takes from the past only to gain a profit for himself. Indy's methods are similar, but he is trying to preserve the past for others.
True, I guess. Indy has motives to serve the 'greater good' as well as having personal ones. In Last Crusade he says 'This should be in a museum' (Young Indy) and 'That belongs in a museum' (Adult Indy) emphasing how the character believes in 'archaeology for all' but then in Temple Of Doom he famously says 'Fortune and glory, kid, fortune and glory' suggesting that he also has some selfish reasons for recovering artifacts.
Anyway, the likes of Nathan Drake and Lara Croft would never have existed if it wasn't for the popularity of Indiana Jones and the fundamental similarities of their characters' traits and narrative themes are obvious.
Indy too has his own selfish motivation, but it is out wade by his desire to preserve artifacts so museaums can put them on display for the public and that is in turn is out wade by his general good will as we see at the end of Temple of Doom.
I believe that if a blackmarket dealer offer considerable more for an artifact than a museaum, Indy would still sell the artifact to the museaum.
I'm a huge fan of the Uncharted series and it's obvious that Indy is a big influence on the franchise. However, the scenarios and characters are pretty different an I don't really think you can compare the two on any deep level.
Uncharted is a blast but nothing beats an Indiana Jones adventure.
Of course Nathan Drake is Indiana Jones, just like Lara Croft is. They travel around the world to beat the bad guys to finding ancient artifacts. All gain personally, Indy may sell his findings to a museum but he does SELL them. When he says: "This belongs in a museum" He is really saying: I'm going to sell this to a museum!" So Lara and Nathan don't have fedoras or teach in college, that would be taking it too far.
Everyone understands what Mohr is referring too, it's funny how it can be turned into "Not understanding the character".
The fact of the matter is there's no way you could have a 65 year old Ford doing things the Nathan Drake character does. Then again, it would have been great to have seen a moment like this in KOTCS.
Last edited by Major West : 02-23-2010 at 01:26 PM.
Bjorn Heimdall (sorry I couldn't figure out how to quote) the point is he does sell them to museums. Nathan Drake and Lara Croft most likely sell them to private collectors, and those artifacts will never be seen by the public. Indy sells them to museums not only to gain personal profit but to put them on display for the public. Indy is an archaeologist. Lara Croft and Nathan Drake are grave robbers.
Bjorn Heimdall (sorry I couldn't figure out how to quote) the point is he does sell them to museums. Nathan Drake and Lara Croft most likely sell them to private collectors, and those artifacts will never be seen by the public. Indy sells them to museums not only to gain personal profit but to put them on display for the public. Indy is an archaeologist. Lara Croft and Nathan Drake are grave robbers.
Amusingly enough... I've never once in any Indiana Jones film seen the titular character perform anything remotely resembling "archeology."
Anyway, this whole argument is stupid. Jay's point was implicitly clear and you all understood it and are just firing away at him because you like that ****ty movie. Be proud!
Anyway, this whole argument is stupid. Jay's point was implicitly clear and you all understood it and are just firing away at him because you like that ****ty movie. Be proud!
Well, RA already said it for me. For the rest of youse, there's a lovely little thread on Unchartedthis way.
ResidentAlien, although I do like KOTCS that is not that is not the reason for the posts. My point is Uncharted, Tomb Raider, and Indiana Jones can not be considered the "same" as they all have their own unique feel. And to your remarks about archaeology, the laws that make archaeology what it is today were not passed until the 60s or 70s please correct me if I am wrong. Up until that time what Indy was doing was considered archaeology, however unorthodox his methods may be. I an not bashing Jay Mohr, Uncharted, or Tomb Raider. I am stating my opinion.
ResidentAlien, although I do like KOTCS that is not that is not the reason for the posts. My point is Uncharted, Tomb Raider, and Indiana Jones can not be considered the "same" as they all have their own unique feel. And to your remarks about archaeology, the laws that make archaeology what it is today were not passed until the 60s or 70s please correct me if I am wrong. Up until that time what Indy was doing was considered archaeology, however unorthodox his methods may be. I an not bashing Jay Mohr, Uncharted, or Tomb Raider. I am stating my opinion.
ResidentAlien, I read wikipedia article it says modern archaeology was established in the 19th century. I want to know when the laws that prevent the type of archaeology Indy was doing were passed.
ResidentAlien, I read wikipedia article it says modern archaeology was established in the 19th century. I want to know when the laws that prevent the type of archaeology Indy was doing were passed.
The 19th century would be the 1800s.
And INDY WAS NOT DOING ARCHEOLOGY. There is no such thing as booby-trapped temples and mystical idols on an altar buried deep in the jungle. It's fantasy. He was traveling to fantastical, fictional temples not with the intent to study them, but to take the treasures. That is NOT archeology.
Er, he taught Archeology. That was his job. Those scenes at the college, remember? And at archaeological digs generally, I think you'll find all the stuff they find and dig up doesn't get left there, it's studied and probably ends up in a museum. When he's got his whip and hat on he's mostly a fortune hunter or a grave robber but he is an archaeologist. That's his day job.
Er, he taught Archeology. That was his job. Those scenes at the college, remember? And at archaeological digs generally, I think you'll find all the stuff they find and dig up doesn't get left there, it's studied and probably ends up in a museum. When he's got his whip and hat on he's mostly a fortune hunter or a grave robber but he is an archaeologist. That's his day job.
Yes-- but what we SEE him doing is in no way Archeology. We never once see it, aside from, perhaps, that brief bit at the start of Infernal Machine. What we see of the good doctor is pulp-serial style grave robbing and nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Col. Jones
ResidentAlien, can we end the argument here, and just agree to disagree.
The closest I can think that Indy got to practising archaeology in the movies was getting a bunch of Arabs to dig sand for him to uncover the entrance to the Well of Souls.
At all other times he's breaking and entering and stealing articles for personal gain, on the premise that they would be 'better off in a museum'. Indy is a real anti-hero, and that has given him some depth of character.
ResidentAlien, can we agree on what Major West and Montana Smith said. That Indy is a proffesor of archaeology who has been on a some reputable digs, but mostly uses unorthodox practices.
ResidentAlien, can we agree on what Major West and Montana Smith said. That Indy is a proffesor of archaeology who has been on a some reputable digs, but mostly uses unorthodox practices.
No.
You don't seem to fathom this simple concept-- he is a fictional character who in no way inhabits a realistic world. His endeavors are the same as the other characters that you mentioned and it is both foolish and nonsensical to spend time arguing that they are different or that one is more noble than the next. They are all three archetypal heroes who engage in completely unrealistic practices in the search of fictional treasure.
Yes, he does. That's the closest he gets to real archaeology.
In Temple of Doom he sneaks into the Thuggee temple.
In Last Crusade he breaks into the catacombs under the library.
In KOTCS he attempts grave robbing, then goes into the temple. The simple artifacts in his bag at the beginning of the film suggest that he might have been engaged in traditional archaeology.
