It's funny that you should mention that, as I just posted a picture of the original ROTLA novel in another thread.
The back cover shows a pyramid!
The unknown artist thought there should have been pyramids, too!
LOL... One of main qualms with Raiders (if being uber critical) is that it's major location is basically generic desert/desert roads. You'd think the one thing you'd have to show, if a major section of the movie is supposed to be in Cairo/Egypt, is a pyramid. I agree with those who thought KOTCS should have been a bit more adventurous in it's location shooting. However, Raiders demonstrates that it's not nearly as important as it may appear (or as important as some may think). Rather, it's the illusion of multiple locales.
Location: Skull Island (the spiders get in everything!).
Posts: 2,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
LOL... One of main qualms with Raiders (if being uber critical) is that it's major location is basically generic desert/desert roads. You'd think the one thing you'd have to show, if a major section of the movie is supposed to be in Cairo/Egypt, is a pyramid. I agree with those who thought KOTCS should have been a bit more adventurous in it's location shooting. However, Raiders demonstrates that it's not nearly as important as it may appear (or as important as some may think). Rather, it's the illusion of multiple locales.
Remember the oft-told story by Robert Watts about him asking Spielberg if they were shooting any pyramids, and when Berg said no, Watts happily said that they didn't have to go to Egypt then? I always smile at Watts' grin when he retells this anecdote.
Remember the oft-told story by Robert Watts about him asking Spielberg if they were shooting any pyramids, and when Berg said no, Watts happily said that they didn't have to go to Egypt then? I always smile at Watts' grin when he retells this anecdote.
Its just a movie. Damn some people are drama queens.
Even though I think they made some big mistakes, I dont know how any Indy fan couldnt find something to enjoy about the movie and not get a kick out of seeing Indy again after so many years. I was excited enough just to see him do the bookends for that Young Indy episode.
Such an idiotic argument and I'm baffled each and every time I hear it. All the apologists have become a real broken record with that nonsense.
It's like saying, "I haven't eaten a pizza in a long while, but I'll be content with Pizza Hut because it has dough, cheese and sauce-- It at least has the ingredients and since I like pizza, I'll like this."
Ingredients do not make the pizza, clearly. It's the skill by which the ingredients are combined. It's why Pizza Hut will only ever make pizza by name, it's why KOCKS will only ever be Indiana Jones by name.
Hats off to this one.
Well, better late than never...
Location: Skull Island (the spiders get in everything!).
Posts: 2,130
People that deny Indy 4's existence are like people that refuse to acknowledge a relative of their best friend because they think he is an inferior human being.
I'm SO going to be butchered for that comment...Bring on the insults!
I liked KOTCS (more than TOD even ), though there are many things I would have done differently if I were Lucas and/or Spielberg.
But I can see where people might deny its existence since if you look closely there are a lot of points where it feels like it was someone else making the movie than the people who made the original 3, doing a paint-by-numbers thing (pre-titles adventure, vehicle chase(s), artifact, death trap (kind of).
I think my real disappointment is that Lucas and Spielberg's styles have changed so much since the 80s that if you didn't see the credits, you might think a different director/producer combo made the new one.
People that deny Indy 4's existence are like people that refuse to acknowledge a relative of their best friend because they think he is an inferior human being.
I'm SO going to be butchered for that comment...Bring on the insults!
I expect we all have relatives that we "refuse to acknowledge"!
I suppose I'm lucky that I don't hate KOTCS, so I don't have to pretend it doesn't exist. However, there are bits that I wished they'd cut from the final edit. Every Indy movie is a wild ride, so with each new outing you have to get used to a ride that's a bit wilder than the last. TOD prepared us for KOTCS. These films have to be seen as genre-films, a vehicle for super-charged adventure, held together by the character of Indy.
Indy seems so out of character in the movie. What he lacks is I guess the ''swagger'' or smarmy-ness or the edge that he had in the Original trilogy and even in the Mystery of the Blues book-ends. It sometimes seems like a different character, like Koepp didn't know how Indy should/would talk.
And Harrison's characterization of Indy seems almost over the top, like a homage to the way the character is supposed to act, or like Jack Ryan in an Indiana Jones costume; I can't quite explain it.
Indy seems so out of character in the movie. What he lacks is I guess the ''swagger'' or smarmy-ness or the edge that he had in the Original trilogy and even in the Mystery of the Blues book-ends. It sometimes seems like a different character, like Koepp didn't know how Indy should/would talk.
And Harrison's characterization of Indy seems almost over the top, like a homage to the way the character is supposed to act, or like Jack Ryan in an Indiana Jones costume; I can't quite explain it.
To me he is exactly the same character, though 19 years older than he appeared in TLC. One of the main elements in KOTCS is the passing of time, with Indy's loneliness, his slowing down and and gaining responsibilities. Right from the start it's shown that he's been collecting pot sherds from a dig, and not been going after the great artifacts that characterized his previous outings. KOTCS was the vehicle to bring him back into the world of wild adventure, but it comes with a price: the "swagger" is hampered by his hip; the "smarmy-ness" is muted by the extra years.
The idea is that he's growing into the character of the father figure, though by the end it's clear that he isn't quite ready for the carpet slippers.
@raiders
Agree! Indy is not the same great hero in "Skull" - and this makes me very sad.
How is he not? He's Indy as if he naturally aged to his late 50s. If you think Indy is out of character in KOTCS, then he must be out of character in TOD and LC as well.
No, he is still the same in Temple and Crusade. But he is different in Skull. He is more like his father in "Skull". He is no hero, he is not witty - and he is not vulnerable enough in Skull.
How is he not? He's Indy as if he naturally aged to his late 50s. If you think Indy is out of character in KOTCS, then he must be out of character in TOD and LC as well.
I'm with you Dr.Jonesy. Indy's in character, but the events he's involved in are larger than before. He's still the same, still surviving things that most men couldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agull
No, he is still the same in Temple and Crusade. But he is different in Skull. He is more like his father in "Skull".
That's not out of character, but a character development consistent with age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agull
He is no hero, he is not witty - and he is not vulnerable enough in Skull.
He was witty, but the mood of this film was also intentionally different. He's always been invulnerable to death and serious injury, otherwise it would have been a short series. The cliffhangers are larger and potentially more lethal than before, and that's the issue I have with KOTCS, not Indy's character. He's always needed a high level of luck in the past, even in ROTLA, but with each film that requirement rises.
The charge that he is unheroic has a point, in that in KOTCS his mission is dictated by the skull. He lacks the free will we normally associate with heroes. Yet, I see him as an anti-hero anyway, as opposed to a traditional hero. Nevertheless he is still daring and reckless.
Last edited by Montana Smith : 07-12-2010 at 10:48 AM.
A lot of people hated KOTCS (I didn't -- I liked it). It's easy to blame the alien concept, but really, this may have been the real problem -- Indy isn't quite Indy. Sort of like the problem with the Star Wars prequels -- the characters are kinda flat. It seems Lucas and Koepp were trying to "add character" in every way but the right one -- Indy. They gave him a son, a wife, an old pal, an old traitor, all things Indy can interact with, yet semeed to take Indy himself for granted. Perhaps people would have liked KOTCS better if there were less supporting characters and a bit more devotion to Indy himself. Or maybe this problem can be looked at a different way, in that, maybe Indy's character was indeed there, but just didn't have the screen time to shine, sharing the stage with four others. You notice how in ROTLA it was just him and one other at some point, and this is the movie that made us care (if we didn't, there wouldn't have been a second film). Each film added one additional supporting character, and the movie became less about Indy's heroics and more about his relationships. KOTCS is simply where this is the biggest problem because it has the most characters. So maybe it's not Indy directly, but everyone around him. Sometimes less is more.
Imagine the "Skull"-Indy at the beginning of "Temple":
"No, Shorty! You can't drive the car. You are not old enough! That's intolerable! You could hurt somebody!!!"
He was 22 years younger in TOD. In KOTCS he's getting responsibility forced on him. That's the challenge he faces. It's the story of an ageing protagonist. The last scene confirms that he believes he's not ready to pass on the fedora to his son.
Becoming his father is obviously a comic turn on TLC.
"Well, Shorty... this trap was build... blabla.... most of these Spike were made out of... blabla.... it's a very difficult trap, but I guess that... blabla *lame explantation of this trap*..."
It makes no sense in the desert and of course it was not out of character.
And impersonating a Scotsman in Austria makes sense? It seems like you're picking and choosing in the benefit of the first three films.
How was it not out of character by your standards? He was deliberately being a goofball. Or imagine Indy from "Crusade" bickering with Sallah or Marcus like he did with Henry.
Of course it would make no sense. Much like your example of an aged Indy in a prime aged Indy adventure. It would make no sense to mix those up because the character has evolved by KOTCS whilst still remaining the same.
"Well, Shorty... this trap was build... blabla.... most of these Spike were made out of... blabla.... it's a very difficult trap, but I guess that... blabla *lame explantation of this trap*..."
Like the "Quicksand"-Scene in "Skull"...
If the Indy of 1935 had been identical to the Indy of 1957, regardless of his personal circumstances, then that would be an unbelievable character.
In KOTCS he begins with the same reckless character we've seen before. We later see the responsibilities building up: Marion returns; Mutt is revealed as his son. On top of that he's already had the "skull" speak to him (think also of the Black Sleep of Kali in TOD).
KOTCS has a strong theme of age and change. He's still recognizably the same person. The end confirms that, despite everything, he's unwilling to give up adventuring.
), though there are many things I would have done differently if I were Lucas and/or Spielberg.
