Comedy increase in the later Indy movies

[AndyLGR]

Having watch KOTCS a couple of times this week whilst its been on satellite, it got me thinking about why did they crank up the more comedic element in the later movies?

Raiders is a great action movie. Granted it has some comedy moments, like the swordsman scene, the frying pan scene and the Toht coat hanger, but in the main the action elements and story are handled with a degree of seriousness that make the original stand out.

Fast forward to TLC and KOTCS and for some reason it seems as though they looking for the next laugh, trying too hard to squeeze it out of the audience. It almost like a parody of itself at times and I never understand the addition of a comedy moment in an action scene, (the fencing tuition in KOTCS is one moment that is cringeworthy).

Is it meant to lighten the tension? Maybe its to take the movies in a slightly different direction to the original? The James Bond series did it too.

I arent bashing the movies for this, I actually prefer TLC over TOD, but I was wondering what peoples thoughts were about why this seems to have happened as the movies went along. Possibly people think I'm wrong and its been a constant throughout the whole series. Possibly people enjoy this aspect of the movies.

I relate this to what happened with the SW prequel trilogy, some of the humour they added in to The Phantom Menace especially was awful juvenile stuff, material that didnt really appear in the majority of the original trilogy. Maybe its something the bearded ones just decided to add.

 

[JP Jones]

It was O.K. in my opinion for kotcs to parody itself in a way. As for last crusade it should have been closer to the tone of ToD. nobody really has a serious part in it. everyones there for comic relief basically. All henry sr. does is say a funny line here and there, Sallah is there just because he's a bumbling idiot(but he is good in RotLA)it's the same for brody. At least in skull there are compelling characters(i.e. Spalko, oxley, mac)

 

[Crack that whip]

It all depends upon one's point of view. I remember a high school classmate of mine who, back in the day when Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was first released, thought of it as an out-and-out comedy - not just an adventure movie with some comedic elements, but principally a comedy, and thought it was a disappointing followup to Raiders of the Lost Ark on those grounds. It seems kind of bizarre now given the movie's reputation, but it does have a lot of fairly broad, almost cartoony humor that's a little different in style from what we see in Raiders (the thrown sledgehammer conking someone on the head, for example).

And then Raiders itself, despite some dark elements, was praised by reviewers back upon its release for its lightness and humor. Outside a handful of the WWI-era episodes of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, most Indy adventures do have at least some humor; it's an inherent part of the series. Whether a given joke or gag is "too much" or whatever is really kind of a fine distinction, and not everyone might draw the line in the same place. Personally, I do think the later movies do have perhaps a touch more humor, but not so much as to set them drastically far apart from Raiders.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

Rinzler's Complete Making of... makes an important point regarding the content of the films.As he points out the content for Raiders is far greater because of the greater amount of work that was done for, and before the movie.

The other movies suffered as a result of this, (lack of preparation) and the comedy which at first was so desperately needed to offset the over-the-top oppression turned Temple into a schizophrenic, two different movies always at odds with each other.

The other factor is indulgence. Speilberg said it himsel, they didn't give themselves the time on Raiders they had to just tell the story, (and THANK GOD!)

With success comes excess and the success of the subsequent films goes to show the sheer strength of Raiders.

But all in all, it comes down to laziness, and shooting without a fully developed scrip, (just look at skull).

I laugh when people put Lucas on a pedestal vaunting him as though he were some luminous visionary, and his work part of some grand design. Einstein said God doesn't play dice...well Lucas isn't God and he TOTALLY plays dice!

Luke and Leia became siblings because DURING FILMING, they couldn't figure out a good reason to motivate Luke out of hiding in the DeathStar Throne Room!

That's merely one example, but important to consider in light of the question.

Temple's violence was on par with its comedy, they both hit you over the head.

 

[Dewy9]

Luke and Leia became siblings because DURING FILMING, they couldn't figure out a good reason to motivate Luke out of hiding in the DeathStar Throne Room!

If true, it's very smart considering how Luke calls out to Leia at Cloud City in Empire.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

If true, it's very smart considering how Luke calls out to Leia at Cloud City in Empire.

Coincidental, but it's meant to be Luke calling her...(not implying any link, but Luke just using The Force).

But indulging you that would make her kissing him on the lips the second time even creepier then the first if in fact she really "always knew it"...

...and it's true.

 

[James]

Spielberg considers LC to be the most successful crowd-pleaser of the original trilogy, and that belief clearly influenced KOTCS. So I'd say that's probably the most likely reason the latest film had so many gags.

Parenthood is another big factor, as you can clearly see its impact in the later works of both Spielberg and Lucas. Spielberg often said he wanted to make Indy 4, since it would be a (new) film that he could actually share with his kids.

when Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was first released, thought of it as an out-and-out comedy - not just an adventure movie with some comedic elements, but principally a comedy

And then Raiders itself, despite some dark elements, was praised by reviewers back upon its release for its lightness and humor.

Yes, it's interesting to see how both films are viewed today, compared to their original receptions. If you compare ROTLA to action films of the 70s, it's far lighter in tone and doesn't take itself nearly as seriously. Yet today, younger audiences seem to regard it as an almost realistic look at archaeology and the Nazi threat.

It's similar to how Ian Fleming's Bond novels now appear so mundane, they're interpreted as being serious looks at espionage. Of course, upon their original release, they were considered fantastic escapism. The plot of Moonraker was borderline absurd by 1955 standards, but not by what we're used to today.

So part of it is that need to add in more of what worked last time, as well as changing with the times. For example, the cgi in KOTCS is actually quite tame when compared to other modern blockbusters. It's only when you compare it to the previous Indy films that it suddenly seems excessive.

 

[Zeppelin]

I was under the impression that Spielberg was upset with the dark and violent tone of ToD, and so compensated by making LC much more light and humorous. And since that worked so well (at least from his perspective) this continued with KotCS.

 

[pellman]

I don't mind there being more humor. The problem is keeping it from undermining the action. Think about the both the airplane fight and desert chase scenes from Raiders. There was plenty of humorous inserts in each scene. But there was also a perfect balance between humor and a sense of danger. The real sense of danger is mostly accomplished by the looks of fear on Ford's and Allen's faces.

I just watched KOTCS this evening. There is no sense of danger. Everyone just looks like they're having fun. Except when they go over the falls, but that's so outrageous it doesn't matter what the actors are doing.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

I don't mind there being more humor. The problem is keeping it from undermining the action. Think about the both the airplane fight and desert chase scenes from Raiders. There was plenty of humorous inserts in each scene. But there was also a perfect balance between humor and a sense of danger. The real sense of danger is mostly accomplished by the looks of fear on Ford's and Allen's faces.

I just watched KOTCS this evening. There is no sense of danger. Everyone just looks like they're having fun. Except when they go over the falls, but that's so outrageous it doesn't matter what the actors are doing.

Can't agree with you more, although I would add the music really hightened the tension in Raiders in addition to seeing the characters getting beat down, Indy in particular had already been shot among other things...

 

[AndyLGR]

I don't mind there being more humor. The problem is keeping it from undermining the action. Think about the both the airplane fight and desert chase scenes from Raiders. There was plenty of humorous inserts in each scene. But there was also a perfect balance between humor and a sense of danger. The real sense of danger is mostly accomplished by the looks of fear on Ford's and Allen's faces.

I just watched KOTCS this evening. There is no sense of danger. Everyone just looks like they're having fun. Except when they go over the falls, but that's so outrageous it doesn't matter what the actors are doing.

The humour in the original in the main is a lot more subtle and maybe not as blatant as the later ones. In the 2 scenes you mention, the worker that lands on the front of the truck. Indys fight with the mechanic, he plays on the mismatch in size by cheating in the fight when he points down at the start of it.

We all know that Indy wont die in any of the action scenes, but I think you got it spot on by saying there is no sense of danger in the new one. I agree with that. The excessive humour, the smug looks on characters faces or the cheesy looks of pride as the son fights take away any tension, (for me anyway), in some of those action scenes.

Also there were great points made above about how times have changed with action movies. Someone mentioned the Bond books, look at how the movies have now come full circle to go back to a more gritty style that the books portray. I think that with Indy the last 2 followed the trend of all the copycats that took the Raiders formula and added more humour in to them. Having said, that Last Crusade especially proved that no one does it quite like Indy and its still miles ahead of an potentially suitors to the Indy crown of action movies.

 

[Darth Vile]

I laugh when people put Lucas on a pedestal vaunting him as though he were some luminous visionary, and his work part of some grand design. Einstein said God doesn't play dice...well Lucas isn't God and he TOTALLY plays dice!

You have to put these types of things into context. For example, John Lennon wrote Strawberry Fields Forever, but the finished product was a combination of inspiration, experimentation, making it up as they went, and George Martin?s input. That fact doesn?t negate its brilliance (nor John Lennon?s). Same with Star Wars. All things considered, Lucas is equally responsible for Star Wars: ANH/The Empire Strikes Back, as he is for Return of the Jedi/The Phantom Menace. Take that as you will.

Luke and Leia became siblings because DURING FILMING, they couldn't figure out a good reason to motivate Luke out of hiding in the DeathStar Throne Room!

Really? I?ve read many books on the various Star Wars productions, and that?s the first time I?ve ever heard of that snippet. Yes, the final design of the relationships changed/evolved between production of TESB and ROTJ? but that they came up with the sibling angle DURING FILMING of ROTJ ? that?s new to me??? Do you know which day of filming it was, as that significant plot point must of blown production out of the water?

 

[RaiderMitch]

Really? I?ve read many books on the various Star Wars productions, and that?s the first time I?ve ever heard of that snippet. Yes, the final design of the relationships changed/evolved between production of TESB and ROTJ? but that they came up with the sibling angle DURING FILMING of ROTJ ? that?s new to me??? Do you know which day of filming it was, as that significant plot point must of blown production out of the water?

I believe its in the Annotated Screenplay book that has all the other Jedi plots as well like , Obi Wan returning from the "nether world " of the Force to fight Vader.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

Really? I’ve read many books on the various Star Wars productions, and that’s the first time I’ve ever heard of that snippet.

I think it's in one of the early VHS Making of features that were realeased witht he films...got to dig it up.

I don't think I have the annotated screen plays...hmmm, got to check that out, thanks Mitch!

 

[Darth Vile]

I believe its in the Annotated Screenplay book that has all the other Jedi plots as well like , Obi Wan returning from the "nether world " of the Force to fight Vader.

I have those books, and it doesn't mention anywhere that Luke and Leia being siblings was written/conceived during actual filming of ROTJ. I would imagine that this plot point was decided upon, at the very least, during pre-production of Jedi.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

I have those books, and it doesn't mention anywhere that Luke and Leia being siblings was written/conceived during actual filming of ROTJ.

Oh well, I guess I don't HAVE to check them out now. But apparently he recalls this point as well.