For those who really didn't like it...

[Udvarnoky]

Please believe me when I say that, IMHO, it's impossible to take seriously a debate around whether or not Mola Ram has more “edge” than Spalko… or whether Sankara Stones are more believable than Crystal Skulls. Fun? yes. Serious? Nope. When you take a step back, it’s quite ridiculous really i.e. adults arguing the artistic merits of Indiana Jones…

When you step back, it's really equally ridiculous for anyone to discuss movies at all. Or literary fiction. Or football. What point exactly are you making here? That we should be more concerned about real world issues? That we should spend at least as much time and effort on things of consequence as we do on our entertainment? A worthy point, but a point none of us here are going to make, because we know it's nonconstructive and that we'd be hypocrites for saying it anyway. Oh wait sorry, almost none of us.

By claiming that a movie is inherently less "serious" as an inspiration for discussion purely because of its genre (i.e. escapism), you are doing exactly what you propose is foolish to do: drawing a conclusion from a standpoint of predilection, preference, and partisanship. The difference between you and most of the people on this board from what I can see is that while everyone else knows that, as human beings, they're all guilty of bias (and for that reason know it doesn't even need to be stated), you take it upon yourself to point it out as a weakness and act like you are above it by writing off your participation in any and all Indy discussion as motivated by detached "fun."

You come off as extremely pompous in your latest post, whether the impression is your intention or not. The idea that you can somehow "play the game" without holding yourself to the same standard of "seriousness culpability" that you hold to others just doesn't fly. You, like everyone else, reveal how seriously you take subjects by how much you devote to them - everything else is just words. Why not abandon the self-righteousness and leave it at that?

This is a board about Indiana Jones movies made by fans for fans. If you expect different than what's obviously going to take place here then you simply didn't read the label on the tin. Debating things like the comparative edginess of characters is not merely serious discussion in the context of this forum, it's as serious as a discussion here can get. Wouldn't arguing/discussing the merits of Indiana Jones movies be the very bedrock of this little slice of internet? Or is there an objective formula for worthiness regarding movie discussion that you can share with us? Or is what's worthy and what isn't simply up to you?

Do I really believe the movies are cinematically/historically significant? Not really no.

Innumerable movies made after Raiders of the Lost Ark that were clearly influenced by it, an entire genre that was clearly redefined by it, and several film makers working in Hollywood today who have cited it as a key inspiration for getting involved in the medium would probably disagree with you there. If you believe that something as inconsequential as a movie can have no real impact on the world, fine, but if you don't see Raiders of the Lost Ark as cinematically significant, then you may want to invest in a cane, because you're truly blind.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

QFT


Misquoted by our latest troll.

Rhetorical Question: Is that really all you took from that post?

LD:That one there, that's RS. He is one of the dumbest you will ever meet. Dr J sat next to him in English last year.

Dr J: He asked me how to spell orange.

V (snickers): He's totally rich because her dad invented Toaster Streudels.

LD: DrJ knows everybody's business, she knows everything about everyone.

V: That's why her hair is so big, it's full of secrets.

LD: evil takes a human form in Dr J. Don't be fooled because she may seem like your typical selfish, back-stabbing slut faced ho-bag, but in reality, she's so much more than that.

V: She's the queen bee - the star, we two are just her little workers.

LD: She's fabulous, but she's evil.

Any oportunity to spew, you gals truly are "special".

Oh, and CS doesn't tarnish the others it lives and dies on it's own

 

[WrathofGod]

This is a board about Indiana Jones movies made by fans for fans. If you expect different than what's obviously going to take place here then you simply didn't read the label on the tin. Debating things like the comparative edginess of characters is not merely serious discussion in the context of this forum, it's as serious as a discussion here can get. Wouldn't arguing/discussing the merits of Indiana Jones movies be the very bedrock of this little slice of internet? Or is there an objective formula for worthiness regarding movie discussion that you can share with us? Or is what's worthy and what isn't simply up to you?



Innumerable movies made after Raiders of the Lost Ark that were clearly influenced by it, an entire genre that was clearly redefined by it, and several film makers working in Hollywood today who have cited it as a key inspiration for getting involved in the medium would probably disagree with you there. If you believe that something as inconsequential as a movie can have no real impact on the world, fine, but if you don't see Raiders of the Lost Ark as cinematically significant, then you may want to invest in a cane, because you're truly blind.

Udvarnoky...well put.

 

[Joe Brody]

...has it tarnished the original trilogy???

I'm paraphrasing here: Remember your Thomas Aquinas: know each thing for what it is.

So 'no', #4 does not tarnish the first film.

 

[Dirty Mac]

So 'no', #4 does not tarnish the first film.

Unless you watch them back to back.

 

[Darth Vile]

When you step back, it's really equally ridiculous for anyone to discuss movies at all. Or literary fiction. Or football. What point exactly are you making here? That we should be more concerned about real world issues? That we should spend at least as much time and effort on things of consequence as we do on our entertainment? A worthy point, but a point none of us here are going to make, because we know it's nonconstructive and that we'd be hypocrites for saying it anyway. Oh wait sorry, almost none of us.

It?s difficult to respond appropriately to such a pedantic retort.

I?m not suggesting we should instead have debates about politics or the current socio economic climate (that?s for other boards), but my point is quite clear I think... Recognize the fact that the subject matter is largely ridiculous. Recognize that your views mean not a jot. Don?t take the subject matter so seriously. Just because we?re on an Indy fan site does not mean we have to lose grip on all perspective/reality (that way leads to sadness/madness). No matter how loud you may shout, you are shouting about a man wearing a fedora with a whip in hand.

By claiming that a movie is inherently less "serious" as an inspiration for discussion purely because of its genre (i.e. escapism), you are doing exactly what you propose is foolish to do: drawing a conclusion from a standpoint of predilection, preference, and partisanship. The difference between you and most of the people on this board from what I can see is that while everyone else knows that, as human beings, they're all guilty of bias (and for that reason know it doesn't even need to be stated), you take it upon yourself to point it out as a weakness and act like you are above it by writing off your participation in any and all Indy discussion as motivated by detached "fun."

Indiana Jones is part of popular culture/iconography, as a result/consequence of its creation through populalist cinema. If you view Indiana Jones as such i.e. popular culture, then critiquing the differences between movies (although enjoyable), is pretty meaningless (as it?s akin to arguing Burger King or Macdonalds). If you want to have a discussion around how populalist cinema can permeate the concept of ?high art?? then I?d love to be apart of that conversation (but you?ll need to bring a bit more substance to the table than the usual ?death count/gore makes TOD a better movie").

You come off as extremely pompous in your latest post, whether the impression is your intention or not. The idea that you can somehow "play the game" without holding yourself to the same standard of "seriousness culpability" that you hold to others just doesn't fly. You, like everyone else, reveal how seriously you take subjects by how much you devote to them - everything else is just words. Why not abandon the self-righteousness and leave it at that?

Udvarnoky ? You should take some of your own medicine and lighten up on your priggish attitude. I discuss Indiana Jones movies because I like them (their general insignificance/faults/shortfalls and all). I don?t spend time here pretending my taste is immune/insusceptible to the pulls of popular culture. You on the other hand seem to have a need to justify your tastes by artistic merits? yet you refrain from getting drawn into cultural, sociological and psychological implications/significance of those movies. It?s you who risks being perceived as a hypocrite? because if it were all to do with those lofty artistic heights you aspire to, you?d be spending your time posting on the Derek Jarman websites, and not a bloody Indiana Jones one.

I may be a lot of things, but I don?t believe myself to be overtly pretentious (although I do enjoy discussing the wider/deeper significance of a movie)? I don?t pretend that Indiana Jones is something that it is not. It?s a rather juvenile and ridiculous pastime? and I am happy to embrace that for what it is. Why do you pretend it?s something other than it is?

This is a board about Indiana Jones movies made by fans for fans. If you expect different than what's obviously going to take place here then you simply didn't read the label on the tin. Debating things like the comparative edginess of characters is not merely serious discussion in the context of this forum, it's as serious as a discussion here can get. Wouldn't arguing/discussing the merits of Indiana Jones movies be the very bedrock of this little slice of internet? Or is there an objective formula for worthiness regarding movie discussion that you can share with us? Or is what's worthy and what isn't simply up to you?

You are being pompous again. You yourself are doing a disservice to this community by suggesting you speak on their behalf. Believe me? as is evidenced in other threads, you do not (just as I do not).

Furthermore, you are being disingenuous when trying to suggest I don?t want to be part of those conversations, or believe myself to be above them (as I?m often very vocal within those topics). What I don?t buy into, is that these debates have any real critical purpose - other than the ?fun? of a debate and sharing thoughts with like-minded people. What I take acceptation to, is when someone attempts to call me (and others) out on my taste/sensibilities, simply because I believe KOTCS to be (roughly) in the same ballpark as the other sequels. This is Indiana Jones we are discussing, not Battleship Potemkin.

Innumerable movies made after Raiders of the Lost Ark that were clearly influenced by it, an entire genre that was clearly redefined by it, and several film makers working in Hollywood today who have cited it as a key inspiration for getting involved in the medium would probably disagree with you there. If you believe that something as inconsequential as a movie can have no real impact on the world, fine, but if you don't see Raiders of the Lost Ark as cinematically significant, then you may want to invest in a cane, because you're truly blind.

You are talking tosh again. Did I ever say that cinema was inconsequential? I was suggesting that Indiana Jones movies were largely inconsequential within the history of cinema. Of course that doesn?t mean that they have to be inconsequential to you or me... but that's not the same thing is it?

I think your last statement best underlines our differences. You seem to believe that cinema stops at Hollywood. I don?t. There is a wealth of cinema out there that has no connection to Indiana Jones, Star Wars or the Terminator movies (or what other movies you determine to be ?cool? or ?hip?)? Believe it or not, I don?t hold up Raiders, TOD and TLC as the barometer of quality for all cinema (as much as I may like them). You should allow yourself the pleasure of dipping a toe in a much wider pool.

 

[Darth Vile]

And just to reiterate my sentiment... I'm not sat here pulling my hair out at a conflicting view/disagreement... I believe I'm taking part in a not too serious (and not too intellectual) conversation about a series of lightweight but hugely enjoyable movies (that we all share some interest in)? and that?s sort of the level I?d like to keep it at. Doesn't mean that the topic is "unworthy" or not valid... it's that I request some perspective be applied.

 

[nitzsche]

Brilliantly stated, DV.

 

[StoneTriple]

Just because we?re on an Indy fan site does not mean we have to lose grip on all perspective/reality....No matter how loud you may shout, you are shouting about a man wearing a fedora with a whip in hand.

Worth adding, if I may be so bold DV;

"...a man wearing a fedora with a whip in hand..." --- when the cameras are rolling. After the director says "cut", he walks off the set, goes back to a chair & table, sits down, takes part of the costume off, sets down the props, maybe has a cup of Starbucks coffee, and discusses the real world with other cast & crew members.

 

[Udvarnoky]

if it were all to do with those lofty artistic heights you aspire to, you’d be spending your time posting on the Derek Jarman websites, and not a bloody Indiana Jones one.

Why do you pretend it’s something other than it is?

You yourself are doing a disservice to this community by suggesting you speak on their behalf.

This is Indiana Jones we are discussing, not Battleship Potemkin.

You seem to believe that cinema stops at Hollywood. I don’t. There is a wealth of cinema out there that has no connection to Indiana Jones, Star Wars or the Terminator movies (or what other movies you determine to be “cool” or “hip”)…

What is "sanctimonious," Alex.

you’ll need to bring a bit more substance to the table than the usual “death count/gore makes TOD a better movie"

I think this demonstrates most lucidly why it would be best for all parties involved if I capped off at 658. I find myself viewing too many of this forum's rules regarding courteousness and civility impossible to follow anymore.

 

[Darth Vile]

I think this demonstrates most lucidly why it would be best for all parties involved if I capped off at 658. I find myself viewing too many of this forum's rules regarding courteousness and civility impossible to follow anymore.

Surely you can handle a good natured jibe? You are not backward in dishing them out yourself... I was neither trying to insult or exasperate you (well no more so than you do me).

 

[jamiestarr]

Darth Vile is right. As usual...

 

[The Stranger]

Ok Stranger,

You take it too far and act as if your opinion is fact...

Where??

Maybe you need to wake up and see that your opinion is not a fact and that people who like KOTCS aren't asleep or delusional.

First of all, the one about "Star Wars" just wanted to be a little provocation. Second thing, the "Star Wars" prequels, as horrible as some may think they are, AT LEAST DO HAVE an intriguing story and a well crafted screenplay, which doesn't consist of a mere sequence of scenes with little to no logical connections from one another, filled with an embarassing number of errors and some REALLY gigantic plot-holes. And this is undeniable. So yes, as far as one can prefer "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" for personal reasons (it's not a sin), it's almost certain that the three "Star Wars" prequels ARE far better films than "Indy 4".

As I already said a dozen times in the past, "Kingdom" IS a decent film... but only technically speaking, because it is masterfully directed and brilliantly acted. But at some point, one also have to realize that the technical aspects are NOT what makes a good movie. So, again, wake up.

I have trouble with anyone using such emotive language, as interpretation should be contextualized.

Anybody who believes that KOTCS was a "disaster” or believes Raiders, TOD and TLC to be "perfect" cinema, really needs to get out and see more movies. Indiana Jones movies are the bubblegum of cinema… great production, great fun… but ultimately designed to be consumed and disposed of (albeit with some enjoyment in the middle). As much as I enjoy them, and as much as I enjoy discussing their individual merits, I would never try and pass off an Indy movie as being more important than it actually is i.e. populist, well crafted mass entertainment.

Within context, trying to argue the higher artistic morale ground between one Indy movie and another, is like trying to argue an artistic case for a picture post card from Blackpool being better than one from Brighton. Indeed, to take it to the next level, many serious exponents of cinema/art, may feel that if one has a predilection for Indiana Jones movies (and that genre), then that should/would exclude one from the artistic debate entirely.

Darth Vile, have I ever said that I firmly believe the Indiana Jones films to be the maximum representatives of art cinema???
Have I ever said that I think they are the most poetic and flawless jewels ever filmed??

I DON'T THINK SO.

I just took my time to point out one thing that not only coincides with my opinion, but also coincides with general people's opinions, all over the world. I just wrote that the first three films in the Indiana Jones saga are (because they ARE) among the best entertainment movies ever made. Which is pretty much a truism, I guess. It's no news to anyone. Really.

Not to offend you, eh, pal, but I think it's become pretty amusing to see what kind of high-profile and "serious" discussions you are able to raise up from simply misinterpreting other's statements. You know, it's not the first time it happens.

Darth Vile is right. As usual...

Remember. Just because one has good rhetoric, it doesn't mean he is right.

__________________________________

P.S.
How many times do I have to write things such as "In my opinion", "To me", "Maybe it's just me" and similar for my point of view not to be confused with what I believe to be facts??

Another seven-pages-long post... I call myself out for tonight.

 

[Darth Vile]

So yes, as far as one can prefer "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" for personal reasons (it's not a sin), it's almost certain that the three "Star Wars" prequels ARE far better films than "Indy 4".

I’d probably agree with that statement... although I’m not convinced of the logic behind your preference.

As I already said a dozen times in the past, "Kingdom" IS a decent film... but only technically speaking, because it is masterfully directed and brilliantly acted. But at some point, one also have to realize that the technical aspects are NOT what makes a good movie. So, again, wake up.

I’d never say that KOTCS was “masterfully directed” or “brillianty acted”. Sounds like you hold the movie in higher regard than I do…

Also, I thought that those who don't rate KOTCS believe that it specifically lacks those technical aspects you seem to think it has???

Darth Vile, have I ever said that I firmly believe the Indiana Jones films to be the maximum representatives of art cinema???
Have I ever said that I think they are the most poetic and flawless jewels ever filmed??

I was speaking figuratively to make a point about the use of dramatic language/words such as "disaster". Even so, I’d still be cautious of using the original movies (certainly TOD and TLC) as great examples of anything but Hollywood blockbusters with high production values.

I just took my time to point out one thing that not only coincides with my opinion, but also coincides with general people's opinions, all over the world. I just wrote that the first three films in the Indiana Jones saga are (because they ARE) among the best entertainment movies ever made. Which is pretty much a truism, I guess. It's no news to anyone. Really.

“Among the best entertainment movies ever made” is quite a broad statement… as that could be an extremely long list containing everything from ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ to ‘Titanic’, but it’s not nesersarily indicative of quality is it? For what it’s worth, all the Indy movies would be in my list of “best entertainment movies” too… but as you say, it doesn’t make me right.

Remember. Just because one has good rhetoric, it doesn't mean he is right.

And that’s exactly the point isn’t it? It’s not about being right or wrong… it’s about expressing/articulating an opinion and respecting others opinions/views… whatever they may be (within reason of course).