Indy is....WACKY?!?!

[Darth Vile]

As much as I and countless others clambered for more Star Wars, the reality was that the world had already moved on. I for one thoroughly enjoyed the prequels, but I do understand why they didn?t work for some.

SterankoII is spot on in that, for example, when I first became enamored with Star Wars and Indiana Jones I was a little kid. How can I expect these movies to possibly engage me in the same way as an adult? Regardless of whether the movies are meant for younger audiences or not, the point is that whilst the emotional connection remains, the interpretation/experience changes with age.

Of course one should still expect to be entertained regardless, but of course what makes Star Wars and Indiana Jones unique is the amount of baggage (i.e. in built expectation) they come with.

 

[SterankoII]

I do hope when George said funnier he meant it in the way Roger Ebert did in his great http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19810101/REVIEWS/101010360/1023 four star review Raiders of the Lost Ark when it was released in 1981:

"Two things, however, make "Raiders of the Lost Ark" more than just a technological triumph: it's sense of humor and the droll style of it's characters. This is often a funny movie, but it doesn't get many of it's laughs with dialogue and only with a few obvious gags(although the biggest laugh comes from the oldest and most obvious gag, involving a swordsman and a marksman). We find ourselves laughing in surprise, in relief, in incredulity at the movie's ability to pile one incident upon another in an inexhaustible series of inventions."

I agree that's where most of the humor comes from in the Raiders. You watch Indy in these predicament and think what MORE could happen to this guy and a giant boulder comes rolling after him! It is pretty funny while thrilling at the same time. Temple of Doom had it too but was overshadowed for some people by the darker, horror elements. Last Crusade's comedy did rely on dialogue and gags and not much in what Ebert described. I am hoping that what George thinks is really funny about KOTC was the same thing in Raiders. I'm sure there's going to be some one-liners and gags in this one but that the humor primarily come Indy barely getting out of these incredibly dangerous situations like in Raiders.

 

[1ord3vil]

Lucas never created Star Wars for grownups so it's right that they should move on.

There is entertainment for kids and then there is entertainment for kids:

I think that to most people, the Star Wars prequels were simply very forgettable flicks. Just another few rolls of film in the vast sea of bland mediocrity.

 

[Tom Cook]

Thing is, what Spielberg and what Lucas contribute to the Indiana Jones movies is very different.

Spielberg has a very visual, physical, and mechanical imagination. He comes up with all the elaborate booby traps, all the gigantic set arrangements, all the mechanics of the chase scenes. He comes up with the front blades on the jungle-cutter machine, he comes up with the costume accessories, with the sense of style for each character, he comes up with the suspenseful situations to put his characters in, etc.

Lucas is not, at heart, a film-maker. He has a much more literary, metaphysical, mythical imagination. He comes up with the soul of the stories, the folklore and supernatural ideas behind the McGuffin, the overall 50s 'feel' of the film as a 'period' film, etc. The Young Chronicles, which Lucas did by himself, really lacked the mechanical and visual energy that Spielberg provides. I don't really know how Star Wars IV-VI were cut so well, and were so truly engaging, not just in the mythopoeic soul of those movies, but visually as well. Lucas must have had some help there.

 

[Kingsley]

And both contributions, Spielbergs and Lucas, are fundamental...

I enjoy the depth and background in Indys universe and characters as much as the perfect suspenseful and hilarious action scenes. Tension, relief, laugh... Spielberg still has it. Lucas seems a bit lost in his world now, but he isn't alone in this one like he was in star wars.

And the Ford component... it's vital too!

 

[Iandiana]

Iandiana ? I too agree with your sentiments? The problem is that many professional and armchair critics try and intellectualise what is basically popular culture/low brow art. For example, arguing that Jar Jar was a racial stereotype ? come on.

A friend and I were recently discssing modern cinema. I happened to mention how no new film of the last couple of decades will grow to be a classic in the way we view classics now. Even Serenity which is in my top 3 favourites will just float away on the ether like all the others. This is part of the fast food culture that wants meals you can eat in 2 minutes, films that you can leave at the door and music videos that throw images at you in such rapid succession they border on subliminal advertising.

The Star Wars Trilogy was born of it's time. It is hailed as classic because of this. It isn't well written and is badly acted in places and I actually think of great chunks of these films as quite burdensome to watch. But as a part of my life I will always hold them dear. The Prequels match up in this way perfectly in terms of writing, acting and the burden of vast moments of film but yet they were released when people wanted something else - hence the rise of The Matrix.

Audiences would never have been ready for new Star Wars IMO. Especially in our culture.

I have bought every video and dvd Star Wars release since I was young and in all honesty I will buy the next lot too. I hold no ill will toward George Lucas for this. You see, I have something special about me - self control. Sometimes I do spend money on the most ridiculous crap (Wing Commander 3 on PS1 just cost me $44) but if I wanted to send a message to George then I would say no to buying a new set. We all have the power to say no don't we?

I find it laughable to say "He's stealing from the fans releasing X amount of versions!" when WE are the chumps paying for it and hence starting the cycle all over again.

And so back to the beginning. Why are there no classics anymore?

I blame you. All of you. The internet has given everyone a voice and with that voice they've taken to analysing and picking apart every movie going just because they can. In the old days you'd see a film with friends and pick it apart afterwards over drinks, now you race straight home to tear the film a new one online alone. Back then you'd see a film once and your fuzzy memory would be all you had until the video release, now you can download it in minutes. But most importantly, back then there were only a handful of critics to satisfy. Now there are billions and each of them will savage a movie before even seeing it.

Thanks for this trip down memory lane. You may now return to the present.

 

[Darth Vile]

Iandiana,

Again I agree with your comments. Like I stated in an earlier post, as much as I enjoy the prequels (with all their faults) I'm not convinced that the world needed another Star Wars movie, and some of the backlash was just a simple gut reaction to the prequels not appearing culturally significant as the OT (as if they ever could).

Like them or loathe them, the prequels are a continuation, in design and philosophy, of the OT i.e. all 6 movies look and feel similar... but the fashion of the moment it seems (whilst some here may argue) is very much about re-imagining the concept and upping the pace/action e.g. Batman Begins, Casino Royale etc. etc. I for one am glad that Lucas refrained from that.

Finally to touch upon your other point about the 'voice of the internet', what is more loathsome is that you can become embroiled in debates about why a movie is crap even before anyone has even seen it! Of course some of this type of debate can be good fun, but it also reflects quite an insidious undercurrent in our culture too.

 

[Iandiana]

Darth Vile,

Exactly the problem. I think forums are a double edged sword. On the one hand I love reading through all these threads and finding the occasional voices of sanity and sometimes a character who is so funny they should be writing for television... but then comes the flip side. The people who just shout and rant about something because it isn't their ideal. I've recently dumped 3 forums because all I was seeing were people making uninformed statements about films and television shows.

Every post made about KOTCS is pushing someone closer to abject disappointment. Curse you internets!

 

[jamiestarr]

The Star Wars Trilogy was born of it's time. It is hailed as classic because of this. It isn't well written and is badly acted in places and I actually think of great chunks of these films as quite burdensome to watch. But as a part of my life I will always hold them dear. The Prequels match up in this way perfectly in terms of writing, acting and the burden of vast moments of film but yet they were released when people wanted something else - hence the rise of The Matrix.

This is very insightful and accurate. For the most part, any criticism that can be leveled at the Prequels can be put upon the Original Trilogy as well.

The Original Trilogy wasn't widely accepted as "classic" until the late 90's. In the 70's and 80's it was mostly the youth that maintained that these movies were "classics". Adults, at the time, had much fun with the original trilogy but few were holding up the Original Star Wars to the level of Citizen kane or The Godfather. The First movie was lauded primarily for it's Visual Effects and charming throwback to the serials appeal. It was a spectacle for sure, but respected for great acting/dialogue/script it was not.

Now, you have a whole generation of adults who grew up with Star Wars who are basically trashing the prequels because they are viewing the new Star Wars films without the aide of nostalgia tinted glasses that allow them to forgive the Original Trilogy of it's flaws. Experiencing Star Wars at age 8 is different than experiencing it at 38. Ironically, the 1st generation of Star Wars fans criticize the Prequels in much the same way that the generation before criticized the Original Trilogy--thin plot/bad acting/corny and clunking dialog/special effects overshadowing character & story.

 

[ReggieSnake]

The Star Wars Trilogy was born of it's time. It is hailed as classic because of this. It isn't well written and is badly acted in places and I actually think of great chunks of these films as quite burdensome to watch. But as a part of my life I will always hold them dear. The Prequels match up in this way perfectly in terms of writing, acting and the burden of vast moments of film but yet they were released when people wanted something else - hence the rise of The Matrix.

This is very insightful and accurate. For the most part, any criticism that can be leveled at the Prequels can be put upon the Original Trilogy as well.

The Original Trilogy wasn't widely accepted as "classic" until the late 90's. In the 70's and 80's it was mostly the youth that maintained that these movies were "classics". Adults, at the time, had much fun with the original trilogy but few were holding up the Original Star Wars to the level of Citizen kane or The Godfather. The First movie was lauded primarily for it's Visual Effects and charming throwback to the serials appeal. It was a spectacle for sure, but respected for great acting/dialogue/script it was not.

Now, you have a whole generation of adults who grew up with Star Wars who are basically trashing the prequels because they are viewing the new Star Wars films without the aide of nostalgia tinted glasses that allow them to forgive the Original Trilogy of it's flaws. Experiencing Star Wars at age 8 is different than experiencing it at 38. Ironically, the 1st generation of Star Wars fans criticize the Prequels in much the same way that the generation before criticized the Original Trilogy--thin plot/bad acting/corny and clunking dialog/special effects overshadowing character & story.

I agree. Time and context are a huge part of what makes movies "classics".

However, I think the prequels failed in a little bit more. To say it simply, The OT was about a boy who matures and becomes a hero, inspires a rebellion against evil, overcomes his temptation for power and saves the galaxy. It's an epic with a happy ending.

The PT was about a boy who never really matures past his anger, gives in to his temptation for power and dooms the galaxy for the next 25 years and more. It's it's a tragedy.

In the end the PT was doomed because the entire force of the story was based in tragedy. It's a downer.

I agree with everything you said, and I like the PT for what it's worth, but I think this is an important aspect you missed as to why people aren't as willing to attach themselves as fans of the PT.

 

[jamiestarr]

I agree with everything you said, and I like the PT for what it's worth, but I think this is an important aspect you missed as to why people aren't as willing to attach themselves as fans of the PT.

Time will tell. I think that adults that grew up with the Original Star Wars are less attached to the prequels for just that reason---they didn't grow up with the prequels.

I am a High School teacher and the bulk of my students view the prequels as Star Wars. They dig the Original Trilogy but they call them "the old ones." When you say Skywalker they think Anakin 1st, then Luke. I think it will be interesting to see if there is a shift in public opinion/thought about the status of the prequels once this new generation of Star Wars fans (reared and raised on the prequels) grows up. There certainly was a shift in public opinion when the 1st generation of SW fans came into adulthoood. Once they grew up, The Original Trilogy began to be held up as "classics" with films like The Godfather, Gone With The Wind, and Citizen Kane.....

 

[indyflys_solo]

You know, this point kind of illustrates the problems with some of Lucas's decisions. Smith / Jones... they get the same point across. They are both really common names (just common everyman kind of names). And maybe if it had been Indiana Smith I would have loved it just as much and be well used to it now.

But Indiana Smith... I dunno. As names go, on a seriousness scale it ranks maybe a notch or two above Howard the Duck.

Hey, I happen to like the name Smith




And no offense, but I think you guys are going a little psycho about all of this. George Lucas may have made some poor choices regarding the prequels of Star Wars (like Boss Nass slobbering everywhere, Jake Lloyd being the perfect young Anakin, whiny Natalie Portman as a kick-butt senator and Princess Leia's mom, Padme and Anakin's often-lame dialogue, and lots of other things I don't have time or energy to mention), but hey... he's the storyteller. As a budding filmmaker, I respect Lucas' decisions because technically, these are his movies. He can do whatever the heck he wants, if that's how he thinks his stories happened. And as somebody said, Lucas doesn't express himself very well in his press releases: he may be ridiculously creative and inventive, but if you've been paying even the slightest bit of attention to behind-the-scenes videos and bonus material you would be able to tell that he isn't the on-camera, talkative type. He expresses himself through his stories, and other than that he seems the kind of guy who would prefer a dark cave to a crowded office.