Colonel Vogel
Guest
Gary said:
I don't agree with one word you say but I'll defend your right to say it.
Ranking The Trilogy
- Thread starter Will
- Start date
I don't agree with one word you say but I'll defend your right to say it.
Jay R. Zay
New member
"(Apparently, neither did Steven, George, or Harrison...)"
but apparently do many other indy fans. so this may not be a perfect argument. the fact that filmmakers like their movies doesn't always mark a great movie.
"A basic preference of justice and freedom over cruelty and slavery seem like an equally reasonable explanation."
but they were children. this was no coincidence. if they all had black eyes - okay. if they all were right-handed - okay. but spielberg and lucas had an intention of not choosing any kind of slaves but children slaves.
"How are ?protecting children? and ?responsibility for their welfare? different?"
they can be the same. but meant "protection" like physical protection. all other sorts of protection are less instinctive but intelligent.
"Besides, I don?t think that most people hold to your simplistic definition of ?father? (a strictly biological sense)."
and i don't think that most people know what they are talking about. biology isn't defined by the opinion of the general public. einstein didn't make a voting whether his views were likeble or not.
"I think that Short Round is relevant (and indeed any other character, as you have already felt free in mentioning several others). Their relationship has distinct father/son overtones."
sure it may be right mentioning short round but despite him being a child he doesn't have much to do with weakness. indy doesn't protect him, they work together. if you call this a father-son relationship, why not take indy-marcus as father-son? or perhaps... indy-henry sr., just that indy is henry's father?
"Why don?t you drop the snarky tone, Jay? It?s not needed."
it's not even snarky. it's mentioning facts. there in fact ARE many wrong things in this world and the question is - why did it have to be these children he doesn't know? just because something was "wrong" here? come on. there are things that are much more "wrong" i'd say.
"where we disagree is that I don?t see it being a big deal that he rescues the kids and you do."
true. for me, it's childish.
and...
"I don't agree with one word you say but I'll defend your right to say it."
isn't THAT sweet? he'll defend your rights. not too loudly of course because when some mod or admin disagrees with this defence, vogel will use the back door. but until he gets into any trouble or you disagree violently with his beliefs - you can count on him. it won't help you a bit but at least you have somebody to count on.
but apparently do many other indy fans.
so this may not be a perfect argument. the fact that filmmakers like their movies doesn't always mark a great movie."A basic preference of justice and freedom over cruelty and slavery seem like an equally reasonable explanation."
but they were children. this was no coincidence. if they all had black eyes - okay. if they all were right-handed - okay. but spielberg and lucas had an intention of not choosing any kind of slaves but children slaves.
"How are ?protecting children? and ?responsibility for their welfare? different?"
they can be the same. but meant "protection" like physical protection. all other sorts of protection are less instinctive but intelligent.
"Besides, I don?t think that most people hold to your simplistic definition of ?father? (a strictly biological sense)."
and i don't think that most people know what they are talking about. biology isn't defined by the opinion of the general public. einstein didn't make a voting whether his views were likeble or not.
"I think that Short Round is relevant (and indeed any other character, as you have already felt free in mentioning several others). Their relationship has distinct father/son overtones."
sure it may be right mentioning short round but despite him being a child he doesn't have much to do with weakness. indy doesn't protect him, they work together. if you call this a father-son relationship, why not take indy-marcus as father-son? or perhaps... indy-henry sr., just that indy is henry's father?
"Why don?t you drop the snarky tone, Jay? It?s not needed."
it's not even snarky. it's mentioning facts. there in fact ARE many wrong things in this world and the question is - why did it have to be these children he doesn't know? just because something was "wrong" here? come on. there are things that are much more "wrong" i'd say.
"where we disagree is that I don?t see it being a big deal that he rescues the kids and you do."
true. for me, it's childish.
and...
"I don't agree with one word you say but I'll defend your right to say it."
isn't THAT sweet? he'll defend your rights. not too loudly of course because when some mod or admin disagrees with this defence, vogel will use the back door. but until he gets into any trouble or you disagree violently with his beliefs - you can count on him. it won't help you a bit but at least you have somebody to count on.
Deadlock
New member
Jay R. Zay said:
No, Jay, your tone mentions no facts. None. Zero. It is the way you say things.
Scolding me to "read what you write" like you?re some sort of overbearing schoolteacher isn?t the way to win friends and influence people. So, with that, I will bid this conversation "adieu".
Colonel Vogel
Guest
I've put Jay R. Zay on my ignore list.
Jay R. Zay
New member
"Scolding me to "read what you write" like you?re some sort of overbearing schoolteacher isn?t the way to win friends and influence people."
sorry. i was very egoistic to ask you to read what i write. so, please go ahead, stop reading what i write, reply anyway.
"I've put Jay R. Zay on my ignore list. "
the way you behave sooner or later you could find yourself on the ban list
but this isn't for me to decide.
sorry. i was very egoistic to ask you to read what i write. so, please go ahead, stop reading what i write, reply anyway.
"I've put Jay R. Zay on my ignore list.
"the way you behave sooner or later you could find yourself on the ban list
but this isn't for me to decide.
Junior Jones
New member
Jay R. Zay said:
I'm wondering what your criteria are. How do you define what is "Indy"? As far as I'm concerned, the movies are the primary source that define the character of Indiana Jones. All we know about Indy is what is portrayed in the movies. The rest is just assumption.
Just because Indy doesn't do something (like rescue children) in Raiders doesn't mean it's not in his character to do it. And the fact that he does rescue children in Temple tell me that it is in his character.
There are a lot of things we don't know about Indy, so we speculate and form our own ideas about those things based on what little we do know. But when something is clearly portrayed, there's no need to speculate on it.
Last edited:
Jay R. Zay
New member
"I'm wondering what your criteria are. How do you define what is "Indy"? As far as I'm concerned, the movies are the primary source that define the character of Indiana Jones. All we know about Indy is what is portrayed in the movies. The rest is just assumption."
do you know back to the future? part III is a western movies parody. does this mean that BTTF is a western trilogy? no. there are three indiana jones movies. two of them are very similar and show a similar character of indy, of his partners, enemies and similar intentions for his adventure. it is not hard to find out which of these three parts is very different to the others. in ToD:
- he gets into this adventure by accident
- he is after something that nobody has ever heard of
- he won't get paid, he does it just as a favor
- he isn't after believable enemies but after some weird religious people.
- the humor isn't refreshing and ironical but just cheap slapstick humor with a new unfunny joke every two minutes
- the rest of the movie is depressing and dark
these are the most obvious points, there are probably many more.
with this in mind, you should be able to understand my criteria - ToD doesn't fit to the other movies so the indy character is defined mostly by RotLA and LC.
"And the fact that he does rescue children in Temple tell me that it is in his character."
okay different example. you know the Cube movies? cube1 is realistic, the maths are correct, the characters are believable. in cube2, most of the maths for example is wrong because nobody cared about it. it isn't a realistic movie anymore, it has tons of sci-fi effects, virtual reality, etc. and there is a bad and boring explanation for the myth of part one.
does this mean that all of this has to apply to cube1? does this mean that cube1 was just supposed to be yet another spacy sci-fi movie? no. it means that sequels *can* have nothing to do with the original movie.
the first movie where indy appeared was RotLA. so THIS is the initial idea. then they made ToD which has few things in common with RotLA. could you please explain now why ToD should contain more originality than the real original? if it even was the same writer - okay. but it was a different writer with a different interpretation of indy.
and why, if everybody loved ToD so much and i'm just a stupid fool, why did they make LC more like RotLA again? perhaps - because they noticed that ToD didn't catch the original indy feeling. and that's why ToD is the most unsuccessful Indiana Jones movie. because many people think so.
"But when something is clearly portrayed, there's no need to speculate on it."
so let's GUESS in indy4 he IS the director of the museum with a boring job and the CIA comes to him and offers him a chance to clean the CIA toilets. would you say "okay, when it's in the movie it must be the real indy"? you should remember that indiana jones is just a series of movies. it isn't a documentary about somebody's real life. so just because something appears in the movies it doesn't mean it is believable.
and i did NOT say if he was there in india he wouldn't save the children. but i find it a bad idea to place him in such a situation. of course, if he was abducted by aliens, he would behave somehow. but that doesn't mean i would like to see this in indy4. AND it doesn't mean that IF it would appear in indy4 that i would consider indy4 as a real indy movie.
you should allow sequels to be incongruous. there are many sequels that don't seem to be part of the original universe. the most recent example for this that i've seen was "ring - twO" that, except for the main characters, had NOTHING to do with the original movie. and again, this is not just my opinion but the opinion of great parts of the audience and of important newspapers.
you can share or not share my opinion. but don't tell me i have no reasons for it. sometimes, like in this case, the reasons are obvious right from the beginning and this longwinded explanation should not have been necessary.
do you know back to the future? part III is a western movies parody. does this mean that BTTF is a western trilogy? no. there are three indiana jones movies. two of them are very similar and show a similar character of indy, of his partners, enemies and similar intentions for his adventure. it is not hard to find out which of these three parts is very different to the others. in ToD:
- he gets into this adventure by accident
- he is after something that nobody has ever heard of
- he won't get paid, he does it just as a favor
- he isn't after believable enemies but after some weird religious people.
- the humor isn't refreshing and ironical but just cheap slapstick humor with a new unfunny joke every two minutes
- the rest of the movie is depressing and dark
these are the most obvious points, there are probably many more.
with this in mind, you should be able to understand my criteria - ToD doesn't fit to the other movies so the indy character is defined mostly by RotLA and LC.
"And the fact that he does rescue children in Temple tell me that it is in his character."
okay different example. you know the Cube movies? cube1 is realistic, the maths are correct, the characters are believable. in cube2, most of the maths for example is wrong because nobody cared about it. it isn't a realistic movie anymore, it has tons of sci-fi effects, virtual reality, etc. and there is a bad and boring explanation for the myth of part one.
does this mean that all of this has to apply to cube1? does this mean that cube1 was just supposed to be yet another spacy sci-fi movie? no. it means that sequels *can* have nothing to do with the original movie.
the first movie where indy appeared was RotLA. so THIS is the initial idea. then they made ToD which has few things in common with RotLA. could you please explain now why ToD should contain more originality than the real original? if it even was the same writer - okay. but it was a different writer with a different interpretation of indy.
and why, if everybody loved ToD so much and i'm just a stupid fool, why did they make LC more like RotLA again? perhaps - because they noticed that ToD didn't catch the original indy feeling. and that's why ToD is the most unsuccessful Indiana Jones movie. because many people think so.
"But when something is clearly portrayed, there's no need to speculate on it."
so let's GUESS in indy4 he IS the director of the museum with a boring job and the CIA comes to him and offers him a chance to clean the CIA toilets. would you say "okay, when it's in the movie it must be the real indy"? you should remember that indiana jones is just a series of movies. it isn't a documentary about somebody's real life. so just because something appears in the movies it doesn't mean it is believable.
and i did NOT say if he was there in india he wouldn't save the children. but i find it a bad idea to place him in such a situation. of course, if he was abducted by aliens, he would behave somehow. but that doesn't mean i would like to see this in indy4. AND it doesn't mean that IF it would appear in indy4 that i would consider indy4 as a real indy movie.
you should allow sequels to be incongruous. there are many sequels that don't seem to be part of the original universe. the most recent example for this that i've seen was "ring - twO" that, except for the main characters, had NOTHING to do with the original movie. and again, this is not just my opinion but the opinion of great parts of the audience and of important newspapers.
you can share or not share my opinion. but don't tell me i have no reasons for it. sometimes, like in this case, the reasons are obvious right from the beginning and this longwinded explanation should not have been necessary.
roundshort
Active member
ToD Important character devlopment
I think that the most important thing about ToD is the fact it is the earlist of all the movies. Indiy at this point is after "furtune and glory" he is drivien to steal the stones for his own personal gain. He was raised by a name who gave up his family for his passion, and mentored by a professor who gave up his family for his career. Indy is pretty much a low life scum at this point. He is trading a Chiense artifact for personal gain, a big diamond, not a relic to put in a museum.
At this point is no better than Belloq, he if the Nazis wanted they could have hired him at this point. Now I admit, I am not a fan of the knight in shinning armor junk, but one could say this is what put Indy on the path to "saving mankind" as some one mentioned in another entry.
Temple of Doom is not that bad, it is not the best but it is better than the love fest of Last Crusade. The scene in Club Obi Wan may be the most pure Indy fight scene of them all, his old friend is killed, Indy is drugged, out numbered, and pissed!
I can't even rate the movies, but you need to rank the best scenes of the movies. top 5
1) Truck scene of RotLA
2) Club Obi Wan fight scence
3) Opening of Raiders, ending with "a big Snake . . ."
4) Raven bar fight in radiers
5) Bridge fight scene.
Last Crusade had some great humor, but was way to sappy, and Dr. Snyder was the worst Indy girl, best looking but lame.
I think that the most important thing about ToD is the fact it is the earlist of all the movies. Indiy at this point is after "furtune and glory" he is drivien to steal the stones for his own personal gain. He was raised by a name who gave up his family for his passion, and mentored by a professor who gave up his family for his career. Indy is pretty much a low life scum at this point. He is trading a Chiense artifact for personal gain, a big diamond, not a relic to put in a museum.
At this point is no better than Belloq, he if the Nazis wanted they could have hired him at this point. Now I admit, I am not a fan of the knight in shinning armor junk, but one could say this is what put Indy on the path to "saving mankind" as some one mentioned in another entry.
Temple of Doom is not that bad, it is not the best but it is better than the love fest of Last Crusade. The scene in Club Obi Wan may be the most pure Indy fight scene of them all, his old friend is killed, Indy is drugged, out numbered, and pissed!
I can't even rate the movies, but you need to rank the best scenes of the movies. top 5
1) Truck scene of RotLA
2) Club Obi Wan fight scence
3) Opening of Raiders, ending with "a big Snake . . ."
4) Raven bar fight in radiers
5) Bridge fight scene.
Last Crusade had some great humor, but was way to sappy, and Dr. Snyder was the worst Indy girl, best looking but lame.
roundshort
Active member
help
As i am new here, and have no idea how to use a computer, how can I get a pic to go with my name?
As i am new here, and have no idea how to use a computer, how can I get a pic to go with my name?
Colonel Vogel
Guest
roundshort said:
To get a pic (avatar) you need to have made 100 posts.
roundshort
Active member
thanks
Very cool, With the excellent topics, I am sure that will not be a problem, I am really happy to have found this site, and other Indy fans!
Very cool, With the excellent topics, I am sure that will not be a problem, I am really happy to have found this site, and other Indy fans!
Colonel Vogel
Guest
Then start flooding.
monkey
Guest
A discussion of the "Character" of Indiana Jones...............(double meaning), Yes indeed, a subject close to my own heart.
Is Indiana Jones' character defined only by the movies, or by the novels, or by.............well, by something more???????
Did either do him justice??
What was Lucas' true, original idea? .....or does that even matter??? Did Lucas just let the genie out of the bottle, so to speak? And did the character of Indiana Jones just kind of develop on his own????
I kind of think so.
Of course, a prerequisite to understanding Indiana Jones is an understanding of the timeframe of the 1930's. And an understanding of the original movie and print serials of that time.
Jones is an inheritantly GOOD person......but he is nonetheless a passionate man, and not immune to the temptations of the flesh. He is both Heroic and Human..................yes maybe that's it, he is both Heroic, and yet Human.
Perhaps that is why he is so popular.
Don't we all want to be both Heroic, and human (well, we can't escape the latter can we? But can we all be the former????)
Is Indiana Jones' character defined only by the movies, or by the novels, or by.............well, by something more???????
Did either do him justice??
What was Lucas' true, original idea? .....or does that even matter??? Did Lucas just let the genie out of the bottle, so to speak? And did the character of Indiana Jones just kind of develop on his own????
I kind of think so.
Of course, a prerequisite to understanding Indiana Jones is an understanding of the timeframe of the 1930's. And an understanding of the original movie and print serials of that time.
Jones is an inheritantly GOOD person......but he is nonetheless a passionate man, and not immune to the temptations of the flesh. He is both Heroic and Human..................yes maybe that's it, he is both Heroic, and yet Human.
Perhaps that is why he is so popular.
Don't we all want to be both Heroic, and human (well, we can't escape the latter can we? But can we all be the former????)
roundshort
Active member
Indiana Jones has to be defined by the movies, he is a man of action, probably best compared to the hero of the old west. He is a man of few words, so he is defined by his acions. Indy only does what is "right" but seldom sets out to do them for the right reasons (saving children in ToD when he is out to seek a cash reward, seeking the ark to be well paid, and ensure him as the worlds most famous arch.
Indy is different from the old west heros since he will ask for help, his trusted friends, mentors, hell even children had to save him ("Better than the U.S. Marines").
He acts with out thinking, and pays the price when he is wrong, but can back it up both mentally and phycically.
Basiclly Indy is what every guy really wants to be, without any real tragic flaws. I don't think George or Steven ever set to create this charcter, which I see as a combination of the (original 1920's Hardy Boys, James Bond, Insp. Jacques Clouseau, and Shane (with a little bit of Eastwood's Man with no name thrown in.) I am sure there are hundreds of other characters also.
The real question, can anyone else besides Ford ever play Indy?
Indy is different from the old west heros since he will ask for help, his trusted friends, mentors, hell even children had to save him ("Better than the U.S. Marines").
He acts with out thinking, and pays the price when he is wrong, but can back it up both mentally and phycically.
Basiclly Indy is what every guy really wants to be, without any real tragic flaws. I don't think George or Steven ever set to create this charcter, which I see as a combination of the (original 1920's Hardy Boys, James Bond, Insp. Jacques Clouseau, and Shane (with a little bit of Eastwood's Man with no name thrown in.) I am sure there are hundreds of other characters also.
The real question, can anyone else besides Ford ever play Indy?
Each movie is terriffic. They are all different, otherwise they would all be the same movie. A few nit-picks:
1: The woman in ToD screams too much, and some might not like Short Round.
1: The ending of RotLA was'nt quite up to the rest of the movie.
1: LC had less edginess to it at times. When he said "rats", I knew what I was to see next.
1: The woman in ToD screams too much, and some might not like Short Round.
1: The ending of RotLA was'nt quite up to the rest of the movie.
1: LC had less edginess to it at times. When he said "rats", I knew what I was to see next.
Colonel Vogel
Guest
mra said:
I nominate this for quote of the year.
Luisiana Jones
Member
LOL! That´s a good one indeed...
Jay R. Zay
New member
mra said:
i'd vote for this one. it's the same effect as in the scene "Nazis - i hate these guys".
Colonel Vogel
Guest
"Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is."
Yoda
Yoda