HovitosKing
Well-known member
Moedred said:
What purpose is that...drooling over an absurdly bad title? Anyone who thinks "City of the Gods" is a good title should be drawn and quartered.
Rumored (Official) title: Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods
- Thread starter fedoraboy
- Start date
What purpose is that...drooling over an absurdly bad title? Anyone who thinks "City of the Gods" is a good title should be drawn and quartered.
the Fiddler
New member
I'm not trying to attack anyone, but before this discussion continues further,
Lets get a few things straight:
1) Teotihuican is neither Aztec nor Mayan. The inhabitants of the city are known as Teotihuicanos and are possibly the ancestors of the Aztec, but they are not Aztec. Also, it's title of "City of the Gods" or "Place Where Men Become Gods" are both Aztec names given to the city long after its inhabitants had died or left. Their language has not been deciphered so we don't know what they call it. This doesn't mean you can't write a fictional film based around it though. Having visited Teotihuican about a year ago, it think it would be part of an awesome Indy adventure. But in all honesty, I just don't see it.
2) There are multiple Gods in the Bible, and that's not including the idolatrous gods someone mentioned. The Hebrew word "elohim" which we translate to "God" singular, is actually a plural word. As such the first line of the Bible could be translated: "In the beggining the Gods created heaven and earth." However, usually when refering to the "Hebrew God" its surrounded by singular verbs and adjectives, thus we translate it "God," singular. Based on the Hebrew the exact meaning is unclear. Though in the end, I highly doubt "City of the Gods" refers to a garden.
3) Jerusalem could be a site for the "City of the Gods" because of the 3 different Gods that are often associated with it. They are: 1. Jehovah (or "Yahweh" as someone mentioned) of the Hebrews, 2. Jesus Christ, of the Christians, 3. Allah, of the Muslims. Now it can easily be argued that they are all the same. I'd mostly agree, but that doesn't mean you can't say "Gods" plural based on the differing beleifs of the three different religions.
4) Lets stop the name-calling tacticts. They serve to function except to enrage the attacked. Comments like "you're stupid if you like this title" serve no intellectual purpose, and are completely invalid and unsound statements. The purpose of a forum is to discuss things. Lets discuss, and have respect for the oppinions of others.
2) There are multiple Gods in the Bible, and that's not including the idolatrous gods someone mentioned. The Hebrew word "elohim" which we translate to "God" singular, is actually a plural word. As such the first line of the Bible could be translated: "In the beggining the Gods created heaven and earth." However, usually when refering to the "Hebrew God" its surrounded by singular verbs and adjectives, thus we translate it "God," singular. Based on the Hebrew the exact meaning is unclear. Though in the end, I highly doubt "City of the Gods" refers to a garden.
3) Jerusalem could be a site for the "City of the Gods" because of the 3 different Gods that are often associated with it. They are: 1. Jehovah (or "Yahweh" as someone mentioned) of the Hebrews, 2. Jesus Christ, of the Christians, 3. Allah, of the Muslims. Now it can easily be argued that they are all the same. I'd mostly agree, but that doesn't mean you can't say "Gods" plural based on the differing beleifs of the three different religions.
4) Lets stop the name-calling tacticts. They serve to function except to enrage the attacked. Comments like "you're stupid if you like this title" serve no intellectual purpose, and are completely invalid and unsound statements. The purpose of a forum is to discuss things. Lets discuss, and have respect for the oppinions of others.
In the end, though I like some of the implications of the title, it doesn't--as Joe Brody said--have the energy and action conveyed in the previous tiles by the words "Raiders," "Doom," and "Crusade."
Last edited:
HovitosKing
Well-known member
Fiddler, thanks for the history lesson. However, it makes for more interesting discussion when we don't have folks getting offended over points of debate. We're discussing issues possibly related to the rumored title here, not defending a thesis. Lighten up.
the Fiddler
New member
HovitosKing said:
You're welcome for the history, and sorry, I appologize, I didn't mean to come on as "too heavy." Plus, I agree, it would be nice if people didn't easily get angry. But I just guess I can't see the "points of debate" in "Anyone who thinks 'City of the Gods' is a good title should be drawn and quartered." I guess it just sounds like you're realy trying to tick people off. I don't like the title either, but I much prefer Joe Brody's method of showing why its not a good title, rather than just condemning anyone who doesn't agree as ignorant or stupid.
roundshort
Active member
the Fiddler said:
I don't know 'of' always struck me as an intense word . . .
the Fiddler
New member
LOL! Good one man! Good one.
Rae-deemer
New member
Anyone who likes the title "City of Gods" should be drug out into the street and shot and then have their body drawn and quartered. Then sliced into eighths...then the mincing shall begin. They should then be served on a nice bruschetta with a bit of parsley and garlic to garnish.
I'd strike prepositions from movie titles if I had my way. 'Caribbean Pirates: Black Pearl Curse' for example. However, the likeliest Indy title I've heard here at the Raven contains 'of,' and it's good.roundshort said:
'City of Gods' sounds like a find-your-fate book. A city full of gods? Do they shop and commute and work on utility poles? How about 'Subdivision of Gods' or 'Homeowners Association of Gods.'
Nice comments from the Fiddler. Let's extrapolate a little further...
"City of Gods", considering that it refers to the location of the story's "McGuffin", can practically refer to any location on this Earth (and especially if it's something that's been lost long time ago). This would also fall neatly in line with the earlier three films, as all the sites with the McGuffin (Ark Dig Site, Pankot Palace, Grail Temple) were completely fictitious.
Also better keep in mind that we still have no idea if this is THE title, as it may as well be some kind of working title... or title for a scrapped script. All this buzz over it may actually serve the production crew, helping them to keep the actual title unrevealed a little while longer.
I'm not here to kill this discussion whatsoever, though. Just thought I'd chime in a bit.
"City of Gods", considering that it refers to the location of the story's "McGuffin", can practically refer to any location on this Earth (and especially if it's something that's been lost long time ago). This would also fall neatly in line with the earlier three films, as all the sites with the McGuffin (Ark Dig Site, Pankot Palace, Grail Temple) were completely fictitious.
Also better keep in mind that we still have no idea if this is THE title, as it may as well be some kind of working title... or title for a scrapped script. All this buzz over it may actually serve the production crew, helping them to keep the actual title unrevealed a little while longer.
I'm not here to kill this discussion whatsoever, though. Just thought I'd chime in a bit.
the Fiddler
New member
Good points Finn, good points.
Grant Lutjens
New member
I HOPE City of the Gods isnt the title (Just adding my personal thoughts... It is a little off the topic atm but i missed out on it earlier 
)
Umm. And its sortof off-topic.
But i personally would be offended if the title was City of the Gods.
I am a big fan of Stargate SG1. And play in a couple of MMORPG's as a Goauld (God Impersonator). That title should be reserved for them!
Also as knowing stargate it would cloud the title.... TO me it dont sound Indy enough
)Umm. And its sortof off-topic.
But i personally would be offended if the title was City of the Gods.
I am a big fan of Stargate SG1. And play in a couple of MMORPG's as a Goauld (God Impersonator). That title should be reserved for them!
Also as knowing stargate it would cloud the title.... TO me it dont sound Indy enough
I could see shangri la/shambala or garden of eden working with an indy spin.
If the family thing is going to be a part of it, I could see the opening set piece take place a few years after crusade using some fx touch ups to make harrison seem younger. they could establish his lady and soon to be offspring within the opening set piece. all the action of the opening could end with indy retiring from the field. cut to 1954 doo doo dooo doooo......
If the family thing is going to be a part of it, I could see the opening set piece take place a few years after crusade using some fx touch ups to make harrison seem younger. they could establish his lady and soon to be offspring within the opening set piece. all the action of the opening could end with indy retiring from the field. cut to 1954 doo doo dooo doooo......
I have a feeling Indy will have a rival Treasure Hunter on his hands for this one. A guy that's not Indy's Freind nor foe. There just kinda fighting for the same cause and keep geting in one anothers way. The joke would be that the guy is young and Indy is old so it would bother him that the young guy is keeping up with him. I don't think Indy will have a child in this one, i think he will finally settle down after this.
The other thing i noticed was that Indy has about a 200 day shooting schedule. Which is the same amount of time it took to shoot pirates 2 and 3. Go figure. 2 movies at once maybe?
The other thing i noticed was that Indy has about a 200 day shooting schedule. Which is the same amount of time it took to shoot pirates 2 and 3. Go figure. 2 movies at once maybe?
