The Haters thread

[Darth Vile]

It's not a fair comparison because the waterfalls were not designed as a proper, full-fledged set piece like the mine cart chase was.

I agree... but I was making the point that some of KOTCS' action scenes were a little lacklustre. If I were comparing the mine cart chase to the jungle chase, for example, I'd have to say that I preferred the latter... whilst acknowledging that TOD is the better 'action' movie (IMHO).

 

[replican't]

I agree... but I was making the point that some of KOTCS' action scenes were a little lacklustre. If I were comparing the mine cart chase to the jungle chase, for example, I'd have to say that I preferred the latter... whilst acknowledging that TOD is the better 'action' movie (IMHO).

The waterfall scene in KOTCS was about as suspenseful and dangerous as a log flume ride at a kids theme park. What should have been dramatic was stupidly comedic, a really bad joke and waste of time. For all the credibility and tension evoked, Spielberg might as well have shown Indy reaching back in the vehicle to reveal he'd brought the fridge with him, opening it, cracking open some glowing radioactive beers and passing them round with a cheesy grin. Pathetic.

 

[Darth Vile]

The waterfall scene in KOTCS was about as suspenseful and dangerous as a log flume ride at a kids theme park. What should have been dramatic was stupidly comedic, a really bad joke and waste of time. For all the credibility and tension evoked, Spielberg might as well have shown Indy reaching back in the vehicle to reveal he'd brought the fridge with him, opening it, cracking open some glowing radioactive beers and passing them round with a cheesy grin. Pathetic.

I don't think anyone is arguing the toss about that... The waterfall scene is more reminiscent of the slalom on the rubber raft from TOD... but even that, as ridiculous as it was, had a bit of pace/momentum going for it.

I always thought that the '3 waterfalls' scene is an odd place in the movie for it to occur. If it had happened as part of the escape from Akator or after a water/river based action sequence, it would have been more successful. However, coming after the jungle chase and 'Ants' it seems out of keeping and more tacked on/redundant than anything else. It wasn't so troubling on first viewings for me, as it just seemed like a throw away/light-weight couple of minutes... However, yes, a redundant sequence is a redundant sequence.

 

[Cole]

I don't think anyone is arguing the toss about that... The waterfall scene is more reminiscent of the slalom on the rubber raft from TOD... but even that, as ridiculous as it was, had a bit of pace/momentum going for it.

I always thought that the '3 waterfalls' scene is an odd place in the movie for it to occur. If it had happened as part of the escape from Akator or after a water/river based action sequence, it would have been more successful. However, coming after the jungle chase and 'Ants' it seems out of keeping and more tacked on/redundant than anything else. It wasn't so troubling on first viewings for me, as it just seemed like a throw away/light-weight couple of minutes... However, yes, a redundant sequence is a redundant sequence.

I agree the film would've greatly benefitted from some sort of exciting action sequence as Indy is leaving the crumbling city.......escaping the underground city by floating atop the flooding water wasn't all that exciting. Eh. It's not a "bad" ending but I don't think it leaves the viewer on the edge of their seat which isn't how you want the audience leaving the film.

As for the waterfall sequence, I don't necessarily see it as out of place. It's just a way for them to "stumble" upon the entrance to Akator. I think the waterfall scenes are as much about humor than dramatic suspense. I do enjoy Ford's reactions. But as has been said; it's not really a full-fledged action sequence. It has minimal impact on the film; there's bigger issues to analyze.

 

[Cole]

I have no problem or inability in accepting any growth or change in the character of Indy. In KOTCS he's pretty much the same as he's always been, just older. Hence Mutt's attempts to reform him from grave robbing.

Indy might have had a crisis on conscience in 1935, but it wasn't long before he was back to his bad old ways of looting from natives, since that's how we see him in 1936 Peru.

What we witness is revisionism by Lucas and Spielberg. In 1981 they were happy presenting a rogue. In 1984 they realized their rogue was a role model for children, so they forced Indy to recognize the things that really matter in life: the lives of native people over fortune and glory.

In 1989 Indy's reconciling himself with his father - creating a loose end with the boy scout prologue, and tying it up before allowing him to ride off into the sunset.

For all intents and purposes that was going to be the end of Harrison's big Indy.

2008 brought Indy back - but it was an awkward proposition, as I've argued many times. The character who was originally intended to entertain children and their parents was now older than the general cinema going audience would expect to see. Not only that, but the children who would see him weren't even born when The Last Crusade was released. Unlike other popular characters, Indy needed to be re-introduced to that new audience.

The result was a clumsy script, forced plot, and paper-thin characters. As if by way of compensation there was the needlessly over-the-top action sequences to prevent the kids from dropping off to sleep. The desire to outdo anything seen before is the natural peril of any series.

So we see a descent over not one but three waterfalls. A fall from a great height with the soft landing removed. A rubber tree picked out with perfect timing from speed, and not even by the supernaturally lucky Indy.

If TOD took Raiders to the next level, KOTCS takes it a step further. For entertainment purposes, for me it's a step too far. The original trilogy put meat onto the bones of fantasy. KOTCS leaves us with just the bones, and it no longer asks us to climb on board, but simply to stand well back and stare aghast.

Lucas and Spielberg tried, I'll give them that. They provided some excellent Indy sequences worthy of the original trilogy, but they're isolated, like edited highlights. Essentially they set themselves an impossible task, and made it worse by over-compensation.

Indy didn't need to be re-introduced, nor do I think they tried to. Most children are familiar with Star Wars and Indy thanks to television and DVDs.

I don't see Indy as this dark, rogueish hero.....I think that's why they set 'Temple of Doom' in 1935 (which predates 'Raiders of the Lost Ark') - because the events of 'Temple' help shape who he is in 'Raiders' and the rest of the series.

 

[Montana Smith]

I don't see Indy as this dark, rogueish hero.....I think that's why they set 'Temple of Doom' in 1935 (which predates 'Raiders of the Lost Ark') - because the events of 'Temple' help shape who he is in 'Raiders' and the rest of the series.

Indy was still a thief in 1936. At least Belloq took the trouble to learn the natives' language. His speech about the two of them being similar wasn't just idle chatter.

The Indian children might have meant something to Indy in the previous year, but the Indians of South America meant diddly squat.

1936 wasn't long after the white invaders had finished stealing America from its inhabitants. I suppose, from a certain standpoint, that puts Indy into the long line of 'great American heroes'.

He's heroic by imperialist standards. Which is why Lucas whitewashed him for educational purposes when he created Young Indiana Jones. Even into his twenties the character is barely recognizable with the man we see in the 1930s.

 

[Darth Vile]

Even into his twenties the character is barely recognizable with the man we see in the 1930s.

I'm not sure what you'd expect from a middle class white boy with a good education.

I don't see anything in Raiders to suggest Indy, as a boy/young man, would have been that different to what we see in TYIJC (accepting of course that the TV series was a more sanitised version of the movies). Of course, even within Raiders, we're looking at two different Indy persona's... the reserved scholar/teacher and the seasoned adventurer.

 

[Montana Smith]

I'm not sure what you'd expect from a middle class white boy with a good education.

I don't see anything in Raiders to suggest Indy, as a boy/young man, would have been that different to what we see in TYIJC (accepting of course that the TV series was a more sanitised version of the movies).

Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941)

...

The story begins with the Malcolm Archaeological Expedition in The Valley of the Tombs in Siam

...

Billy Batson warns his elders that they?re ?robbing a grave?. He ?wants no part of it. It?s therefore made quite clear, forty years before Raiders, that Indy is a rogue by serial standards.

http://raven.theraider.net/showpost.php?p=521843&postcount=167

It wasn't until 2008 that this aspect of Indy's character was addressed within the big screen films, with Mutt in the role of young Billy Batson. This was the first opportunity George had to address this issue since Young Indiana Jones.

 

[Cole]

Indy was still a thief in 1936. At least Belloq took the trouble to learn the natives' language. His speech about the two of them being similar wasn't just idle chatter.

The Indian children might have meant something to Indy in the previous year, but the Indians of South America meant diddly squat.

1936 wasn't long after the white invaders had finished stealing America from its inhabitants. I suppose, from a certain standpoint, that puts Indy into the long line of 'great American heroes'.

He's heroic by imperialist standards. Which is why Lucas whitewashed him for educational purposes when he created Young Indiana Jones. Even into his twenties the character is barely recognizable with the man we see in the 1930s.

...all that because of the opening sequence?

We're never given any clues as to Indy's motivations in stealing the idol, but he seemed pretty idealistic in his views.

I see Belloq comparing himself to Indy in their passion for acheology.....Belloq only sides with people Indy would never align with (hence Indy is more idealistic).

 

[Darth Vile]

...all that because of the opening sequence?

We're never given any clues as to Indy's motivations in stealing the idol, but he seemed pretty idealistic in his views.

I see Belloq comparing himself to Indy in their passion for acheology.....Belloq only sides with people Indy would never align with (hence Indy is more idealistic).

Totally agree. And whilst I'm more than happy to view Indiana Jones as a bit of a rogue, womaniser and as a man who will not do things 'by the book’; it's his motivations that count. The fact that he teaches, that he's a qualified archaeologist (we assume given his professional title) lends credence to the natural assumption that he does what he does, not for monetary gain (although that may be a part of it), but as part of a greater good. It’s why the sequels are titled Indiana Jones and the… rather than Belloq and the… i.e. Indy is quite clearly a 'hero' and the 'hero' of the piece. Having him be able to fist fight Nazi's etc. is obviously just a requirment for the movie (action) rather than a meaningful insight into a 'dark/dangerous' character.

 

[Montana Smith]

His motiviations were money and adventure.

His justification was weak: it belongs in a museum, regardless who actually has more right to it.

He might teach archaeology, but he rarely practises it. He's a mercenary for Marcus' museum. He doesn't do much painstaking digging and sifting, but he locates a site and breaks in to take the artifact before a rival claims it.

Lucas even talked about that aspect of his character in the Story Conference. That was the Indy that made his way onto the screen in 1981, and also the way he was at the beginning of Temple of Doom.

Indy may be enlightened with regards to respecting other races, but when it comes to money the prize still comes first.

In 1989 Lucas was pulling back from the fortune and glory aspect. It was replaced by the quest to save his father. In 2008 Indy was hardly motivated at all, and had to be coerced. Yet he was still a grave robber at heart when the opportunity arose.

 

[Darth Vile]

His motiviations were money and adventure.

His justification was weak: it belongs in a museum, regardless who actually has more right to it.

He might teach archaeology, but he rarely practises it. He's a mercenary for Marcus' museum. He doesn't do much painstaking digging and sifting, but he locates a site and breaks in to take the artifact before a rival claims it.

Lucas even talked about that aspect of his character in the Story Conference. That was the Indy that made his way onto the screen in 1981, and also the way he was at the beginning of Temple of Doom.

Indy may be enlightened with regards to respecting other races, but when it comes to money the prize still comes first.

In 1989 Lucas was pulling back from the fortune and glory aspect. It was replaced by the quest to save his father. In 2008 Indy was hardly motivated at all, and had to be coerced. Yet he was still a grave robber at heart when the opportunity arose.

I think that's a bit of a cop out Montana. It's about what's on screen that counts. I don't think there is anything (or very little) in Raiders the movie that suggests Indy is doing it for the money. We assume the artifacts go to a museum (if Marcus is the main customer) and not a private collection like Walter Donovan's (but we can't count that out completely). I see nothing to present him as a 'mercenary for hire'. Indeed, he didn't even seem that interested in the money on offer from the government for the Ark (both before or after it's retrieval). In fact he wanted assurances that the museum get the Ark.

I get that Indy seems more interesting when appearing more morally ambiguous... I like to think that he's a bit bad too. But I think that's more wishful thinking on our part, EU and documented pre-production conversations more than anything tangible on screen.

 

[Stoo]

I think the waterfall scenes are as much about humor than dramatic suspense. I do enjoy Ford's reactions.

Where was the humour in the waterfall scene? One thing I really DISLIKED/HATED was Marion clinging to the steering wheel at the bottom in order to show that she'd been through a shock-inducing experience. Did she just land there with the steering wheel still in hand or did she swim to the shore and begin clutching it again?

You didn't expect KOTCS to depict Marion as some 50 something syphilitic alcoholic did you??? Perhaps it would have made for a more interesting movie... but not a movie the masses would flock to.

Even though your reply was aimed at Montana Smith...Marion was *40*-something in "Skull" and her portrayal, most likely, had no bearing on 'the masses who would flock' to see the film. (Unless you're in the frame of mind that: Many people went to see Indy 4, simply because they heard that Marion doesn't drink in the new movie!) The masses flocked because of Indiana Jones...

As you wrote:

It?s why the sequels are titled Indiana Jones and the? rather than Belloq and the?

The sequels aren't titled, "Marion Ravenwood and the..."

 

[Montana Smith]

I think that's a bit of a cop out Montana. It's about what's on screen that counts. I don't think there is anything (or very little) in Raiders the movie that suggests Indy is doing it for the money. We assume the artifacts go to a museum (if Marcus is the main customer) and not a private collection like Walter Donovan's (but we can't count that out completely). I see nothing to present him as a 'mercenary for hire'. Indeed, he didn't even seem that interested in the money on offer from the government for the Ark (both before or after it's retrieval). In fact he wanted assurances that the museum get the Ark.

I get that Indy seems more interesting when appearing more morally ambiguous... I like to think that he's a bit bad too. But I think that's more wishful thinking on our part, EU and documented pre-production conversations more than anything tangible on screen.

Indy hooks up with a pair of murderers to get him to the scene of the crime, before lifting a golden statue from natives who revere it to put it into an American museum. That's imperialism in a nutshell. The prologue to Raiders establishes Indy's character as it was in 1936. Pointing to the Story Conference merely establishes what was further in the minds of the creators: the back story Spielberg distilled into the opening to the movie.

Indy's mercenary actions conform to ideas no longer politically correct. It's the indicator that he hails from a time when western powers ran roughshod over less developed countries and peoples.

 

[Darth Vile]

Indy hooks up with a pair of murderers to get him to the scene of the crime, before lifting a golden statue from natives who revere it to put it into an American museum. That's imperialism in a nutshell. The prologue to Raiders establishes Indy's character as it was in 1936. Pointing to the Story Conference merely establishes what was further in the minds of the creators: the back story Spielberg distilled into the opening to the movie.

Indy's mercenary actions conform to ideas no longer politically correct. It's the indicator that he hails from a time when western powers ran roughshod over less developed countries and peoples.

Yes Indiana Jones has a historical context and is quite clearly a period movie... and of course I'd agree that as such, historical political ideologies are reflected (albeit superficially). But that doesn't make the character a villain/shady as that could be levelled at many of the 19th/20th century eminent archaeologists... as well as other fictional characters such as Sherlock Holmes, Tom Brown, Tom Sawyer etc. etc.

Having Indy being portrayed as a loveable rogue is one thing... (he is) but I don't think they ever really expected him to be viewed as a man who had split loyalties or who was bad... that was Belloq, and that was the difference between the two characters i.e. one had a clear moral compass/code... and the other did not.

 

[Montana Smith]

Yes Indiana Jones has a historical context and is quite clearly a period movie... and of course I'd agree that as such, historical political ideologies are reflected (albeit superficially). But that doesn't make the character a villain/shady as that could be levelled at many of the 19th/20th century eminent archaeologists... as well as other fictional characters such as Sherlock Holmes, Tom Brown, Tom Sawyer etc. etc.

Having Indy being portrayed as a loveable rogue is one thing... (he is) but I don't think they ever really expected him to be viewed as a man who had split loyalties or who was bad... that was Belloq, and that was the difference between the two characters i.e. one had a clear moral compass/code... and the other did not.

What makes Indy interesting is that he teeters on the edge of respectability by modern standards. I see him in the tradition of Batman the vigilante, or rather a character such as The Spider from the 1938 The Spider's Web.

Commissioner Kirk describes The Spider as “…a murderer operating against murderers.” To which Wentworth replies, “…he always tries to help justice. He’s never attacked an innocent person.” Yet the Commissioner insists, “No man has the right to take the law into his own hands.”

Later Wentworth tells his Indian assistant, Ram Singh, “…the law is too handicapped by red tape, so to save human lives The Spider operates outside the law.”

Indy likewise has his own personal code, which keeps him from crossing the line into Belloq's realm. Indy's code permits him to steal, because the attraction of the quest, the chase and the reward (professional and monetary) are too great to resist.

Lucas talks about the character's shady operations of relieving collectors, graves or countries of their artifacts. Though rather than bring upon himself the supposed Curse of Howard Carter, Indy is afforded good luck.

There are times, however, when his methods are a valuable attribute. Like The Spider (but unlike Batman) Indy will kill to get the job done. In modern comic books he's more akin to The Punisher than he is to Superman or Spider-Man. That is, he's not a modern traditional hero.

The heroes of empire are the anti-heroes of today. From 1984 onwards Lucas must have been aware of this, as the character is put under scrutiny.

There was a change from fortune and glory in TOD, which being a prequel makes that an after thought.

TLC showed the influences that motivated the young Indy. 'It belongs in a museum' is scant justification for the romantic ideal that 'Fedora' planted into his formative mind.

Thereby we see the creation of the dichotomy between the professional in the classroom, and the vandal in the field, which persists into KOTCS where he's embarrassed into returning the dagger to the grave.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

Problem is he took the mythology out of Indiana Jones and replaced it with San Francisco Hippie LSD Alien claptrap...

...and the world responded. We love Indiana Jones, what did you do to him?

 

[Attila the Professor]

A few of the scenes I found touching in 'Crystal Skull':

All right, let's see.

-"....they weren't you honey."

Works. The most legitimately human moment between Indy and Marion in the film.

-In a reversal of roles from earlier in the film, Mutt hands Indy a corpse and says "Hold this!" before impetuously asking "...this way?" It's glimpses of Mutt being the impetuous adventurer his father is, after being scared earlier in the film. The smirk that Indy gives his son, and John Williams' little music que.....it's one of my favorite moments in the film that I've virtually never heard/seen mentioned.

The reversal is sort of fun, but it's more a cheap gag than anything else, designed to interrupt (for who knows what reason...) a moment between Indy and Marion.

-"Why don't you stick around Junior?......somewhere your grandpa is laughing."

This I can't find emotional at all, especially with the hackneyed reuse of the lovely "illumination" theme.

-The wedding scene has many great moments. Marion throwing the bouqet in the preacher's face before giving Indy a huge kiss. Indy and Mutt both responding to "Well done, Henry" at the same time.

I quite like the latter, and can take or leave the former. Again, I can't say that they're moving, exactly. Oxley's line is the best bit of the scene, and the lovely arrangement of Marion's theme.

I don't know how Indy fans couldn't love these moments.

Depends on who you're Indy is.

As for Abner returning? To suddenly pull the rug out from underneath everyone after 30 years and coming up with some excuse as to why they thought Abner was dead......it could've come off pretty contrived.

You've got total agreement from me here.

So what if it's intentionally absurd? I can think of some absurd moments in the first three films. If you can't suspend reality for the sake of entertainment, then I think you miss the point and/or it's just not for you.

The scene itself is brilliantly pieced-together, keeps you on the edge of your seat, and is wildly entertaining. In my opinion, it's one of the most memorable sequences of the film and that's what I think is important.

Doom Town is one of the most worthwhile things in the film, and the seriousness of everything prior to the fridge, and even immediately after, sells the fridge itself, in my opinion. But entertainment needs to be constructed in such a way that it invites the easy suspension of disbelief. We want, as audiences, to be able to suspend our disbelief, but it is incumbent on artists to let us. I don't complain much about the bouncing fridge, although I could. I <I>do</I> complain about characters that aren't effectively fleshed out or given credible narrative through-lines, and about silly animal interactions, and about cheap crotch jokes, and tensionless waterfalls.

On that note...

Where was the humour in the waterfall scene? One thing I really DISLIKED/HATED was Marion clinging to the steering wheel at the bottom in order to show that she'd been through a shock-inducing experience. Did she just land there with the steering wheel still in hand or did she swim to the shore and begin clutching it again?

...I couldn't agree with Stoo more, here.

In general, I agree with Montana about Indy's character as presented in Raiders. As I've said numerous times, we are meant to take quite seriously both Belloq's commentary on the similarity between he and Indy and Indy's eventual decision to choose Marion over the Ark - a decision he rescinds after Belloq gives his speech about history. Raiders is as excellent as it is in strong part because it brings together Indy's core three relationships in the film - with Belloq, with Marion, and with the Ark - in that scene in the canyon. That scene has no reason for being unless Indy is actually making a choice for Marion over the Ark, a choice that Belloq talks him out of.

As to his motivations, the roguishness that is established in the South America sequence seems to be carried forward in the scenes in the States. Yes, Indy is presented as a rather brilliant teacher, even if we see more of that in the scene with Musgrove and Eaton than we do in his own classroom. But we also have Indy and Marcus clinking champagne glasses together in their excitement about the Ark. Sure, it's for research, but they're also going to make their names on it. Indy understands what the Ark is really worth only at the very end, once Belloq makes him see that it's history, and once its own powers demonstrate themselves.

 

[Cole]

...I couldn't agree with Stoo more, here.

In general, I agree with Montana about Indy's character as presented in Raiders. As I've said numerous times, we are meant to take quite seriously both Belloq's commentary on the similarity between he and Indy and Indy's eventual decision to choose Marion over the Ark - a decision he rescinds after Belloq gives his speech about history. Raiders is as excellent as it is in strong part because it brings together Indy's core three relationships in the film - with Belloq, with Marion, and with the Ark - in that scene in the canyon. That scene has no reason for being unless Indy is actually making a choice for Marion over the Ark, a choice that Belloq talks him out of.

As to his motivations, the roguishness that is established in the South America sequence seems to be carried forward in the scenes in the States. Yes, Indy is presented as a rather brilliant teacher, even if we see more of that in the scene with Musgrove and Eaton than we do in his own classroom. But we also have Indy and Marcus clinking champagne glasses together in their excitement about the Ark. Sure, it's for research, but they're also going to make their names on it. Indy understands what the Ark is really worth only at the very end, once Belloq makes him see that it's history, and once its own powers demonstrate themselves.

...I think it was clear Marion was clutching the wheel during the fall (and clutched it so hard it came off the steering column). Another case of fans being insulted by a moment of lighthearted humor I guess.

I think Indy was bluffing about blowing up the Ark to scare Belloq into giving up Marion. I'm not sure I ever saw it as Marion or the Ark; a decision of one or the other. Blowing up the Ark would not have saved Marion; it might have even killed her.

It still may be a stretch to call Indy a rogue in 'Raiders' based on the S. American scene and his exuberance of going after the Ark, but call it as you see fit - I don't think it changes the story. He's still the hero who goes up against the Nazis. I do agree there is a theme of Indy not fully appreciating the Ark's powers until the end (vs. his "hocus pocus" comment near the beginning).

 

[Attila the Professor]

...I think it was clear Marion was clutching the wheel during the fall (and clutched it so hard it came off the steering column). Another case of fans being insulted by a moment of lighthearted humor I guess.

A moment that asks us to assume that Marion washed ashore in that position, holding the wheel, whereas everyone else had to struggle to shore? Yeah, I'm insulted by it.

I think Indy was bluffing about blowing up the Ark to scare Belloq into giving up Marion. I'm not sure I ever saw it as Marion or the Ark; a decision of one or the other. Blowing up the Ark would not have saved Marion; it might have even killed her.

Sure, he wasn't going to blow up the Ark with her right there, because the assumption is that Belloq and the Germans weren't going to let him blow it up, and would happily turn Marion over to him. The bigger point is that he was willing in that moment to give up the Ark, willing to abandon it to the Nazis in return for Marion. That's a character moment, and I don't get why you're happy to say Crystal Skull has development and yet rob Raiders of its most important character elements.

It still may be a stretch to call Indy a rogue in 'Raiders' based on the S. American scene and his exuberance of going after the Ark, but call it as you see fit - I don't think it changes the story. He's still the hero who goes up against the Nazis. I do agree there is a theme of Indy not fully appreciating the Ark's powers until the end (vs. his "hocus pocus" comment near the beginning).

Well, he's not, for the most part, the hero who goes up against the Nazis, but the Nazis/Germans thing isn't my particular hobbyhorse. And he only goes up against the bad guys, at first, because they're after the same thing he is. We don't get "Nazis, I hate these guys" until Last Crusade, after all.