Read this review of Indy 4 and tell me I'm still the only one that liked it!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 18:36
VIEWED: 7621
PAGE 3 of 5
Quote:No, but I liked Doc Savage with Ron Ely...
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Face it, it was crap. The fact that you continue to deny this make me wonder if you enjoyed King Solomons Mine with Richard Chamberlain.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
The plot - I'm okay with it being aliens and Russians as it fits the time period but nothing changed by having Indy there. He didn't save anything or anyone that he couldn't have done by just going home after rescuing Marion etc.
Really, that is true of Raiders and Last Crusade as well. In Raiders, he could have rescued Marion at the bar and gone home, and the Nazi's would have still been digging in the wrong place, and had they eventually found it on their own... same ultimate result. Same would be true if he had taken Marion from the tent and gone home. In Crusade, once Indy got Henry, he could have said "No Dad, screw the diary" and gone home and the end result would have been the same.
Temple of Doom is the only Indy movie where Indy actually has an outcome on the ending, and the only one where he doesn't lead the bad guys directly to whatever they're after.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Indy had heroic stuff to do at the end of the first version of the Indy 4 screenplay http://file.wikileaks.org/file/indiana-jones-4.pdf , written by Frank Darabont, who did a dozen scripts for The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles & The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones. The man knows Indy.
Originally posted by lwaves:
...nothing changed by having Indy there. He didn't save anything or anyone that he couldn't have done by just going home after rescuing Marion etc.
In that script, Indy personally shoots the Alien. There was none of George Lucas's pacifist nonsense about the evil Aliens escaping justice by teleporting the flying saucer into the mystic “space between spaces”. Instead, the saucer blows up. Indy gives the Aliens what they deserve: noisy death! Too bad Lucas cut that scene and many others because he wanted to cram Shia LaBeouf/Mutt Williams into the screenplay. Mutt should have never been born in Lucas' imagination. I guess it's all Indy's fault for not wearing a condom.
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity", where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by lwaves:
The plot - I'm okay with it being aliens and Russians as it fits the time period but nothing changed by having Indy there. He didn't save anything or anyone that he couldn't have done by just going home after rescuing Marion etc.
Really, that is true of Raiders and Last Crusade as well. In Raiders, he could have rescued Marion at the bar and gone home, and the Nazi's would have still been digging in the wrong place, and had they eventually found it on their own... same ultimate result. Same would be true if he had taken Marion from the tent and gone home. In Crusade, once Indy got Henry, he could have said "No Dad, screw the diary" and gone home and the end result would have been the same.
Temple of Doom is the only Indy movie where Indy actually has an outcome on the ending, and the only one where he doesn't lead the bad guys directly to whatever they're after.
Very true so I'll concede that point to you.
It was from a half remembered post back when the movie came out and I don't think it was by me either. But I stand by my other points.
"The greatest invention ever is not the wheel. It's the second wheel." - Rich Hall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is it a wonder then why I love the flick?
Originally posted by Storymark:
Temple of Doom is the only Indy movie where Indy actually has an outcome on the ending, and the only one where he doesn't lead the bad guys directly to whatever they're after.
"Let's go home- ALL of us!"
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Is it a wonder then why I love the flick?
Originally posted by Storymark:
Temple of Doom is the only Indy movie where Indy actually has an outcome on the ending, and the only one where he doesn't lead the bad guys directly to whatever they're after.
"Let's go home- ALL of us!"
The laughing Chrisisall
It was my least favorite as a kid, but has really grown on me. My preference on Indy films matches the order of release, now.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'd have to say I'm right there with ya on that.
Originally posted by Storymark:
It was my least favorite as a kid, but has really grown on me. My preference on Indy films matches the order of release, now.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're not the only one who loved Indy 4 despite the flaws, Chrissall 
While Kingdom of the Crystal Skull couldn't hold a torch to Raiders of the Lost Ark, I thought it was a fun film for what it was. All the gongs were there to be struck, even if the swings were underpowered at times or at the wrong spot (metaphorically speaking).
Did initially ponder quite a bit at the shift from mystical/religious iconography to something more blatantly "new age" but what other famous relics could Indy & co. have gone after?
And concerning John Rhys-Davies' participation? I remember interviews saying he was all for coming back and taking up the Sallah role again, but lets be honest: Sallah shows up in the two films where the relic is hidden in the Middle East. The Sankara Stones were India and the Crystal Skull was in the middle of the Central American rainforest. Much as it seems like an odd comparison, Indiana Jones is like Kim Possible and has friends all over the globe...and he utilizes them when the matter needs it
"The revenge of the beaten comes in refusing to fall." -- Mal, in "The Losing Side - Chapter 45" by jetflair
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueEyedBrigadier:
Indiana Jones is like Kim Possible
LOL!!!!!!! *pees kilt*
That's great! Heh heh
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Personally, I enjoy all four Indy movies, butI can understand why some folk don't like Indy IV. It's not necessarily that it's a bad movie (although it certainly has flaws). I think a large part of it is that the movie wasn't the movie that people wanted to see.
With the first three Indy movies (and other Spielberg or Lucas movies, for that matter, including Star Wars), Lucas and Spielberg set out to make movies that mirrored the sensibilities of the films of the 1930s. It's not a big surprise that when people went to the theater expecting yet another 1930s-style movie, they were disappointed to see a 1950s-style movie.
Are there mis-steps? Heck, yeah. Aliens instead of a relgious artifact? Maybe. Some people will call it a mistake. I personally thought it was a brilliant way to shift the focus from the 1930s to the 1950s. Of course, I had also known for years that there were various alien-themed script possibilities (and have also long considered Fox Mulder to be the intellectual descendent of Indiana Jones), so it wasnt' a huge surprise to me. Unlike a lot of people, I had many years to get used to the idea, and had a pretty good idea what I was walking into when I headed into the theater.
Mutt? Again, a potential mis-step, but I have to give Lucas and Spielberg credit for trying to create a new element to the Jones family legacy. Had things gone another way, had the character really clicked with audiences, they would have created a whole new franchise.
Ridiculous Tarzan moment aside, the failing with Mutt Williams centers on the casting. Shia LaBeouf was terrible--and for that I blame Spielberg. LaBeouf is clearly one of Spielberg's "golden boys," DaCaprio to his Scorcese, and Lord knows why. I think we can rest blame for casting Shia--and for pushing him to the fore--pretty squarely at the feet of Mister Spielberg.
Arguably, many of the minor failings in the movie can be attributed to Lucas and Spielberg simply being older. On the one hand, they are more mature and more experienced as filmmakers. On the other hand, they are also far more arrogant and, to some extent, seem to have lost their sense of fun. I think this led to a sense of emotional hollowness that appears not only in Indy IV, but also in the Prequel Trilogy.
Having said that, though, I think it's a good movie. In some ways, I think it mirrors TEMPLE OF DOOM, which often gets a bad rap. ToD is an excellent adventure movie, it just doesn't have quite the same "feel" as RAIDERS, so, again, it's not what audiences were expecting.
www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME