PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else NOT excited about the new Indiana Jones movie?



Bosskman
04-06-2008, 02:18 PM
.... because I sure am not. The first 2 were watcheable I guess, from what I remember, but Last Crusade was stupid IMO. I couldn't care less if I see any ofthem ever again or this new one ever. I don't undertand why everybody automatically assumes that if somebody likes Star Wars that they like indiana jones as well. Just had to get that off my disgruntled chest....

El Chuxter
04-06-2008, 02:52 PM
I'd like to be excited, but the recent track record of all three principals, along with the lackluster trailer and the apparent involvement of aliens and made-up 20th century myths is making me be very, very cautious.

Devo
04-06-2008, 03:13 PM
Well I don't believe Spielberg has been in a slump like others think, I enjoyed Minority report, Munich and War of the Worlds. Its how much sway Lucas has that would worry me if anything. But maybe he only lost it when it came to writing his space-fiction. Perhaps his earthbound fiction will be alright.

General_Grievous
04-06-2008, 03:45 PM
Well I don't believe Spielberg has been in a slump like others think, I enjoyed Minority report, Munich and War of the Worlds.

"Munich" doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as "Minority Report" or "War of the Worlds". "Munich" was awesome. The other two had Tom Cruise in them, which automatically demerits them.

As for "Crystal Skull", I'm going in with an indifferent attitude. If it's good, then great. If not, then oh well. I will say that I'm much more excited about other movies coming out this year like "The Dark Knight" and "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince".

But I am still quite a bit excited about Indy IV, especially after that trailer. If you didn't get all nostalgic and pumped up listening to the John Williams Raiders theme again, you must be made of stone.

Also, did this really need its own thread?

El Chuxter
04-06-2008, 04:03 PM
The other two had Tom Cruise in them, which automatically demerits them.

So he's the reason why The Last Samurai is ****1/2 instead of *****? :)

When I said Spielberg was in a slump, I didn't mean his recent movies were bad. However, they're not nearly in the same league as, say, Jaws, Close Encounters, ET, Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, or any of the first three Indiana Jones movies.

Deoxyribonucleic
04-06-2008, 04:22 PM
The movies never had any appeal to me but I will go see it. While I did enjoy the first movie, I've never been a fan of them as a whole. I do hope it is good though for those looking forward to it.

JediTricks
04-06-2008, 07:29 PM
I loved the Indy movies, hated the Young Indy show though, and since then Lucas has gone on to do more harm to his other major franchise than good, so I am not excited about this movie, I'm dreading it and hoping it won't be awful.

bigbarada
04-06-2008, 07:34 PM
I'm looking forward to this just about as much as I'm looking forward to the upcoming Batman and Iron Man films. Meaning that I plan to see them all in the theater as soon as they come out, but it's not like I'm counting the days or anything.

Jargo
04-06-2008, 08:50 PM
as a kid I loved raiders. temple of doom not so much and last crusade i've never managed to see all of in any sitting. I most likely won't go see crystal skull at the cinema i'll wait for it to hit tv or a friend calls round for a dvd night and brings it with them. i can't look at harrison ford anymore without thinking 'dust'.

UKWildcat
04-06-2008, 08:59 PM
I like all of the Indiana Jones movies (the first one especially), but I am not really looking forward to this new one. I'll wait for the DVD release.

Darth Jax
04-06-2008, 09:33 PM
Chalk me up in the not caring column for the new Indy. Raiders was ok, right up to the face-melting ending. Temple of Doom is my fave. Last Crusade was bad, bad, bad. But like nearly everybody else, i'll still go and see it.

General_Grievous
04-06-2008, 10:28 PM
I'm on the verge of tears from seeing all the "Last Crusade" hatred in this thread. How could any of you hate Sean Connery slapping Harrison Ford across the face for "blashphemy"?

Rocketboy
04-06-2008, 10:41 PM
Last Crusade is my favorite Indy film and I am really looking forward to Indy 4 (probably even more than Batman).

stillakid
04-06-2008, 11:13 PM
Like many of the kids who were my age at that time, we all were enthralled with Star Wars, and Raiders continued that fun Saturday morning serial-like thrill. Star Wars and Indiana Jones made going to the movies fun again. :)

Of course everyone was excited when the sequel came out. Temple of Doom wasn't exactly as great as many of us would have liked, but it wasn't bad. It was just a little too dark (and, for those who don't know, was the precise catalyst for the PG-13 rating).

So when The Last Crusade came out, we all were very happy to find that the series was getting back to that fun adventurous feeling.

By that time, our generation (the target generation) was moving into High School with college and lives awaiting. Both exciting trilogies (Star Wars and Indiana Jones) were finished with no further episodes in sight. We moved on with life yet welcomed any revisit of those serials that came along, be they toys, VHS, or DVDs.

With that past, naturally the anticipation of something great was guaranteed when The Phantom Menace was announced. There was no reason to suspect the train wreck that was to come with two solid Lucas trilogies which helped change the way we watch movies.

So, with the second Star Wars trilogy (I, II, and III) disappointing legions of true fans around the world, it wouldn't be out of the question for some level of caution to exist when looking forward to Indy IV. Of course I'll go to see it as so many others will and, like always, will withhold any judgment until after the credits roll. I'm interested, perhaps even excited a bit... but cautious. Lucas has proven that he can't be trusted with a story anymore. "Riffing" is more important to him than delivering solid filmmaking to a loyal audience. Will Indy IV live up to the trilogy that established the character and that universe? We'll see soon enough.

El Chuxter
04-06-2008, 11:39 PM
I'm surprised by anything other than total adoration of all three existing Indy films. I really don't think I could pick a favorite or least favorite from the bunch.

Another "how can you hate it?" bit from Last Crusade has to be Indy's run in with Hitler. There are three times Hitler has been featured in a movie in a funny fashion (here, Little Nicky, and the original The Producers) without being in such bad taste it ruins it.

And despite what everyone probably thinks, I still have a little tiny bit of hope that #4 will be at least half as good as the first three. But I won't lie. I'm looking forward to Batman quite a bit more. The previews for that film give me a.........

stillakid
04-06-2008, 11:44 PM
The previews for that film give me a.........

Triple ellipse? :confused:

Slicker
04-06-2008, 11:57 PM
I'm looking forward to it. I have yet to see the trailer but I loved all of the other 3 films were amazing so I'm hoping this one is even half as good as the others. As long as it's still got some of the comedy in it we'll be alright.

Droid
04-07-2008, 10:25 AM
I dread this movie coming out and will need someone like JediTricks of stillakid, who I think can be discriminating, to say it was worth seeing before I will risk having Indiana Jones mucked up for me.

2-1B
04-07-2008, 12:28 PM
Way to think for yourself, Droid. :thumbsup:

JON9000
04-07-2008, 05:06 PM
I dread this movie coming out and will need someone like JediTricks of stillakid, who I think can be discriminating, to say it was worth seeing before I will risk having Indiana Jones mucked up for me.

Were I a bookie, I would offer you 2 to 1 that they will both end up hating it, hence, continue to dread, droid. Meanwhile, howsabout couching your admiration for Stills and JT in terms of "similar tastes" rather than simple discriminatory ability, implying the rest of us are some how lacking.

(For the record, if either of you are reading, I hope you both enjoy it. :))

stillakid
04-07-2008, 05:40 PM
Were I a bookie, I would offer you 2 to 1 that they will both end up hating it, hence, continue to dread, droid. Meanwhile, howsabout couching your admiration for Stills and JT in terms of "similar tastes" rather than simple discriminatory ability, implying the rest of us are some how lacking.

(For the record, if either of you are reading, I hope you both enjoy it. :))

One can have "similar tastes" with someone else AND be "discriminating/objective." They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive qualities to have.

Droid is likely (wisely) indicating that he prefers an objective critique, as I and a few others offer, as opposed to generic "I love everything Indy!" or "I hate everything Indy" viewpoints.

I DO hope I enjoy it just as I had anticipated loving The Phantom Menace prior to actually watching it. :) There will always be "fans" and detractors who are prone to prejudge a film and find ways to justify that point-of-view (whatever that is), but I like to believe that most people reserve final judgment until after they see it. I'm optimistic that way. :love: I think that someone like JT is fair like that as I am. Where others on SSG choose to fall in the spectrum is entirely up to them.

Just as some people choose to love everything Star Wars (or Star Trek or whatever... ) no matter what, there will be similar fans who will choose to love Indy IV no matter what. That's their choice to make. I'm sure that Droid is perfectly capable of forming his own independent opinions, but would just like to hear a critique from those who have proven themselves to be impartial and fair observers, like JT and me.

JediTricks
04-07-2008, 05:53 PM
I will try to judge it fairly, currently I am judging the materials I have at hand so far and they're not encouraging to me. So 2 to 1 odds aren't really that good, the wagerer isn't getting a likely return on his wager due to the current lean. A good bookie would recognize this and tilt the wager further in the better's favor to entice more wagering, or more likely go after the long odds to "beat the spread" as it were - the odds are good we won't like it, but HOW MUCH won't we like it? (Thankfully, sports are easier to quantify here than opinions.) And of course there's always the possibility of someone throwing a game without knowing it, like SSG's Thrawn did in his first, semi-positive review of Ep 1 (you can see he didn't like it but wanted to).

Anyway, I appreciate the vote of confidence from Droid on this sort of thing. :thumbsup: Hopefully there will be something good to report come May 22nd...

2-1B
04-07-2008, 07:21 PM
That...or maybe Droid could just see for himself. Or not see it, based on the trailers or interviews or whatever.

What the f*** guys, who can't honestly watch a movie without it "ruining" the other ones in the series for them ?

stillakid
04-07-2008, 11:01 PM
That...or maybe Droid could just see for himself. Or not see it, based on the trailers or interviews or whatever.
He could. I often listen to my gut on whether or not to go see a movie whether I've heard any reviews or not. But there was the case of Cloverfield, which I was actually excited about seeing until I began hearing the reviews that were less than stellar. That and the motion-sickness thing kept me away. The chances in that case are that I liked the idea too much to allow the actual manifestation of it (the movie) to ruin the positive feelings in my head. So as long as I don't see Cloverfield, I won't have any negative attitudes toward the idea because they weren't "ruined" by the actual movie. :D But that's just me.


What the f*** guys, who can't honestly watch a movie without it "ruining" the other ones in the series for them ?
I don't understand the question. :confused:

2-1B
04-07-2008, 11:41 PM
Droid said he doesn't want "Indiana Jones mucked up for me."

figrin bran
04-08-2008, 12:30 AM
I'm fully expecting it to be better than Transformers. Hopefully that isn't too tall of an order!

El Chuxter
04-08-2008, 01:28 AM
I don't think it can't be.

stillakid
04-08-2008, 10:13 AM
Droid said he doesn't want "Indiana Jones mucked up for me."

I see. I understand the sentiment though. While we expect and hope that characters will evolve over time, it is possible for a storyline to be conceived that drives beloved characters, and even the universe they inhabit, in the wrong direction. A long running television show like MASH managed to maintain the integrity of the characters and the overall tone over hundreds of episodes. It could be argued that a character like James Bond became less suave and more "comic-booky" over the years which wasn't true to the original intent of the character and his universe.

Obviously, for someone like me, I place the Star Wars Prequels into that second category. Episodes V and VI remained true to the overall tone and allowed the characters to evolve naturally within that universe. However Episodes I, II, and III departed from the original intent and continuity which could have a negative impact upon the way the saga is perceived if taken as a whole.

The Indiana Jones "saga" isn't a continuing episodic story in the vein of Star Wars and it has more in common with the James Bond series. Looking at it in that way, one could be "forced" into cherry-picking the individual stories that are true to the original instead of being allowed to enjoy every movie.

stillakid
04-08-2008, 10:14 AM
I'm fully expecting it to be better than Transformers.

What isn't?

Droid
04-08-2008, 01:14 PM
I could see the new Indiana Jones film and decide for myself if I like it - and may do that. But Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Raiders of the Lost Ark are my two favorite non-Star Wars movies. I truly believe Ford, Spielberg, and Lucas all intended Last Crusade to be the last we saw of Indy. Hence the double meaning "Last Crusdade" title. Hence Indy literally riding off into the sunset at the end of Crusade. But then Ford ran out of box office smashes after the Fugitive. And Lucas showed that for all his claims that he has a million ideas Star Wars distracted him from that all he wants to do is projects involving his two best ideas, Indy and Star Wars. And Spielberg, bless him, just finds movies and making movies fun. I'm sure he would always enjoy making another Indiana Jones movie. He enjoys Ford and Lucas. Unfortunately, I'm not sure he would tell Lucas that Lucas had a terrible idea. I find Lucas turning down many scripts by talented writers as a bad sign as I don't trust him when he proclaims he knows what is best. He has shown himself to be lousy at dialogue and storyline construction. Oddly he'll admit that, and then do it anyway. He is a good idea man, though even there I am not sure "crystal skulls" are good ideas.

The evidence we have - Shia, Marion coming back (I think, like Bond, they always intended to have a new gir in each film), a modern day myth rather than ancient one, the addition of CGI, a possible return to the Ark warehouse, the return from the dead of Abner, and the possible alien element all suggest that I won't care for this movie. So I may not see it, which will be hard. I have seen all of Spielberg's films. I hope that people who have in the past not justified away every flaw Lucas turns out will say that this movie is good enough that it was better that they made the film than left well enough alone. I don't care if the movie is perfect, but I want it to on the whole have been better they made it than not.

Though Tycho, for example, is great, I would have a hard time seeing the movie on his recommendation because he likes everything from the prequels, to Transformers, to the new Knight Rider TV movie. He will sometimes admit a flaw, but more often acts as an apologist and would almost always claim that on the whole a movie was "really good."

This smacks of a tack on, like Godfather III, that could easily undermine the integrity of the original films. I don't want to let that happen. If I had the ability to erase some sequels/prequels, like Godfather III, from my mind I would do so.

I look forward to seeing an extended trailer.


A long running television show like MASH managed to maintain the integrity of the characters and the overall tone over hundreds of episodes.

Yes, it did. And as a result, I have avoided ever seeing one minute of After M*A*S*H. I find it hard to believe Mulcahy got his hearing back, that Potter continued working after the Korean War rather than retiring, or that Klinger would end up working in Missouri. The idea of the three of them ending up together working at a VA hospital is stupid and I want to just remember MASH as MASH.

Bosskman
04-08-2008, 03:37 PM
I'll probably see this eventually, just not in the theater. I MIGHT actually like it but I doubt it. It could go either way - like 2 other hyped up I can think of right off the bat: Curse of the Black Pearl and the first Harry Potter. When they first came out I said to myself "No way I'm seeing that garbage". Then a year or so later I caugth the last 2 thirds of Pirates on one of the french chanels one sunday night and thought it was pretty damned sweet and that I was a fool for having not seen it when it first came out. The next 2 movies were good as well IMO so I was wrong on that one. With Harry Potter I said "never will I see this garbage" and then one night it was on CBC and I tried my hardest to sit through it but I just couldn't. Then same goes for the first 2 that followed and after that I just gave up. This next Indiana Jones movie might surprise me but with lucas' track record I doubt it. While I'm in the "prequels are better than nothing at all" camp, I still think they would have been way better if lucas had handed over the reins to somebody with more talent. I'm sure the same will go for this movie: fanboys will love it as they love everything lucas and speilber spew out of their orfices.

JediTricks
04-08-2008, 09:15 PM
That...or maybe Droid could just see for himself. Or not see it, based on the trailers or interviews or whatever.He's already leaning towards not seeing it, so good call there, way to go. With that paragraph, you've successfully repeated what's already been said, but at least you didn't put any sort of sarcastic spin on your statement by doing so. :rolleyes:


What the f*** guys, who can't honestly watch a movie without it "ruining" the other ones in the series for them ?When it's part of a series? Most people. The prequels, which I found crummy, have negatively impacted my ability to watch the OT. Matrix sequels are the same way, knowing that first movie ends with unlimited possibilities now means nothing since the possibilities turn out to be extremely limited and poorly realized.



I'm fully expecting it to be better than Transformers. Hopefully that isn't too tall of an order!Aiming low there Bran? :p I am hoping it will be too, but at this point I have no idea (which is pretty bad since it's a month away).



I could see the new Indiana Jones film and decide for myself if I like it - and may do that. But Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Raiders of the Lost Ark are my two favorite non-Star Wars movies. I truly believe Ford, Spielberg, and Lucas all intended Last Crusade to be the last we saw of Indy. Hence the double meaning "Last Crusdade" title. Hence Indy literally riding off into the sunset at the end of Crusade.Good point, Indy does feel like the final statement expressed on the series, it wraps nearly everything together and then finishes it all with a flourish and a name that suggests that's all folks.


But then Ford ran out of box office smashes after the Fugitive. And Lucas showed that for all his claims that he has a million ideas Star Wars distracted him from that all he wants to do is projects involving his two best ideas, Indy and Star Wars.You forgot the urp-inducing Young Indy which was painful, but everything else there is spot-on.


I find Lucas turning down many scripts by talented writers as a bad sign as I don't trust him when he proclaims he knows what is best. He has shown himself to be lousy at dialogue and storyline construction. Oddly he'll admit that, and then do it anyway. He is a good idea man, though even there I am not sure "crystal skulls" are good ideas.Excellent points!!!


BTW, Indy's already had a run-in with the Crystal Skull, that's the name of the Disneyland Tokyo ride, Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Crystal Skull (itself spun off from an unaired Young Indy Crystal Skull episode). So I'm guessing we'll be getting a Kingdom of the Forbidden Eye movie too, soon?

UKWildcat
04-08-2008, 10:29 PM
I don't let Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection take away from the awesomeness that is Alien and Aliens.

stillakid
04-09-2008, 02:02 AM
I don't let Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection take away from the awesomeness that is Alien and Aliens.

I solved that by quickly forget about the Alien 3 abomination. I did give in to curiosity and watched Alien vs. Predator, but that was more of a video-game kind of visceral pleasure than anything serious.

I'll give Indy IV a fair chance, hopefully before I begin to hear any other feedback, but as I said, I'm going in with caution. Lucas and Co. haven't earned anything more than that of late. Sad really. :(

JON9000
04-09-2008, 04:04 PM
Though even there I am not sure "crystal skulls" are good ideas.

To be honest, I cannot even remember what the MacGuffin was in Temple of Doom. I remember them being stones, but I have no idea what their power was, and that is because the stones were basically inconsequential plot contrivances. Indiana Jones is all suspensful action, awesome set-pieces, a couple of gross-out moments, and world-weary dialogue delivery from our intrepid hero. If the movie provides those 4 things in spades, who gives a good god**** about the Macguffin, which only exists to set the plot in motion.

Seriously- could it possibly be worse than a few stupid stones? For hell's sake, maybe we could have him chase the Maltese Falcon. QT had such disregard for it he openly lampooned the concept in Pulp Fiction.

This is what I mean about age making us unable to appreciate the exact same things that got us off as kiddies.


a critique from those who have proven themselves to be impartial and fair observers, like JT and me.

Look at the Rational Positivist! Stillakid, you're a philosopher!


I will try to judge it fairly, currently I am judging the materials I have at hand so far and they're not encouraging to me. So 2 to 1 odds aren't really that good, the wagerer isn't getting a likely return on his wager due to the current lean. A good bookie would recognize this and tilt the wager further in the better's favor to entice more wagering, or more likely go after the long odds to "beat the spread" as it were - the odds are good we won't like it, but HOW MUCH won't we like it? (Thankfully, sports are easier to quantify here than opinions.)

That is all true- but at this table the odds are always heavily in favor of the house! ;)


And of course there's always the possibility of someone throwing a game without knowing it, like SSG's Thrawn did in his first, semi-positive review of Ep 1 (you can see he didn't like it but wanted to).

Thanks to the sleuthery of Caesar, I was able to observe the shifting attitudes toward TPM. It was quite illuminating.

2-1B
04-09-2008, 06:20 PM
He's already leaning towards not seeing it, so good call there, way to go. With that paragraph, you've successfully repeated what's already been said, but at least you didn't put any sort of sarcastic spin on your statement by doing so. :rolleyes:

I didn't mean "whatever" in a sarcastic sense, I meant it in the same light as "etc" or "what have you." :) :) :)

:thumbsup:

:Temple of Doom is the best Indy flick:

:beard:

preacher
04-10-2008, 04:27 PM
The stones were Mcguffins?

So you are saying the fact that the stones were the object of Indiana Jones desire after the wiseman told him about him, and that the stones lead him to Pankot palace, tested his morality/empathy/compassion and made him choose between fortune and glory or the freedom of innocence is just a plot device?

The fact that he surrendered the rock at the end is a pivotal turning point for this character. In that instant he understood that his pursuit of fame came at a price and he almost lost his soul over them. A Mcguffin does not challenge character it simply is there.

The holy grail was a Mcguffin. The energon cube in transformers was a Mcguffin. The Shankara stones were not a Mcguffin.

stillakid
04-10-2008, 05:13 PM
The stones were Mcguffins?

So you are saying the fact that the stones were the object of Indiana Jones desire after the wiseman told him about him, and that the stones lead him to Pankot palace, tested his morality/empathy/compassion and made him choose between fortune and glory or the freedom of innocence is just a plot device?

The fact that he surrendered the rock at the end is a pivotal turning point for this character. In that instant he understood that his pursuit of fame came at a price and he almost lost his soul over them. A Mcguffin does not challenge character it simply is there.

The holy grail was a Mcguffin. The energon cube in transformers was a Mcguffin. The Shankara stones were not a Mcguffin.

I believe that you're confusing Temple of Doom with Last Crusade. Heck, for that matter, the "search for whatever" is never really about that thing anyway.

But in Temple of Doom, Indy's "moment" happens WAAAY before the fight on the bridge. It comes when he steals the stones from the temple area, but just as he is able to make his getaway with them, he hears the plight of the kids in the back and decides to make a moral stand for that. The stones in that story were just the "treasure" to entice him to go to the place. But it is the freedom of the children that is what the main plot is all about. Without them, it's just another hunt for treasure story. He could have left the stones there and just escaped with the kids, but having the rocks gave the bad guys a reason to give chase and ultimately get what's coming to them.

Last Crusade is all about Indy realizing at the last moment that it isn't about the treasure at all. Hell, Connery even says it in a line of dialogue when he speaks about Elsa. "She thought she had found a prize." Indy replies, "What did you find, Dad?" Dad says, "Illumination." We are left to our own interpretation about what he meant by that, but it is more than clear that what he really found was the love for his son. Indy let go of the treasure which is always just out of reach in favor of grabbing hold of his father's hand again.

Good stories are about things. Great stories are about something else. Excellent stories find ways to express the message without beating over our heads.

Droid
04-10-2008, 09:10 PM
"What did you find, Dad?" Dad says, "Illumination." We are left to our own interpretation about what he meant by that, but it is more than clear that what he really found was the love for his son. Indy let go of the treasure which is always just out of reach in favor of grabbing hold of his father's hand again.

Once again, I hope Crystal Skull is great. But if the rumors are true, and Shia is Indy's son, compare the dialogue and interactions I suspect we will get between them and what we got between the two Henrys in Last Crusade.

Are we ready for more of this?

Then:

Leia: I love you.
Han: I know.

Now:

Padme: I truly, deeply love you, and before we die I want you to know.

JediTricks
04-11-2008, 12:14 AM
That is all true- but at this table the odds are always heavily in favor of the house! ;)You do realize who is running the house here, right? And that the house is this forum, and that who is me? :p


Thanks to the sleuthery of Caesar, I was able to observe the shifting attitudes toward TPM. It was quite illuminating.Freaky deaky!



I didn't mean "whatever" in a sarcastic sense, I meant it in the same light as "etc" or "what have you." :) :) :)

:thumbsup:

:Temple of Doom is the best Indy flick:

:beard:Whatever! ;)

You claiming TOD is the best one kinda speaks more volumes than anything else.


The stones were Mcguffins?

So you are saying the fact that the stones were the object of Indiana Jones desire after the wiseman told him about him, and that the stones lead him to Pankot palace, tested his morality/empathy/compassion and made him choose between fortune and glory or the freedom of innocence is just a plot device?

The fact that he surrendered the rock at the end is a pivotal turning point for this character. In that instant he understood that his pursuit of fame came at a price and he almost lost his soul over them. A Mcguffin does not challenge character it simply is there.

The holy grail was a Mcguffin. The energon cube in transformers was a Mcguffin. The Shankara stones were not a Mcguffin.The stones were a Mcguffin, the grail was a Mcguffin, but both had "learning" moments in the quest for them for main characters - Indy was able to give up the stones for the good of the locals, and Henry Jones Sr. was able to give up the grail. It's not the Mcguffin itself that challenged the characters, it's the quest and the lessons learned which did. Humphrey Bogart was able to give up quest for the Maltese Falcon and give up the good thing he had with Mary Astor.

El Chuxter
04-11-2008, 12:44 AM
Is a MacGuffin that's so well concealed that people don't realize it's a MacGuffin truly a MacGuffin?

Think about it. It sounds like a joke, but it's a serious consideration.

JediTricks
04-11-2008, 01:06 AM
That question is a Mcguffin.

Darth Jax
04-11-2008, 06:52 AM
"Welcome to McDonald's may I take your order?"

"Yeah, i'll have an egg McGuffin and cup of false-coffee"

stillakid
04-11-2008, 08:17 AM
"Welcome to McDonald's may I take your order?"

"Yeah, i'll have an egg McGuffin and cup of false-coffee"

"Ok, sir. I'll give them to you but that's not really what you'll leave here with. And that'll be $11.38."

preacher
04-11-2008, 12:14 PM
I would agree with you JT, he does learn a lot of lessons in temple of doom, true enough (one of the reasons its my favorite over Raiders and Crusade), but I would agrue it is only when he actually surrenders the stone to the wiseman that Indy has really grown. I would also agree the shankara stones could have just as easily been something else. But their presense, or lack there of dominated this story. The crops died, rivers dried, blight ensued, the children were stolen because of the stones, and the thuggie cult was undergoing a resurgence because of them. I can't dismiss the stones as Mcguffin's like the Maltese falcon. An object with that much influence over character and environment can't be dismissed so easily. But I think we are getting into some interesting philosophical discussions.

Now Lao Che's diamond is a mcguffin. In fact after two scenes it is forgotten. The diamond was a definite plot device used to introduce Indy to Willie and served no other purpose.

jeddah
04-11-2008, 01:15 PM
....I've had a bloody thoroughly good afternoon today and it's largely down to reading Jon9000's posts. But also to some people who've been posting about Indiana Jones 4. So thanks.

I have read posts in TV, Other films, Prequel and OT and as my screen resolution is so poor (my bad eyes coupled with a tablet laptop) I rarely look at the names of the posting member as it means scrolling left to see who. But in the cases where I have, it's because I wanted to know who it was due to a compelling or entertaining post.

Jon9000 ... 3 times it was thee!

Anyway, I am also jolly pleased I read this thread because until I did I had no interest in seeing IJ4. Now that I learn it has a possible ETI element I'll check it out. I love aliens, me. Especially the kind that come in AI, Mission to Mars and Contact

Re Lucas and Spielberg and the accompanying toxifying of existing franchises with prequels and sequels; tedium abounds to still be flogging this rotten carcass. I feel there is a general lack of talent at the silver screen lately and have found - since, say 2004, that my focus has been on TV shows more and more. For example Battlestar Galactica. Riveting.

Like Stilla, the only film I can recall being excited about anticipating seeing was Cloverfield and then the disappointment when I did. Stilla, it is worth a looksee but it is all concept and no narrative. At least none that is considered. I think that now, aside from a new prequel set between AOTC and ROTS, (and possibly one between ROTS and SW), the only thing that would get me excited now is a Farscape feature film which in my opinion is the best Sci-Fi since the Star Wars trilogies.

I also feel bolstered by the human condition; realising that I sort of (not unkindly) laugh at the tennis rally of arguments over films' meanings or the justification of a director's/writer's decision when essentially I'm thinking this is a film, not a religion etc. But then, I realise I would be just as precious if someone started ****ing with Shakespeare, E M Forster or TS Eliot's literature.

For the record I love all the SW trilogies but favour the prequels for reasons that those of you who know me (Random Ranger....) will have heard too many times. As far as Indy goes, I tried on 2 occasions to watch Temple of Doom and just couldn't get into it. That annoying kid didn't help, but then I am completely at ease with Anakin and Jar Jar in TPM. I'm not going to say "different strokes for different folks", so..... niffnent quokes buh liffdent hokes

jeddah

JON9000
04-11-2008, 01:59 PM
The stones were Mcguffins?

So you are saying the fact that the stones were the object of Indiana Jones desire after the wiseman told him about him, and that the stones lead him to Pankot palace, tested his morality/empathy/compassion and made him choose between fortune and glory or the freedom of innocence is just a plot device?

The fact that he surrendered the rock at the end is a pivotal turning point for this character. In that instant he understood that his pursuit of fame came at a price and he almost lost his soul over them. A Mcguffin does not challenge character it simply is there.

The holy grail was a Mcguffin. The energon cube in transformers was a Mcguffin.

The Shankara stones were not a Mcguffin.

Let me ask you one simple question, Herr Preacher: would it have tickled your fancy any less had, instead of stones, there had been doozlewigglemaballs?

The stones, even in the poetic terms you used to describe them, meet the textbook definition of a Mcguffin. Sorry, but you are wrong on this one. In furtherance of my position, I rely on the explanation of the maitre d' at whose table we all sit (I'd never forget where you stand in the pecking order, dear JT :kiss:):


The stones were a Mcguffin, the grail was a Mcguffin, but both had "learning" moments in the quest for them for main characters - Indy was able to give up the stones for the good of the locals, and Henry Jones Sr. was able to give up the grail. It's not the Mcguffin itself that challenged the characters, it's the quest and the lessons learned which did. Humphrey Bogart was able to give up quest for the Maltese Falcon and give up the good thing he had with Mary Astor.

There you have it.


Is a MacGuffin that's so well concealed that people don't realize it's a MacGuffin truly a MacGuffin?

Think about it. It sounds like a joke, but it's a serious consideration.

Wasn't there an episode of GI Joe that had a plot where the opposite was true? The Mcguffin was called "the McGuffin device" nobody knew what it was but chased it incessantly?

Bel-Cam Jos
05-31-2008, 09:39 AM
See? There was already a bash Indy4 thread. Post away here, non-IJATKOTCS lovers! :rolleyes:

bigbarada
05-31-2008, 01:01 PM
See? There was already a bash Indy4 thread. Post away here, non-IJATKOTCS lovers! :rolleyes:

Will do.:thumbsup: Indy 4 sucks!!!:mad:

:p

Darth Jax
06-01-2008, 10:04 AM
i wasn't too excited about the prospect of Indy 4 (cuz i thought 3 sucked), but the girlfriend wanted to see it. We watched all 3 of them prior and i still think Temple of Doom was best. Now after having seen 4 i'll have to admit there were a couple of places i laughed, but overall it was completely awful. The girl came away even more disappointed than i was.

JediTricks
06-01-2008, 06:10 PM
It was pretty bad. This thread was right.

Devo
06-03-2008, 02:27 PM
CGI may have ruined it for me

A) it encouraged writer and director to do scenes that were beyond ridiculous 'because we can'.

B) Lucas has a sad history of misguidedly equating effects with entertainment.

C) Spielberg is best friends with Lucas and evidently didn't have the balls to tell him to cop himself on

D) CGI, despite what Lucas seems to think, cannot do everything convincingly. It can do some things convincingly and it should be used on those things only. Anyone notice how 'the cutting edge' of CGI tends to look really off?

bigbarada
06-03-2008, 05:51 PM
CGI may have ruined it for me

A) it encouraged writer and director to do scenes that were beyond ridiculous 'because we can'.

B) Lucas has a sad history of misguidedly equating effects with entertainment.

C) Spielberg is best friends with Lucas and evidently didn't have the balls to tell him to cop himself on

D) CGI, despite what Lucas seems to think, cannot do everything convincingly. It can do some things convincingly and it should be used on those things only. Anyone notice how 'the cutting edge' of CGI tends to look really off?

The thing about CGI is that, if you have the time and the money and the intent, you can create stuff that simply cannot be distinguished from reality. The problem with most motion pictures, however, is they are usually thrown together on limited budgets and very tight timelines. There just isn't enough time or money to develop all the scenes properly. Thus, things end up getting rushed to meet deadlines.

The talent level and experience of your animators plays a big role and, from what I've heard from a couple of industry professionals, is that ILM is in the practice of hiring kids straight out of college, then getting rid of them once they have 2 years of experience under their belt. Why? Because you can get away with paying a fresh young animator $20,000 a year, but once they get at least two years of experience, then you have to start paying them a lot more. So, ILM regularly relying on the work of inexperienced animators probably explains a lot when you look at the final results of a lot of the CG effects in Lucasfilm movies.

But, I think you'd be amazed at just how much CG is used in movies and television that you do not even realize is there.

El Chuxter
06-03-2008, 06:04 PM
Yeah, like in The Incredibles. Man, I was fooled for that whole movie!

Devo
06-03-2008, 08:20 PM
The CGI in the jungle scenes was just awful. Totally took me out of the film and I can't help but think we wouldn't have had that tarzan bit inflicted on us if CGI hadn't been available.

Darth Jax
06-03-2008, 10:41 PM
Didn't MacGyver face an army of fire ants in an episode? That seemed a lot more authentic than the CGI red carpet.