Indiana Jones - I believe this is worthy of its own thread.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Lancemc said:
I don't think it can be over-analyzed until someone starts gleaming insights from it that simply are not there to be gleamed. And what's the harm anyway? It's worthy of discussion. I see this claim a lot around these boards, that a particular video, or song or album or whatever is being over-analyzed. Seems to be a part of the reason we're here though, I dunno. If someone's able to interpret a text to a certain degree without pulling stuff out their ass, I think it only adds life to the forum. I wish more people would take the time to do it. I'm not pointing fingers here, and I'm sort of ranting, but it's just another thing I've noticed recently around here, moreso in B&C and the ever-frightening U2 sections of the forum. In most cases it seems like people use that claim as a backdoor out of a debate or uncormfortable discussion. You're obviously not doing that now... just saying.

/rant

I honestly could not debate this teaser with you if I wanted to.

But, I hear what you are saying overall, and lord knows I'm not afraid of debating things, more so in real life than here on this site, but only when I'm equipped to properly form and defend my position. When it comes to something like this teaser, I only have my visceral reaction, which was "that was pretty good", and for all I know, that reaction stemmed more from my good feelings in regards to the franchise than the teaser itself. I don't know.

So, yes, if you are able to glean information from this that you feel comfortable talking about, then I should not be so dismissive of your ability, or the ability of others, to do so.

Now, go fuck yourself. :)
 
Only after you kindly remove your lips from my member.

But it's interesting you mentioned the nostalgic aspect of watching the trailer. Funny they used a good 30 seconds or so of old footage from the previous films to open the trailer. Maybe they are banking on inciting that type of reaction right off the bat so people are more forgiving of the new footage? I think that's a bit too cynical, but it makes one wonder.
 
Lancemc said:
Only after you kindly remove your lips from my member.

But it's interesting you mentioned the nostalgic aspect of watching the trailer. Funny they used a good 30 seconds or so of old footage from the previous films to open the trailer. Maybe they are banking on inciting that type of reaction right off the bat so people are more forgiving of the new footage? I think that's a bit too cynical, but it makes one wonder.

Cynical? Not at all. I would bet that's likely why they did do it. As YLB says, there are people out there that are not familiar with the franchise, but a lot more are, so, might as well tap into that however you can. I say that from a marketing angle, of course, not from any pure place.

Hey, even that Star Trek trailer is banking on prior knowledge of the franchise, using the music at the end, etc. (Not that I am comparing the two, the Star Trek trailer gave me goosebumps, dork that I am).
 
Well any new entry to an old popular series is going to use its own image to promote it, it's unavoidable.

But there are clearly better ways than to just blatantly introduce a new trailer with a 40 second montage of clips straight from the old movies. :barf:
 
i appreciate the analysis and defense of a position, but i will say that, yes, in my opinion, there is way too much cynicism.

way too much.

it's a reintroduction, not much more. we see very little in the film, actually, 2 locations at most? 4-5 characters? compare this to the "Phantom Menace" trailer (which was amazing) and it's like the blink of an eye.

i say relax. have fun with it.

and if you don't get a charge when he swings on the whip and the two trucks crash beneath him, then you probably kiss with your mouth closed.
 
Irvine511 said:
i appreciate the analysis and defense of a position, but i will say that, yes, in my opinion, there is way too much cynicism.

way too much.

it's a reintroduction, not much more. we see very little in the film, actually, 2 locations at most? 4-5 characters? compare this to the "Phantom Menace" trailer (which was amazing) and it's like the blink of an eye.

i say relax. have fun with it.

and if you don't get a charge when he swings on the whip and the two trucks crash beneath him, then you probably kiss with your mouth closed.

Be fair, Lance has never kissed anyone before.
 
Yeah, silly me. I should just shut up and ignore everything bad in the trailer and relish in the mere fact that they made another Indiana Jones movie. Woah! Those trucks BLEW UP! Neat-o!

Ahh, that's better.
 
Lancemc said:
Yeah, silly me. I should just shut up and ignore everything bad in the trailer and relish in the mere fact that they made another Indiana Jones movie. Woah! Those trucks BLEW UP! Neat-o!

Ahh, that's better.



no, just the opposite, i just said that i appreciated your analysis. i really do.

and in my opinion, it's overly cynical, almost defensive like you don't want to be crushingly disppointed like we all were when the awesome Phantom Menace trailers gave birth to the assy Phantom Menace.

and don't go full tongue at first, just little slips in here and there, just touch tips, maybe, and then pull back, and explore a bit further on the next push in.
 
Fair enough.

But it's not defensiveness, because I never really expected this movie to be amazing anyway, there was almost no way it could happen. And if it's great than I'll be the first to congratulate everyone involved. I'm just taking all the info I've gathered on it, from images, videos, behind the scenes reports, interviews, what have you, and my expectations for it are lowered every time something new comes up.

And I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with the kissing analogy, but I'm fairly certain it's failing. :up:
 
Lancemc said:

And I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with the kissing analogy, but I'm fairly certain it's failing. :up:



kissing with mouth closed = won't allow yourself to have any fun, i.e., missionary position only
 
I thought it was kind of 'meh,' too, but I wouldn't say it's 'awful.' My hopes were high, so it was indeed a bit of a let down to see old clips and then HF give a crappy line delivery (the windshield crash line) as the focus of the first trailer.

Still, I wouldn't fault it too much for the use of old clips. That seems to be the standard for new additions to 20-year-old franchises----Superman using the Brando clips, and one of the Star Wars prequels using A New Hope Obi-Wan clips. With Superman and Star Wars, however, we had awesome trailers that led up to shitty movies. Perhaps Indy will be the opposite.

It will be interesting to see how HF does in the full film, given his age (as noted in someone's comment above about his voice). Indy is a character we love, in part, for his lazy agility, kind of a quickness of mind and heart that's partially/poorly masked by aloofness. It'll be key that that quickness is still there, or if only the aloofness remains. The stunts are good at showing a physical quickness, but for some reason that crashed-through-the-windshield line delivery bugs me.

Still, I do agree with those who say that the point of this teaser was really to re-introduce/introduce us all to the character more than anything else, and to bank on nostalgic factors to excite more than to create excitement by itself. I fully expect the next trailer--one that focuses more on the movie--to be much more impressive.
 
Irvine511 said:




kissing with mouth closed = won't allow yourself to have any fun, i.e., missionary position only

Now you're getting a little ahead of yourself. :wink:
 
Lancemc said:
The shots in the warehouse are just depressing. Why revisit such an iconic image from the best film in the series? All I see it doing is cheapening it. And from what I've heard of them tying the mythos of this film with that of Close Encounters, this whole thing is starting to reek of cheap self-indulgence.

Where'd you hear this?
 
I tried to find the story on AICN, but their search feature is fucking awful, and I don't feel like sifting through hundreds of stories to find it.

But it's been said that Spielberg brought back the props of the original aliens from Close Encounters to serves as the dead alien leaders in the temple of the crystal skull or some such tomfoolery, therefore tying together those two mythos.
 
Oh, maybe it's just one of those "C3P0 and R2D2 being near the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders"-types of things.

If only you spoke Hovitos...
 
I don't think so (though I don't know what you're talking about), since it's obviously supposed to be the same alien race in the Spielberg "canon" if you will.
 
If you look at the walls in the room where Indy and Sallah take the Ark, you can see hieroglyphics of R2 and 3PO on the wall. You can also see R2 hanging upside down off of one of the ships in Close Encounters, and the Millenium Falcon on the police building of Blade Runner, and the Falcon fighting against the Borg in Star Trek: First Contact. They're just winks and nods instead of full-on plot connections.

With Spielberg's mythos thing: It's his creation. If he wants to do it, but make it subtle, then why not?

If this were Ira Steven Behr, we would not be having this conversation.
 
That alone doesn't bother me. But when I see a clip of the film with a full-on action scene happening in the Raiders warehouse, that's when I start to lose all hope.
 
Utoo said:
Still, I wouldn't fault it too much for the use of old clips. That seems to be the standard for new additions to 20-year-old franchises----Superman using the Brando clips, and one of the Star Wars prequels using A New Hope Obi-Wan clips. With Superman and Star Wars, however, we had awesome trailers that led up to shitty movies. Perhaps Indy will be the opposite.


The prequel trailer that used OT footage was for Revenge of the Sith, and I'll politely disagree that it resulted in a shitty film. Lucas was attempting to bridge the trilogies with the final film, and I think even the naysayers had to admit they nailed it in the final movement of the film. All I know is, the Sith clips in the trailer FELT like Star Wars. It really gave me chills when I saw it.

This trailer, on the other hand, uses vintage clips (of course, none with Ford so you can make the sobering comparison), yet the new material looks blah next to it. Like they're going through the motions. The difference is that with SW Lucas was telling a huge, epic story that had already been laid out before. This is exactly what it looks like, a few guys trying to breathe new life into something that already rode off into the sunset. And I firmly believe that Lucas was waiting for a really cool idea to make it worth his while.

Which is why I worry that the plot and the "MacGuffin" will be interesting, but Ford won't be able to carry it as he did before. I ask you, what film in the last 20 years is proof that he can still bring it? The fucking Fugitive? Doing some stunts isn't enough. You have to have that twinkle in your eye. I don't see it. Too many joints smoked since Last Crusade, too many fingers pointed in righteous indignation. He's a stiff. He's not charming anymore, which is the whole reason Indy was so popular.

I really hope I'm wrong. But I feel that all of Lucas and Spielberg's efforts won't be enough if the leading man is holding a limp whip.
 
Again, if it's well-done and works with the story, then why not?

If it's a retread for retread's sake, then there's reason to panic. I don't think anyone knows enough to say at this point.

Plus, I doubt Ford, Lucas, and Spielberg would agree to do another one after all this time if they felt it would insult most of the fanbase and they wouldn't deliver a Crusade-level flick.

How could you not mention Die Hard on a Plane / Air Force One, Laz?

"Get off my plane!"
 
Well, I don't really think Crusade is very good either, so I'm not sure why I'm paying so much attention to this flick either way. The only Indy movie I really think is worth a damn is Raiders. Maybe it's just because it's Spielberg, but whatever, I just want him to make Interstellar and fuck the rest.

I think I'll quietly observe from my corner from now on. This just aint my thing.
 
Fuckin' Connery, man.

Tyler%20Nelson.jpg


"How'd you know she was a Nazi?"
"She talks in her sleep."

I hope you're wrong Lance and that you go in and enjoy it, but I want Interstellar, too, man, and Trial of the Chicago 7.
 
lazarus said:
The prequel trailer that used OT footage was for Revenge of the Sith, and I'll politely disagree that it resulted in a shitty film. Lucas was attempting to bridge the trilogies with the final film, and I think even the naysayers had to admit they nailed it in the final movement of the film.


I'll readily admit that they nailed it in the final portion of Sith---but that's about all, for me. Much of the remainder of the film is largely forgettable, or memorable for the wrong reasons. The final Anakin/Obi-Wan bit is indeed great, but you had to wait the whole damn movie--hell, the whole damn trilogy!--for a moment that actually moves you.
[/SW]

Which is why I worry that the plot and the "MacGuffin" will be interesting, but Ford won't be able to carry it as he did before. I ask you, what film in the last 20 years is proof that he can still bring it? The fucking Fugitive? Doing some stunts isn't enough. You have to have that twinkle in your eye. I don't see it. Too many joints smoked since Last Crusade, too many fingers pointed in righteous indignation. He's a stiff. He's not charming anymore, which is the whole reason Indy was so popular.

I really hope I'm wrong. But I feel that all of Lucas and Spielberg's efforts won't be enough if the leading man is holding a limp whip.

This is, indeed, the all-important question. Ford's delivery of the character is perhaps more important than any of the MacGuffins in the series.
 
Last edited:
the Star Wars comparison is interesting ... i'd say, that as time goes on, the IJ films look better and better in comparison. yes, Star Wars is a wonderfully detailed story and universe, but the execution of the IJ films is light years beyond any in the SW cannon, with the possible exception of the trenches-of-the-Death-Star starship combat sequence in Ep. 4. "Raiders" just doesn't look dated to me, which is one of the reasons why i feel as if there is life in this, and they've always had a much harder edge than SW -- faces melting, hearts ripping out, beheadings -- so i don't think it would be true to the series for it to fall into juvenalia. i think IJ already had it's Jar-Jar -- the stupid, awful "chilled monkey brains" dinner sequence in Doom -- and i can't see them doing that again.

i guess all signs, for me, point to a very good film. my worry is much more Shia than Ford.

and looking at the teaser for Ep 3, it's greatness is predicated upon the flashes of what might be the most anticipated "reveal" in the last 30 years of cinema -- the literal rise of Darth Vader. it plays on nostalgia probably more than the new IJ trailer -- the Imperial March, the breathing, the "yes, my master" -- and it offers some money shots, but the Natalie Portman emotional hug is as cringey as Ford's corny one-liners.

my big problem with the new trilogy, beyond the obvious juvenalia and the pukey dialogue, was how shiney and new it all was. it can be aruged that this is thematically consistent, this was the great Old Republic and everything was perfect and beautiful and then the fall and that the world of the Empire in the Original Trilogy is that fallen world. but it was the lived-in feel of the OT that really sold it for me in my imagination. it looked somehow attainable, flying through hyperspace or ignighting a lightsaber, and the NT never had that.

we'll see what happens in Indy 4, if it retains that look. it already looks more sci-fi to me, and i bet it will be, and that would make sense. the first three were in a pre-WW2 world, the last time in history when it would seem plausible that there could be undiscovered continents, lost civilizations, biblical myths that hadn't been exploded by science.

from what i've read, and i've tried to keep from most of the real spoilers, it seems to be as reasonable an update of the series as is possible -- it makes sense to go sci-fi if we're in the 1950s, it makes sense for the Nazis to be replaced with the Russians, it makes sense that the character probably hasn't done much of anything since he rode off into the sunset (the next logical step being that the world changed, and he's emerged into a different world and has to navigate through that, and the old ways aren't going to measure up -- hence the corny lines in the trailer).

i guess i feel like i'm seeing the logic behind all this, and it's all snapping into place in a way that i think i'll really like. and i could be wrong, it could be a piece of shit with fart jokes.

but i just don't think so.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
my big problem with the new trilogy, beyond the obvious juvenalia and the pukey dialogue, was how shiney and new it all was. it can be aruged that this is thematically consistent, this was the great Old Republic and everything was perfect and beautiful and then the fall and that the world of the Empire in the Original Trilogy is that fallen world. but it was the lived-in feel of the OT that really sold it for me in my imagination. it looked somehow attainable, flying through hyperspace or ignighting a lightsaber, and the NT never had that.


I don't want to get into another SW debate (okay, I'm always ready for one), but the problem is that you (nor anyone else, really) are able to look at these films in a vacuum, unbiased by memory and nostalgia. You find the clunky effects and "used" quality of the universe charming and scruffy, like Han Solo. But kids in future generations (or current ones, even) are going to wonder why Episodes IV, V, and VI look so crappy by comparison.

Maybe they won't fall in love with the characters in the PT as much, I'll grant you that. But while the worlds aren't as lived-in, they are extremely detailed and thought-out. They are believable in ways that the OT only hints at. We were a less-sophisticated science fiction audience back in the 70's and early 80's. But now? Kids are much more likely to want to peek behind the curtain and see what's going on there. Lucas has covered all those bases by fleshing out his world in ways that all other fantasy and sci-films couldn't even dream of.

Now that's not an excuse for poor dialogue and some questionable casting choices or line delieveries, but I assure you that the real hooks of the Saga, the creatures and exotic worlds that kids love to explore outside of the films, and the pulpy episodic format of old adventure serials, never went away. And while there isn't a Han Solo to lighten the proceedings, MacGregor's sarcasm (present in ALL three prequels), is enough for me to coast on.

Indiana Jones just isn't as original, or as interesting in terms of plot. There's no universe surrounding the film, Lucas himself has admitted all the stories are MacGuffins, excuses for cool shit to happen while trying to find whatever Indy's looking for. If the main character isn't engaging, the thing's pointless. You wind up with National Treasure, which is fun but not iconic.
 
i guess what separates IJ from SW, for me, is the difference in the quality of filmmaking. spielberg is light years beyond Lucas (or Kershner or Marquand). i agree that SW is a more interesting universe -- though the story is as basic as storytelling gets, the plot line has been around for thousands of years -- but the execution of the plot in IJ is vastly superior. and IJ himself is a more interesting character than any in the SW universe, including Darth Vader himself. his backstory is kind of fascinating -- look it up on Wikipedia, where someone has obviously spent a lot of time sewing together the entire character taking into account the young Indiana Jones series, and you'll find a perfect plot device himself, someone capable of getting entangled into some of the most interesting history of the 20th century.

we'll have to agree to disagree on the OT vs. NT.

but we can agree that much of the appeal of IJ is the character himself, and how Ford was once able to be superhuman and believable at the same time. like watching your dad fight the bad guys, back when you thought your dad could do anything.
 
While I love Young Indiana Jones, and can't wait to replace my shitty copies with the DVD sets, it's cheating a little to use that to retroactively flesh out Indy's character. That really needs to come from the films, and while he seems like an interesting guy, there's not really as much going on there. Besides, except for Marion there's not a whole lot of emotional weight in the trilogy, whereas, depending on how cynical you are, there's a lot of it in the SW saga. You can get that from Darth Vader, Kenobi, Luke, or Leia just from the first three films themselves, to say nothing of the added material from the prequels.

Indiana Jones will never capture the hearts of fans in the way that SW does because the latter just hits on so many more levels.

And while I won't try to argue that Lucas is a better filmmaker than Spielberg (he is just as good in frame composition though), it's not like Spielberg's direction of Indiana Jones elevates the material into some kind of high artistic circle. There is a lot more import in the shots of SW than what's going on visually in Indy, because Spielberg kicks back and has fun with these films, while Lucas has a much greater agenda with his baby.
 
Back
Top Bottom