Indiana Jones - I believe this is worthy of its own thread. - Page 22 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Zoo Station
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-14-2008, 08:29 PM   #316
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 08:26 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
Lancemc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008, 08:31 PM   #317
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
 
LMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 37,609
Local Time: 06:26 AM
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...
__________________

__________________
LMP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008, 08:33 PM   #318
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 08:26 AM
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.
__________________
Lancemc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008, 08:35 PM   #319
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
 
LMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 37,609
Local Time: 06:26 AM
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.
__________________
LMP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008, 08:38 PM   #320
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 08:26 AM
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.
__________________
Lancemc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008, 08:40 PM   #321
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,003
Local Time: 04:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Utoo
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.
__________________
lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008, 08:42 PM   #322
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
 
LMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 37,609
Local Time: 06:26 AM
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!"
__________________
LMP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008, 08:44 PM   #323
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,665
Local Time: 08:26 AM
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.
__________________
Lancemc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008, 08:49 PM   #324
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
 
LMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 37,609
Local Time: 06:26 AM
Fuckin' Connery, man.



"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.
__________________
LMP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008, 08:54 PM   #325
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Utoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by lazarus
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]

Quote:
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.
__________________
Utoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008, 09:00 PM   #326
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
 
LMP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 37,609
Local Time: 06:26 AM
Here's the Episode III trailer for comparison:

__________________
LMP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008, 09:29 PM   #327
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 07:26 AM
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.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2008, 09:47 PM   #328
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,003
Local Time: 04:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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.
__________________
lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2008, 12:00 AM   #329
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 07:26 AM
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.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2008, 12:27 AM   #330
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 38,003
Local Time: 04:26 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
indiana jones

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com