The Trouble City Forums
INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Printable Version

+- The Trouble City Forums (http://citizens.trouble.city)
+-- Forum: Main Street (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Focused Film Discussion (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=94)
+--- Thread: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion (/showthread.php?tid=155331)



- MichaelM - 09-08-2017

I'd vote War Horse before WOTW. The former is more cohesive than the latter, and more deftly balances the horror of war with the beauties of humanity.



FWIW, FatherDude's critique of WOTW is spot on, IMNSHO. Some really great parts but it's disjointed, uneven, and that pulled punch of an ending. Ray has his arc, regardless. The son living just feels like a huge cop out.




- bartleby_scriven - 09-08-2017

So what you're saying, MM, is...



If you knew your daughters were going to get cancer and die horribly at 13, you'd still let them be born?




- commodorejohn - 09-08-2017

A[quote name="Stale Elvis" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1650#post_4358750"][QUOTE name="Analog Olmos" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1650#post_4358741"]See, in MY day we had the original, animated Tinkerbell to make us feel a certain kind of way.[/QUOTE]
Whereas we had the Cadbury's Caramel Bunny.

[/quote]
Well this thread just got 400% more interesting.


- jacob singer - 09-08-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

Don't watch War Horse.


Watch it twice.




- MichaelM - 09-08-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

So what you're saying, MM, is...



If you knew your daughters were going to get cancer and die horribly at 13, you'd still let them be born?



This has taken a pretty serious turn, but...prit sure the answer is yes.




- bartleby_scriven - 09-08-2017

Someone hasn't been reading the Arrival thread! And therefore not supporting me in my war against Overlord!




- MichaelM - 09-08-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

Someone hasn't been reading the Arrival thread! And therefore not supporting me in my war against Overlord!



I thought I had? But I'll take another look, because Arrival was pretty fucking great.




- Richard Dickson - 09-08-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

Munich, however, is just pure, unadulterated horror. The scene where they kill the Dutch woman contract killer, ugh, taints my soul.



That may be the starkest thing Spielberg has ever done.  Her partial nudity is so uncomfortably intimate, and there's just no glimmer of humanity anywhere in the scene.  They are there to end her and that's that.




- RCA - 09-08-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post
 

I think it was pretty obvious for me 2 minutes into the very first viewing of KotCS as to what type of film it would be, when we (don't) see the bloodless gunning down of the soldiers at the gate.



RLM has a nice little bit in their review about how many people Indy violently kills in all the other movies compared to Crystal Skull(only 1).



(this should be queued up to play at the section - it's at 42:00)





Also, love that they pointed out this slight change from the trailer.






- hypnotoad - 09-08-2017

One of my favorite trailer oddities is that they CGI'd out the guns pointing at Indy and Mack during the opening scene.  I remember the internet making a big deal about Winstone's magical wobbly waistline.






- Nooj - 09-08-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCA View Post
 



Also, love that they pointed out this slight change from the trailer.




I don't know what made me think of this the other day, but I was doing various version of Ford's lifeless "part-tiiiiime...." while I was driving and running errands!




- RCA - 09-08-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

I don't know what made me think of this the other day, but I was doing various version of Ford's lifeless "part-tiiiiime...." while I was driving and running errands!


It really is such an awkward delivery.




- Belloq87 - 09-08-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCA View Post
 

RLM has a nice little bit in their review about how many people Indy violently kills in all the other movies compared to Crystal Skull(only 1).



(this should be queued up to play at the section - it's at 42:00)




The whole review is so on the money.  They absolutely nail every aspect of what's wrong with the movie.




- fatherdude - 09-08-2017

AIt's also interesting how the one kill is a direct ripoff of YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiFMn62z8ao[/video]


- Belloq87 - 09-08-2017

Spielberg has admitted to reusing gags if he thinks he can "perfect" them.  I wouldn't be surprised if that bit from YOUNG SHERLOCK came directly from him.




- carnotaur3 - 09-08-2017

By far the laziest instance in Crystal Skull is they re-used the same shot of the college from Raiders, replacing the cars in post but kept a couple of people in the background.



Silly.




- Dent6084 - 09-08-2017

A[quote name="Belloq87" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1680#post_4359126"]Spielberg has admitted to reusing gags if he thinks he can "perfect" them.  I wouldn't be surprised if that bit from YOUNG SHERLOCK came directly from him.
[/quote]

See: the coat hanger gag in 1941/Raiders.


- turingmachine75 - 09-08-2017

A[quote name="FatherDude" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1650#post_4358781"]I think that WAR OF THE WORLDS has bigger issues than its happy ending.  It's too episodic and there are scenes that straight-up don't work (the Tim Robbins interlude).  It basically feels like a series of excellent Spielberg set pieces (and some of them are all-timers) loosely strung together.  Koepp doesn't offer the film much in the way of structure, and that exposition-dump from the reporter lady is a groaner.

There's a lot to love.  Spielberg really does create incredible dread for a Tom Cruise blockbuster, and the 9/11 allegory stuff is very effective.  But it doesn't really add up to a movie for me.  And yes, it ultimately pulls punches.  It feels like Spielberg trying to do what Darabont would go on to do with THE MIST, but Spielberg is too much of a populist film maker at heart to really embrace the nihilism, and at the end of the day he's making an expensive summer movie that needed a return on its investment, so he makes choices that give the movie an identity crisis.

I think his need to cast recognizable faces like Cruise and Fanning is part of the issue.  Cruise does good work but it's tough to see him as an everyman, and Fanning doesn't feel particularly authentic either.  I would love to see the low-budget version with a no-name cast.  The end result doesn't really reconcile being a bleak B-movie while at the same time being a $150 million Cruise/Spielberg vehicle in a satisfying way.
[/quote]

That loose episodic nature is what I can't stand about WotW. However, Fanning's terrified scream "Is it the terrorists?" from the backseat of the van weirdly freaked me the hell out.


- mola ram - 09-09-2017

"No Robbie, not like Europe!"




Best scene in War of the Worlds is the peanut butter sandwhich bit.




- carnotaur3 - 09-09-2017

A[quote name="Mola Ram" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1680#post_4359319"]"No Robbie, not like Europe!"

Best scene in War of the Worlds is the peanut butter sandwhich bit.
[/quote]

Cruise freaking out over a PB and J is hilarious and tragic at the same time.

"One for you, one for me and one for the house."

Then the image of the bread sliding down the window. Gold.


- fraid uh noman - 09-09-2017

AWhy am I feeling this insane urge to give Crystal Skull a very serious rewatch? I'm just courting pain and sadness. I doubt that the decade since I've seen it has helped it to not look just like a bunch of cut scenes from an Indy PS2 game edited into something resembling a film..


- Stale Elvis - 09-09-2017

AI wish they made more of that rocket sled scene. A fist fight on that where neither has the strength to pull back for a punch or the strength to follow through with one, plus all the other things you could do on that thing.

But no, it was over before it began.

We did get prairie dogs though.


- bartleby_scriven - 09-09-2017

A[quote name="Fraid uh noman" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1700#post_4359370"]Why am I feeling this insane urge to give Crystal Skull a very serious rewatch? I'm just courting pain and sadness. I doubt that the decade since I've seen it has helped it to not look just like a bunch of cut scenes from an Indy PS2 game edited into something resembling a film..[/quote]

Don't.


- fraid uh noman - 09-09-2017

A[quote name="Bartleby_Scriven" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1680#post_4359376"]
Don't.[/quote]
I'd have to rent, buy or borrow it to watch it so....I doubt I'll go to the trouble..


- fatherdude - 09-09-2017

A[quote name="Stale Elvis" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1680#post_4359375"]I wish they made more of that rocket sled scene. A fist fight on that where neither has the strength to pull back for a punch or the strength to follow through with one, plus all the other things you could do on that thing.[/quote]

Darabont.


- carnotaur3 - 09-09-2017

AThe weirdest thing about Indy 4 is how much it comments on its own time frame. like, why is the communist thing such a big deal in the film? Why does Indy have to be suspected of anything? Why does all of that go nowhere? It feels like Modern Day Spielberg forgetting he's making an Indy movie. How else do you explain him trying to draw parallels to people keeping their head down to goddamn prairie dogs of all things? These kinds of devices didn't really get used in the previous movies. I almost want to say The Beard should have "gone back to formula!"


- fatherdude - 09-09-2017

AI think they thought that it was important to really embrace the 50s since it is the first Indy movie to change eras, but as you say, all the Red Scare stuff ends up feeling inconsequential despite how much screentime is devoted to it. It's residue of previous drafts.

In the Darabont version (picking up a pattern here?) an FBI agent who is tailing Indy ends up part of the entourage, so he is able to vouch for Indy when everything's over, offering an explanation for why he gets cleared at the end. I believe part of the reason Indy splits for Peru in the Darabont version is because he's on the run from the authorities, so there's more urgency there, whereas in the Koepp version the government paranoia thing really has no impact other than putting Indy out of a job. Ultimately, Indy embarks on the adventure to save some random kid's mom (as far as he knows), which has got to be the weakest impetus of all four flicks.

What's maddening is there were much better ways to handle it that would have required minimal changes. Why not just have Shia identify his mom as Marion? That way Indy and the audience have a compelling reason to board the plane. All shrouding her name does beyond muddling Indy's motivation is "protect" the "surprise" reveal that both the opening credits and the poster you just passed in the lobby give away anyway.

And what's with the belabored nonsense about the Russians allowing Marion to talk to Mutt over the phone so she can mail Oxley's letter to him and get it translated by Indy? The foes in the diner should have just been FBI agents (which Indy initially suspects), and it should have been rescuing Marion, period, that baits Indy to South America. Cleaner and way more effective. It's not like the letter has any special info that leads Indy to Oxley's location, anyway - he literally just asks around.

Koepp similarly makes the Francisco de Orellana stuff overwritten and pointless. That dialog dump in the crypt where Indy pieces together the fate of the conquistador is pitched like it's some captivating scene, but none of it means anything and it ends up having no bearing on the story. I still don't know what kind of relationship the movie was trying to suggest between the Nazca Indians and the Akator tribe. Descendants? And what about the purpose of the Nazca lines? A better movie would have attempted to tie this stuff up somehow.


- bartleby_scriven - 09-09-2017

Awhat a shoddy moobie


- bartleby_scriven - 09-09-2017

I do think it does the first three movies a disservice to say they don't capture aspects of their time period. Raiders and Last Crusade are both about that tension ramping up around the world as Germany was preparing for war, and it's no coincidence that the McGuffin in Raiders is framed as being Jewish ("I'm uncomfortable with this...Jewish ritual.") instead of Judeo-Christian, and the quest for the Grail in TLC is explicitly tied with seeking out knowledge and contrasted against the Nazi book burning; and Temple of Doom is full of tensions between colonialism and an India that had already declared its independence in 1930 with an Indian National Congress led by Gandhi.



There's no way you can do an Indy movie set in the '50s without tying in McCarthyism somehow. The problem with Crystal Skull is it does it badly.




- fatherdude - 09-09-2017

AThe trilogy does capture the 30s, just not in a way that's ham-fisted (relative to the material) or pointless.


- carnotaur3 - 09-09-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

I do think it does the first three movies a disservice to say they don't capture aspects of their time period. Raiders and Last Crusade are both about that tension ramping up around the world as Germany was preparing for war, and it's no coincidence that the McGuffin in Raiders is framed as being Jewish ("I'm uncomfortable with this...Jewish ritual.") instead of Judeo-Christian, and the quest for the Grail in TLC is explicitly tied with seeking out knowledge and contrasted against the Nazi book burning; and Temple of Doom is full of tensions between colonialism and an India that had already declared its independence in 1930 with an Indian National Congress led by Gandhi.



There's no way you can do an Indy movie set in the '50s without tying in McCarthyism somehow. The problem with Crystal Skull is it does it badly.



I'm not saying the movies don't place us in the setting of the time. I'm just saying KOTCS does so with way more importance. And it does so with very little reasoning. There's no coherence about it.




- bartleby_scriven - 09-09-2017

Temple of Doom makes reference to Gunga Din. Crystal Skull homages The Wild One. The importance of the setting is always there, Crystal Skull just integrates it badly.




- fatherdude - 09-09-2017

AYeah, the ideas are definitely there, the movie just has no interest in pulling them together. It's like they shot the brainstorming session.


- Stale Elvis - 09-09-2017

35 page on KotCS and no one's bothered to ask just how that tribe managed to hide themselves within the walls of the temple. Did they wall themselves in, or did they get in place then have other tribespeople pack the earth in around them? And how long were they there? Is there whole culture based around the possibility of somebody stumbling upon the temple?




- carnotaur3 - 09-09-2017

Dream logic, Stale. This stuff isn't supposed to be thought through.



You and I know that tribe waited a millennia just to get the jump on Indy!