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)



- carnotaur3 - 10-22-2017

AGoldblum does what he can, but the Ian Malcolm character has no reason to belong in the movie. For the first film, he’s the moral backbone and the thematic narrator. But in TLW, he’s not saying anything we don’t already know ourselves. TLW is silly like that. Jurassic Park explores things from a scientific perspective. Sure, we get the throw away “how did the Dinos survive without lysine?” And “let’s remain totally unobservable, but oh wait we fucked that up” but these things do no play into any cohesive theory. The movie just can’t escape or mask itself from the truth - it’s not about anything. At least Jurassic Park III realizes that and just says “fuck it, let’s romp it up”.

I will say though that I really enjoy the first 30 minutes of the film. And yes maybe even the trailer scene, and Roland Tenbow who is the only 3 dimensional character worth a damn. But it’s sad that the movie is single handedly outclassed by its former movie at every step of the way.


- rexbanner - 10-22-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

Goldblum does what he can, but the Ian Malcolm character has no reason to belong in the movie. For the first film, he’s the moral backbone and the thematic narrator. But in TLW, he’s not saying anything we don’t already know ourselves. TLW is silly like that. Jurassic Park explores things from a scientific perspective. Sure, we get the throw away “how did the Dinos survive without lysine?” And “let’s remain totally unobservable, but oh wait we fucked that up” but these things do no play into any cohesive theory. The movie just can’t escape or mask itself from the truth - it’s not about anything. At least Jurassic Park III realizes that and just says “fuck it, let’s romp it up”.


Jurassic Park's a poisoned chalice of a franchise in that, while it's an in-fucking-credible premise for a story, which combines wonder, horror, fantasy, and science in an elegant, incredibly resonant way (everyone loves/loved dinosaurs, everyone likes theme parks) all that is good for exactly one film - and that film was perfectly realised back in 1993 (which, on an extra-textual level, was also the absolute perfect time for it to be released, with the movie's amazing technology mirroring Hammond's).



You can't do Jurassic Park again - and not in the 'You can't do a third Death Star!' sense. None of the Jurassic Park sequels are bad - they're all at least watchable, and I think all are worth a cinema ticket - but none of them approach the original.



The Lost World was a (wise but flawed) attempt to focus on the suspense and action which the premise allows. With the park a failure, and everyone having learned just how dumb it was to resurrect dinosaurs, Spielberg understood that any attempts to re-create that feeling - which is key to the first film's success - would be redundant.



Jurassic Park III didn't try to do anything beyond using the dinosaur island as a set of wacky sequences.



Jurassic World did its best to recreate that original feel, but because it's a recreation and we know what has to happen for a plot to happen  - and the layers and layers of oh-so-2010s meta-humour - the already compromised attempts at hitting those feelings of wonder fail.



With Indiana Jones the basic premise - adventurer in the first half of the 20th century - has many, many times the potential for stories that retain the same spirit and feel.




- engineer - 10-22-2017

THE LOST WORLD is one of Spielberg's best b-movies.  There's nonsense aplenty, but...  A little girl gets attacked by chickensaurs, I dig Ian Malcolm in this, Postlethwaite gets to be badass, a hero gets ripped in half and eaten, Stormare goes out with great karma, people get stomped and dragged around between a T-Rex's toes, the raptors are basically ninja, there's a hissable Arliss Howard, it has a couple of great long takes, it goes full Godzilla and the dog gets chomped.



It's a nasty, mean sequel to a fun, equally silly original and I love that about it.  It's the TEMPLE OF DOOM of the late 90s.




- bradito - 10-22-2017

AI've been reading old issues of Film Threat, and there's one that came out before the release of "Jurassic Park" where they just ruthlessly berate Spielberg, saying he that hadn't made a good movie in 10 years, that he was washed up, that even his classics like "E.T." don't hold up.

Then they pour all this praise on "Carnosaur" because they got a set visit.

Ah, magazines. They're like the Internet on paper.


- mr. stockslivevan - 10-22-2017

AOnly Spielberg can get away with killing the dog.


- bradito - 10-22-2017

APippet...?


- bartleby_scriven - 10-22-2017

AJurassic Park III has one thing going for it, and that’s the Spinosaurus having swallowed the cellphone and its ringing signaling the creature’s presence draws it in line with the crocodile and its ticking clock from Peter Pan.

Now the movie doesn’t do anything with this or drawing comparisons between the island and Neverland. But it’s still pretty cool.


- fraid uh noman - 10-22-2017

A[quote name="Bartleby_Scriven" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1860#post_4388067"]Jurassic Park III has one thing going for it, and that’s the Spinosaurus having swallowed the cellphone and its ringing signaling the creature’s presence draws it in line with the crocodile and its ticking clock from Peter Pan.

Now the movie doesn’t do anything with this or drawing comparisons between the island and Neverland. But it’s still pretty cool.[/quote]
It does one fairly effective "OH FUCK" shot. That's all I can recall..


- rexbanner - 10-22-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

Pippet...?


It took me till my mid-20s before properly watching Jaws, despite being an enormous fan of Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, E.T. and Close Encounters growing up. My parents tried to show me it when I was 8, but I elected to go to bed 'tired' because I couldn't handle a film which, to me, broke a cardinal rule of fiction by killing off a dog, and a child, and SHOWING the audience the loved ones who would mourn them (Mrs Kintner and the stick-throwing-guy).




- engineer - 10-22-2017

AI loved FILM THREAT back in the early 90s. I found my college choice in their Film School issue and had a few articles on their first website.

But yeah, that Spielberg piece was bullshit.


- mr. stockslivevan - 10-22-2017

ANothing more satiating to film nerds than tearing down a beloved filmmaker declaring it a "sell out" or past its prime". Then guys like Scorsese in their 70s comes out with THE WOLF OF WALL STREET as a way to tell those clowns to piss off.


- filmnerdjamie - 10-22-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

Overlord's shitting on LINCOLN?



Good day to you, sir. I SAID GOOD DAY.





"You fatuous nincompoop!"



Lincoln is damn good but it seriously dropped the ball with the last 5 minutes. Abe walking away (ultimately to his death) was the ending... but it decided to keep going.



If any of the Beard's aughts-era efforts is up there with the greats, it's Munich. No questions ask. I'd even go as far to call that Top 5 Spielberg. A side to the man we haven't seen before (or since) with a powerful gut-punch of an ending. I saw that three times in theaters and dissected the DVD like crazy. Too bad that was lost in the shuffle with Brokeback Mountain and the bullshit-also-known-as-Crash at that year's Oscars. For a year where Hollywood was bitching about voting for a "relevant" film, they ignored the most relevant one in the batch, partially because it was just so... unflinching and like the truth, ugly.



Not sure what to think of Ready Player One because he already homaged himself with The Adventures of Tintin, take away the mo-cap and this is exactly the kind of adventure film he'd have made back in the 80's. I don't mind Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (It's fine but at least there is traces of blood-flowing unlike the lifeless and by-the-numbers The Lost World - that is Spielberg sleep-directing) and perfectly willing for Indiana Jones 5. But... it needs Lucas. His voice was instrumental in the trifecta. And I'm fucking tired of hearing him being solely blamed for Crystal Skull. Spielberg and Ford had to sign off on everything and they did.



On a side-note, this is a great post on the many unmade projects he developed over the years. Some I was aware of (The Mark, for example, but I never knew he was up for that - I just remember Will Smith was attached), others I had no clue (Flushed with Pride?!)



http://www.indiewire.com/2015/10/the-lost-unmade-projects-of-steven-spielberg-112055/




- fraid uh noman - 10-22-2017

A[quote name="Mr. Stockslivevan" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1860#post_4388082"]Nothing more satiating to film nerds than tearing down a beloved filmmaker declaring it a "sell out" or past its prime". Then guys like Scorsese in their 70s comes out with THE WOLF OF WALL STREET as a way to tell those clowns to piss off.[/quote]
I don't know what kind of film nerd that makes me then. I can't imagine saying that about Spielberg circa 1992 in the slightest. A filmmaker gotta kick me in the nuts much longer and much harder for me to even begin to start tearing them down. Even post Crystal Skull Spielberg making another Indy doesn't worry me. If anyone is sharp enough to course correct, it's him..


- rexbanner - 10-22-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post


I don't know what kind of film nerd that makes me then. I can't imagine saying that about Spielberg circa 1992 in the slightest. A filmmaker gotta kick me in the nuts much longer and much harder for me to even begin to start tearing them down. Even post Crystal Skull Spielberg making another Indy doesn't worry me. If anyone is sharp enough to course correct, it's him..


The only thing that causes me to doubt Spielberg is that he was quite vocal about Crystal Skull being a favour to George Lucas -





...and Indy V ain't in production because Kathleen Kennedy has an 'Old Man Indy' story she's been burning to tell all her life. Spielberg will do his best, but I think The Lost World and Crystal Skull are pretty good indicators that Spielberg's output suffers when his heart isn't totally in it.



Plus, The Last Crusade's ending is PERFECT. Studios are conditioning us to think that series can't end unless we see the character die or (shudders, wretches, struggles to type this hackneyed, awful phrase) 'pass the torch' (vomits).




- fraid uh noman - 10-22-2017

AHell....if it's only just better than Crystal Skull I'll probably be aight with it..


- hammerhead - 10-22-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by RexBanner View Post


Plus, The Last Crusade's ending is PERFECT.



Except for turning the character of Marcus into a fool.




- filmnerdjamie - 10-22-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
 


Except for turning the character of Marcus into a fool.



I feel ya. But this is pretty Goddamn perfect.






- MichaelM - 10-22-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post

Lincoln is damn good but it seriously dropped the ball with the last 5 minutes. Abe walking away (ultimately to his death) was the ending... but it decided to keep going.


Completely agreed. The story the movie was telling wasn't about his death but about one of his greatest accomplishments. The walking away is exactly where the movie should've ended.




- Jones - 10-22-2017

A[quote name="RexBanner" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1860#post_4388088"]

Plus, The Last Crusade's ending is PERFECT.
[/quote]

I mean, they literally rode off into the sunset. It was ideal.


- user_32 - 10-22-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
 


Except for turning the character of Marcus into a fool.



Never really bothered me. It made him more interestig. I know it bothered others but if they played him as he was in the first film, he was basically Henry Jones Sr.




- fraid uh noman - 10-22-2017

A[quote name="Jones" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1860#post_4388136"]
I mean, they literally rode off into the sunset. It was ideal.[/quote]
Yeaaaaah....I feel ya. But....now that they HAVE re-opened that can of worms....I hope that this next one wraps it all up a bit more satisfactorily. Just strike that last one from the record then..


- hammerhead - 10-22-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 View Post
 


Never really bothered me. It made him more interestig. I know it bothered others but if they played him as he was in the first film, he was basically Henry Jones Sr.



I like how, in Raiders, one can read a sneakiness into Marcus. He enables Indy, casually dismissing the dubious legality of his 'finds', and he almost puppeteers him through the Ark exposition with the Feds.




- carnotaur3 - 10-22-2017

AMarcus wasn’t bumbling until he ventures outside his area of expertise. I know there’s the joke about him getting lost in his own museum but he’s still taken seriously in the opening of Last Crusade. It really isn’t until he starts boarding the plane do you see him start to get nervous. I’m fine with this.


- user_32 - 10-22-2017

AAnd Denholm Elliot plays the "bumbling" so well anyway that it still works.

He even got to be bumbling in death.

[Image: f_cameo_03.jpg]


- chaz - 10-22-2017

 I never had a problem with how Marcus acts in TLC. I just assumed he wasn't cut out to be in the field.



 I read The Lost World novel in high school and I was disappointed that one action scene didn't make it to the movie. Its when Sarah and a teenaged girl are on a motorcycle chasing a raptor though a herd of Apatosaurus.



  I liked Lincoln and Bridge of Spies quite a bit.




- engineer - 10-22-2017

Originally Posted by Chaz View Post

Its when Sarah and a teenaged girl are on a motorcycle chasing a raptor though a herd of Apatosaurus.





Jesus, that's terrifying.




- user_32 - 10-22-2017

ASo that's what happens when you mix celebrity DNA with that of a dinosaur. They went too far this time!


- mola ram - 10-23-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Engineer View Post
 

THE LOST WORLD is one of Spielberg's best b-movies.  There's nonsense aplenty, but...  A little girl gets attacked by chickensaurs, I dig Ian Malcolm in this, Postlethwaite gets to be badass, a hero gets ripped in half and eaten, Stormare goes out with great karma, people get stomped and dragged around between a T-Rex's toes, the raptors are basically ninja, there's a hissable Arliss Howard, it has a couple of great long takes, it goes full Godzilla and the dog gets chomped.



It's a nasty, mean sequel to a fun, equally silly original and I love that about it.  It's the TEMPLE OF DOOM of the late 90s.


Comparing Temple to the Lost World is ridiculous. Sure, both sequels are mean-spirited, but Temple is an exciting action/adventure film. Better than most out there. I would also argue from a directorial standpoint, Doom is one of the best things Spielberg has ever directed.



The Lost World is worse in literally every way. I firmly believe it's Spielberg's worst film.



Jurassic Park should never have been a franchise, at least not by Spielberg. I think that's what pisses me off about TLW the most. It's a shitty, cash grabbing boring sequel to a beloved 90's film.



Coming from the man who said "making a sequel to anything is just a cheap carny trick" in regards to Jaws, and not wanting to do a sequel to E.T. because it would take away the "virginity" of the original. Indiana Jones is different because it's based on the 30's adventure serial, sequels are in it's DNA.



Jurassic Park should have been a one off, like Jaws and E.T.




- hammerhead - 10-23-2017

Jaws wasn't a one-off.




- Jones - 10-23-2017

ABiggest problem with the Lost World book was that Malcolm would go back at all, considering what happened in the first book. The movie fixed that problem.


- mola ram - 10-23-2017

A[quote name="Hammerhead" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1860#post_4388306"]Jaws wasn't a one-off.
[/quote] I meant in terms of Spielberg directing. Should have made myself more clear.


- fatherdude - 10-23-2017

  Quote:


Originally Posted by Mola Ram View Post

Comparing Temple to the Lost World is ridiculous. Sure, both sequels are mean-spirited, but Temple is an exciting action/adventure film. Better than most out there. I would also argue from a directorial standpoint, Doom is one of the best things Spielberg has ever directed.


I agree.  One B-movie is not equal to another.  THE LOST WORLD is a lousy script that Spielberg, Pete Postlethwaite and John Williams can't help but give some worthwhile moments.  TEMPLE OF DOOM is a pulp masterpiece through and through.



THE LOST WORLD vs. CRYSTAL SKULL is the harder analysis, but I feel like THE LOST WORLD wins that face-off handily.  All of CRYSTAL SKULL's set pieces are perfectly operable, but never once thrilling, while for all its faults THE LOST WORLD has some killer action sequences.  It also has a great score, a reasonably thick atmosphere, an authentic sense of jeopardy and, oh yeah, doesn't photographically look like something a wedding videographer would have discarded from his demo reel for having an amateurishly indulgent amount of filtration.  Even Peter Jackson looks at CRYSTAL SKULL and decries that it doesn't look filmic enough.




- rexbanner - 10-23-2017

I'm sort of glad that Crystal Skull's mediocrity made everyone get off the 'Temple of Doom is shit' bandwagon - it's probably the weakest of the '81-'89 films, but it's still an amazing film. I maintain that people just need a 'shit one' in their film franchises, and that there's some weird societal difficulty we all have with the concept that something which isn't as as good as its brilliant peers can still be really good (See also Alien 3 and Jedi, Return of the). 




- fraid uh noman - 10-23-2017

ACrystal Skull doesn't have one set piece that works for me 100%. That's pretty much the bottom line on why The Lost World stomps Crystal Skull (for me)..


- malmordo - 10-23-2017

Both of the films suffer from having shitty scripts by David Koepp.