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)



- commodorejohn - 10-23-2017

A[quote name="RexBanner" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1850#post_4388430"]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). [/quote]
Nah, Temple is legitimately a movie with issues. But comparing it to TLW (let alone a nothingburger like KOTCS) is absurd.


- fatherdude - 10-23-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malmordo View Post
 

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



Might be an unpopular opinion, but I think WAR OF THE WORLDS suffers for the same reason.  I think people overlook how badly written that film is because Spielberg does such an incredible job with the mood and the set pieces.



The fact that Spielberg won't sit Koepp and Kaminski out for INDY 5 is the biggest reason to keep expectations low.




- malmordo - 10-23-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 


Might be an unpopular opinion, but I think WAR OF THE WORLDS suffers for the same reason.  I think people overlook how badly written that film is because Spielberg does such an incredible job with the mood and the set pieces.


Oh, I agree.



I'm always surprised that people never mention Koepp's name whenever the (deservedly) negative discussion of KOTCS pops up online. Everyone automatically blames Lucas.




- fatherdude - 10-23-2017

Lucas deserves blame for setting off the chain of events that led to Koepp's script.  If he had just approved Darabont's when everyone else agreed it was great, the project wouldn't have gone into doldrums and Spielberg wouldn't have fallen into the (presumed) attitude of "Let's just sign off on something."



That means Spielberg is heavily to blame too.  I don't know how the hell a man with his experience and storytelling sensibilities ever came to regard David Koepp as his "closer."  It casts the Beard's ability to judge a screenplay in a shockingly questionable light.  This guy has had screenplays handed to him by Tony Kushner and the Coen Bros., yet he keeps coming back to Koepp for the adventure movies for some damned reason.




- mola ram - 10-23-2017

Temple of Doom, War of the Worlds, and even the original Jurassic Park are examples of Spielberg elevating a mediocre script into a good movie.



The same cannot be said for Lost World.




- malmordo - 10-23-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

Lucas deserves blame for setting off the chain of events that led to Koepp's script.  If he had just approved Darabont's when everyone else agreed it was great, the project wouldn't have gone into doldrums and Spielberg wouldn't have fallen into the (presumed) attitude of "Let's just sign off on something."



Koepp's dialogue (particularly the exchanges between Indy and Marion) is some of the worst that I've heard in a major studio film. I won't blame Lucas for that.



Darabont's script isn't a huge improvement, either. They might have had to go all the way back to Chris Columbus's draft to find something passable.




- fatherdude - 10-23-2017

Darabont's is a massive improvement.  The thing at least as velocity, structure, tension and entertaining characters.



I haven't read Columbus's Indy 3 draft in some time, but I remember it being really bad.




- rexbanner - 10-23-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mola Ram View Post
 

Temple of Doom, War of the Worlds, and even the original Jurassic Park are examples of Spielberg elevating a mediocre script into a good movie.





Jurassic Park's script is like A New Hope's: the dialogue is often clunky, on the nose, and unrealistic, but a script 50% composed of famous lines that haven't stopped resonating with people for decades is not a poor script. For the kind of story Jurassic Park is, and the tone Spielberg's going for, that script cannot be improved.




- fatherdude - 10-23-2017

But are the lines famous because they're good, or because they belong to a famous movie?




- mola ram - 10-23-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


Nah, Temple is legitimately a movie with issues. But comparing it to TLW (let alone a nothingburger like KOTCS) is absurd.

I'll admit that Temple of Doom is uneven compared to Raiders, but it features some of the most quintessential Indy moments for me. The best is the scene on the rickety bridge. The look on Ford's face when he realizes he has to cut it down followed by his expert delivery of "Oh Shit" is perfection. Then there's a very tiny moment in the mines toward the middle of the film that I just love: a heavy is whipping the child laborers, but then suddenly he gets his ass kicked off screen and is thrown into the frame; cut to low-angle shot of Indy as the camera pushes in. Spielberg's composition is classic, and Ford's posture and expression is that of a genuine hero. Whenever anyone mentions Indiana Jones, I think of that one shot from Temple.



The Indy movies lessen in quality as they go.



Raiders is perfection



Temple is closest to the pulp serial shit they were inspired by



Crusade is a lighthearted sitcom version of Raiders



Skull is like a high-school reunion version of Raiders.



Temple is the only one of the three following Raiders that feels like its own movie. Despite Crusade having a great father/son dynamic, it’s too much of an apology for Temple to be that. Skull is too compromised by the behind-the-scenes troubles and the distance of time between Crusade and it to really connect like it wants to.



Also, none of the action sequences in either Crusade or Skull manage to approach Temple's level, much less Raiders. Temple's score is probably the best out of all four movies, only narrowly (naaaaarrowly) beating out Raiders.



Having said that, I do love Last Crusade. It was one of the defining movies of my childhood. But I have cooled on it a little bit. People who say it's on the same level as Raiders are nuts.




- Pither - 10-23-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

Lucas deserves blame for setting off the chain of events that led to Koepp's script.  If he had just approved Darabont's when everyone else agreed it was great, the project wouldn't have gone into doldrums and Spielberg wouldn't have fallen into the (presumed) attitude of "Let's just sign off on something."



That means Spielberg is heavily to blame too.  I don't know how the hell a man with his experience and storytelling sensibilities ever came to regard David Koepp as his "closer."  It casts the Beard's ability to judge a screenplay in a shockingly questionable light.  This guy has had screenplays handed to him by Tony Kushner and the Coen Bros., yet he keeps coming back to Koepp for the adventure movies for some damned reason.


​Looks like I'm going to be spending some time imagining what a Coens-scripted Indy movie would be like. At the very least, I wouldn't mind seeing Steve Buscemi or John Turturro as some shifty side character.



Regarding Koepp, is this where I mention that I liked Premium Rush?




- rexbanner - 10-23-2017

Both - and those lines helped make it a famous movie. Ain't nobody quoting Avatar.




- rexbanner - 10-23-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mola Ram View Post
 

I'll admit that Temple of Doom is uneven compared to Raiders, but it features some of the most quintessential Indy moments for me. The best is the scene on the rickety bridge. The look on Ford's face when he realizes he has to cut it down followed by his expert delivery of "Oh Shit" is perfection.



I see Temple of Doom infrequently enough - the last time I watched it was probably in the run up to seeing Crystal Skull in the cinemas - that I always forget exactly how Indiana Jones gets out of that jam. Three times in my life I've been horrified at him hacking the rope brigde to bits, thinking 'Oh God, how's Indy going to get out of this one?!' - when I was 7, 10, 14, and 19.




- RCA - 10-23-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by RexBanner View Post
 

Both - and those lines helped make it a famous movie. Ain't nobody quoting Avatar.





- rexbanner - 10-23-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCA View Post
 



I was a big enough The Lord of the Rings nerd growing up that to me, 'I see you' will always mean...






- fatherdude - 10-23-2017

The important thing about the TEMPLE/CRUSADE debate is that most sane people can agree that no matter what their flaws as follow-ups to RAIDERS, both sequels stand tall as excellent adventure movies.  CRYSTAL SKULL isn't a continuation of diminishing returns; it just sucks.




- engineer - 10-23-2017

Where I'd put some of the above, using the old four-star rating method.



RAIDERS:  ****


TEMPLE OF DOOM:  ****
LAST CRUSADE:  ***1/2


CRYSTAL SKULL:  ** (at best)

JURASSIC PARK:  ***1/2
THE LOST WORLD:  ***



WAR OF THE WORLDS:  ***



While I can't take Tim Robbins' whack job character or the fact that the son shows up at the end, I still really enjoy most of WAR OF THE WORLDS.



Speaking of Koepp, what's his best work not-based on a pre-exisiting novel, do we think?  I'm thinking THE PAPER, also enjoying SNAKE EYES and PANIC ROOM.




- Overlord - 10-23-2017

The reappearance of the son at the end of War of the Worlds just ruined that film.




- mola ram - 10-23-2017

It does hurt the film, but it can't undo the awesomeness of what came before.



The first two acts of War of the Worlds are up there with the Spielberg greats.




- Overlord - 10-23-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mola Ram View Post
 

It does hurt the film, but it can't undo the awesomeness of what came before.



Yes, it can.  Because it makes the audience feel cheated and misled regarding the build-up to the son's departure/sacrifice, and it retroactively robs that entire relationship and those sequences of any type of tragedy, suspense, gravitas, or pathos.  Plus, the entire fucking series of hills exploded into fire.  He survived without a scratch, and beat his father back to the house to greet him at the front door?




- mola ram - 10-23-2017

Even the people who like/love War of the Worlds (like me) will tell you the ending with Goku being magically alive is dumb. Not denying that (even if it's taken from the original novel).



But the film has so many positives for me that I can overlook that.




- engineer - 10-23-2017

Watching WAR, when the son goes off over that hill, I was amazed.  My take was that this was Spielberg - not only exploring being a responsible parent and letting the apron strings go -  but also exploring a sort of a new take on his sci-fi trope of wide-eyed optimism giving way to moving on, telling audiences - and himself as the modern spectacle showman - "You have to let me go," and continue to grow as a person and filmmaker.  I was like "Wow, how about this!"  And when the kid shows up, it's like "God damn it!" 



Perhaps irresponsibly, I blame test audiences.




- rexbanner - 10-23-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

The reappearance of the son at the end of War of the Worlds just ruined that film.



The son's whole plot feels like the wreckage of a previous draft: it's as if he were originally written as a soldier on leave who felt that it was his responsibility to join the doomed effort to repel the Martians - Tom Cruise would, having seen the power of the Martians, argue desperately with his son to just keep running, and his son, torn between his responsibilities, would choose his duty as a soldier.



But in the film, fucking Robbie is explicitly told by the soldiers to fucking flee - so he's making it harder for the guys risking their lives to do their jobs -  and then starts fighting with his dad, telling him over and over again that 'I need to see this, you have to let me go!' The kid's getting worked up and teary, and Cruise is screaming, begging him to come with them - as if the boy is actually planning on doing something, rather than planning on watching a bunch of tanks get blown up by monsters he's already seen.



It's a fucking inane, stupid, pointless motivation - he's not expecting to contribute to the fight against the tripods. I hate backseat scripting usually, but make him a trained soldier and the whole sequence actually has weight, point, and a powerful moral dilemma! (Is it right to abandon a hopeless fight if others are still fighting it?)




- ryoken - 10-23-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by RexBanner View Post
 


The son's whole plot feels like the wreckage of a previous draft: it's as if he were originally written as a soldier on leave who felt that it was his responsibility to join the doomed effort to repel the Martians - Tom Cruise would, having seen the power of the Martians, argue desperately with his son to just keep running, and his son, torn between his responsibilities, would choose his duty as a soldier.



But in the film, fucking Robbie is explicitly told by the soldiers to fucking flee, and then starts fighting with his dad, telling him over and over again that 'I need to see this, you have to let me go!' It's a fucking inane, stupid, pointless motivation - he's not expecting to contribute to the fight against the tripods.



Yeah, him being a soldier, or maybe having him argue with Cruise over his decision to enlist before the invasion start would had brought that scene into focus and make it work.


Have him pick up the gun/gear of a fallen soldier, and join them over the hill.


And him popping up its not the problem.


Him popping up unscathed is.


If Robbie had been there, heavily injured because of his decision, and still reunite with his father, it would had made the scene work.


Hell, not have him pop up there among the rest of the family; have Cruise deliver his daughter, stand there, a loss for words to explain what happened to his soon, when he hears something...he turns around, and he sees Robbie walking down the street, heavily injured, wearing a uniform, but alive.


A soldier coming back home from war.


Its not just the scene of him surviving, its him suviving with no cost, injury or consequence




- Overlord - 10-23-2017

I honestly feel that they tested it, people had The Sad™, so they decided to insert a magical reappearance scene at the end.  Not a scratch on him!




- rexbanner - 10-23-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryoken View Post
 

Have him pick up the gun/gear of a fallen soldier, and join them over the hill.



Yup - that's all you need.



Or, alternatively, have the film play out as it does, but add a sequence where Tom beats Robbie to within an inch of his life for pointlessly risking his sister and dad's lives, strikes him from his will, and throws him, distraught, from the family home forever, explaining clearly to the Miranda Otto side of the family exactly how moronic and selfish a fuck-up their son has proven himself.



The film's got this smug, 'Thank God the son survived, we can breathe easy now!' vibe at the end, which is totally at odds with his behaviour and motivations. He's a petulant, moody teenager who grows into a stupid brat, and is rewarded at the end - make him a petulant, moody teen who throws his life away doing something noble but stupid, and you've instantly got a much weightier film.




- RCA - 10-23-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

I honestly feel that they tested it, people had The Sad™, so they decided to insert a magical reappearance scene at the end.  Not a scratch on him!


His wounds were all internal...




- Overlord - 10-23-2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCA View Post
 

His wounds were all internal...



LMAO.  He's holding back a rictus of pain while his ruptured organs shift around inside him.



When you need a serious injury that looks cool, but won't require a shit-ton of make-up work or hamper the character too much, you gotta go eye patch.  They should do a director's cut where they CG in an eye patch, and everyone will be happy.




- ravi - 10-23-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mola Ram View Post



Having said that, I do love Last Crusade. It was one of the defining movies of my childhood. But I have cooled on it a little bit. People who say it's on the same level as Raiders are nuts.


Maybe it's not as 100% perfect as Raiders, but there are reasons why many consider it to be a strong sequel. The Ford-Connery relationship adds a good heart to the story, the melding of exciting action, humor and dramatic moments and the quotable script give it a resonance that most sequels can't manage. While ToD is fun and I give it points for not retreading Raiders, it doesn't balance those aspects as well as Crusade does.



I have to disagree that it's "a light-hearted sitcom version of Raiders" and doesn't stand on it's own. While Crusade may some slight similarities to Raiders, they're strictly on a superficial level as the film largely charts its own course. The character relationships, tone, mythology and locations are all different from the original.



It still has some intense moments to rival the first two: the boat chase where Indy is being chased by the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword; Indy getting pissed and nearly strangling Elsa; the epic tank battle and the trials to reach the grail while Henry's life hangs in the balance.




- Overlord - 10-23-2017

Last Crusade was an excellent film, overshadowed only by the fact that Raiders is near flawless and on a short list of "greatest films ever made" contenders.



- MichaelM - 10-23-2017

Just chiming in to say Overlord is 100% right about WOTW. Any viewing of that film should stop as soon as tripod is downed and the dying Martian flops out.




- Overlord - 10-23-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

Just chiming in to say Overlord is 100% right about WOTW. Any viewing of that film should stop as soon as tripod is downed and the dying Martian flops out.


You're right!  One of the few films where if you just chop of X amount of its running time from the end, with no other edits, it would improve immensely.




- bartleby_scriven - 10-23-2017

AOH MY GOD

First Crystal Skull and now the end of War of the Worlds. Again and again and again!

stop

sturp urt


- Overlord - 10-23-2017

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

OH MY GOD

First Crystal Skull and now the end of War of the Worlds. Again and again and again!

stop

sturp urt


OKAY CAMPERS, RISE AND SHINE ... AND DON'T FORGET YOUR BOOTIES CAUSE IT'S COOOOOLD OUT THERE!!




- bartleby_scriven - 10-23-2017

ABut did Batman mean to save Harvey or Rachel in The Dark Knight?