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)



- agentsands77 - 03-19-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 


I agree with this.  It bothers me that the Doomtown sequence has come to be used as the representation for CRYSTAL SKULL's problems when it's arguably the only classic Indy cliffhanger setup in the whole damned movie.


Absolutely. For the first third or so, KINGDOM might be rickety, but it has a pulse and some imagination.



It's really after that that the story evaporates into tedious exposition about characters we don't care about and crystal skulls and set-pieces that seem oddly undeveloped (you're telling me that they built a  sequence with vehicle caravan that has a giant, tank-like tree-slasher and you're gonna blow that tree-slasher up right at the start?). A lot of that really does smack of Lucas, because I'd be very surprised if it was Spielberg who insisted on that entire convoluted backstory about Orellana and Oxley and the skull.



But it's also a shame, because I think Lucas is dealing with concepts that are, in isolation, neat. I'm personally game for an Indy film that goes to town with elements like automatic writing and psychic Soviets. It just adds up to so little because Lucas has no sense for how to take those concepts and integrate them into a story.




- Belloq87 - 03-19-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

Ford is gonna look mighty old by the time this thing gets in front of cameras. I'm fine with it, but they're going to have to be really creative with the action.

If I were to guess, I'd wager we'll be getting a lot of vehicle chases, with actual fisticuffs kept to a bare minimum.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

I think going that route or the Hammer route (INDIANA JONES AND THE GOLDEN VAMPIRES) would be the way to go.

That's a great title.  I would LOVE to see something like that, with Indy acting in a Peter Cushing-style capacity: knows all the lore, is the elder statesman who's the focal point driving everything, but lets his sidekicks handle the really intense action.



Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

The series needs some horrifying imagery again.  I will grant CRYSTAL SKULL this one:





But Blanchett's death is the weakest Indy villain demise ever.  She just sort of turns into Lysol.





The concept art was much more on-point.  Look at those eye sockets!  Note the burnt flesh scattered around her shirt!  What the hell, Spielberg?




Absolutely agree with this.  We all know Spielberg seems to have lost interest in "fun" and over-the-top violence since his experience with SCHINDLER'S LIST, but the de-fanged nature of CRYSTAL SKULL is one of the issues for which I do blame Spielberg; Indy only actively kills one person in the entire film (that weird graveyard attacker, who barely counts), and he never once fires his gun.



What I'm saying is, yes, I hope Indiana Jones will kill more people in INDY 5, and that there will be some actual, for-real bloodletting going on.  The Spielberg who melted Nazis in RAIDERS and tore off a guy's face in POLTERGEIST is certainly gone, but I'm hoping he can bring back a bit of a pulpy edge to the violence.




- agentsands77 - 03-19-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post


That's a great title.  I would LOVE to see something like that, with Indy acting in a Peter Cushing-style capacity: knows all the lore, is the elder statesman who's the focal point driving everything, but lets his sidekicks handle the really intense action.


Oh, yeah. I'm sold. Old Indy can fire a gun, he ride around in vehicles, but the old fisticuffs stuff isn't really gonna fly with a 75-year-old Ford. And if they do go the Hammer route, they could even keep the focal point on a Judeo-Christian relic. Just have Indy go up against a Satanic cult, ala The Devil Rides Out.



But who are we kidding? After Temple of Doom, there's no way Spielberg goes for a horror concept. I guess if this is gonna be set in the 60s, you could draw on the spy genre, though that angle is a little played out at the moment.




- atomtastic - 03-19-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virtanen View Post

Who's the oldest successful action hero? I was thinking of Eastwood in IN THE LINE OF FIRE but he was only in his 60s back then.

I mean, Charles Bronson was dead by the time he starred in Death Wish 5, anything's possible.




- user_32 - 03-19-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post


Absolutely agree with this.  We all know Spielberg seems to have lost interest in "fun" and over-the-top violence since his experience with SCHINDLER'S LIST, but the de-fanged nature of CRYSTAL SKULL is one of the issues for which I do blame Spielberg; Indy only actively kills one person in the entire film (that weird graveyard attacker, who barely counts), and he never once fires his gun.



He does fire it once during the "part time" scene but only to scare off the other graveyard attacker.



The shooting the lone swordsman or three Nazis with one bullet in a row Indy I think is long gone. Just leaves more time for whip action.



Then again, didn't Tintin shoot a gun a few times? Probably didn't kill anybody though.




- Neil Spurn - 03-19-2016

You're all sort of vaguely encouraging me to think that this might actually be decent. But I'm still never gonna get around to watching Crystal Skull.  I'm more than happy to live in obliviousness forever.




- fatherdude - 03-19-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 View Post
 


He does fire it once during the "part time" scene but only to scare off the other graveyard attacker.



He just aims the gun, as I recall.




- mr. stockslivevan - 03-19-2016

A[quote name="User_32" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/250_50#post_4033917"]
He does fire it once during the "part time" scene but only to scare off the other graveyard attacker. 

The shooting the lone swordsman or three Nazis with one bullet in a row Indy I think is long gone. Just leaves more time for whip action.

Then again, didn't Tintin shoot a gun a few times? Probably didn't kill anybody though.
[/quote]

Tintin uses the gun for practical things like shooting pipes or objects to throw off people, but he never uses it on a person. That's the thing with Spielberg, he can't bring himself to have heroes flat out murder bad guys unless it was a docudrama about how violence tortures your soul as seen in MUNICH. He's no longer capable of depicting violence as something casual.


- chaz - 03-19-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post
 

Oh, yeah. I'm sold. Old Indy can fire a gun, he ride around in vehicles, but the old fisticuffs stuff isn't really gonna fly with a 75-year-old Ford. And if they do go the Hammer route, they could even keep the focal point on a Judeo-Christian relic. Just have Indy go up against a Satanic cult, ala The Devil Rides Out.




Indy vs Anton LeVay could be fun. Benedict Cumberbatch as the LeVay stand in or Max Von Sydow.




- Belloq87 - 03-19-2016

TINTIN showed that Spielberg still has a great handle on fun action setpieces, which is good, but for Indy to really work, I think we kind of need the Spielberg who had a handle on fun violence to come back, as well.  Even just a little bit.



Of course, that also means we need villains worthy of receiving horrible deaths.  The Soviets could have been that if done right, but in the end result they're mostly pretty nondescript and not as eeeevil as I think Indiana Jones needs his villains to be.




- fatherdude - 03-19-2016

Yeah, I thought the fellow who played the Russian bruiser was good but he was ultimately given no personality.  There were no sadists like Toht or Vogel or the Pat Roach henchmen.




- sprinky - 03-19-2016

A[quote name="Belloq87" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/270#post_4033952"]

Of course, that also means we need villains worthy of receiving horrible deaths.  The Soviets could have been that if done right, but in the end result they're mostly pretty nondescript and not as eeeevil as I think Indiana Jones needs his villains to be.
[/quote]

I don't think the Russians in the movie had the same level of menace to them as the Nazis. Stalin doesn't really conjure the same feeling of dread as Hitler despite being a dictator and committing all sorts of atrocities.

The Nazis are considered the root of all evil. With Hitler as its avatar.
The mere mention of them already establishing them as the big evil before even properly being introduced in the movie.

Compare that with KotCS. Even when they went with a setting that we should fear the red scare, not once do you feel them being a genuine real threat.The Russians came across as some band of generic evil doers with a speech problem (looking at you Blanchett).


- Reasor - 03-19-2016

A[quote name="Belloq87" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/250#post_4033952"]TINTIN showed that Spielberg still has a great handle on fun action setpieces, which is good, but for Indy to really work, I think we kind of need the Spielberg who had a handle on fun violence to come back, as well.  Even just a little bit.

Of course, that also means we need villains worthy of receiving horrible deaths.  The Soviets could have been that if done right, but in the end result they're mostly pretty nondescript and not as eeeevil as I think Indiana Jones needs his villains to be.
[/quote]

It's a shame that everyone in charge of Crystal Skull got wrapped around this whole "it's the 50's now, so we need Red Scare anti-communist propaganda villains" idea. Cate Blanchett could have had such a terrific character to work with if they hadn't been making history's most expensive Roger Corman drive-in movie. Blanchett was a lead actress that you could have done a spin-off series with.


- Pither - 03-19-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

I think going that route or the Hammer route (INDIANA JONES AND THE GOLDEN VAMPIRES) would be the way to go.

Ooh, yes please!



Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post
But who are we kidding? After Temple of Doom, there's no way Spielberg goes for a horror concept. I guess if this is gonna be set in the 60s, you could draw on the spy genre, though that angle is a little played out at the moment.

Maybe, but Temple of Doom does seem to be viewed a lot more fondly today. I have no idea if that would have an impact on Spielberg's views, but I would love it if they went in this direction.




- chaz - 03-19-2016

My only problem with Temple of Doom is how annoying Willy can be. I enjoy how gleefully gory and violent it can be.




- hammerhead - 03-19-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

It's a shame that everyone in charge of Crystal Skull got wrapped around this whole "it's the 50's now, so we need Red Scare anti-communist propaganda villains" idea. Cate Blanchett could have had such a terrific character to work with if they hadn't been making history's most expensive Roger Corman drive-in movie. Blanchett was a lead actress that you could have done a spin-off series with.


Still no excuse for introducing a vehicle whose front end is all giant whirlng blades, and then failing to throw even one henchman into it.




- agentsands77 - 03-19-2016

A[quote name="Pither" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/270#post_4033966"]Ooh, yes please!

Maybe, but Temple of Doom does seem to be viewed a lot more fondly today. I have no idea if that would have an impact on Spielberg's views, but I would love it if they went in this direction.
[/quote]
An interviewer recently told Spielberg that people were coming around on TEMPLE and his response boiled down to "That's great for them but I personally don't care for it."


- fatherdude - 03-19-2016

His loss!




- Pither - 03-19-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaz View Post
 

My only problem with Temple of Doom is how annoying Willy can be. I enjoy how gleefully gory and violent it can be.


She is irritating, and, I have to admit, at times I find Short Round kind of annoying, too. Still, it manages to be really entertaining pulp adventure. I think one of the reasons I'd like to see some horror elements brought back to the series is because I like Mola Ram as a villain so much. It's pretty easy to fear and root against a villain when they're tied to some kind of supernatural evil.




- Belloq87 - 03-19-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprinky View Post


I don't think the Russians in the movie had the same level of menace to them as the Nazis. Stalin doesn't really conjure the same feeling of dread as Hitler despite being a dictator and committing all sorts of atrocities.

The Nazis are considered the root of all evil. With Hitler as its avatar.
The mere mention of them already establishing them as the big evil before even properly being introduced in the movie.

Compare that with KotCS. Even when they went with a setting that we should fear the red scare, not once do you feel them being a genuine real threat.The Russians came across as some band of generic evil doers with a speech problem (looking at you Blanchett).

Despite the horrors real-life Soviet officers and officials committed, they don't carry the same kind of cultural cachet as the Nazis do.  Therefore, there's not the same sort of shorthand inherent to them that you get when you have Nazi villains; we need to SEE the Soviets be despicable villains in order to truly root for Indy to take them down, and the movie doesn't really give us that.  There are moments that sort of approach that, such as killing the army base guards at the beginning, but Spielberg really undercuts that by having it transpire off-camera.  It's not enough.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post


It's a shame that everyone in charge of Crystal Skull got wrapped around this whole "it's the 50's now, so we need Red Scare anti-communist propaganda villains" idea. Cate Blanchett could have had such a terrific character to work with if they hadn't been making history's most expensive Roger Corman drive-in movie. Blanchett was a lead actress that you could have done a spin-off series with.

I think they either needed to go full-on cartoon caricature with the Soviets, or use different baddies.  Indy villains need to be hateful and sadistic creeps; the Soviets in CRYSTAL SKULL are just bland goons.  And Blanchett was totally wasted in her role as a villain we should be afraid of because... well, because she's the villain!  Not because of any actions she actually takes.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


An interviewer recently told Spielberg that people were coming around on TEMPLE and his response boiled down to "That's great for them but I personally don't care for it."

That's kind of a bummer.  There's another interview floating around where the interviewer tells Spielberg that he's a big fan of HOOK, and Spielberg appears to get a genuine kick out of that, despite HOOK being a movie he can't stand.



In TEMPLE OF DOOM's case, I honestly think Spielberg's appraisal of it is mostly inspired by the negative reactions to its release at the time, not because he objectively thinks he made a bad film.  He so took that to heart that that's all the movie is to him, now.




- agentsands77 - 03-19-2016

A[quote name="Belloq87" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/270#post_4034010"]
In TEMPLE OF DOOM's case, I honestly think Spielberg's appraisal of it is mostly inspired by the negative reactions to its release at the time, not because he objectively thinks he made a bad film.  He so took that to heart that that's all the movie is to him, now.
[/quote]
Yes. That and he was in a dark emotional place when he made it, so he associates it with an unpleasant period of his life.

I think MINORITY REPORT demonstrates that he still has that dark edge in him. I think he struggles to apply that to Indy because he now views it as a family franchise.

Also, there are bits in KINGDOM that would have a slightly harder edge if the CGI was better and the cinematography was more natural. Sure, there's not much that matches the sadistic bite present in some of the earlier Indy set pieces, but still.


- mondguy - 03-19-2016

Jones felt just the right amount of being outmatched by the Nazis/Thugees in the first three.  I actually felt bad for the Russians in KOTC, because they simply could not get their shit together.




- user_32 - 03-19-2016

I've always appreciated how aware Spielberg is of what his fans think of him or his movies. When people complained about his changes to E.T., he eventually relented and only released the theatrical version on blu-ray. He's basically the opposite of Lucas in that regard.



I love his plea here on fans giving George Lucas credit on Temple of Doom.



Quote:


 

Quint: Before I let you go, I do want to say that you need to quit beating up so much on Temple of Doom. I love that movie.


Steven Spielberg: You know, sometimes I can’t help myself. But the greatest thing about Temple of Doom was I met Kate Capshaw and I have seven children. We’ve been married for almost 20 years and that was my win on that movie.



Quint: I met Kate very briefly at the War of the Worlds premiere in New York and I made sure to tell her “I know you probably don’t get it enough, but you’re great in Temple of Doom.”



Steven Spielberg: You’re sweet. By the way, she is great in Temple of Doom and I’m very, very lucky to have found my life partner.



Quint: I love that movie because it’s so dramatically different from Raiders. The tone is different, you go from a suave villain in Belloq to a flashy villain in Mola Ram…


Steven Spielberg: Right. Here’s the thing… for all the fans of Temple of Doom who think I beat up too much on it, those fans who beat up on George Lucas 24/7 at the drop of any fedora, I would just say please give George credit. He’s the one that made it dark, he’s the one that decided on the story and on the concept. For all those who love Temple of Doom, you’ve gotta give George credit.



http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49921




- carnotaur3 - 03-19-2016

ASort of reads like "Give George the credit for the film I didn't like." Lol


- mr. stockslivevan - 03-19-2016

AI get what Spielberg means. Ultimately, as much as Spielberg brought to the table, they're very much Lucas' films through and through. Which is what will make Indy V so interesting now that he's not involved.


- carnotaur3 - 03-19-2016

AI know, I'm just kidding the Beard. But I wouldn't completely disregard Lucas' involvement here. They were working on ideas and mcguffin before the eventual Disney sale.


- user_32 - 03-19-2016

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised Lucas getting a Story credit out of respect.



Quote:

And Crystal Skull? "I'm very happy with the movie. I always have been... I sympathise with people who didn't like the MacGuffin because I never liked the MacGuffin. George and I had big arguments about the MacGuffin. I didn't want these things to be either aliens or inter-dimensional beings. But I am loyal to my best friend. When he writes a story he believes in - even if I don't believe in it - I'm going to shoot the movie the way George envisaged it. I'll add my own touches, I'll bring my own cast in, I'll shoot the way I want to shoot it, but I will always defer to George as the storyteller of the Indy series. I will never fight him on that."



And on the specifics of the criticisms, Spielberg takes some of them as a badge of pride. "The gopher was good. I have the stand-in one at home. What people really jumped at was Indy climbing into a refrigerator and getting blown into the sky by an atom-bomb blast. Blame me. Don't blame George. That was my silly idea. People stopped saying "jump the shark". They now say, "nuked the fridge". I'm proud of that. I'm glad I was able to bring that into popular culture."



http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/spielberg-indy-jurassic-park/




- carnotaur3 - 03-19-2016

AThat Spielberg guy is a rebel!


- fatherdude - 03-19-2016

TEMPLE OF DOOM is arguably Spielberg at his most unrestrained and self-indulgent, and my stab at armchair psychology has long been that he has some kind of weird shame about that.  But if ever a movie demanded to be shamelessly unrestrained, it's TEMPLE OF DOOM.  Ford is probably in his best physical shape in the movie, and as far as I'm concerned Ford with a machete on the rope bridge is The Iconic Indy Image.  It also probably evokes the actual serials this series is supposed to be a love letter to more than any other installment.




- Belloq87 - 03-20-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 View Post


I love his plea here on fans giving George Lucas credit on Temple of Doom.



http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49921


I'd never seen that before, and I think that's actually kind of sweet on Spielberg's part.  I genuinely buy that these two guys are incredibly close, and I really relate to the impulse of wanting to defend a friend against perceived unfair attacks.  And in the case of Lucas, I'm more on Spielberg's side than Lucas' critics; for all the man's failings (and he certainly has some), George Lucas is still responsible for STAR WARS, EMPIRE, JEDI, RAIDERS, TEMPLE OF DOOM, LAST CRUSADE, WILLOW, THX-1138, and his masterpiece, AMERICAN GRAFFITI.  As a movie fan, those are more than enough to buy a lifetime of goodwill from me.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

I get what Spielberg means. Ultimately, as much as Spielberg brought to the table, they're very much Lucas' films through and through. Which is what will make Indy V so interesting now that he's not involved.

It's going to feel different, no question, as the three good Indy films are examples of Spielberg and Lucas working in perfect harmony.  As the incredible story conference notes for RAIDERS reveal, so much of what's great about that movie is the result of a synthesis of their sensibilities (as melded by Kasdan).  Lucas' intellect and grasp of narrative were beautifully matched with Spielberg's understanding of cinema and visual storytelling.



Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

TEMPLE OF DOOM is arguably Spielberg at his most unrestrained and self-indulgent, and my stab at armchair psychology has long been that he has some kind of weird shame about that.  But if ever a movie demanded to be shamelessly unrestrained, it's TEMPLE OF DOOM.  Ford is probably in his best physical shape in the movie, and as far as I'm concerned Ford with a machete on the rope bridge is The Iconic Indy Image.  It also probably evokes the actual serials this series is supposed to be a love letter to more than any other installment.


I agree with this.  TOD is the fullest expression of Steven Spielberg unleashed, and it's glorious.  Perhaps only 1941 comes close to the same kind of thing, although that final product is far less impressive than TOD, at least in my opinion (and I'm still a moderate defender of it).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

But I wouldn't completely disregard Lucas' involvement here. They were working on ideas and mcguffin before the eventual Disney sale.

I think it's almost a certainty that Spielberg is going to keep Lucas in the loop and informally consult him off the record, because there's just no way he's not going to want to talk to his friend about it.  The big change is that now Spielberg doesn't have to actually include Lucas' ideas unless he truly wants to.




- agentsands77 - 03-20-2016

The Shanghai sequence of Temple of Doom is perhaps the greatest sequence from any Indiana Jones film, ever. It's fully unrestrained (what other action franchise would have the moxy to open with a tribute to classic Hollywood musicals?), and the way it keeps changing the nature of the game and who's winning the game is fabulous. They even manage, for a while, to literally show the tables turning thanks to the great "lazy Susan" stuff.



When I think about how great Spielberg can be, that is the sequence I think about.




- Stale Elvis - 03-20-2016

AI shouldn't laugh, but I do every time Indy turns around and punches the cigarette girl out of confusion.

There is no way in hell Speilberg would go for that and no way you'd get away with that these days.

It just works so well though.


- agentsands77 - 03-20-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

I shouldn't laugh, but I do every time Indy turns around and punches the cigarette girl out of confusion.

There is no way in hell Speilberg would go for that and no way you'd get away with that these days.

It just works so well though.

That it does.



Also, David Wip's performance as Wu Han has what, 20-30 seconds of screentime? But somehow that death scene is really sad ("I've followed you on many adventures...but into the great unknown mystery, I go first, Indy!").




- fatherdude - 03-20-2016

AMac should have been the ant-Wu Han, perishing in the teaser after his betrayal. Don't get me wrong, the concept of Mac presented opportunities that could have totally supported him staying throughout the whole film, but since they didn't actually find those opportunities he would have been better served as a memorable red shirt.


- Stale Elvis - 03-20-2016

ASo eight years after KotCS was released, do we actually know whose side Mac was on. Has anyone asked Ray Winstone? Perhaps he knows.