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)



RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - hammerhead - 10-28-2019

So the "shoot the swordsman" callback didn't seem weird?


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - arjen rudd - 10-28-2019

Weirder than the heart ripping magic death cult? Kids don’t understand callbacks. I saw the Star Wars movies so young that I had no idea there was a sequential order to them. I was just like I like Ewoks and Jabba and Hoth.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Stale Elvis - 10-28-2019

First time I ‘saw’ Raiders was at a school assembly when I was about 7 or 8. One of the teachers had a hooky VHS copy and we all watched it on the big TV with the wheels and the VCR slung underneath. But because it was so gruesome for kids they’d stop it every 30 seconds or so and fast forward telling us what happened in the parts we’d miss... “so the men go in the tunnel and there are spikes and one of the men gets stuck in the spikes.” Fast forward fast forward “... so a fight breaks out in the bar and they escape with the medallion” etc. Was a weird way to be introduced to the character but it completely went over my head until I caught Raiders again on TV when I was 12 - the perfect age to watch it.

I saw ToD in the theatre when I was 10 - it just went over my head, didn’t really enjoy it.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - fatherdude - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 03:25 AM)hammerhead Wrote: So the "shoot the swordsman" callback didn't seem weird?

Why would it be weird?  It doesn't call attention to itself if you don't know what it is referencing.  Also, the gag is simultaneously a payoff of something that occurs at the beginning of the film (Willie losing Indy's gun), so it doesn't even really come off as a non-sequitur for the RAIDERS-ignorant.  Its seamlessness is the exact reason I was so baffled by Josh Whedon pointing to it as some criterion example of sequelitis, or whatever it is he said.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Judas Booth - 10-28-2019

You young punks. I saw RAIDERS theatrically in 1981 when I was 11 and effing loved the face melting scene.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Stale Elvis - 10-28-2019

I was a 100% wuss as a kid and the face melting scene would have traumatised me more than Salem's Lot did.

I missed out on so many great movies as a kid because I was scared of gore and horror. Aged 14 we managed to score tickets for the 18-rated Predator. After we'd actually made it into the cinema I bailed before the film started because some other kid said it was supposed to be gory. I regret that to this day as Predator was made for a 14 year-old me.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - MichaelM - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 08:45 AM)Judas Booth Wrote: You young punks.  I saw RAIDERS theatrically in 1981 when I was 11 and effing loved the face melting scene.

I was 13 but yes to the rest.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - hammerhead - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 08:29 AM)fatherdude Wrote:
(10-28-2019, 03:25 AM)hammerhead Wrote: So the "shoot the swordsman" callback didn't seem weird?

Why would it be weird?  It doesn't call attention to itself if you don't know what it is referencing.  Also, the gag is simultaneously a payoff of something that occurs at the beginning of the film (Willie losing Indy's gun), so it doesn't even really come off as a non-sequitur for the RAIDERS-ignorant.  Its seamlessness is the exact reason I was so baffled by Josh Whedon pointing to it as some criterion example of sequelitis, or whatever it is he said.

Interesting! I've never bothered to watch TOD that closely, I guess. To me, Indy being confronted by not one but two turbaned swordsmen and instantly reaching for his gun was unreadable as anything but a cheeky followup to the scene from RAIDERS.

And yeah, after school in 1981 absolutely everybody's favorite bit was the face-melting. That's one of the miracles of RAIDERS, that mastery of tone that keeps potentially traumatic details firmly in the realm of escapism. As opposed to the gross-out bits in TOD where you can almost hear the filmmakers yelling "LIGHTEN UP, IT'S ESCAPISM"


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - fraid uh noman - 10-28-2019

I find both Raiders and Temple pretty much flawless (maybe Temple even the MOST flawless lol). The face melting scarred me at five years old. As did a good bit of Temple. I was 8 years old when Last Crusade was in the theater. Between that and Batman and The Abyss that summer....yeah, those movies are why I'm here today posting on a movie site. That shit changed me. I was all about video games before summer '89. After? I was just renting and seeing everything I could, trying to recreate my first high.

The face melting is interesting because....context changes how parents reacted to it. I very clearly remember my mom catching a glimpse of it and starting to bitch me out for watching something so messed up (she's not the biggest cinephile...although she's actually gotten better in her later years). I was like "it's ok mom....they're Nazis.."

"Oh....well. That's ok then. Your little sister wanna watch too?"

Because when Nazis heads melt, that shit is fucking WHOLESOME..


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Judas Booth - 10-28-2019

For me, the whole melting face thing never scared me. For me, even at the age of 11, it was really just a cool effect. I walked out of the theater wondering how they pulled off that effect more than anything else.

Honestly, the only thing that really got me in any of the Indy movies was the sacrifice scene in TOD. That was an innocent guy getting his heart taken out and then lowered into the lava. It's a pretty horrible death, and it happens to a (presumably) totally innocent victim.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - fraid uh noman - 10-28-2019

It wouldn't have scared me at 11 either. At 5 though (I may have even been younger than that)...it was pretty horrific.

I actually think Last Crusade may, pound for pound, have the most fucked up shit out of them all. It's an amazingly violent movie. Perfect for kiddos!*


*Not snark. I mean it..


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Belloq87 - 10-28-2019

The face-melting and head-exploding were delightful to me the first time I saw RAIDERS, probably around age 6.

In fact, I'm reasonably certain that 1993 is when I saw all three Indy films, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, and JURASSIC PARK (of course) for the first time. Having already seen E.T. and JAWS, those were a formative couple of years that cemented Spielberg as my favorite director.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Neil Spurn - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 09:23 AM)MichaelM Wrote:
(10-28-2019, 08:45 AM)Judas Booth Wrote: You young punks.  I saw RAIDERS theatrically in 1981 when I was 11 and effing loved the face melting scene.

I was 13 but yes to the rest.



OLDS!


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Overlord - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 08:29 AM)fatherdude Wrote:
(10-28-2019, 03:25 AM)hammerhead Wrote: So the "shoot the swordsman" callback didn't seem weird?

Why would it be weird?  It doesn't call attention to itself if you don't know what it is referencing.  Also, the gag is simultaneously a payoff of something that occurs at the beginning of the film (Willie losing Indy's gun), so it doesn't even really come off as a non-sequitur for the RAIDERS-ignorant.  Its seamlessness is the exact reason I was so baffled by Josh Whedon pointing to it as some criterion example of sequelitis, or whatever it is he said.

I also saw Temple of Doom prior to Raiders.  I didn't see Raiders for several years and I remember being somewhat confused (when I eventually rented it on home video) as to how I had missed a sequel to Temple of Doom being in theaters.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - headless fett - 10-28-2019

This movie will never happen.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - arjen rudd - 10-28-2019

Raiders actually introduced me to the concept of death. We watched it as a family at my grandparents house, and I had to have a long talk afterwards with Mom. Still loved it though.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - fraid uh noman - 10-28-2019

What's so satisfying about Raiders is that the bad guys didn't just get what they deserved at the end. Didn't just get killed. They got SMITED BY GOD..


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Judas Booth - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 03:39 PM)arjen rudd Wrote: Raiders actually introduced me to the concept of death. 

Adios, Sapito.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - commodorejohn - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 03:50 PM)fraid uh noman Wrote: What's so satisfying about Raiders is that the bad guys didn't just get what they deserved at the end. Didn't just get killed. They got SMITED BY GOD..
Doubly satisfying that Indy survives and they don't because Indy did his freakin' homework.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - rexbanner - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 03:39 PM)arjen rudd Wrote: Raiders actually introduced me to the concept of death. We watched it as a family at my grandparents house, and I had to have a long talk afterwards with Mom. Still loved it though.

My first experience of death was my grandfather dying when I was 4, so I got that death typically happened when you were older after an illness. Going from the types of death you get in Raiders, I like the idea of your mom sitting you down and saying 'Yes Arjen, one day you will shot, disintegrated by a propeller, or melted and/or exploded by God, but it won't be for a very, very long time'.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - mr. stockslivevan - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 03:25 AM)hammerhead Wrote: So the "shoot the swordsman" callback didn't seem weird?

(10-28-2019, 03:58 AM)arjen rudd Wrote: Weirder than the heart ripping magic death cult? Kids don’t understand callbacks. I saw the Star Wars movies so young that I had no idea there was a sequential order to them. I was just like I like Ewoks and Jabba and Hoth.

Yeah I didn’t notice it was a callback at the time. I just thought it was a gag where Indy forgot he lost his gun.

Speaking of sequential order, I watched the Back to the Future trilogy BACKWARDS. 3, 2, and 1, and I was never lost at any point, I just approached each succeeding film as if they were prequels, the appeal of them being “here’s what happened before the events of the movie you watched”.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Neil Spurn - 10-28-2019

Wait, what? My bran can't wrap around the idea of first experiencing the Back to the Future franchise backwards. Especially going from Part 2 to 1.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Overlord - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 04:51 PM)Neil Spurn Wrote: Wait, what?  My bran can't wrap around the idea of first experiencing the Back to the Future franchise backwards.  Especially going from Part 2 to 1.

I saw Jaws 3 in the theater ... weird 3D glasses and all ... and it was the first Jaws movie I ever saw!!!

It scared the living shit out of me.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Judas Booth - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 05:07 PM)Overlord Wrote:
(10-28-2019, 04:51 PM)Neil Spurn Wrote: Wait, what?  My bran can't wrap around the idea of first experiencing the Back to the Future franchise backwards.  Especially going from Part 2 to 1.

I saw Jaws 3 in the theater ... weird 3D glasses and all ... and it was the first Jaws movie I ever saw!!!

It scared the living shit out of me.

Well yeah...Dennis Quaid is pretty damned scary.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - carnotaur3 - 10-28-2019

What's even scarier are the special effects. Emphasis on special.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Shreds - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 04:51 PM)Neil Spurn Wrote: Wait, what?  My bran can't wrap around the idea of first experiencing the Back to the Future franchise backwards.  Especially going from Part 2 to 1.

I had a copy of Back to the Future part 2 taped from tv that I watched a lot before I ever saw the others. I'm pretty sure it was years later that I finally saw part 3 and even later after that part 1.

As a kid you just accept that this is how the film works. Marty sneaking around while watching himself play on stage was weird, but you just roll with it.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - mr. stockslivevan - 10-28-2019

It kinda helps that the BTTF films are exposition heavy, so before Marty even sees his past self in the 1950s for the fist time Doc is already laying out what the situation is and what Marty needs to do and avoid in order for their objective to work. Just goes to show each film was able to help ease in audiences.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Judas Booth - 10-28-2019

I can't imagine seeing the third one first. That one really relies on knowledge of AT LEAST the second one in order to make a lick of sense.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - commodorejohn - 10-28-2019

I didn't get around to watching Back To The Future Part II until years after I watched the first and third films (we had those on a family friend's compiled-from-broadcast VHS tape, which was the way I watched half the movies I saw as a kid because my parents were too cheap to spring for rentals and the library only had so many movies worth watching.) It was easier to follow than you'd think (the exposition scenes in both sequels really are a master class in how to sit the audience down and explain shit without being either awkwardly on-the-nose or tedious about it.)


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - mr. stockslivevan - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 06:47 PM)Judas Booth Wrote: I can't imagine seeing the third one first.  That one really relies on knowledge of AT LEAST the second one in order to make a lick of sense.

(10-28-2019, 06:54 PM)commodorejohn Wrote: It was easier to follow than you'd think (the exposition scenes in both sequels really are a master class in how to sit the audience down and explain shit without being either awkwardly on-the-nose or tedious about it.)

commadorejohn nails it. BTTF3 opens with "previously on" recap, followed by Doc recording his thoughts on tape to explain what happened from his point of view, followed by Marty explaining why he came back from the future, then it gets into the letter sent from Doc in 1885. This is all done more or less in five minutes to get audiences up to speed. It's convenient not just for any odd person that decided to go see it without seeing the first two, but even for those who had only seen the first two but had only seen them once.

It also helps that the events of the first two aren't too integral for understanding what happens in the rest of the film because once Marty is back in 1885 from then on it's really just about him and Doc trying to figure out how to go back into the future. That is until the last five minutes when it starts resolving stuff set up in Part II like Marty not racing Needles.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - fraid uh noman - 10-28-2019

Contrary to what a lot of filmmakers (and apparently producers in particular) think when they second guess their movie, their director or whatever else whenever they overdo it on exposition (to give just one example of how second guessing can torpedo a film), movies are really not all that hard to understand for the person who chooses to pay the right amount of attention..


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Neil Spurn - 10-29-2019

(10-28-2019, 07:20 PM)fraid uh noman Wrote: Contrary to what a lot of filmmakers (and apparently producers in particular) think when they second guess their movie, their director or whatever else whenever they overdo it on exposition (to give just one example of how second guessing can torpedo a film), movies are really not all that hard to understand for the person who chooses to pay the right amount of attention..


I'm certain that a.) you're correct, and b.) everything will be fine once Netflix institutes is "speed" thing that's being tested now.


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - fatherdude - 12-06-2019

I've always been against de-aging Harrison Ford for this (my position is that, after how digital-looking CRYSTAL SKULL ended up, we should go as analog as possible with the sendoff), but there's zero chance that THE IRISHMAN hasn't resulted in conversations behind-the-scenes, don't you think?


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Belloq87 - 12-06-2019

I don't see Spielberg going that way. How far back do you de-age? At what point would it stop being beneficial and just distracting?


RE: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Judas Booth - 12-06-2019

if they DID go that route, at least Harrison is still in shape and can probably 'move' like a younger man.