Seems I'll be the first to post regarding the much awaited new Indiana Jones movie. I didn't even get to watch it, but my roommate says it was pretty great. I work at a movie theater/restaurant and I was too busy serving the customers during the movie to really watch.
One part I did get to see however, towards the end:
Spoiler
When Gandalf the Grey was being attacked by the giant ants, I couldn't help but think, "Fly you fools!"
The various snippets of the movie I did get to see seemed pretty good. Seeing as I work there I'm sure I'll be able to catch more and more of the movie until I've seen it all. One item me and my roommate were discussing though is the new face of Indiana Jones.
Spoiler
What do you think, will Shia LeBeouf do justice to the Indy name? That is of course assuming he continues to star in the films.
One of the greatest things about the Indy series me and my roommate have agreed is that Ford has always been Jones. None of this rubbish of constantly switching out actors and pretending it's the same person (James Bond anyone?) who miraculously never ages. Hopefully, should LucasArts decide to start pumping out the Indy movies now that Star Wars has had its run, they will carry on this legacy. Jones is a hard name to live up to. Just ask Chris! :=
I havn't seen the new movie yet, but from the trailers I have seen it looks great!
My favourite Indy was the third due to the great plot :D
I've heard most of the scenes with Indiana doing stunts are CGI.
No I haven't, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Quote from: Andail on Thu 22/05/2008 13:49:53
I've heard most of the scenes with Indiana doing stunts are CGI.
No I haven't, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I've read on IMDB.com that CG was only used when obsolutely needed. In fact Steven Spielberg said it was just like it was made 20 years ago.
I heard that Harrison Ford has a stunt double for scenes where he has to run :)
edit: I only just realised that this was a joke made by my dad :P
Quote from: Jon on Thu 22/05/2008 14:39:46
I heard that Harrison Ford has a stunt double for scenes where he has to run :)
No.
I've seen it! Went to the first showing, being the fanboy I am lol! It's pretty good, I like! :D It is true to the originals which is great, and there are some good laughs and injokes which make it funny, but I feel the second half is a bit weaker when it comes to the Indy humour we know and love. Despite that though Ford is definitely still Indy and comes across superbly :D
Overall I really enjoyed it, and Barnett College does feature afterall!
As for CGI, well, there are noticeable parts, certainly - but I'm almost positive that none of the characters moves/stunts are computer animated. Not like in the Matrix anyway :p Obviously there are stunt people playing the back of Indy in complex shots, but a lot of the stuntwork is seamless, and really nice. There are some fantastic shots in there,
Spoiler
Like the part when they're all squirted out onto some rocks, and the trailer bit where Indy runs along the boxes and ends up in the front of a truck, going over the waterfall etc
and the supporting cast do very well! Only three or so scenes seem to rely on CGI heavily...
Spoiler
And for some reason its all the ones in the jungle! The monkey scene, Shia getting smacked in the balls by plants (the one part which I didn't like, simply cos it looked way too over CGi'd, and maybe the jump onto the tree...though still a funny bit :)
Oh, and how could I forget...
Spoiler
The whole nuclear bomb section :P
But with all these things I wouldn't say it was completely satisfying. I only have a few reasons for that though... Blanchett plays her character very well but her character just seems a bit muddled. She supports the entire cast of bad guys who say nothing throughout the film, which was quite dissapointing...no real right hand man. The bad guys just seem a bit weak this time round, which is what I found with Die Hard 4...too little substance to really care about them (in a care to hate kind of way!)
I also found the "mcguffin" that it for some reason took a decade to decide to be a bit crap.
Spoiler
Aliens
And this leads to a rather boring end sequence. The Skull itself looks like a cheap movie prop :p I just found it hard to buy into Indy walking around with it... BUT, its Indy, so you go with it, and it still a lot of fun! The movie is quite slow paced and I would've like to seen Indy visit more locations but nevermind! A lot of the good stuff was used in the trailer and as it always seems to be not much more was saved for the movie itself :( But the quicksand scene is very funny...
There is a strange filter on the camera throughout the movie...not sure why. Skies don't look lush, they just look like over exposed areas. Everyone has an outline, too. I wasn't a fan of the filter...again very similar to the filter change they used in Die Hard 4.
The music is good too but there are no major themes in there (apart from some of the old ones!)...nothing that really stood out, which was a bit of a shame.
As to the question...Shia could be good in the future. His character was quite good in this movie! His character may not have had that much depth but he did some fun stuff. I love the last shot too, between Indy and Shia.....and all the "hat" moments in the movie!
Overall I really enjoyed it and would recommend it! It was just great to see Ford back in that role :) If I had to give it a computer game style score, it would be 7 out of 10 for me.
See what you think!
m0ds raises some valid points. Mostly I agree with him. I saw the first showing as well, and as a person not expecting much, I was SERIOUSLY dissapointed by the last 30 minutes. What the fuck, Spielberg? What the fuck.
It's AI all over again.
Lucas' statement that he'd like to do a reverse Last Crusade with Indy playing Sean Connery's 'role' and Shia playing his completely ruined any interest I have in future installments. There's no need to do pass the torch bullshit, that's just greed in its unrefined form. If Harrison Ford isn't being Indy then why the hell bother, that's all I have to say.
Shia: completely unnecessary plot contrivance.
Yup, saw it last night. First, I gotta say, I'm a morbidly huge fan of Indy. So, I was a bit hesitant going into it, hoping for the best, but still keeping my real.
All in all, it was surprisingly good. Too much CG, though - they could've made it a lot more convincing and intense if they did some of the scenes traditionally. Harrison was a bit stiff, but after the first few minutes, you don't even notice the age issue. Cinematography was pretty great, pacing was surprisingly good for an adventure film coming out in this day and age. It seemed to be somewhat of a rollercoaster in terms of quality - there were some parts that were so genuine that they could've been from the earlier movies, but they were balanced out by a couple of insanely stupid scenes that made at least me sigh a little in disappointment. For example, the Barnett College scenes were all awesome, whereas some of the jungle chases were NOT. There were 3 scenes especially that were so magnificiently stupid and inane that I wish they'd cut them out for an Editor's Cut or something :D. Those three scenes were also very cut-outable, so they must've been added just to beef up the story.
Gotta say though, acting was top-notch. Shia was just great, not annoying at all and fit the part perfectly. Cate Blanchett was awesome, and Harrison is Harrison after all, so that's that. I also liked Jim Broadbent as the Dean, but there should've been more of him (with more range).
Pros:
- very possibly won't disappoint a huge fan of the franchise
- some great and genuine scenes that feel like INDY
- some very good characters
- not a bad ending
- some nice traditional direction
- great cinematography
- feels somewhat fresh, even with all the clones out there
- great job on capturing the 50's
Cons:
- too many irrelevent characters and scenes
- a couple of just awful scenes of pure stupidity
- too much action in relation to plot-building (it's a lot more ADHD than the originals)
- some action sequences were just too long
- a lot of frankly very bad 3D
- may feel a bit dumbed-down, or kiddie for older fans
Quote from: Mods on Thu 22/05/2008 14:49:59Blanchett plays her character very well but her character just seems a bit muddled. She supports the entire cast of bad guys who say nothing throughout the film, which was quite dissapointing...no real right hand man. The bad guys just seem a bit weak this time round, which is what I found with Die Hard 4...too little substance to really care about them (in a care to hate kind of way!)
Yeah, I agree. And there's no reason for it either, since Commies are actually very frightening :). Also, the 'triple agent' dude was way under-developed (and very predictable). I mean, I think I deserve to know a little more about him, if he's like Indy's best friend of 20 years or something. In that time, how did Indy not notice what kind of guy he was?
Quote from: Mods on Thu 22/05/2008 14:49:59I also found the "mcguffin" that it for some reason took a decade to decide to be a bit crap.
Oh, don't get me started on that :(.
Quote from: Mods on Thu 22/05/2008 14:49:59The Skull itself looks like a cheap movie prop :p I just found it hard to buy into Indy walking around with it...
Yup, that's what I was thinking the whole time. The real-life crystal skulls actually look a lot more exciting: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/05/11/mexico.crystal.skull.ap/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/05/11/mexico.crystal.skull.ap/index.html).
Quote from: Mods on Thu 22/05/2008 14:49:59There is a strange filter on the camera throughout the movie...not sure why. Skies don't look lush, they just look like over exposed areas.
Yah, I spotted that 'error' from the trailer already. I think they've added it in to make it look more like the candyapple 50's. Still, it just makes environments look unrealistic, which is not good in an Indy flick.
Quote from: LGM on Thu 22/05/2008 18:02:25I was SERIOUSLY dissapointed by the last 30 minutes. What the fuck, Spielberg? What the fuck.
Ditto, friend. Ditto... :(
Hehe...its surprising that it has quite a lot of flaws, and if I really wanted to nit pick I would have also said some of the editing was pretty awful too...which is something that worried me from the trailer, cos there was some nasty editing in that too (ie they slowed down the hat picking up by the jeep scene for a second, which was odd) but it really is still a great movie and its very easy to overlook all these issues :) I also noticed on some of the tracking shots that the camera jolts a bit too...but again I overlooked that, because it did that plenty in the originals too hehe. I'd say they've done well, and I hope it gets a good reception worldwide!
Now its time to wait for Treasure of the Templars, which is definitely on par with this movie. I shit you not :)
Gosh, am I the only one that doesn't mind the whole central theme of the movie (what the whole final 30 minutes of the movie is about)? I thought it was done carefully not as over the top as I was afraid of ... not like AI at all!
But then, I AM an incurable fan boy... ;D
Well, i did enjoy the movie to a level.Just not INdy level.
After 20 years, I thought, That's it?
Haven't seen it. But I don't have my hopes too high.
George Lucas isn't the best writer. He benefits from collaborating with someone talented. This time he collaborated with the guy who wrote Stir of Echoes, Snake Eyes, and Secret Window. Those are his original works. All of them kinda suck in their own way.
The stories this guy has adapted have been all right: Jurassic Park, SpiderMan, Mission Impossible. But original stories? Bleh!
I liked it, most of it... I didn' t liked
Spoiler
Ants
And a couple of too noticeable CGI scenes, but for the rest was ok... I would enjoyed a bit more of old school archaeology in Indy 3 style, though...
Bad:
Spoiler
The whole ants thing reminded me of the scarabs in The Mummy
The whole psychic abilities of the skull seemed entirely unnecessary and reminded me of Independence Day. Why does Lucas feel the need to add in unnecesary mumbo jumbo that makes it harder to suspend disbelief, like Midichlorians?
Storming the hangar at the beginning reminded me of The Rock
Loads of other unnecessary stuff
Good:
Spoiler
Harrison, Shia, Cate
What's wrong with aliens? Is it any more fantastic than the effect of Ark or the Grail?
Waterfalls
Getting down to the river
Atomic bomb
Relentless action
Chase scenes
One problem I had was for the first 20 minutes I kept noticing when Indy was kept out of shot or in the dark so as they could use a stunt double. I mean, even for a punch! I stopped noticing later on, though, so I think this was just me. Don't try and enjoy AND deconstruct at the same time!
The Ark, Grail and Temple are all "spooky", and what happened with them were genuinly quite chilling. But there was absolutely nothing spooky about the
Spoiler
aliens, and their appearance was pretty rubbish to say the least. Blanchett almost goes the same way as the Raiders baddies too. If only her face had have melted too :P
At least, thats what I felt, SSH
Spoiler
Yeah, I noticed that about Cate, too.
Couple other things:
Whole underground machinery triggered by ancient mechanism then running down disappearing steps seemed somewhat "National Treasure"
and when Indy and Mac had their guns pointed at Cate in the hangar at the beginning, he called her Dr Spalko, but didn't later on at his FBI interrogation didn't know who she was...
Crazy! I didn't notice him not knowing. Was Indy in the army once? Why do the FBI or whoever call him General Jones? And what was with Mac's exit?
Spoiler
He's lying on the floor being fat and could easily have just got up and walked the three feet to where Indy and the others were, but looks at Indy and says something like, "Its okay Indy, I'll be alright." and then gets sucked into oblivion. I really didn't like that part...mainly because he was intent on getting out with some loot & ends up on the floor a few metres from Indy and as I said just rolled around like a fat man and could easily have survived and then said some completely unrelated stupid line before his death. Maybe I'm the only one who thought that, but if someone can explain it, I'd be greatful ;)
Spoiler
yes, I thought that was odd too. Also like the scene in The Mummy where the treacherous sidekick gets wasted for tarrying too long in the treasure room...
Quote from: Mods on Fri 23/05/2008 11:00:21Crazy! I didn't notice him not knowing. Was Indy in the army once? Why do the FBI or whoever call him General Jones? And what was with Mac's exit?
Indy went to WW2 after his previous adventures in the 1930's. They called him Colonel, which is weird since he would've had to have a full decades-long career in the army to make it to Colonel. Let's just say Commander James Bond is a lot more plausible. To me, Indy is a pacifist renegade, who is in many ways similar to his mightiest archeology foes, but perhaps a little less cynical when it comes to personal and cultural gain over politics. Sure, he can be expected to join the fight against the Nazis, but a full military career? My Indy is not a conforming square - he'd find a more exciting way to fight bad people.
Quote from: Mods on Fri 23/05/2008 11:00:21Spoiler
He's lying on the floor being fat and could easily have just got up and walked the three feet to where Indy and the others were, but looks at Indy and says something like, "Its okay Indy, I'll be alright." and then gets sucked into oblivion. I really didn't like that part...mainly because he was intent on getting out with some loot & ends up on the floor a few metres from Indy and as I said just rolled around like a fat man and could easily have survived and then said some completely unrelated stupid line before his death. Maybe I'm the only one who thought that, but if someone can explain it, I'd be greatful ;)
I didn't like this at all, nor did I really like the whole ending sequence. It's like they've tried to offer the audience the same chance of redemption as with Ilsa in the Last Crusade reaching for the Grail. Indy forgets all deceptions and offers to save their lives, but they choose greed over that. That's all good, but the particular scene in this film was just stupid. In fact, I think they should've scrapped the whole character, or perhaps DEVELOP him, maybe.
Spoiler
I thought the whole atomic bomb and FBI interview scenes were completely botched. It would've been better to just cut everything out starting from when Indy finds the nuclear town to when he's teaching at Barnett (the scene after the FBI interview. They probably thought adding a nuclear test would add some 50's cold war atmosphere, which may have worked, if it were done more discretely. As Indy exits the fridge, he's also quite close to the mushroom cloud. Standing so close while the mushroom is still going up would mean he would die within seconds from the afterblasts and the drawbacks. He would at least be severely burned and get radiation poisoning, no matter how well the FBI scrubs him down.
BUT, realism is a two-way street with Indy films. I certainly never complained when the gang jumped in a blow-up boat from an airplane in Temple of Doom only to land on solid ground without being harmed, and surviving probably the worst cliff drop I've seen in a movie right after falling from the airplane. I just think they take it too far this time.
Spoiler
As for the FBI scene, I thought it was appropriate, but just badly put together and acted. No suspense, the agents are total jerks and Indy's military career is mentioned and then conveniently sidetracked. They even introduce a seemingly central character, General Ben Ross, one of Indy's best military buddies, who is never heard of or mentioned again in the film.
I may be nitpicking, but it's just so annoying that some of these issues got into the final movie. It could've been a complete classic. Right now, the film enjoys an 8.6/10 rating on IMDB, going past such classics as Scarface and Twelve Monkeys to #172 on the 250 best films of all time list. It certainly doesn't deserve such a high rating, and I guess it's mostly due to the novelty effect.
I think most people like this though:
Spoiler
The bit with the Fedora right at the end
I agree with you about Mac, and the interrogation, ildu.
New movies always shoot up into the top 100 on IMDB then find their correct position later.
Spoiler
Mac fell down and was sucked into the machine because he was covered in gold, as soon as he put a gold necklace on I thought "Ah, he's going to be sucked into the inevitable destruction at the end because of that."
just because that's the reason he was killed doesn't help me accept his apparent UNQUENCHABLE THIRST FOR GOLD! that lead to his ruin...
I think it was a fine movie and a fine Indy movie, if it came out 2 years after the 3rd Indy movie people wouldn't be so harsh towards it but alas...
I did enjoy:
Spoiler
How the opening shot has the Paramount mountain turning in to a mole hill
edit:
oh yea, forgot to add, the main thing that angers me about this movie
Spoiler
is that it will spur on the retarded and racist beliefs of Erich von Däniken. This movie hit all the major points of his book Chariot of the Gods. Nasca lines, aliens bring technology to primitive non-white cultures, I mean, how else would primitive non-white cultures have the ability to do things like dentistry and seemingly major surgeries if not for aliens teaching them, there's no way they could have learned through basic human achievement! They were too stupid!
However, this is obviously a specific gripe and not involving Indiana Jones at all, just stupid humans.
Idlu, Indy is a lot of things, but not a peacifist renegade... He has been fighting since he was a teenager, in Mexico, the WWI, and it makes a lot of sense that he fought on WWII. I am not sure, but I think he joined to American Army in WWI, after America Joined the war effort (Originally Indy enlists as a dutch in the french army, I think), so, a career of Coronel makes sense, I guess. I think he ends WWI as a Lieutenant.
Oh yeah!
Spoiler
I didn't want to feel left out without my own spoiler box! :)
Spoiler
You're gay, Jesse!
Spoiler
Thanks for all the infos here, its helped me unterstand what went on a bit better. The "colonel" thing is silly, there's no reference in any of the other films, that I remember, that indicates he had a long military life. As soon as I heard them call him Colonel Jones, I scoffed...it was dumb.
I also agree with Eric though, the Paramount logo sequence made me crack up :) In fact, it was just wonderful to see the old style Paramount logo not one of the new 3D ones. It felt like I was back in the early 90's...I just love that kind of retro stuff! The titles at the beginning and scrolling credits were AWFUL. The intro scene with the race was about 1 minute too long, I thought. I got bored. But when they opened fire it all got exciting again! And going back to the last shot, which apparently a lot of people like, I liked it because it was almost as if Shia "Im going to be the new Ind!!!" Indy: "Oh no you're not!" ... anyway. yeah :p
If they make an Indy 5, please please PLEASE if you're Lucas or Spielberg reading this, let Jonathan Lawrence direct it. It needs a fresh director, and frankly I think his film Templars is going to rock the socks off Indy 4. The dialogue is brilliant, the characters well developed and...well, there's none of this sci fi shit. So give him a chance :)
I still haven't seen IJ 4 :(
Maybe I can watch it on the IMAX tonight! ----edit----- No Imax, damn. No DLP either wtf?
Remember everyone:
Spoiler
In the event of a nuclear explosion, hide in the refrigerator. The freon will keep you nice and cool. ;)
Saw a little more tonight as I was in the movie again. Also got a $25 tip on an $18 check. Can't beat that! ;D
Spoiler
he would've been boiled alive in that fridge...
I saw this film Thursday night and I must say I had mixed feelings...
It is a great Indy yarn and Shia LaBeouf's Character was a real treat.
But if you read into it like I did you can deduce that he will NOT be the new Indy.
Spoiler
At the end when the hat blows across the room to Shia's feet and he picks it up and is about to put it on... the Indy theme is playing and the audience is supposed to think 'ooh, he's going to be the new Indy', but Ford comes along and snatches the hat away from him and to me it was clear that they were saying Indy is Ford's character, nobody else's.
A few gripes and groans:
Spoiler
I thought Ray Winstone's character was completely pointless and his constant double-crossing became predictable and boring. Take him out of the film and there would have been absolutely no difference in the outcome (Apart from the fact that he was leaving little flashy things on the floor for the bad guys to find him - but since when have Indy's adversaries ever had to explain how they found him.
The 'Knowledge is treasure' thing was a nice touch, though.
What got on my nerves the most was how willing Indy was to help the bad guys to decipher the codes and work out the clues, you almost forgotten that they'd just been trying to kill each other.
My last complaint... Not only did they resort to the tired cliche of the boat going over the waterfall... oh no... they restorted to it THREE TIMES....... IN A ROW!!!
But it wasn't all bad... I like the fact that they tried to weave in the whole Roswell/UFO paranoia of the era, but I don't feel they particularly pulled it off....
Having said all that the film is TONS better than Temple of Doom, which I still love... so my Indy Order is 3, 1, 4, 2 which 3 ooonly just pipping 1 to the post.
Just saw it. I loved it! It was just as good as the older movies! Harrison Ford still makes a great Indy, and the movie was very fun.
I loved Mack and Indy. They were funny in the most hectic parts, like:
Spoiler
When Indy is kicking everyone's ass in the jeep in the jungle, and Mack greets him with a "JONESY!" and Indy replies, "Hi Mack!" then punches his face off lol.
I thought the story was really good too. CG was a little annoying, but it was used well IMO, and it didn't make me want to leave the theatre or anything.
I would pay to see it again. ;D
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 24/05/2008 06:44:22
Remember everyone:
Spoiler
In the event of a nuclear explosion, hide in the refrigerator. The freon will keep you nice and cool. ;)
Regarding the fridge:
Spoiler
The fridge said "Lead Lined" on it. Lining your bomb shelter with lead is allegedly the only way to survive a nuclear blast (from within the blast radius). However, I think he would have had many broken bones from flying across the desert as he did (and probably snapped his neck). Of course, I'd seen the first three Indiana Jones, and it would have been retarded of me to expect this one to be realistic, so I liked it.
I saw it!
Everyone related to this movie did a great job. The actors were great, the directing was great, the production value was amazing.
BUT THE WRITING SUCKED.
Spoiler
No one has mentioned this yet. Steven Spielberg is known for all his alien movies but Indiana Jones is the one genre that was pure adventure and exotic eye candy within the mysteries of the human race. As soon as you put an alien in IJ4, it just becomes another alien movie. I was furious.
Also, returning to the warehouse where they store the Arc RUINS the ending of Raiders for future generations. At the end of Raiders you say "Oh my God, they're just going to store this awesome artifact and no one even realizes its there."
When future viewers see the end of Raiders they'll think, "Hey look! Its the warehouse with the alien!" They won't see any significance to storing it away. ( In a warehouse that's so much safer than anywhere else because they test nukes less than a mile away. Right....)
Eric: How would aliens know about earth irrigation anyways? You'd figure earth's gravity was a HUGE factor in its own irrigation and agriculture.
I still love Spielberg but Lucas has no business writing films. He just mix and matches car chases with shitty dialogue and lets his name carry the story. If an amature filmmaker wrote this stuff for his first screenplay he would be laughed at.
Having just seen the film this week, I agree with most of what I've read above. It was a lot of fun to watch, but the McGuffin was just ridiculous.
Spoiler
Also, surviving a nuclear blast by hiding in a fridge? ::) The film would have been better without that scene.
Anyway, in my opinion it's definitely worth visiting a theater for, but really not as good as the classics. I would not, personally, look forward to another sequel, particularly not one starring Shia. What kind of name is Mutt anyway? :P
Quote from: Stupot on Sat 24/05/2008 10:14:23
Spoiler
I thought Ray Winstone's character was completely pointless and his constant double-crossing became predictable and boring.
Seconded. Besides, have those flashing devices he has even been
invented yet?
Spoiler
The 'Knowledge is treasure' thing was a nice touch, though.
Meh. I found it totally cliche, particularly because they had to State It Out Loud.
Quote from: skuttleman on Sat 24/05/2008 17:13:40
Spoiler
The fridge said "Lead Lined" on it. Lining your bomb shelter with lead is allegedly the only way to survive a nuclear blast (from within the blast radius).
Spoiler
Yeah, that protects you from radiation. Not from heat, concussion, shockwaves, or indeed a nasty bout of cancer once you step out of it. That scene was just plain silly.
Quote from: evenwolf on Sun 25/05/2008 03:57:10
Spoiler
Also, returning to the warehouse where they store the Arc RUINS the ending of Raiders for future generations. At the end of Raiders you say "Oh my God, they're just going to store this awesome artifact and no one even realizes its there."
Hm, interesting point. Am I the only one who thought that Indy would
Spoiler
find the Ark in there and use it to dispatch the commies?
Quote from: Radiant on Sun 25/05/2008 16:33:46
What kind of name is Mutt anyway? :P
Well, Indiana was named after a dog.... "Mutt" must be.... a cat of some king? ;)
Quote from: skuttleman on Sun 25/05/2008 16:48:17
Well, Indiana was named after a dog.... "Mutt" must be.... a cat of some king? ;)
Yeah, I got that joke, but found it a bit too far-fetched and really not funny. My point is, can you imagine film posters all across down reading "Mutt Williams and the Shrine of Disaster"? Me neither :P
Quote from: Radiant on Sun 25/05/2008 18:00:02
I got that joke, but found it a bit too far-fetched and really not funny. My point is, can you imagine film posters all across down reading "Mutt Williams and the Shrine of Disaster"? Me neither :P
I agree. I like Shia (in general). I liked him in this movie, but he's no Indiana Jones.
Willie and Short Round from Temple of Doom were also named after dogs.
After a number of days since I saw the movie, I've now determined about what were the biggest drags of the film for me:
1. Almost complete lack of location filming (which made the originals so adventurey and great). The whole movie is filmed inside the US, whereas the three earlier ones were filmed all around the world. I guess the biggest reason for this was stated by Spielberg who said he didn't want to be too far away from his family. It wasn't like it was all filmed in a studio, but not far from it. Also, the more exotic locations were filmed (like Hawaii), and the characters were added later, so that's not too good. I think this is why the University sequences were so much better than any other in the movie - because they actually filmed it at Yale without greenscreening and 3D.
2. CGI. I defy anyone to explain to me why exactly we needed to see those badly-made gophers and monkeys in this film.
3. Some utterly idiotic scenes that can't possibly appeal to anyone in the 5 - 95 age range. In addition to this, a number of badly developed characters, of which a few were completely irrelevent.
4. Too many explanations, especially with the McGuffin. Most of us aren't idiots, so we don't need to be led by hand the whole time. This applies to showing too much, too, like with the McGuffin.
5. The actual lack of a soundtrack. This is difficult for me to believe, but it appears John Williams didn't come up with even one original track for this movie. All music was rehashed from the old films which wouldn't be bad at all by itself, but in addition he ripped off some of his previous totally unrelated work. There's at least one track in Indy 4 from War of the Worlds and possibly another from one of the Harry Potter movies (this one I'm not so sure of yet).
Quote from: ildu on Sun 25/05/2008 19:03:07
2. CGI. I defy anyone to explain to me why exactly we needed to see those badly-made gophers and monkeys in this film.
I'm pretty sure the original script included a forbidden love affair between one of the gophers and one of the monkeys. Kind of a Romeo and Juliet homage. Then they decided to add in all that "Indiana Jones" noise, and the script went a different direction. Who knows what might have been... :'(
Quote from: ildu on Sun 25/05/2008 19:03:07
4. Too many explanations, especially with the McGuffin. Most of us aren't idiots, so we don't need to be led by hand the whole time.
I didn't like being held by the hand, either, but I think you're mistaken about the "most of us aren't idiots" part. Most people
are.
Quote from: ildu on Sun 25/05/2008 19:03:07
5. The actual lack of a soundtrack. This is difficult for me to believe, but it appears John Williams didn't come up with even one original track for this movie. All music was rehashed from the old films which wouldn't be bad at all by itself, but in addition he ripped off some of his previous totally unrelated work. There's at least one track in Indy 4 from War of the Worlds and possibly another from one of the Harry Potter movies (this one I'm not so sure of yet).
Yeh, and I think the music at the w****** in the last scene is from Star Wars.
Quote from: Radiant on Sun 25/05/2008 16:33:46
What kind of name is Mutt anyway? :P
Mutt:
Meaning #1: an inferior dog or one of mixed breed
Synonyms: cur, mongrel
You see now?
Spoiler
His name is connceted to a dog just like Indy's, PLUS, he's a dog of MIXED breed. Indy the dog, mixed with some woman gave Mutt!
I've noticed another plothole. I don't say it makes the enjoyment smaller, I'm saying, it's just there.
Spoiler
Both Indy and his father drunk the holy water, which grants infinite life, healing and maybe some other synonumous superpowers from the Last Crusade.
Still Jones senior died. (Yes, I know that Connery didn't want to stop resting, but why did Lucas and Spielberg have to kill him?)
Oh, and Indy got old hair.
Spoiler
The whole point to eternal life was as long as you didn't cross the seal. They crossed the seal and became mortal again. Ilsa fell down a hole and Old Crusader dude got smooshed by some rocks. Everybody wins!
WRONG AGAIN ERIC
Spoiler
Jones SR. was kept alive but they didn't hold onto the grail. You have to work up a tolerance to eternal life. They rode off into the sunset and then both Indy and his father ate some bad shell fish ( or bad dates depending on if you listen to Lucas or Speilberg). They puked on the next sand dune. Indiana lept onto the sand trying to lap up his own eternal vomit but Jones Sr. informed him that doing so wouldn't be very becoming of a gentleman. So they lost immortality in favor of good manners.
I know all your moves GLucas!
Spoiler
Nothing really, just wanted to partake in the spoiler-parade
Quote from: Andail on Mon 26/05/2008 21:33:33
Spoiler
Nothing really, just wanted to partake in the spoiler-parade
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=34600.msg452665#msg452665
I know all your moves PLjungqvist!
Darn it, yours is bigger than mine!
Quote from: Lionmonkey on Mon 26/05/2008 21:19:07
Mutt:
Meaning #1: an inferior dog or one of mixed breed
Yeah, you're the second one to have missed the point of what I wrote. Congrats.
Quote from: skuttleman on Sun 25/05/2008 16:48:17
Well, Indiana was named after a dog.... "Mutt" must be.... a cat of some king? ;)
Quote from: Radiant on Mon 26/05/2008 22:08:22
Yeah, you're the second one to have missed the point of what I wrote. Congrats.
Quote from: skuttleman on Sun 25/05/2008 16:48:17
Well, Indiana was named after a dog.... "Mutt" must be.... a cat of some king? ;)
YAY!!!! I WAS THE FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!! IN YOUR FACES!!!!!
Wow, that was a classic, sincere LOL. I heart skuttleman.
I don't understand why no one knows Indy's son's name. It's Henry Jones II! :P
No, it's Henry Jones III. Indy is Henry Jones II. AKA. Henry Jones Jr. Or just "Junior" to his pops.
Um, Henry Williams II? Henry Williams III?
Spoiler
Did they cover the name change and I missed it? All I saw was a hat.
Its not like kids magically adopt the groom's name at weddings. They usually keep what they grew up with.
Quote from: evenwolf on Tue 27/05/2008 03:30:32Its not like kids magically adopt the groom's name at weddings. They usually keep what they grew up with.
Yes but kids don't
usually magically discover alien technology in the ruins of an ancient civilization. :=
Quote from: LGM on Tue 27/05/2008 02:24:43
No, it's Henry Jones III. Indy is Henry Jones II. AKA. Henry Jones Jr. Or just "Junior" to his pops.
Oh yeah, I forgot about Connery.
Quote from: evenwolf on Tue 27/05/2008 03:30:32
Um, Henry Williams II? Henry Williams III?
Spoiler
Did they cover the name change and I missed it? All I saw was a hat.
Its not like kids magically adopt the groom's name at weddings. They usually keep what they grew up with.
Spoiler
When Indy and Ravenholm are in the quicksand while Ox and Williams are getting something to get them out, she tells Indy that it's his son.
It was also a comical moment. :=
R4L, thanks for pointing out the obvious. That has absolutely nothing to do with his name, which is what you and LGM are discussing.
You can't be a John Smith II if your name is Alan Smith. OR if your name is John Davis. Your name has to be John Smith.
Spoiler
His name is Henry Williams. NOT Henry Jones. Not until he legally changes it.
Actually:
Spoiler
She tells Indy during the quicksand scene, "Henry Jones III". She also tells him that Mutt was born before she got married to Williams. Presumably his legal name is Henry Jones III and he just doesn't know it! :=
So I saw the movie tonight. I must say I did enjoy it. There were some items I specifically disliked:
Spoiler
- Apparently Ox isn't Gandalf. He just looked similar from the brief scene I previously saw! :P
Absurdity:
- Ants. The tower of ants was just plain silly. There was no point to it. In fact, the entire scene contributed nothing to the plot whatsoever, and IMO should have been left out.
- Monkeys. Again, contributed nothing to the plot while remaining mindlessly childish.
- Refrigerator + Nuclear blast = No harm done. Seriously good for laughs in concept, but should not have been put into the movie IMO. That entire scenario could have been worked through better.
- I noticed some of the tribespeople looked like native Africans covered in chalk instead of native South Americans. So did the aliens teach the Mayans about equal rights too? ::)
- Spalko's disintegration. I didn't really get the point of this. She knew so much that her body dissolved into dust? Or...the alien seemed to have a vengeful look on his face...he destroyed her for being a greedy bitch?
- Mutt grows up without ever knowing his legal name wtf! :=
As for the:
Spoiler
Aliens, I don't think it's unreasonable for Indy. There are a lot of myths about South American tribes gaining their knowledge from some extraterrestrial source. I do feel strongly that if they make more movies it should not be a recurring theme. Aliens is enough once in the proper context. Turning Indiana Jones into Star Wars is just retarded.
What SSH mentioned about Indy addressing Spalko in the hangar (first page) and then not knowing who she was does seem to be a plot-hole, but she definitely did introduce herself to him before he used her name. Maybe the blast jostled Indy's memory! ;)
Other than these things I really enjoyed the movie a lot and would recommend it. I think any time there's such a large gap between sequels there will always be a certain amount of change that will be noticeable to the hardcore fans. But all-in-all I still think it was a good movie. 8/10 for me.
I concede!
Spoiler
Ants didn't bother me as much as the monkeys. The ants had a blood lust for anyone. The monkeys instinctively knew who to attack ( presumably based on Mutt's haircut and behavior alone). Tarzan rubbish.
Aliens beat Atlantis? I mean seriously. The pyramid place was nice - you'd have figured someone would be able to see it from a plane :P
Now they'll never do Atlantis since El Dorado was covered. That's my feeling. I mean honestly I'd have been happy if they just copy and pasted the story from Fate of Atlantis. Its a much more convincing story than Aliens who love to use plows.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Wed 28/05/2008 10:11:34
Spoiler
- Monkeys. Again, contributed nothing to the plot while remaining mindlessly childish.
Not true. There are moments in the film, when Mutt does something, Indy usually did in the previous films, thus showing us the process of him turning into something like Indy.
You know what was the first thing, I thought about, when I saw the monkey scene? Tarzan? No! Indy's Whip
TM!
Nevertheless Lionmonkey, the premise behind the scene was absurd. The same point could have been worked into the movie in a more reasonable fashion instead of turning Henry "Mutt" Jones III-Williams into George of the Amazon. ;)
As for 'lantis, I don't think this movie completely rules out the possibility they might do that in the future..."ED" and Atlantis are hardly the same thing. Besides, there's already complaints about too much CG...if they did do Atlantis the end result would probably be a 3D version of the Disney's (which I love don't get me wrong, but you get what I'm saying).
I liked the new film, but not as much as Last crusade or Raiders. It beats Temple of doom hands down though, which is a piece of crap compared to the others.
Conclusion:
(indy films in order of how good they are)
1. Indiana Jones and the last crusade
2. Indiana Jones and the raiders of the lost ark
3. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the crystal skull
4. Indiana Jones and the Temple of doom
Damn it, I knew that going back to see another Spielburg movie would be like going back to the ship's captain and asking him to please spank me with the Cat O'Nine Tails a few more times. And yet I did it anyway.
What is wrong with this man? EVERY SINGLE TIME, he makes a decent movie and then completely ruins it with the ending. I mean, frickking
Spoiler
UFO's and aliens
, and the unnecessary luvvey-duvvey bit afterwards. I agree it's not on the scale of AI or War of the Worlds, but even so ... it's enough to drive you mad!
As for the fridge,
Spoiler
why did he even bother getting in there? Surely back in those days people were taught to Duck and Cover...
Quote from: Pumaman
What is wrong with this man? EVERY SINGLE TIME, he makes a decent movie and then completely ruins it with the ending. I mean, frickking Spoiler
UFO's and aliens
CJ:
Spoiler
It wasn't Spielberg this time.
One of the reasons he and Ford turned down previous Lucas scripts was because they were centered around aliens. This was Lucas compromising. What a dick.
Quote from: Pumaman
As for the fridge, Spoiler
why did he even bother getting in there? Surely back in those days people were taught to Duck and Cover...
Hahahha, "Quick Indy! Find a grade school desk!"
Quote from: DanielH on Wed 28/05/2008 12:08:34
Conclusion:
(indy films in order of how good they are)
1. Indiana Jones and the last crusade
2. Indiana Jones and the raiders of the lost ark
3. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the crystal skull
4. Indiana Jones and the Temple of doom
Good list. I'll agree since I think Crusades can be watched over and over. Raiders is "the classic Indy film" but still taken in doses. Whereas Doom is ridiculous. "Doctor Jones! Indy! Doctor Jones! Indy!" I love Shortround but he and Willie yell Indiana's name every other half second. Willie was the worst casting done in any of these movies, no wonder since Spielberg thought he'd go and marry her.
All this hate for Temple of Doom. :'(
And monkeys.
Temple of Doom's biggest flaws were a weak/annoying female lead, a comedy sidekick, and a lack of Nazis. Other than that, I don't really see any problem with it.
The Last Crusade had similar flaws; a weak/bland female lead, a comedy sidekick (sometimes I just want to smack Sean Connery), and a denouement that seems oddly constructed and vague.
Rating Last Crusade above Raiders? Not that isn't a fine film, but I wouldn't. It lacks the punch of Raiders.
As McGuffins go, Temple of Doom's Sankara Stones are just as weak as The Crystal Skull, yet The Crystal Skull seems sillier. Especially in the context of the big reveal at the film's climax. I felt that the Holy Grail was underplayed in Last Crusade. But that's just me.
Only the Ark of the Covenant seemed awe-inspiring.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Wed 28/05/2008 22:46:48
The Last Crusade had similar flaws; a weak/bland female lead, a comedy sidekick (sometimes I just want to smack Sean Connery), and a denouement that seems oddly constructed and vague.
While I agree, the difference between Crusade and Doom was the delivery. Connery did great in that first scene where he and Indy are talking about 2 separate things, Indy's head and the ming vase. I mean there's a lot of comedy gold in that movie. "Marcus Brody is probably beaten you to the Grail already!" Cut- Marcus: "Does anybody speak English!?"
The female lead in Crusade turns out to be a bad guy. A lot fewer scenes as a love interest. So I don't see much of a comparison with Willie.
During Doom, Indy is just so frustrated and distant. There's really no charm in that movie that compares with the others. And no college! Just a stupid musical I can do without.
Oh, sure, Henry Jones Sr is far better than Short Round, but I just think they played up his bemused reactions a bit much.
As for Elsa Schneider, the problem is far more apparent. We, as in the viewer, feel nothing for her when she appears to be on Indy's side; the audience isn't endeared to her character, as she more or less appears cold and mannered from the offset. I feel that the impact of her betrayal is somewhat lessened because of this. In fact, I think her betrayal is somewhat telegraphed, because of, as you said, the lack of interaction between her and Indy. One of the few scenes where we might have begun to appreciate her character ("We're here to view the tapestries!") ultimately comes too late.
I think, with a stronger female character, evil or otherwise, the story would have benefited.
I haven't seen this movie yet, so I guess I really don't have room to comment, but endings have sucked throughout this series. Raiders is by far the best one in the series, and it's almost like it doesn't even have an ending. Sure, it's a spectacle, and it's cool to see that one guy's face melt, but it makes no sense and doesn't fit in with anything that preceded it. I realize it's not an excuse for an unsatisfying ending, but it's hardly crapping all over the rest of the series. It's pulp entertainment, people need to enjoy it for what it is.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Wed 28/05/2008 22:46:48
Rating Last Crusade above Raiders? Not that isn't a fine film, but I wouldn't. It lacks the punch of Raiders.
Really? As I remember Raiders, there's simply a macguffin that keeps changing hands. Over and over and over again. Indy has it. The nazis steal it. Indy steals it back. Then the nazis steal it again. Indy uses it to obtain a second macguffin. Surprise, the nazis steal that too. And then guess what happens...
Quote from: Radiant on Thu 29/05/2008 02:01:18
Quote from: LimpingFish on Wed 28/05/2008 22:46:48
Rating Last Crusade above Raiders? Not that isn't a fine film, but I wouldn't. It lacks the punch of Raiders.
Really? As I remember Raiders, there's simply a macguffin that keeps changing hands. Over and over and over again. Indy has it. The nazis steal it. Indy steals it back. Then the nazis steal it again. Indy uses it to obtain a second macguffin. Surprise, the nazis steal that too. And then guess what happens...
Haha, Crusade isn't much different except that the MacGuffin cycles between: Henry Jones Sr., the diary, Marcus Brody, the map, the grail itself.....
Quote from: evenwolf on Wed 28/05/2008 22:34:01
I love Shortround but he and Willie yell Indiana's name every other half second. Willie was the worst casting done in any of these movies, no wonder since Spielberg thought he'd go and marry her.
I agree- Shortround was Okay, really, but I can't stand Willie. She's incredibly annoying- not just bad casting, she's a bad character, whoever came up with her character and thought 'that's fantastic character development' probably had a Lobotomy shortly beforehand. The character Willie ruins the entire movie for me. Rant over.
Disregard that, Temple of doom is the single greatest masterpiece ever to hit my eyes and I want to inject it into my veins. Only Film Directors are allowed to criticize films, so I'm retracting my statement and replacing it with a nicer one, just for Nacho's pleasure.No, Disregard that.
You seem to be a bit dare to criticise some aspects of Indy' s movies DanielH... This is crap, this guy must to have a lobotomy to do that... How may films have you directed, Daniel? Are you Sidney Pollack' s re-incarnation, or something?
One doesn't have to be a director to have an opinion on a movie.
Quote from: Nacho on Thu 29/05/2008 14:14:31
You seem to be a bit dare to criticise some aspects of Indy' s movies DanielH... This is crap, this guy must to have a lobotomy to do that... How may films have you directed, Daniel? Are you Sidney Pollack' s re-incarnation, or something?
::) Apparently only masterful directors are allowed opinions. Hm. I'll edit my statement to please you, your majesty.Disregard.
Throwing opinions is ok. I never said DanielH wasn't allowed to have an opinion, Eric, don' t change my words.
I just say that telling what he says to those who he says is "dare", specially considering that, unless the opposite is proven, his directing skills are 0.
Treat people who has mastered the art of directing films or telling tales like if they were shit, can only be made by someone who is extremelly better than the people that is being criticised.
I mean... Sir Laurence Olivier could be perfectly allowed to tell that Adam Sandler acts like crap.
My biggest goal in acting was doing an intro at school when I was 8. I think it would be "dare" for me to tell that Adam Sandler is crap.
Most of the opinions said here have been even more negative to Indy's saga, Spielberg, or some of the other members of the crew, but have been more polited and constructive. I am not saying that "no one except masterful directos can have opinions".
I am just saying that his way of telling what he says is dare.
EDIT: Forget it all... I just say Daniel' s age in his profile... It explains a lot of things...
I'm sorry. I reacted like a git, and now I feel stupid :-[. I know what you mean Nacho, just forget it all.
But Adam Sandler is crap.
Nacho, People are critics... have you never said anything like "this food tastes like shit" or "that book was boring"?
You would be perfectly entitled to say these things, as you are perfectly entitled to express your own opinion based on your own tastes.
You don't have to be a gourmet chef to annouce that you didn't enjoy your food.
Likewise you don't have to be an world-renowned author to express that you didn't enjoy a book.
And you don't have to have any directing skills say that you didn't enjoy a film.
People are always judging and criticising things... it's how we imporove and shape the world around us.
Allow Daniel his freedom of expression.
I don't think I changed your words in the slightest..
Why are you picking on Daniel? Then you just go ahead and publicly insult him for his listed age. Real mature.
I've not directed a movie in my life, I've acted in things my brother and I did for fun growing up and I've never written a script for a film. I am 27 years old.
Star Wars 1 - 3 are shitty films and George Lucas appears to be an idiot lately, what with not having anything to offer the world but crap and bad decisions.
Sadly some of this bled into the new Indy movie.
Again... I am not picking on Daniel. I am not kidnapping his "freedom or expression". I just said that it' s been dare for him to said what he said the way he said. I haven' t said that it' s invalid, stupid, silly, or something like that, basically because I don' t think that what he said has been invalid/stupid or something like that.
After that, I though "Hey! Maybe he is young, and saying "that' s crap" it's his way to say "I think the film has flaws here, and here..."
So, I watched his Profile, and I realised that, effectivelly, he' s a teenager. So, his opinions are basically the same than mines, it' s only that he is expressing himself in the way that he and his mates do. I have no problem with that, I was also a teenager, I also expressed my opinions in that way when I had his age, so, that' s what I posted: "I' ve seen your profile. It explains a lot of things". And I asked everybody to forget the whole stuff. Because for me it' s ok.
So, if somebody wants to go on discussing with me if it' s dare for a 15 years old guy telling that Spielberg' s work (His critics were basically focused on "Temple of Doom") is shit, I can go on, because I keep my opinion. I don' t think that "dare" is "THE INSULT!11!" that can't be written here without being accused of going picking members or not allowing somebody to express his opinion. But I' d preffer we to stop because I consider this quite... silly...
And yes... Star Wars 1 and 2 were quite crappy... and Adam Sandler.
EDIT: Hey Daniel! No probs... :) But (IMHO) you should preview if your audience is going to approve your comments, specially if they are going to be that strong, before throwing them.
I mean, it might be ok if you are in front of a soda, surounded of friends and you comment that Indy 2 is crap. I use to do commetaries like that. It might not be that ok if you are in forums were people saw Indy 2 when they were young (like I was when I saw it) and loved it, it might be offensive. And you could receive something as hard as "dare" as a reply.
I saw Raiders during it's second or third run sometime in '83, if memory serves. I saw Temple and Crusade in '84 and '89 respectively. I have fond memories of seeing all three. :)
My older brother and I used to get the novelizations and comic book versions of almost every popular sci-fi/fantasy/adventure movie that came out in the eighties, and everything had novelizations or comic book adaptions in those days.
Everything from Dragonslayer to Biggles, by way of Flash Gordon and Krull!
I remember the Raiders novelization was written by Campbell Black, and I can almost remember who wrote the Temple of Doom one...
EDIT: James Kahn!
The name of that writer has allways sound familiar to me... It' s the same Jimmy Kahn who performed Santino in "The Godfather"?
Pre-edit before posting... I' ve wikied... Apparently it' s not the same guy.
Edit 2: Oh... Apparently the actor is "Caan". :)
Quote from: LimpingFish on Thu 29/05/2008 21:36:43
Everything from Dragonslayer to Biggles, by way of Flash Gordon and Krull!
Krull? I thought I was the only one who saw that movie.
OK, so the new Indiana Jones movie is about
Spoiler
aliens
and John Hurt is in it.... so how come
Spoiler
there wasn't an alien that broke out of his stomach?
I think if they had done that, I think I could have forgiven all the other flaws. :-\
I really enjoyed this film. The Indiana Jones series is my all time favorite. It was too short though -- I could have sat through, at least, another hour of this action packed film! (Can't wait for the whole thing to come out in a special DVD collection set.)
If you wanna see John Hurt in a good recent movie, watch Recount, which premiered on HBO a week ago Sunday. Now that was a great film with an incredible cast.
Ok. I watched this on the weekend. There were a few scenes that were pretty useless, but not many. I didn't have the same negative feelings towards this film as the majority of you seem to have. But the ending WAS definitely too much.
Spoiler
I didn't mind the whole crystal skull and what not. Meh, it's just like the rest of the movies. The thing I did NOT like was where the aliens starting circling around until all their bones merged into one living breathing alien. That was just stupid. It wasn't needed. I would have been happy with the room falling apart as it was, they ran away like they did. I don't care about that russian lady, so she can still burn. But WHY oh WHY did they feel they needed this damn thing to come to life?
The one thing I noticed you guys saying about the skull how it looks like some cheap prop item. I think the only reason it looks so bad, is because it should have had a small amount of dust on the skull when Indy first collected it. I know it was already picked up very recently, so it shouldn't be too dusty. But it lacks all interest when the item you're collecting is already polished and shiny with no need for elbow grease. Just doesn't have the priceless and old feeling anymore. Also NO one in that movie, that held the skull, acted out the real weight of it. They all handled it like it was only a plastic skull.
Also the intro scene outside the Area51 bunker could have actually been outside. There was no reason they needed spotlights pretending to be the sun. It just doesn't cut it, they did a poor job on the lighting.
That's all I needed to say.
Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Tue 03/06/2008 03:18:38
Also NO one in that movie, that held the skull, acted out the real weight of it. They all handled it like it was only a plastic skull.
Very good point. Supposedly the *real* crystal skulls ( a hoax ) were made out of quartz. Fairly dense material..... and 7 on Mohs hardness scale! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness) :)