Mandatory Indy DVD thread.

[rodekill]

Just pulled a marathon. Watched all three movies plus the bonus stuff.

Yep, still the best movies ever made.

[Darth Mandarb]

Couldn't agree more!  I can't wait to get the DVD collection.

Dr. Jones rules!!

My favorite scene is the scene ...

"I found him!", said the random seaman.
"Where?", asks the Captain.
Throwing his hand out, finger pointing towards the German u-boat, the random seaman shouts, "There!"

Then we see Indy climbing on top of the sub and running to the con-tower to enter the sub.  The music (by the legendary John Williams) providing the backdrop just perfects it all.

Great film making.

cheers,
darthMANDARB

[Layabout]

Yeah i want these... bad!

[remixor]

In celebration, I have utterly butchered Indy's theme song: http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/remixor2.mid

Seriously though, these movies really ARE among the best ever made.  I've been waiting for this DVD set for so long!

[MrColossal]

* MrColossal continues to yell at rode for not buying 28 Days Later

3 EXTRA ENDINGS!!!

ZOMBIES!!!

ZOMBIES!!!

ZOMBIES!!!*

eric

* you don't know how long i thought about adding that 3rd zombies...

p.s. meanwhile they're going to ruin the indy series with the new movie HOORAY!

[Chrille]

Yeah I'm gonna get this sucker when I get my next student loan thingamajig.

So what's the bonus material like? Any good?

[Scummbuddy]

There is no way I'm buying this trilogy, cause I'm waiting for the fourth film and then there will be some sort of Huge Conglomorate of movie box containing all 4 films and then bonus materials!1! Joooy!

These movies are so great... I hope Mods will rewatch them and get inspired all over again.

Quote from George Lucas 2 days ago...

Reporter:  Will Harrison Fords surgery be a burden on the set of Indiana Jones?
George Lucas:  Are you kidding? All he does is sit in his rocking chair...

[m0ds]

I really want the DVD set, yep - but I don't want the UK version cause apparatnley some bits have been cut out due to censorship.

m0ds

[Chrille]

Do you have any more info on this markypoo?

[Trapezoid]

AAAIIIII MUST HAVE IT.
I love the Indy. Wannit wannit wannit now....

[Barcik]

I have seen Raiders of the Lost Ark recently, and fount it to be extemely outdated. Perhaps once it could have been the best, but now it can't rival the competition.

* Barcik takes shelter.

[Chrille]

I supposed you like the Matrix better?

*Punches Barcik*  

[Barcik]

Well, the first one, yeah. Not the second though, too much bullshit.

But the Matrix too will one day be outdated, leaving many fans in denial stage.

[Miez]

Do you have any more info on this markypoo?

I'll assume the alter ego of Markypoo for this (trust me, it's only temporarily) - two small articles about the BBFC mutilation can be found on:

http://www.theindyexperience.com/september_2003.shtml

[m0ds]

Probably best miez, seen as it was you I heard it from

Barcik, I think you're wrong - but thats my opinion. Yes, the effects of Raiders are "out-dated" in comparison to those in todays films, but Raiders has some of the best cinematography I've ever seen, and I don't think the storyline will ever be matched.

It looks like the DVD set has gone down a real treat all round

m0ds

[LGM]

You just don't see films made today like the good ol' Indy Flicks.

My brother bought the set two days ago, and I've enjoyed watching Raiders all nice and remastered frame-by-frame.. Unfortunately I haven't the time to do the marathonn thingy (Damn School)

But I shall watch them all ASAP!

And as for the 4th.. If they take their time and not rush everything into 3D! 3D! 3D! solutions (*cough*GeorgeLucas*cough*) or make some bogus climax, like, Aliens come down and abduct Indy (*cough*spielberg*cough*) Then it should come out good and contine the wonderful saga with the same cinematic genius as the first three..







woot

[Evil]

Yep, I love these movies also. If it wasnt for Indy everyone would think Harrison Ford is an asshole because of the whole Han Solo thing. Every time I watch Star Wars I think, "God... Harrison Ford is an asshole... Man... If it wasnt for Indy he'd be a huge asshole... wow..."


Yep....

[rodekill]

I always wanted to be Han Solo when we played Star Wars...

Anyways, what are your first Indy memories?

I remember the first time I saw Raiders. Or at least the first fifteen minutes...
I was like, 3 or 4 at the time and my dad showed me the intro scene. I ran for my life screaming when I saw Satipo's impaled corpse.

Adios, Shawno.

After that I remember Temple of Doom coming out and the talk of the school yard was monkey brains and snake surprise.

[Barcik]

Barcik, I think you're wrong - but thats my opinion. Yes, the effects of Raiders are "out-dated" in comparison to those in todays films, but Raiders has some of the best cinematography I've ever seen, and I don't think the storyline will ever be matched.

I don't mean the effects. I mean that coming it out today it would have been just another cheesy movie. The storyline was very basic, nothing a Tomb Raider can't match, and the jokes have been re-used a thousand times since. Perhaps once it was original, but a movie loses much of its charm after it gets ripped-off over and over again. True classics are films that will never be out-dated - such as the Godfather. Yes, it's an old flick, but nothing has matched it yet.

[Kweepa]

"...a movie loses much of its charm after it gets ripped off over and over again."
Why?
"True classics are films that will never be outdated - such as the Godfather."
So the Godfather hasn't been ripped off over and over again?

Your arguments don't hold water. If you don't like the film just say so. But you can't "prove" Raiders isn't a classic film. It's all subjective. I happen to think it IS a classic.

[Nacho]

I can´t agree with Barcik this time... Raiders of the lost Ark was the first "modern" film which made me feel the charm of the old adventure films, such as the mines of the King Salomon, I really liked it.

One thing is true... If he didn´t enjoyed it so much as some of us, nothing we could say will him enjoy it, so... discussion over  .

[Darth Mandarb]

My first Indiana Jones memory is watching Raiders of the Lost Ark on my dad's brand new VCR ... that darn thing cost like 1200 bux back then!!  We had a HUGE 25 inch Sony TV set in the family room.  He had this kick ass sound system that was ... get this Hi-Fi stereo!!!

It was awesome!  I remember thinking the melting faces were just awesome even though my mom tried to get me to look away "Don't look at it Marion ... keep your eyes shut!!"

These are great examples of what movies should be like ...

And Barcik ... I'd wager that the Godfather has been ripped off far more times than I.J. ... just my opinion

darthMANDARB

[Scummbuddy]

To the one that suggested the 4th one will incorporate 3d or anything like that.

George Lucas also mentioned when talking about these dvds that they would not edit out the glass between Indy and the cobra in the one scene and that they would stick to the same effects style as the previous ones when making the fourth film.

And I think the storylines/plots hold up with movies made now.  There's a lot of crap movies still made today.

[rodekill]

They did edit out the glass.

Finally an edit that doesn't irk me.

Han shot first and all that...

[Trapezoid]

We bought the set today and I just watched Raiders....
wooooh. I love that movie. I love them all. No bothersome edits that I noticed...

By the way, what's the "Han shot first" thing about anyway? I've seen it mentioned a few times, but never with proper explanation...

[remixor]

Barcik: You are utterly out of your mind.

By the way, what's the "Han shot first" thing about anyway? I've seen it mentioned a few times, but never with proper explanation...

In the original cut of A New Hope, Han shot Greedo (Greedo, right?) first, but in the Special Edition, it was edited so that Greedo shot first and missed, then Han shot.  There was really no point to this change at all, and Han's character probably WOULD have shot first in that scenario.

[MrColossal]

remixor, i think that was the reason it was edited so han shot first

it makes han less of a cold blooded killer and he was defending himself..

so that makes him more of a pussy

and goddamit i REMEMBER that when indy was standing with the rocket launcher and was gonna shoot the ark the guy in the white suit was talking and a fly walked into his mouth...

tell me i'm not insane cause i can't find it when i know it happened!

eric

[Timosity]

Over the next 3 weeks on Sunday night they're playing the Trilogy over here on TV, so I guess that's a sign that they'll be advetising the DVD set, I'm not sure if it's available over here or not yet, but I'll atleast watch it on TV, How expensive is the set?

But I loved these movies as a kid, I only saw The Last Crusade at the cinemas, as I was a bit young for the first 2, although I did watch them with my parents when they were on tv, It shits all over the star wars trilogy, IMO

[Las Naranjas]

I just pulled out my old VHS of Raiders to check that fly fact, and eric is not insane.

[Barcik]

Barcik: You are utterly out of your mind.

Dammit, I posted my opinion after I've seen this one recently for the first time, and said that it now looks way to cheesy. There was nothing I haven't seen before. It doesn't look like a bad movie today, but nothing particulary out of the ordinary. And that's the kind of responses I get.
For example, I can say much the same about Star Wars. Once, it was grand and original, but coming out today it would have been no more than a soulless rip-off. Or is it not a valid point? Does Indy look today exactly as it looked back in 1981?

Edit: I can't point at a total "Godfather" rip-off. There are many movies which loaned something (sometimes a LOT) from it, but I jus't don't remember a movie I have seen that is a total rip-off of it.

[Layabout]

I think the indy films stand up quite well compared with films of today. Its just an exciting rollercoaster ride of fun!

[Quintaros]

I understand what Barcik means about imitators diminishing some of the appeal of the films that influenced them.  For me that is more true with filmmaking innovations and techniques than with great storytelling.  Citizen Kane was something of a disappointment because the brillance of its editing and effects work has become part of the language of cinema and I couldn't help but take it for granted.  I knew it was an important film historically and I wanted to appreciate that but ultimately I had to judge it based on how much I enjoyed it which is only moderately.


Raiders and Star Wars however still hold all the same appeal for me is they would have at their release.  The special effects may no longer be state-of-the-art (though I would trade in CGI for model work with a few garbage mattes any day of the week) but great writing, acting, editing, music, etc. never become dated.

[Esseb]

I know about the Han and Greebo editing, but what's up with the glass and the cobra?

[LordHart]

I know about the Han and Greebo editing, but what's up with the glass and the cobra?

Well, you don't really think they would have a big name star like Harrison Ford and a Cobra about a foot and a half away from each other if there wasn't some protection.

[Miez]

I know about the Han and Greebo editing, but what's up with the glass and the cobra?

In Raiders there is the scene where Indy falls into a pit filled with snakes (on the digsite). There is one shot where he's face to face with a rearing cobra. There is a pane of glass between Harrison Ford and the cobra (moviestars are too expensive to be left alone with venomous snakes) and in the movie a reflection of either Indy or the snake shows in the glass. They've removed it using the magic of computers. Yay!

[Las Naranjas]

Some films which created visual techniques which have been exploited to the nth degree by others can still have a tremendous impact.

Triumph of the Will is still breath takingly gorgeous, despite the adaptation of it's technique through Ben Hur, through Star Wars and into LOTR.

And unlike it's contemporary audience I know the result of the values it trumpets and what their consequences.

[Minimi]

* MrColossal continues to yell at rode for not buying 28 Days Later

3 EXTRA ENDINGS!!!

Weren't there only 2 different endings on the dvd of 28 days later? I have it, and I only found 2

[remixor]

I don't know, Barcik and Quintaros: there's no way I can possibly change your experience of a given movie, but movies like Raiders do so much for me to this day that I just can't force myself to see them from the same point of you view you do.  The Indy movies are so much better constructed than any of its derivatives (and honestly, what movies are you talking about?   There are SO few movies in that genre these days, especially compared to how many movies have taken from The Godfather) that to me there's quite simply no comparison.

[Barcik]

I understand your point very well. Personally, I saw Star Wars in 1995, aged 9 and liked it a lot. I still do, despite the fact that I realized more and more flaws in it as I grew.

As for a modern comparsion, here's a recent one: Pirates of the Carribean. Working on pretty much the same formula (find a treasure, kill bad guys in nasty ways, say some witty one-liners, get the girl), it manages to deliever a more entertaining experience, mostly because of Johny Depp's performance and a more polished sense of humour.
It's not just the movies which are exactly like it. It's also movies that borrowed some elements. A big good getting his ass kicked on an air-plane is nothing outside the norm. A nasty sadist Nazi with a scar on his hand is bound to make the crowd giggle for all the wrong reasons.
In fact, most action/adventure/comedy movies are bound to suffer from this. I've recently seen the first Terminator after a looooooong break and was utterly surprised of how out-dated it was. It was slow-paced, there were no really great action scenes and the soundtrack was just horrible.
It's kinda sad, but a movie seen in 2003 just can't be judged by 1981 standards.

[remixor]

See, I totally know what you're talking about.  And in the case of movies like The Terminator, I completely agree.  But the thing is, I just can't see Raiders and Star Wars that way.  It's not because I don't want to, they just still get me pumped up as much as they always have.  Every time I think to myself "Hmmm... You know, maybe Indy really hasn't held up that well" I just pop it in and I can't help smiling and thinking "Fuckin' a, what the hell am I talking about?"
Incidentally, I feel the same way about Citizen Kane.  There's no way I can get the same feeling people must have when that movie was released as far as innovative cinematic techniques, but for me that's totally moot because it STILL outshines almost every movie released today in terms of cinematic "virtuosity", if you will, and the acting and script are to me absolutely top-notch.

So obviously we're not going to reach a common point here, but no worries.  I know that for some people it's just not as enjoyable to watch older films, because they seem more dated, and there's nothing I or anyone else can do about that.  And again, I know what you mean because there are movies like that for me, but there are some, such as the aforementioned films, that to me just never lose that appeal.

[GarageGothic]

There are no commentary tracks on the US versions of the Indy collection either, right?

I never buy DVDs without commentaries, they're usually the best part of the bonus stuff, even when they're bad (did anyone listen to John Woo's Mission: Impossible 2 commentary? It's hilarious - it's as if he's talking about a completely different movie, insisting that it's about romance, not action). And on Kevin Smith movies they are even funnier than the movie itself.

*GG goes home to listen to the six(!) commentary tracks on the Rules of Attraction disc he purchased yesterday*

[DGMacphee]

Barcik: The movie The Freshman was a total rip-off of the Godfather, except they turned the Godfather into a comedy.

I count parody as a total rip-off.

---------------

As for Raiders, I do see it as a classic, and here's why:

* One of the most prolific directors (Spielberg) made it.

* Three of Hollywood's most talented writers (Lucas, Kaufman, and Kasdan) conceived it.

* It was nominated for eight Oscars in 1981, including Best Picture -- Not only that, it won four plus recieved a special award for sound effects editing (A category not introduced until 1988).

* It's ranked #16 in the top 250 films on IMDB.

* It's ranked #60 on the top 100 films for the American Film Institute.

* Indiana Jones was also ranked #2 in the AFI's top 50 Heros list (#1 was Atticus Finch from To Kill A Mockingbird).

* It's also ranked #10 on the AFI's top 100 Thrillers (Also Harrison Ford starred in 4 films in this list, as did Claude Rains).

* It's part of Roger Ebert's Great Movies list.

* The movie scored a 96% FRESH rating on www.rottentomatoes.com, which is a website that collects reviews from all critics and compiles an average rating (and an average of 96% is fucking good!)

* Indiana Jones's kangaroo-hide bullwhip was sold in December, 1999 at Christie's auction house in London for $43,000.

* The jacket and hat that 'Harrison Ford' wore throughout the series are on display at the Smithsonian.

* The films pays tribute to other classic films of the past -- For example, the final shot is actually a homage to one of the final shots in Citizen Kane.

* John Williams' theme song is one of the most recognisable theme songs ever and his music has been nominated in all three films -- plus the soundtrack has been given an average of 4/5 stars on filmtracks.com and a 5/5 on amazon.com

* Raiders of the Lost Ark spawned two successful sequels, a TV series based upon Indy's exploits as a child, two platform games, two adventure games, and two 3D actioners.

I think all the above (the talent, the awards, the top listings, the top reviews, the memorabilia, the homage to past films, the off-shoots, etc) proves Raiders of the Lost Ark is a classic film!

[Timosity]

Or there's just good marketing, and as usual all awards are doctored in some way (plus the way they are chosen, it's just a popularity contest, and the oascars are totally illegitamate [it's just who the academy want to promote/exploit in the near future]), a bit of money here and there, and Bradman's average was 99.94,

All those statistics mean shit, except Bradman's

But it was still an Awesome movie, I don't need stats to back that up. (cause I only have to convince myself)

But personally I never read reviews or watch many previews before I see a movie (obviously I need to hear something about it to know it exists) but It's much better when you don't have to judge it by hype or what other people have said, and can just see it for what it is, and make up my own mind.

It's hard to escape hype with some movies, but they're the ones I usually ignore till atleast video, sometimes even free to air tv, and then I often say "Damn, I wish I saw that at the movies" So hype can be damaging in that way, for me.

I'm not a big movie goer, since 90% of movies that come out are shit, and some of the ones that don't are awesome, go hire Ravenous, Robert Carlyle is so friggen evil, top actor.

[SSH]

* One of the most prolific directors (Spielberg) made it.

Ummmm.... being prolific isn't necessarily a good thing: it just means yo umade a lot. Now, Speilberg is a great director, but that aint what you said.

* Three of Hollywood's most talented writers (Lucas, Kaufman, and Kasdan) conceived it.

Lucas a great writer? His dialogue is infamous.

* It was nominated for eight Oscars in 1981, including Best Picture -- Not only that, it won four plus recieved a special award for sound effects editing (A category not introduced until 1988).

Is Titanic a great movie?

* The films pays tribute to other classic films of the past -- For example, the final shot is actually a homage to one of the final shots in Citizen Kane.

I count tributes as a total ripoff

[DGMacphee]

Or there's just good marketing, and as usual all awards are doctored in some way (plus the way they are chosen, it's just a popularity contest, and the oascars are totally illegitamate [it's just who the academy want to promote/exploit in the near future]), a bit of money here and there, and Bradman's average was 99.94

I think the combination of the numerous aspects of the film I've discussed (awards, critical evaluation, talent, and spin-offs), you'll see that it's a bit more than just good marketing.

Also keep in mind that the majority of Oscar winning (an nominated) films get remembered more so than films that don't get any nominations.

So, they do count for something.

Ummmm.... being prolific isn't necessarily a good thing: it just means yo umade a lot. Now, Speilberg is a great director, but that aint what you said.

But you've essentially proven my point anyway, so why be critical and mince with my words?

It's pretty pedantic if you ask me.

But it's also hypocritical, if you'll read my next response.

Lucas a great writer? His dialogue is infamous.

Then you obviously have never seen THX-1138 or American Graffiti.

Also, writing a screenplay isn't just dialogue -- There's character, story, action, movement and subtext, which are facets where Lucas excells.

Also, keep in mind I said "conceived" by three of the most talenter writers -- Lucas didn't actually write it but came up with the story (One of Lucas' stronger points) with Phil Kauffman.

Kasdan wrote the script, including dialogue.

I find it hypocritical that first off you you criticise me for using the wrong word, then in the next breath you don't properly read my actual words in your next response.

It sounds like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Is Titanic a great movie?

What's you're point here?

So you've picked one over-bloated, manipulative tear-jerker when you've ignored the fact that so many quality movies also get nominated (and keep in mind Raiders was a nominee, not a winner for Best picture).

In fact, in the same year as Titanic, you had four great films: LA Confidential, Good Will Hunting, The Full Monty, and As Good As It Gets.

As for Best Picture winners (if you want to go that far), keep in mind for every Titanic you have an American Beauty or a Schindlers List or an Unforgiven or a Silence of The lambs or a Last Emeperor or an Amadeus or a One Flew Over The Cukoo's Nest or a Marty or an On The Waterfront.

In fact, let's also look at the year Raiders was nominated -- The Best Pictures for that year were: Chariots of Fire (the winner), On Golden Pond, Atlantic City, Reds, and of course Raiders.

That's some pretty stiff competition for the year.

And even though Chariots took out Best Picture, and Warren Beatty took out Best Direction for Reds, Raiders is still a more well-known film than either the two.

So your whole Titanic theory totally sucks, SSH, because for every Titanic there's about 10 or 20 other worthy films in the Oscar race (Raiders included) that get ignored by people like you.

I count tributes as a total ripoff

I guess you also think O Brother, Where Art Thou is a total rip-off as it's a tribute to Preston Sturges films?

You probably also think Sergio Leone totally rip-offs films as he pays tribute to Akira Kurosawa constantly?

And lets not forget Woody Allen, who's been paying tribute to Fellini for years -- He is a total rip-off master!

Scorsese paid tribute to Godard in Taxi Driver,  Coppola paid tribute to Hitchcock in The Conversation, Jackie Chan paid tribute to Buster Keaton in Project A II -- ALL THESE GREAT FILMS ARE TOTAL RIP-OFFS ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC!

So, fine, let's accept your definition here -- tributes are total rip-offs

But let me tell you something: tributes (and any kind of total rip-offs) aren't a bad thing.

If you think otherwise, you don't know movies, pal.

[quintaros (at work)]

Is Titanic a great movie?

I think so.

As for what constitutes a total rip-off, I'm fine with both homages and parodies.  If a film is good in its own right nothing else matters.

[quintaros (at work)]

On the subject of Academy awards, I would say they are generally a good indicator as to whether a film is worth seeing or not but they're pretty hit-and-miss for predicting which films will be considered classics (the winners at least).  Only time will tell if a film is a classic.

[DGMacphee]

Aye, but it's a factor in consideration for a classic.

People seem to think I'm basing Indy's classic status purely on it's Oscar nominations, which I'm not.

The Oscar nominations play a small part in determining its classic status.

If people who wish to criticise only one point (such as it's Oscar nods), please re-read the entire list because I'm basing my opinion on the total combination of these factors.

I don't see anyone disputing the numerous AFI lists, nor the rottentomatoes.com scoring, nor John Williams' music, nor the memorabilia points (the auction and the Smithsoian inclusion).

No, everyone is SOOO focused on the Oscars because, hey, they're bribed by corperate big-wig producers who want to win a gold statuette.

(By the way, this seems to be ceasing this year as the AMPAS pres, Frank Pierson is cracking down of Oscar 'gift baskets' from producers to Academy members -- Also, MPAA pres Jack Velenti is cracking down on piracy, so VHS screeners will be sent to acdemy members only and none to the press or any other similar agents -- Expect a less marketised and commerical Oscar race this year).

Anyway, my point this: Look at the sum total of my list -- the total combination of those factors make Indy as much a classic film as Casablanca, On The Water Front, The Godfather, Ben Hur, Taxi Driver, or Schindler's List.

It's also what seperates it from non-classic films like, say, The Truth About Cats and Dogs.

[SSH]

Ummmm.... being prolific isn't necessarily a good thing: it just means yo umade a lot. Now, Speilberg is a great director, but that aint what you said.

But you've essentially proven my point anyway, so why be critical and mince with my words?

It's pretty pedantic if you ask me.

Granted!

But it's also hypocritical, if you'll read my next response.

Lucas a great writer? His dialogue is infamous.

Then you obviously have never seen THX-1138 or American Graffiti.

Also, writing a screenplay isn't just dialogue -- There's character, story, action, movement and subtext, which are facets where Lucas excells.

Also, keep in mind I said "conceived" by three of the most talenter writers -- Lucas didn't actually write it but came up with the story (One of Lucas' stronger points) with Phil Kauffman.

Lucas is a great ideas man, that I can agree with. That he is a great writer, I find more difficult to accept.

I find it hypocritical that first off you you criticise me for using the wrong word, then in the next breath you don't properly read my actual words in your next response.

Well, I was trying to check whether you did mean "prolific" as a reason fo rthe movie being great. And what I disagreed with about Lucas was whether he was a great writer which IS what you wrote.

Is Titanic a great movie?

What's you're point here?

Oscars do not a great movie make. However, I do think that Titanic is great. I could quote awards, box-office, etc. but the reason it is great is this: a huge number of people who saw Titanic went back to see it again and again, not just on DVD or Video but in the cinema. The reason they did this is becuase Cameron crafted a movie that could have ended oh so differently if the just got to Leo a bit sooner and the audience wanted to believe that next time they saw the movie, it would. It was also a tragedy and all the best stories are tragedies. Most people who don't like Titanic do so out of Leo-envy.

In fact, in the same year as Titanic, you had four great films: LA Confidential, Good Will Hunting, The Full Monty, and As Good As It Gets.

Of these, only LA Confidential has any greatness. The others are Sentimental, Depressing and Stereotypical and Sentimental respectively. Are you trying to say that Good Will Hunting wasn't as sentimental as Titanic? It had Robin Williams in it!

So your whole Titanic theory totally sucks, SSH, because for every Titanic there's about 10 or 20 other worthy films in the Oscar race (Raiders included) that get ignored by people like you.

I think Raiders is a great movie. I never said it wasn't.

I count tributes as a total ripoff

This was ironic, trying to mock your assertion that all parodies are rip-offs. Sorry that you took it seriously.

But let me tell you something: tributes (and any kind of total rip-offs) aren't a bad thing.

Hmmm, backtracking by trying to redefine a derogatory term you used first yourself, eh?

[DGMacphee]

Lucas is a great ideas man, that I can agree with. That he is a great writer, I find more difficult to accept.

Then like I said, you've obviously never seen THX-1138 or American Grafitti.

Well, I was trying to check whether you did mean "prolific" as a reason fo rthe movie being great. And what I disagreed with about Lucas was whether he was a great writer which IS what you wrote.

No, I said he's talented, which he is.

He has loads of talent in creating a great cinematic experience.

In the last decade or so, he's made poor choices, which is no reflection on his talent as such, just a reflection on his judgement.

Oscars do not a great movie make.

But the majority of great movies do win Oscars

However, I do think that Titanic is great. I could quote awards, box-office, etc. but the reason it is great is this: a huge number of people who saw Titanic went back to see it again and again, not just on DVD or Video but in the cinema. The reason they did this is becuase Cameron crafted a movie that could have ended oh so differently if the just got to Leo a bit sooner and the audience wanted to believe that next time they saw the movie, it would. It was also a tragedy and all the best stories are tragedies. Most people who don't like Titanic do so out of Leo-envy.

Actually, I didn't really care about the whole Leo.

What I cared about was that it was an over-produced, mass-marketed piece of drivell full of plot holes.

But even that was insignificant when I realised that Cameron was exploiting the people on the Titanic for a FUCKING LOVE STORY about two people that didn't exist.

Imagine if Speilberg did the same thing for Schindler's List -- He'd be crucified!

Of these, only LA Confidential has any greatness. The others are Sentimental, Depressing and Stereotypical and Sentimental respectively. Are you trying to say that Good Will Hunting wasn't as sentimental as Titanic? It had Robin Williams in it!

By your logic here, One Hour Photo is a tear-jerker

I don't see how having Robin Williams in it makes a film a sentimental film.

What I am saying is that Good Will Hunting managed to be sentimental (which isn't a bad thing per se) without being an overproduced piece of drivel like Titanic.

It was an indie film at the time -- Affleck and Damon were virtually outsiders to the whole Hollywood system.

But it was an indie film that became a hit, which is a great thing.

The Full Monty -- I don't see what's wrong with this film as it was intelligently written, well directed, and contained some very above-average performances -- Plus, it's was funny.

As Good As it Gets -- Likewise, well written, a great performance by Jack Nicholson, and it was funny.

I think Raiders is a great movie. I never said it wasn't.

So why are you arguing in the first place?

This was ironic, trying to mock your assertion that all parodies are rip-offs. Sorry that you took it seriously.

Hmmm, backtracking by trying to redefine a derogatory term you used first yourself, eh?

Why don't you read the context of what I say before jumping to conclusions and mocking my assertions.

I said that parodies are a rip-off in response to Barcik's claim that the Godfather hasn't been totaly ripped-off.

I didn't mean it in a derogitory sense (and if you'll ACTUALLY READ BACK you'll see I mean that), and to back that up I can include a list of parodies/rip-offs I find funny: The Naked Gun, Austin Powers, Casino Royale, The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou, etc.

Your problem is you automatically assume I'm being derogitroy when I'm not, and also when I'm phrasing in response to someone else as well (Crap, I wasn't even talking to you, pal).

So don't start pointing the bone, accusing me of backtracking -- I've done nothing of the sort.

So, go mock something else, you psuedo-intellectual!



In fact, let me get this straight: You think Raiders is a good movie, but you're arguing with my points of view on why it's a classic anyway?

You see, your problem is that you just want to argue for the sake for arguing, not because you actually have a conclusive point -- No, no, you just want to pick apart minor details in someone else's argument just because you've got nothing better to do then try and act intelligent.

Well, I've stated the reasons why Raiders is a classic and all exist mutually, as I've said previously.

If that's not good enough for you, fine -- go compile your own list.

But so far, I've responded quite well to all your four arguments-for-the-sake-of-arguing, and my list still stands firm.

See, people like this tick me off -- They act like smartalecs, but never actually come to any conclusive argument thst increases understanding.

Shit, I'd be happier if you were someone who hated Raiders completely and wanted to write down a reason against every point I mentioned in my list.

But even if you did, I've got AMPAS backing up my argument, the AFI, the Smithsonian, John Williams lovers, Roger Ebert, a host of other critics, plus an extensive amount of film knowledge spanning courses and workshops in high school and university.

What have you got to back up your opinion?

Zip -- You provided nothing at all to give your argument any credibility whatsoever!

So, in the words of the great Andy Penis: "I AERS TEH BESTEST AND YOU EAT GRANDPAS SLIPEREY TREETS!!1!!"

[quintaros (at work)]

Aye, but it's a factor in consideration for a classic.

People seem to think I'm basing Indy's classic status purely on it's Oscar nominations, which I'm not.

The Oscar nominations play a small part in determining its classic status.

If people who wish to criticise only one point (such as it's Oscar nods), please re-read the entire list because I'm basing my opinion on the total combination of these factors.

I don't see anyone disputing the numerous AFI lists, nor the rottentomatoes.com scoring, nor John Williams' music, nor the memorabilia points (the auction and the Smithsoian inclusion).

No, everyone is SOOO focused on the Oscars because, hey, they're bribed by corperate big-wig producers who want to win a gold statuette.

The reason I dispute the Oscars as a factor in whether a film is classic or not is that Oscars are handed out within a year of the films release.  A films status as a classic takes time to be established.  Most of your other points on the list were valid because they illustrated that 20 years later Raiders was still in the filmgoing publics mind.

I think its funny that you describe Titanic as an "over-produced, mass-marketed piece of drivel" and then defend the Oscars.  Maybe its just me but I think the Academy Awards ceremony is the most over-produced piece of drivel coming out of the film industry.  But thats the ceremony itself and I guess you're really talking about the awards.

[SSH]

And what I disagreed with about Lucas was whether he was a great writer which IS what you wrote.

No, I said he's talented, which he is.

He has loads of talent in creating a great cinematic experience.

You said he was a talented writer. I assumed that you mean that his talent was in writing by putting those two words next to each other, but you now seem to be saying that he was a writer who has talent in other areas...

Oscars do not a great movie make.

But the majority of great movies do win Oscars

And that is the nub of it. The rest of what you said is about Raiders being great becuase lots of people think its great. Wrong way around. Lots of people think its great becuase it is great. Lots of people thought Ben Johnson was a great athlete, but turned out to be wrong. However, Carl Lewis was agreat athlete and lots of pople thought that too. Cause and effect.

Which is why I was arguing.

But even that was insignificant when I realised that Cameron was exploiting the people on the Titanic for a FUCKING LOVE STORY about two people that didn't exist.

It's the people of Atlanta I feel sorry for, having Victor Fleming explot their city buring down for  a love story, not to mention all those slave who the war was about...

And don't get me started on all those who died in WW2 being exploited by Casablanca...

Of these, only LA Confidential has any greatness. The others are Sentimental, Depressing and Stereotypical and Sentimental respectively. Are you trying to say that Good Will Hunting wasn't as sentimental as Titanic? It had Robin Williams in it!

By your logic here, One Hour Photo is a tear-jerker

I don't see how having Robin Williams in it makes a film a sentimental film.

I wasn't trying to say that all Robin Williams movies must therefore be sentimental, but plenty are:

GWH, What Dreams may Come, Awakenings, Patch Adams, Mrs Doubtfire, Bicentennial Man

Your problem is you automatically assume I'm being derogitroy when I'm not
So, go mock something else, you psuedo-intellectual!

Mea culpa

In fact, let me get this straight: You think Raiders is a good movie, but you're arguing with my points of view on why it's a classic anyway?

You see, your problem is that you just want to argue for the sake for arguing, not because you actually have a conclusive point -- No, no, you just want to pick apart minor details in someone else's argument just because you've got nothing better to do then try and act intelligent.

Well, I've stated the reasons why Raiders is a classic and all exist mutually, as I've said previously.

If that's not good enough for you, fine -- go compile your own list.

But so far, I've responded quite well to all your four arguments-for-the-sake-of-arguing, and my list still stands firm.

See, people like this tick me off -- They act like smartalecs, but never actually come to any conclusive argument thst increases understanding.

Once again, you say "people like this" and you don't know me. And my point was that you are arguing that the effect proves the cause, which seems to have passed you by completely. Argue that Raiders is great because it has good effects but not becuase it won and award for its effects. Howerver, that can be used as evidence that it does indeed have good effects.

What have you got to back up your opinion?

Just logic

[DGMacphee]

You said he was a talented writer. I assumed that you mean that his talent was in writing by putting those two words next to each other, but you now seem to be saying that he was a writer who has talent in other areas...

I said: "He has loads of talent in creating a great cinematic experience."

That includes writing (Unless films just magically appear without a script, which I guess they always do in Hollywood!).

So, stop twisting my words around.

And that is the nub of it. The rest of what you said is about Raiders being great becuase lots of people think its great. Wrong way around. Lots of people think its great becuase it is great. Lots of people thought Ben Johnson was a great athlete, but turned out to be wrong. However, Carl Lewis was agreat athlete and lots of pople thought that too. Cause and effect.

Which is why I was arguing.

We're arguing the same point then.

I brought those "people thinking Raiders is great" as evidence it is a great movie.

I'm not demonstrating cause and effect -- I'm showing that the two are relational, which is also what you're arguing.

Like I said, you're only arguing these pedantic points just for the sake of arguing, probably because you have nothing better to do that to form a REAL argument.

It's the people of Atlanta I feel sorry for, having Victor Fleming explot their city buring down for  a love story, not to mention all those slave who the war was about...

And don't get me started on all those who died in WW2 being exploited by Casablanca...

But Casablanca and Gone With The Wind aren't superficial tales of love.

Titanic was a teen-pop love story -- Jack meet girl, Jack gets the girl (even though he dies, her heart goes on with his memory inside yadda yadda yadda).

But Rick didn't get the girl in the end.

A Rhett ended "not giving a damn" about the girl.

That's worth the exploitation -- both those love stories have substance to them.

Titanic was superficial and you can never exploit something like death for something so superficial.

I wasn't trying to say that all Robin Williams movies must therefore be sentimental, but plenty are:

GWH, What Dreams may Come, Awakenings, Patch Adams, Mrs Doubtfire, Bicentennial Man

Aye, I was just using your method of mocking your arguments without providing any real substance.

Once again, you say "people like this" and you don't know me. And my point was that you are arguing that the effect proves the cause, which seems to have passed you by completely. Argue that Raiders is great because it has good effects but not becuase it won and award for its effects. Howerver, that can be used as evidence that it does indeed have good effects.

I am not arguing that effect has a cause -- you're just being pedantic again i.e. arguing for the sake of arguing.

I said that Raiders is a classic, here is my proof, boom-boom.

I never said Raiders BECAME great because it won Oscars, got put on critics' lists, and all the other reasons I listed, etc, etc.

Like I said, you're just looking for things to argue about.

Now cut it out.

[Las Naranjas]

I'm lifting this in part from my second HSC English exam, but there are many cases of things that are derivative from the start but can still gain a shelf life through the sheer quality of their manufacture.

One of the more incredible cases in point being Shakespere, who never wrote an original plot in his life, many of them preceded him by centuries. I know there's a temptation to limit that success to an wankerish elite, but for the vastly bigger part of the intervening centuries that wasn't economically viable.


I don't think the Indy films pretended at any time to be anything but derivative, so I don't think they can suffer from being ripped off. Moreover, they were well made enough and conscious of their derivative status to work well and have their enduring popularity.

Perhaps Star Wars was initially like that too, only legions of lauding geeks and fame have clouded Lucas' mind with pretensions.

[remixor]

DGM: I don't agree with every factor you listed, but I totally agree with the spirit of your post.  I honestly don't see how anyone couldn't see Raiders as classic, even if they themselves don't particularly enjoy it.  With the amount of love that movie still generates, they sure as hell must have done SOMETHING right.  Or a lot of things.  Well, everything.

[bspeers100]

You said he was a talented writer. I assumed that you mean that his talent was in writing by putting those two words next to each other, but you now seem to be saying that he was a writer who has talent in other areas...

I said: "He has loads of talent in creating a great cinematic experience."

I couldn't find this quote of yours anywhere in this discussion.  You did, however, say this:

Three of Hollywood's most talented writers (Lucas, Kaufman, and Kasdan) conceived it.

By extension, Lucas is "one of Hollywood's most talented writers" -- pure logic.

What SSH was arguing against was the description of Lucas as a "talented writer." That is obvious from context.

You seem to be unable to accept that someone can challenge your method of argumentation without either a. disagreeing in principal or b. being a masturbatory intellectual poofter fuck.

There are reasons to challenge methods of argumentation.  Not the least of which is that bad logical habits repeat, and often cause harm.

The simple fact is that listing acclaims is not the same as saying something is a good product.  By that measure, almost everything David Lynch did was crap and almost everything Spielburg did was great.  It's an important distinction, even if it doesn't challenge the "greatness" of Indy.

BTW, Spielburg has done a lot of really awful things, including cheating Orson Welles when Welles was in poverty, stealing ideas from Kuprick against his family's direct request, breaking Kuprick's dying wishes, and some very poor directorial choices.

Not to say the man isn't an inspired and amazing storyteller, but he obviously puts very little faith in his audience's intelligence--which leads to audiences expecting less from directors.

Anyway, I'm staying out of this now.  I've done this before and it's not terribly rewarding.

[remixor]

To be fair (and I can't be arsed to check if this has been mentioned or not already), Lucas has been nominated for two Oscars for his screenwriting.  Of course, those were both in the 70's.  Of course, Raiders did come out in 81.  Anyway, I'm not trying to start anything here, just throwing that out.

[Jayel_]

Raiders is my favourite movie of all the ones Lucas or Spielberg made so far.   I put it way above Star Wars or Schindler's List.
Today's adventure flicks may have more elaborate plot with better special effects and better action sequences, but nothing matches Raiders in terms of atmosphere, pacing, cinematography, and that little magic that make us actually care about the characters.

[remixor]

Today's adventure flicks may have more elaborate plot

More like "more convoluted and idiotic plots."  Raiders made sense, without being stupid.  It seems like recent adventure movies either have brain-dead plots or plots that are so complicated as to be absurd.

[Las Naranjas]

Formulaic is often used as an insult with film plots, but the fact that Indy's plots stick to a strict formula probably give them an edge over the Tomb Raiders and the likes of this world.

[Layabout]

There is no way that Raiders is not a classic film. Here is why. INDIANA JONES is a HOUSEHOLD name. Everyone knows who indy is. Everyone can recognise the sillouette of indy. Raiders started the Franchise, so therefore they must have done something right.

I bought the DVD collection yesterday. I am going to sit down and watch all of them in order. But I still dislike temple alot.

And I'd just like to say I hated Titanic. And I hate James Cameron. In the same way I hate Jerry Bruckheimer. Most of their films are full of crap, with a few very small exceptions...

And SSH, if you like raiders, stop arguing with DG, it makes you look stupid.

[DGMacphee]

bspeers:
I did say both the quotes you mentioned, it is true.

And yes, SSH's argument counters my opinion of Lucas as a talented writer.

However, I still maintain my belief that his writing in past films show his brilliance (American Grafitti and THX-1138 as examples).

SSH, can counter this argument, sure (and his point of view has as much merit as mine or anyone elses) -- But I'm not going to immediately jump out of my chair and scream "YUO AERS RIGHT, LUCAS AERS TEH HACK WRITER!!1!"

I acknowledge Lucas' recent Star Wars films are poorly written -- However, that doesn't mean his talent suddenly disappears.

BTW, don't you find it ironic that you of all people are calling me a "masturbatory intellectual poofter fuck"?  

It's like a blind man telling another blind man his eyesight is fucked.

Anyway, it's great to see you again on you weekly midnight troll, Blake -- But next time you call someone a pompus arsehole, don't sound like a pompus arsehole.  





And just to show I can accept another person's argument, blake, I typed a response to Quintaros' post, but my McAfee's update wouldn't let me post it before -- So, here it is:

The reason I dispute the Oscars as a factor in whether a film is classic or not is that Oscars are handed out within a year of the films release. A films status as a classic takes time to be established. Most of your other points on the list were valid because they illustrated that 20 years later Raiders was still in the filmgoing publics mind.

I agree totally here.

I only brought the Oscar up as a point of historical significance.

The Oscars may not indicate high quality, but they are voted by people in the industry -- Thus, the nods for Raiders cement it's place in history among the many films voted industry sepcialists.

These people regarded it highly at the time -- Thus, it's historical significance plays a part in proving the classic status of the film.

I think its funny that you describe Titanic as an "over-produced, mass-marketed piece of drivel" and then defend the Oscars. Maybe its just me but I think the Academy Awards ceremony is the most over-produced piece of drivel coming out of the film industry.

Welcome to Hollywood -- leave your shoes at the door!  

[SSH]

bspeers:
BTW, don't you find it ironic that you of all people are calling me a "masturbatory intellectual poofter fuck"?  

He didn't. He was saying that that is what you called me. Maybe you should make an appointment with the optician because you seem to have trouble reading other people posts (and your own, although you have now finally admitted that you said taht Lucas is a talented writer after denying it 3 or 4 times).

And on the subject of arguing, every time I have made a point that you have either called it pedantic, made a personal insult or pretended that you were saying the same thing and tried to make it out that I was arguing for the sake of arguing. I really don't appreciate this, and so this is my final words in this thread. Now you can post something really inflamatory to try and bait me...

[Barcik]

So obviously we're not going to reach a common point here, but no worries.  I know that for some people it's just not as enjoyable to watch older films, because they seem more dated, and there's nothing I or anyone else can do about that.  And again, I know what you mean because there are movies like that for me, but there are some, such as the aforementioned films, that to me just never lose that appeal.

Of course we are not going to reach a common point, I am well aware of it. You like this movie, and I am fully cool with that. I am not trying to tell you that it is crap and you shouldn't watch it.
I don't think it's dated because it is old. There are numerous old movies I like, such as Planet of the Apes, Apocalypse Now and 2001. I just think that there is nothing in Indy I haven't seen before.

I think all the above (the talent, the awards, the top listings, the top reviews, the memorabilia, the homage to past films, the off-shoots, etc) proves Raiders of the Lost Ark is a classic film!

I use the term 'classic' in a slightly different manner than the usual. For me, a classic is a film that is timeless - it cannot look out-dated. Such as 2001, Brazil or Pulp Fiction. However, other movies I like such as LotR, Matrix (the first) or my favourite action flick Die Hard are bound to promise nothing new sooner or later. And as you can understand from the "Barcik definition", very few adventure/action movies are list of classics.

[Las Naranjas]

Well, it never intended to have anything that had never been seen before. It never pretended to be anything but unoriginal and derivative. It does do what it intends to do very well, but it seems harsh to condemn them for an a lack of originality when to try to include some would belie the entire point of reviving the adventure style of the old cliff hanger serials.


But then again, Pulp Fiction doesn't pretend to be anything but derivative (like all Tarintino's work), but it's granted timeless status...

[remixor]

But then again, Pulp Fiction doesn't pretend to be anything but derivative (like all Tarintino's work), but it's granted timeless status...

Pulp Fiction is rather different.  It is not derivative in the same sense that Indiana Jones (or Kill Bill) is.  Rather, it takes influences from various genres and creates a film that is in many ways unique.  The screenplay is also written with such a degree of skill that it does not come off simply as a throwback, but as a solid work in its own right.  There's a difference between taking significant inspiration and being derivative.

[Las Naranjas]

I think it's a case of splitting hairs, unless I was to unleash a horde of sophistries.

[DGMacphee]

He didn't. He was saying that that is what you called me. Maybe you should make an appointment with the optician because you seem to have trouble reading other people posts (and your own, although you have now finally admitted that you said taht Lucas is a talented writer after denying it 3 or 4 times).

Bspeers said:
"You seem to be unable to accept that someone can challenge your method of argumentation without either a. disagreeing in principal or b. being a masturbatory intellectual poofter fuck."

I probably misinterpreted it as:

"You seem to be unable to accept without either a. disagreeing in principal or b. being a masturbatory intellectual poofter fuck"

However, I didn't call you a "masturbatory intellectual poofter fuck", SSH -- That's taking what I actually said to extremes.

I did call you a pseudo-intellectual, in the sense you seemed to be arguing with very minor aspects of my list for the sake try to sound smart (After all, you did say you were trying to "mock my assertions").

Yes, they were very pedantic points you argued.

No, I didn't unjustly insult your personal stature (i.e. I didn't call you a retard).

And, we are actually arguing the same thing, because we think Raiders is a good movie.

You're arguing that I think it became a classic because so many critics like it, when I'm not even saying anything of the sort.

All I said is it's a classic and here's my proof why (i.e all these high ranking people think it's a classic, therefore it adds weight).

I'm not arguing any cause and effect.

I could argue the personal reasons why I like it, but I prefered to use something a little more concrete than my subjective opinion.

We have a miscommunication here.

So, I'm not going to 'bait you' or any of that -- But perhaps I just need time out for a while, so I might take a little leave from the forums for a week or so.

I appologise to bspeers for saying he sounded like a 'pompus arsehole' -- I misread his 'masturbatory intellectual poofter fuck' comment. (In all fairness, we've both called each other names like that in the past, so it's only natural to assume so).

I hope this clears up everything

I use the term 'classic' in a slightly different manner than the usual. For me, a classic is a film that is timeless - it cannot look out-dated. Such as 2001, Brazil or Pulp Fiction. However, other movies I like such as LotR, Matrix (the first) or my favourite action flick Die Hard are bound to promise nothing new sooner or later. And as you can understand from the "Barcik definition", very few adventure/action movies are list of classics.

I dig the Barcik definition!

[Matt Goble]

I've come into this thread a bit late, but i couldn't see a response to MODs / Chrille's question about the set being censored.

As far as I'm aware the UK version of Temple of Doom has about 1.30 cut from it - the heart through the man's chest etc.

Region 1 is uncut.  Europe Region 2 may be uncut.  UK Region 2 is definitely cut.

Best price I've seen is £28 for region 1 from DVDSoon.com

Hope that helps

"Snakes, I hate Snakes"

[TheYak]

One of the perks of my job.  I show up for my 2nd day of work and get handed a new copy of the Indy boxed set.  I have no idea what the MSRP is on that thing, but it kicks ass to get free shit from work.

[Layabout]

I envy you Yakspit. You lucky SOB!!! I wish i worked for george lucas (even so indirectly).

[|Alky|]

I have the set on VHS, so I won't be buying them till I get rich. But does anyone know a way to buy those 'young indiana jones' tv episodes? I kinda enjoyed those, and though they're not up to the original's standard I've only seen half of them, and wanna see the rest..

[TheYak]

I dunno..  I missed a few episodes after the first few and then lost interest.  I know you can rent them at some Hollywood video stores and even a couple Blockbuster stores.  If you wanna order (buy) them... you could try Suncoast..  they'll get almost anything you want as far as movies go.  I don't know if there's a store in your area but they may have a website.  For that matter, you might try e-bay.

[oscar]

I've got the VHS set...very good movies, my favorite scene is on the aeroplane in the Last Crusade movie. Indy (dressed as a worker on the plane) throws a nazi out of the window and explains to the passengers: "No ticket"...haha I love that