Does "The Adventures of Mutt" work?

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

It's distracting and dissapointing.

The first big fanfaric statement of Raiders March is a re-use.

I hate that it's not a "back to action" statement -- it's more of a "what? no, Indy never was out of action" statement.

People didnt want an old or retired indy.

In fact most complains about his wedding go into that way of thinking.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Indy retired in the audience's minds very long ago.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indeed!

[Pieter Boelen 740]

And it really worked, i remember the cinema i went laughing their arses off.

True. And the prairie dogs and monkeys got big laughs too. Cheap works, it seems.

And I must admit it IS funny on a certain level. I just don't like it for the fact that it's cheap. Personally I like my humour a bit more sophisticated.

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

And it really worked, i remember the cinema i went laughing their arses off.

True. And the prairie dogs and monkeys got big laughs too. Cheap works, it seems.

And I must admit it IS funny on a certain level. I just don't like it for the fact that it's cheap. Personally I like my humour a bit more sophisticated.

Still, its not 'jar jar humor', that people didnt laugh at it.

[Ollie 1,059]

Sometimes, when the audience is laughing, it's not because the scene is funny.

[publicist 4,643]

Sometimes, when the audience is laughing, it's not because the scene is funny.

In certain areas, they'll laugh about anything...and in case of 'Indy IV', who can blame them after sitting half-comatose for half an hour without anything happening?

[Henry B 50]

And FYI, the original Indy films had bad dialouge, that is part of their charm.

Okay, I just don't get this bad = good thing. Did the original movies have silly, unrealistic dialogue? Sometimes, yes. I don't think this sort of dialogue is "bad" the way "Somewhere up there your grandpa is laughing" is bad, however.

"Indiana Jones....always knew some day you'd come walking back through my door. I never doubted it. Something made it inevitable."

Now honestly, would anybody actually say something like that? No, it's melodramatic and over the top. But it works in an Indy film, because of the style of the films. They're made to be fun to watch--anything else (subplots, character development, themes, etc.) are secondary priorities. That's why everything in Indy is over the top, also known as "cheesy." Can you imagine the scene if we get a dramatic shadow of Indy, Marion turns around, and says: "Hey, it's been a while!" It might serve the story better by being more realistic, but it will make the scene itself less interesting and more boring to watch. It's not just a bad=good blanket statment--what would be bad for some films is good for Indy films (at least in this aspect).

The reason the "Somewhere your grandpa is laughing" line is bad is because it's out of character. It transforms Indy from a daring adventurer into a chuckling old man.

You know, it's really a cop-out to justify all objectionable dialogue as "cheesy." There's a difference between lines that are silly and lines that make no sense and are out of character. Marion's line... I think you missed the sarcastic subtext of it. Remember what happens next? She slugs Indy in the face.

I'm not sure I follow that "Somewhere your grandpa is laughing" turns Indy into a chuckling old man. What's awful about it is that he's saying Sean Connery is up there (yes, a reference to heaven, ugh) laughing. Did Koepp even watch TLC? If he had he'd have known that it wasn't really in Connery's character to laugh about children born out of wedlock and abandoned by their fathers for years. It's as if he just thought, "hey, people thought Sean Connery's character was funny, let's put in a line about him laughing!" It recently occurred to me that this line actually referred to Abner, but it's unlikely given that it follows Indy calling his son "Junior."

Some other out of character stuff: "I like Ike" etc. Indy is such a patriot in this movie. It's odd given how reserved and impartial he was in the previous films (and he had a bad run-in with the government in Raiders). All of a sudden he's Joseph McCarthy the Adventurer. "After all those years we spent fighting the Reds..." Certainly you can say that he's just changed in the past eighteen years, but then the company he keeps doesn't suggest that. After all, Dean Stanforth is more than a little aware of communist paranoia. And how about 1947? He was clearly pretty bitter about being thrown in a bus and ordered to investigate the alien wreckage and all that. "Russians!" "I'm sorry, I meant drop dead, COMRADE." That's a preschooler's insult.

[Datameister 2,037]

I feel sorry for all of you who didn't enjoy the film as inexplicably much as I did.

[Delorean90 42]

Me too. As many flaws as there are, it's still an incredibly fun movie, and there are parts where they really nailed it.

I'm not sure I follow that "Somewhere your grandpa is laughing" turns Indy into a chuckling old man. What's awful about it is that he's saying Sean Connery is up there (yes, a reference to heaven, ugh) laughing.

Is there a problem with that?

Did Koepp even watch TLC? If he had he'd have known that it wasn't really in Connery's character to laugh about children born out of wedlock and abandoned by their fathers for years. It's as if he just thought, "hey, people thought Sean Connery's character was funny, let's put in a line about him laughing!" It recently occurred to me that this line actually referred to Abner, but it's unlikely given that it follows Indy calling his son "Junior."

I definitely agree that this scene deserved more depth and not just the jokey, "Hey, we're all cool now!" feel. I think the laughing remark was more referring to the irony of Indy having his own problems with his son, one of those "I hope you have a kid just like you one day!" kind of things, as opposed to the specifics of his problems. Even so, yeah, it's definitely shaky.

Some other out of character stuff: "I like Ike" etc. Indy is such a patriot in this movie. It's odd given how reserved and impartial he was in the previous films (and he had a bad run-in with the government in Raiders). All of a sudden he's Joseph McCarthy the Adventurer. "After all those years we spent fighting the Reds..." Certainly you can say that he's just changed in the past eighteen years, but then the company he keeps doesn't suggest that. After all, Dean Stanforth is more than a little aware of communist paranoia. And how about 1947? He was clearly pretty bitter about being thrown in a bus and ordered to investigate the alien wreckage and all that. "Russians!" "I'm sorry, I meant drop dead, COMRADE." That's a preschooler's insult.

I thought they were quite in character--they definitely fit the kind of attitude Indy would cop with his foes. And just because Indy's had problems with his government doesn't mean he doesn't love his country. His WWII experiences may have had something to do with the change, but I also can't really think of where they really had opportunity to go into the explicit statements like KOTCS has in any of the previous films. For one thing, WWII hadn't actually begun in the previous films, whereas the Cold War really was on at the time of KOTCS.

And I seem to recall someone saying, "Nazis. I hate these guys." I wonder who that was...

[Elmo Lewis 6]

And FYI, the original Indy films had bad dialouge, that is part of their charm.

Okay, I just don't get this bad = good thing. Did the original movies have silly, unrealistic dialogue? Sometimes, yes. I don't think this sort of dialogue is "bad" the way "Somewhere up there your grandpa is laughing" is bad, however.

"Indiana Jones....always knew some day you'd come walking back through my door. I never doubted it. Something made it inevitable."

Now honestly, would anybody actually say something like that? No, it's melodramatic and over the top. But it works in an Indy film, because of the style of the films. They're made to be fun to watch--anything else (subplots, character development, themes, etc.) are secondary priorities. That's why everything in Indy is over the top, also known as "cheesy." Can you imagine the scene if we get a dramatic shadow of Indy, Marion turns around, and says: "Hey, it's been a while!" It might serve the story better by being more realistic, but it will make the scene itself less interesting and more boring to watch. It's not just a bad=good blanket statment--what would be bad for some films is good for Indy films (at least in this aspect).

The reason the "Somewhere your grandpa is laughing" line is bad is because it's out of character. It transforms Indy from a daring adventurer into a chuckling old man.

You know, it's really a cop-out to justify all objectionable dialogue as "cheesy." There's a difference between lines that are silly and lines that make no sense and are out of character. Marion's line... I think you missed the sarcastic subtext of it. Remember what happens next? She slugs Indy in the face.

I'm not sure I follow that "Somewhere your grandpa is laughing" turns Indy into a chuckling old man. What's awful about it is that he's saying Sean Connery is up there (yes, a reference to heaven, ugh) laughing. Did Koepp even watch TLC? If he had he'd have known that it wasn't really in Connery's character to laugh about children born out of wedlock and abandoned by their fathers for years. It's as if he just thought, "hey, people thought Sean Connery's character was funny, let's put in a line about him laughing!" It recently occurred to me that this line actually referred to Abner, but it's unlikely given that it follows Indy calling his son "Junior."

Some other out of character stuff: "I like Ike" etc. Indy is such a patriot in this movie. It's odd given how reserved and impartial he was in the previous films (and he had a bad run-in with the government in Raiders). All of a sudden he's Joseph McCarthy the Adventurer. "After all those years we spent fighting the Reds..." Certainly you can say that he's just changed in the past eighteen years, but then the company he keeps doesn't suggest that. After all, Dean Stanforth is more than a little aware of communist paranoia. And how about 1947? He was clearly pretty bitter about being thrown in a bus and ordered to investigate the alien wreckage and all that. "Russians!" "I'm sorry, I meant drop dead, COMRADE." That's a preschooler's insult.

Surely you're not scrutinizing a movie you don't like way lot more than the people who like it. It would not be logical.

[indy4 155]

And FYI, the original Indy films had bad dialouge, that is part of their charm.

Okay, I just don't get this bad = good thing. Did the original movies have silly, unrealistic dialogue? Sometimes, yes. I don't think this sort of dialogue is "bad" the way "Somewhere up there your grandpa is laughing" is bad, however.

"Indiana Jones....always knew some day you'd come walking back through my door. I never doubted it. Something made it inevitable."

Now honestly, would anybody actually say something like that? No, it's melodramatic and over the top. But it works in an Indy film, because of the style of the films. They're made to be fun to watch--anything else (subplots, character development, themes, etc.) are secondary priorities. That's why everything in Indy is over the top, also known as "cheesy." Can you imagine the scene if we get a dramatic shadow of Indy, Marion turns around, and says: "Hey, it's been a while!" It might serve the story better by being more realistic, but it will make the scene itself less interesting and more boring to watch. It's not just a bad=good blanket statment--what would be bad for some films is good for Indy films (at least in this aspect).

The reason the "Somewhere your grandpa is laughing" line is bad is because it's out of character. It transforms Indy from a daring adventurer into a chuckling old man.

You know, it's really a cop-out to justify all objectionable dialogue as "cheesy." There's a difference between lines that are silly and lines that make no sense and are out of character. Marion's line... I think you missed the sarcastic subtext of it. Remember what happens next? She slugs Indy in the face.

Sarcastic subtext or not, nobody would actually say such a line. It's there to be over the top and to make the scene more interesting.

I'm not sure I follow that "Somewhere your grandpa is laughing" turns Indy into a chuckling old man. What's awful about it is that he's saying Sean Connery is up there (yes, a reference to heaven, ugh) laughing. Did Koepp even watch TLC? If he had he'd have known that it wasn't really in Connery's character to laugh about children born out of wedlock and abandoned by their fathers for years. It's as if he just thought, "hey, people thought Sean Connery's character was funny, let's put in a line about him laughing!" It recently occurred to me that this line actually referred to Abner, but it's unlikely given that it follows Indy calling his son "Junior."

This is another reason why the line is bad, but I still say it feels out of character. Still, it's a two second line on a scene that's otherwise fine. There aren't many other dialouge blunders like this one in KotCS.

Some other out of character stuff: "I like Ike" etc. Indy is such a patriot in this movie. It's odd given how reserved and impartial he was in the previous films (and he had a bad run-in with the government in Raiders). All of a sudden he's Joseph McCarthy the Adventurer. "After all those years we spent fighting the Reds..." Certainly you can say that he's just changed in the past eighteen years, but then the company he keeps doesn't suggest that. After all, Dean Stanforth is more than a little aware of communist paranoia. And how about 1947? He was clearly pretty bitter about being thrown in a bus and ordered to investigate the alien wreckage and all that. "Russians!" "I'm sorry, I meant drop dead, COMRADE." That's a preschooler's insult.

Indy is generally on the side of justice, and it just happens that the US government is often fighting for that same thing. He's had some bad run-ins with them in the past, but he can still recognize when they're on the good side. As for all the fighting Reds, he fought Nazis at least twice in his lifetime. Not quite sure how that insult is bad in anyway, it works fine for me.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Like the film though I do, I cannot defend "Drop dead, comrade". I suppose if someone wants to really get into another two-page long debate about two seconds of a film, one could say that Indiana Jones was very tired from the undoubtedly-tiring car ride to Area 51. And by the way, I was very disappointed when I learned that they did not really film the Nevada sequence in Nevada....

[Charlie Brigden 7]

'Drop dead, comrade' was indeed terrible, but I am a big fan of 'well, the way you're sinking your teeth into those wubble-yous...'

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

"After all those years we spent fighting the Reds..."

I didn't particularly like that line. It was just an awkward bit of exposition for the benefit of the audience.

[Delorean90 42]

Really? "After all those years we spent spying on the Reds...I thought we were friends, Mac."

Makes good sense to me.

[Henry B 50]

Is there a problem with that?

It's just corny. The person looking up and saying "Somewhere up there..." gag has been done to death.

Did Koepp even watch TLC? If he had he'd have known that it wasn't really in Connery's character to laugh about children born out of wedlock and abandoned by their fathers for years. It's as if he just thought, "hey, people thought Sean Connery's character was funny, let's put in a line about him laughing!" It recently occurred to me that this line actually referred to Abner, but it's unlikely given that it follows Indy calling his son "Junior."

I definitely agree that this scene deserved more depth and not just the jokey, "Hey, we're all cool now!" feel. I think the laughing remark was more referring to the irony of Indy having his own problems with his son, one of those "I hope you have a kid just like you one day!" kind of things, as opposed to the specifics of his problems. Even so, yeah, it's definitely shaky.

More depth indeed. This isn't just a moment I can gloss over, given that family is pretty much the theme of the film. And I've got to be honest; it's a real disappointment that Connery didn't return for the film. He would have functioned so much better than Dean Stanforth (a character who, like Mac, we're supposed to care for within seconds). Given that Connery refused to participate, I feel the references to him should have been toned down or removed entirely. At the very least, there shouldn't have been a big close up shot of his portrait. Jeez!

I thought they were quite in character--they definitely fit the kind of attitude Indy would cop with his foes. And just because Indy's had problems with his government doesn't mean he doesn't love his country. His WWII experiences may have had something to do with the change, but I also can't really think of where they really had opportunity to go into the explicit statements like KOTCS has in any of the previous films. For one thing, WWII hadn't actually begun in the previous films, whereas the Cold War really was on at the time of KOTCS.

Indy would have fought alongside the Soviets in World War II, not against them. Wasn't he in Berlin? I'm certainly not questioning that Indy loves his country, but there's a difference between patriotism and nationalism.

And I seem to recall someone saying, "Nazis. I hate these guys." I wonder who that was...

Not even comparable! Indy spent all of Raiders trying not to get killed by Nazis; of course he hates them. Besides, the Nazis were... evil. They were indisputably war criminals. The Soviets obviously had their share of brutality as well, but history does not paint them in such black and white terms. In fact, the movie beats us on the head with Cold War paranoia, yet it basically depicts Russians as evil (yes, Russians, not Soviets - it's no wonder this film stirred up some controversy over there). It's kind of a discrepancy. You could argue that Indy was just pissed that he'd been captured and taken to New Mexico, but then he spent all those years spying on the Reds. Indy is as jingoistic as they come. Of course, it's hard to make any conclusions about this subplot because it's just completely forgotten once Indy leaves America.

Surely you're not scrutinizing a movie you don't like way lot more than the people who like it. It would not be logical.

It is most logical. Everybody's a fanboy but me.

Sarcastic subtext or not, nobody would actually say such a line. It's there to be over the top and to make the scene more interesting.

That's debatable that nobody would ever say that (remember this movie takes place 70 years ago), but again, I'm not arguing that Indy dialogue should be realistic. It should, however, stick to its own rules, keep characters consistent and be witty. I find a lot of the dialogue in KOTCS fails in this respect.

Indy is generally on the side of justice, and it just happens that the US government is often fighting for that same thing. He's had some bad run-ins with them in the past, but he can still recognize when they're on the good side. As for all the fighting Reds, he fought Nazis at least twice in his lifetime. Not quite sure how that insult is bad in anyway, it works fine for me.

It's an insult in the vein of "I'm rubber and you're glue." It's not even that Indy says "comrade," it's that he says "I'm sorry, I meant..." It's so clumsy! I remember talking like that when I was ten years old. It's the most infantile sort of sarcasm. I was actually fine with "Drop dead" and Dovchenko's punch. The following line should have just been cut.

Really? "After all those years we spent spying on the Reds...I thought we were friends, Mac."

Makes good sense to me.

It makes sense, but it's lame that a character's back story is developed with just a couple lines spoken to the tune of mourning music. It's hard to care about Mac's betrayal when he's only been on screen for a couple minutes. Like Raiders, this film opens in the middle of an adventure. But were we asked to care about Satipo when he died? Of course not.

'Drop dead, comrade' was indeed terrible, but I am a big fan of 'well, the way you're sinking your teeth into those wubble-yous...'

Yeah. It's incredible how hit or miss Koepp is. There's a very nice line here and there - I like Marion's "damn good, really good life," I like "Abner's little girl," I like Spalko's dialogue at the campsite (e.g. the reference to Oppenheimer) - but most of the dialogue ranges from functional to terrible. The script is such a patchwork; Lucas, Darabont, Nathanson and Koepp all had input into it.

[Quintus 5,399]

The wubble-yous line makes me cringe. Can't stand it.

[Ollie 1,059]

As soon as Ford started speaking I cringed.

[indy4 155]

More depth indeed. This isn't just a moment I can gloss over, given that family is pretty much the theme of the film. And I've got to be honest; it's a real disappointment that Connery didn't return for the film. He would have functioned so much better than Dean Stanforth (a character who, like Mac, we're supposed to care for within seconds). Given that Connery refused to participate, I feel the references to him should have been toned down or removed entirely. At the very least, there shouldn't have been a big close up shot of his portrait. Jeez!

Why? Connery represents the loss that Indy had had to endure over the years, he represents everything that "life has taken."

Indy would have fought alongside the Soviets in World War II, not against them. Wasn't he in Berlin? I'm certainly not questioning that Indy loves his country, but there's a difference between patriotism and nationalism.

That's like saying that since the US and the Soviets were both against Hitler, the US must have been pro-communist. He's fighting for the principals, not for a certain country. It just happens that Indy's priorities and the US' priorities overlap an awful lot.

Not even comparable! Indy spent all of Raiders trying not to get killed by Nazis; of course he hates them. Besides, the Nazis were... evil. They were indisputably war criminals. The Soviets obviously had their share of brutality as well, but history does not paint them in such black and white terms. In fact, the movie beats us on the head with Cold War paranoia, yet it basically depicts Russians as evil (yes, Russians, not Soviets - it's no wonder this film stirred up some controversy over there). It's kind of a discrepancy. You could argue that Indy was just pissed that he'd been captured and taken to New Mexico, but then he spent all those years spying on the Reds. Indy is as jingoistic as they come. Of course, it's hard to make any conclusions about this subplot because it's just completely forgotten once Indy leaves America.

I believe I read a statistic that said that Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. Besides, Indy hates the Nazis since their first mention in Raiders. I'm sure this was only encouraged by all the hurt they did to him later in the film, but their principals and his contradict majorly. That's why he hates them. The fact that they've tried to kill him in just the icing on the cake.

Sarcastic subtext or not, nobody would actually say such a line. It's there to be over the top and to make the scene more interesting.

That's debatable that nobody would ever say that (remember this movie takes place 70 years ago), but again, I'm not arguing that Indy dialogue should be realistic. It should, however, stick to its own rules, keep characters consistent and be witty. I find a lot of the dialogue in KOTCS fails in this respect.

Well the only major failure in terms of dialouge was the "grandpa's laughing" line, IMO. No other lines are that bad for me.

Indy is generally on the side of justice, and it just happens that the US government is often fighting for that same thing. He's had some bad run-ins with them in the past, but he can still recognize when they're on the good side. As for all the fighting Reds, he fought Nazis at least twice in his lifetime. Not quite sure how that insult is bad in anyway, it works fine for me.

It's an insult in the vein of "I'm rubber and you're glue." It's not even that Indy says "comrade," it's that he says "I'm sorry, I meant..." It's so clumsy! I remember talking like that when I was ten years old. It's the most infantile sort of sarcasm. I was actually fine with "Drop dead" and Dovchenko's punch. The following line should have just been cut.

I like how he uses the term "Comrade" as an insult, as though it's obviously an embarrasing thing to me. I still don't quite understand your annoyance with "I'm sorry, I meant..."

Really? "After all those years we spent spying on the Reds...I thought we were friends, Mac."

Makes good sense to me.

It makes sense, but it's lame that a character's back story is developed with just a couple lines spoken to the tune of mourning music. It's hard to care about Mac's betrayal when he's only been on screen for a couple minutes. Like Raiders, this film opens in the middle of an adventure. But were we asked to care about Satipo when he died? Of course not.

I don't feel like they were trying to emotionally suck us in at this part. I just think it makes sense that Indy would be upset to find that his close friend was turning on him. If nothing else, it serves the main theme of the film.

[Henry B 50]

More depth indeed. This isn't just a moment I can gloss over, given that family is pretty much the theme of the film. And I've got to be honest; it's a real disappointment that Connery didn't return for the film. He would have functioned so much better than Dean Stanforth (a character who, like Mac, we're supposed to care for within seconds). Given that Connery refused to participate, I feel the references to him should have been toned down or removed entirely. At the very least, there shouldn't have been a big close up shot of his portrait. Jeez!

Why? Connery represents the loss that Indy had had to endure over the years, he represents everything that "life has taken."

Yeah, this angle works, but it's poorly illustrated. Cut the portrait of Connery. Cut Indy's stupid line about him at the end. Cut the sappy music with the (misused) reprise of the Grail theme. Actually, this could have been really poignant - think "less is more." Indy could have said "first Marcus, then Dad" and just sort of left it hanging. The lack of portraits and music would only accentuate Indy's loneliness. He could still call his son "Junior" at the end as a final nod to his father, but without following it up with "Somewhere up there..."

Indy would have fought alongside the Soviets in World War II, not against them. Wasn't he in Berlin? I'm certainly not questioning that Indy loves his country, but there's a difference between patriotism and nationalism.

That's like saying that since the US and the Soviets were both against Hitler, the US must have been pro-communist. He's fighting for the principals, not for a certain country. It just happens that Indy's priorities and the US' priorities overlap an awful lot.

Okay - but let's remember that the U.S. silenced dissenters, propped up dictators abroad and generally just muscled smaller nations to expand its sphere of influence. Indy is a learned man and I find it hard to believe that he would take such a one-sided view on this. Am I saying that the film should have been a history lesson? No, but it brought it upon itself with all the Red Scare stuff. You know, it seems everyone expected the Soviets to be the villains because of the film's time period. May I stop and ask why? Why does one man always have to go up against the mightiest army in the world? I have this same problem with TLC, of course. Again, I'm going to defer to Darabont's script, which presents a motley assortment of bad guys and emphasizes their character, not their ideology. During Indy's interrogation scene Indy displays a mature, nuanced attitude toward world events that I feel is more in line with his character (the FBI interrogator, however, is ridiculous and should have been rewritten). It also develops the nuclear bomb theme. In KOTCS it's just another obstacle for Indy. Spalko mentions Oppenheimer later, but that's it. In Darabont's script the final scene with the UFO is in fact a nuclear explosion. It ties the whole film together, relating the nuclear arms race to the film's artifact (be careful what you wish for). In KOTCS the political subplot is nothing but an excuse to get Indy out of America.

Not even comparable! Indy spent all of Raiders trying not to get killed by Nazis; of course he hates them. Besides, the Nazis were... evil. They were indisputably war criminals. The Soviets obviously had their share of brutality as well, but history does not paint them in such black and white terms. In fact, the movie beats us on the head with Cold War paranoia, yet it basically depicts Russians as evil (yes, Russians, not Soviets - it's no wonder this film stirred up some controversy over there). It's kind of a discrepancy. You could argue that Indy was just pissed that he'd been captured and taken to New Mexico, but then he spent all those years spying on the Reds. Indy is as jingoistic as they come. Of course, it's hard to make any conclusions about this subplot because it's just completely forgotten once Indy leaves America.

I believe I read a statistic that said that Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. Besides, Indy hates the Nazis since their first mention in Raiders. I'm sure this was only encouraged by all the hurt they did to him later in the film, but their principals and his contradict majorly. That's why he hates them. The fact that they've tried to kill him in just the icing on the cake.

Yeah, Stalin did kill more people than Hitler did, but he died in 1953. Krushchev, while undoubtedly controversial, took Russia in a somewhat different direction. Certainly Indy takes issue with the Soviets' principles. Why, however, he does not see the same problems with America is a mystery. We see his disillusionment at the end of Raiders - the FBI, like the Nazis, are overconfident and unaware of the power they are tapping. KOTCS basically reprises this theme with the nuclear bomb, but it fails to follow through (Darabont's script does).

It makes sense, but it's lame that a character's back story is developed with just a couple lines spoken to the tune of mourning music. It's hard to care about Mac's betrayal when he's only been on screen for a couple minutes. Like Raiders, this film opens in the middle of an adventure. But were we asked to care about Satipo when he died? Of course not.

I don't feel like they were trying to emotionally suck us in at this part. I just think it makes sense that Indy would be upset to find that his close friend was turning on him. If nothing else, it serves the main theme of the film.

It's just quick and forced. Mac could have betrayed Indy at a much later point in the film and it would have really hit us in the gut.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

It's just quick and forced. Mac could have betrayed Indy at a much later point in the film and it would have really hit us in the gut.

Right. Imagine if it was Sallah or someone we knew. Instead it was a brand new character that's introduced through a bunch of really awkward lines of expository dialogue. Did Indy really need to remind Mac they'd spent years spying on the Reds or whatever? Probably not, but the audience had no idea about those events prior.

[Ollie 1,059]

When we went down a similar role in LC with Elsa at least she was allowed some screen time to build the audience's faith in her before she revealed herself as a traitor.

And we didn't have the no I'm bad, no I'm good, wait I'm bad, hold on I'm good, nope I'm bad but I'll try and work some dignity with Indy to make the audience feel bad about my death.

[Delorean90 42]

It's just quick and forced. Mac could have betrayed Indy at a much later point in the film and it would have really hit us in the gut.

Right. Imagine if it was Sallah or someone we knew. Instead it was a brand new character that's introduced through a bunch of really awkward lines of expository dialogue. Did Indy really need to remind Mac they'd spent years spying on the Reds or whatever? Probably not, but the audience had no idea about those events prior.

Oh, for crying out loud. It's a natural thing to say. The "After all those years" part leads into the "I thought we were friends" line, but it's also like an expression of indignation: he can't believe this is happening. People say stuff like that.

Wu Han had less dialogue than Mac when he died, and we got a big spiel about "I've followed you on many adventures...", with weepy music and everything! And yet...no one complains about that either...

[indy4 155]

Why? Connery represents the loss that Indy had had to endure over the years, he represents everything that "life has taken."

Yeah, this angle works, but it's poorly illustrated. Cut the portrait of Connery. Cut Indy's stupid line about him at the end. Cut the sappy music with the (misused) reprise of the Grail theme. Actually, this could have been really poignant - think "less is more." Indy could have said "first Marcus, then Dad" and just sort of left it hanging. The lack of portraits and music would only accentuate Indy's loneliness. He could still call his son "Junior" at the end as a final nod to his father, but without following it up with "Somewhere up there..."

So you say that it is poorly illustrated, and in order to be better illustrated, it should be more subtle? What about LC, where a great part of the film is dedicated to underlining Indy's failing relationship with his father? That's pretty in your face and obvious, more so than the thematic material of KotCS. If, as you propose, the only mention of Connery would be Indy briefly stating that he's dead and then him calling his son Junior, the theme would be underdeveloped. It would have been seen as more of an excuse as to why Connery wasn't in this film, and then a nice little reference/parallel to Indy and Henry's relationship, not as as full fledged theme.

Indy would have fought alongside the Soviets in World War II, not against them. Wasn't he in Berlin? I'm certainly not questioning that Indy loves his country, but there's a difference between patriotism and nationalism.

That's like saying that since the US and the Soviets were both against Hitler, the US must have been pro-communist. He's fighting for the principals, not for a certain country. It just happens that Indy's priorities and the US' priorities overlap an awful lot.

Okay - but let's remember that the U.S. silenced dissenters, propped up dictators abroad and generally just muscled smaller nations to expand its sphere of influence. Indy is a learned man and I find it hard to believe that he would take such a one-sided view on this.

But that's the thing--he isn't working for America, he's working for the principals of justice, freedom, etc. Yes, the US did some bad stuff that I'm sure Indy was aware of--but should he stop fighting for what he believes in just because there was a country guilty of some bad crimes that is fighting for the same thing? He isn't blindly going out to defend America, he is taking on missions that help eradicate principals he dislikes, such as Communism.

Am I saying that the film should have been a history lesson? No, but it brought it upon itself with all the Red Scare stuff. You know, it seems everyone expected the Soviets to be the villains because of the film's time period. May I stop and ask why? Why does one man always have to go up against the mightiest army in the world? I have this same problem with TLC, of course.

And Raiders, I assume. And to answer your question, no it doesn't. It doesn't matter who the villains of an Indy film is, what matters is that they want an artifact which will grant them more power and allow them to do bad things. Whether those things are continuing exterminations of Jewish people, enslaving children, or inflicting anti-Capitalistic ideas, it doesn't matter. As long as they're a threat to good in the world, they are eligable to be used. So yes, I don't care who Indy's villains are (at least in terms of what bad things they want to do with their power). It could have been a minor cult like in ToD, it could have been (and was) a well known power, both would have worked.

It also develops the nuclear bomb theme. In KOTCS it's just another obstacle for Indy. Spalko mentions Oppenheimer later, but that's it. In Darabont's script the final scene with the UFO is in fact a nuclear explosion. It ties the whole film together, relating the nuclear arms race to the film's artifact (be careful what you wish for). In KOTCS the political subplot is nothing but an excuse to get Indy out of America.

Since when do all of Indy's obstacles have to be motifs referenced throughout the film? What reference was there to the boulder in Raiders? Or the Chinese mob in ToD? Or the train chase in LC?

Not even comparable! Indy spent all of Raiders trying not to get killed by Nazis; of course he hates them. Besides, the Nazis were... evil. They were indisputably war criminals. The Soviets obviously had their share of brutality as well, but history does not paint them in such black and white terms. In fact, the movie beats us on the head with Cold War paranoia, yet it basically depicts Russians as evil (yes, Russians, not Soviets - it's no wonder this film stirred up some controversy over there). It's kind of a discrepancy. You could argue that Indy was just pissed that he'd been captured and taken to New Mexico, but then he spent all those years spying on the Reds. Indy is as jingoistic as they come. Of course, it's hard to make any conclusions about this subplot because it's just completely forgotten once Indy leaves America.

I believe I read a statistic that said that Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. Besides, Indy hates the Nazis since their first mention in Raiders. I'm sure this was only encouraged by all the hurt they did to him later in the film, but their principals and his contradict majorly. That's why he hates them. The fact that they've tried to kill him in just the icing on the cake.

Yeah, Stalin did kill more people than Hitler did, but he died in 1953. Krushchev, while undoubtedly controversial, took Russia in a somewhat different direction. Certainly Indy takes issue with the Soviets' principles. Why, however, he does not see the same problems with America is a mystery. We see his disillusionment at the end of Raiders - the FBI, like the Nazis, are overconfident and unaware of the power they are tapping. KOTCS basically reprises this theme with the nuclear bomb, but it fails to follow through (Darabont's script does).

I understand that America had and has its flaws and (big) problems, but are you honestly comparing it to a Communist Russia? It was never at that stage of oppressing freedom.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Wu Han wasn't a major character. He barely even factors into the movie.

[Ollie 1,059]

Plus that scene in TOD had already built some pretty good tension.

[indy4 155]

Plus that scene in TOD had already built some pretty good tension.

And the warehouse scene didn't?

Right from the start, we're taken on a rollercoaster of emotions. Indy enters, instead of smoothly walking down a staircase or out of the shadows, from the bottom of a car trunk, looking beaten and tired. Tension is lightened a bit with the joking that Indy and Mac do, then we enter the warehouse, which we find to be the one the Ark was in! And the whole time we're wondering...is it the Ark they're after, or something else? What do they want? We realize it can't be the Ark because of the gunpowder thing, Indy never knew about that, so our curiosity is peaked. The whole time we're wondering how the hell Indy's gonna get out of this one, and there's that brilliant shot of Indy's eyes staring a a soldier's gun, only to look up just in time. Then boom! He's got the gun in his hands, and for a second we're relieved. Okay, it's going to be good. And then, for no apparent reason, the soldiers raise their guns once more! We're wondering how could this have happened, and we get that great shot of Indy with his gun pointed, camera moves around to reveal Mac with his gun aimed at Indy. If that's not tension...

[Delorean90 42]

Wu Han wasn't a major character. He barely even factors into the movie.

Plus that scene in TOD had already built some pretty good tension.

Great, but that doesn't change the fact that KOTCS is accused of trying to make you care about this character early in the film under similar circumstances. And I would argue that no, it's not trying to make you care about Mac right now, if anything it's trying to make you care about Indy. In both cases, Indy lost a friend in one way or another, in both cases its early in the film, with expository dialogue and not much substantial setup for the friends..

[Nick Parker 3,040]

I am wondering how much time you spend on analyzing every frame of this film, indy4.

[Ollie 1,059]

No, there is no tension.

I'm not a big fan of introducing the main villian and hero right at the begining of a film, when you have already announced to the entire world who the villians are, because it ruins the buildup to a final confrontation.

[Delorean90 42]

Introducing the main villain and hero right at the beginning of the film...like Raiders of the Lost Ark?

[indy4 155]

No, there is no tension.

I'm not a big fan of introducing the main villian and hero right at the begining of a film, when you have already announced to the entire world who the villians are, because it ruins the buildup to a final confrontation.

What? That has nothing to do with tension in the opening scene by itself. Because this is the first scene we're talking about, we cannot allow anything that happens after the opening scene to factor into our decision of what makes tension because in the way one would watch the scene, none of this would be a factor since it's the first scene they're watching. In ToD, the villains of that scene is Lao and friends. There is no buildup to his meeting, unless you count the shot of Indy waking forward. But it takes more time/tension building to reveal Irina than it does Lao. So really, in the aspect of revealing the villain of the scene, the warehouse has more tension than Club Obi-Wan.

You could argue that there is more of a buildup to the meeting with Mola Ram, but this shouldn't have any affect on the tension in the Club Obi-Wan scene.

[Ollie 1,059]

Introducing the main villain and hero right at the beginning of the film...like Raiders of the Lost Ark?

At the begining of Raiders we didn't know who Belloq was or if he would even return. I doubt anyone even knew who Paul Freeman was.

[indy4 155]

Not if you saw the trailers...

It's distracting and dissapointing.

The first big fanfaric statement of Raiders March is a re-use.

I don't really mind that the first statement is a reuse (though I would have preferred an original variation), I just don't think it really fits with the onscreen action.

[Ollie 1,059]

The original trailer to Raiders gives away nothing about Belloq.

[indy4 155]

The teaser trailer(and the theatrical trailer, for that matter) does.

[Ollie 1,059]

It shows him talking to Indy and riding in a car. Nothing in the trailer says I'm siding with the Nazis and a bad guy.

[indy4 155]

It still reveals him as being integral in the plot of the film. There is no tension leading up to his reveal, because the audiences are expecting to see him again. Not to mention the fact that the first time we hear that Belloq is with the Nazis in the film is when Indy is sitting casually in Cairo with Sallah.

[Henry B 50]

Trailers always spoil films. Let's not let them color our opinions of the films themselves. And I'm sorry, but I'm just through with arguing. This always happens. You can prove anything with logic. If I say that Mac is introduced and revealed as a traitor all too quickly without suspense, you can say that there was in fact suspense. How can you define suspense? It's very much a personal reaction to the film. If I say that the closeup shot of Sean Connery's photo with warm music is corny, you can say it's a sad, touching moment. How exactly do I dispute that? Every viewer has a different reaction.

I'm going to take a page out of Pauline Kael's book and go with my gut feelings. Sorry, but I just don't like this film. We're simply not going to persuade each other because what I consider good, you consider bad; what you consider bad, I consider good. There's really no factual way to approach this. You can justify anything. If I ask why Indy describes Spalko and asks who she is during the interrogation, despite her having personally introduced herself in the preceding scene, you can just say, "well, maybe the fridge knocked him in the head and he lost some short term memory." Is that possible? Very! (Although surviving the nuclear blast is not.) There's no way for me to prove that this dialogue is "wrong" because it is indeed possible that he lost his short term memory. Can I argue that this sort of flimsy explanation doesn't serve the film well? Not really, I just feel that way...

Similarly, if I ask why the communist paranoia subplot was completely left hanging, with Indy being inexplicably reinstated at his college, you can say that it was all resolved offscreen; say the FBI investigated Akator and found convincing evidence Indy was fighting the Soviets. Is this assumption logical? Yes, but does it make for a good film? How about Indy and Marion? I guess all that reconnecting was done offscreen. Obviously time passed between Akator and the wedding, so you could logically reason that it took them time to come to terms with each other. Aesthetics are important to film as logic, though. In that respect I find it a miserable failure.

[indy4 155]

Yes it's about personal taste, but if the fact that people have different opinions about something will make you stop arguing about those things...then is there a point of being an active member of this website? Other than gaining occasional info about stuff or joking around occasionally, we are only on this site so we can say how good/how bad a product/piece of work or its creator is.

[Delorean90 42]

Trailers always spoil films. Let's not let them color our opinions of the films themselves. And I'm sorry, but I'm just through with arguing. This always happens. You can prove anything with logic. If I say that Mac is introduced and revealed as a traitor all too quickly without suspense, you can say that there was in fact suspense. How can you define suspense? It's very much a personal reaction to the film. If I say that the closeup shot of Sean Connery's photo with warm music is corny, you can say it's a sad, touching moment. How exactly do I dispute that? Every viewer has a different reaction.

I'm going to take a page out of Pauline Kael's book and go with my gut feelings. Sorry, but I just don't like this film. We're simply not going to persuade each other because what I consider good, you consider bad; what you consider bad, I consider good. There's really no factual way to approach this. You can justify anything. If I ask why Indy describes Spalko and asks who she is during the interrogation, despite her having personally introduced herself in the preceding scene, you can just say, "well, maybe the fridge knocked him in the head and he lost some short term memory." Is that possible? Very! (Although surviving the nuclear blast is not.) There's no way for me to prove that this dialogue is "wrong" because it is indeed possible that he lost his short term memory. Can I argue that this sort of flimsy explanation doesn't serve the film well? Not really, I just feel that way...

Similarly, if I ask why the communist paranoia subplot was completely left hanging, with Indy being inexplicably reinstated at his college, you can say that it was all resolved offscreen; say the FBI investigated Akator and found convincing evidence Indy was fighting the Soviets. Is this assumption logical? Yes, but does it make for a good film? How about Indy and Marion? I guess all that reconnecting was done offscreen. Obviously time passed between Akator and the wedding, so you could logically reason that it took them time to come to terms with each other. Aesthetics are important to film as logic, though. In that respect I find it a miserable failure.

Actually, Henry, I do agree with the vast majority of your complaints. The final film has real flaws, ones that, given the basic structure of the story, seem like they have fairly obvious solutions. The family element of the story could have and should have been handled with more depth--and that could have easily fed into the tension side of things, and vice versa. Mac's character should have been better handled. The groin joke was too much, and beyond the first one, I really could have done without the prairie dogs. The waterfall scene could have had the same concept, but been handled better. The flaws are not inherent in the story, there were simply execution problems.

But the thing is, with all of that, there are still a lot of good things in it, and despite knowing every single thing that bugged me about it, I can't help but enjoy myself throughout the film. And I think that's the biggest place where we differ: how much the bad overshadows the good, or doesn't overshadow the good. I, for one, really enjoy it--a lot. Is it the least of the Indiana Jones films? Absolutely. But you know what? One of them has to be in fourth place, and this fourth place stands way above the majority of the current summer fare, IMO.

[Datameister 2,037]

Is it the least of the Indiana Jones films? Absolutely.

Someone needs to watch TOD again.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Yes, you do, if only to realize it's the best of the series.

[Quintus 5,399]

It's amazing how people will argue this thing to death, seemingly never tiring of the futile pursuit it so clearly is.

The only truth in it all is that both the lovers and the haters of Indy IV are matched equally when it comes to their level of passion when loving/hating it.

[A24 4,326]

Let the level of the discussion speak for itself!

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

Sean Connery is up there (yes, a reference to heaven, ugh) laughing. Did Koepp even watch TLC?

And you? Did you even saw raiders? God exists on the indy universe

j/k i know you explained it two posts later.

[Datameister 2,037]

Yes, you do, if only to realize it's the best of the series.

Wait...did you honestly just claim that TOD is the best Indiana Jones movie? Seriously?

::laments the fate of the world, jumps off a cliff::

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Hooray!

[Ollie 1,059]

TOD is the best film that features Indiana Jones in the title.

Raiders is the best film that features Indiana Jones as a character in it.