The OFFICIAL Indy IV Thread

[JoeinAR 1,949]

despite what most think I do like the Last Crusade, but I recognise it for what it is, the least of the three, but it does have moments, Im especially fond of the Knight of the crusade sequence, and the line he chose poorly. The banter between Indy and the elder Dr. Jones is mostly good, and I do like the one corny bit about the tapestries.

Despite the reports of the tone, this film most likely won't suffer from the laziness exhibited in Last Crusade. Spielberg wasn't going through the motions this time, having to capture a style he's abandoned will mean that Skulls won't have some of those problems. Will Cate Blanchet be an adequate villian, it will help, as the villians in Raiders and Temple were worthy advesaries of Indiana, while he had none in LC. I can only imagine how spunky Marion will be, she's aged well.

[Romão 2,274]

Yeah, Joe, I really can't wait to see Blanchett in this movie.

[Hellgi 0]

Ach! I wish he was bringing the nazis back. I just loved the music JW wrote for them.

Tom, tommm, tommmmmmm, tom-tom, tom-tom-tom- TOM TOM TOM... tom TOM TOM TOM!"

Anybody knows what I'm talking about?

H.

[Romão 2,274]

If you are tlaking about the Nazi theme in TLC, I totally agree. It's such a great theme

[tpigeon 3]

Toht's arrival at Marion's bar in Nepal?

Ted

[Quintus 5,399]

Yes, the other day I was thinking about the importance of Blanchett making her mark as an Indy villain in this. Sure the the third film's baddies were no match for the awesome villains and henchmen of the first two films, but the nazi in Crusade is actually a lot of fun. So he's not scary, so what? He has at least one immortal line and it involves the words goodbye and Germany. The bloke who played him made his mark - job done. Donovan was a twist, so he doesn't count, but even he had a certain charisma and I enjoyed his character very much.

Cate Blanchett has a lot to live up to and I can only hope the script gives her plenty to get her teeth into. If it requires her to camp it up, then so be it, I'm happy with that as long as she at least captures the sexiness of Elsa and the cool wit of Belloq. Who knows, maybe she'll deliver the whole package, indeed maybe she will also portray the downright scary sadism of a henchman like Toht, she certainly looks the part. Here's hoping.

Oh and it really is refreshing and actually quite nice to see Joe talking quite bloody reasonably about this latest update. Joe, I hope you enjoy the film as much as I'm sure you want to.

[Ollie 1,059]

Which was re-worked for the Trade Federation March in TPM, NOT the "Belly Of The Steel Beast" cue some people claim.

Anyhoo the reason why LC gets low marks is because it has that "been there done that" feeling to it.

At the time of the film's release several critics, while giving the film good reviews, mentioned that it seemed like Spielberg went to the well one too many times, which was one of the same complaints ROTJ had from critics, with second Death Star appearing.

The ideas had been done much better in Raiders.

I agree with Joe, there are some nice moments in LC but the film does have some sloppy work.

Well, Last Crusade is pretty good. It's just not great. Moments like these drag it down:

INDY: Call Donovan, Marcus. Tell him I'll take that ticket to Venice now.

BRODY: I'll tell him we'll take two.

*dramatic music swells*

That's another problem I have, in Raiders one gets the sense that Marcus is an older version of Indy.

In LC he starts off as a serious character and then turns into a total buffoon.

[Quintus 5,399]

A lovable buffoon.

Henry! Indy! I know the way! Haaaaaaa!

What's not to like.

[Hellgi 0]

If you are tlaking about the Nazi theme in TLC, I totally agree. It's such a great theme

Wasn't it also in Raiders? Maybe I'm wrong... I thought so.

[Beowulf 4]

Ach! I wish he was bringing the nazis back. I just loved the music JW wrote for them.

Tom, tommm, tommmmmmm, tom-tom, tom-tom-tom- TOM TOM TOM... tom TOM TOM TOM!"

Anybody knows what I'm talking about?

H.

I know what you're talking about

On the plus side with KOTCS though, it looks like we may have a full-blown Soviet theme for this one, something i've been wanting to hear from Williams for a LOOOOOONG time. Personally I hope he mixes up some powerful brass scoring (think Shostakovich) with some subtle Russian Choir motifs.

mmmmmm......Williams-style soviet music

[Henry B 50]

A lovable buffoon.

Henry! Indy! I know the way! Haaaaaaa!

What's not to like.

No, his antics are about as funny as toilet humor to me.

It just makes no sense. As Mark said, Brody was once a serious character.

[tpigeon 3]

I think the Nazi march in the Last Crusade was exclusive to that film, of course until it was used in The Phantom Menace. I do not believe it was in Raiders. I'm not sure if the nazis had a specific theme in Raiders; just several motifs, such as the brilliant moment when Toht opens the door to Marion's bar. Great 40's writing.

The nazi theme in LC actually rather well sums up the problems with the film. It's overly cartoony. The beauty of Raiders is that it played up the camp, but also maintained a deadly serious tone about itself. There are moments of such sweeping mystical effect in Raiders, such as the scene with the old man, the map, the uncovering of the ark. In LC, that element is totally non-existent, at least until the end. But at that point, it's so false. There' some nice intrigue at the beginning, during the exposition scenes. But overall, the film is a buddy comedy with some action, and very cartoony, non-threatening villains. The tank chase rekindles some of that threatening action, where you feel something is truly at stake, but other than that the film seems a bit lazy.

Ted

[Henry B 50]

That's right.

[Quintus 5,399]

As Mark said, Brody was once a serious character.

Blah blah blah, change the flipping record. You almost lament the change of his character like its the passing of JW himself! Get over it, move on. Like it or loath it, Marcus Brody is remembered as a comical sidekick, so what? "But they ruined his serious minded nature!!!!". Yawn.

Oh and toilet humour will always be timeless. Get used to that too. I love jokes about arses and farts, but I'm also very intelligent. How crazy is that?!

[Henry B 50]

As Mark said, Brody was once a serious character.

Blah blah blah, change the flipping record. You almost lament the change of his character like its the passing of JW himself! Get over it, move on. Like it or loath it, Marcus Brody is remembered as a comical sidekick, so what? "But they ruined his serious minded nature!!!!". Yawn.

Besides completely misrepresenting my remark (it was a simple statement of criticism, not a child's tantrum), your response could be applied to just about anything.

"Jar Jar Binks is an unfunny and annoying character."

"Blah blah blah, get over it!"

"Transformers substitutes mindless action for storytelling."

"Blah blah blah, get over it!"

"Sweeney Todd was clearly cast with popularity, not talent, in mind."

"Blah blah blah, get over it!"

[Quintus 5,399]

Generalisation is always a very simple thing to do, although it doesn't necessarily make the user appear to be more astute and knowledgeable than they may have thought.

"Back To The Future is too far-fetched."

"Blah blah blah, get over it!"

See, that didn't really accomplish anything did it? Brody's character was changed slightly in Crusade, it's only a minor change in the grand Indy scheme of things. No massive damage done. Back To The Future was always going to be far-fetched.

I don't think I misrepresented your remark at all. You came across like a burned fundamental Raiders fan. Believe it or not, you did.

[Henry B 50]

Well, of course I did. Raiders is a great film, and it's too bad the sequels don't measure up to it.

And, no, Brody's change isn't huge. He only has a few bad lines. But each time one comes up, I cringe. Nobody wants to cringe during a good movie, you know.

[tpigeon 3]

Generalisation is always a very simple thing to do, although it doesn't necessarily make the user appear to be more astute and knowledgeable than first thought.

"Back To The Future is too far-fetched."

"Blah blah blah, get over it!"

See, that didn't really accomplish anything did it? Brody's character was changed slightly in Crusade, it's only a minor change in the grand Indy scheme of things. No massive damage done. Back To The Future was always going to be far-fetched.

I don't think I misrepresented your remark at all. You came across like a burned fundamental Raiders fan. Believe it or not, you did.

Perhaps you are coming across as an Indy fanboy, and will therefore justify any of the series' elements which weakened from film to film. I don't think it has anything to do with consistency or whether something is far-fetched. It's more to do with cheapening characters or other elements for the sake of laziness. Brody is arguably as annoying as Jar-Jar in Last Crusade, which would have been fine by itself (I suppose), but in the context of the larger series, it's a symbol for the changes (for the worse) that the series has undergone. It's not that he was better as a serious character or anything. His character being reduced to comic relief is just one example amongst many that films gradually morphed into a matter of cheap thrills and laughs. Both TOD and LC are good enough films, in my book, but to even compare them to Raiders is foolish. Kind of like comparing Attack of the Clones to The Empire Strikes Back.

Ted

[Quintus 5,399]

Well, of course I did. Raiders is a great film, and it's too bad the sequels don't measure up to it.

And, no, Brody's change isn't huge. He only has a few bad lines. But each time one comes up, I cringe. Nobody wants to cringe during a good movie, you know.

Sorry, I don't. As far as I'm concerned Denholm Elliot was fantastic in both movies and I actually liked the direction his character took in them. I honestly didn't cringe at any of his lines.

I agree that Raiders is by far the best Indy film, but I disagree that the sequels didn't live up to it. For me and frankly millions of others the second and third films were every bit the sequels expected of them - more of same, but with their own likable, fun nuisances.

[John Crichton 4]

If you are tlaking about the Nazi theme in TLC, I totally agree. It's such a great theme

Wasn't it also in Raiders? Maybe I'm wrong... I thought so.

The Nazis had a fanfare motif that wasn't really a fully developed theme. I think it only appears in Airplane Fight and Desert Chase. I prefer the march from LC too.

I agree with Mark that LC is the most sloppily made of the three, but that doesn't keep it from being a fine movie. Sean Connery makes it that good more than anything else.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

but the joy of Temple is it wasn't the same, it was a fortress film, while LC was more of the same as Raiders, Raiders Lite,

[Henry B 50]

Yes, Temple of Doom is exactly what a sequel should be. It has problems of its own, though, like the drag of the middle section, the overbearingness of Willie and Short Round, and the unconvincing romance between Indy and Willie.

[tpigeon 3]

Oh I agree. I like TOD much more than LC. And I think for the first hour or so of Temple, it's almost on par with Raiders. Interestingly, once the action starts, the movie ramps into hyper mode and almost suffers from motion/sound overload. I still like the film quite a bit, and enjoy it's dark absurdity. It's much daring and memorable than LC.

[John Crichton 4]

Too much Short Round is easily ToD's biggest problem, both in the film and the score.

[Quintus 5,399]

Generalisation is always a very simple thing to do, although it doesn't necessarily make the user appear to be more astute and knowledgeable than first thought.

"Back To The Future is too far-fetched."

"Blah blah blah, get over it!"

See, that didn't really accomplish anything did it? Brody's character was changed slightly in Crusade, it's only a minor change in the grand Indy scheme of things. No massive damage done. Back To The Future was always going to be far-fetched.

I don't think I misrepresented your remark at all. You came across like a burned fundamental Raiders fan. Believe it or not, you did.

Perhaps you are coming across as an Indy fanboy, and will therefore justify any of the series' elements which weakened from film to film. I don't think it has anything to do with consistency or whether something is far-fetched. It's more to do with cheapening characters or other elements for the sake of laziness. Brody is arguably as annoying as Jar-Jar in Last Crusade, which would have been fine by itself (I suppose), but in the context of the larger series, it's a symbol for the changes (for the worse) that the series has undergone. It's not that he was better as a serious character or anything. His character being reduced to comic relief is just one example amongst many that films gradually morphed into a matter of cheap thrills and laughs. Both TOD and LC are good enough films, in my book, but to even compare them to Raiders is foolish. Kind of like comparing Attack of the Clones to The Empire Strikes Back.

Ted

If loving three very well made adventure movies makes me a fanboy then direct me to the nearest Indy fansite. There is no room or place for Star Wars prequel movies here, as this is a talk about good movies, isn't it? Comparisons?!!! You almost lost me there.

Laziness you say? Come of it! "Brody is arguably as annoying as Jar-Jar" Huh?!

No, it's not like comparing Attack of the Clones to The Empire Strikes Back at all. One of those is a great film, one of those films is utter bollocks.

[Genius_Gone_Insane 5]

In KOTCS are we going to hear the Love theme from ROTLA? Can someone point me to a post where this is discussed? (I'm scared of starting a new thread on account of my last one getting kidnaped)

[tpigeon 3]

TheGreatEye: Thank you for your unsupported value claims. For someone who was just talking about the emptiness of generalizing, you seem to be making a lot of authoritative statements about things that ultimately come down to a matter of perspectives - and perspectives require building an argument and defending them, not making blind claims about what's good or bad. For me, TOD and LC are not that far off from Episodes I-III. I'm sure you'll laugh and make another statement about knowing what good filmmaking is, but you (like anyone else) operate under just as many assumptions and opinions about what makes a movie good.

Ted

[Quintus 5,399]

And this is where I retire.

For me, TOD and LC are not that far off from Episodes I-III.

You should join a serious film forum. You would go down well there I'm sure.

[Hellgi 0]

The nazi theme in LC actually rather well sums up the problems with the film. It's overly cartoony.

Ahhh, come on... it's fun!!! It doesn't take itself too seriously. I love it.

There are moments of such sweeping mystical effect in Raiders, such as the scene with the old man, the map, the uncovering of the ark. In LC, that element is totally non-existent

I really don't agree. Most of the scenes where Sean Connery talks about the grail are mystical.

And in the first part of the movie. when Indy asks, "Do you believe in it Marcus? Do you believe that the grail exists?", man, that's one my favorite scenes of *ALL TIME*, seriously, just writing it down gives me spine chills. The music and screenplay in that scene is so incredibly great. It makes me believe in it even though I'm not a religious person. There are so many moments in the movie with mystical aspects.

There's also - I think - some seriousness in the movie. Like when Sean Connery slaps Indy. The dialog and acting is just perfect...

HENRY- That's for blasphemy. The quest for the Grail is not archaeology. It's a race against evil. If it is captured by the Nazis, the armies of darkness will march all over the face of the earth. Do you understand?

INDY- This is an obsession Dad. I never understood it. Never. Neither did Mom.

HENRY- Oh yes, she did. Only too well. Unfortunately she kept her illness from me until all I could do was mourn her.

... or when Indy's looking at the tablet (at Donnovans')... or when they realize in the zeppelin that they're going back to Germany:

INDY: "They're turning around. They're taking us back to Germany."

MAN, I love that scene too. There are some many moments of a great combination of directing, acting and music.

I really loved that movie... there- I said it!

Hellgi

[tpigeon 3]

And this is where I retire.

For me, TOD and LC are not that far off from Episodes I-III.

You should join a serious film forum. You would go down well there I'm sure.

Thank you for your recommendation, TheGreatEye. I'll consider that. But now I'm happy having a film site (or blog, if you will) which is linked on David Bordwell's site as well as Jim Emerson's. Oh and maybe I'll check out some flyers for serious film forums at the Society For Cinema and Media Studies annual meeting in March, where I'll be presenting research.

Ted

[Morlock 11]

TheGreatEye: Thank you for your unsupported value claims. For someone who was just talking about the emptiness of generalizing, you seem to be making a lot of authoritative statements about things that ultimately come down to a matter of perspectives - and perspectives require building an argument and defending them, not making blind claims about what's good or bad. For me, TOD and LC are not that far off from Episodes I-III. I'm sure you'll laugh and make another statement about knowing what good filmmaking is, but you (like anyone else) operate under just as many assumptions and opinions about what makes a movie good.

Ted

Are you by any chance Dan Hobgood's less agressive and far less irritating younger brother?

Morlock- who thinks things like terrible story-telling and bad acting can rarely really be proved

Morlock2- who likes Bordwell, even though he often disregards precisely the aspects that people find so contrary to his own views

Morlock3- who does not understand what is special about Emerson. Nothing new under the sun. Trying to be Jonathan Rosenblum, but without the daring to actually say something people will take great offence to.

[tpigeon 3]

TheGreatEye: Thank you for your unsupported value claims. For someone who was just talking about the emptiness of generalizing, you seem to be making a lot of authoritative statements about things that ultimately come down to a matter of perspectives - and perspectives require building an argument and defending them, not making blind claims about what's good or bad. For me, TOD and LC are not that far off from Episodes I-III. I'm sure you'll laugh and make another statement about knowing what good filmmaking is, but you (like anyone else) operate under just as many assumptions and opinions about what makes a movie good.

Ted

Are you by any chance Dan Hobgood's less agressive and far less irritating younger brother?

Morlock- who thinks things like terrible story-telling and bad acting can rarely really be proved

Great point, Morlock. That's what I was hoping to point out. Applying words like "good" and "bad" to any work of art is incredibly problematic. We could all make our cases, but no amount of quantitative or empirical data can support any of it. We're all encouraged to have these strong opinions about things that few of us rarely care to really learn about beyond the level that accepted critical norms allow.

Ted

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm happy having a film site (or blog, if you will) which is linked on David Bordwell's site as well as Jim Emerson's.

Ted

Ooo! You just undermined yourself. Never mind.

Peace and out!

[tpigeon 3]

Morlock2- who likes Bordwell, even though he often disregards precisely the aspects that people find so contrary to his own views

Morlock3- who does not understand what is special about Emerson. Nothing new under the sun. Trying to be Jonathan Rosenblum, but without the daring to actually say something people will take great offence to.

I posted before you added these remarks. Bordwell is definitely subject to criticism, no doubt, but he is one of the most important film scholars working today. As for Emerson, I would completely disagree that he's a Rosenbaum wannabe, especially considering the heated debate the two were in a few months ago. I'm not sure how often you read Emerson, but I don't think he plays it safe at all. His views are nuanced, and he defends many of them very well.

[Morlock 11]

I'm wondering....in your opinion, do Bordwell, Mitchell, Kael, Rosenbaum and their ilk (i.e., serious film critics), have greater perception of good or bad filmmaking, or are they better discussion starters...or what?

I am genuinly wondering, I wasn't aware of your blog (Which I look forward to reading now).

[tpigeon 3]

I'm happy having a film site (or blog, if you will) which is linked on David Bordwell's site as well as Jim Emerson's.

Ted

Ooo! You just undermined yourself. Never mind.

Peace and out!

How so? Please elaborate.

I'm wondering....in your opinion, do Bordwell, Mitchell, Kael, Rosenbaum and their ilk (i.e., serious film critics), have greater perception of good or bad filmmaking, or are they better discussion starters...or what?

I am genuinly wondering, I wasn't aware of your blog (Which I look forward to reading now).

I think there's probably aspects of both. I firmly believe that art needs criticism in the same way that criticism needs art. Innovation cannot be recognized or praised without those knowledgeable about a medium's history and practices. Kael is probably in a bit of a different league than the others, precisely because she was the crazy critic that everyone loved, hated, or loved to hate. While I think she was something of a contrarian, she was incendiary. Exactly what film criticism needed. Like filmmaking, film criticism needs to evolve and develop as well, or else it will get caught under its own repetitious cycles of its own rhetoric and becoming nothing more than a venue for members to spew out empty value/knowledge claims.

Bordwell can be thought of in the same way; but I don't think he quite fits that mold. He's often framed as a contrarian as well, as was a big proponent of cognitivism and was one of the first to really question psychoanalytic film theory. While his early work is more appealing to me than his more neoformalistic work now, I think he is a wonderful critic of cinema. Does he have all of the answers? Of course not. No one critic or book or article is the authority on anything. But sometimes the best minds are the ones that signal the call for a new direction.

Ted

[Hlao-roo 389]

TheGreatEye: Thank you for your unsupported value claims. For someone who was just talking about the emptiness of generalizing, you seem to be making a lot of authoritative statements about things that ultimately come down to a matter of perspectives - and perspectives require building an argument and defending them, not making blind claims about what's good or bad. For me, TOD and LC are not that far off from Episodes I-III. I'm sure you'll laugh and make another statement about knowing what good filmmaking is, but you (like anyone else) operate under just as many assumptions and opinions about what makes a movie good.

Ted

Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted. Do you honestly believe that pablum you're spouting -- that you can "support" an assertion by "building an argument"? Ted, statements are at their most authoritative when they rely on nothing but themselves. Things like structured arguments and corroborating evidence are little more than crutches, and you merely coddle -- and ultimately weaken -- your assertions by using them. The best and strongest claims are those that stand on their own, that pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Someday you'll understand, Ted, that your little appeals to "support" and "building an argument" are nothing more than expressions of your own insecurity.

[Quintus 5,399]

Hark! I've found a new guide in Hlao-roo. The dude is my new guide in the ways of forum conduct. He displays the art of subtlety in ways I never knew were possible.

[tpigeon 3]

Alan, I understand what you're saying, and I actually agree with you when it comes to the weaknesses of supporting claims and constructing arguments. And I agree with you in spirit about the strongest claims being ones that stand on their own. It's a nice idea, an idealistic one. But it doesn't hold water when you think about how they stand on their own; on their own in relation to what? All knowledge is partial and situated. I don't think learning about a medium like cinema or criticism is merely a matter of familiarzing oneself with its conventions, formal components, or theoretical backgrounds. What is informing a claim, or an opinion at all? Our means of perceiving, interpreting, and making sense of anything, in this case a film, or a cinematic image, are influenced and informed by a variety of assumptions and values according to critical theories and canon, as well as cultural ideologies, and so forth. To say that anything can "stand on its own" is an expression of ignorance.

When I say things about "building arguments" or "supporting claims," I mean that we should strive to understand that which we see and so readily pass judgment on by examining that opinion or belief and thinking about it in relation to one's knowledge of cinema, its history and its practices. Without this, we are reduced to hurling remarks to one another about a particular film being bad or good, to the extent that we start believing that our opinions and beliefs are more qualified than others. But our knowledge and perspectives grow when they are challenged and when we expose ourselves to different kinds of knowledge bases and theoretical frameworks.

Ted

[Red 75]

Well, since this new installment has always seemed a bit of a risky move (particularly in this forum) wouldn't it living up to any of the original films be a good thing? I think it would be a big success for this not to be the absolute worst of the series.

[Henry B 50]

I can't wait to see it. The faults will become evident later, no doubt, but for the first viewing I'll just let the exhilaration take me.

... Crystal Skull, I mean.

[tpigeon 3]

Alan, I understand what you're saying, and I actually agree with you when it comes to the weaknesses of supporting claims and constructing arguments. And I agree with you in spirit about the strongest claims being ones that stand on their own. It's a nice idea, an idealistic one. But it doesn't hold water when you think about how they stand on their own; on their own in relation to what? All knowledge is partial and situated. I don't think learning about a medium like cinema or criticism is merely a matter of familiarzing oneself with its conventions, formal components, or theoretical backgrounds. What is informing a claim, or an opinion at all? Our means of perceiving, interpreting, and making sense of anything, in this case a film, or a cinematic image, are influenced and informed by a variety of assumptions and values according to critical theories and canon, as well as cultural ideologies, and so forth. To say that anything can "stand on its own" is an expression of ignorance.

When I say things about "building arguments" or "supporting claims," I mean that we should strive to understand that which we see and so readily pass judgment on by examining that opinion or belief and thinking about it in relation to one's knowledge of cinema, its history and its practices. Without this, we are reduced to hurling remarks to one another about a particular film being bad or good, to the extent that we start believing that our opinions and beliefs are more qualified than others. But our knowledge and perspectives grow when they are challenged and when we expose ourselves to different kinds of knowledge bases and theoretical frameworks.

Ted

Put your dick back in your pants before something happens.

Is there really a reason for that? I'm not sure why you're getting so fired up. I admit to being snobby in my response to your advice to seek out a "serious" film forum, but I'm not trying to pick a fight.

Ted

[John Crichton 4]

I can't wait to see it. The faults will become evident later, no doubt, but for the first viewing I'll just let the exhilaration take me.

... Crystal Skull, I mean.

Yes, I get the feeling it's going to be quite a fun ride. Unfortunately I'm also prepared for some of the worst bickering we've seen in these parts since the end of the Prequel Wars.

[Beowulf 4]

Too much Short Round is easily ToD's biggest problem, both in the film and the score.

Hmm...I think Short Round's theme and its appearance many times in the score is absolutely delightful - one of my favs from JW in fact.

[Henry B 50]

Yes, I get the feeling it's going to be quite a fun ride. Unfortunately I'm also prepared for some of the worst bickering we've seen in these parts since the end of the Prequel Wars.

No Indy film could be despised as much as the prequels are.

[Quintus 5,399]

Alan, I understand what you're saying, and I actually agree with you when it comes to the weaknesses of supporting claims and constructing arguments. And I agree with you in spirit about the strongest claims being ones that stand on their own. It's a nice idea, an idealistic one. But it doesn't hold water when you think about how they stand on their own; on their own in relation to what? All knowledge is partial and situated. I don't think learning about a medium like cinema or criticism is merely a matter of familiarzing oneself with its conventions, formal components, or theoretical backgrounds. What is informing a claim, or an opinion at all? Our means of perceiving, interpreting, and making sense of anything, in this case a film, or a cinematic image, are influenced and informed by a variety of assumptions and values according to critical theories and canon, as well as cultural ideologies, and so forth. To say that anything can "stand on its own" is an expression of ignorance.

When I say things about "building arguments" or "supporting claims," I mean that we should strive to understand that which we see and so readily pass judgment on by examining that opinion or belief and thinking about it in relation to one's knowledge of cinema, its history and its practices. Without this, we are reduced to hurling remarks to one another about a particular film being bad or good, to the extent that we start believing that our opinions and beliefs are more qualified than others. But our knowledge and perspectives grow when they are challenged and when we expose ourselves to different kinds of knowledge bases and theoretical frameworks.

Ted

Put your dick back in your pants before something happens.

Is there really a reason for that? I'm not sure why you're getting so fired up. I admit to being snobby in my response to your advice to seek out a "serious" film forum, but I'm not trying to pick a fight.

Ted

Sorry, I'm not picking a fight either. I'm just talking, indeed I'm the straight sort. I meant no offense at all.

Sarcasm is always rife here (as seems to be the case with online discussion boards) and I was simply going with the flow. The fact that me and you strongly disagree on the subject of the Indy sequels is merely a byproduct of the medium. Its nothing serious.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Alan, I understand what you're saying, and I actually agree with you when it comes to the weaknesses of supporting claims and constructing arguments. And I agree with you in spirit about the strongest claims being ones that stand on their own. It's a nice idea, an idealistic one. But it doesn't hold water when you think about how they stand on their own; on their own in relation to what? All knowledge is partial and situated. I don't think learning about a medium like cinema or criticism is merely a matter of familiarzing oneself with its conventions, formal components, or theoretical backgrounds. What is informing a claim, or an opinion at all? Our means of perceiving, interpreting, and making sense of anything, in this case a film, or a cinematic image, are influenced and informed by a variety of assumptions and values according to critical theories and canon, as well as cultural ideologies, and so forth. To say that anything can "stand on its own" is an expression of ignorance.

When I say things about "building arguments" or "supporting claims," I mean that we should strive to understand that which we see and so readily pass judgment on by examining that opinion or belief and thinking about it in relation to one's knowledge of cinema, its history and its practices. Without this, we are reduced to hurling remarks to one another about a particular film being bad or good, to the extent that we start believing that our opinions and beliefs are more qualified than others. But our knowledge and perspectives grow when they are challenged and when we expose ourselves to different kinds of knowledge bases and theoretical frameworks.

Ted

Surprisingly, you agree with my post more than I do. Nonetheless, I'm actually glad you took my post as seriously as you did, because it has elicited some rather eloquent thoughts from you with which I really do agree. You are, of course, quite right about the subtle influences our values bring to bear upon our perceptions of the world. The point I was trying to make -- in typically ham-handed fashion -- is that "building arguments" and "supporting claims" are essential to the task of expressing our opinions in a meaningful manner. When we fail to establish or examine our reasons for embracing -- or recoiling from -- a piece of art, then discussion is either stunted (as seen in the myriad "list" threads) or reduced to the detritus that has pervaded this thread. What I'm arguing is not that argument and support make our opinions any truer, but that they allow for much more worthwhile communication to take place.

(I, of course, am as guilty as anyone else on this board of stating his opinions without elaboration.)

[tpigeon 3]

Alan, I understand what you're saying, and I actually agree with you when it comes to the weaknesses of supporting claims and constructing arguments. And I agree with you in spirit about the strongest claims being ones that stand on their own. It's a nice idea, an idealistic one. But it doesn't hold water when you think about how they stand on their own; on their own in relation to what? All knowledge is partial and situated. I don't think learning about a medium like cinema or criticism is merely a matter of familiarzing oneself with its conventions, formal components, or theoretical backgrounds. What is informing a claim, or an opinion at all? Our means of perceiving, interpreting, and making sense of anything, in this case a film, or a cinematic image, are influenced and informed by a variety of assumptions and values according to critical theories and canon, as well as cultural ideologies, and so forth. To say that anything can "stand on its own" is an expression of ignorance.

When I say things about "building arguments" or "supporting claims," I mean that we should strive to understand that which we see and so readily pass judgment on by examining that opinion or belief and thinking about it in relation to one's knowledge of cinema, its history and its practices. Without this, we are reduced to hurling remarks to one another about a particular film being bad or good, to the extent that we start believing that our opinions and beliefs are more qualified than others. But our knowledge and perspectives grow when they are challenged and when we expose ourselves to different kinds of knowledge bases and theoretical frameworks.

Ted

Put your dick back in your pants before something happens.

Is there really a reason for that? I'm not sure why you're getting so fired up. I admit to being snobby in my response to your advice to seek out a "serious" film forum, but I'm not trying to pick a fight.

Ted

Sorry, I'm not picking a fight either. I'm just talking, indeed I'm the straight sort. I meant no offense at all.

Sarcasm is always rife here (as seems to be the case with online discussion boards) and I was simply going with the flow. The fact that me and you strongly disagree on the subject of the Indy sequels is merely a byproduct of the medium. Its nothing serious.

Ok, good. And I do like Indy sequels by the way. I don't think we're too far off on that. My opinion of them seems more negative when thinking of them in relation to Raiders, though. It's the Star Wars prequels that I'm always grilled for. I don't detest them (though the second one pushes that envelope), but I'm not salivating over them either. I like the first and third episodes in spite of their awkward points, and I'm really fascinated over the hatred for them mostly on message boards.

But to get back to the point, I'm glad this didn't escalate to places it didn't need to go. Sure, we disagree. But I often like your remarks and it would have been senseless to go that route. I understand that the manner in which I go about stating my opinions/values is often frowned upon on Boards, but I felt it appropriate to provide some bit of explanation regarding why I reacted the way I did to some of the comments

Ted

[Romão 2,274]

The nazi theme in LC actually rather well sums up the problems with the film. It's overly cartoony.

Ahhh, come on... it's fun!!! It doesn't take itself too seriously. I love it.

There are moments of such sweeping mystical effect in Raiders, such as the scene with the old man, the map, the uncovering of the ark. In LC, that element is totally non-existent

I really don't agree. Most of the scenes where Sean Connery talks about the grail are mystical.

And in the first part of the movie. when Indy asks, "Do you believe in it Marcus? Do you believe that the grail exists?", man, that's one my favorite scenes of *ALL TIME*, seriously, just writing it down gives me spine chills. The music and screenplay in that scene is so incredibly great. It makes me believe in it even though I'm not a religious person. There are so many moments in the movie with mystical aspects.

There's also - I think - some seriousness in the movie. Like when Sean Connery slaps Indy. The dialog and acting is just perfect...

HENRY- That's for blasphemy. The quest for the Grail is not archaeology. It's a race against evil. If it is captured by the Nazis, the armies of darkness will march all over the face of the earth. Do you understand?

INDY- This is an obsession Dad. I never understood it. Never. Neither did Mom.

HENRY- Oh yes, she did. Only too well. Unfortunately she kept her illness from me until all I could do was mourn her.

... or when Indy's looking at the tablet (at Donnovans')... or when they realize in the zeppelin that they're going back to Germany:

INDY: "They're turning around. They're taking us back to Germany."

MAN, I love that scene too. There are some many moments of a great combination of directing, acting and music.

I really loved that movie... there- I said it!

Hellgi

Great examples, Hellgi. Agree 100%

Romão, who thinks TLC is simply put one of the most enjoyable movies of all time

[King Mark 3,631]

Well,I hope this Indy film doesn't decend to the level of Transformers or Nationnal Treasure in terms of camp or trying to insert a funny one liner every 2 seconds.