Jump to content

Spielberg: "Indy IV was George Lucas' idea"


Elmo Lewis

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The nuke scene is one of the movie's better moments, I liked it immediately.

The biggest revelation here is that he regards George as his best friend. And not John. :(

I like the whole opening of the film. It's a bit later when the problems start.

Karol

Yeah, I think I remember saying one time that the movie nose-dives once they get on the plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alien criticism bothers me. I can understand beefs with most other parts of the films (even if I disagree with many of them), but having the MacGuffin be alien-related absolutely fits with the previous MacGuffins. The number one attack is "aliens don't belong in an Indiana Jones movie!" as though they make the movie some technological science fiction "warp factor 9" movie. In fact, the technological aspects that would actually not gel well with an Indy film are completely absent - we never see the dirty machinery behind the wondrous saucer, we never get a complex technological explanation of the aliens' presence, in fact we barely get any information about the aliens. When the film ends, the aliens are just as enigmatic and humbling as the powers of God.

And of course, I love the nuke the fridge scene. Not sure why Spielberg is proud of having his idea have contributed to pop culture in such a negative way (and I suspect he isn't being entirely truthful), but whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know for a fact that Darabont wrote at least a couple of drafts. Who knows which one we got to read? And I agree, it has many problems. But as a story and concept it works better. Even if some of it was really cheesy.

Karol

The thing which intrigued me most about Darabont's treatment was his CIA vs. Indy subplot. Instead of Indy vs. the Russkies - we might have had Indy vs. the Russkies and the Americans. Most interesting indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the biggest problem I have is that it starts out being Indy vs Irina in a race of who will get to the aliens first... but they eventually end up working together instead. Its dumb.

Its the same with TLC.

Sort of.

Also a problem I have is that Indy doesn't even want the skulls, he never cares about them. He's not motivated. Yet he ends up risking life and limb to get to the hidden city anyway. I dunno. All the characters have motivation problems. The script isn't well thought out, its just an excuse to tie various set pieces together.

How is that any different from any of the previous films?

Raiders: He wants to stop the Nazis from taking over the world.

ToD: He wants to save the children (also fortune and glory, but that's just because he doesn't believe in the voodo at first)

LC: He initially wants to save his dad. Once he does, he realizes that if he fails to get the ark the Nazis will "cover all the land in darkneshhhh"

KotCS: He initially wants to save Oxley. Once he does, he realizes that the Skull actually exists and that the Russians will take over the world if they get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Jason. The biggest, biggest problems of the film are:

a) Indy is not really interested in the adventure and it doesn't really affect him much as a character (which it did in the Darabont's draft)

b) There is no conflict whatsoever between Indy and Irina. That's why the third act literally goes flat.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before this article, everyone despised the nuke scene. After this article, "Oh it was Spielberg's idea? It's genius! Love it, so funny and fits right in with everything else!!"

Only at JWFan.

What if it was Zimmer's idea? Then you'll like it? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KotCS: He initially wants to save Oxley. Once he does, he realizes that the Skull actually exists and that the Russians will take over the world if they get it.

KotCS: He initially wants to save Oxley. Once he does, he runs out of clear motivations so he tries to return the Skull because "it asked him to".

He doesn't seem very concerned about the Russians getting it and, unlike in previous movies, we are never told whether he has any cards up his sleeve (i.e. understanding the McGuffin's power "better" than the bad guys like in every previous film). In fact, it all seems a bit contradictory: if he really has understood the powers behind the skull so well, why doesn't he at least give anyone a hint? Or even worse, why doesn't he openly try to stop the Russians? In fact, why should he? He knows they're all gonna die anyway.*

Even when he's given a chance to explain why he wants to return the skull, he simply says "because it told me to." Not because he wants to restore Oxley's (his dear friend, worth crossing half the world for) sanity or because he wants to save the world. Not because Dr Henry Jones Jr, brilliant man of insatiable scientific curiosity, is mildly intrigued by the artfiact No. A skull told him to do it. So he does.

*Either the skull does it, or their own bumbling idiocy, as shown throughout the movie in order to, I don't know, eliminate any possible tension, will kill them before they get back home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a) Indy is not really interested in the adventure and it doesn't really affect him much as a character (which it did in the Darabont's draft)

Again, I disagree completely. Not only does he possess the motivation to find the Skull (save Oxley, save his ex-fiancee and son, save the world), but he learns that life doesn't necessarily ever reach a point where it "stops giving things and starts taking them." He goes through dramatic personal development, probably moreso than any of the films except maybe LC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alien criticism bothers me. I can understand beefs with most other parts of the films (even if I disagree with many of them), but having the MacGuffin be alien-related absolutely fits with the previous MacGuffins.

Nobody disputes that the [MacGuffin] isn't sound (well, i'm not), but it isn't utilised in an inspired way. It's just lame hackwork.

When the film ends, the aliens are just as enigmatic and humbling as the powers of God.

No they're not because the execution is shoddy and workmanlike, and to even compare it to the cinematic power of the Ark of the Covenant and indeed God is to demonstrate laughably bad taste (in movies) and judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KotCS: He initially wants to save Oxley. Once he does, he realizes that the Skull actually exists and that the Russians will take over the world if they get it.

KotCS: He initially wants to save Oxley. Once he does, he runs out of clear motivations so he tries to return the Skull because "it asked him to".

He doesn't seem very concerned about the Russians getting it and, unlike in previous movies, we are never told whether he has any cards up his sleeve (i.e. understanding the McGuffin's power "better" than the bad guys like in every previous film). In fact, it all seems a bit contradictory: if he really has understood the powers behind the skull so well, why doesn't he at least give anyone a hint? Or even worse, why doesn't he openly try to stop the Russians? In fact, why should he? He knows they're all gonna die anyway.*

Even when he's given a chance to explain why he wants to return the skull, he simply says "because it told me to." Not because he wants to restore Oxley's (his dear friend, worth crossing half the world for) sanity or because he wants to save the world. Not because Dr Henry Jones Jr, brilliant man of insatiable scientific curiosity, is mildly intrigued by the artfiact No. A skull told him to do it. So he does.

*Either the skull does it, or their own bumbling idiocy, as shown throughout the movie in order to, I don't know, eliminate any possible tension, will kill them before they get back home.

I think that some people assume that because Indiana Jones is an action adventure movie, the lines can be taken at face value and the characters are supposed to be overly simplistic. These movies, at least Indiana Jones, go a little deeper than that.

He says "Because the Skull told me to." But that cannot be his only motivation, given the fact that 1) Irina flat out told him that she will use the Skull as a "mind weapon" and 2. he has seen the brutal psychological effects that the Skull can inflict through Oxley. He's also an archeaologist that the film suggests would be interested in finding the City of Gold because: 1) he almost died looking for it in his past and 2) he got super excited whenever another piece of the puzzle was revealed (ie the Nazca Lines).

As for not giving anybody hints, who would he tell? His long time friend who seems to change sides whenever its convenient? His old girlfriend that he feuds with and that has been living with the enemy for the last few weeks? His son, who he met a few days ago and doesn't seem to get along with? Or his crazy friend who has also been living with the enemy for the last few weeks? More importantly, he knows that if they know what he does, Irina might be able to find out. Remember, she tries to read his mind but is unable to because he is "a hard man to crack." Nobody else is that strong.

The alien criticism bothers me. I can understand beefs with most other parts of the films (even if I disagree with many of them), but having the MacGuffin be alien-related absolutely fits with the previous MacGuffins.

Nobody disputes that the [MacGuffin] isn't sound (well, i'm not), but it isn't utilised in an inspired way. It's just lame hackwork and that's criminal.

When the film ends, the aliens are just as enigmatic and humbling as the powers of God.

No they're not because the execution is shoddy and workmanlike, and to even compare it to the cinematic power of the Ark of the Covenant and indeed God is a to demonstrate laughably bad taste (in movies) and judgement.

Publicist's parentheses are key - there are people who despise the film because it includes aliens. If you dislike the execution, I find that more understandable, but anyways it's a different debate.

Quite. Maybe indy4 has that very skull at home that commands him to love KOTCS and every contrivance in it.

I don't defend this film blindly, I have accepted its flaws many times: some bad lines, some bad acting, some bad SFX, etc., but that doesn't mean I hate it in its entirety. If you all are allowed to hate it except for a few specific parts, aren't I allowed to do the opposite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KotCS: He initially wants to save Oxley. Once he does, he realizes that the Skull actually exists and that the Russians will take over the world if they get it.

KotCS: He initially wants to save Oxley. Once he does, he runs out of clear motivations so he tries to return the Skull because "it asked him to".

He doesn't seem very concerned about the Russians getting it and, unlike in previous movies, we are never told whether he has any cards up his sleeve (i.e. understanding the McGuffin's power "better" than the bad guys like in every previous film). In fact, it all seems a bit contradictory: if he really has understood the powers behind the skull so well, why doesn't he at least give anyone a hint? Or even worse, why doesn't he openly try to stop the Russians? In fact, why should he? He knows they're all gonna die anyway.*

Even when he's given a chance to explain why he wants to return the skull, he simply says "because it told me to." Not because he wants to restore Oxley's (his dear friend, worth crossing half the world for) sanity or because he wants to save the world. Not because Dr Henry Jones Jr, brilliant man of insatiable scientific curiosity, is mildly intrigued by the artfiact No. A skull told him to do it. So he does.

*Either the skull does it, or their own bumbling idiocy, as shown throughout the movie in order to, I don't know, eliminate any possible tension, will kill them before they get back home.

I think that some people assume that because Indiana Jones is an action adventure movie, the lines can be taken at face value and the characters are supposed to be overly simplistic. These movies, at least Indiana Jones, go a little deeper than that.

He says "Because the Skull told me to." But that cannot be his only motivation, given the fact that 1) Irina flat out told him that she will use the Skull as a "mind weapon" and 2. he has seen the brutal psychological effects that the Skull can inflict through Oxley. He's also an archeaologist that the film suggests would be interested in finding the City of Gold because: 1) he almost died looking for it in his past and 2) he got super excited whenever another piece of the puzzle was revealed (ie the Nazca Lines).

The alien criticism bothers me. I can understand beefs with most other parts of the films (even if I disagree with many of them), but having the MacGuffin be alien-related absolutely fits with the previous MacGuffins.

Nobody disputes that the [MacGuffin] isn't sound (well, i'm not), but it isn't utilised in an inspired way. It's just lame hackwork and that's criminal.

When the film ends, the aliens are just as enigmatic and humbling as the powers of God.

No they're not because the execution is shoddy and workmanlike, and to even compare it to the cinematic power of the Ark of the Covenant and indeed God is a to demonstrate laughably bad taste (in movies) and judgement.

Publicist's parentheses are key - there are people who despise the film because it includes aliens. If you dislike the execution, I find that more understandable, but anyways it's a different debate.

Quite. Maybe indy4 has that very skull at home that commands him to love KOTCS and every contrivance in it.

I don't defend this film blindly, I have accepted its flaws many times: some bad lines, some bad acting, some bad SFX, etc., but that doesn't mean I hate it in its entirety. If you all are allowed to hate it except for a few specific parts, aren't I allowed to do the opposite?

I never said that, i talked about the nuked fridge. Quint dared to misquote me! :devil: Well, now i think about it, i stand by his version just as well.

Of course you can like it all you want, and it's certainly as useful to trash this movie for someone named "indy4" as it is to discuss GLADIATOR's shortcomings with "Maximus The Spaniard". In fact, you at least got some entertainment out of the whole affair. My two hours at the cinema grew very strained by the one hour mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that some people assume that because Indiana Jones is an action adventure movie, the lines can be taken at face value and the characters are supposed to be overly simplistic. These movies, at least Indiana Jones, go a little deeper than that.

He says "Because the Skull told me to." But that cannot be his only motivation, given the fact that 1) Irina flat out told him that she will use the Skull as a "mind weapon" and 2. he has seen the brutal psychological effects that the Skull can inflict through Oxley. He's also an archeaologist that the film suggests would be interested in finding the City of Gold because: 1) he almost died looking for it in his past and 2) he got super excited whenever another piece of the puzzle was revealed (ie the Nazca Lines).

I don't wish to invalidate your point of view, but it does seem extremely benevolent. The previous movies established a cinematic language that had complex and sometimes obscure character relationships and arcane plot points. But the characters' motivations were never up for guesses. They had to be clear or there would be no tension.

These movies are classy, intelligent pulp, smart films operating on a B-series language. They were not dumb, but every character -- whether friend or foe -- would get a moment where his line of thinking would be clear. Sallah had a scene establishing his friendship towards Indy, Belloq had a scene to explain why he wanted the Ark, Donovan had very long scenes to explain why they wanted the Grail, one in his socialite mask, another for the Nazis and another for himself.

So just because Indy dumps a very vague explanation about why the wants to return the Skull doesn't mean we can read any sort of profound, psychological meaning into it. That's not what these movies are. It just means lazy storytelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that some people assume that because Indiana Jones is an action adventure movie, the lines can be taken at face value and the characters are supposed to be overly simplistic. These movies, at least Indiana Jones, go a little deeper than that.

He says "Because the Skull told me to." But that cannot be his only motivation, given the fact that 1) Irina flat out told him that she will use the Skull as a "mind weapon" and 2. he has seen the brutal psychological effects that the Skull can inflict through Oxley. He's also an archeaologist that the film suggests would be interested in finding the City of Gold because: 1) he almost died looking for it in his past and 2) he got super excited whenever another piece of the puzzle was revealed (ie the Nazca Lines).

I don't wish to invalidate your point of view, but it does seem extremely benevolent. The previous movies established a cinematic language that had complex and sometimes obscure character relationships and arcane plot points. But the characters' motivations were never up for guesses. They had to be clear or there would be no tension.

These movies are classy, intelligent pulp, smart films operating on a B-series language. They were not dumb, but every character -- whether friend or foe -- would get a moment where his line of thinking would be clear. Sallah had a scene establishing his friendship towards Indy, Belloq had a scene to explain why he wanted the Ark, Donovan had very long scenes to explain why they wanted the Grail, one in his socialite mask, another for the Nazis and another for himself.

So just because Indy dumps a very vague explanation about why the wants to return the Skull doesn't mean we can read any sort of profound, psychological meaning into it. That's not what these movies are. It just means lazy storytelling.

I don't think it's deeply profound or psychological, I think it's just plain logical. They presented this information very clearly for us: that Indy was incredibly interested in the Skull a few decades ago, that he is a good person with a conscience who doesn't want Stalin to take over the world, and he flat out says that he wants to help save Oxley initially.

In Temple of Doom, does Indy ever explicity state that he wants to save the slave children once he discovers that they exist?

KotCS: He initially wants to save Oxley. Once he does, he realizes that the Skull actually exists and that the Russians will take over the world if they get it.

KotCS: He initially wants to save Oxley. Once he does, he runs out of clear motivations so he tries to return the Skull because "it asked him to".

He doesn't seem very concerned about the Russians getting it and, unlike in previous movies, we are never told whether he has any cards up his sleeve (i.e. understanding the McGuffin's power "better" than the bad guys like in every previous film). In fact, it all seems a bit contradictory: if he really has understood the powers behind the skull so well, why doesn't he at least give anyone a hint? Or even worse, why doesn't he openly try to stop the Russians? In fact, why should he? He knows they're all gonna die anyway.*

Even when he's given a chance to explain why he wants to return the skull, he simply says "because it told me to." Not because he wants to restore Oxley's (his dear friend, worth crossing half the world for) sanity or because he wants to save the world. Not because Dr Henry Jones Jr, brilliant man of insatiable scientific curiosity, is mildly intrigued by the artfiact No. A skull told him to do it. So he does.

*Either the skull does it, or their own bumbling idiocy, as shown throughout the movie in order to, I don't know, eliminate any possible tension, will kill them before they get back home.

I think that some people assume that because Indiana Jones is an action adventure movie, the lines can be taken at face value and the characters are supposed to be overly simplistic. These movies, at least Indiana Jones, go a little deeper than that.

He says "Because the Skull told me to." But that cannot be his only motivation, given the fact that 1) Irina flat out told him that she will use the Skull as a "mind weapon" and 2. he has seen the brutal psychological effects that the Skull can inflict through Oxley. He's also an archeaologist that the film suggests would be interested in finding the City of Gold because: 1) he almost died looking for it in his past and 2) he got super excited whenever another piece of the puzzle was revealed (ie the Nazca Lines).

The alien criticism bothers me. I can understand beefs with most other parts of the films (even if I disagree with many of them), but having the MacGuffin be alien-related absolutely fits with the previous MacGuffins.

Nobody disputes that the [MacGuffin] isn't sound (well, i'm not), but it isn't utilised in an inspired way. It's just lame hackwork and that's criminal.

When the film ends, the aliens are just as enigmatic and humbling as the powers of God.

No they're not because the execution is shoddy and workmanlike, and to even compare it to the cinematic power of the Ark of the Covenant and indeed God is a to demonstrate laughably bad taste (in movies) and judgement.

Publicist's parentheses are key - there are people who despise the film because it includes aliens. If you dislike the execution, I find that more understandable, but anyways it's a different debate.

Quite. Maybe indy4 has that very skull at home that commands him to love KOTCS and every contrivance in it.

I don't defend this film blindly, I have accepted its flaws many times: some bad lines, some bad acting, some bad SFX, etc., but that doesn't mean I hate it in its entirety. If you all are allowed to hate it except for a few specific parts, aren't I allowed to do the opposite?

I never said that, i talked about the nuked fridge. Quint dared to misquote me! :devil: Well, now i think about it, i stand by his version just as well.

Of course you can like it all you want, and it's certainly as useful to trash this movie for someone named "indy4" as it is to discuss GLADIATOR's shortcomings with "Maximus The Spaniard". In fact, you at least got some entertainment out of the whole affair. My two hours at the cinema grew very strained by the one hour mark.

Fair enough. But for the record, I chose the name "indy4" when I joined in 2007, expecting to make one thread and leave. I never changed it because...I dunno, maybe I'm too lazy, also I don't really care what my name is as long as I'm identifiable. Maybe I will change it one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Temple of Doom, does Indy ever explicity state that he wants to save the slave children once he discovers that they exist?

Yes, he does, right before the "Parade of the Slave Children" montage. But in any case, they are children -- that audience has already been impacted by seeing the abuse they are under. It's not just Indy that wants to save them; we want them to be saved too. A similar thing occurs in Last Crusade, when Indy drops everything to go rescue his father. It's his father. We get that. We don't need to see him or like him to see what's at stake. Unlike Oxley, who's just a name with zero resonance to the audience and whom we don't meet until halfway through the film (and we don't even get a glimpse of the personality that made Indy think it was worth rescuing him until the very ending).

But this is pointless. There will always be a details that's crucial to you and that I'll have problems accepting. I see nothing to be gained from me sucking the joy you might get from this movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy to put this issue to rest for now, just for time's sake. But these debates do not suck the joy out of these films for me, I find them to be a fun and stimulating way to pass the time. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the biggest problem I have is that it starts out being Indy vs Irina in a race of who will get to the golden city first... but they eventually end up working together instead. Its dumb.

Its the same with TLC.

No, it is not.

In TLC, the Nazis want the grail to use it for their dubious intentions, and Indy is trying to get there first to prevent it.

In KOTCS, Irina wants to get to the golden city to enslave the world with psychic powers, and Indy doesn't try to get there to hold her back, he goes there because .... the skull told him so.

Plus, in the TLC finale, the Nazis force Indy to get them through the booby traps, and he needs to get the grail to save his father's life, whereas in KOTCS, Indy goes there because the script requires him to.

Totally different dynamics (or lack thereof).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, the entire trilogy is better because you gave a damn about the characters and situations. Even if there are similarities in the storylines, characters or situations...Indy IV handled it horribly. Mutt (Shia cast as Indy's son, really?), Cate Blanchett embarrassing performance, Chef Boyardee, waste of John Hurt and poor Karen Allen? These characters were all terrible. Even Indy was boring and not himself. It was the kind of movie that you got to the end and wonder why they'd even bothered, if you were still awake after the temple scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire movie was meh.

The story was meh. The acting was meh. The direction was meh. The visual effects were meh. The worst part was it wasn't even bad enough to be enjoyable. On a scale of 1 to 10 it hovered exactly around 5.

In my book that's the worst place to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, the things that bothered me the most was that I thought it was too self-aware (Look everybody, it's us again! Yes, I know you love us! Aren't we great?) and often too mushy. We, the audience, might indeed be rejoiced by the fact that Indy is back on the silver screen but please don't let the other characters in the movie feel like the same about Jones' return. It becomes embarrassing that way.

I agree that story, acting and execution weren't all that superb either. The only character I sorta bought into was Shia's character.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't really like KOTSC either. George Lucas just isn't really that big of a movie director / screen writer. The only reason why The Empire Strikes Back is considered the best Star Wars movie (aside from the theatrical version of Star Wars), is because someone else I believe wrote most of the script and someone else directed the film, while Lucas kept a distance.

As much as I like the Star Wars Prequels, this is where they suffer because of how heavily involved Lucas was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am i the only one who thinks that scene is actually good?

I'm with you, pal! I agree that the opening 20 minutes are the probably the best thing in the whole film--and I said that in 2008 as well! :)

Personally, I wouldn't give too much weight to Spielberg's apologetic words. I appreciate he recognize the movie somewhat doesn't work and that he's aware it doesn't stand up to the legacy of the previous movies. But it's however somewhat strange that he feels the need to justify himself after three and a half years, when the memory of this film already waned from most of the audience.

For me it's always been clear that, aside from Raiders which is a true masterpiece of modern cinema, the Indy movies were always just a divertissement and nothing else for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the aliens is basically that the execution is dull and boring, both in the writing and the directing. With a strong script it could have been very cool, even giving it some Lovecraftian horror at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's always been clear that, aside from Raiders which is a true masterpiece of modern cinema, the Indy movies were always just a divertissement and nothing else for him.

:thumbup: I've said it before, and I'll say it again - KOTCS was relatively easy for me to swallow, since there'd never been a truly worthy sequel to Raiders anyway. I had no particularly high expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:thumbup: I've said it before, and I'll say it again - KOTCS was relatively easy for me to swallow, since there'd never been a truly worthy sequel to Raiders anyway. I had no particularly high expectations.

KOTCS was hard to swallow for me because there's an enormous difference of quality with the previous films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't really like KOTSC either. George Lucas just isn't really that big of a movie director / screen writer. The only reason why The Empire Strikes Back is considered the best Star Wars movie (aside from the theatrical version of Star Wars), is because someone else I believe wrote most of the script and someone else directed the film, while Lucas kept a distance.

But KOTCS was neither directed nor script-written by GL.

Just like ESB. And KOTCS has a much more cappable director.

GL is a a good story writer and a hit or miss director/script writer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But unlike the crew behind ESB, Spielberg never said "no" Lucas. He's no better than Rick McCallum that way.

What would you consider a hit among his scripts? Knowing that Star Wars had an inordinate amount of input from a dozen of his extremely talented friends, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But unlike the crew behind ESB, Spielberg never said "no" Lucas. He's no better than Rick McCallum that way.

He didnt said NO to the story and macguffin or doing the movie. The rest he did his own (crew, directing, etc...) it says so in your quoted article...

Oh and KOTCS story was co-written. GL had more involvement in ESB.

What would you consider a hit among his scripts? Knowing that Star Wars had an inordinate amount of input from a dozen of his extremely talented friends, that is.

If you put it that way... i dont think most scriptwritters would write hit scripts on their own either... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But unlike the crew behind ESB, Spielberg never said "no" Lucas. He's no better than Rick McCallum that way.

He didnt said NO to the story and macguffin or doing the movie. The rest he did his own (crew, directing, etc...) it says so in your quoted article...

We'll never know for sure. The only thing we can be sure of he didn't deliver a cut that Lucas hated because it was too slow and character-driven.

What would you consider a hit among his scripts? Knowing that Star Wars had an inordinate amount of input from a dozen of his extremely talented friends, that is.

If you put it that way... i dont think most scriptwritters would write hit scripts on their own either... :P

That's partially my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget the Star Wars script was written by Akira Kurosawa and a few other guys....

I hope he gets the credit when they'll rerelease the film yet again.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked KOTCS, always did. Nowhere near Raiders, or for that matter Temple, but it is as enjoyable as Crusade was, while being quite a bit more original than Crusade.

Crusade is twice the movie KOTCS is.

It has better characters, better script, better acting, not to mention better music.

Also, Spielberg gave a crap about it. Contrary to Crystal Skull, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before this article, everyone despised the nuke scene. After this article, "Oh it was Spielberg's idea? It's genius! Love it, so funny and fits right in with everything else!!"

Only at JWFan.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The fridge scene is just as dumb as most of the rest of the film. In the first three movies Indy's escapades, improbable and fantastic as they were, were still well grounded in the realm of the possible. To expect anyone (even Indy) to have survived being blasted that high into the air in a fridge is pushing it too far. Raiders works so well because for all his bravado and posturing, Indy is still very obviously presented as a mortal man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked KOTCS, always did. Nowhere near Raiders, or for that matter Temple, but it is as enjoyable as Crusade was, while being quite a bit more original than Crusade.

Crusade is twice the movie KOTCS is.

It has better characters, better script, better acting, not to mention better music.

Also, Spielberg gave a crap about it. Contrary to Crystal Skull, apparently.

The end result of both films is I find them about equally enjoyable, which is very enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before this article, everyone despised the nuke scene. After this article, "Oh it was Spielberg's idea? It's genius! Love it, so funny and fits right in with everything else!!"

Only at JWFan.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The fridge scene is just as dumb as most of the rest of the film. In the first three movies Indy's escapades, improbable and fantastic as they were, were still well grounded in the realm of the possible. To expect anyone (even Indy) to have survived being blasted that high into the air in a fridge is pushing it too far. Raiders works so well because for all his bravado and posturing, Indy is still very obviously presented as a mortal man.

I completely agree. It was a scene out of Wile E. Coyote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before this article, everyone despised the nuke scene. After this article, "Oh it was Spielberg's idea? It's genius! Love it, so funny and fits right in with everything else!!"

Only at JWFan.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The fridge scene is just as dumb as most of the rest of the film. In the first three movies Indy's escapades, improbable and fantastic as they were, were still well grounded in the realm of the possible. To expect anyone (even Indy) to have survived being blasted that high into the air in a fridge is pushing it too far. Raiders works so well because for all his bravado and posturing, Indy is still very obviously presented as a mortal man.

It's no less realistic than Indy jumping off an airplane with an inflatable lifeboat and falling off thousand-foot cliffs. Or Indy falling off a cliff while on a tank that explodes upon impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before this article, everyone despised the nuke scene. After this article, "Oh it was Spielberg's idea? It's genius! Love it, so funny and fits right in with everything else!!"

Only at JWFan.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The fridge scene is just as dumb as most of the rest of the film. In the first three movies Indy's escapades, improbable and fantastic as they were, were still well grounded in the realm of the possible. To expect anyone (even Indy) to have survived being blasted that high into the air in a fridge is pushing it too far. Raiders works so well because for all his bravado and posturing, Indy is still very obviously presented as a mortal man.

It's no less realistic than Indy jumping off an airplane with an inflatable lifeboat and falling off thousand-foot cliffs. Or Indy falling off a cliff while on a tank that explodes upon impact.

Actually, I think a couple of years ago on a film-themed episode of Mythbusters they did the "falling out of a plane on an inflated liferaft" thing from TOD thinking it would be easy to prove no one could survive such a ridiculous stunt. To their surprise, the dummies inside the raft lived through the experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it's the fall into the river rapids that has always seemed like the less believable part of that scene. It seems to be a longer drop than the plane fall, and if I recall correctly there are some pretty big rocks in the river.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before this article, everyone despised the nuke scene. After this article, "Oh it was Spielberg's idea? It's genius! Love it, so funny and fits right in with everything else!!"

Only at JWFan.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The fridge scene is just as dumb as most of the rest of the film. In the first three movies Indy's escapades, improbable and fantastic as they were, were still well grounded in the realm of the possible. To expect anyone (even Indy) to have survived being blasted that high into the air in a fridge is pushing it too far. Raiders works so well because for all his bravado and posturing, Indy is still very obviously presented as a mortal man.

It's no less realistic than Indy jumping off an airplane with an inflatable lifeboat and falling off thousand-foot cliffs. Or Indy falling off a cliff while on a tank that explodes upon impact.

Actually, I think a couple of years ago on a film-themed episode of Mythbusters they did the "falling out of a plane on an inflated liferaft" thing from TOD thinking it would be easy to prove no one could survive such a ridiculous stunt. To their surprise, the dummies inside the raft lived through the experience.

Ok I'm getting tired of people quoting Mythbusters, that gold standard of science *sarcasm*. In any case, iirc the temple of doom raft myth was actually busted.

EDIT: Couldn't quite find the video, but here's the text recap from Annotated Mythbusters

Drop 1

For the first drop they rigged Buster in center of the raft, which turned out to be a bad job. The rigging gave way after they had lifted the raft 400 ft up, ejecting Buster from the raft. Buster was completely destroyed and Adam reacted in shock to the carnage: "Buster is a pile of scrap."

Drop 2

They improved the rigging in the raft by using big hauling straps instead. Somehow they managed to resurrect Buster. They must have had a lot of spare parts on hand because even the instruments were pretty trashed from the first mishap.

The raft flipped over and floated in like a parachute at 22mph. Parachutists usually land at about 14mph. This might have been fine for Buster, except he was ejected when the raft flipped over and landed at 154 MPH.

Drop 3

For the third drop they decided to re-rig the raft to be used as a parachute to keep Buster from falling separately. They managed to resurrect Buster resurrected yet again, though he's headless and looking pretty bad for the wear.

The parachute safely worked as a parachute, but the rate of descent was too fast. Initially they thought Buster was ok, but once they got close they saw that Buster's limbs were pretty wrecked. The chest sensors showed that he might have lived (50g shock watch was broken, but 75 and 100 were not), however, even though Buster might have lived, the notion that someone could have lept out and rigged the parachute-like harness is very unlikely. They had already demonstrated the problems with the Indiana-Jones-style descent, so mythbusted.

(Life raft) busted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.