The Indiana Jones Disenchantment Thread!

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

18 minutes ago, JTW said:

Guys, you need help? :-)

 

Archeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall. So forget any ideas you've got about lost cities, exotic travel, and digging up the world. We do not follow maps to buried treasure, and "X" never, ever marks the spot. 70% of all archeology is done in the library. Researching. Reading. We cannot afford to take mythology at face value.

I have a nagging feeling that I've heard this somewhere before. 🤔

[Groovygoth666 670]

On 07/01/2024 at 4:24 PM, Mr. Hooper said:

As far as "objective" criticism of a movie, I think it can be done to point out a movie failing to observe its own rules or inner logic. But even here, each one of us may have differing ideas about what constitutes a breakage of the rules, which may depend on our own threshold for suspicion of disbelief.

 

But overall, I've always had trouble respecting film criticism as a discipline since I've seen it vary so wildly from one critic to the next (e.g., Siskel & Ebert)...

 

One will adamantly say that a movie's big failing was "X", while another will hold up "X" as its one shining virtue. So where does that leave film criticism as an objective discipline based on agreed-upon criteria?

 

Well, whether we admit to it or not, personal feelings and tastes, and one's own experiences, all colour our reaction to a film, thus rendering our opinions at least partly subjective.

This, just all of this is what I failed to convey. 

 

Subjective and objective can be part of the conversation in regards to film/art criticism. Even if we don't agree that art can be criticised subjectively or objectively, which is a large philosophical debate that's been going on for decades, even the clip from Dead Poets Society that @Nick1Ø66 highlighted quotes text from Laurence Perrines Sound and Sence which was published way back in 1956, both are very much valid in the discussion, but one does not cancel out the other nor is one the exclusive right way.

 

My initial comment might have come off dismissive, but it's not to say how something made you feel is invalid, just that to ME it's an entirety different conversation when discussing specific criticisms and perhaps doesn't address certain points raised and instead appeals to something broader while I'm more interested in those specifics especially when referring to plot, story and character writing. 

 

To highlight the criticism that Voller should have died in the prologue, @Mattris offered something to counter this, the idea of destiny being what saved him. Personally this is equal to saying Voller had plot armor. He's the big bad and therefore is immune to anything as he needs to be there at the end of the movie.

 

For whatever reason the filmmakers decided that Voller NEEDS to be off the train, but considering he ends up working for the Americans anyway he could of easily been on it when it was captured by allied forces. His face being smash by a water pipe and the fall from a speeding train was not only completely unnecessary but didn't add anything to his character, the story or even the moment. He could of easily woken up from Indy knocking him out and been surrounded by allied soldiers. 

 

 

 

 

[Mattris 416]

On 12/01/2024 at 1:45 AM, Groovygoth666 said:

To highlight the criticism that Voller should have died in the prologue, @Mattris offered something to counter this, the idea of destiny being what saved him. Personally this is equal to saying Voller had plot armor. He's the big bad and therefore is immune to anything as he needs to be there at the end of the movie.

 

The concept of destiny is profound. It dictates that, when challenged or injured, some may overcome, succeed, and/or live. Others may wither, fail, or die. But crucially, it raises the notion of preconceived purpose... that all individuals have a part to play, perhaps geared toward a grander eventuality beyond one's personal life.

 

In stories like parables, allegories, and fairytales, this is especially true.

 

It was Voller's destiny to be removed from his pursuit of Indy... and to reappear later in the story, only to ultimately fail: the destiny of all Indiana Jones villains. It would make sense that his train incident was portrayed so violently to draw attention to the relevance (and strength) of destiny  as the primary narrative device of the overall story.

[GerateWohl 4,370]

On the other hand, if "Destiny" in the movie title referenced just the villain having the same destiny as every villain in every Indiana Jones movie, then why highlight it in the title? It would be a title like "Indiana Jones and the typical adventure".

Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

For me the "Destiny" in the title, more specific the "Dial of Destiny" refers to the story being about a tool, the dial, that gives you the power to control destiny, to change destiny.

[Brónach 1,302]

i don't see what's there to be so disenchanted about.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

3 minutes ago, Brónach said:

i don't see what's there to be so disenchanted about.

 

Join us.

 

 

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Hey, don't appropriate my curmudgeonly Arnold Palmer gif! 

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

1 minute ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Hey, don't appropriate my curmudgeonly Arnold Palmer gif! 

 

I don't want it!

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Join us.

No, stay... We have cookies.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,534]

Well, I finally saw DOD.

The best thing I can say about it is:

"It didn't suck".

I know that this is not a popular opinion, but I didn't find it as bad as it was made out to be. Granted, it's no CITIZEN KANE, but it's no 2016 GHOSTBUSTERS, either.

It was far too long, and, yes, Indy should have stayed in - spoiler alert - Ancient Greece, but at the end, I shrugged my shoulders, and tromped off to the kitchen, to find some leftover New Year's Eve party food.

If I'd seen this at the cinema, it would have been forgotten by the time I'd had a slash, and found my way to my car. As it was, it was forgotten by the time I'd reached the bottom of my staircase.

Ho, hum.

Please, Mr. Mouse, no more.

 

 

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

49 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

 

Please, Mr. Mouse, no more.

Welcome to the disenchantment club! This is your locker key, the bathrooms are down the hall on the left.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

1 hour ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I know that this is not a popular opinion, but I didn't find it as bad as it was made out to be. Granted, it's no CITIZEN KANE, but it's no 2016 GHOSTBUSTERS, either.

 
I didn’t get the hate for the 2016 Ghostbusters. I thought it was pretty funny. And better than Afterlife, which I thought was boring as a dog’s ass.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,534]

To be honest, I just picked a film at random. Even 2016 GHOSTBUSTERS is not as bad as some dross I've sat through.

Smelled a lot of dogs' asses, have you?

I'm wondering how you know they're boring 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

14 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

To be honest, I just picked a film at random. Even 2016 GHOSTBUSTERS is not as bad as some dross I've sat through.

Smelled a lot of dogs' asses, have you?

I'm wondering how you know they're boring 

“Boring as a dog’s ass” is something Mel Gibson once said to describe a film he’d been in. Can’t remember the name of the film, but I thought it was pretty funny when he said it. 😂

[mstrox 6,651]

I think he was talking about Braveheart.

 

My feelings on Ghostbusters 2016/Afterlife mirror yours, Nick.  

[Edmilson 7,466]

Indy 5 just managed to be nominated for two Razzie Awards: