Re: Because we're idiots!

Posted by ~The Raider~ from ppp-ip237-s02.inetnorth.net on May 05, 1999 at 18:35:38:

In Reply to: Why... posted by Groo on May 05, 1999 at 11:28:09:

But in all seriousness, as times change so do the movies and the directors doing them. Keep in mind at the time, Spielberg was patching things up with his father, and was going through a philisophical change in his life, hence the making of "Schindler's List" not long after. The problem with a fitcional character in a series, is that the changes they go through reflect the changes the creators are going through, and not necessarily are they the changes we want to see.

Jsut my little two bits,

~The Raider

: ...does everyone insist on changing the character and well the basic philosophy of Indy. Far be it from me to bash Hannibal's entertaining short story, however I cringe every time I read fiction that takes a well established character and turns their very motivation in a complete 180 degrees from where they belong. I submit that Last Crusade is the reason there will be no Indy IV. Lucas strayed too far from the basic element of the formula. Indy IS a selfish glory-hound who has no trouble taking a human life to meet his goal. This gritty somewhat seedy element is what makes the character so interesting. Admittedly, he is usually killing some very evil creatures, however in Raiders he acknowledges that he is more like Belloq than not. This is what I found so intriguing; the fact that this man is so unrelenting and indomitable, yet he still tries to act the part of the selfless academic. The duality of his life. Not the vomit inducing chant, "That belongs in a museum!!!" from Crusade. Crusade had a whole underlying element of redemption, as if Lucas thought that in this politically correct age we could no longer get behind a character with some dark elements. Perhaps the times have changed too much for Indy to have mass appeal.
: My Observations,
: Groo

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: But in all seriousness, as times change so do the movies and the directors doing them.  Keep in mind at the time, Spielberg was patching things up with his father, and was going through a philisophical change in his life, hence the making of "Schindler's List" not long after.  The problem with a fitcional character in a series, is that the changes they go through reflect the changes the creators are going through, and not necessarily are they the changes we want to see.

: Jsut my little two bits,

: ~The Raider

: : ...does everyone insist on changing the character and well the basic philosophy of Indy. Far be it from me to bash Hannibal's entertaining short story, however I cringe every time I read fiction that takes a well established character and turns their very motivation in a complete 180 degrees from where they belong. I submit that Last Crusade is the reason there will be no Indy IV. Lucas strayed too far from the basic element of the formula. Indy IS a selfish glory-hound who has no trouble taking a human life to meet his goal. This gritty somewhat seedy element is what makes the character so interesting. Admittedly, he is usually killing some very evil creatures, however in Raiders he acknowledges that he is more like Belloq than not. This is what I found so intriguing; the fact that this man is so unrelenting and indomitable, yet he still tries to act the part of the selfless academic. The duality of his life. Not the vomit inducing chant, "That belongs in a museum!!!" from Crusade. Crusade had a whole underlying element of redemption, as if Lucas thought that in this politically correct age we could no longer get behind a character with some dark elements. Perhaps the times have changed too much for Indy to have mass appeal.
: : My Observations,
: : Groo

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]