here's my opinion...

Posted by ROB T. from 162.10.138.28 on July 11, 1999 at 00:53:03:

In Reply to: In other words... posted by Goodsport on July 10, 1999 at 20:42:49:

True, Indiana Jones is not a wholly original creation but it has some things that those others do not. First, it was made as an homage to those old serials and it did them one better. The old serials were cheaply made and though they're a lot of fun, they're not exactly quality product. Spielberg and Lucas made a cliffhanger like those old guys might have made if they'd had the money and the technology.
Those other movies you mentioned were made first and foremost to cash in on Indy's success. Some of them were also good and some were horribly bad (the Richard Chamberlain film just sucks)
Plus the level of talent on the Indy films (in front and behind the cameras) is second to none; is there a better director for this type of film than Spielberg or a better actor than Ford?

I think part of the reason that filmmakers keep going back and trying to copy Indy is because on the surface it looks easy. A director can look at it and fool himself into thinking he could do that just as well.
"The Mummy" had some of the elements right and so did "Romancing the Stone" but they both played the story for laughs and that doesn't work. In the Indy films everything is taken seriously. There are laughs but they flow out of the situation instead of being shoehorned in because some director says, "We need a joke here."

There ae more great adventure films out there to be made and maybe the success of "The Mummy" will cause some directors to try their hand at it but they'll have to pull a miracle to be better than Indy.

Follow Ups:

Re: here's my opinion... Anejo Joe 12:32:09 7/11/99 (0)
And then there's... Deirdre 04:27:00 7/11/99 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: True, Indiana Jones is not a wholly original creation but it has some things that those others do not. First, it was made as an homage to those old serials and it did them one better. The old serials were cheaply made and though they're a lot of fun, they're not exactly quality product. Spielberg and Lucas made a cliffhanger like those old guys might have made if they'd had the money and the technology.
: Those other movies you mentioned were made first and foremost to cash in on Indy's success. Some of them were also good and some were horribly bad (the Richard Chamberlain film just sucks)
: Plus the level of talent on the Indy films (in front and behind the cameras) is second to none; is there a better director for this type of film than Spielberg or a better actor than Ford?

: I think part of the reason that filmmakers keep going back and trying to copy Indy is because on the surface it looks easy. A director can look at it and fool himself into thinking he could do that just as well.
: "The Mummy" had some of the elements right and so did "Romancing the Stone" but they both played the story for laughs and that doesn't work. In the Indy films everything is taken seriously. There are laughs but they flow out of the situation instead of being shoehorned in because some director says, "We need a joke here."

: There ae more great adventure films out there to be made and maybe the success of "The Mummy" will cause some directors to try their hand at it but they'll have to pull a miracle to be better than Indy.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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