AAGH!! Got cut off in mid-rant. Here's the whole thing...

Posted by ROB T. from 162.10.138.28 on August 05, 1999 at 01:09:03:

In Reply to: Just wanted to reiterate some points that Nick Kismet made earlier about Indy IV... posted by ROB T. on August 05, 1999 at 00:42:24:

: Nick made some comments yesterday in a post on what's your favorite rumored script and I'd like to pinpoint a few of the things he touched on and add my two cents.
: First, he said that "Raiders" worked because it dealt with a single, mobile artifact in a contemporary setting. I think the word mobile is very important. In all the Indy films he has gone after an artifact that can be moved from place to place. Part of the fun is seeing Indy get his hands on the prize only to have it stolen away. If Indy goes searching for a lost city then there's no prize to trade hands.
: I really like the fact that Indy always wins and loses in the end. He finds the artifact he was after and defeats the villain but he still walks away with nothing.
: If they make Indy IV about the search for Atlantis (which I don't think they will but I'm just saying) then there can only be two outcomes. Either Indy doesn't find the city or they have to explain why you and I can't go visit it in the 1990's. After all if Atlantis was discovered in the thirties or forties how can it still be lost now?
: Second, it can't be emphasized enough how much Indy IV needs a strong villain. So far in the series the villains have gotten progressively weaker. Belloq and Toht and even Deitrich were wonderful. Belloq is cool, suave and very smart; as smart as Indy really. He also has a believeable motive, he wants to speak to God.
: Toht is vicious and sadistic and creepy. He is equal in screen villainy to Darth Vader or any of those slimy guys that Peter Lorre used to play in the thirties.
: Deitrich is somewhat cardboard but that is okay. He's just a jackboot who's following his Feuhrer's orders. But even he comes off as more menacing than the Nazis in "Last Crusade."
The Thuggees in "Temple of Doom" are certainly mean enough but I didn't feel they were smart enough. Mola Ram barely speaks and seems like he's uncivilized and primitive. No match for our intrepid hero.
When a filmmaker makes a sequel to an adventure film they always try to ratchet up the action content and add more stuntwork. They need to worry first about the villain. Once we've seen Indy defeat a trio of sharp, evil men then we have to see his next opponent be even smarter and even more evil. There has to be a new challenge or else why bother telling the story to begin with. We have to see Indy use his brain and gutsiness in new ways so we can be awed by his resourcefulness.
Instead of trying to figure out what new trinket Indy can go after and building the story around that, I'd like to see the filmmakers start with the villain. Come up with a worthy opponent first and give him a prize to chase. Then give Indy a good reason to need to stop them. I feel this is what was done in "Raiders." We find out that the Nazis are after the Ark and Indy is hired to get it first. Before the Army guys came to him, Indy had no interest in the Ark. The real prize in "Raiders" is not aquiring the Ark. It's stopping the Nazis from getting it.
Third, Nick mentioned that the role of Indy is bigger than any one actor. I agree. We've already seen several actors play Indy at different stages of his life. Indy is always compared to James Bond and I think there's one more way that they're similar. Both roles can be passed on to more than one actor. If Harrison Ford were no longer available to play Indy I think they should look for someone else.
Lastly, the truest thing I've heard on this forum was when Nick said, "The worst enemy Indy faces is stagnation." Amen.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: 
: : Nick made some comments yesterday in a post on what's your favorite rumored script and I'd like to pinpoint a few of the things he touched on and add my two cents.
: : First, he said that "Raiders" worked because it dealt with a single, mobile artifact in a contemporary setting. I think the word mobile is very important. In all the Indy films he has gone after an artifact that can be moved from place to place. Part of the fun is seeing Indy get his hands on the prize only to have it stolen away. If Indy goes searching for a lost city then there's no prize to trade hands.
: : I really like the fact that Indy always wins and loses in the end. He finds the artifact he was after and defeats the villain but he still walks away with nothing.
: : If they make Indy IV about the search for Atlantis (which I don't think they will but I'm just saying) then there can only be two outcomes. Either Indy doesn't find the city or they have to explain why you and I can't go visit it in the 1990's. After all if Atlantis was discovered in the thirties or forties how can it still be lost now?
: : Second, it can't be emphasized enough how much Indy IV needs a strong villain. So far in the series the villains have gotten progressively weaker. Belloq and Toht and even Deitrich were wonderful. Belloq is cool, suave and very smart; as smart as Indy really. He also has a believeable motive, he wants to speak to God.
: : Toht is vicious and sadistic and creepy. He is equal in screen villainy to Darth Vader or any of those slimy guys that Peter Lorre used to play in the thirties.
: : Deitrich is somewhat cardboard but that is okay. He's just a jackboot who's following his Feuhrer's orders. But even he comes off as more menacing than the Nazis in "Last Crusade."
: The Thuggees in "Temple of Doom" are certainly mean enough but I didn't feel they were smart enough. Mola Ram barely speaks and seems like he's uncivilized and primitive. No match for our intrepid hero.
: When a filmmaker makes a sequel to an adventure film they always try to ratchet up the action content and add more stuntwork. They need to worry first about the villain. Once we've seen Indy defeat a trio of sharp, evil men then we have to see his next opponent be even smarter and even more evil. There has to be a new challenge or else why bother telling the story to begin with. We have to see Indy use his brain and gutsiness in new ways so we can be awed by his resourcefulness.
: Instead of trying to figure out what new trinket Indy can go after and building the story around that, I'd like to see the filmmakers start with the villain. Come up with a worthy opponent first and give him a prize to chase. Then give Indy a good reason to need to stop them. I feel this is what was done in "Raiders." We find out that the Nazis are after the Ark and Indy is hired to get it first. Before the Army guys came to him, Indy had no interest in the Ark. The real prize in "Raiders" is not aquiring the Ark. It's stopping the Nazis from getting it.
: Third, Nick mentioned that the role of Indy is bigger than any one actor. I agree. We've already seen several actors play Indy at different stages of his life. Indy is always compared to James Bond and I think there's one more way that they're similar. Both roles can be passed on to more than one actor. If Harrison Ford were no longer available to play Indy I think they should look for someone else.
: Lastly, the truest thing I've heard on this forum was when Nick said, "The worst enemy Indy faces is stagnation." Amen.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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