Re: Just wanted to reiterate some points that Nick Kismet made earlier about Indy IV...

Posted by Thuggee Bear from host-209-214-180-25.cae.bellsouth.net on August 05, 1999 at 10:18:45:

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:

I still don't think the nazis should be back for Indy IV. I agree with you that they were great villians, (especially Toht, who has always been one of my favorites), but I just don't think they could use them in a way they haven't already. You also have to consider Lucas and Spielberg. I'm sure many fans would like to see the nazis be really vicious and dark, but I seriously doubt they would have nazis like that in an Indy film now. If they used them again, they would be exactly as they were in Last Crusade. I also think Mola Ram was still a good villian, and very effective for the leader of a mad cult. I agree with you about Belloq, but there is also something frightening about someone who has a primitive mind, yet real power.

Another reason I wouldn't want nazis back is that they're too much of a "safe" villian, in that no one can be offended by the film's depiction of them. Even so, as evil as the nazis were, it's not like they were the first to do what they did. One of the things I liked about Temple was that it took it's villians from an earlier period in history. Ultimately though, I really hope politically-correctness doesn't play a part in Indy IV. I know that the monkey king script for Indy III was rejected by Lucas and Spielberg because they were afraid of more racial stereotyping accusations, after backlash from Temple.

As for the lost city idea, you both make a good point, but I think there might be potential for Indy somewhere in the idea. After all, lost cities are a big part of the cloth that Indy is cut from, turning up in all of the predecessors like Burroughs' or H. Rider Haggard's works. True, I wouldn't want any convenient explanation of why it's no longer there, but after all, it is fiction and anything can happen to explain it. I just hope that it would be a very good explanation. One of the reasons I came around to liking the Garden of Life idea, was the notion that Indy was going after something really vast. They have changed Indy's motivation for getting involved in each film, getting away from simply seeking an artifact. In Raiders he sought to beat the nazis, (or specifically Belloq), but at the same time he really wanted the Ark himself. I think he would still go after a "find of great importance", but if they're not going for the same style as Raiders this time out, I think he should be after something really special and mystical. (And definitely avoid any cheap motivation to explain it.)

PS. You mentioned Indy losing the Ark, isn't it funny that the only thing he has got to keep is the Cross of Coronado? (Unless you count the few artifacts he took from the Idol Temple.)

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: I still don't think the nazis should be back for Indy IV.  I agree with you that they were great villians, (especially Toht, who has always been one of my favorites), but I just don't think they could use them in a way they haven't already.  You also have to consider Lucas and Spielberg.  I'm sure many fans would like to see the nazis be really vicious and dark, but I seriously doubt they would have nazis like that in an Indy film now.  If they used them again, they would be exactly as they were in Last Crusade.  I also think Mola Ram was still a good villian, and very effective for the leader of a mad cult.  I agree with you about Belloq, but there is also something frightening about someone who has a primitive mind, yet real power.

: Another reason I wouldn't want nazis back is that they're too much of a "safe" villian, in that no one can be offended by the film's depiction of them.  Even so, as evil as the nazis were, it's not like they were the first to do what they did.  One of the things I liked about Temple was that it took it's villians from an earlier period in history.  Ultimately though, I really hope politically-correctness doesn't play a part in Indy IV.  I know that the monkey king script for Indy III was rejected by Lucas and Spielberg because they were afraid of more racial stereotyping accusations, after backlash from Temple.

: As for the lost city idea, you both make a good point, but I think there might be potential for Indy somewhere in the idea.  After all, lost cities are a big part of the cloth that Indy is cut from, turning up in all of the predecessors like Burroughs' or H. Rider Haggard's works.  True, I wouldn't want any convenient explanation of why it's no longer there, but after all, it is fiction and anything can happen to explain it.  I just hope that it would be a very good explanation.  One of the reasons I came around to liking the Garden of Life idea, was the notion that Indy was going after something really vast.  They have changed Indy's motivation for getting involved in each film, getting away from simply seeking an artifact.  In Raiders he sought to beat the nazis, (or specifically Belloq), but at the same time he really wanted the Ark himself.  I think he would still go after a "find of great importance", but if they're not going for the same style as Raiders this time out, I think he should be after something really special and mystical.  (And definitely avoid any cheap motivation to explain it.)

: 
: PS. You mentioned Indy losing the Ark, isn't it funny that the only thing he has got to keep is the Cross of Coronado?  (Unless you count the few artifacts he took from the Idol Temple.)

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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