I disagree

Posted by Adam from spider-wk032.proxy.aol.com on October 31, 1999 at 21:58:54:

In Reply to: The Last Crusade posted by Mack on October 31, 1999 at 17:57:29:

: I've been hearing some people bad-mouthing The Last Crusade lately. What the hell is your problem? Either you like Indy or hate Indy, and TLC was 100% an Indy movie.

Hate to say this, but I respectfully disagree with you on this point, if you don't mind my saying so. I love the Indiana Jones character as much as anyone -- RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK inspired my love of movies, which is the industry I am now working in.

Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly disagree on your "either you like or hate" comment. Indy is a great character, but remember that these are FILMS we are talking about -- requiring a solid story, an effective creativity, and a full-fleshed characterization to not only work, but to SOAR above the rest of the movies out there. Something special.

No creative product can be met with unanimous approval, though certainly the majority of audiences -- and critics -- smiled widely on the first film.

However, films are subject to flaws as well as strengths, and we as audiences -- however much we may love the character Indiana Jones -- would be foolish to simply accept every Indy movie 100%. It would be deluding ourselves.

I remember reading one STAR WARS fan's comments regarding critics' negative reaction to THE PHANTOM MENACE. "We are obligated to love it," he wrote "because we're fans...because we're better than critics."

This is nonsense. We're not obligated to anything, other than to be honest in our assesments and opinions. We are not brainwashed George Lucas, or Indiana Jones, minions but paying moviegoers.

In the case of Indy, I was a diehard fan of RAIDERS when, at age 11, I walked out of the theater showing TEMPLE in 1984 with a silly sense of disappointment. I wanted to like the film -- and can't deny that parts of it rocked -- but I felt it strayed too far from the style and solid writing of the first film, descending into an almost camp quality.

LAST CRUSADE I highly enjoyed, though I feel it had some severe plot holes and the action sequences were not as well executed. I also felt the Jones character somehow seemed a shadow of his former self -- a little too light, too easygoing and campy -- and featuring a very unsatisfactory ending. It felt like a fun, silly fireworks display, yet one that ended with a whimper instead of a really big bang.

I don't think either sequels topped RAIDERS, and while I enjoyed all films to a certain degree I'd be the last to say that you either accept a film unconditionally or not at all. Even RAIDERS has its flaws, creative and otherwise.

Even with the work of the late Stanley Kubrick -- an auteur whose films were his own very distinct vision, requiring audiences to see them on his terms -- I can't just blindly love or hate anything. I have to find out -- think out -- for myself. It's a process. And sometimes my opinions may even change over time. But they are MY opinions, MY reactions, and I take them with me. Audiences aren't cattle -- they are involved with a film just as much as a cinematographer or director, reacting to what they see, hear, and feel. Nothing is black or white, but many times many things are black AND white. We're cheating and lying to ourselves if we try to believe otherwise.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : I've been hearing some people bad-mouthing The Last Crusade lately. What the hell is your problem? Either you like Indy or hate Indy, and TLC was 100% an Indy movie.

: Hate to say this, but I respectfully disagree with you on this point, if you don't mind my saying so.  I love the Indiana Jones character as much as anyone -- RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK inspired my love of movies, which is the industry I am now working in.

: Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly disagree on your "either you like or hate" comment.  Indy is a great character, but remember that these are FILMS we are talking about -- requiring a solid story, an effective creativity, and a full-fleshed characterization to not only work, but to SOAR above the rest of the movies out there.  Something special.

: No creative product can be met with unanimous approval, though certainly the majority of audiences -- and critics -- smiled widely on the first film.

: However, films are subject to flaws as well as strengths, and we as audiences -- however much we may love the character Indiana Jones -- would be foolish to simply accept every Indy movie 100%.  It would be deluding ourselves.

: I remember reading one STAR WARS fan's comments regarding critics' negative reaction to THE PHANTOM MENACE.  "We are obligated to love it," he wrote "because we're fans...because we're better than critics."

: This is nonsense.  We're not obligated to anything, other than to be honest in our assesments and opinions.  We are not brainwashed George Lucas, or Indiana Jones, minions but paying moviegoers.

: In the case of Indy, I was a diehard fan of RAIDERS when, at age 11, I walked out of the theater showing TEMPLE in 1984 with a silly sense of disappointment.  I wanted to like the film -- and can't deny that parts of it rocked -- but I felt it strayed too far from the style and solid writing of the first film, descending into an almost camp quality.

: LAST CRUSADE I highly enjoyed, though I feel it had some severe plot holes and the action sequences were not as well executed.  I also felt the Jones character somehow seemed a shadow of his former self -- a little too light, too easygoing and campy -- and featuring a very unsatisfactory ending.  It felt like a fun, silly fireworks display, yet one that ended with a whimper instead of a really big bang.

: I don't think either sequels topped RAIDERS, and while I enjoyed all films to a certain degree I'd be the last to say that you either accept a film unconditionally or not at all.  Even RAIDERS has its flaws, creative and otherwise.

: Even with the work of the late Stanley Kubrick -- an auteur whose films were his own very distinct vision, requiring audiences to see them on his terms -- I can't just blindly love or hate anything.  I have to find out -- think out -- for myself.  It's a process.  And sometimes my opinions may even change over time.  But they are MY opinions, MY reactions, and I take them with me.  Audiences aren't cattle -- they are involved with a film just as much as a cinematographer or director, reacting to what they see, hear, and feel.  Nothing is black or white, but many times many things are black AND white.  We're cheating and lying to ourselves if we try to believe otherwise.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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