Well spoken Michaelson,and Steve. nm

Posted by Ravenwood from spider-tn064.proxy.aol.com on December 08, 1999 at 21:50:16:

In Reply to: What the @#$% do you mean by that?? (grins) posted by Michaelson on December 08, 1999 at 14:21:26:

: : : The Mummy was not a rip-off of an old film. It was an original story idea. Too bad Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan aren't half the geniuses that the guys who made the Mummy are. You guys are just mad because the Indy Jones era is long gone. The Mummy is the new word in adventure films.

: Heck, speaking strickly for myself, I have always been of the mind that duplication can sometimes be the most sincere form of flattery. I have enjoyed such movies as the "King Solomns' Mines" series, though granted compared to Indy series, they are a breeze compared to a hurricane, but shoot, they are just fun movies. I personally enjoyed the Mummy from start to finish....still do. I was one of the first to buy the tape when it arrived a Wal-Mart here locally. What some folks seem to deam as "rip off" artists feeding off of the Indy legacy, I think it's just another version of someone attempted to capture that same flavor of the era and entertain an audience. Everytime it happens, folks usually say, "Well, it sure ain't Indiana Jones!" and that, my friends, has to be the best part of it all. It keeps Indy fresh in the minds of the public, as they're constantly being reminded of just how good the series was, and keep using Indy as the benchmark for all others to be measured by. If we didn't have films like the Mummy, or films like it, to keep the benchmark on the public's mind, then I'm afraid LucasFilm and co. would just move on and forget the entire franchise. As far as I'm concerned, keep 'em coming. I'll pay to see another Mummy! And they're supposed to make a second one next year! Suits me, as we'll all have the public saying "It sure ain't Indiana Jones!" again, and get the boys in Hollywood to work to hit the benchmark again. Regards. Michaelson

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : : : The Mummy was not a rip-off of an old film. It was an original story idea. Too bad Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan aren't half the geniuses that the guys who made the Mummy are. You guys are just mad because the Indy Jones era is long gone. The Mummy is the new word in adventure films.

: : Heck, speaking strickly for myself, I have always been of the mind that duplication can sometimes be the most sincere form of flattery. I have enjoyed such movies as the "King Solomns' Mines" series, though granted compared to Indy series, they are a breeze compared to a hurricane, but shoot, they are just fun movies. I personally enjoyed the Mummy from start to finish....still do. I was one of the first to buy the tape when it arrived a Wal-Mart here locally. What some folks seem to deam as "rip off" artists feeding off of the Indy legacy, I think it's just another version of someone attempted to capture that same flavor of the era and entertain an audience. Everytime it happens, folks usually say, "Well, it sure ain't Indiana Jones!" and that, my friends, has to be the best part of it all. It keeps Indy fresh in the minds of the public, as they're constantly being reminded of just how good the series was, and keep using Indy as the benchmark for all others to be measured by. If we didn't have films like the Mummy, or films like it, to keep the benchmark on the public's mind, then I'm afraid LucasFilm and co. would just move on and forget the entire franchise. As far as I'm concerned, keep 'em coming. I'll pay to see another Mummy! And they're supposed to make a second one next year! Suits me, as we'll all have the public saying "It sure ain't Indiana Jones!" again, and get the boys in Hollywood to work to hit the benchmark again. Regards. Michaelson

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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