Re: LET me put it this way

Posted by Michaelson from em12_686.utsi.edu on July 01, 1998 at 19:56:57:

In Reply to: Re: LET me put it this way posted by Freak0ut on July 01, 1998 at 18:33:18:

:
: i think that Cap'n Paul went too crazy on IJONES. IJONES, sorry I don't know if you are male or female, only said that the general consensus was that Temple is regarded by the greater percentage of ~real~ Indy fans to be the most unlike Indy. Something I have found to be the truth as well. The character is portrayed a lot differently in Temple than in Raiders or Last Crusade. In Last Crusade, when he is only 13 years old, he is intent on having the Cross put into a museum, and he views it this way throughout his teenage years on the television program. In Young Indiana Jones and the Treasure of the Peacock's Eye, he officially decides that "treasure hunting" is not his business. If he had the anti-treasure hunting viewpoint at age 13, reestablished it again at age 18, and obviosuly mantained it until age 39, it seems psychotic to think that he would be chasing "fortune and glory" at age 34/35. Plus, when Chattar Lal meets Indy, he says "Dr. Jones? The ~eminent~ archaeologist?" The word eminent implies that Indy already ~had~ a certain amount of glory, so thre is that slight contradiction. Throughout the trilogy, the tv series and the books, it has been CLEAR that Indy is an archaeologist for his love of the field and is not in it for the money or treasure hunting ("Archaeologists do not follow maps to buried tresure and X never, ever, marks the spot"). In Temple of Doom, the mention of fortune and glory is constant and THAT is why it is regarded by ~many~ people to be unlike Indy as we know and love him. Not to say that if you disagree, you arent a "true indy fan" or anything like that. God, do I know way too much about this character? :)

You definately have your own angle on the character. The differences between the three weren't exactly based upon the twists and turns of the character, but the twists and turns of the creator of the character. The Raiders/Last Crusade was based upon the setup of Steven Spielberg, where Lucas wanted the second movie to reflect what HE thought his character should be, a James Bond type, thus the tuxedo, without weapon (losing the Colt in the first 10 minutes of the movie) using more of his wits to work his way through the maze of the Temple's mystery. Folks weren't ready for such a dramatic difference between the first two movies. I heard through the grapevine that there was pretty much a "I told you so" type attitude throughout the entire group in Hollywood after the release of T of D. The archeologist situation on Indy has flip flopped throughout this entire existance. Even in original interviews with Harrison Ford, he's quoted as saying he personally believed that his character was nothing but a grave robber, a statement not repeated later as the franchise grew. Though not uncommon, I've know a lot of professionals who have reversed themselves and their beliefs several times in so many years, including myself. Sometimes you take the high road, sometimes the low. The plan is to stay on a road, not the ditch. Yes, Indy definately stated one thing in his classroom, as you quote above, but his field work usually went in other directions. This is only because the situation at the time changed his position. Not his beliefs, but the way he had to pursue the problem at the time. After the smoke cleared, he could return to his plotted course. I also know a lot of "eminent" scientist's in their field who probably couldn't find their way off the parking lot if they removed the signs. Sometime being eminent just means very well known for your work. Believe me, I'm older than the above mentioned 34/35, and almost everything I had strong beliefs and ambitions have totally changed since my youth, but in my own way I still pursue my own idea of fortune and glory. Achieve it every now and again too. If I'm psychotic, so be it. I'm comfortable with it. You've given this a lot of thought. It shows too. Regards. Michaelson

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : 
: : i think that Cap'n Paul went too crazy on IJONES. IJONES, sorry I don't know if you are male or female, only said that the general consensus was that Temple is regarded by the greater percentage of ~real~ Indy fans to be the most unlike Indy. Something I have found to be the truth as well. The character is portrayed a lot differently in Temple than in Raiders or Last Crusade. In Last Crusade, when he is only 13 years old, he is intent on having the Cross put into a museum, and he views it this way throughout his teenage years on the television program. In Young Indiana Jones and the Treasure of the Peacock's Eye, he officially decides that "treasure hunting" is not his business. If he had the anti-treasure hunting viewpoint at age 13, reestablished it again at age 18, and obviosuly mantained it until age 39, it seems psychotic to think that he would be chasing "fortune and glory" at age 34/35. Plus, when Chattar Lal meets Indy, he says "Dr. Jones? The ~eminent~ archaeologist?" The word eminent implies that Indy already ~had~ a certain amount of glory, so thre is that slight contradiction. Throughout the trilogy, the tv series and the books, it has been CLEAR that Indy is an archaeologist for his love of the field and is not in it for the money or treasure hunting ("Archaeologists do not follow maps to buried tresure and X never, ever, marks the spot"). In Temple of Doom, the mention of fortune and glory is constant and THAT is why it is regarded by ~many~ people to be unlike Indy as we know and love him. Not to say that if you disagree, you arent a "true indy fan" or anything like that. God, do I know way too much about this character? :)

: You definately have your own angle on the character. The differences between the three weren't exactly based upon the twists and turns of the character, but the twists and turns of the creator of the character. The Raiders/Last Crusade was based upon the setup of Steven Spielberg, where Lucas wanted the second movie to reflect what HE thought his character should be, a James Bond type, thus the tuxedo, without weapon (losing the Colt in the first 10 minutes of the movie) using more of his wits to work his way through the maze of the Temple's mystery. Folks weren't ready for such a dramatic difference between the first two movies. I heard through the grapevine that there was pretty much a "I told you so" type attitude throughout the entire group in Hollywood after the release of T of D. The archeologist situation on Indy has flip flopped throughout this entire existance. Even in original interviews with Harrison Ford, he's quoted as saying he personally believed that his character was nothing but a grave robber, a statement not repeated later as the franchise grew. Though not uncommon, I've know a lot of professionals who have reversed themselves and their beliefs several times in so many years, including myself. Sometimes you take the high road, sometimes the low. The plan is to stay on a road, not the ditch. Yes, Indy definately stated one thing in his classroom, as you quote above, but his field work usually went in other directions. This is only because the situation at the time changed his position. Not his beliefs, but the way he had to pursue the problem at the time. After the smoke cleared, he could return to his plotted course. I also know a lot of "eminent" scientist's in their field who probably couldn't find their way off the parking lot if they removed the signs. Sometime being eminent just means very well known for your work. Believe me, I'm older than the above mentioned 34/35, and almost everything I had strong beliefs and ambitions have totally changed since my youth, but in my own way I still pursue my own idea of fortune and glory. Achieve it every now and again too. If I'm psychotic, so be it. I'm comfortable with it.  You've given this a lot of thought. It shows too. Regards. Michaelson

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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