Lucas will rip off Talbot Mundy again like he did with all the other three. . .

Posted by Bellosh from as-49-1-4-38.cwcom.net on January 31, 2001 at 19:22:34:

In Reply to: A few obstacles to Indy 4, from a writer's perspective. posted by Shawnkara on January 31, 2001 at 18:22:08:

. . .and it'll be Atlantis, like it was in the last Jimgrim novel. Trust me. If a lost city of Atlanteans buried deep in the Gobni desert isn't a fine setting for an Indy film then i don't know what is. And as for needing an artefact greater than the Ark but with some basis in historical fact. . .well, the Ark of the Covenant is a semi-mythical object, and Atlantis, while a mythical place, has a history in antiquity that goes back to Plato and therefore far before in the legends and myths that he drew upon for his dialogues featuring Atlantis (I forget what they are). And as for Stalin, well, the man wasn't just cruel, he was as great a mass-murderer as Hitler, but i don't reckon it'll be him. Left wing guys can't be villains! They'll reuse the villains from 'Saucermen', like all the scripts (have reused stuff from earlier drafts) so we'll get Cheslav the Russsian agaent (a great bad guy) and some kind of traitorous American/European, (like Bolander) with perhaps the Red Army in the background (and a couple of good Russians to balance it out). Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised to see aliens in the mix too, as the Atlantis myth has more recently been mixed up with alien civilisation myths. You know what they should do? end it with an alien mothership coming tyo blow up the planet, and then get the Ark out of its crate and use that to 'kick ET's butt'. Now wouldn't that be a nice piece of circularity to end the series on? - Bellosh

: The plot thrust of the Indiana Jones films has always been Indy's quest for objects that could either save or doom the world. This is perhaps the most important point where continuity is concerned. The films are a brilliant mix of fact and fantasy. 'Raiders' and 'Last Crusade' succeed on two points; 1)both the Grail and the Ark acctually existed (though largely bolstered by myth). 2) Adolph Hitler truly was obsessed with the occult, the supernatural and all things that he felt might empower him spiritually or otherwise. 'Temple of Doom' was believable to an extent in the fact that, through out history, religeous cults have sought control of society (maybe not the WHOLE WORLD, but at least the social order). How many relics of the past are left in this respect that are based, in part or in whole, on fact? The few comic book and novel incarnations are not really consistent prospective Armageddon. I don't see how the discovery of Atlantis would effect the planet's future. I've heard rumors of a possible Fountain of Youth plot but, again, I fail to see the alarming signifigance of that, either. When dealing in fantasy there's a fine line between a classic film and an after school special. You could easily write a story with no fatual basis. You could write a story with so little historical signifigance that the embelishments needed to make it interesting stray too far from the truth. Indiana Jones has spawned more imitators in that vein than I care to recall, and consider how those turned out. Antagonism is another concern. The Nazis made for the ideal antagonists. Hitler truly was a larger-than-life super-villain, no embelishment required. Who would be the ideal nemesis for a fourth film? It's already been said (rumored) that the Nazis would not be used again. I've heard of a 'Red scare' plot, and there you're dealing with Joseph Stalin (?). A cruel man as well, but would probably have to be blown slightly out of proportion to make him a workable character in an Indy film. The films, however, do little embelishment of historical figures, only the artifacts and mythology. There a number of plot scenarios in which you could pit Indy against Stalin for the future of the world, but where would archaeology come into play? You COULD write a totally fictional story as with ToD, but even that film was loosely based on history. I'm not saying I don't want an Indy 4, I'm just seriously concerned with the direction. I think it's clear to all of us that Indy is no longer a Lucas priority, and I have to question how much passion and effort he would really put into it. Speilberg should remain involved, however. I loved Jurassic Park, simply for the fact that it told a graet story and Speilberg seems to be the only man alive who understands how to use computer animation to ENHANCE a story, not to TELL the story. I'm interested to see what Shahaymalan would turn in; his style is very surreal, yet his character development remains very human and fastly grounded. Directors and writers are often 'type cast', as are actors. After films such as 'The Sixth Sense' and 'Unbreakable' people may tend to assume this is all he is capable of. He has shown some diversity, however; he wrote the screenplay for 'Stuart Little' as well. On a personal note Shahaymalan (I realize I'm misspelling his name) is a huge 'Raiders' fan; it was inspiration to become a writer. It was mine, as well. That gets my curiousity up as to what he would do with it. I've began fleshing out an Indy story of my own but have not even begun to figure out where to start researching. Anyway, these are the things I think of when I'm home alone and th power goes out....

Follow Ups:

Re: Lucas will rip off Talbot Mundy again like he did with all the other three. . . Fonze 21:45:47 1/31/2001 (0)
maybe a dumb question Inby 19:40:05 1/31/2001 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: . . .and it'll be Atlantis, like it was in the last Jimgrim novel. Trust me. If a lost city of Atlanteans buried deep in the Gobni desert isn't a fine setting for an Indy film then i don't know what is. And as for needing an artefact greater than the Ark but with some basis in historical fact. . .well, the Ark of the Covenant is a semi-mythical object, and Atlantis, while a mythical place, has a history in antiquity that goes back to Plato and therefore far before in the legends and myths that he drew upon for his dialogues featuring Atlantis (I forget what they are). And as for Stalin, well, the man wasn't just cruel, he was as great a mass-murderer as Hitler, but i don't reckon it'll be him. Left wing guys can't be villains! They'll reuse the villains from 'Saucermen', like all the scripts (have reused stuff from earlier drafts) so we'll get Cheslav the Russsian agaent (a great bad guy) and some kind of traitorous American/European, (like Bolander) with perhaps the Red Army in the background (and a couple of good Russians to balance it out). Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised to see aliens in the mix too, as the Atlantis myth has more recently been mixed up with alien civilisation myths. You know what they should do? end it with an alien mothership coming tyo blow up the planet, and then get the Ark out of its crate and use that to 'kick ET's butt'. Now wouldn't that be a nice piece of circularity to end the series on? - Bellosh

: : The plot thrust of the Indiana Jones films has always been Indy's quest for objects that could either save or doom the world. This is perhaps the most important point where continuity is concerned. The films are a brilliant mix of fact and fantasy. 'Raiders' and 'Last Crusade' succeed on two points; 1)both the Grail and the Ark acctually existed (though largely bolstered by myth). 2) Adolph Hitler truly was obsessed with the occult, the supernatural and all things that he felt might empower him spiritually or otherwise. 'Temple of Doom' was believable to an extent in the fact that, through out history, religeous cults have sought control of society (maybe not the WHOLE WORLD, but at least the social order). How many relics of the past are left in this respect that are based, in part or in whole, on fact? The few comic book and novel incarnations are not really consistent prospective Armageddon. I don't see how the discovery of Atlantis would effect the planet's future. I've heard rumors of a possible Fountain of Youth plot but, again, I fail to see the alarming signifigance of that, either. When dealing in fantasy there's a fine line between a classic film and an after school special. You could easily write a story with no fatual basis. You could write a story with so little historical signifigance that the embelishments needed to make it interesting stray too far from the truth. Indiana Jones has spawned more imitators in that vein than I care to recall, and consider how those turned out. Antagonism is another concern. The Nazis made for the ideal antagonists. Hitler truly was a larger-than-life super-villain, no embelishment required. Who would be the ideal nemesis for a fourth film? It's already been said (rumored) that the Nazis would not be used again. I've heard of a 'Red scare' plot, and there you're dealing with Joseph Stalin (?). A cruel man as well, but would probably have to be blown slightly out of proportion to make him a workable character in an Indy film. The films, however, do little embelishment of historical figures, only the artifacts and mythology. There a number of plot scenarios in which you could pit Indy against Stalin for the future of the world, but where would archaeology come into play? You COULD write a totally fictional story as with ToD, but even that film was loosely based on history. I'm not saying I don't want an Indy 4, I'm just seriously concerned with the direction. I think it's clear to all of us that Indy is no longer a Lucas priority, and I have to question how much passion and effort he would really put into it. Speilberg should remain involved, however. I loved Jurassic Park, simply for the fact that it told a graet story and Speilberg seems to be the only man alive who understands how to use computer animation to ENHANCE a story, not to TELL the story. I'm interested to see what Shahaymalan would turn in; his style is very surreal, yet his character development remains very human and fastly grounded. Directors and writers are often 'type cast', as are actors. After films such as 'The Sixth Sense' and 'Unbreakable' people may tend to assume this is all he is capable of. He has shown some diversity, however; he wrote the screenplay for 'Stuart Little' as well. On a personal note Shahaymalan (I realize I'm misspelling his name) is a huge 'Raiders' fan; it was inspiration to become a writer. It was mine, as well. That gets my curiousity up as to what he would do with it. I've began fleshing out an Indy story of my own but have not even begun to figure out where to start researching. Anyway, these are the things I think of when I'm home alone and th power goes out....

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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