Re: You know.....

Posted by Añejo Joe from 148.charlotte-18-19rs.nc.dial-access.att.net on May 21, 2001 at 17:25:20:

In Reply to: You know..... posted by Shawnkara on May 21, 2001 at 01:52:11:

: I love Indy as much as anyone, but not every damn period adventure is a copy of the Indy films. I'm getting tired of pointing this out but Indy himself is nothing but a meltimg pot of every trait, costume piece, weapon and stunt used in the serials of the '30's and '40's. You can't really call something a copy of a copy. You may as well say that "The Mummy" films and Indy are BOTH homages of something much earlier and largely forgotten. As for your theory on the columns; not everything that falls over in a film owes a credit to "Raiders". Acctually, it's a spin on the bookcase gag in the first "Mummy" film, to an extent that the pacing and the panning were nearly identical. Alex's reply, "Whoa", is a reflection to Evylyn's reply of, "Oops", to the bookcase gag. It was a scene intended to display character traits between parent and child and was a rather clever little addition to the character's development. It was not just a cheap rip-off of the Anubus statue thing from "Raiders". As for the Webley thing; fine, you're right, EVERY film using Webley firearms MUST be a rip-off Indy. When thinking of the time period of both "The Mummy" and Indy remember that Webley was one of the few leading manufacturers of firearms of that time, handguns in particular. It would be hard to retain historical accuracy without ariving at Webley, Colt or S&W. As for the "E.T." thing, well, I'll have to give you that one.

Maybe so, but the Mummy movies look a lot closer to Indy than to the old Boris Karloff orignial Mummy. You would expect just the opposite.

Follow Ups:

Good point, but.... Shawnkara 01:45:37 5/22/2001 (1)
- Re: Good point, but.... Añejo Joe 06:31:54 5/22/2001 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : I love Indy as much as anyone, but not every damn period adventure is a copy of the Indy films. I'm getting tired of pointing this out but Indy himself is nothing but a meltimg pot of every trait, costume piece, weapon and stunt used in the serials of the '30's and '40's. You can't really call something a copy of a copy. You may as well say that "The Mummy" films and Indy are BOTH homages of something much earlier and largely forgotten. As for your theory on the columns; not everything that falls over in a film owes a credit to "Raiders". Acctually, it's a spin on the bookcase gag in the first "Mummy" film, to an extent that the pacing and the panning were nearly identical. Alex's reply, "Whoa", is a reflection to Evylyn's reply of, "Oops", to the bookcase gag. It was a scene intended to display character traits between parent and child and was a rather clever little addition to the character's development. It was not just a cheap rip-off of the Anubus statue thing from "Raiders". As for the Webley thing; fine, you're right, EVERY film using Webley firearms MUST be a rip-off Indy. When thinking of the time period of both "The Mummy" and Indy remember that Webley was one of the few leading manufacturers of firearms of that time, handguns in particular. It would be hard to retain historical accuracy without ariving at Webley, Colt or S&W. As for the "E.T." thing, well, I'll have to give you that one.

: 
: Maybe so, but the Mummy movies look a lot closer to Indy than to the old Boris Karloff orignial Mummy.  You would expect just the opposite.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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