Re: Question for Shawnkara on Indy 4

Posted by Shawnkara from spider-wa031.proxy.aol.com on July 17, 2001 at 02:16:06:

In Reply to: Question for Shawnkara on Indy 4 posted by AM on July 16, 2001 at 10:43:26:

I'm sure they'll ruin the franchise with a fourth film because, in my opinion, they ruined it with the third; 'Last Crusade'. I hate, absolutely HATE, that movie. It isn't an Indy movie at all. Between Brody being converted into a blithering idiot and Indy falling victim to every single assinine thing his nearly retarded Father does it plays out more like an episode of the Three Stooges than an Indy film. I've brought this up before. Someone asked, "We barely see Marcus in 'Raiders'. How do you know he wasn't always an idiot?". In 'Raiders' his character shows few tendancies to humor, much less outright "goofiness". The government agents look at Indy as if he were lunatic when he begins to talk of 'secret' chambers', 'the wrath of God', etc. Most people miss that he was not contacted to quest for the Ark, only for information on Abner Ravenwood. From their introduction it's clear that they see Indy as something of a thief, smuggler, whatnot ("'obtainer' of rare antiquities", "Man of many talents", said almost sarchastically). However the man that LC would have us see as an idiot manages to convince them not only to allow Indy to quest for the Ark but to fully fund the quest, as well. Yes, fully fund. Considering a brand new car in '36 was $500.00, $3000.00 was a Hell of a lot of money. In LC the slightest bit of excitement bring Marcus to an absurd level of 'giddiness'. When delivering the news of the quest for the Ark he seems very reserved and serious, almost unaffected. In this scene it's INDY that behaves like a schoolgirl with a new doll. There's the aire of gravity to his warning to Indy, which is ignored completely as Indy runs about the room, disoriented, packing for the trip. If Marcus were really as he's portrayed in LC he would have been making a total ass of himself, considering how excited Indy was. This is not a man who would "Get lost in own museum". The return of the Nazis was a lack of imagination; a tired rehash. A few people hated ToD, but I loved it if only for the radical departure it made from 'Raiders' while still faithfully remaining an Indy story. Now I'm really going to nitpick. They shot LC on the wrong grade of film stock. It was slick, glossy and seemed to stray from the 'B' movie looka and feel of the first two. When you insist on making sequels as far apart as Lucas does you have to know that the look of the film is as crucial to continuity as anything else. And, 1984 to 1989 isn't much of a gap, really. But 1989 to the projected 2003 (14 years) is. The film will try and pander to what audiences want to see. It's a tactic that usually works well for Speilberg, but it won't work on Indy. Judging from most of the films released in recent years what audiences want to see is crap. 'Raiders' was born of a passion for the serials of the 1950's with no regard to how anyone would respond to it. It was two guys making a movie they really wanted to watch. 'Temple' intentionally challenged audiences to something new, challenging what they thought they knew about the character. 'Last Crusade' just pandered, and it showed. I can only expect worse from a fourth film. Just my opinion.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: I'm sure they'll ruin the franchise with a fourth film because, in my opinion, they ruined it with the third; 'Last Crusade'. I hate, absolutely HATE, that movie. It isn't an Indy movie at all. Between Brody being converted into a blithering idiot and Indy falling victim to every single assinine thing his nearly retarded Father does it plays out more like an episode of the Three Stooges than an Indy film. I've brought this up before. Someone asked, "We barely see Marcus in 'Raiders'. How do you know he wasn't always an idiot?". In 'Raiders' his character shows few tendancies to humor, much less outright "goofiness". The government agents look at Indy as if he were lunatic when he begins to talk of 'secret' chambers', 'the wrath of God', etc. Most people miss that he was not contacted to quest for the Ark, only for information on Abner Ravenwood. From their introduction it's clear that they see Indy as something of a thief, smuggler, whatnot ("'obtainer' of rare antiquities", "Man of many talents", said almost sarchastically). However the man that LC would have us see as an idiot manages to convince them not only to allow Indy to quest for the Ark but to fully fund the quest, as well. Yes, fully fund. Considering a brand new car in '36 was $500.00, $3000.00 was a Hell of a lot of money. In LC the slightest bit of excitement bring Marcus to an absurd level of 'giddiness'. When delivering the news of the quest for the Ark he seems very reserved and serious, almost unaffected. In this scene it's INDY that behaves like a schoolgirl with a new doll. There's the aire of gravity to his warning to Indy, which is ignored completely as Indy runs about the room, disoriented, packing for the trip. If Marcus were really as he's portrayed in LC he would have been making a total ass of himself, considering how excited Indy was. This is not a man who would "Get lost in own museum". The return of the Nazis was a lack of imagination; a tired rehash. A few people hated ToD, but I loved it if only for the radical departure it made from 'Raiders' while still faithfully remaining an Indy story. Now I'm really going to nitpick. They shot LC on the wrong grade of film stock. It was slick, glossy and seemed to stray from the 'B' movie looka and feel of the first two. When you insist on making sequels as far apart as Lucas does you have to know that the look of the film is as crucial to continuity as anything else. And, 1984 to 1989 isn't much of a gap, really. But 1989 to the projected 2003 (14 years) is. The film will try and pander to what audiences want to see. It's a tactic that usually works well for Speilberg, but it won't work on Indy. Judging from most of the films released in recent years what audiences want to see is crap. 'Raiders' was born of a passion for the serials of the 1950's with no regard to how anyone would respond to it. It was two guys making a movie they really wanted to watch. 'Temple' intentionally challenged audiences to something new, challenging what they thought they knew about the character. 'Last Crusade' just pandered, and it showed. I can only expect worse from a fourth film. Just my opinion.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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