OK...yeah....

Posted by Rabittooth from ? (198.190.230.72) on Tuesday, October 09, 2001 at 2:41pm :

In Reply to: Man... my posts have not been clear for awhile huh? Hehe... posted by Indiana Jun from spider-ntc-td024.proxy.aol.com (198.81.17.159) on Tuesday, October 09, 2001 at 11:21am :

Aha! Now I getcha. I dont think they explored the character too much more in ToD. Unfortunately IMO, as sequels and prequels to most movies progress, most characters degrade as the writers and filmakers try to "explore" and "expand" a character. This usually means taking an otherwise really cool character and making him/her or the situations he/she are in "funnier". Sequels always contain more goofy humor, and I hate this. Even our beloved IJ trilogy is guilty of it. Somehow over the course of the movies we went from the dark,brooding near- silent man of few words and a dangerous look in his eyes in the beginning of Raiders as he steps out of the shadows into the dappled sunlight...to a goofy guy tied to a chair wearing a leather jacket and a tie and screeching " Dad?...What? ...Dad! What!?..etc. Now some of you are gonna say that you like that scene, but if you examine the movies again and analyze the IJ character from the beginning of the 1st film to the last frame of the last, you'll see that you've got a much lighter, goofier, kind-hearted guy. I mean..he was named after THE DOG? Marcus Brody as a bummbling idiot who gets lost in his own museum? C'mon.
This is a common occurance, and is, IMO, one of the main reasons that sequels to movies very rarely measure up to the originals.
Think of Mel Gigson's character in Lethal Weapon 1. Sure..funny, but in a very dark, almost maniacal way. A guy with some very serious pain and a black heart.
Think of the movie: First Blood. Was the first one cool or what? Does anybody else hate what that caharacter eventually became later on?
Think of the first Batman movie for that matter... IMO the first one wasnt even Dark enough for a movie about a vigilante whose parents were violently murdered. But what it eventually became as the sequels progressed is a shame. We ended up looking at butt shots of the costumes (which had NIPPLES sculpted on them for Pete's sake)
I'm not even gonna talk about Jar Jar Binks....UGH!
OK...I've vented.
Anyone else with any thoughts?
:)
Regards,
-R

: Hey Rabittooth!

: Let me just check the video again right now. Alright... Lucas wanted ToD to tell a back story of Indiana Jones, explore the character. I guess I just answered my own post! We all know we get to see more of how Indiana Jones is, his character and personality. But I am just wondering if there is anything more or deeper I, myself, do not see. Am I making sense Rabittooth? Is there any films buffs who really got what Lucas wanted from ToD? Have a good one!

: Best Regards,
: Jun

Protean Dream Industries

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:

E-Mail: ( default )

Subject:

Message:
: Aha! Now I getcha. I dont think they explored the character too much more in ToD. Unfortunately IMO, as sequels and prequels to most movies progress, most characters degrade as the writers and filmakers try to "explore" and "expand" a character. This usually means taking an otherwise really cool character and making him/her or the situations he/she are in "funnier". Sequels always contain more goofy humor, and I hate this. Even our beloved IJ trilogy is guilty of it. Somehow over the course of the movies we went from the dark,brooding near- silent man of few words and a dangerous look in his eyes in the beginning of Raiders as he steps out of the shadows into the dappled sunlight...to a goofy guy tied to a chair wearing a leather jacket and a tie and screeching " Dad?...What? ...Dad! What!?..etc. Now some of you are gonna say that you like that scene, but if you examine the movies again and analyze the IJ character from the beginning of the 1st film to the last frame of the last, you'll see that you've got a much lighter, goofier, kind-hearted guy. I mean..he was named after THE DOG? Marcus Brody as a bummbling idiot who gets lost in his own museum? C'mon. : This is a common occurance, and is, IMO, one of the main reasons that sequels to movies very rarely measure up to the originals. : Think of Mel Gigson's character in Lethal Weapon 1. Sure..funny, but in a very dark, almost maniacal way. A guy with some very serious pain and a black heart. : Think of the movie: First Blood. Was the first one cool or what? Does anybody else hate what that caharacter eventually became later on? : Think of the first Batman movie for that matter... IMO the first one wasnt even Dark enough for a movie about a vigilante whose parents were violently murdered. But what it eventually became as the sequels progressed is a shame. We ended up looking at butt shots of the costumes (which had NIPPLES sculpted on them for Pete's sake) : I'm not even gonna talk about Jar Jar Binks....UGH! : OK...I've vented. : Anyone else with any thoughts? : :) : Regards, : -R : : Hey Rabittooth! : : Let me just check the video again right now. Alright... Lucas wanted ToD to tell a back story of Indiana Jones, explore the character. I guess I just answered my own post! We all know we get to see more of how Indiana Jones is, his character and personality. But I am just wondering if there is anything more or deeper I, myself, do not see. Am I making sense Rabittooth? Is there any films buffs who really got what Lucas wanted from ToD? Have a good one! : : Best Regards, : : Jun

Optional Link ( default )

URL:

Title:

Optional Image Link ( default )

URL:

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com