Indiana Jones news

[BB1]

  Ahhhh why is this sh!t happening.

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Whoa. We get warnings now for dredging up old threads.

Anyhoo, After all the bad reviews here I skipped seeing the new Indy movie in theaters but now I sort of wish I would have gone. I rented it last weekend and didn't think it was so bad. The alien business didn't bother me half as much as the amphibious car going off a cliff, landing safely in the top of a tree and being gently lowered into the water. And of course that was followed by the occupants surviving a fall down three huge waterfalls right after that.

[71charger_fan]

I saw it for free on a flight and was still disappointed in it. I didn't like it and couldn't recommend it. I did make it through the whole movie, but it just seemed flat to me.

[jackel440]

I did go and see it.thought it was neat the alien thing was cool till the end.then it got a little silly with the ship flying off.I see it is on dvd this week.I will end up adding it to the collection though

[bull]

I did go and see it.thought it was neat the alien thing was cool till the end.then it got a little silly with the ship flying off.I see it is on dvd this week.I will end up adding it to the collection though

You know what's odd about the alien ship (I mean besides the fact that it happened at all)? If you watch the DVD extras these beings are not supposed to be physical aliens, they are supposed to travel telepathically so why did they need a spacecraft?

To his credit, Spielberg wanted nothing to do with aliens in this film. It was included to appease Lucas, which in my opinion is quite often a mistake.

[SeattleCharger]

 
The three earlier Indy movies centered around three major world religions.  (Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity)


You could make an argument that the Roswell/UFO/Aliens thing is a new major world "religion" to emerge in recent times.

 

I liked the movie a lot.   and the fifties themes/culture were all part of the movie I enjoyed,  the marlon brando biker leather jacket greaser thing,  the nuclear testing site, fifties spaceship stuff.  each movie sort of represented an era, a decade, 30's, 40's, 50's

[Mike DC]

I've read that Lucas wanted to make a flat-out alien movie more than an Indy movie, and Spielberg just talked him out of that idea.  Indy's "Saucer Men from Mars" wisecrack in this flick was apparently a serious idea that Lucas was thinking about early on.


But I haven't read of Speilberg distancing himself from any alien themes whatsoever.  In fact I don't really see how Spielberg could have not been okay with some amount of alien stuff in this. 

The whole crystal skulls thing is pretty much an alien thing by definition; if that's the prized item then the movie is gonna have alien themes.  It's like trying to make "Raiders" without any direct references to Judaism.


---------------------------------------------------


I really do think the Aliens thing does fit a religion though.  All the more so with the setting being the 1950s in this movie.


The alien enthusiam offers its own creation story for humans.  It potentially explains all sorts of "biblical" events in our human past.  It provides a Godlike higher & more intelligent power that we don't understand.  It offers the idea that this higher power may be guiding our lives in the present.  It calls for having unproven faith in a weird/ridiculed set of beliefs.  These are beliefs that fly almost entirely outside of our current conventional science. 

The alien belief fulfills a lot of the missing things, psychologically, that religion has traditionally done for people.  I doubt it's a coincidence that it appeals to a lot of particularly science-oriented types of people.  The group probably has less belief in current religions than average. 

[SeattleCharger]

hmm, speaking of that,  there was a show on discovery channel or history channel called something like "aliens and the bilble", something to that extent.   It had lots of comparisons between stories in the bible and what would be a scenario where it was actually alien involvement explaining it.  there was a lot in there about some of the south american cultures that had been supposedly contacted and even educated by aliens.   The show was interesting and the indy movie fit a lot of the show's explanations, 

[bull]

hmm, speaking of that,  there was a show on discovery channel or history channel called something like "aliens and the bilble", something to that extent.   It had lots of comparisons between stories in the bible and what would be a scenario where it was actually alien involvement explaining it.  there was a lot in there about some of the south american cultures that had been supposedly contacted and even educated by aliens.   The show was interesting and the indy movie fit a lot of the show's explanations, 

Without getting too much into Biblical debate, wouldn't angels and demons qualify as aliens?

I've read that Lucas wanted to make a flat-out alien movie more than an Indy movie, and Spielberg just talked him out of that idea.  Indy's "Saucer Men from Mars" wisecrack in this flick was apparently a serious idea that Lucas was thinking about early on.


But I haven't read of Speilberg distancing himself from any alien themes whatsoever.  In fact I don't really see how Spielberg could have not been okay with some amount of alien stuff in this.  

It wasn't something I read it was something Spielberg said in the video extras. He basically said he wanted nothing to do with aliens in the Indy film and by his body language and verbiage you could tell he was fairly frustrated with the idea and was holding back somewhat from expressing his real opinion. At least that's what I got out of it. Anyway, regardless of that, when you compare the work of Spielberg and Lucas there's a vast difference in range and quality if you get my drift. I believe if it weren't for the anomalous success of Star Wars (dumb luck?), Lucas would be working at a Blockbuster video store somewhere.

[Mike DC]

I think Spielberg's level of quality in each movie has just done amazingly well in remaining high over time.  Lucas's work has not continued to hold up. 

Spielberg really has done something unusual for any artist of any sort.  Not many pop cultural artists of any kind that were making headlines in 1975 are still making headlines as trendsetting or top-shelf work today.  It's just not the common career path for people like him.       


---------------------------------------------------


Lucas has basically continued to remain strong in his originally strong areas, and continued to weaken in his original weak areas.  I blame him for getting creatively lazy. 

Lucas has always been at least somewhat aware of his weaknesses (dialogue, human emotional stuff, etc) even 30 years ago.  But the difference is, 30 years ago he was surrounded by other directors & producers on the SW movies that would combat him sometimes when he was pushing for something too stupid.  But now the success of the series has allowed him to surround himself with yes-men.  Now he gets his way even when it would be better for the movies if he didn't. 

With Spielberg and Indy4, you're looking at a rare case of modern-era George Lucas not having complete control of the project.  He's working with someone else who's still willing/able to overrule his worst ideas.  That was not happening on the SW prequels. 

 

[SeattleCharger]

the last star wars movie, anekin into vader, that was awesome, don't care what anybody says, the one before that, so so, one before that, bad.   

[Mike DC]

Yeah, the third prequel was cool.  It had annoying dialogue like the others but the movie was a cool show for sure.   


I think the second "Attack of the Clones" was the weakest of the three SW prequels.  It just feels like it was shot & released when it was only about half finished.  And Count Dooku was a severe tool.  He wasn't as blatantly wrong as Jar-Jar, but he was really a joke compared to Darth Maul in "Plantom."  I still think Christopher Lee is cool idea to put in a SW movie, but they hung him on a weak character.



I actually like "Phantom Menace" more than I used to.  Jar-Jar is a problem and it's not dark enough, but just as a movie to sit through it has aged better than the second one IMHO.

I'm not gonna defend Jar-Jar.  But at the same time, if you think about it, it was no bigger a risk than introducing Obi-Wan's Jedi master in 1980.  You're expecting the most powerful Jedi you've ever seen . . . and you get a 2-foot-tall green skinned muppet, living in a swamp, talking with a Grover voice, annoying the hell out of Luke.

The risky move just went over with the audience a lot better with Yoda in "Empire Strikes Back" than with Jar-Jar in "Phantom Menace." 

[bull]

Funny you say what you said about Darth Maul because he was grossly underdeveloped too IMO. Other than his conflicts with the Jedi and his clandestine alliance with the dark side (and maybe his face paint and horns, lol) we wouldn't have known he was a bad guy.

[SeattleCharger]

Funny you say what you said about Darth Maul because he was grossly underdeveloped too IMO. Other than his conflicts with the Jedi and his clandestine alliance with the dark side (and maybe his face paint and horns, lol) we wouldn't have known he was a bad guy.

heh, ya, that is true.     dookuu was a great bad guy IMO, and made the beginning of the last movie that much better when annekin took his hands then his head.    jar jar was unnacceptable, ruined the movie, cannot watch the movie,  makes the ewoks look like a good idea      I think lucas was going towards kids, but the last movie made up for that by being much more dark and harsh, relatively speaking,   you guys write good reviews