logo Sign In

Indiana Jones IV — Page 14

Author
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
I think thats a flawed argument. This has nothing to do with "suitability." Theres still an entire platoon of soldiers waving machine guns and shooting at Indy elsewhere in the trailer. I think its just an instance of one of the trailers being from a later source where either more or less soldiers were digitally added as per the filmmakers request. But whatever the case--its not like E.T. Theres not "sanitising" or "cleaning up" because in both trailers there are scores of soldiers pointing guns at Indy and then firing at him later on.


Well, I would hope so. Though it would make sense that a particular trailer might remove certain "offensive" elements in order for it to be viewable in more places. In that case, and someone finds guns offensive to families, I have trouble understanding that.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: zombie84
I think thats a flawed argument. This has nothing to do with "suitability." Theres still an entire platoon of soldiers waving machine guns and shooting at Indy elsewhere in the trailer. I think its just an instance of one of the trailers being from a later source where either more or less soldiers were digitally added as per the filmmakers request. But whatever the case--its not like E.T. Theres not "sanitising" or "cleaning up" because in both trailers there are scores of soldiers pointing guns at Indy and then firing at him later on.


Well, I would hope so. Though it would make sense that a particular trailer might remove certain "offensive" elements in order for it to be viewable in more places. In that case, and someone finds guns offensive to families, I have trouble understanding that.


My point though is: if the guns were removed because they would be offensive to families---then why does the "sanitized" trailer still have two dozen soldiers shoving guns in Indy's face and then shooting at him for half the thing??

Its not a censorship issue.
Author
Time

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
*sigh* I hate this country sometimes...

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
Originally posted by: bkev
*sigh* I hate this country sometimes...


Why? Censorship?

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Well, it's just kindof pointless. I'll explain sometime I don't have a project to finish.

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
Right, I am sure it is kind of pointless. But what exactly is "it"? Are you talking about censorship? Or something else? Good luck with your project.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Censorship. And thanks for the luck, I finished it pretty quick.

I mean, here I am having grown up with batman TAS since at least four - whereas now I can't even see a single gun on a cartoon that isn't "for kids." I think it's a little ridiculous, especially things like with Disney's "IT'S A BONAR" knee... you'd have to be damn sick to think it's a boner, and hopefully none of those kids watching thinks that way.

Edited to seem less angry and make a little more sense

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
Alright now I with ya. But like Zombie said, this probably is censorship issue in the case of Indy. Because again, there are still guns in that scene. Usually the US is more tolerant of violence than places like the UK. For example when AOTC came out, there is the scene with Obi-Wan and Jimbo Fett, and in the American trailer there was a bit where Jango head butts Obi-Wan which was removed for the UK trailer. In the UK they seem to have something against head butting in particular. They also removed some of the head butting from the end of Goldeneye, the director's commentary explained that there was one too many head butts for it to keep the age 14 rating, so they had to cut a few.

Maybe we are becoming afraid of guns in the US though. Or maybe it is only guns in mass quantities but a pistol or two is okay. Seems like there are a lot less toy guns around these days too. When I was a little kid I would go around with my cap gun in a holster slug on my hip. I would go to the park like this, I'd play in the backyard like this, jump on the neighbor's trampoline like this, ride my bike around the neighborhood like this. It was made out of metal and looked decently real to the untrained eye. You can't find very real looking toy guns anymore for understandable reasons. Give us twenty years and the idea of a seven year old carrying around a toy of something so "evil" will be unheard of and the mere thought of it shocking.

But even then, I can't imagine that we will be cutting down on the quantity of movies with guns in them or the amount of guns appearing in movie. I think cartoons probably suffer more because so many parents are so sensitive of what their children watch. So when somebody says, "wow! Aladdin said that nice kids take off their clothes!" even though you have to stretch your imagination to come to that, parents freak out about it and Disney responeds by giving them what they want. You would think instead of going through the trouble to erase the preist's knnes, Disney would just say, "uh, those are his KNEES genius!" But I guess the customer is always right.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Originally posted by: bkev
Censorship. And thanks for the luck, I finished it pretty quick.

I mean, here I am having grown up with batman TAS since at least four - whereas now I can't even see a single gun on a cartoon that isn't "for kids." I think it's a little ridiculous, especially things like with Disney's "IT'S A BONAR" knee... you'd have to be damn sick to think it's a boner, and hopefully none of those kids watching thinks that way.

Edited to seem less angry and make a little more sense


I don't know any kids that think that. They probably don't even notice. All the people I've ever heard mention it were teenagers and adults. The ones that know about it and what it was will say "It looks like a boner, but it's just his knees". The ones without a clue will just say it's a boner, which usually prompts an explanation from me to them.

As for the guns, this is Spielberg we're talking about. He didn't have any guns in the last scene of Schindler's List, even though, historically, the Jews were well armed when Schindler told the Nazis they had orders to kill them.

As for the whole not being able to find toy guns around, at least in California, it's because the State banned them. Retailers simply cannot sell guns that look real, even though they had red tips on the barrel for as long as I've known (I'm 33). Any gun that is sold in a toy store must look obviously fake. That's why you've got these weird shaped, psychadelically painted guns. So they look obviously fake for when the stupid kids point them at cops. When I was a kid, the last thing you would EVER think of doing was pointing a toy gun at a cop. Stupid parents and stupid kids are the reason for stupid laws.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
My point though is: if the guns were removed because they would be offensive to families---then why does the "sanitized" trailer still have two dozen soldiers shoving guns in Indy's face and then shooting at him for half the thing??


I was assuming it was a numbers issue, but I haven't watched either trailer and you're probably right.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Originally posted by: andy_k_250
Indiana Jones and The Phantom Menace!

I really, REALLY hate that Indy is cracking wise so much in this trailer.


Yeah, me too. Just about every spoken word in that trailer was a joke of some sort or another. Hopefully they just put the funniest parts in the trailer and the whole movie isn't like that. Hopefully. Maybe since they couldn't have Jar Jar in the film (until the big alien reveal at he end anyway), they had to make Indy a lot funnier to compensate.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
This film does not look good at all.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
the part where indy swings on his whip looks like fake cgi in fact a lot of the trailer looks like fake cgi prequels style, i have a very bad feeling about this.

most of the stuff in the trailer looks like it was shot via blue screen or green screen in the same leavesden ex rolls royce factory and looks fake.

the original indy was about contructing massive sets, and shooting on location and doing everything real and gritty including the stunts, keeping a kind of b movie serial esque type appeal while still looking stylish for a film that was shot on the cheap in yesterdays dollars.

eisner disbelieved that raiders could be made for the 30 million plus it cost to make.

spielberg has had lots of flops and crap movies in a row and i believe thinks of himself in terms of godhood aka george lucas, so this movie will suck. he thought that piece of trash live action cgi jerk off movie transformers was a good movie so he had some sap studio greenlight transformers 2. a movie need only make money because stupid americans will go and see it it does not have to have a good story or realistic special effects.

war of the worlds is one of the biggest flops in history for spielberg its no 1941 but it certianly was no shindler's list or saving private ryan, neither was it one of his good popcorn flicks like jp, raiders, e.t., or even in the same category as close encounters or jaws.

munich is also a crap film, but so is amistad. the critics unfairly rated a.i and minority report i think those were the last good spielberg films, not the best really but at least tolerable and somewhat entertaining.

jp 2 was also ludicrous and stupid, thankfully he resently gave the jp 4 directing duties to the same guy who produced the crap part 3.

hopefully his lincoln biopic starring liam neeson as honest abe will not be full of the fiction and lies propagated by the lefties and retard liberals in resent years like abe lincoln was gay, or an atheist, a rascist etc.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
Well I like it a LOT more than the lackluster teaser poster. Bah, I hated that teaser.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v463/Lord_Phillock/starwarssig.png

Author
Time
HotRod said:

Final one sheet

Looks a lot like the prequel posters to me.


Thats because its Drew Struzan, who did the prequel posters. I think his artwork is awesome. He's one of the top onesheet artists in the world.
Author
Time
zombie84 said:

HotRod said:

Final one sheet

Looks a lot like the prequel posters to me.


Thats because its Drew Struzan, who did the prequel posters. I think his artwork is awesome. He's one of the top onesheet artists in the world.


But it's evil. It must be. And the movie is going to suck because of it. Since it looks like a prequel poster, it's going to suck like the prequels did.

Yeah, that kind of reasoning doesn't make sense to me either.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Honestly, that trailer makes me want to watch the movie.
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Agreed. Even if the funny parts are a little cheesy (I don't think they are), it looks pretty good. To me, it looks more like the funny parts are poking fun at his age than anything.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
zombie84 said:

HotRod said:

Final one sheet

Looks a lot like the prequel posters to me.


Thats because its Drew Struzan, who did the prequel posters. I think his artwork is awesome. He's one of the top onesheet artists in the world.


Yeah I know that man, I'm just saying it looks like the prequel poster. Maybe the artist should try something new for a change.
Nice poster though it is, just not that original.

http://www.facebook.com/DirtyWookie

Author
Time
 (Edited)
It looks like the other Indy posters. He was also the artist for the original Indy posters. You don't go to Drew Struzan unless you want a poster that looks like a Drew Struzan.
Author
Time
The poster is good. It doesn't look very different than the previous Indiana Jones posters. I don't see the problem personally.
Author
Time
The posters were some of the few good things about the PT. I have always liked Struzan's posters. Still, this poster doesn't strike me as exciting as the previous three Indy posters. Maybe that is just my anti-IJATKOTCS bias talking though.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape