logo Sign In

Goodbye Prequels FOREVER — Page 2

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
C3PX said:

[snip]

I wish you the best of luck with your future film relationships,

H. L. C3PX

(Whoa, I'm thinking about resurrecting the Hot.Like.C3PX thread and turning it into an advice column. What do you guys think?)

I think this went over folks' heads.  There's been a lot of turn over on these boards, not to mention many Off-topic posters don't venture into the other forums.  But yes, and advice column would be a great idea.

 

Pink Floyd -- First in Space

Author
Time
Post link
Hey, I remember the Hot.Like.C3PX thread, although I'd forgotten about it until you brought it up! Ah, good times. Good times. Better than now. Now sucks. I hate now. Now can suck my balls!

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
auximenies said:

I think this went over folks' heads.  There's been a lot of turn over on these boards...

 

Yeah, but all of the cool, long enduring off-topic members got it... maybe.

There was also Nanner Split's Super Fun Time Land.

And of course my all time favorite, the interforum crises caused by Hotrod being an ass to some guy, which lead to an Orc/middle aged virgin invasion.

Man, those were the good old days... Now can suck my balls too! But preferably after it has finished with Gaffer and rinsed its mouth out first...

 

This discussion reminds me how guys like Dayv and Sean used to bitch about how badly this placed sucked, and how much better it used to be. I'd get so annoyed at them, and now here I am doing the same. :P

And actually, I don't remember the circumstances, but I think I was being a complete and total ass with the whole Hot.Like.C3PX thread, so that is one I am probably better off not joking around about resurrecting. I'd like to think I have mellowed and become a more respectable member since those days (probably not though).

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

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
C3PX said:
EyeShotFirst said:

Raiders really wasn't perfect it was flawed in many ways.

 

Quick, name five flaws in Raiders as fast as you can without having to stop and think about it. GO!

 

Not trying to say Raiders is perfect, obviously no film is. As far as action films go, I think Raiders is a perfect example of one well done.

The argument from EyeShotFirst that I quoted above is a classic argument for defending crap in the middle of a room filled with gold. Sure, this piece of shit my dog deposited on the floor is far from perfect, no arguments there! But come on, none of these gold bricks in here are perfect either.

Some things are better made than others, that is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. I like a lot of movies most people think are crap. I really enjoy the first two Planet of the Apes sequels, but I don't hesitate to admit they are no where even close to the standard of the first film. The first film is a cinematic classic, the second and third are crap that I happen to like. The fourth and fifth are crap that I enjoy watching for time to time. Same for Back to the Future, I know the second two are shit, but I still enjoy them. It would be pointless for me to feel the need to defend my enjoyment of these films by saying, "Well, the first Planet of the Apes/Back to the Future film really wasn't much better than the sequels."

Quick, name five flaws in Raiders as fast as you can without having to stop and think about it. GO! 

Bland with a lack of intensity, doesn't use Ford well enough, takes itself too seriously and mostly doesn't use the potential for humor inherent in the Indy thing, bland villains, weaker on settings and situations than the next two Indy films.

I went into this in detail on another thread. Saying Raiders isn't perfect as a defense of the other Indy films is hardly like saying the gold isn't perfect to defend the dogshit. Crusade and Temple are no dogshit. They're good films, superior to Raiders. Raiders is Indy before they figured out how to get it right. It has an underdone feel. The next two films are so much more alive. The true gold in the Indy franchise is Crusade, with its marvellous Ford-Connery double act and lots of good humor.

You obviously think that your opinion that Raiders is better is unchallengeable objective fact. Fine, people often think their opinions are objective fact, and sometimes they're right. But I don't see any proof that you're right in this case. Indy didn't get into its swing until Temple of Doom and didn't get 100% until Crusade. Crusade isn't as good as I thought it was back in 1989, but it still stands out as a damn good film and the Indy-Dad interaction is a lot more substantial and interesting than any other character interaction in the two Indy films before it. And even in an action film, character interaction is what makes the world go around. Crusade just way outclasses Raiders. Even Doom outclasses Raiders, with its intensity and vividness. Raiders just doesn't match up. The only reason some people think Raiders is better is because it came first. These people judge against the later films for not being like Raiders, but these people don't judge against Raiders for not being like the next two films. There's all this worship of Raiders as THE Indy film, without recognizing that the Indy film franchise evolved with each new film of the first three, being successfully reinvented each time. The later two films are just so much much more alive and so much in them is just a hell of a lot more interesting -villains, settings, secondary/minor characters, situations.

 

Author
Time
Post link
Vaderisnothayden said:

...takes itself too seriously and mostly doesn't use the potential for humor in the Indy thing...

I find this particularly interesting, since one of my big problems with the others (especially Last Crusade and Crystal Skull) was that they didn't take themselves seriously enough, and the humor was excessive and out-of-place for an Indy film.  Temple has its own share of ridiculous, excessive humor (the "Brain Feast," as my friends and I like to call it, as one example, and the snake/elephant trunk joke for another), but it's nowhere near as bad as Last Crusade (anything that comes out of Marcus Brody's mouth ... I still so hate what they did to that character), with the exception of the Sean Connery/Harrison Ford scenes, which are all fantastic.

Author
Time
Post link
GeorgeLucasIsANarcissist said:
C3PX said:

A lot of people talked about doing things like this (mailing them to Skywalker Ranch) when the GOUT first came out. Did anyone ever actually do it?


I actually did.  I bought two GOUT boxsets (one for me and one for my little brother as a Christmas gift).  Both times I mailed the SE discs back to Lucasfilm in a paper sleeve, politely saying that I had no interest whatsoever in any special edition and thanked them for releasing the original trilogy on DVD in some form.  I also stated that I looked forward to a future restored anamorphic release of the original trilogy and that apart from that, no other Lucasfilm release would appeal to me.

Won't make a damn bit of difference but it was cathartic.

That's cool!

Author
Time
Post link
ChainsawAsh said:
Vaderisnothayden said:

...takes itself too seriously and mostly doesn't use the potential for humor in the Indy thing...

I find this particularly interesting, since one of my big problems with the others (especially Last Crusade and Crystal Skull) was that they didn't take themselves seriously enough, and the humor was excessive and out-of-place for an Indy film.  Temple has its own share of ridiculous, excessive humor (the "Brain Feast," as my friends and I like to call it, as one example, and the snake/elephant trunk joke for another), but it's nowhere near as bad as Last Crusade (anything that comes out of Marcus Brody's mouth ... I still so hate what they did to that character), with the exception of the Sean Connery/Harrison Ford scenes, which are all fantastic.

The whole Indy thing cannot be taken seriously. Any attempt to do so is misguided. They should have realized that from the start and made the first Indy film more humorous.

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

So i take it you don't like Kasden's serious take on the story crafted from old hollywood films like Casablanca?

To me Raiders is the Best of all four.  I cannot even watch doom any more it is so awful and the same with many parts of crusade.

They made Marcus into a retard in last crusade and sallah into a racist charicature.

Plus there are cringeworthy moments like indy putting a rock into one of the side cannons on the tank and it blows up in the gunners face like this was like Looney tunes and not supposed to be in real life though actually fiction.

Then you have both shortround and willy in temple of doom almost a equally annoying as jar jar binks.  If not for the mine car chase that was in the original raiders script and the shanghai scene at the beginning the film is worthless.  Then you have the raft falling out of the plane as their parachute.  Then in Indy and the crystal numbskull you have him riding through the air for three miles in a lead lined fridge.  And somehow the russians also magically outrun the blast.

I am also sure the Hindus in India appreciated the evil hindus in temple of doom, as much as indy killing the arab swordmen angers people in the middle east especially Muslims.  Can't do these type of things in a politically correct world.  I'm surprised lucas and spielberg had the stones to make the russians the bad guys.

After Spielberg made the guns into walky talkies in E.T. and Lucas had greedo shoot first.

You could if Lucky in theory survive a freefall from a plane as people have before though its like a one in a millionth chance of survival and a 99.99% surety of death.  But surviving a H bomb falling near you in a refridegerater never believeable in a million years.

“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
Post link
Vaderisnothayden said:

You obviously think that your opinion that Raiders is better is unchallengeable objective fact. Fine, people often think their opinions are objective fact, and sometimes they're right.

As obvious as it may seem to you, it is not the case. My opinion is my opinion and nothing more. Most certainly not unchallengeable fact.

I do believe Raiders is a better movie than the later two films, and I think there is quite a bit of evidence to support this, but I am not really interested in discussion it in detail because it will go nowhere. Your feelings are that each Indiana Jones film got a bit more Indiana Jonesy until it reach a superlative level of Indiana Jonesiness with The Last Crusade. My feeling are that a near perfect action/adventure film was made in the 80's, beautifully styled after old black and white adventure serials, and the three sequels that followed drifted away from the spirit and quality of the original, finally ending on IJATKOTCS which felt like a cheap comedy spoof of itself.

I cannot foresee you or I saying anything to convince the other to abandoned their current point of view on the subject at hand.

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

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
C3PX said:
Vaderisnothayden said:

You obviously think that your opinion that Raiders is better is unchallengeable objective fact. Fine, people often think their opinions are objective fact, and sometimes they're right.

As obvious as it may seem to you, it is not the case. My opinion is my opinion and nothing more. Most certainly not unchallengeable fact.

I do believe Raiders is a better movie than the later two films, and I think there is quite a bit of evidence to support this, but I am not really interested in discussion it in detail because it will go nowhere. Your feelings are that each Indiana Jones film got a bit more Indiana Jonesy until it reach a superlative level of Indiana Jonesiness with The Last Crusade. My feeling are that a near perfect action/adventure film was made in the 80's, beautifully styled after old black and white adventure serials, and the three sequels that followed drifted away from the spirit and quality of the original, finally ending on IJATKOTCS which felt like a cheap comedy spoof of itself.

I cannot foresee you or I saying anything to convince the other to abandoned their current point of view on the subject at hand.

I agree I think Last Crusade is only marginally better than temple of doom and way better than kotcs.  But the film i love was raiders a penned by Kasden.  As was empire strikes back the best star wars film which he penned also.  2 of the finest scripts ever made in the eighties.

Temple of Doom is an awful movie with an awful script by the huycks who also wrote howard the duck and radioland murders.  The only thing good they did was graffiti and star wars.

The only good parts were cannibalized from Kasdens script.  The mine cart chase and the scene in shanghai.

Jerffrey Boams script for last crusade is very very good even if not on par with raiders.  And it is not his fault Lucas insisted on the bad jokes in the movie. 

The script for kotcs by Frank Darabount was awful and unused.  And the script they used by Koepp is also pathetically bad and only marginally better than darabount's.  Its as if Lucas wrote the script himself and had Koepp do a quick rewrite. Plus according to the complete making of indiana jones the final script used the best parts from 4 other scripts if i remember correctly. 

The only script they seemingly did not use was the abandoned indy III script by the same director as the first harry potter i think columbus?  The story of the monkey king and the lost golden city and the fountain of youth or something like that.  Wow that would have made a stupendous movie, not.  Well at least brody in it is the brody from raiders and not quite the retard he bacame in last crusade.  The worst script of all has to be the one called indiana jones and the saucer men from mars.

“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
Post link

So i take it you don't like Kasden's serious take on the story crafted from old hollywood films like Casablanca?

Indiana Jones is not the place for trying to keep to seriousness. Pointless exercise in futility. Nor am I interested in a story ripping off Casablanca. Or the old serials Lucas is so fond of. Any more than I want Star Wars to be some corny old serial from way back. If Lucas sees them as his inspiration that's his problem, but the franchises are much better evolving beyond that stuff. And I'm sure some people will be horrified, but I've never been terribly impressed by Casablanca.

They made Marcus into a retard in last crusade

Marcus as a comical character is more fun than Marcus as a vague background character.

Plus there are cringeworthy moments like indy putting a rock into one of the side cannons on the tank and it blows up in the gunners face like this was like Looney tunes and not supposed to be in real life though actually fiction.

I don't see the problem with that. If I wanted realism I wouldn't be watching Indiana Jones.

Then you have both shortround and willy in temple of doom almost a equally annoying as jar jar binks. 

Short Round was a good character. Willie was a bit annoying but not half so annoying as as one would think she would be, because she was acted with life and enthusiasm.

If not for the mine car chase that was in the original raiders script and the shanghai scene at the beginning the film is worthless. 

The Shanghai scene was good, better than most of Raiders.

Then you have the raft falling out of the plane as their parachute. 

Not a problem. If I wanted realism I wouldn't watch a film trying to pass off that Jones guy as an archaeologist.

Then in Indy and the crystal numbskull you have him riding through the air for three miles in a lead lined fridge.  And somehow the russians also magically outrun the blast.

I agree that was going too far. Just because it doesn't need to be strictly realistic doesn't mean it's ok to go wildly in the opposite direction.

Author
Time
Post link
C3PX said:
My feeling are that a near perfect action/adventure film was made in the 80's, beautifully styled after old black and white adventure serials, and the three sequels that followed drifted away from the spirit and quality of the original, finally ending on IJATKOTCS which felt like a cheap comedy spoof of itself.

As I have explained, I couldn't care less about the old serials or about trying to imitate them. From reading The Secret History of Star Wars I gather that some of the crappiness of the prequels was caused by trying to imitate the old serials. I'd much rather the franchises were not limited by old serials. And I really don't see how Raiders was this "perfect action/adventure film". Was it because of its bland lack of intensity? Or its bland annoying villains? Or its dumb everybody-goes-gooey ending?

 

Author
Time
Post link
Vaderisnothayden said:

They made Marcus into a retard in last crusade

Marcus as a comical character is more fun than Marcus as a vague background character.

 

 LOL!

 

I just read a few threads and then was surprised that the titles weren't about Indiana Jones. But in my opinion...

 

Raiders is bland. I find it boring, I can sit and watch it through but there's not much happening. Also, everytime I watch it I find Marion more and more annoying, I always hope she would have died in that truck. She's more annoying than Willie. The end isn't really a big finale, they're just walking in a desert and suddenly open the Ark and the end.

It's still better than its sequel. I hate Short Round, it's like Asian Anakin blended with Jar Jar, ugh. I hate his fake laugh and the movie even ends with it. Willie's just screaming all the time and enough is enough, I've had with these motherfucking gross things in this motherfucking temple. The bad guys weren't as impressive as Nazis, just a few crazy guys in a cave.

Crusade is the best of them. There's Connery, some good fun, finally a good girl (which is sad because she turned out to be a Nazi) and more Nazis. The plot may be a little "meh" but it's okay.

I've seen Skull only once and I'm not gonna watch it until maybe it comes on TV. But again, there's Marion, bad CG, Indy in a fridge etc... But I also enjoyed it from the point he meets Mutt (stupid name) until the point at cemetary.

And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.

Author
Time
Post link

Marcus as a comical character is more fun than Marcus as a vague background character.

Yeah, that is kind of how I feel about Jar Jar in The Phantom Menace. Jar Jar as a comical character is more fun than Marcus as a vague background character, which he becomes in the later too prequels. Over the top characters are a good thing. Far better than serious background characters that remain vague. Can't stand background characters that only exist as part of the story and refuse to provide me an overdose of comic relief.

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

Author
Time
Post link
LexX said:

Raiders is bland. I find it boring,

I wonder if this is a generational thing.  In the past, movies had their ups and downs - it was called pacing.  Nowadays if something isn't exploding or someone screaming every 5 seconds, it's considered slow.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
Post link
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
LexX said:

Raiders is bland. I find it boring,

I wonder if this is a generational thing.  In the past, movies had their ups and downs - it was called pacing.  Nowadays if something isn't exploding or someone screaming every 5 seconds, it's considered slow.

 

 No, no, no. I enjoy older films, they catch suspense better and certainly don't think explosives = better. In Raiders there's more stuff exploding than in Crusade if I remember correctly? It's just that there isn't much HAPPENING. There isn't enough suspense either, only a few bad guys and the main Nazi is boring also. It's just guys walking in the desert, IMO. There are also more annoying people than people to like.

And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.

Author
Time
Post link
IrishLuck1980 said:

I tried Mr Lucas.  I really did try and enjoy your Star Wars Prequels.  But, I just can't.  They suck that bad.  Well, I gathered all my Star Wars Prequels merchandise I had, not alot surprising, and threw it in the garbage.  I don't even acknowledge their existence anymore.

 

 Hey if anyone else does this could you mail it to me instead? Thanks!

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain.
"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes"...James Feibleman (1904-1987)
www . axia . ws/axia

Author
Time
Post link

Mailing it to you wouldn't be making a point.

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

Author
Time
Post link
C3PX said:

Mailing it to you wouldn't be making a point.

But it would be giving him free DVDs, which is always nice. Well, except for that one guy who sent me Dirtpipe Milkshakes 2. That wasn't very nice at all.

Author
Time
Post link
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
LexX said:

Raiders is bland. I find it boring,

I wonder if this is a generational thing.  In the past, movies had their ups and downs - it was called pacing.  Nowadays if something isn't exploding or someone screaming every 5 seconds, it's considered slow.

I was thinking the same thing.  I was 10 or 11 when Raiders came out, and I loved it. I was about 13 when Temple of Doom came out and I also loved it.

I still love Raiders, but when I watch Doom now, I see that it is a much weaker film- almost an embarrassment to the franchise (not as bad as KOTCS, but still...). Sure, Doom has a lot of action (and I guess that's why I liked it initially) but it just isn't the masterpiece that Raiders is, and I can appreciate that now. Crusade is OK, but it didn't make much of an impression on me when it came out.

Author
Time
Post link

Raiders is a perfect film, IMO.

I say that in the context of what the movie is:  an action movie that doesn't take itself too seriously.  Everyone forgets that even though Spielberg/Lucas took the idea from the old serials they grew up with, nobody was doing this at that time.

Now there are so many knockoffs they many take Raiders for granted, the same way there are so many knockoffs to Jaws, the same way there are knockoffs to Diehard.  All these movies were unique at the time, and that is why they stand the test of time so well. 

I love Raiders because the movie is like Star Wars, it has a combo of an interesting story, a great good guy to root for, great action, good chemistry with the cast, and touches of humor that keep it from taking itself too seriously.  My favorite part is where Indy goes after the Arc on Horseback and is asked what his plan is, and he turns and says, "I don't know, I'm making this up as I go!"  The other Indy movies don't have that, they lack that freshness, they are fun, but just knockoffs to the original. 

Author
Time
Post link
Vaderisnothayden said:

As I have explained, I couldn't care less about the old serials or about trying to imitate them. From reading The Secret History of Star Wars I gather that some of the crappiness of the prequels was caused by trying to imitate the old serials. I'd much rather the franchises were not limited by old serials. And I really don't see how Raiders was this "perfect action/adventure film". Was it because of its bland lack of intensity? Or its bland annoying villains? Or its dumb everybody-goes-gooey ending?

 

 

 As a huge fan and collector of the old serials, let me say that the prequels are NOTHING LIKE OLD SERIALS. Star Wars (and to a lesser extent ROTJ) is the only film that really have a kind of movie serial feel. A balls-to-the-wall pace, linear narrative, episodic series of challenges, and a classic mustache twirling villain (the original Vader) are all reminiscent of the serials. ESB and the PT totally lack these.

Lucas for some odd reason uses the 'movie serial' talk to justify that he doesn't care for character development (which he admittedly does not). Considering that AOTC is a love story and ROTS is mostly a character study of Anakin, the 'movie serial' thing doesn't seem to apply.  

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
TheBoost said:
 Considering that AOTC is a love story and ROTS is mostly a character study of Anakin, the 'movie serial' thing doesn't seem to apply.  

100% agree.  The whole PT is a character study about how a man turns to the dark side, so that negates 'the serial' right there!

Star Wars '77 is a serial because you don't have this huge character study, you meet the characters, you get to know the characters, but it is just enough to keep you invested.  Same with Raiders, you get to know Indy, but not too much where it becomes some character piece.  

 

Author
Time
Post link
C3PX said: 

This discussion reminds me how guys like Dayv and Sean used to bitch about how badly this placed sucked, and how much better it used to be. I'd get so annoyed at them, and now here I am doing the same. :P

 

 Welcome to my world.

Author
Time
Post link

Just so Vaderisnothayden isn't on his own here, I also think that Crusade is the best.  I know I've been through this before and recently, so I'll try not to repeat what I've said.  I don't think Raiders is boring.  I enjoy Raiders.  I think it's a great film.  I can certainly see why Crusade is seen as a knockoff of Raiders because, in a way, it is.  Nazis want Judeo-Christian artifact, Indy and Sallah, go and get it!  Yes, it's a knockoff.  I'll be the first to admit that, and it certainly loses originality points because of it.  And, yes, it goes over the top at times.  The River Phoenix sequence is a bit contrived with Indy receiving all his trademarks in one adventure.  But I can certainly understand why Vaderisnothayden feels that Crusade took what Raiders did and made it more frenetic, more humorous, and a lot more of everything.  That doesn't take away from Raiders, in my opinion.  After all, Raiders has the originality that Crusade lacks.  And it also has a more sophisticated feel in places.  But I can't help but love the interactions between Indy and Henry.  The chemistry is great, and none of the other movies have that.  It's not as complex or polished as Raiders, but it's quite a lot of fun.

Oh, and I love Short Round.

Sorry this has been verbal diarrhea, but I had to get my words in here.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.