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.
Actually, that idea is more plausible than it would seem to be for this reason: if I'm a young Indiana Jones, and this amazing experience just happened to me, why wouldn't it make a lifelong impression? Can we not all relate? (Here's a hint - we all like Star Wars a lot)
Want to book yourself or a guest on THE VFP Show? PM me!
I enjoy the sequence. I'm simply saying it's contrived. He gets his scar, his hat, and his trademark weapon all at the same time? Contrived. You can see where the Star Wars prequels get it from. Again, I enjoy it. I find it fun, but I have to say, from an objective standpoint, that it pushes the suspension of disbelief nearly to the breaking point. I accept it because I like it.
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.
I do not like the River Phoenix sequence because 1: it looks like a Mario Bros game, and 2: Indy is already a museum freak in it, and not the "fortune and glory" seeker he is in Temple of Doom (raiders prequel). I always liked the idea that the Temple of Doom episode changed his vision of adventure and archeologism.
Mielr said: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.
Well, it may be, but stop quoting me as it doesn't apply to me. I'm just saying that I don't like it very much or even that much that I would have bought them on DVD (not just because of Crusade), I have recorded them on VHS though. For me there's only one likeable character in Raiders and that's Indy, it just isn't enough for me. I don't care what happens to anyone else, there is no connection for me. Also the Ark is pretty lame, there's no info about what it really is and what it does and when you open it, it just kills people who have eyes opened. Yippee. People like different things.
And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.
LexX said:Mielr said: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.
Well, it may be, but stop quoting me as it doesn't apply to me. I'm just saying that I don't like it very much or even that much that I would have bought them on DVD (not just because of Crusade), I have recorded them on VHS though. For me there's only one likeable character in Raiders and that's Indy, it just isn't enough for me. I don't care what happens to anyone else, there is no connection for me. Also the Ark is pretty lame, there's no info about what it really is and what it does and when you open it, it just kills people who have eyes opened. Yippee. People like different things.
It is supposed to be an object that not one person understands. The ark represents good. The nazis are bad so there for they were destroyed. If you read the bible there is a story I forgot who it was but this man and his wife were doing something and god revealed himself but they were not to look at him and his wife did. She turned into salt. So it is supposed to be mysterious. Hell every object in the indiana jones movies are mysterious.
"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas
<span> </span>
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.
C3PX said: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.
There's zero comparison between Jar Jar and Marcus. The Marcus humor is not remotely Jar Jarish. Marcus was nothing in Raiders. In Crusade they made some use of him. Overdose of comic relief my ass hole. What overdose of comic relief? There was nothing terribly extreme with Marcus in Crusade.
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.
Hardly a generational thing. I was around when Raiders came out. I was around when ANH came out. I have no problem with a movie that isn't all frantic energy. But Raiders is trying to be an energetic film and it fails. And Raiders' problem isn't a matter of slowness. Things happen pretty fast in Raiders. It's a matter of force and intensity, which isn't all about speed. Things in Raiders are just bland. Bland villains, bland portrayal of locations, bland situations. When I look back over Raiders, there just isn't that much that's INTERESTING. Whereas the other two films have plenty.
Gaffer Tape said:I can certainly see why Crusade is seen as a knockoff of Raiders because, in a way, it is. Nazis want Judeo-Christian artifact
The grail is no Judeo-Christian artifact. It's 100% Christian, no Judeo to it at all. And the story of the grail quest was developed particularly during the crusades era by French writers to promote the crusades. The crusades being those things in which Jews and Muslims were massacred. So the grail is certainly not Jewish at all. Very different from the ark, an artifact 100% Jewish in origin.
Gaffer Tape said:Sorry this has been verbal diarrhea, but I had to get my words in here.
No need to apologize. Sounded like a good expression of opinion to me.
Geez, come on. I'm on your side here! I could have simply said Christian because both the artifacts have meaning to Christians, but since both religions have their roots in the exact same place, I used the blanket term Judeo-Christian to cover them both. But, really, covenant of God, cup of Christ... we're not exactly moving too far away, are we? And again, I love Last Crusade, but the setup, the motivation, and the artifacts are very similar in both Crusade and Raiders. It doesn't bother me, but it's the truth.
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.
The crusades being those things in which Jews and Muslims were massacred.
Heh. Seems almost everyone makes the crusaders out to be these monsters who swept through the holy land murdering the natives left and right and just generally steamrolling over everything. Regardless of whether or not the first crusade was started on just grounds (a highly debatable subject, to be sure), I find it quite interesting that out of nine Crusades, the crusaders lost eight of them. Hardly the unstoppable barbarian hordes they're so often made out to be...
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
Gaffer Tape said: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. ...
... 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.
I agree with you about Crusade. The deph of character, and the father/son relationship gives that flick something Raiders didn't have. That's not necessarily a weakness in Raiders, which choses to fill its story its own way. I wouldn't say I prefer one to the other, as IMHO they both excel in their own fashion.
Gaffer Tape said:Geez, come on. I'm on your side here! I could have simply said Christian because both the artifacts have meaning to Christians, but since both religions have their roots in the exact same place, I used the blanket term Judeo-Christian to cover them both. But, really, covenant of God, cup of Christ... we're not exactly moving too far away, are we? And again, I love Last Crusade, but the setup, the motivation, and the artifacts are very similar in both Crusade and Raiders. It doesn't bother me, but it's the truth.
And I appreciate you being on my side. :) Sorry if I bothered you. You're one of the nicer people on this forum, so I meant no offense to you. Your general decency has been appreciated. :)
But Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. Very different. The tendency some people have to constantly refer to things as "Judeo-Christian" tends to push ignoring the differences and is insulting to Judaism, because it plays down how it has a separate identity from the the larger religion.
Also, the two artifacts don't really have their origins in the same place. The ark comes from the Old Testament and thus is Middle Eastern, but the grail legend is European in origin. The ark has been adopted by Christianity, but it is totally Jewish in origin. While the grail is a totally Christian invention, possibly inspired by pagan European folklore. Jewish and Christian -two different religions entirely. The ark is the product of a Middle Eastern culture. The grail is the product of a European culture. So when you move from the ark to the grail you are indeed moving a far distance.
And the person who came up with the ark as the mcguffin for Raiders was Philip Kaufman, who I believe is Jewish. Plus the director of the film was Jewish and we know from Schindler's List that his Jewish identity matters to him. So the ark was there as the Jewish artifact it is in origin, not just as a Christian artifact. Lucas, who was raised as Christian, brought the grail into the 3rd film.
Akwat Kbrana said:The crusades being those things in which Jews and Muslims were massacred.
Heh. Seems almost everyone makes the crusaders out to be these monsters who swept through the holy land murdering the natives left and right and just generally steamrolling over everything. Regardless of whether or not the first crusade was started on just grounds (a highly debatable subject, to be sure), I find it quite interesting that out of nine Crusades, the crusaders lost eight of them. Hardly the unstoppable barbarian hordes they're so often made out to be...
Actually, it wasn't just in the Middle East that people were murdered for the crusades. In the first crusade, the crusade inspired a movement in Europe which led to the massacre of great numbers of Jews in Europe. In the second crusade, crusaders spent some time in Europe wiping out Jews. There's a poem by a Rabbi from back then living in Germany about how crusaders burst in his door and murdered his children.
I'll agree with you that in terms of faith, tenets, and objectives, Judaism and Christianity are very different religions. But in terms of history, they are very much the same, as Christianity is simply an offshoot of Judaism, hence the term Judeo-Christian being so popular. The Ark is certainly more religious than the Grail, which is straight-up not Biblical, but they're certainly cut from the same cloth. Add in Nazis, the same characters from Raiders who were passed over in Temple of Doom, and it certainly can feel like a similar movie and probably the overall reason why a lot of people feel that it's a knockoff of Raiders. That's all I'm saying. Again, I feel that Crusade has its own identity, and I certainly agree that the McGuffins are different enough to keep it fresh. I'm just stating why I think people feel they're similar, and I can agree with that viewpoint too, just like I can agree with your viewpoint that Crusade is more invigorating even if I don't necessarily feel that Raiders is boring or lacking.
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.
Gaffer Tape said:I'll agree with you that in terms of faith, tenets, and objectives, Judaism and Christianity are very different religions. But in terms of history, they are very much the same, as Christianity is simply an offshoot of Judaism, hence the term Judeo-Christian being so popular. The Ark is certainly more religious than the Grail, which is straight-up not Biblical, but they're certainly cut from the same cloth. Add in Nazis, the same characters from Raiders who were passed over in Temple of Doom, and it certainly can feel like a similar movie and probably the overall reason why a lot of people feel that it's a knockoff of Raiders. That's all I'm saying. Again, I feel that Crusade has its own identity, and I certainly agree that the McGuffins are different enough to keep it fresh. I'm just stating why I think people feel they're similar, and I can agree with that viewpoint too, just like I can agree with your viewpoint that Crusade is more invigorating even if I don't necessarily feel that Raiders is boring or lacking.
Historically, Christianity started out as an offshoot of Judaism, but it quite rapidly became something different and its history diverged sharply from Judaism's. The grail legend dates from time when Christianity had developed into something very separate from Judaism and had been very separate for a long time.
I don't see how the ark is cut from the same cloth as the grail. One is a biblical Jewish-origin Middle-Eastern-origin artifact, while the other has its origins in European culture and was possibly inspired by pagan European folklore. They're quite different.
As for Crusade echoing Raiders, I think that was deliberate. They wanted to return to the spirit of Raiders to make up for Temple of Doom. It seems to me Temple of Doom gets criticised for being different from Raiders and Crusade gets criticised for being similar to it.
Vaderisnothayden said:Gaffer Tape said:I'll agree with you that in terms of faith, tenets, and objectives, Judaism and Christianity are very different religions. But in terms of history, they are very much the same, as Christianity is simply an offshoot of Judaism, hence the term Judeo-Christian being so popular. The Ark is certainly more religious than the Grail, which is straight-up not Biblical, but they're certainly cut from the same cloth.
I don't see how the ark is cut from the same cloth as the grail. One is a biblical Jewish-origin Middle-Eastern-origin artifact, while the other has its origins in European culture and was possibly inspired by pagan European folklore. They're quite different.
Very true. However, in the context of the film they take the characters to similar places, notably deserts and cities of the Middle East. Crusade goes from Venice, and takes a quick jaunt into Germany, but then it's right back to deserts.
I think it's the feel of these scenes (mostly in the third act) that account for many of the comparisons.
Vaderisnothayden said:Gaffer Tape said:I'll agree with you that in terms of faith, tenets, and objectives, Judaism and Christianity are very different religions. But in terms of history, they are very much the same, as Christianity is simply an offshoot of Judaism, hence the term Judeo-Christian being so popular. The Ark is certainly more religious than the Grail, which is straight-up not Biblical, but they're certainly cut from the same cloth.
I don't see how the ark is cut from the same cloth as the grail. One is a biblical Jewish-origin Middle-Eastern-origin artifact, while the other has its origins in European culture and was possibly inspired by pagan European folklore. They're quite different.
Very true. However, in the context of the film they take the characters to similar places, notably deserts and cities of the Middle East. Crusade goes from Venice, and takes a quick jaunt into Germany, but then it's right back to deserts.
I think it's the feel of these scenes (mostly in the third act) that account for many of the comparisons.
Its the same way with star wars. Return of the jedi was pretty much the same setting as A New Hope.
Space Begginning
Tattooine
Death Star
Death Star Blows Up
Celebration
"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas
<span> </span>
EyeShotFirst said:Its the same way with star wars. Return of the jedi was pretty much the same setting as A New Hope.
Space Begginning
Tattooine
Death Star
Death Star Blows Up
Celebration
Yeah, and the same people? So? Jabba was on Tatooine, you have to show it. If there's Death Star, it has to blow up -> celebration which did last like a minute. How about the plot, it isn't even near SW.
Nice spelling, btw.
And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.
I always mess up the word beginning when I am typing fast. And if this site checked my spelling it wouldn't be a problem.
"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas
<span> </span>
Certainly a legitimate criticism. Lots of people do criticize Return for being a rehash of Star Wars.
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.
It isn't just the rough outline of Star Destroyer, Tatooine, Death Star, etc; it is the details in each.
There was a specific effort by George and the rest of the crew to make RoTJ bigger than Star Wars. Jabba's Palace would have more creatures than the cantina. The musical number would be bigger. The space battle would be faster and more intense. The lightsaber fight at the end would be bigger with aerobatics and stunts.
Jedi was definitely a re-hash of Star Wars.
Not that I am saying that it is bad that it is a re-hash. If you want to gripe about something, you will find a reason to do it. If it is similiar, then it is a re-hash; if it is different, then it isn't Star Wars.
LexX said:Also the Ark is pretty lame, there's no info about what it really is and what it does and when you open it, it just kills people who have eyes opened. Yippee. People like different things.
This was made back in the good ol' days. When not ever damn thing needed to be explained. The general assumption was that most people would be cultured enough to know what the Ark of the Covenant was and some of the background behind it.
These days, if it wasn't something that has been referenced on Family Guy*, you can be pretty certain the average joe is completely clueless about it. God instructed the Israelites to build the Ark and to place various items significant to their exodus from Egypt inside of it (including the stone tablets containing the ten commandments.. No one was even allowed to touch the Ark, let alone open it. It was to be carried on poles by the priests from the tribe of Levi. One Biblical account has it incorrectly being carried on a cart by oxen, it begins to tip over and a man reaches out to steady it and instantly falls dead. It was kept in the Holy of Hollies of the tabernacle (portable temple, used during the wilderness wanderings). Only the high priest was allowed in the Holy of Hollies, and only at designated times.
So, I guess they didn't feel the need to take the time to explain much more about the Ark than the fact that it was a sacred Hebrew artifact. Most people knew at least a little about it, and if they didn't, they wouldn't have to do a lot of asking before they found someone who could tell them more.
Fortunately in today's world, we are much more considerate of people's ignorance. For example, before publishing the first Harry Potter book in North America, they changed the title, as well as all references in the text of the book, from Philosopher's Stone to Sorcerer's Stone, because there was concern that some Americans might not know what a Philosopher's Stone was. I propose that GL make a special edition version called, Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Sacred Box of Hebrew Artifacts, perhaps he could add a few extra scenes giving some more explaination into the history of the sacred box of Hebrew artifacts. Also, to make the other two films match the title length of Indiana Jones and the Sacred Box of Hebrew Artifacts and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, he should rename them Indiana Jones and the Temple of Absolute Certain Doom and Weirdness and Indiana Jones and the Magical Everlasting Life Giving Cup of Christ.
*Funny story. There is this acquaintance of mine, every now and then we have a conversation, which usually consists of him talking about how good the latest movie he rented was, or about his favorite sports team. One time was talking about how great Transformers was and insisted that I needed to rent it sometime. Then he asked me what the last movie I had seen was, and I told him, "Casablanca". He then proceeded to give a long quote from the movie and I nearly shit my pants from surprise. I was almost expecting a, "Never heard of it? What is it about." from him, not a detailed, verbatim quote. After expressing my surprised, I asked, "Wait a minute, you didn't happen hear that line from Family Guy did you?" He grinned, "Yeah." Turns out he had never seen it and doesn't have a clue of what it is about.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
C3PX said:LexX said:Also the Ark is pretty lame, there's no info about what it really is and what it does and when you open it, it just kills people who have eyes opened. Yippee. People like different things.
This was made back in the good ol' days. When not ever damn thing needed to be explained. The general assumption was that most people would be cultured enough to know what the Ark of the Covenant was and some of the background behind it.
If some movie requires that you have to read the Bible to know what's going on, then fine, I don't care. Outside of Raiders I don't know anything about the Ark, still I have heard about it. And I am sure that in "real" life there is no magic powers which only Raiders has.
And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.