Goodbye Prequels FOREVER — Page 4

Gaffer Tape said:Well, if you consider The Bible to be "real", then it did have the power to instantly kill anyone who touched it, as referenced in C3PX's post.

 I don't, but then it doesn't make sense why the Nazis would want it so bad if it's just gonna kill you.

In the film, it is assumed (by the Nazis, anyway) that the army possessing the Ark will be able to control its power and thus use it as an infallible weapon. As the film unfolds, it is revealed that the Ark has a greater will than the Third Reich, and instead of the Nazis controlling the Ark, the Ark controls them.

It's actually kinda ironic, because a very similar thing happened in the Bible. Just prior to Israel's monarchic age, the Hebrew army was engaged in constant skirmishes against the Philistines, and on one occasion, in an attempt to tilt the scales in their favor, they took the Ark with them into battle, thinking it would ensure victory. In fact, nothing of the sort happened. Israel lost the battle, the Philistines took possession of the Ark, and Israel didn't get it back until years later. The entire affair ended up costing many, many lives.

(Just to pre-emptively clarify, I'm not trying to draw any parallels between the Jews and the Nazis...only between the mistaken assumptions that the Ark of the Covenant can be controlled by an army, and the tragedy that such misconception begets.)

You don't have to have read the Bible to understand it, just as we can understand references to all kinds of other artifacts and myths without having read everything that was ever written about them. I doubt GL is a very big Bible reader himself, nor do I think he really believes any of it (he does use names of ancient cities found in the Bible for a few SW names though, like Endor and the Gamorians). It really is a none issue of whether or not you you believe the stories told in the Bible. The point is Raiders is clearly going with the idea that the Biblical account of the Ark is real to some degree, and that it really does have some sort of supernatural power to it. Be a pretty boring story if it was just a silly box that did nothing. Kind of like making a movie about a Philosopher's Stone that is just a rock and doesn't possess the ability to turn lead into gold, or extend your life, or make you immortal, or whatever else it has been said to be able to do over the centuries. 

I don't, but then it doesn't make sense why the Nazis would want it so bad if it's just gonna kill you.

If I remember correctly, this part was clearly explained in the movie. The stories tell of the Israelites carrying the Ark into battle with them and God would help them defeat their enemies. I believe it is explained that this is what the Nazis are after. They think having the Ark in their possession will make them invincible. And actually, that is all you really need to know about the Ark to understand the story of Raiders.

I think this is why most modern movies don't really have plots either, and when they do the plot is overly simple. People relate a lot better to extensive action scenes and have a hard time digesting dialogue. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had a really silly plot to it, but easily enough understood by a seven year old. You get convoluted crap like, "Knowledge! Knowledge was their treasure! You see Mutt! You've got to stay in school! Got that kids? Stay in school!"

EDIT: Oops, Akwat beat me to it, and explained it in half as many words and without going off on multiple tangents. That is what I get for taking my sweet time while typing. ;)

Ok, then. It's been a year since the last time I've seen the film and even then I was on a date so I don't remember all the talking. Raiders has its moments but overall for me it is a bit boring. And I just can't stand Marion. But for reference, I like e.g. Hitchcock's Rear Window and I think it's one of the best films I've seen, if someone wants to talk about pacing and how great old films were.

Btw, Raiders of the Lost Ark didn't even have the Ark in the title here, in English it would be Raiders of the Lost Treasure.

LexX said:

I like e.g. Hitchcock's Rear Window and I think it's one of the best films I've seen, if someone wants to talk about pacing and how great old films were.

Btw, Raiders of the Lost Ark didn't even have the Ark in the title here, in English it would be Raiders of the Lost Treasure.

I really like a lot of Hitchcock's stuff too, Rear Window is one of my favorite of his flicks. If you don't mind me asking, where are you from, LexX?

Sluggo said:

Great post, C3PX, although my sister Holly might object to the idea of a Holy of Hollies. 

Oops! One too many L's in there. :D

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.

Were you referring to me or Puggo? I wasn't responding to your comment, I was responding to Puggo (who quoted you). ;)

C3PX said:

LexX said:

I like e.g. Hitchcock's Rear Window and I think it's one of the best films I've seen, if someone wants to talk about pacing and how great old films were.

Btw, Raiders of the Lost Ark didn't even have the Ark in the title here, in English it would be Raiders of the Lost Treasure.

 

I really like a lot of Hitchcock's stuff too, Rear Window is one of my favorite of his flicks. If you don't mind me asking, where are you from, LexX? 

 Finland.

Sluggo said:

If it is different, then it isn't Star Wars.

But look how different Empire is compared to the rest of the saga. It really stands out. Return of the Jedi felt more like a direct sequel to A New Hope than Empire Strikes Back. Return Of The Jedi was supposed to be when the shit hit the fan. The end to a wonderful saga. This is the (at least in film) Last battle. The final show down between the oppressed rebels and the evil Empire. They needed to make this far darker than any of the movies. Luke is supposed to be standing on the razors edge fighting with the dark side. They didn't do that. It was a happy film and to me this movie didn't need to be happy.

And I've finally made the decision to sell my Trade Federation Tank model kit, even though all SW models were meant to be "for keeps".

I dislike prequels and reboots to know end.  Either they are good like Batman Begins and true to their source.

Or they are good action flicks like casino royale, star trek 2009 but not anything like them except superficially or in name only.

Then you have complete piles of shit like the prequels that are reboots and prequels at the same time despite what Lucas says.  He changed the universe and the characters and the origins.

Then you have decent films like Superman Returns that crap all over what they stood for Truth Justice and the American Way.  Becomes Truth, Justice and all that stuff. Superman becomes a stalker and a deabdeat dad,lol.

Gotta love modernism.  Next thing you know they will reboot superman and have him be gay.

Not that there is anything wrong with that i just would not pay 10 dollars to see it.

skyjedi2005 said:

Gotta love modernism.  Next thing you know they will reboot superman and have him be gay.

Oh! My! GOD! That would be... TOTALLY s'thuper!!!

What's so bad about The Godfather Part III?  I think it's great!

Gaffer Tape said:

What's so bad about The Godfather Part III?  I think it's great!

Its utter shit.  And Sophia coppola is awful in it.  Notice how they did'nt bother to restore part 3 like they did one and two,lol.

The one good thing about it Pacino's acting.  His reflective mood throughout the film, etc.

I don't know.  It works for me.  This may seem like sacrilege to even say, but while I loved Part II, it hardly took the plot of the first film in a new direction (for the Michael stuff... obviously the young Vito sections were new, even though they were intended to parallel Michael... even though it was being transplanted from the original novel whereas the Michael parts were original).  To clarify to avoid flaming, I love Part II.  I love what they did with Fredo, I love what they did with the relationship of Michael and Kay.  However, to me, it seems like an extension of the first movie which already established that a good person could turn evil.  In Part II, we just see the evil person continuing to do evil stuff.  He gets worse, and, in effect, his life falls down around him because of that, but, like you said, ChainsawAsh, he didn't change.  There was no development.  It was just Michael doing stuff.  And again, it was stuff I found entertaining and fascinating, but it was just Michael continuing to be Michael.

Granted, it could have ended there, and it would have been a satisfying end.  But I just found it so fascinating that Part III took Michael in a completely different direction.  I don't think it's at all out of character that an older Michael might finally see the error of his ways and attempt to rectify his life and his legacy.  People do that all the time.  But I also loved the futility of it, the, "Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in!" that no matter what he does, he can't escape his sins, and he still ends up just as alone as he did at the end of the second movie despite his genuinely good intentions. 

And, yes, Sofia Coppola didn't help the movie too much, but she certainly wasn't a deal-breaker for me.

C3PX said:

There should be a lot less people saying, "Man, I hate the PT, every single time I watch it I feel like throwing up!" and a lot more saying, "Ah, I barely remember the PT. I haven't seen it in ages."

This is Me - I've seen TPM 3 or 4 times, AOTC 1.5 times, and ROTS Once.  Never owned them, don't plan to ever watch them again.

Vaderisnothayden 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.

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.

I never got that impression. To me, Last Crusade always felt bland. I love the interaction between the Joneses, but otherwise the plot and villains just seem flat. Raiders has not only the fast pace, but the camerawork to match it.

When I think Indy-I think of the bar scene in Raiders. Our archeologist is drowning his sorrows-and if you wanna talk to god you can go see him right now-Indy's got nothing better to do. "It would only take a push to make you like me-to take you out of the light." "Now you're getting nasty." Belloq is such a strong presence that is never matched in the other films.  (Well, Mola Ram is a good villain but sadly underdeveloped as is much of Temple.)

Marion can kinda get annoying, but not as much as Willie. Sallah and Marcus are not the travesties they were in Crusade. This is not saying that I dislike Crusade or Temple. In fact I only dislike KOTCS (The horror.) I enjoy the trilogy, (what is this 4th film we speak of?) but find Raiders a phenominal film to this day-one that stands on its own in theme, tone, pace, and style much like the original Godfather film.

I don't know-I'm making this up as I go.