Dek Rollins

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

moviefreakedmind said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

You guys are completely overlooking Dek’s argument. He’s not saying simply that it the Last Crusade wasn’t meant to have a sequel, but that the film was explicitly designed to preclude the plausibility of a sequel. While you can say the former about Star Wars, you cannot say the latter. Very different arguments.

Actually, you can definitely say that about Return of the Jedi.

EDIT: Frink beat me to it.

Did I say you couldn’t? (by Star Wars I mean SW77)

I don’t necessarily agree with Dek that this means there can’t ever be another IJ movie, but at least argue with him on the correct terms.

Do you agree, if I may ask?

moviefreakedmind said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

You guys are completely overlooking Dek’s argument. He’s not saying simply that it the Last Crusade wasn’t meant to have a sequel, but that the film was explicitly designed to preclude the plausibility of a sequel. While you can say the former about Star Wars, you cannot say the latter. Very different arguments.

Actually, you can definitely say that about Return of the Jedi.

EDIT: Frink beat me to it.

And I think it works perfectly well for ROTJ. I don’t care for the existence of any Star Wars films after that.

moviefreakedmind said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

DominicCobb said:

“Sean Connery was only ever in five Bond movies because You Only Live Twice was designed to be his last one.”

“Star Wars is only three six movies because Return of the Jedi Revenge of the Sith was designed to be the last one.”

False equivalence. What in YOLT gets in the way of the possibility of another Connery movie? I don’t recall any Connery going off into the sunset moment. Indeed, the character remains alive and well.

You ignored my Rocky example.

I dislike all the Rocky sequels.

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

“I believe that Buckaroo Banzai Against the World Crime League is a movie that exists because its predecessor was designed to have a sequel.”

This joke has nothing to do with this conversation. I never said that Star Wars Episode XI is a movie that exists just because Lucas wanted a fluctuating number of sequels for Star Wars.

This joke has nothing to do with Episode IX. I’m simply saying whether or not a sequel exists has nothing to do with what the filmmakers had in mind. Not a hard concept to grasp.

I have never stated that Indy 4 doesn’t exist. Your grasping at nothing.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

You guys are completely overlooking Dek’s argument. He’s not saying simply that it the Last Crusade wasn’t meant to have a sequel, but that the film was explicitly designed to preclude the plausibility of a sequel. While you can say the former about Star Wars, you cannot say the latter. Very different arguments.

This.

DominicCobb said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

You guys are completely overlooking Dek’s argument. He’s not saying simply that it the Last Crusade wasn’t meant to have a sequel, but that the film was explicitly designed to preclude the plausibility of a sequel. While you can say the former about Star Wars, you cannot say the latter. Very different arguments.

That’s a much worse argument to make. There’s nothing in TLC that precludes a sequel.

Oh, I don’t know, maybe the final shot that lasts through a good portion of the credits that is extremely symbolic of the fact that this was Indy’s last adventure.

DominicCobb said:

“I believe that Buckaroo Banzai Against the World Crime League is a movie that exists because its predecessor was designed to have a sequel.”

This joke has nothing to do with this conversation. I never said that Star Wars Episode XI is a movie that exists just because Lucas wanted a fluctuating number of sequels for Star Wars.

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve never heard anyone refer to Indiana Jones as a “story.” It’s really weird considering that none of the three movies even directly reference the existence of the others.

Indy knows what the Ark looks like in a nod in Last Crusade.

And of course they aren’t literally a single continuous story, but I assumed everyone here is smart enough to figure out what I meant. They are three selective stories from the life of a character, and they all add into a good overall thingamajig.

Huh, just like the fourth one then.

But, like I already said, the fourth is out of place because it occurs after the third, which was artistically designed to be the last one when it was made, regardless of any other scripts that were thrown around in the mid 90s.

"The third one was designed to be the last one

Yes.

regardless of the fact that shortly after it came out they started thinking about a sequel

This doesn’t change anything about the fact that the third film was supposed to be the last, when it was completed. If a fourth installment had come out in 1996, while it would’ve undoubtedly been better than Skull is, it still wouldn’t have been a good idea in my opinion.

and regardless of the fact that there’s nothing in the movie itself that makes it the last one."

There is. It’s quite obvious in the film as well as by the word of Spielberg himself that the ride into the sunset was deliberately used for that purpose, and of course to a lesser importance, the title. I honestly don’t understand how this is even an argument.

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV’s Frink said:

Take yourself man.

I would if anything interesting enough was released.

Are you trying to say that absolutely zero movies have ever gathered your interest upon their release in the last ten years?

TV’s Frink said:

And you keep ignoring the fact that the second Star Wars movie occurs after the first, which was artistically designed to be the last one when it was made, but you do you.

No, it wasn’t. It was artistically designed to be self-contained, but there was always a plan to give it sequels if the money flowed that way. You’re creating a false equivalence.

Since I’ve only been to a handful of movies in theaters, I have never had the chance to be inclined to leave one.

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve never heard anyone refer to Indiana Jones as a “story.” It’s really weird considering that none of the three movies even directly reference the existence of the others.

Indy knows what the Ark looks like in a nod in Last Crusade.

And of course they aren’t literally a single continuous story, but I assumed everyone here is smart enough to figure out what I meant. They are three selective stories from the life of a character, and they all add into a good overall thingamajig.

Huh, just like the fourth one then.

But, like I already said, the fourth is out of place because it occurs after the third, which was artistically designed to be the last one when it was made, regardless of any other scripts that were thrown around in the mid 90s.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve never heard anyone refer to Indiana Jones as a “story.” It’s really weird considering that none of the three movies even directly reference the existence of the others.

Indy knows what the Ark looks like in a nod in Last Crusade.

And of course they aren’t literally a single continuous story, but I assumed everyone here is smart enough to figure out what I meant. They are three selective stories from the life of a character, and they all add into a good overall thingamajig.

TV’s Frink said:

Dek shall will himself out now.

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

I get “the Last” part now, but I don’t remember there being a sunset shot. 😉

That one doesn’t count!!!

*Throws tantrum*

I get “the Last” part now, but I don’t remember there being a sunset shot. 😉

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

The only reasons The Last Crusade “must” be a trilogy capper are

• the title is Last (but the following word is Crusade and not Adventure or Movie or whatever so it doesn’t even matter)

• the final shot is a literal ride into sunset

Just because KOTCS ain’t great doesn’t mean Indy’s story is inherently a 3-part one.

Of course everyone knows that the Star Wars series has reached a clear end with The Last Jedi.

You could at least make a joke that makes sense.

I was unaware. When did those plans start? Late 90s? Because I seem to remember Spielberg saying that he wasn’t told about their desire for another outing until like 2002 or 2003.

Also the Indy films were a three film contract from the get-go. Lucas told Spielberg he had two extra scripts ready so he would okay it right away, and at the completion of the third film, the series was retired, with the things coffee repeated being artistic choices Spielberg used to convey the end of the series.

Lucas also wanted sequels to Star Wars, albeit without a strong plan.

Dom implied that I should’ve watched Crystal Skull and I said no because the series was intentionally ended with Last Crusade. Then he tried to contest this assessment without acknowledging the fact that the film wasn’t supposed to exist until Ford and Lucas felt like pursuing another installment in the mid 2000s.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mosttimes I think this thread sucks.

FTFM

DuracellEnergizer said:

Retro Jason

Suggested avatar:

Looks like Greedo.

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

^You missed one.

No.

Oddly enough, no matter what anyone says about it, the movie still exists.

And I don’t even think it’s that bad. A couple of fanedits make it halfway decent actually.

I mean, I certainly think it’s worse than any fanedit could fix, but that’s opinion. Ultimately it’s a completely unnecessary extension to a story that very clearly ended in 1989.

Huh, just like ESB was a completely unnecessary extension to a story that very clearly ended in 1977.

JEDIT: What Collipso said. Raiders too.

But the Star Wars sequels were a meaningful extension, will a culmination of events and a clear ending to that overall story in 1983. The same goes for the Raiders sequels.

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

^You missed one.

No.

Oddly enough, no matter what anyone says about it, the movie still exists.

Oddly enough, no matter what anyone says about it, a sequel existing does not mean it fits into the original story, nor does it mean I have to include it with a viewing of the trilogy, hence the word trilogy.

“Original story” is a weird phrasing to use considering it’s not one coherent narrative and actually three separate stories but okay.

It’s three episodic stories that make up a whole story of sorts, despite subtle errors in continuity. That story very clearly ended in the third installment, thus a fourth installment is out of place chronologically.

ray_afraid said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

^You missed one.

No.

Oddly enough, no matter what anyone says about it, the movie still exists.

hence the word trilogy.

Actually, you just said you watched those movies. No mention of “series” or “saga” or even “trilogy”.

I didn’t say it in my post, but the series is frequently referred to as the “Indiana Jones Trilogy.”

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

^You missed one.

No.

Oddly enough, no matter what anyone says about it, the movie still exists.

And I don’t even think it’s that bad. A couple of fanedits make it halfway decent actually.

I mean, I certainly think it’s worse than any fanedit could fix, but that’s opinion. Ultimately it’s a completely unnecessary extension to a story that very clearly ended in 1989.

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

^You missed one.

No.

Oddly enough, no matter what anyone says about it, the movie still exists.

Oddly enough, no matter what anyone says about it, a sequel existing does not mean it fits into the original story, nor does it mean I have to include it with a viewing of the trilogy, hence the word trilogy.