I have no doubt that others have tried to 'connect the dots' of all these concepts and tie them to aliens before. How many times have we heard stories about aliens building the Egyptian or Mayan pyramids? The concepts tend to feel 'incestuous', because we are using modern mythology to explain historical legend...both of which oftentimes need a small leap of faith to follow in the first place.
I'm pretty sure some of that was hinted in the movie as well. There's a scene near the end where Indy and his companions find the treasure room and there are artifacts from ancient cultures from all over the world, including Egypt.
My favorite new piece of urban myth has to be the Face of Mars - an outcropping of rock that was photographed by one of the Mars orbiters whose shape roughly resembled a human face. All the conspiracy nuts were in a tizzy over that one (especially the aforementioned Hoagland, who even tried to tie it back to ancient Egypt) and when subsequent high-res imagery revealed it to be nothing more than an outcropping of rock, they all screamed "government cover-up".
Hmm... Indiana Jones and the Face of Mars ...Kinda catchy.
Nice title...though Indiana Jones in a spacesuit would be a little too much, I think.
I remember the Mars face debacle (did that happen before or after they thought they found the purported Martian microbe fossil which turned out to be a mere crystal fossilization?)
There were two 'Mars' movies that came out about that time (one with Val Kilmer and one with Gary Sinise). At least one of them capitalized on the Mars face idea...which is now basically debunked.
Canals, microbes, monolithic faces...the red planet has it all!
Nice title...though Indiana Jones in a spacesuit would be a little too much, I think.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of a teleportation device, probably beneath the Sphynx.
I remember the Mars face debacle (did that happen before or after they thought they found the purported Martian microbe fossil which turned out to be a mere crystal fossilization?)
Not sure but I think it was well before that. I'm pretty sure that the original picture that started the whole mess was taken years ago but only released more recently, probably after certain documents were declassifed.
There were two 'Mars' movies that came out about that time (one with Val Kilmer and one with Gary Sinise). At least one of them capitalized on the Mars face idea...which is now basically debunked.
The Gary Sinise film (Mission to Mars) was the one that had the face; it also made use of some of Hoagland's theories ( including the notion that we are the descendants of Martians who emigrated to Earth after they discovered their planet was dying ). The Val Kilmer movie was actually pretty interesting and even suggested a few outlandish buy scientifically plausible theories for very simple living organisms on Mars.
Canals, microbes, monolithic faces...the red planet has it all!
And don't forget hot babes in dominatrix outfits. )
You should check out the Dr Who story Pyramids of Mars- it's all about Sutekh; the Egyptian god (who's an alien, natch!) who's incredibly powerful and a destroyer of worlds, and he's trying to escape his prison beneath a pyramid on Mars. It's mostly set in a country house in England in 1910 or thereabouts, from where a Sutekh's servants (including a guy in fez!) are trying to free him, with the help of his service robots who, naturally, are wrapped in bandages! There's even an Indy-style series of puzzles and traps in the Pyramid on Mars (which is reached through a teleport in a sarcophagus) which the Doctor has to go through at the climax to stop Sutekh from escaping. It's great fun! I'd never thought of it as an Indy-style story before; more a Hammer horror, but I suppose it is!
I love this movie and so did my wife & kids. Sure it has flaws and the alien aspects were overcooked, but the time flew by while I was in the Cinema (twice!), and for me that is a measure of a good movie.
I don't understand people's problem with the Wedding ending, I thought it finished things nicely. The end of Temple of Doom when he reeled in Willie with his whip was waaaaaay cheesier wasn't it?
Crystal Skull has officially moved to #3 on my list of Indiana Jones movies (pushing Last Crusade to the bottom).
Over the weekend, a revelation was made by my sister-in-law who has been staying with us the past couple of weeks, that she had never seen any of the Indiana Jones movies. I sprang into action and put the movies into the DVD player.
Surprisingly, this was the first time that I had ever watched all three of the original films back to back. The differences between the films were quite stark, and I realized one reason why. ROTLA surpasses all the films, not necessarily because it's the 'original' but because of the deftness of the script. And when I say script, I'm not referring to dialogue. That's the whole beauty of ROTLA...in much of the movie, there is no dialogue! Jones is silently making his way through the movie, and the actions of the characters speak for themselves. In the later films (especially Last Crusade) NO ONE SHUTS UP! Even Jones himself is talking to himself as he navigates the perils guarding the Holy Grail while others shout at him from the behind. Gone is the mystique of discovery inherent in ROTLA as we watch Jones silently decipher Egyptian heiroglyhics in the map room, or battle baddies in Marion's nightclub. The subsequent films rely far too much on exposatory and comedic dialogue rather than letting the audience simply enjoy the action on the screen.
That's the whole beauty of ROTLA...in much of the movie, there is no dialogue! Jones is silently making his way through the movie, and the actions of the characters speak for themselves. In the later films (especially Last Crusade) NO ONE SHUTS UP! Even Jones himself is talking to himself as he navigates the perils guarding the Holy Grail while others shout at him from the behind. Gone is the mystique of discovery inherent in ROTLA as we watch Jones silently decipher Egyptian heiroglyhics in the map room, or battle baddies in Marion's nightclub. The subsequent films rely far too much on exposatory and comedic dialogue rather than letting the audience simply enjoy the action on the screen.
That's a good observation; yeah. I defintely think that Raiders is light years ahead of the others, but the others ain't bad at all. The Indy series doesn't vary in quality as much as Bond does, and I like that.
I love this movie and so did my wife & kids. Sure it has flaws and the alien aspects were overcooked, but the time flew by while I was in the Cinema (twice!), and for me that is a measure of a good movie.
I don't understand people's problem with the Wedding ending, I thought it finished things nicely. The end of Temple of Doom when he reeled in Willie with his whip was waaaaaay cheesier wasn't it?
It's funny; I've been reading the Saucermen From Mars synopsis on TheRaider.net again, and the amount of similarities to Crystal Skull are striking, even though it was written 13 years ago! There's a wedding, but it's at the beginning, and Indy gives chase through the college after his bride appears to be kidnapped! It's similar ideas but in a different order!
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,654MI6 Agent
I've watched it twice so far. What stands out are the seemingly large tracks of non-action and an overall sense of the movie missing an action sequence or two. I don't think I'm unfairly comparing it to today's action movie faire, but more with the action quotient of Temple of Doom and Last Crusade. If anything, the balance between the narrative and action is similar to Raiders, but then again...Raiders, that's pure unrepeatable perfection. I can't wait for the DVD, but you know that I'll be using the chapter menu a lot more!
I don't know about anyone else, but I've never found Cate Blanchet as attractive, though I wish they would have made her more voluptuous as it was done with Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider.
While Indy 4 was in the works, I even welcomed some changes in his costume, maybe in the cut and color of the leather jacket and a smaller brim on the hat in keeping with "the times" of the cold war. But in the final equation, I really like old Indy, though I wish he would have used some sort of pomade or hair tonic.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
edited June 2008
Well my son and I just came back from viewing Indy 4 and we were both pleased with it on a whole but not blown away with it like the 80s ventures.
Everything about this picture had the vibe of just going through the motions and then they jumped the shark with the plot.
John Hurt is a great actor and a good addition to the cast but the quirkiness of his character in this only made me miss Marcus Brody even more.
I still love CRUSADE the most from that franchise but I'm a little reluctant to put SKULL alongside the first three. I didn't hate it but it just felt...synthetic to me. I don't know; it was an Indy flick but it didn't quite feel like one... The monkeys maybe?
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Sorry to hear you were disappointed with the movie Rogue. It's been my experience that people who can't get past the sci-fi based quest (as opposed to the more mystical/religious quests of prior films) have the hardest time enjoying the movie. As a sci-fi fan, I liked how the film tied itself into the 1947 incident in Roswell.
I've got to disagree with you on the "going thru the motions" comment. The action scene in the hanger at the start was great, the chase thru the jungle was great, and Indy's fight with the Russian officer amidst the fire ants was really well staged, I thought. The big climax was effects heavy, and Indy is more of a passive spectator, but you could make the same complaint about Raiders. The only real difference was that this time it was done with CG whereas with Raiders it was done with more traditional tecniques. And Harrison Ford shows way more zip here than he has in anything else he's done in the last 10 years.
I also thought the film's "happy ending" was very touching and nostalgic and a great way to say goodbye to Indy. Far better than the one eyed, Depends wearing old fart from Young Indiana Jones - your heros should never be shown to grow that old.
And why does everybody fixate on the monkeys (and the prairie dogs while we're at it)? They were in the movie for a combined total of maybe 60 seconds out of a running time of over two hours. They got far less screen time than the annoying Short Round in Temple of Doom. And they were better actors. :v
Some diversity here. Gotta say the problems in the film (for me) I sussed from the trailer. None of the action (bar the atomic bomb scene) seemed exactly original to me. And the ant scene seemed to me like the climax of DAD, where you sort of have two factions fighting and it goes back and forth between them, neither being that exciting ie Miranda and Jinx, Bond and Graves.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Sorry to hear you were disappointed with the movie Rogue. It's been my experience that people who can't get past the sci-fi based quest (as opposed to the more mystical/religious quests of prior films) have the hardest time enjoying the movie. As a sci-fi fan, I liked how the film tied itself into the 1947 incident in Roswell.
Hmmmm...During the film, my son and I both looked at each other and said that the subtext was right down YOUR ALLEY, Tony. :v )
I told him that as big of a sci-fi buff you were, that there was no way that you didn't enjoy this picture and that I would hear it from you. )
I thought that could've been handled better.
It kind of reminded us both of JL: The New Frontier a little. Maybe because of the era...
I've got to disagree with you on the "going thru the motions" comment. The action scene in the hanger at the start was great, the chase thru the jungle was great, and Indy's fight with the Russian officer amidst the fire ants was really well staged, I thought. The big climax was effects heavy, and Indy is more of a passive spectator, but you could make the same complaint about Raiders. The only real difference was that this time it was done with CG whereas with Raiders it was done with more traditional tecniques. And Harrison Ford shows way more zip here than he has in anything else he's done in the last 10 years.
Ford was the only one holding this picture together for me; he seemed to be the only actor in it who knew what the stakes were after a nearly 20 year hiatus. The villians in this were very unconvincing to me, by comparison to their predecessors, and an insult to Russian villiany. Their come-uppance was very dull and undeserving for such milquetoast baddies...
I also thought the film's "happy ending" was very touching and nostalgic and a great way to say goodbye to Indy.
I'll agree that it was touching and a little sad because his exit sort of closes the door on our childhood as one of the few cinematic, iconic action heroes to have come along in the last 40 years or so. Despite his age, I am sad to see him go.
And why does everybody fixate on the monkeys (and the prairie dogs while we're at it)? They were in the movie for a combined total of maybe 60 seconds out of a running time of over two hours.
Tony, defend them if you will but the monkeys were just plain stupid. That sequence with the overly-exposed Shia LeBeouf had me cringing in my seat. That was just ridiculously OTT.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the film alot...it was just rather bumpy as it went along.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I think this script was leaked some time ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if Frank Darabont is letting it float around to get some credit for his work in Indy IV.
I think this script was leaked some time ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if Frank Darabont is letting it float around to get some credit for his work in Indy IV.
I skimmed through it and was surprised how much of it is still in the finished movie. Does anybody know what Lucas objected to in Darabont's script?
I think this script was leaked some time ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if Frank Darabont is letting it float around to get some credit for his work in Indy IV.
I skimmed through it and was surprised how much of it is still in the finished movie. Does anybody know what Lucas objected to in Darabont's script?
Not sure; it's interesting how much of what was in Crystal Skull pre dates even 'City of the Gods' and featured in 'Saucer Men From Mars' from 1995 or so- Lucas really did like all these elements and got various people to move them all around in different ways.
Has anyone had a read of Darabont's 'Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods'? I'm halfway through, but I'm enjoying it a lot. There's a much greater sense of danger, some top gags, the characters are handled very well and a couple of killer action sequences. I like the way the Commie-Indy plot is actually used in this version unlike in KOTCS where it was simply forgotten, and the winks to Raiders actually work pretty well: I thought they'd be terrible.
It's not perfect: KOTCS has a better opening and a stronger villain, and I think Mutt was a quite good addition: COTG isn't all that personal for Indy, although the return of Marion is handled much better.
On what I've read so far, if you could combine KOTCS and COTG I'd say you'd have a perfect Indy 4. Of the two scripts I'd be tempted to say that I prefer City of the Gods.
I'm not opposed to a fifth installment. Skull didn't ruin anything for me, and the Indy/Mutt relationship is still essentially unexplored.
I agree. I will post my thoughts about the film in greater detail in the next few days, but I really enjoyed it and I would have no problem whatsoever with a fifth (and final) film. Especially if Karen Allen returns.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I defintely think that Raiders is light years ahead of the others, but the others ain't bad at all. The Indy series doesn't vary in quality as much as Bond does, and I like that.
Except that there are 21, soon to be 22, Bond films (and that's not even counting NSNA.) Even if one accepted that the Indy series doesn't particularly vary in quality, there are only four of them. If the Bond films had ceased to be made after TB, I would suspect that people would be speaking of the Bond films, and not the Indy films, as a series maintaining a consistently high quality.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
True of course, but to be honest I think the first three Indy films are much better than the first three Bond films. I love 'em, but for me even Goldfinger doesn't really hit the heights of Raiders.
But then of course the Indy films owe a little to Bond, so everyone's happy and the film world is just that little bit richer.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
That's interesting; I'd say that Raiders can easily stand with the best of the Bonds, in terms of sheer classic escapism---I know it certainly looms larger in my brother's frame of reference than 007---but, for myself, I'd place the latter three Indys somewhere in with the middle mix of Bond films for overall quality.
There's Raiders...and then there are the lesser sequels, as far as I'm concerned. If they do manage to squeeze one more out of the Spielberg/Lucas/Ford tandem, I doubt it can be anything other than just another sequel. Of course, my ticket is as good as pre-sold {[]
Bond, through 22 pictures, and six lead actors, hits peaks and valleys. Other than being escapist adventure films whose primary aim is fun, it's definitely apples and (martini) olives :007) Excessive comparisons between the two require more energy than I've got to spare.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Absolutely right Bro Loeff.
I rank the first picture, RAIDERS, very high ( really in my own super-geekdom, one of the BEST) on the list of great films EVER.
I know it may be fighting words to some, but I think that first movie is up there with the classic American films such as Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, North By Northwest, etc. Given more time, I would try to draw examples of camera work,music, story/pacing, etc. But, the bottom line is - this movie rocks.
I really think that first film is art(or at least as close as pure escapism adventure can come to art.) Classic Cinema.
The other Indy films are good ( yeah, that's right, even the latest one...IMRO )popcorn movies. In other words, that first Indy film could almost be viewed as a sort of "one off", then with a string of sequels.
Bond on the other hand, is a ( nay, possibly THE)great ICON of the moving picture. He is a timeless hero that first existed in an unparalleled body of popular literature and then made the jump to an amazing string of films that became their own self regenerating thing. An unprecedented miracle, really . Not merely a great once appearing literary/cinematic hero like Sam Spade (Whom, please, we could/should have seen more of in continuing adventures) but rather a character that kept reinventing itself and that must be understood by looking at the whole.
The Bond Oeuvre.
A body of work that has endured many decades.
Books, Movies, whatever. Bond is here to stay.
I don't feel that Dr. No for instance, as the flagship, was able to achieve the "one off" brilliance of a film like Raiders.
What it did do was launch a timeless franchise.
The Bond films are a collective achievement.
The casting of the films I've mentioned kind of illustrates what I mean in regards to a single "classic" vs. a large body of work that can be viewed as a whole.
Only Harrison Ford could play Indiana Jones.
Only Humphrey Bogart could play Sam Spade.
We have had many play Bond.
There may be some one being born right now who will some day play Bond.
That is a lasting phenomenon that exceeds any greatness achieved by one single film.
Comparing Indy and Bond is... well,
apples and olives indeed.
I adore Raiders. I don't think it's quite as good as GF, but I do think it is as good as, and in aspects better than, DN, FRWL, TB, OHMSS or TSWLM (IMO the very best Bond films.) The other three Indy films may IMO be compared to some of the middle-order Bond films, although Temple of Doom is IMO vastly inferior to the other three Indy films and so I would only compare it to the lesser Bond films (but not the worst.)
The thing about it though, is that although I greatly prefer Bond, I think both are wonderful characters! Loeff is right in that it's like comparing apples and olives. I do have a strong preference, but it of no disrespect to Indy, as I absolutely adore him. I honestly can not tell you how excited I felt seeing Indy's silhouette at the start of Indy 4. {[]
I don't believe Dr. No was able to achieve the "one off" brilliance of a film like Raiders.
I adore DN, but I would probably agree that Raiders was a better film.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
I'm pretty sure some of that was hinted in the movie as well. There's a scene near the end where Indy and his companions find the treasure room and there are artifacts from ancient cultures from all over the world, including Egypt.
My favorite new piece of urban myth has to be the Face of Mars - an outcropping of rock that was photographed by one of the Mars orbiters whose shape roughly resembled a human face. All the conspiracy nuts were in a tizzy over that one (especially the aforementioned Hoagland, who even tried to tie it back to ancient Egypt) and when subsequent high-res imagery revealed it to be nothing more than an outcropping of rock, they all screamed "government cover-up".
Hmm... Indiana Jones and the Face of Mars ...Kinda catchy.
I remember the Mars face debacle (did that happen before or after they thought they found the purported Martian microbe fossil which turned out to be a mere crystal fossilization?)
There were two 'Mars' movies that came out about that time (one with Val Kilmer and one with Gary Sinise). At least one of them capitalized on the Mars face idea...which is now basically debunked.
Canals, microbes, monolithic faces...the red planet has it all!
I was actually thinking more along the lines of a teleportation device, probably beneath the Sphynx.
Not sure but I think it was well before that. I'm pretty sure that the original picture that started the whole mess was taken years ago but only released more recently, probably after certain documents were declassifed.
The Gary Sinise film (Mission to Mars) was the one that had the face; it also made use of some of Hoagland's theories ( including the notion that we are the descendants of Martians who emigrated to Earth after they discovered their planet was dying
And don't forget hot babes in dominatrix outfits.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046907/
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0uAURlp_2fs
Off on a tangent. in the 1950s Ford could hang out with his alter ego from American Graffiti!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I don't understand people's problem with the Wedding ending, I thought it finished things nicely. The end of Temple of Doom when he reeled in Willie with his whip was waaaaaay cheesier wasn't it?
Over the weekend, a revelation was made by my sister-in-law who has been staying with us the past couple of weeks, that she had never seen any of the Indiana Jones movies. I sprang into action and put the movies into the DVD player.
Surprisingly, this was the first time that I had ever watched all three of the original films back to back. The differences between the films were quite stark, and I realized one reason why. ROTLA surpasses all the films, not necessarily because it's the 'original' but because of the deftness of the script. And when I say script, I'm not referring to dialogue. That's the whole beauty of ROTLA...in much of the movie, there is no dialogue! Jones is silently making his way through the movie, and the actions of the characters speak for themselves. In the later films (especially Last Crusade) NO ONE SHUTS UP! Even Jones himself is talking to himself as he navigates the perils guarding the Holy Grail while others shout at him from the behind. Gone is the mystique of discovery inherent in ROTLA as we watch Jones silently decipher Egyptian heiroglyhics in the map room, or battle baddies in Marion's nightclub. The subsequent films rely far too much on exposatory and comedic dialogue rather than letting the audience simply enjoy the action on the screen.
That's a good observation; yeah. I defintely think that Raiders is light years ahead of the others, but the others ain't bad at all. The Indy series doesn't vary in quality as much as Bond does, and I like that.
It's funny; I've been reading the Saucermen From Mars synopsis on TheRaider.net again, and the amount of similarities to Crystal Skull are striking, even though it was written 13 years ago! There's a wedding, but it's at the beginning, and Indy gives chase through the college after his bride appears to be kidnapped! It's similar ideas but in a different order!
I don't know about anyone else, but I've never found Cate Blanchet as attractive, though I wish they would have made her more voluptuous as it was done with Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider.
While Indy 4 was in the works, I even welcomed some changes in his costume, maybe in the cut and color of the leather jacket and a smaller brim on the hat in keeping with "the times" of the cold war. But in the final equation, I really like old Indy, though I wish he would have used some sort of pomade or hair tonic.
Everything about this picture had the vibe of just going through the motions and then they jumped the shark with the plot.
John Hurt is a great actor and a good addition to the cast but the quirkiness of his character in this only made me miss Marcus Brody even more.
I still love CRUSADE the most from that franchise but I'm a little reluctant to put SKULL alongside the first three. I didn't hate it but it just felt...synthetic to me. I don't know; it was an Indy flick but it didn't quite feel like one... The monkeys maybe?
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I've got to disagree with you on the "going thru the motions" comment. The action scene in the hanger at the start was great, the chase thru the jungle was great, and Indy's fight with the Russian officer amidst the fire ants was really well staged, I thought. The big climax was effects heavy, and Indy is more of a passive spectator, but you could make the same complaint about Raiders. The only real difference was that this time it was done with CG whereas with Raiders it was done with more traditional tecniques. And Harrison Ford shows way more zip here than he has in anything else he's done in the last 10 years.
I also thought the film's "happy ending" was very touching and nostalgic and a great way to say goodbye to Indy. Far better than the one eyed, Depends wearing old fart from Young Indiana Jones - your heros should never be shown to grow that old.
And why does everybody fixate on the monkeys (and the prairie dogs while we're at it)? They were in the movie for a combined total of maybe 60 seconds out of a running time of over two hours. They got far less screen time than the annoying Short Round in Temple of Doom. And they were better actors. :v
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Hmmmm...During the film, my son and I both looked at each other and said that the subtext was right down YOUR ALLEY, Tony. :v
I told him that as big of a sci-fi buff you were, that there was no way that you didn't enjoy this picture and that I would hear it from you.
I thought that could've been handled better.
It kind of reminded us both of JL: The New Frontier a little. Maybe because of the era...
Ford was the only one holding this picture together for me; he seemed to be the only actor in it who knew what the stakes were after a nearly 20 year hiatus. The villians in this were very unconvincing to me, by comparison to their predecessors, and an insult to Russian villiany. Their come-uppance was very dull and undeserving for such milquetoast baddies...
I'll agree that it was touching and a little sad because his exit sort of closes the door on our childhood as one of the few cinematic, iconic action heroes to have come along in the last 40 years or so. Despite his age, I am sad to see him go.
Tony, defend them if you will but the monkeys were just plain stupid. That sequence with the overly-exposed Shia LeBeouf had me cringing in my seat. That was just ridiculously OTT.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the film alot...it was just rather bumpy as it went along.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
http://www.pdfscreenplays.net/pdfscripts/screenplays/Indiana%20Jones%20and%20the%20City%20of%20the%20Gods.pdf
(It's pretty good, by the way)
I skimmed through it and was surprised how much of it is still in the finished movie. Does anybody know what Lucas objected to in Darabont's script?
I've only skimmed through it, so I don't know how the brother role develops yet.
Not sure; it's interesting how much of what was in Crystal Skull pre dates even 'City of the Gods' and featured in 'Saucer Men From Mars' from 1995 or so- Lucas really did like all these elements and got various people to move them all around in different ways.
It's not perfect: KOTCS has a better opening and a stronger villain, and I think Mutt was a quite good addition: COTG isn't all that personal for Indy, although the return of Marion is handled much better.
On what I've read so far, if you could combine KOTCS and COTG I'd say you'd have a perfect Indy 4. Of the two scripts I'd be tempted to say that I prefer City of the Gods.
Though must say that C Skulls sort of kills it all off for me much like DAD did... could they make it a prequel?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
But then of course the Indy films owe a little to Bond, so everyone's happy and the film world is just that little bit richer.
There's Raiders...and then there are the lesser sequels, as far as I'm concerned. If they do manage to squeeze one more out of the Spielberg/Lucas/Ford tandem, I doubt it can be anything other than just another sequel. Of course, my ticket is as good as pre-sold {[]
Bond, through 22 pictures, and six lead actors, hits peaks and valleys. Other than being escapist adventure films whose primary aim is fun, it's definitely apples and (martini) olives :007) Excessive comparisons between the two require more energy than I've got to spare.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I rank the first picture, RAIDERS, very high ( really in my own super-geekdom, one of the BEST) on the list of great films EVER.
I know it may be fighting words to some, but I think that first movie is up there with the classic American films such as Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, North By Northwest, etc. Given more time, I would try to draw examples of camera work,music, story/pacing, etc. But, the bottom line is - this movie rocks.
I really think that first film is art(or at least as close as pure escapism adventure can come to art.) Classic Cinema.
The other Indy films are good ( yeah, that's right, even the latest one...IMRO )popcorn movies. In other words, that first Indy film could almost be viewed as a sort of "one off", then with a string of sequels.
Bond on the other hand, is a ( nay, possibly THE)great ICON of the moving picture. He is a timeless hero that first existed in an unparalleled body of popular literature and then made the jump to an amazing string of films that became their own self regenerating thing. An unprecedented miracle, really . Not merely a great once appearing literary/cinematic hero like Sam Spade (Whom, please, we could/should have seen more of in continuing adventures) but rather a character that kept reinventing itself and that must be understood by looking at the whole.
The Bond Oeuvre.
A body of work that has endured many decades.
Books, Movies, whatever. Bond is here to stay.
I don't feel that Dr. No for instance, as the flagship, was able to achieve the "one off" brilliance of a film like Raiders.
What it did do was launch a timeless franchise.
The Bond films are a collective achievement.
The casting of the films I've mentioned kind of illustrates what I mean in regards to a single "classic" vs. a large body of work that can be viewed as a whole.
Only Harrison Ford could play Indiana Jones.
Only Humphrey Bogart could play Sam Spade.
We have had many play Bond.
There may be some one being born right now who will some day play Bond.
That is a lasting phenomenon that exceeds any greatness achieved by one single film.
Comparing Indy and Bond is... well,
apples and olives indeed.
The thing about it though, is that although I greatly prefer Bond, I think both are wonderful characters!
Of course pure escapism adventure an be art!
I adore DN, but I would probably agree that Raiders was a better film.