?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

More on Indy

Now that I've had a night to sleep on it, all I can say is... Its as if a suck storm moves into the area and rains suck down on a parade being held on your birthday.

Comments

( 17 comments — Leave a comment )
fallensoul48071
May. 23rd, 2008 06:36 pm (UTC)
off topic, but same actor
I just finished watching the Star Wars Quadrilogy (I only count the last 4 as legitimate Star Wars movies). I am going to have to say that i felt his way about Return of the Jedi. I think i kept watching it out of obligation, because it was one of the original three and i didn't want to disrespect it, but i was really glad when it was over.
sudrin
May. 23rd, 2008 06:38 pm (UTC)
Re: off topic, but same actor
Wait.. the last FOUR? which one is the first if ROTJ is the fourth? Everything after EWOKS sucks IMHO.
fallensoul48071
May. 23rd, 2008 07:06 pm (UTC)
Re: off topic, but same actor
The third new one, where anakin goes bad, should have been the first one, and they should have never made anything before that. And yes, the ewoks are a terrible thing.
lickingtoad
May. 23rd, 2008 09:08 pm (UTC)
Re: off topic, but same actor
Good man. Sensible man. (I've followed the exact same strategy -- I own III, IV, V and VI. Only and forever.)
sudrin
May. 23rd, 2008 09:19 pm (UTC)
Re: off topic, but same actor
I don't know, Epsiode III was dreck too.. Case in point:

NOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
lickingtoad
May. 24th, 2008 02:11 am (UTC)
Re: off topic, but same actor
Were some parts a little stiff? Sure. 'Younglings,' the 'Nooo-ooo-ooo!' the "let's make sure the Emperor looks like he will in RoTJ!"

... but the dialogue, the pacing, the twists were all satisfactory. The puzzle fits, we get all the information we 'need' to understand the tragedy of Darth Vader.

It's not the best of the films, but there aren't any Ewoks in it either. *zing!*
sudrin
May. 25th, 2008 01:58 am (UTC)
Re: off topic, but same actor
Lol.. well I certainly enjoy it more than Return of the Jedi. I guess the truth is I could make an edit of the first three movies into one movie that I would enjoy pretty well. I enjoy everything of ROTJ that is not on the surface of Endor (not including the scene with Luke and Vader on Endor). Ironically I think if the Ewoks had worshiped Chewbacca I might almost have felt differently. At the very least if they had found him kindred.
lickingtoad
May. 25th, 2008 03:21 pm (UTC)
Re: off topic, but same actor
In the book I think it's better implied that they bonded with Chewbacca on some bizarre "furry" level, yeah. (Ha! I made it sound like a fetish thing!)

Back to the movies: When uterdic and clockworkmonkey and I went to see Episode II in the IMAX theater, it turns out that IMAX reels were 'short' by about ten or fifteen minutes. As a result, they cut a lot of Anakin's unnecessary self-centered whining. The movie was *better* for it.

When I looked back over Episodes I and II to decide if I needed to own them, the conclusion I came to was that Episode I was essentially introductions and setup -- it was so far removed (and in many cases blatantly contradictory) to the original trilogy that it's unnecessary. Into the trash bin. (I could've believed Qui-Gon was Anakin's father, but *no one?!* Between that and 'midichlorians,' the Phantom Menace hit the Solid Trashcan real fuckin' quick.)

Episode II was better written, but there were little bits again that just didn't add up. Sifo-Dyas seemed to be 'errated' into a real (and seperate) person when I thought "obviously that was Sidious, using an alias. If it's not in the Archives, the Jedi aren't going to 'follow up' on a fact-checking mission." I *loved* the fact that Jar-Jar is the one who granted Palpatine the power to use the clones, and that the 'droids were the only witnesses to the wedding. But even if I put all my favorite sensible parts together, I'd have a fifteen minute outtake reel. Didn't need to own it.

Episode III, for all its flaws, led solidly into IV. It *really* set up 'A New Hope.' I liked that Palpatine was able to use Padme's imminent death to tempt Anakin, I liked that it was easy to believe the Jedi would betray the Chancellor and usurp the Republic. Order 66 is one of my favorite sequences. Secret-clone-imperative, baby.

So that's why III, but not II and never, ever I.
kjtoo
May. 24th, 2008 12:39 am (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you were not suitably entertained by Dr. Jones' adventures; I was.
galador42
May. 24th, 2008 02:13 am (UTC)
As was I. It may not have been Indy's greatest cinematic adventure, but I felt it worthy of the franchise. It was as I remember the Indy series: a fun and exciting adventurous romp. This new culture of hating anything George Lucas has anything to do with and using it as an excuse to dissect the films and excise suspension of disbelief is not for me.

It reminds me of how Star Wars Fans Hate Star Wars.
kjtoo
May. 24th, 2008 06:10 pm (UTC)
That's an interesting article; thanks for the link.

I must admit that I went in the theater fully prepared to emerge two hours later and declare that George Lucas should be forever barred from making films. Yes, my expectations were that low.

My hopes, on the other hand, soared high. In my heart of hearts I secretly wished for an adventure of the same caliber as The Last Crusade (my personal favorite of the franchise; a fact that probably makes me an outcast among fans). What I saw was something pretty much between my greatest hope an my worst fear: an engaging story with many of the elements I've come to expect from Indiana Jones, but still lacking something that would have made it great. My wife commented on the dialog as we drove home, indicating that she didn't think it was very quotable; no "I was the next man" or "You call this archeology?" (both, by the way from The Last Crusade). She has a point; apart from some tidbits about Mutt going back to school, I can't think of anything that really strikes me as particularly memorable in terms of dialog. Perhaps that would change with repeated viewings, but I won't hold my breath.

On the subject of Star Wars, I'm glad I'm not that guy. I have little use for the prequel trilogy, but I don't hold the Ewoks in contempt, either (the worst part of Return of the Jedi isn't teddy bears kicking the Empire's shiny ass on the forest moon, it's Luke and Leia's dialog right before Luke goes off to confront Vader). I'm not a fan of some changes that were made for the Special Editions, but I do like the additional Wampa footage on Hoth and the opening up of Cloud City is nice, too. In short, I don't hate the original trilogy. If Luke is whiny on Tattooine it's because he's a teenager and whining is something at which teenagers excel. I love the original trilogy even though Boba Fett dies a particularly ignominious death and a parsec isn't a measure of time. As with anything worth loving, the original trilogy has imperfections that are obvious and sometimes egregious but those flaws are minor when considered as part of the much better whole.
lickingtoad
May. 24th, 2008 07:05 pm (UTC)
Well-said.
sudrin
May. 25th, 2008 01:53 am (UTC)
I just want to say while I have my feelings about George Lucas I don't think its fair to say I automatically hate everything he does. My problem I suppose is that I have the wrong expectation with these sorts of things. I love films that dazzle me visual. I don't love movies that try and jam non stop action into every crevice. I really felt that Crystal Skull did not feel like it every stopped right from the beginning. I missed the quiet moments were Indy tried to figure something out. But this time he knew everything all the time. Sort of like if Horatio Caine from CSI: Miami was an archaeologist. Indy never really consulted any notes or was confused by anything for more than a beat. One of the things I missed was a chance to figure out the mystery as I watched. But since it was spoon fed, it seemed like the point was just to be dazzled by special effects. So maybe I'm too old or TOO curmudgeonly but I didn't set out to just HATE it because I think not liking it is the groovy thing to do, or because I have some particular hatred of Lucas.
kjtoo
May. 25th, 2008 02:27 am (UTC)
I'm not sure what "quiet times" you're referring to. Indiana Jones films have never been about letting the audience figure out a mystery; they're pulp adventure from start to finish. Whether you're watching The Last Crusade or Raiders or (Lord only knows why, but to each his own, I guess) Temple of Doom, you're not really given the opportunity to try to put together the pieces of the puzzle along with Dr. Jones, you're just dragged along on a frenetic, fast-paced ride while he jumps from clue to clue, drawing on his ridiculously vast knowledge of ancient cultures to keep a half-step ahead of the bad guys. Hell, that red line that's always following his planes around can barely keep up with Indy, how are we supposed to?

Okay, I take that back: Temple had some slow moments. But, to quote Harry Tasker, "They were all bad."

Okay, I take that back: Temple isn't (always) terrible; it's just not my favorite of the series. Not by a long shot.
sudrin
May. 25th, 2008 02:40 am (UTC)
Surely you would admit that as much action as is present in Raiders, it stops long enough several times to take a breath!?

I just don't agree that "pulp adventure" means "non-stop action". I agree that there is a certain amount of acceptable cheese. I don't agree that "danger to Shia Lebouf's balls" is "pulp adventure". While I admit that every second of Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't believable it doesn't ask you to believe that you could stick yourself inside a lead-lined fridge and survive a nuclear blast.

kjtoo
May. 25th, 2008 04:04 am (UTC)
I don't believe the action in Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls is as "non-stop" as you portray it; the scenes in the classroom, at Indy's home, in the diner...they're all moments to pause for breath. As to the matter of Mutt Williams' crotch, it's a scene I didn't particularly care for but I don't recall ever saying that I was head over heels in love with every moment of the movie; just that it didn't entirely let me down as it so obviously did you.

Raiders may not have asked me to believe that a man can survive a nuclear blast by hiding a fridge, but it certainly did ask me to believe that a man can cling to the periscope of a submarine overnight and not only survive but somehow miraculously keep his hat (a theme that has run through the entire series), and Temple of Doom wished me to believe that a trio of people can survive a fall from a plane in a rubber raft (we'll leave the supernatural elements like pulling a man's still beating heart from his chest out of the discussion).
sudrin
May. 25th, 2008 10:35 am (UTC)
In retrospect, I now think i've hated every movie since Raiders. :)
( 17 comments — Leave a comment )