 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 14, 2013 - 2:52 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
BobJ
(Member)
|
Storyteller got it, he is not Batman or Superman or any superhero or hero.
Here here.
Raiders is a great adventure story, but I always felt that Indy movies have a bit more going on. In a way, they are all about faith. Indy is not a supersitious fellow, he is a man of action, but when it comes down to it he has to confront something more than he bargained for, or initially believed. In Raiders, he's flippant about what's in the Ark ('Didn't you guys ever go to Sunday school?'), but, as Storyteller said, Indy is like Belloq in that he respects or maybe even fears its mystery. In Temple of Doom it's 'fortune and glory' versus the Shankara Stones. In Last Crusade, it's The Grail versus his relationship with Dad. In Crystal Skull, it's Aztec Gold versus a quest for greater knowledge. Indy has feet of clay, but he's a tenacious survivor, and a bit of a romantic.
I think he's a terrific character, and an endearing hero. Irrelevant my arse! 
Aces DP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 14, 2013 - 4:23 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
Can't be nearly as bad as the third act in Crystal Skull where Indy follows John Hurt around, letting him take the lead and solve all the puzzles for him.
Er... huh? That's not what happens; in fact it's pretty much exactly the opposite. Indy actually quite specifically figures out how to get into the monument that Oxley was unable to on his previous visit.
It's practically what happens. I had to look back at a pdf of the final shooting script to make sure, but even on page 114-115 when they reach that obelisk on the pyramid, it's Oxley who pours some sand into Indy's hand, says something cryptic and goes around the obelisk, Indy following him. "What are you doing Ox? What are you looking for?" Oxley then LEADS him to some sand trickling out of a plug. Indy to Oxley: "You figured this out in your cell didn't you Professor? Well done." I mean, Indy gets it at that point and is the one who actively picks up the stone to start breaking off the plugs, sure, but he had to practically have his hand held to come to the conclusion. So I wouldn't say it's "pretty much exactly the opposite."
I still would. Oxley still doesn't know exactly how to get the obelisk to rejoin and lower into the platform, despite having had a lot of time to figure it out, whereas all Indy needs is to be shown the trickle of sand and boom, he's got it. And that's not the end of it, either, as it's Indy who uses the skull to open the door inside.
I do get that he's not as active in the finale of the movie as one would wish, and that's one of the script's shortcomings, but it's not as bad as it's sometimes made out to be, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But didn't Indy find the Ark when those dopey Nazis were "digging in the wrong place"?
Sorry, but Amy refuted that with the fact that had Indy not intervened, the Nazis would have gotten the medallion (rather than the image of only one side of it on a Nazi's hand) and would have dug in the correct location.
They may or may not have gotten the medallion. Prior to Indy's involvement the Nazis, the US government, and even Indy, were under the impression that Abner Ravenwood had the medallion and was still alive. The Nazis only found Marion and the location of the medallion by following Indy. Considering Marion was in middle of nowhere Nepal, it would have been difficult tracking her down without obtaining information from someone with personal knowledge. At best (for them at least), the Nazis would have been significantly delayed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the BIG BANG episode. RAIDERS is my all time favorite film, and nothing could ruin it for me. But I worry the BIG BANG episode may have ruined RAIDERS for others like it did the gang in BIG BANG. For people who have and haven't seen RAIDERS. I know that the irrelevant to the outcome thing was around before TBBT, but BB is a very popular show.
I wouldn't worry about it. If Indiana Jones possibly being irrelevant to the outcome of the movie is a deal breaker for anyone, they are watching the wrong movie in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 16, 2013 - 9:34 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
I've been thinking about the argument posed from this episode of BBT and (no surprise!) I have to disagree with it.
First off, its a false sense of intelligence. Indiana Jones *does* make things happen in the story. Someone earlier mentioned the Flying Wing fight and (definitely the cusp against the idea) tells Marion to close her eyes during the height of drama - but the opening of the film also sets the jeopardy of the plot into motion. (One COULD argue that Indy merely reacts to the traps in the opening but I'll split those hairs later).
And lets face it - Indy shooting the swordsman is basically the ultimate "active" participant (he denies another character's action with his own).
A perfect example of what this episode of BBT is talking about is Skyfall. Bond does nothing to advance the plot, he merely reacts to everything - he chases a guy to get a stolen harddrive back, he waits for a person to be shot before attacking the sniper, he reacts to a jailbreak, he waits for the enemy to attack him at his house, etc - he's an observer instead of an active participant. On the other hand, Jones goes way out of his way to beat the shit out of some guys on a truck.
(All this said, director Nick Meyer has also never liked Raiders Of The Lost Ark for some similar reasons. I take issue with his points as well - but he's a director and I'm some schmo writing on the FSM board, so we can all see who sells their point better.)
Final thought: BBT by and large is a dumb show, catering bad stereotypes for the sake of humor, which is something you'd think we've moved past by now. At least Amos & Andy were (unfortunately) based on the time they were in; this is just more of the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
