Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 1:52 PM   
 By:   Storyteller   (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! razz






Aces DP.

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 2:36 PM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)

Sallah was the true hero of Raiders, he saved Indy from that poisonous date!

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 3:09 PM   
 By:   AlexCope   (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."

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 3:23 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.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 3:27 PM   
 By:   henry   (Member)

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.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 3:32 PM   
 By:   henry   (Member)

I also want to point out I'm a big fan of the BBT, But I LOVE RAIDERS far more.smile

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 3:45 PM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

You know what's also irrelevant? Big Bang Theory.

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 4:15 PM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

You know what's also irrelevant? Big Bang Theory.

Not the point of the thread, LeHah.

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 6:39 PM   
 By:   welwynfilmstudios   (Member)

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 7:41 PM   
 By:   Mr. Jack   (Member)

If you think about it, Indy does nothing for the last half-hour or so in three out of the four films in the series. Only Temple Of Doom has him kicking ass right up until the end credits...the remaining films have Indy being held hostage while the villains essentially kill themselves by opening up the magical doohickey. Can you name another action/adventure franchise where the hero basically doesn't do squat in the climax of most of the films?

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 8:24 PM   
 By:   Storyteller   (Member)

If you think about it, Indy does nothing for the last half-hour or so in three out of the four films in the series. Only Temple Of Doom has him kicking ass right up until the end credits...the remaining films have Indy being held hostage while the villains essentially kill themselves by opening up the magical doohickey. Can you name another action/adventure franchise where the hero basically doesn't do squat in the climax of most of the films?




First, as already stated a hundred times... Indy is not the hero of the films. He is the protagonist (yes, there is a difference).

Second, not being like every other action film is considered by most to be a good thing and might, oh maybe, just maybe have something to do with these films having been so successful.

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 9:05 PM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

"It's not the destination, it's the ride"...and I love Raiders' ride...and I love Big Bang's smarts...so - as far as I'm concerned at least - who the hell cares? That's not to disparage OP's post in the slightest...but just my opinion smile

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 10:31 PM   
 By:   Nicholas_DW   (Member)

I think that's the case in a lot of movies, & sometimes the hero makes things worse. Die Hard 2, I'm sure there would have been a lot less dead people if Brucie hadn't turned up!

The protagonist isn't named Bruce in Die Hard 2!

 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 6:53 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

You know what's also irrelevant? Big Bang Theory.

Finally someone said it. BBT has it all wrong. Can't watch that show. Want to know who got it right? Spence Olchin from King of Queens. Now that character exemplifies true geekdom!

 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 7:36 AM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

You know what's also irrelevant? Big Bang Theory.

Finally someone said it. BBT has it all wrong. Can't watch that show. Want to know who got it right? Spence Olchin from King of Queens. Now that character exemplifies true geekdom!


And there it is. Next.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 9:22 AM   
 By:   Dan Hobgood   (Member)

A movie about a search for an ark with mystical powers is not to be taken seriously to begin with.

Dan

 
 Posted:   Oct 16, 2013 - 6:28 AM   
 By:   Michael Scorefan   (Member)

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.

 
 Posted:   Oct 16, 2013 - 6:39 AM   
 By:   Michael Scorefan   (Member)

Because Indy knew not to look at the ghosts of the Ark he and Marion survived and thus "inherited" the Ark. If they died the Ark would have been lost on the Island. More than likely the ground would have opened up and swallowed it. wink

And the ark is...where now...exactly?

And how did Indy and Marian get away from that island? American ships? Which would have arrived anyway?


I don't think the Ark would have been lost on the island forever. The island was an established Nazi base and it wouldn't take them very long to discover they had lost communication with the island. Once it was clear contact was lost the Nazis would have sent someone to investigate. This is especially true considering Hitler was personally demanding constant updates, and Dietrich would have certainly already informed Hitler that they had possession of the Ark and were taking it to the island. Without Indy the Nazis would have discovered an empty base with the Ark waiting to be taken to Germany. As for whether that would be a good thing, I doubt it, as I think the Nazis in Berlin would have been more careful opening the Ark than Belloq. The Nazis presumably viewed the Ark as a weapon, and would have likely been more cautious opening it. Indy was protected because he had done his homework. Someone in Berlin would likely have done his homework as well. Belloq, on the other hand, viewed the Ark as a way to communicate with God, and his eagerness clouding his judgment was his undoing.

As for how Indy and Marion got off the island, I had always assumed the base had a boat or plane that they were able to take and escape the island before the Nazis sent any more people.

 
 Posted:   Oct 16, 2013 - 7:49 AM   
 By:   Michael Scorefan   (Member)

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 - 8:34 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.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.