Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jason Bortz

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Recommended Posts

With Lucas's interest in Joseph Campbell, I can see a lot of potential for a "hero with a thousand faces" kind of focus. Just so long as they don't say, "all religions are the same, and it's really all about the divine in each of us."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:

: Just so long as they don't say, "all religions are the same, and it's really all about the divine in each of us."

Too late. Marcus Brody already said, in Last Crusade, "The search for the Grail is the search for the divine in all of us."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is making me want to watch Raiders again....:)

Believe it or not, I've never seen the other two. Should I?

Well, I'm kind of in the same boat as you, except that I've seen both of the other ones, and not Raiders. Perhaps I started with the wrong one (Temple of Doom), and perhaps it WAS during finals week, but the one time I've seen both, I fell asleep through them. There, that's my shocking confession for the week.

Is Raiders worth it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joel C wrote:

: Is Raiders worth it?

You should check (and contribute to!) the thread we have on the "trilogy" (the link's somewhere above). But my hasty response would be that Raiders is the only film in the series worth talking about, really. However, if you want to make heads or tails of this new movie, you will probably have to watch at least Last Crusade as well -- and possibly Temple of Doom, if there is any substance to the rumours that Kate Capshaw might return to the series (she IS the director's wife, after all!). And, as I mention on the "trilogy" thread, it is fun to look at how all three films together, seen in chronological order, make a progression from Hindu paganism to Judaism to Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joel, Joel, Joel... Raiders is still in my top five favorite films of all time. Yes, you should see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joel, Joel, Joel... Raiders is still in my top five favorite films of all time. Yes, you should see it.

Ok, I'll try it out. I've got some good movie nights coming up, in which I think I'll be more awake.

Probably starting a movie at 11:30PM, after writing three papers, wasn't giving Mr. Jones a very good chance at convincing me. Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that seeing Raiders now, since it has become one of the most imitated films (and most-poorly imitated films) ever made, will be a very different experience. But I encourage you to see it on the biggest screen you can, with surround-sound if you can manage. It was one of those films where every five or ten minutes gave us something we'd never seen before... or at least something we'd never seen executed so well before.

It's the dustiest and grittiest of the Indy films, and the third film in the trilogy is basically a shinier, funnier version of the same story, following the same patterns and trying to duplicate what worked the first time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently USA Today scooped everyone on the Shia confirmation late last night (i.e. Thursday night) -- and get a load of this: Shia hasn't even read the script yet!

I quote:

"Up until about two weeks ago, it was little more than a rumor," he says. "Literally, when I was saying, 'I don't know anything,' I didn't know anything. It was an act of faith. I have not read a script. I don't think anybody has." . . .

Online fans are guessing Indiana Jones will have a son for this go-round, but LaBeouf says he can't confirm such plot points. Even the time-setting for the movie is a secret. "I can tell you I'm sort of the sidekick character, obviously," he says. "I'm sure there are a lot of laughs at my expense, and some kind of creature crawling on me." . . .

When he met Lucas recently at Spielberg's offices on the Universal lot, LaBeouf says he brimmed with questions but hit a wall of secrecy, even about the relic Jones will be pursuing.

"Lucas looks at you and says simply, 'I can't tell you that,' " LaBeouf says. "Then when he thinks he is supposed to tell you something but isn't sure, he gets up and leaves the room, goes in to talk with Spielberg and comes back and says, 'Nope. Sorry.' "

Gadzooks. Spielberg has veto power over Lucas now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gadzooks. Spielberg has veto power over Lucas now?

Good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I forget where I first heard this, but there's a rumour going around that the title for this film will be Indiana Jones and the City of Gods. Any thoughts on this? Lucas has hinted in the past that the original idea for this film had "offensive" elements that needed to be "taken out", so I assume the title doesn't just refer to the Greco-Roman gods or to the deities of any other dead religious milieu.

In that same interview, Lucas also said the premise was "a little too 'connected' for the others" when he first proposed it to them. So now I have this weird idea that the film might go in a Stargate direction, and reveal that all the faiths and all the gods come from some single common source. Heck, just as Last Crusade fleshed out Indy's roots, maybe this film will flesh out the roots of all those supernatural beings he has encountered.

Just speculating here.

CHUD.com's insider says this film will be inspired by Chariots of the Gods. My initial reaction to the rumour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I forget where I first heard this, but there's a rumour going around that the title for this film will be Indiana Jones and the City of Gods. Any thoughts on this? Lucas has hinted in the past that the original idea for this film had "offensive" elements that needed to be "taken out", so I assume the title doesn't just refer to the Greco-Roman gods or to the deities of any other dead religious milieu.

In that same interview, Lucas also said the premise was "a little too 'connected' for the others" when he first proposed it to them. So now I have this weird idea that the film might go in a Stargate direction, and reveal that all the faiths and all the gods come from some single common source. Heck, just as Last Crusade fleshed out Indy's roots, maybe this film will flesh out the roots of all those supernatural beings he has encountered.

Just speculating here.

CHUD.com's insider says this film will be inspired by Chariots of the Gods. My initial reaction to the rumour.

That sounds incredibly lame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the Usual Suspects has jumped ship. Sean Connery won't be coming out of retirement to play Indy's dad.

Story here.

Edited by Baal_T'shuvah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baal T'shuvah wrote:

: One of the Usual Suspects has jumped ship.

Is appearing in just one film enough to make someone a "usual suspect"?

Yes.... if you are Gabriel Byrne, Kevin Spacey, Benicio Del Toro, Stephen Baldwin, and Kevin Pollak.

Edited by Baal_T'shuvah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Broadbent joins the adventure with 'Indiana Jones'

"I'm doing a good cameo in the next 'Indiana Jones', so working with Mr.Spielberg should be an experience. I'm going to Yale -- I'm a professor."

BritFilms, June 15

- - -

Broadbent, Blanchett, Winstone, Hurt, etc.... If this movie sucks, it won't be because of the cast!

I am suddenly wondering if any of the other Indiana Jones films had this many Oscar winners on board. Broadbent and Blanchett both have Oscars (he for Iris, she for The Aviator), and of course Spielberg has two directing awards now, both of which he earned in the 1990s; the only Oscar winner I can think of in the earlier movies is Sean Connery, who won a supporting-acting Oscar for The Untouchables just one year before Last Crusade came out in 1989. (Though I guess John Williams had already won three awards for his film scores by the time Raiders came out in 1981; he has won two more awards since then.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree... that's by far the best cast in any Indiana Jones film.

I've just seen Evening, which has Claire Danes, Meryl Streep, Glen Close, Toni Collette, Eileen Atkins, Natasha Richardson, and Vanessa Redgrave.

And it really, really sucked.

Great casting fails to give me much hope anymore. And there are very few directors who give me much hope anymore. I'm learning to watch for the writers and the cinematographers, and to trust them even more than the directors and actors.

Hmmm... let's think about this:

Raiders of the Lost Ark / Die Hard

Standard-setting action movies of undeniable brilliance, beginning to end.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom / Die Hard 2: Die Harder

Misguided sequels that go way, way, way too far with the violence and grimness and gore. Both leave me feeling like I need to wash out my eyes and my mind.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade / Die Hard with a Vengeance

Unexpectedly comical sequels, with some inspired sequences and even more inspired casting. Still a far cry from the original's brilliance, but surprisingly satisfying.

Indiana Jones IV / Live Free or Die Hard

Hmmmmmmmmm. Either the franchises will part ways here, or we should take the early glimpses of Live Free as a sign that the Indy franchise is in big, big trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I'd agree with that summation of the two franchises (and based on a post of SDG's earlier in this thread, I'm guessing I'm not the only one!).

The third Die Hard has always annoyed me because it loses what was absolutely key to the first two films, which was the marriage of the McClanes. This is, of course, far more important in the first film, where the marriage is in trouble, than the second film, but one thing I always liked about the second film was that it gave us a chance to see the McClanes as a functioning, happy, reconciled couple, rather than the dysfunctional, unhappy, separated couple of the first film. You know how fairy tales always end with a wedding but never show us the marriage? The second Die Hard gives us a taste of the marriage.

The third Die Hard, OTOH, had no use for the wife, and so it dropped her. (Did the filmmakers even TRY to get Bonnie Bedelia back? I dunno.) Indeed, the third film has pretty much nothing in common with the first film, except for Bruce Willis. (I say Willis, not McClane, because I'm not even sure it's the same character in both films.) I know that that's what happens when you try to shoehorn a completely unrelated story into a pre-existing franchise -- see the discussion about the "sop to continuity" in the first scene of Evan Almighty -- but still, the third film misses out on what Die Hard is all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The third Die Hard has always annoyed me because it loses what was absolutely key to the first two films, which was the marriage of the McClanes.

Does anyone know if there's any truth to the rumor that Die Hard with a Vengence was originally intended to be Lethal Weapon IV? This may be why the McClane family was left out of the film, although I don't see how they would have worked in the Murtaugh family if this had become part of the Lethal Weapon franchise.

And would anyone like to toss in the Lethal Weapon series for comparisons to the Indiana Jones/Die Hard debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...