Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Indiana Jones IV vs. Die Another Day (Bad vs. Bad)
Both the films had 50+ actors attempting to keep a franchise made popular by muscular young men alive, and both sucked. Which do you prefer? I'm going to run through some of the similarities first -
1. Age.
Brosnan and Ford had both aged rather drastically since their last respective outings. They simply didn't appear to be able to do most of what the older films required them to do.
2. References.
This ruined both of the films. In Die Another Day, there are dozens of references to the 19 films before it, and it gets to a point where its sickening. In IJ IV, there are 20, if not more, direct, shot for shot or quote for quote references to the three previous films in the series, and its horrendous.
3. Acting.
Brosnan has never been the strongest actor of the Bond group, but Die Another Day was actually suprising. Harrison Ford, as well, is a rather good actor in most of his work, as in IJ IV. Yet, in both films, many of the lines have either poor or awkward delivery and it only further makes you grimace.
4. Characters.
Both films suffer from pointless characters, as well as stupid traitor plots. In Die Another Day, we have Amanda Frost (I think was her name) who, really not surprisingly, is a traitor to Bond's villain towards the end of the film. Really, its undramatic and isn't done very well. In IJ IV, we have Indy's 'right hand man' who is one of the only original features of the film, who is apparently confused as to whether he's helping the US or Russia, and switches annoyingly and rather pointlessly multiple times in the film.
As far as pointless characters, in Die Another Day we have Jinx. For someone who is supposedly 'Bond's US counterpart' she gets herself into alot of trouble and doesn't seem very professional.. at all. She does nothing really to help Bond, or the film for that matter. In IJ IV, the character Mutt, later to be
5. Distrust.
In both films, are supposed 'hero' isn't trusted by those he's supposedly supporting. In Die Another Day, Bond is removed from operations after being traded out of Korea. He then has to essentially do most of the work himself. In IJ IV, Indiana is under a 'watchful eye' by his very own FBI, after being a hero to the US for decades. Its really just a stupid gimmick thrown in to add 'drama' that doesn't work very well.
6. CGI.
In both films, its poorly used and only hinders the films. In Die Another Day, we have the glacier surfing scene. In IJ IV, the nuclear blast is relatively impressive, but still not done by the likes of ILM, who are true masters at CGI art.
Green screens were also used very poorly in both films. In IJ IV, most of the sword fight is done in front of a green plate. In DAD, the horrendous surfing shot is also green-screened-in.
7. NO REALISM.
In either plot. Nuff said.
I think it came down to saying "maybe we SHOULDN'T do this in the film".
My choice over the two, of course, would have to be Die Another Day.
1. Age.
Brosnan and Ford had both aged rather drastically since their last respective outings. They simply didn't appear to be able to do most of what the older films required them to do.
2. References.
This ruined both of the films. In Die Another Day, there are dozens of references to the 19 films before it, and it gets to a point where its sickening. In IJ IV, there are 20, if not more, direct, shot for shot or quote for quote references to the three previous films in the series, and its horrendous.
3. Acting.
Brosnan has never been the strongest actor of the Bond group, but Die Another Day was actually suprising. Harrison Ford, as well, is a rather good actor in most of his work, as in IJ IV. Yet, in both films, many of the lines have either poor or awkward delivery and it only further makes you grimace.
4. Characters.
Both films suffer from pointless characters, as well as stupid traitor plots. In Die Another Day, we have Amanda Frost (I think was her name) who, really not surprisingly, is a traitor to Bond's villain towards the end of the film. Really, its undramatic and isn't done very well. In IJ IV, we have Indy's 'right hand man' who is one of the only original features of the film, who is apparently confused as to whether he's helping the US or Russia, and switches annoyingly and rather pointlessly multiple times in the film.
As far as pointless characters, in Die Another Day we have Jinx. For someone who is supposedly 'Bond's US counterpart' she gets herself into alot of trouble and doesn't seem very professional.. at all. She does nothing really to help Bond, or the film for that matter. In IJ IV, the character Mutt, later to be
Jones' son
has no plot whatsoever besides to get Indiana to embark on this new adventure. Other than that, all his other scenes just add a little, pointless substance to the film.5. Distrust.
In both films, are supposed 'hero' isn't trusted by those he's supposedly supporting. In Die Another Day, Bond is removed from operations after being traded out of Korea. He then has to essentially do most of the work himself. In IJ IV, Indiana is under a 'watchful eye' by his very own FBI, after being a hero to the US for decades. Its really just a stupid gimmick thrown in to add 'drama' that doesn't work very well.
6. CGI.
In both films, its poorly used and only hinders the films. In Die Another Day, we have the glacier surfing scene. In IJ IV, the nuclear blast is relatively impressive, but still not done by the likes of ILM, who are true masters at CGI art.
Green screens were also used very poorly in both films. In IJ IV, most of the sword fight is done in front of a green plate. In DAD, the horrendous surfing shot is also green-screened-in.
7. NO REALISM.
In either plot. Nuff said.
I think it came down to saying "maybe we SHOULDN'T do this in the film".
My choice over the two, of course, would have to be Die Another Day.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
There is another Indy movie coming out as well.
Also DAD isn't horrible except for the whole electric suit deal......
If I had to choose, I'd say Die Another Day failed.
Who do you guys think is more annoying? Jinx or Mutt?
Actually, I quite enjoyed Mutt and thought that La Beouf was good in the film. I was pleasantly surprised that his character was shown to be intelligent and resourceful - I thought he would be comic relief and helpless but he was smart enough to figure things out on his own and Indy was clearly impressed with him (it helped that Ford and LaBeouf had good chemistry together).
I also thought that Ford, while older, was still credible in the action scenes and he finally displayed some of the spark that he hasn't shown on film for years. I saw the film a few months back and enjoyed it until Marion and John Hurt's character showed up - after that the film slowed down and got more silly. But I enjoyed it a lot more than when I saw it during first release.
As for comparing DAD with Indy IV I just find them to be too different to make a direct comparison. Both have really good things and...not so good things and both are pleasant diversions in their own way.
Touche.
Oh I picked her up a long time all right... ;-)
Anyway, this thread serves no purpose IMO. DAD and Indy IV both work from completely different franchises with different intentions, different people behind it and, most importantly, different sources in the sense that there's no source material for the Indy character at all, which is important in the justification of Ford's presence.
There's no comparison.
But I don't see whats so bad about indy 4. Yes they should've left the trology alone, yes they shouldn't have given him a son, but its really not all that bad. I think people just wanted an excuse to hate the film, some people even moaned about indy fighting russians when he always fought the nazis, ignoring the fact that the nazis weren't in temple of doom. This probably shouldn't have been made but it turned out pretty good.
I pick indy IV, but its not really fair to compare them anyway.
For some reason, I do not think that Crystal Skull was that bad. Yes, yes, it was not nearly as good as the original trilogy, but it wasn't painful to watch. Indy IV has its moments.
Die Another Day has its moments too, but that film's second half is just horrible.
Indy IV: 7/10
Die Another Day: 5/10
Indy 4 I've seen once and once is enough, Spielberg should be ashamed putting his name to this, I've heard his excuses in interviews recently but frankly their is no justification for this dreck. I don't care that he was following GL vision he really should no better.
I know some have argued that Last Crusade is as bad but I'm sorry it's like watching 2 different film series in comparison, Temple is good fun but Raiders is a solid gold masterpiece, I'm happy to except that it all ended when they all rode off into the sunset at the end of Crusade.
Messers Spielberg and Lucas would have been better served to reboot the series with a younger action hero.
Who knows maybe they will...
I'm dreading the day they decide to remake Back to the Future. You know it's gonna happen at some point, it's inevitable with the way things are these days.
No, now you're just exaggerating. This DAD thing is getting out of hand. If you think it's the worst Bond film, fine. But the worst film in cinema history? That's just ridiculous. In many ways, DAD is still competently made, partially well acted and so on.
I actually enjoyed DAD (at the time).
Is it REALLY as hilariously bad as this:
(Has flashes of the Bond/Jinx exchange)
Perhaps it is