Indiana Jones

1138139141143144199

Comments

  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited April 2023 Posts: 1,638
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    f to be said for seeing a film on the big screen, with a packed house. Some of my best cinema experiences were with full houses ( Aliens, Raiders, The Untouchables, First Blood, Tron, The Commitments, Terminator 2 and I will never forget CR first showing!)

    I used to agree but I've noticed latelythat theaters are rarely packed in my neck of the woods. Maybe it's because I'm attending the very first showing of a film or perhaps it's because I live in the middle of nowhere but it didn't always feel like this. The real issue I have is the awful audio output in theaters, causing my interest to sink in the last couple of years. Even when I saw John Wick: Chapter 4, while I loved how bombastic and loud the action was, you can barely make out what anyone in the film is saying. Same went for Bones and All, NTTD and plenty others I've seen over the past couple of years. It really sours the experience.

    Oh, I'm not talking about these days. That was the 80s/90s. I rarely go to the cinema now. It takes something special for me to go, and the atmosphere is not like it used to. Cinemas seem to attract a lot more idiots, and giggling teenagers with short attention spans!

    I get what you're saying. That's how it is for me, but sometimes I do miss the cinemas enough that I'm willing to go see any old thing that looks good, but most of the time, it's a waste of time or money due to my issues with the audio or people on their phones, et cetera. The turnaround time from theatrical to streaming is so fast anymore that I don't feel like I'm missing out.

    The last packed theater I was in was probably Avengers: Endgame, and it was worth seeing it with a crowd. But outside of Top Gun: Maverick, I don't think there's been a movie that really spoke to the crowd-viewing experience since Endgame. For example, seeing the hero die isn't exactly crowd-pleasing, and now two major franchises have done it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,181
    A film can still be crowd pleasing and have the hero die at the same time. They’re not mutually exclusive.
    JOHN WICK 4 is the most recent example.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2023 Posts: 16,347
    edit: Doesn't matter, I wasn't going to watch it anyway.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited April 2023 Posts: 1,638
    A film can still be crowd pleasing and have the hero die at the same time. They’re not mutually exclusive.
    JOHN WICK 4 is the most recent example.

    I was in the crowd and I was not pleased either time. The latter you reference didn't even feel like the movie was committed to its choice, and I'm suspicious it's not. Second weekend box office drop isn't surprising. I think regardless of result, making the creative choice to kill a hero is objectively not crowd-pleasing. It's a bold choice regardless. I hope they don't try with Indy.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,961
    It's nothing new to today's films but it does seem to be "in" lately to kill off your main hero. It's refreshing in some ways but I don't need to see every franchise out there doing it. It's definitely bold.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited April 2023 Posts: 8,181
    LucknFate wrote: »
    A film can still be crowd pleasing and have the hero die at the same time. They’re not mutually exclusive.
    JOHN WICK 4 is the most recent example.

    I was in the crowd and I was not pleased either time. The latter you reference didn't even feel like the movie was committed to its choice, and I'm suspicious it's not. Second weekend box office drop isn't surprising. I think regardless of result, making the creative choice to kill a hero is objectively not crowd-pleasing. It's a bold choice regardless. I hope they don't try with Indy.

    It just sounds like heroic deaths are not your thing. That’s fine. I don’t think it will happen with Indy because Ford already killed off Han Solo.

    I do disagree with many that seem to have this outlook of death = defeat. That’s why I don’t find NTTD’s ending “depressing”. It’s sad, but I don’t think of that as being a negative thing.
  • Posts: 12,466
    “There is no defeat in death, Master Bruce. Victory comes in defending what we know is right while we still live.”

    Yes, I just quoted that x) still a great quote.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2023 Posts: 16,347
    LucknFate wrote: »
    A film can still be crowd pleasing and have the hero die at the same time. They’re not mutually exclusive.
    JOHN WICK 4 is the most recent example.

    I was in the crowd and I was not pleased either time. The latter you reference didn't even feel like the movie was committed to its choice, and I'm suspicious it's not. Second weekend box office drop isn't surprising. I think regardless of result, making the creative choice to kill a hero is objectively not crowd-pleasing. It's a bold choice regardless. I hope they don't try with Indy.

    It just sounds like heroic deaths are not your thing. That’s fine. I don’t think it will happen with Indy because Ford already killed off Han Solo.

    I do disagree with many that seem to have this outlook of death = defeat. That’s why I don’t find NTTD’s ending “depressing”. It’s sad, but I don’t think of that as being a negative thing.

    Agreed, it's sad but it's a satisfying ending for me. I don't know if it's a massively new thing to kill off the hero: Butch & Sundance, Connery killed Robin Hood, etc. Sometimes heroes get heroic deaths: that's why they're called that.

    I'm not convinced it will happen to Indy though- I don't think the Indy films have had that tonal shift that the Bonds or Wolverine had over time. I'm not against it in prospect: I'm always happy to see what a filmmaker has made before deciding if they've done it wrong; I just would be surprised if they went that way.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,409
    I don't think the death of the hero is a bad thing, depressing yes because, depending on the character you can get quite attached.

    I keep coming back to the fact that the death has to mean something. Watch "The Cowboys" to see how to properly handle it in terms of story and meaning. Watch NTTD to see how if it's contrived the public won't buy it or not like it.

    That's my bone with NTTD. Because this character has lived on the screen for 60 years, or 15 years for Daniel's portrayal, it needs to be air tight as to why he must die. Otherwise it feels like a stunt or cheat. There were holes in the logic of him standing on a mountain top at the end of the movie. From the technology that doesn't exist to the fact that he's gotten out of worse scrapes.

    Going back to the thread though, I doubt they will do a death of Indy ending. While it would be poignant and heartbreaking, I think it doesn't fit with the character. He's taken on a life of his own. Indy seems to be that rare hero who transcends time. I can see the ending being his hanging up the bull whip but not death. But then again I didn't think EON would kill off Bond in NTTD so there's that! LOL!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,181
    thedove wrote: »
    I don't think the death of the hero is a bad thing, depressing yes because, depending on the character you can get quite attached.

    How attached do you have to be to make a hero’s death “depressing?” That just sounds bizarre to me.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Yep. Trendy Mctrend says Indy must die.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    The only hero's death that ever worked for me was Leon.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,409
    thedove wrote: »
    I don't think the death of the hero is a bad thing, depressing yes because, depending on the character you can get quite attached.

    How attached do you have to be to make a hero’s death “depressing?” That just sounds bizarre to me.

    I wasn't clear! Sorry, I think no one would celebrate the death of a hero. I am saying the reduced Box Office for a movie where the hero dies I don't think it can chalked up to the ending being depressing. I will be that guy that remembers being quite upset with Bruce Willis doing the heroic death in Armageddon. That had huge Box Office, panned I think by critics. I was sucked in and felt the emotion of the sacrifice. Independence Day has Randy Quaid sacrificing for the cause, albeit his was a side character it still had impact. I could name more, I think the audience stays away or doesn't like the movie when the death appears to serve no purpose or has a jump of logic that renders the death useless.

    In those two movies I sighted someone had to either stay behind, or had the only shot at ending the threat. In Willis' case he also sent the younger man home to take care of his daughter.

    Death of a character doesn't have to be depressing, though it certainly can be a depressing thing to leave the theatre mourning the loss of a beloved character. Depends I suppose on the character arc and whether the death makes sense.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,347
    Murdock wrote: »
    The only hero's death that ever worked for me was Leon.

    Not Butch & Sundance? Thelma & Louise? Poseidon Adventure? Robin & Marian? Braveheart? Gladiator? Armageddon? Wrath of Khan? Star Wars? Many many others.
    Turns out Trendy McTrend has been around almost as long as stories have.
    I still put my money on it not happening here though.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    mtm wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    The only hero's death that ever worked for me was Leon.

    Not Butch & Sundance? Thelma & Louise? Poseidon Adventure? Robin & Marian? Braveheart? Gladiator? Armageddon? Wrath of Khan? Star Wars? Many many others.
    Turns out Trendy McTrend has been around almost as long as stories have.
    I still put my money on it not happening here though.

    I've still yet to see some of those films. I'm late to a few parties but I show up fashionably late. I'd say Wrath of Khan worked but I wasn't sure if it counted since it got undone in the sequel. :D Leon was definitely the most impactful one in my memory.
  • edited April 2023 Posts: 16,153
    I don't mind the hero's death when it's Robert Mitchum getting shot in the groin by Jane Greer, or John Garfield going to the gas chamber.
    However if it's a beloved character in a long running franchise, and that character's death is following the current trend of other franchises, I merely yawn.
    Actually with Bond I laugh when I get to that scene. :D
    I find it unintentionally funny. :D
    Indy's death in the new film, however will bother me. :(
    Okay, I'm jumping the gun. This is all speculation. Hypothetically if he dies and it's done well, that's great. It's just not what I want. My feeling is this film would be to KOTCS what NTTD was to SP, a film substantially more polished, but equally devisive.
  • Posts: 7,410
    In the original script of 'Lethal Weapon 2' Riggs was meant to die in the end. Looking at the dire sequels, they should have stuck to that!!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    In the original script of 'Lethal Weapon 2' Riggs was meant to die in the end. Looking at the dire sequels, they should have stuck to that!!

    @Mathis1 -- very well played. A genuine lol, that also made a good point!
  • Mathis1 wrote: »
    In the original script of 'Lethal Weapon 2' Riggs was meant to die in the end. Looking at the dire sequels, they should have stuck to that!!

    Well Lethal Weapon 5 is about to go into production!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    In the original script of 'Lethal Weapon 2' Riggs was meant to die in the end. Looking at the dire sequels, they should have stuck to that!!

    Well Lethal Weapon 5 is about to go into production!

    I dunno about that... that's been the word for years now.

    I think it's on very shaky ground... I know the second unit/leading stunt coordinator on it...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,347
    I presume they haven't cleared their diary for it? :D
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,181
    LETHAL WEAPON 4, for better or worse, already felt like a definitive ending for that series. I’m not eager for them to dust that one off.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,610
    LETHAL WEAPON 4, for better or worse, already felt like a definitive ending for that series. I’m not eager for them to dust that one off.

    100% agreed. However, with Indy, he’s kind like Bond: you can always put him in a adventure (past, present or even future). The story possibilities are endless. Indy can always be finding real or even fake artifacts. Same with his enemies: real or fake. Indiana Jones has limitless ideas for continuation. Somewhere sadly, Lucasfilm never really took advantage of it.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,208
    I enjoyed Lethal Weapon 3 and 4. Decent villains, fun supporting characters, good chemistry between the leads, and exciting action.

    Very hard not to like them.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    I enjoyed Lethal Weapon 3 and 4. Decent villains, fun supporting characters, good chemistry between the leads, and exciting action.

    Very hard not to like them.

    4 was a perfect ending. And sadly, Donner is gone now. No mas.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,181
    Yeah, I’m not interested in a Donner-less film. I don’t doubt Gibson’s capabilities as a director, but I’m not sure he can recapture Donner’s balance between the lighthearted elements with the gritty violent tone.

    MAYBE if Shane Black directed I’d be interested, but his last movie was THE PREDATOR and that really brought him down my estimation.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,197
    Yes a YouTube personality but what he says is reasonable , plausible and encouraging.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,347
    Does he say anything beyond 'premiering it at Cannes a month before release is a sign that the studio is confident in the film'?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,197
    In short, he’s heard that it’s very good, premiering in Canne is a show of confidence. It will be accompanied by a tribute to Harrison Ford. He also absolutely DOES NOT believe that there were massive reshoots and revisions.

    I was unfamiliar with this person and understand the issues some have with certain YouTube personalities, but he is very inoffensive and does not use a gimmicky shtick like some others.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,181
    “But! Kathleen Kennedy is the devil!”
Sign In or Register to comment.