Indiana Jones

15758606263199

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited May 2021 Posts: 8,188
    I don’t get it, was PWB cast in Indy 5 accompanied by statements from producers about how there’s never been a strong female role before, or is that just guys on YouTube as always losing their minds over nothing?

    I mean if you hate it when Hollywood claims it’s doing something groundbreaking by not casting a cis white male actor in a role… just ignore it. Why do you have to get your panties in a twist? It’s all so dumb. Just white male fragility.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2021 Posts: 16,420
    Indeed, well said. Fragile is the word.
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Well “ Woke” has become a part of the world wide vernacular; to say that anyone who uses it is generally to be avoided is extreme and displays prejudice.

    Okay, people who use it without irony are to be avoided :)

    Genuinely, I've not yet seen anyone use it who doesn't then say something objectionable. Same with 'narrative'- it's up there with 'sheeple'. It's in the vernacular but anyone using it in a non-ironic sense is pretty much always a crazy conspiracy theorist :D '5G narrative', 'vaccine narrative' etc.
    talos7 wrote: »
    I love strong, confident female characters and don’t consider their inclusion to be “Woke”. What does fit that description are female characters who are presented only to put males in their place and wave the flag of social justice. The same could be said when dealing with race and sexual orientation.

    It’s interesting Ellen Ripley in the Aliens films is one of the strongest women ever to Grace the screen; starting over 40 years ago she was kicking butt and taking charge and there wasn’t a peep about the threat of a strong woman. My thought is that back then Ripley wasn’t being used to push an agenda; today the same is not true as characters are used to do so.

    I think the question would be why folks find that agenda threatening or upsetting. Ripley was very much the exception rather than the rule, which is perhaps why folks-who-say-woke didn't have a problem with it.

    There was a drive to include more women on panel shows here about ten years ago because comedy shows were getting made with all-male casts way too regularly, and there was actually a mindset that culturally speaking, women weren't as funny as men because of their traditional place in society not giving them the opportunity to be / it's how men attract women etc. etc. And since they started actually forcing the change to include more women on comedy shows as an actual rule that has blown that thinking up to be a completely ridiculous myth. So there's really nothing wrong with making changes.

    This is because they knew the result they were looking for before they did the experiment.

    What on earth does that mean?
  • I had a dream last night that John Rhys Davies returns. I hope he does as he was part of the charm of raiders and crusade.
  • Posts: 9,847
    So Indy on the moon is the possible plot…. Sigh I feel like this will be kingdom crystal of the skull sigh
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2021 Posts: 5,970
    I’m sure Indy won’t actually be on the moon, and that it’ll just be a on-the-ground exploration of the events surrounding it at the time, which I’m sure will be very pseudohistorical.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,420
    Even Moonraker didn't actually get to the moon.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    Indiana Jones being caught up in a nefarious plot involving former Nazi scientists amidst the space race is actually about as cool a plot as possible for the era the film is set in, I think.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2021 Posts: 5,970
    mtm wrote: »
    Even Moonraker didn't actually get to the moon.
    Indiana Jones being caught up in a nefarious plot involving former Nazi scientists amidst the space race is actually about as cool a plot as possible for the era the film is set in, I think.
    +1

    It also made me think of the Doctor Who two-parter, The Impossible Astronaut and Day of the Moon. Two really good episodes.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    mtm wrote: »
    Even Moonraker didn't actually get to the moon.
    Yet the trailer said: "Other films promise you the moon, but we deliver!"

    Utter rubbish. I haven't been so let down by a film since Blade Runner, where nobody was running blades.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    There will be a historical McGuffin at the heart of the story. I’m excited, Mangold has shown that he’s a master of this era.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    Where most Bond films end this one begins...
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 482
    One of the (many) things that made Crystal Skull not work was the choice by Spielberg to use Russians instead of Nazis.
    After Schindler's List and learning about the extent of their atrocities, he swore he would never use again Nazis for comic relief.
    But communists are supposed not to believe in myths, legends or religions, there's no mysticism around Soviets. So, they made up for a poor Nazis substitute, while it would have been very easy (and in line with pulp fiction from the fifties) to have Nazis in hiding (in South America for instance) waiting for an opportunity to start a fourth Reich.
    So, I'm all in favor of these opponents returning for the new film.

    Unless it's as heavy-handed and insulting as in the Prime Video show Hunters, where one of the main plot lines involves Nazi scientists hired by the US Government.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2021 Posts: 16,420
    One of the (many) things that made Crystal Skull not work was the choice by Spielberg to use Russians instead of Nazis.
    After Schindler's List and learning about the extent of their atrocities, he swore he would never use again Nazis for comic relief.
    But communists are supposed not to believe in myths, legends or religions, there's no mysticism around Soviets.

    Hmm, not sure I really follow that logic. Nazis are certainly a purer evil, but the Russians were effective enough bad guys.

    I think he's right to not want to trivialise them further- personally I wouldn't want them in it. It's the 60s anyway, it would be a bit weird. There weren't many Nazis driving tanks and flying fighter planes at that point so they would be a bit toothless.

    Personally I'm hoping for a film more in the Temple of Doom mould: where it didn't feel it needed to be a carbon copy of the first one. We've had two Raiders remakes in the series already, we don't need a third; and Temple showed that an Indy film doesn't need to be that.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 482
    The Russians could be fine bad guys, but Soviet ideology was all about dialectical materialism. I can't see Commies trying to find the Ark of Covenant or the Grail. They believed in symbols, but not myths.

    One of the best ideas from the Bond adaptations was to introduce SPECTRE much earlier, and use it in Dr No and FRWL. Having Klebb as a secret SPECTRE operative in FRWL is a great change. Instead of having SMERSH attempting to discredit both Bond and the Intelligence Service in a plan decided by a faceless committee (even if it's decided by a faceless committee...), it allows Klebb to shine brighter as a villain and double agent in service of a secret cause. Russians were already the big baddies in everyday life in Western countries. SPECTRE allowed the plot to be more original.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2021 Posts: 16,420
    The Russians could be fine bad guys, but Soviet ideology was all about dialectical materialism. I can't see Commies trying to find the Ark of Covenant or the Grail. They believed in symbols, but not myths.

    Sure, but they didn't go after those things. In Skull they were looking for knowledge, and potentially a weapon too. Don't forget the first place they raid is an American airbase, not following a treasure map.
    One of the best ideas from the Bond adaptations was to introduce SPECTRE much earlier, and use it in Dr No and FRWL. Having Klebb as a secret SPECTRE operative in FRWL is a great change. Instead of having SMERSH attempting to discredit both Bond and the Intelligence Service in a plan decided by a faceless committee (even if it's decided by a faceless committee...), it allows Klebb to shine brighter as a villain and double agent in service of a secret cause. Russians were already the big baddies in everyday life in Western countries. SPECTRE allowed the plot to be more original.

    Indeed. It also allowed them to be less antagonistic in the political situation too. I think it was perhaps as late as 1977 before Bond fought against actual Russian agents, and they still weren't the baddies of the film.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2021 Posts: 5,970
    I think also it's worth thinking about the individual. It could have been more Irina Spalko's desire as opposed to being based on any ideology. That's just one aspect of who all these people were. Even "bad people" have their own ideas on things.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 482
    Sure. It's just that when you have Nazis, you automatically get a whole baggage and imagery – Wagner, the skull and crossbones, the thousand years Reich, the aggressiveness,... – that automatically makes them great cartoon villains. If you use Russians, you need the character to be more developed and fleshed, which wasn't really the case in the script.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,420
    It’s just occurred to me a scene I would like to see: sounds a bit ridiculous but the first two films both have scenes where Indy is cheered and applauded by a big group of people while his theme tune plays :D Actually I guess it’s true of the end of Skull too. Somehow those moments both sort of confirm his heroism and his, oddly enough, his status as an everyman just doing the best he can. And I think if there’s one character who deserves a bit of an onscreen ovation it’s Indiana Jones :)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited May 2021 Posts: 45,489
    mtm wrote: »
    It’s just occurred to me a scene I would like to see: sounds a bit ridiculous but the first two films both have scenes where Indy is cheered and applauded by a big group of people while his theme tune plays :D Actually I guess it’s true of the end of Skull too. Somehow those moments both sort of confirm his heroism and his, oddly enough, his status as an everyman just doing the best he can. And I think if there’s one character who deserves a bit of an onscreen ovation it’s Indiana Jones :)

    Well put, and agreed. Those scenes are kind of uplifting, which is of course the point.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    I think the Nazis should have just been a one-off villain for Indy, and that we see him come across many different antagonists. I didn’t like how THE LAST CRUSADE tried to copy RAIDERS so much with having Indy chase an artifact in the desert again with Nazis and Sallah. And CRYSTAL SKULL pretty blatantly tried to use Soviet Russians as a stand in for Nazis.

    Just go for a different set of villains like TEMPLE OF DOOM did. Why not the Illuminati?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I am looking forward to the title reveal.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    I am looking forward to the title reveal.

    That's going to be fun. They just shouldn't make the title too long and cumbersome. "Indiana Jones and the Adjective Thing" is fine, as is "Indiana Jones and the Thing of Things". But "Indiana Jones and the Thing of Adjective Things" is starting to be a little too much, like with "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2021 Posts: 16,420
    I think the Nazis should have just been a one-off villain for Indy, and that we see him come across many different antagonists. I didn’t like how THE LAST CRUSADE tried to copy RAIDERS so much with having Indy chase an artifact in the desert again with Nazis and Sallah. And CRYSTAL SKULL pretty blatantly tried to use Soviet Russians as a stand in for Nazis.

    Just go for a different set of villains like TEMPLE OF DOOM did. Why not the Illuminati?

    Yes, exactly. It doesn't need to be a military force: it can be an adversary or locals or the mafia or spies or an evil corporation or anything, really.
    I've always thought the Billion Dollar Brain plot of a mad millionaire with a private army could be fun: some bonkers US preacher who wants to wage a literal war on the devil or something.

    It'd be quite nice to have Indy find himself in a situation again, rather than the going-on-a-quest thing of Raiders/Crusade/Skull.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I am looking forward to the title reveal.

    That's going to be fun. They just shouldn't make the title too long and cumbersome. "Indiana Jones and the Adjective Thing" is fine, as is "Indiana Jones and the Thing of Things". But "Indiana Jones and the Thing of Adjective Things" is starting to be a little too much, like with "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".

    I wouldn't even mind losing the 'And The' and have something like 'Indiana Jones Beyond The Noun' or 'Indiana Jones At World's End' or somesuch.
  • Posts: 16,169
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I am looking forward to the title reveal.

    That's going to be fun. They just shouldn't make the title too long and cumbersome. "Indiana Jones and the Adjective Thing" is fine, as is "Indiana Jones and the Thing of Things". But "Indiana Jones and the Thing of Adjective Things" is starting to be a little too much, like with "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".

    It could have been shortened to INDIANA JONES AND THE CRYSTAL SKULL.
    In this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if the next film is simply called INDY.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I am looking forward to the title reveal.

    That's going to be fun. They just shouldn't make the title too long and cumbersome. "Indiana Jones and the Adjective Thing" is fine, as is "Indiana Jones and the Thing of Things". But "Indiana Jones and the Thing of Adjective Things" is starting to be a little too much, like with "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".

    It could have been shortened to INDIANA JONES AND THE CRYSTAL SKULL.
    In this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if the next film is simply called INDY.

    I can see why you think “ Indy” would seem a possibility but I doubt it. I think it will follow tradition with an “ Indiana Jones and the...”

    Even though the film may involve the space race, it’s very likely that there will be an archeological McGuffin, that is where the title lies.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited May 2021 Posts: 5,970
    I'm not gonna lie. Crystal Skull is actually a guilty pleasure of mine. It's silly but I kinda love it.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I am looking forward to the title reveal.

    That's going to be fun. They just shouldn't make the title too long and cumbersome. "Indiana Jones and the Adjective Thing" is fine, as is "Indiana Jones and the Thing of Things". But "Indiana Jones and the Thing of Adjective Things" is starting to be a little too much, like with "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".

    It could have been shortened to INDIANA JONES AND THE CRYSTAL SKULL.
    In this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if the next film is simply called INDY.

    Just two hours of Willie Scott yelling the title.
  • Posts: 1,398
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I am looking forward to the title reveal.

    That's going to be fun. They just shouldn't make the title too long and cumbersome. "Indiana Jones and the Adjective Thing" is fine, as is "Indiana Jones and the Thing of Things". But "Indiana Jones and the Thing of Adjective Things" is starting to be a little too much, like with "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".

    It could have been shortened to INDIANA JONES AND THE CRYSTAL SKULL.
    In this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if the next film is simply called INDY.

    That's a much better title for Indy 4.
    I'm also anticipating the title, can't be much longer now with all the cast announcements over the past few weeks and filming starting soon.
  • Posts: 121
    Filming begins next week.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,420
    Mr_Beach wrote: »
    Filming begins next week.

    That's cool, where did you hear that?
Sign In or Register to comment.