Batman-Online.com

I find it interesting that there are six different horror movie-related threads on page 1 of this forum but I can't find an Indiana Jones thread.

As background, I should say that I've never been a big Indy fan. I like Raiders and Last Crusade as much as the next guy, I guess. But I never hitched my fanboy wagon to Indiana Jones. That's just the truth.

As a result, Crystal Skull is far less bothersome to me than it was to (apparently) everyone else. It had Indiana Jones swinging around on things, cliffhangers, narrow escapes, everything you want in an Indy film. Crystal Skull didn't bother me back in 2008 and it doesn't bother me now.

SN derailed me with his Insidious recommendation. But originally, the four movie set went on sale and I snapped it right up and had been planning to do an Indiana Jones marathon over this four day weekend here in the US.

Then the Insidious series came along and... well, here we are.

Still, I did watch a few clips from Raiders. Lots of action and excitement and stuff catching on fire. What's not to like?

Yes, I'm aware of Peter David's critique of Raiders that the movie ends the same way whether Indy is in it or not (which The Big Bang Theory later cribbed for itself). But since my investment in the series is so minimal, fine details like that don't matter to me. I just want to enjoy the action sequences, frankly.

Also, I'd like to throw a theory out there.

Arguably even more than Star Wars, Indiana Jones is STRAIGHT from the movie serials of the Thirties and Forties. I think audiences back in the Eighties picked up on that and enjoyed Indy as an homage to those old serials. And Indy touches on a lot of different movie serial subgenres: jungle, western, war, spy, fantasy (somewhat) and maybe others.

But by the time you get into the 2000's, the generation that grew up watching movie serials was either dead or in a retirement home. So, I can't help but wonder if one reason why Crystal Skull faced a tougher reception from the critics is because they simply don't have the same familiarity with the source material that their predecessors did.

I can certainly relate to not being a huge fan of Indiana Jones as a child, or teen for that matter. I liked the character well enough, but for whatever reason, the films were simply not on my radar during my adolescence. Honestly, it wasn't until I was in my 20's and 30's, that I appreciated the films more and became a fan of the series. Sometimes, that's how it goes, and it's a franchise that I basically rediscovered and appreciated more during the DVD boom than I honestly did during the VHS era. Though Indiana Jones isn't the sole example of this. Not by a long shot.

As far as the demo theory goes, yeah I would say that's pretty apt. The world of Indiana Jones certainly lends itself to that serial tone of things, and I've even heard the argument that Indiana Jones shouldn't incorporate so much CGI, because it simply goes against the old-timey feel that (especially) the original trilogy purposely emulated in it's presentation. From what I gather, "Dial" seems to be drawing more of the older crowd to the theater rather than the kids and teens demographics, so that goes along with what you are saying.

I've been an Indiana Jones fan since I was old enough to watch movies. I wore out my VHS copies and watched them as much as Star Wars. Raiders is the best, and Last Crusade is the most fun - in my opinion. But I totally admire TOD. If I made a movie this would be a fine template: a terrifying villain who rips out hearts and burns victims alive in lava - kids enslaved in hard labor - disgusting bugs galore - disgusting food galore - the hero transformed into an evil pawn...which makes the final victory all the more sweet. The mine cart chase and rope bridge scene are all timers.

When KOTCS came out I was disappointed. It took me a long time to come around to this viewpoint, but I'm now on board with it. Sure, the CGI is distracting, but at the heart this is a 50s B movie and it embraces that. The fridge scene is mocked, but the atmosphere and tension of that is first class, and the mushroom cloud imagery is great. It's in the tradition of 'how will he get out of this?!' It's absurd but I'm happy to roll with it now. Especially after DOD (which is more somber and has a real world/fantasy mix) you can appreciate the flair Spielberg still managed to bring to the table.

The ending with Indy getting married surprises me with how subtly cool and effective it is. In it's own way, I like it as much as Indy riding off into the sunset at the end of TLC. Indy picks up his hat from Mutt, smiles and walks away as his theme starts playing. Indiana Jones will always be Indiana Jones. There will never be a passing of the torch.

KOTCS and DOD didn't need to be made and they're not a patch on the originals. Believe me, I get that. But I do appreciate the evolution they give Indy as a character. We see him as a young adventurer in his prime, to an older father in KOTCS with just enough juice in the tank to fight as he wants to, and with DOD a much older, haunted man who deals with past pain, retires his role as professor and enters one last adventure. An adventure where managing to survive is his victory, occasionally showing glints of the old magic. I respect that arc, and without the last two films that wouldn't have been present. So there's that.

As much as I enjoy superheroes, I love the excitement of characters like Indiana Jones. A gruff man who gets through with a mixture of luck and skill. No magic, just a revolver, whip and his fists. And none of it would have the same resonance if it lacked John Williams' theme. He captured it all with that march. I'll have more to say..but for now that's all.

I'm 35, and Indiana Jones has been with me almost as long as I remember. It's funny, but I've recently realized that my fickleness and pickiness towards action films is largely the result of Indy being my entry point and thus the standard. Too high a standard really as Indy is literally designed to be a distillation of everything that ever worked. Indy is a huge part of my cinematic experience. So was Star Wars, which similarly ended up as a genre standard when maybe it should not have. Once again you have a distillation of everything that had worked up until that point. Almost a crime that it was made. Did they ultimately begin the downfall of action and scifi cinema by raising the bar too high? A good question, though like anything else, this likely only part of the equation.

Indiana Jones and the KOTCS was not as good as the original, but its issues are but a few irritating bits. I've no problem with nuked fridges (best scene in the film actually) or aliens, rather the frustrating bits are Spielberg's increasingly saccharine approach (swinging Tarzan with monkeys) and commitment to being as safe as possible, when shaking things up had always benefited the films. Temple is the best one IMO, it is also the most different, but Steve scares easily when critics squawk. Anyway, I also have a special place in my heart for the film as it was the first Indy I saw in theaters and everyone in my immediate family went. It was one of the last times that would happen before fortunes changed and the world started growing smaller and darker.

Dial of Destiny is a nice surprise because, as with any movie now, Reactionary YouTube Culture Warriors were dedicated to destroying the film's reputation before it was ever released, choosing to wave anonymous Reddit posts around like a stuttering end-times prophet standing at a street corner. Everything is a 'woke' conspiracy and Kathleen Kennedy is under your bed waiting for you to close your eyes. So, of course DOD ends up exceeded expectations. It is imperfect, but those imperfections mostly boil down to a bit of distracting CGI and a slightly soggy middle that could have used Michael Kahn's tighter, more efficient editing. Harrison Ford gives one of his most committed performances, and how can one not fall in love with Phoebe Waller-Bridge?

Anyway, those are my thoughts for now.

I love the classic Indiana Jones trilogy. My relatives were always watching them when I was little, and consequently I ended up seeing them at a very young age. In fact I saw them before I saw the Star Wars movies. Raiders and Crusade rank among my favourite films of all time. I'd rate them both 10/10. Temple of Doom isn't quite as good, but it's still a solid 8/10 and a classic in its own right. I haven't seen Crystal Skull for a few years now, but I'm not a fan of it. I remember enjoying the movie when it first came out, but I don't care to revisit it. Still, at least Indy 4 was a proper Spielberg-Lucas collaboration, unlike the latest movie.

My favourite action scene in the classic trilogy is the fight on the tank in Crusade. The following stunt encapsulates what's so great about that sequence.


Indy isn't leaping fifty feet through the air in bullet time as he might in a modern movie. Instead it's a straightforward stunt. It looks real, it looks dangerous and it looks painful. Those qualities are absent from most modern action movies.

Choosing between Raiders and Crusade is extremely difficult. I think they're both masterpieces, and I reject the criticism that Crusade is just a retread of the first movie. That's a lazy and superficial evaluation that overlooks the unique qualities that distinguish Crusade as a great piece of filmmaking. In fact if I had to choose, I admit I do have a slight preference for Crusade. Not because of any defect in Raiders, which is as close to perfect as an adventure film can get, but because Crusade addresses some things the earlier films overlooked.

For example, Indy is more humanised in the third film. In Raiders he comes across as something of an archetype, which is fine – that works with the story they're telling. But in Crusade we get to learn more about him and why he's the way he is. We learn how he lost his mother at a young age, which might explain why he has difficulty committing to women. We learn that his workaholic father was emotionally distant, which is why Indy grew up to be so tough and independent. These biographical details don't alter his characterisation, but they add depth to it and help the audience relate to him more. I especially like the prologue taking place when he's a teenager. River Phoenix nails Harrison Ford's mannerisms, and the set piece on the circus train is creative and well staged. That whole sequence offers a revealing glimpse into Indy's early life. As a character he's more fleshed out and vulnerable in the third film, while still retaining all of his tough heroic qualities from Raiders and Temple. It's a good example of how to develop an established character without ruining him.

In Raiders and Temple Indy's primary objective is to recover an ancient artefact, and in both films he succeeds in getting it. But in Crusade his primary goal is to find and rescue his father. He comes within arm's reach of the Grail but chooses to relinquish his pursuit of it in favour of going home with his dad. He doesn't need the Grail; he knows what it represents, and that's more important to him, and his relationship with his father takes precedence over "fortune and glory". It's the only film in the original trilogy where Indy doesn't recover the artefact he's hunting. He gets hold of it briefly, but quickly loses it again.

Crusade is also the only movie in which he doesn't get the girl at the end. It's more of a story about male friendship than romance (I like how Sallah and Marcus are incorporated into the final act), and the heart of the narrative is the father-son relationship. Is there some Spielberg schmaltz in Crusade? Yeah, maybe a little. But it works and it isn't overdone, so I'm ok with it.

I also think Crusade is the funniest film in the trilogy. It's full of great lines like "No ticket" and "Son, I'm sorry – they got us". I love Connery's performance as Henry Jones Sr., the action scenes and stunts are great (particularly the aforementioned tank fight), and it contains some of the most heartfelt dramatic moments in the series without becoming overly sentimental. I love Raiders too, and I can totally see why many prefer it to Crusade, but the third film is my personal favourite.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  2 Jul  2023, 22:16Arguably even more than Star Wars, Indiana Jones is STRAIGHT from the movie serials of the Thirties and Forties. I think audiences back in the Eighties picked up on that and enjoyed Indy as an homage to those old serials. And Indy touches on a lot of different movie serial subgenres: jungle, western, war, spy, fantasy (somewhat) and maybe others.

But by the time you get into the 2000's, the generation that grew up watching movie serials was either dead or in a retirement home. So, I can't help but wonder if one reason why Crystal Skull faced a tougher reception from the critics is because they simply don't have the same familiarity with the source material that their predecessors did.

Your point about modern critics being too young to appreciate the films' lineage reminds me of something Paul Chato said in a recent YouTube video. He pointed out how the Hollywood New Wave were influenced by classic films made prior to the 1970s, whereas today's younger filmmakers are influenced by the Hollywood New Wave. One of the reasons those younger filmmakers fail so badly when they try to imitate the New Hollywood generation is that they've never seen the older classic films that inspired them. I think there's a lot of truth in that.

Film serials were a major influence on Indiana Jones, and that ties in with the original films taking place in the 1930s. Lucas and Spielberg wanted to reflect the pulp adventure fiction of the era in which the movies were set, which for the 1930s was largely crime and adventure stories. Since Crystal Skull is set in the 1950s Lucas wanted it to reflect the pulp fiction of that decade, which meant science fiction.

There was an earlier script for Indy 4 titled Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars which leant even harder into the sci-fi themes. I read a leaked version of that script before Crystal Skull came out. I might be remembering it wrong, but there were a few things that ended up carrying over into Crystal Skull, such as the aliens, the scene with the flesh-eating ants and Indy's wedding.

Raiders was clearly influenced by old adventure serials and films like The Maltese Falcon (1941), The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) and The Secret of the Incas (1954). Meanwhile The Temple of Doom was heavily influenced by Gunga Din (1939). I watched Gunga Din on TV about five years ago, and certain scenes from Temple were clearly lifted from it. Particularly the sequence where Indy sneaks into the temple and witnesses a Thuggee ceremony (Cary Grant's character spies on a similar albeit less gory ceremony in Gunga Din), and the action scene on the rope bridge.

The following video highlights some other cinematic influences.


One movie that's not included in that video is the 1959 version of Journey to the Centre of the Earth, which includes a couple of scenes that were referenced in Raiders: one where the heroes wait for the sun to shine through a gap in some rocks to reveal an important location, and another scene where they have to run from a giant boulder.


There are also some comic influences at work in the Indy movies. I've never read the Uncle Scrooge comics, but the opening scene of Raiders with the boulder is thought to have been inspired by a Carl Barks story titled 'The Seven Cities of Cibola' (Uncle Scrooge #7, September 1954). In the comic Scrooge McDuck and his nephews find an emerald idol in an ancient temple. When the idol is removed from its plinth it triggers a booby trap that releases a boulder and seals the temple entrance.


George Lucas has admitted to being a fan of Carl Barks, so this could be a deliberate reference.

Meanwhile Kingdom of the Crystal Skull borrows from the Tintin story Prisoners of the Sun (September 1946 – April 1948) by Belgian writer and artist Hergé. In both stories, the heroes discover the entrance to some caves hidden behind a waterfall in Peru.


They venture through the caves and discover a lost civilisation on the other side. In both stories the native South Americans greet them with hostility.


Spielberg is a fan of the Tintin comics and later directed The Adventures of Tintin (2011), so this could be another intentional reference.

We know George Lucas is a fan of Hammer Horror from certain casting choices he made in the Star Wars films, and there are also some notable Hammer references in the Indy movies too. The finale of Raiders is very similar to the ending of The Devil Rides Out (1968). In both films the heroes are held captive and forced to witness a ritual performed by the evil villains, and in both stories the wrath of God manifests in the form of supernatural fire and lightning that eradicates the villains while leaving the heroes unharmed.

And how about Donovan's death at the end of The Last Crusade? The way he rapidly turns to dust is reminiscent of how Christopher Lee's Dracula disintegrates at the end of the first Hammer Dracula film. You might think it's a coincidence, but compare the following shots that take place immediately after the villains die.


That looks to me like a deliberate homage on Spielberg's part.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  3 Jul  2023, 14:24Choosing between Raiders and Crusade is extremely difficult. I think they're both masterpieces, and I reject the criticism that Crusade is just a retread of the first movie. That's a lazy and superficial evaluation that overlooks the unique qualities that distinguish Crusade as a great piece of filmmaking. In fact if I had to choose, I admit I do have a slight preference for Crusade. Not because of any defect in Raiders, which is as close to perfect as an adventure film can get, but because Crusade addresses some things the earlier films overlooked.

My way of processing that stuff is to say that Raiders is brimming with imagination while Crusade is brimming with heart.

It does seem to be true that Crusade was intended to be a course correction following TOD. I won't dispute that.

But like you, I do see considerable value with Crusade. In many ways, it's Indy at his best. He's focused, determined and (largely) selfless.

The love interest aspect doesn't bother me. Because when you get down to brass tacks, I was never over the moon for Marion Ravenwood and Kate Capshaw is one of the most annoying love interests in any major Hollywood film that I've ever seen. So, all Allison Doody had to do was show up and not aggravate me. And in that purpose, she was a smashing success.

So, right there, Crusade has a major leg up on Raiders.

Also, Crusade is a sentimental favorite of mine in no small part because it came out in 1989. I was glued to the TV at the time, hoping to catch ANYTHING related to B89. So, other 1989 films were on my radar. Probably no more so than Crusade.

I was a wee ol' laddie. So, Crusade was my introduction to Sean Connery. I had no idea about his pre-1989 career. To me, at the time, he was the quirky old guy who was Indy's father.

I understand the criticism people have of the flashback sequence. Basically, every single one of Indy's defining characteristics came about from one incident on one day? That... seems a little unlikely.

But (1) it's a movie, let it go and (2) if you want to bend spoons a little bit, you could see the flashback as a truncated summary of many different events spread out across several years. I just don't see this as a hill to die on.

On a more general note, something a lot of casual fans tend to forget is just how deep Indy lore goes. Aside from movies, he's starred in TV shows, novels, toy lines, video games, comic books, RPGs, theme park attractions, you name it. The Indiana Jones expanded universe doesn't rival Star Wars. But it's still highly impressive that such a relatively simple concept inspired such a plethora of dense expanded universe media.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  3 Jul  2023, 14:24There was an earlier script for Indy 4 titled Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars which leant even harder into the sci-fi themes. I read a leaked version of that script before Crystal Skull came out. I might be remembering it wrong, but there were a few things that ended up carrying over into Crystal Skull, such as the aliens, the scene with the flesh-eating ants and Indy's wedding.

I remember reading some info on that script back when Indy 4 was about to come out (Actually I really like the "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars" title ... I can understand the controversy of setting Indy in the 1950's, and adding aliens to the mix, but if you're going to go there, then you may as well go full tilt boogie with it, and a title like "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars" is VERY reflective of a 1950's science fiction title.). Is that the script where Indy gets married at the conclusion, just as he does in Crystal Skull, but it's actually not Marion? Though she (Marion) was to be present at the wedding along with Willie Scott from TOD, and Short Round was going to make a surprise cameo as Indy and his bride's chauffeur. Or am I thinking of another unproduced script?

Speaking of Short Round, I honestly find it a bit aggravating (maybe a little more than just 'a bit'), that he's never acknowledged to any degree since TOD. I understand the expanded lore gave information on what happened with him, but it's unfortunately never addressed in the post-TOD films. I think a reunion between the two, if played right and worked into the script where it made sense, could have easily been a heartwarming, and highlight moment for either "Crystal Skull", or "Dial of Destiny". A missed opportunity.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  4 Jul  2023, 04:18On a more general note, something a lot of casual fans tend to forget is just how deep Indy lore goes. Aside from movies, he's starred in TV shows, novels, toy lines, video games, comic books, RPGs, theme park attractions, you name it. The Indiana Jones expanded universe doesn't rival Star Wars. But it's still highly impressive that such a relatively simple concept inspired such a plethora of dense expanded universe media.

One of the standout stories from the Indy EU is The Fate of Atlantis, which is also one of the greatest point-and-click adventure games ever made. It's got a terrific storyline and a wonderful soundtrack, and it perfectly captures the atmosphere of the classic trilogy. Many fans felt this should have been the basis for Indiana Jones 4, and it's hard to argue with that. If you can get hold of a copy, it's worth playing through.


I've always liked The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles as well. I watched it as a kid when it first aired, and while some episodes are admittedly a bit dull there are others that hold up rather well. Here are a few I'd recommend.


As far as I remember, this is the only episode in which Sean Patrick Flanery's Indy uses a whip, though he only wields it briefly in one scene towards the end. The events of this story are directly referenced by Harrison Ford's Indy in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.


This is one of the grittiest and darkest episodes focusing on Indy's horrific experiences at the Battle of the Somme. The second half of the episode is a POW escape story.


This is another one that highlights the horrors of WW1, but this time the horror is tempered by gentler and more spiritual scenes when Indy meets Albert Schweitzer. I've still got the junior novelisation of this episode. The first half is intense and contains plenty of action.


This is one of the most action-packed episodes and was included with the 1999 VHS release of the movie trilogy. The plot depicts Indy joining a commando mission to destroy a German secret weapon in Africa during WW1. One of the guest stars is Paul Freeman, who portrayed Belloq in Raiders, only here he plays a good guy.


This one's basically Indiana Jones versus Dracula. It's a creepy gothic horror story containing explicitly supernatural elements. The first half is a spy story that has little connection to the second half, so I recommend watching from the 49-minute mark. That's when the Dracula/Vlad storyline begins. Music from this episode was later used in the Lego Indiana Jones videogame.


Remember the diamond Indy was hunting in the Shanghai sequence at the beginning of Temple of Doom? Well this episode is a prequel to that storyline, depicting how Indy first embarked on the quest for that particular treasure. The second half of the episode is quieter and more reflective, but the first half is action packed and contains some entertaining martial arts scenes involving pirates.


No action in this one, but the first half offers a compelling dramatisation of the Paris Peace Conference. History buffs should enjoy it.


This story takes place during Indy's college years in Chicago. It's not the most thrilling episode, but it's bookended by scenes featuring Harrison Ford as the middle-aged Indy.


There are other good episodes, but these are just a few for newcomers to the series to get started with.

Has anyone read any of the old Indiana Jones comics, and if so are they any good? I keep meaning to track down the omnibus editions. Are they worth getting?

Quote from: The Joker on Tue,  4 Jul  2023, 15:50Is that the script where Indy gets married at the conclusion, just as he does in Crystal Skull, but it's actually not Marion? Though she (Marion) was to be present at the wedding along with Willie Scott from TOD, and Short Round was going to make a surprise cameo as Indy and his bride's chauffeur. Or am I thinking of another unproduced script?

Yeah, that sounds like the one. I can't remember who he married, but it wasn't Marion. It was a new love interest.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue,  4 Jul  2023, 15:50Speaking of Short Round, I honestly find it a bit aggravating (maybe a little more than just 'a bit'), that he's never acknowledged to any degree since TOD. I understand the expanded lore gave information on what happened with him, but it's unfortunately never addressed in the post-TOD films. I think a reunion between the two, if played right and worked into the script where it made sense, could have easily been a heartwarming, and highlight moment for either "Crystal Skull", or "Dial of Destiny". A missed opportunity.

It sure was. I always thought they should've used Short Round instead of Mutt in Crystal Skull. In light of Ke Huy Quan's Oscar win, Lucasfilm must be kicking themselves that they didn't use him in Dial of Destiny. If he'd been the co-star instead of Phoebe Waller-Bridge, I might have gone to see it. Maybe.

I've got The Lost Journal of Indiana Jones that was published when Crystal Skull came out, and there's a letter in it written by an adult Short Round to Indy in 1957. In it, Short Round reveals that he's tracked down the Eye of the Peacock, the diamond Indy had been seeking since 1918, and is on the cusp of recovering it. It's nice to know that Short Round grew up to become an adventurer. If Indy was going to pass the torch/whip to anyone, it should be him.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  4 Jul  2023, 20:10One of the standout stories from the Indy EU is The Fate of Atlantis, which is also one of the greatest point-and-click adventure games ever made. It's got a terrific storyline and a wonderful soundtrack, and it perfectly captures the atmosphere of the classic trilogy. Many fans felt this should have been the basis for Indiana Jones 4, and it's hard to argue with that. If you can get hold of a copy, it's worth playing through.

(https://cdn.mobygames.com/6822fa84-ab6a-11ed-b6ec-02420a00019b.webp)

I'm in no position to comment on the game, sadly. Which is probably just as well since I'm not a game guy anyway.

But the name rang a bell so I checked through my archive. Sure nuff, I've got the four issue Fate Of Atlantis comic book adaptation on my hard drive. I have no idea how the comic book version relates to the game (although I get the idea some nips and tucks were made to the story to make it work better as a comic).

But as a comic book, it does have the same flavor as the movies. Car chases, fist fights, mysteries, narrow escapes and so forth. Somebody involved in the creation of this story (both video game and comic book) clearly has a tremendous affection for the source material and they bent over backwards to make something worthy of the films.

My only real quibble about the story is that you pretty much would've needed to adapt it into a film by 1995 at the latest. Because after that, Ford aged out of playing the character at this stage in his life. But otherwise, it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to see this succeeding as a film.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  4 Jul  2023, 20:10Has anyone read any of the old Indiana Jones comics, and if so are they any good? I keep meaning to track down the omnibus editions. Are they worth getting?

The Fate Of Atlantis comic book adaptation is obviously worth checking out. No doubts there.

My experience with Marvel's Further Adventures Of Indiana Jones is fairly limited. John Byrne wrote and drew the first two issues. He recounts his experience working on the book over on Byrne Robotics. But basically, the Lucasfilm liaison/marketing wonk basically made working on the book an incredible pain in the neck because she had no understanding of comic books whatsoever. But as the license-holder, her word was law. She wasn't going anywhere so Byrne quit.

Still, the two issues he managed to crank out are pretty solid as I recall. The title itself lasted for a few years but I can't recall too much after Byrne hit the road.

While acknowledging that Fate Of Atlantis is a particularly high watermark, my sense is that Indy has overall better comics than Star Wars. It's a quantity vs. quality thing. Fewer Indy comics exist. But the overall quality level is fairly high. Whereas probably the majority of Star Wars comics are... well, not very good.

To tangent a bit, at one point M. Night Shyamalan developed an idea for a fourth Indiana Jones movie. I suppose this would've been between 1999 to 2001. Night has always been a little cagey about the specifics (https://movieweb.com/m-night-shyamalan-indiana-jones-4-pitch) of his idea.

I've always wondered how a Night Indy movie would've played out. Because by 1999/2000, he seemed to be firmly into his auteur career and out of the script-for-hire business. But Spielberg would have directed the film, nobody disputes that. So, I've always had a lot of questions about this.

In the end, whatever happened happened and the movie obviously never got made. But more than most other Indy 4 concepts, I've always been curious about Night's.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  4 Jul  2023, 20:10I've always liked The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles as well. I watched it as a kid when it first aired, and while some episodes are admittedly a bit dull there are others that hold up rather well.

You know, I might just have to make a project for myself and download these. From what I gather, the "Young Indy Restored" Youtube channel is about the only way to watch these episodes adequately restored. As the DVD set that was put out in 2008, feature edited versions per George Lucas.

Admittedly, I wasn't a persistent viewer of the "Young Indiana Jones" series, but I would check it out from time to time. I do recall being very surprised seeing Harrison Ford appear for a segment, since I wasn't expecting it, as a older and bearded Indiana Jones. I later read that he was filming "The Fugitive" at the time. Explaining the BTS reason for the beard. A pretty cool moment, and memory for sure.

QuoteHas anyone read any of the old Indiana Jones comics, and if so are they any good? I keep meaning to track down the omnibus editions. Are they worth getting?

Never read the comics. It would be nice if they can ever be reprinted, cause the collections are very pricey last I checked....

QuoteIt sure was. I always thought they should've used Short Round instead of Mutt in Crystal Skull. In light of Ke Huy Quan's Oscar win, Lucasfilm must be kicking themselves that they didn't use him in Dial of Destiny. If he'd been the co-star instead of Phoebe Waller-Bridge, I might have gone to see it. Maybe.

I have no idea how true this is, but supposedly Karen Allen being brought back as Marion Ravenwood for Indy 5 was very last minute during reshoots. Given the Quan's Oscar win, it seems like it would have made all the sense in the world to get a cameo Short Round squeezed in there. Even for perhaps the sakes of implying Short Round is now taking on the role of something of a surrogate son for Indy considering the fate of Mutt's death in Vietnam.

QuoteI've got The Lost Journal of Indiana Jones that was published when Crystal Skull came out, and there's a letter in it written by an adult Short Round to Indy in 1957. In it, Short Round reveals that he's tracked down the Eye of the Peacock, the diamond Indy had been seeking since 1918, and is on the cusp of recovering it. It's nice to know that Short Round grew up to become an adventurer. If Indy was going to pass the torch/whip to anyone, it should be him.

Thanks for elaborating on that, and that's pretty cool Short Round became a successful adventurer like Indy. Seemed like it was always in his trajectory. He clearly idolized Jones in TOD, and even to the point where he was shadowing his body language. With TOD being (I think) the first film I saw in the franchise, his absence and being essentially omitted from TLC, KOCS, and now Dial, just leaves me unfulfilled as opposed to what 'could have been'. Even something like a simple line of dialogue in "The Last Crusade" where Jones mentions that he sent an 'associate' to boarding school or something to that effect would have sufficed. Though I agree that seeing an adult Short Round in either KOCS or Dial would have been great (in the grand scheme, perhaps being sent to boarding school caused some friction between Short Round and Indy, but when the chips are down, they know they have each other's backs). Recently, any time you see Harrison Ford and Ke Huy Quan together, they genuinely seem very comradely around one another. Just a shame they never had a reunion in a film. If even just briefly.

One of the best scenes in The Last Crusade is where Indy has to pass the three trials in the Temple of the Sun to reach the Grail. But it always bugs me how extremely unfair those trials are.

So the clue to the Breath of God trial is "Only the penitent man will pass." The penitent man kneels, right? Ok. By kneeling, he avoids being decapitated. But what about the second blade? The one that comes up from below?


There's nothing in the clue about that.

Moving on to the second trial. The Name of God. "Only in the footsteps of God will he proceed." Indy has to spell out 'Jehovah', but in Latin Jehovah begins with an 'I'. As anyone who studied Latin at school will know, the reason Jehovah was spelt with an 'I' is because there was no letter 'J' in the early Latin alphabet. After 'J' was introduced, 'J' and 'I' were used interchangeably, as were 'V' and 'W'. But once 'J' entered the Latin alphabet it was perfectly acceptable to spell Jehovah with a 'J'. Indy would only need to spell it with an 'I' if this was the early Latin alphabet in which 'J' didn't exist. But the stones on the ground clearly reflect the later Latin alphabet. How do we know this? Because one of the stones has a 'J' on it.


If it was the early Latin alphabet, there wouldn't be a 'J' stone. So it should have been acceptable for Indy to spell Jehovah with a 'J'. I once pointed this out to my dad, who's a huge Indy fan, and his theory is that the Grail Knight, who was born sometime in the Middle Ages, added the 'J' stone to trick people. That's a plausible explanation, but it's still sadistically unfair.

The final trial is the Path of God. "Only in the leap from the lion's head will he prove his worth." This one's not too bad. My only issue with it is that in order for the bridge to blend in with the backdrop, you would presumably have to approach it at precisely the right time of day, when the sun was at the exact angle for the shadows to correspond. At any other time of day, the shadows painted on the bridge wouldn't match the background, and the shadow of the bridge itself might be visibly projected against the cave wall. That would probably make it the easiest of the three trials to pass.

Again, it's a brilliant sequence, and I like how it tests Indy's intellect rather than his brawn. He is a scholar, after all. But if it were me, I never would have made it past the first trial.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  2 Jul  2023, 22:16Yes, I'm aware of Peter David's critique of Raiders that the movie ends the same way whether Indy is in it or not (which The Big Bang Theory later cribbed for itself). But since my investment in the series is so minimal, fine details like that don't matter to me. I just want to enjoy the action sequences, frankly.

I saw this criticism repeated a lot after it was referenced on The Big Bang Theory. But wouldn't the Nazis have acquired the Ark if Indy hadn't taken it to America? Belloq and his cohorts are eradicated after opening the Ark, but not every Nazi is present for that scene. The U-boat crew, for instance, knew that the Ark had been taken to that island, and none of them were killed during the finale. When Belloq failed to report in, wouldn't the Germans have simply gone back and collected it?

One might argue that even if the Nazis did learn from Belloq's mistake they wouldn't have been able to weaponise the Ark's power. But they still would've had possession of it. By taking it to the US, Indy deprived them of the Ark. In that sense, he did actively change the outcome of the story.

Speaking of the U-boat, another issue some fans highlight in Raiders is that the Germans would likely have submerged at some point during their journey to the island. Yet Indy survives on top of the U-boat without drowning. This was addressed in the original script, which describes Indy tying himself to the periscope using his whip and then being dragged along the surface after the U-boat submerges. I gather this scene was included in the comic book adaptation.


If the U-boat captain looks familiar it's because he's played by Michael Sheard, who one year earlier had portrayed Admiral Ozzel in The Empire Strikes Back. Sheard's role in Raiders was meant to be bigger, and to make amends for cutting it down Spielberg later cast him as Hitler in The Last Crusade.


Also on the trivia front, watch the Hitler scene carefully and you can glimpse Heinrich Himmler among the Nazis observing the book burning. The actor playing Himmler in that scene is Ronald Lacey, who previous played Toht in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  5 Jul  2023, 12:37While acknowledging that Fate Of Atlantis is a particularly high watermark, my sense is that Indy has overall better comics than Star Wars. It's a quantity vs. quality thing. Fewer Indy comics exist. But the overall quality level is fairly high. Whereas probably the majority of Star Wars comics are... well, not very good.

We should be thankful that Disney-era Lucasfilm hasn't formed an 'Indiana Jones Story Group' and flooded bookshelves with dreadful IJ comics and novels. If only Star Wars had been so fortunate.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  5 Jul  2023, 12:37My only real quibble about the story is that you pretty much would've needed to adapt it into a film by 1995 at the latest. Because after that, Ford aged out of playing the character at this stage in his life. But otherwise, it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to see this succeeding as a film.

Fate of Atlantis is meant to take place in 1939, one year after the events of The Last Crusade. Harrison Ford aged exceptionally well, so he still could've pulled it off in his early fifties without looking too old. Indy should probably appear slightly older than his real age anyway, given all the rough times he's been through. But adapting Fate of Atlantis any later than 1995 would've been pushing it.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  5 Jul  2023, 12:37To tangent a bit, at one point M. Night Shyamalan developed an idea for a fourth Indiana Jones movie. I suppose this would've been between 1999 to 2001. Night has always been a little cagey about the specifics of his idea.

I've always wondered how a Night Indy movie would've played out. Because by 1999/2000, he seemed to be firmly into his auteur career and out of the script-for-hire business. But Spielberg would have directed the film, nobody disputes that. So, I've always had a lot of questions about this.

In the end, whatever happened happened and the movie obviously never got made. But more than most other Indy 4 concepts, I've always been curious about Night's.

I've not heard much about Shyamalan's proposal. I imagine Lucas would've been too busy directing the Prequel Trilogy at that time to worry about Indiana Jones. And I don't think Spielberg would've wanted to direct the movie without George, which makes me wonder how seriously they took Shyamalan's pitch. It would be interesting to hear more about it.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed,  5 Jul  2023, 14:31You know, I might just have to make a project for myself and download these. From what I gather, the "Young Indy Restored" Youtube channel is about the only way to watch these episodes adequately restored. As the DVD set that was put out in 2008, feature edited versions per George Lucas.

Admittedly, I wasn't a persistent viewer of the "Young Indiana Jones" series, but I would check it out from time to time. I do recall being very surprised seeing Harrison Ford appear for a segment, since I wasn't expecting it, as a older and bearded Indiana Jones. I later read that he was filming "The Fugitive" at the time. Explaining the BTS reason for the beard. A pretty cool moment, and memory for sure.

I'm also tempted to re-watch some of the series, and to replay The Fate of Atlantis and read the comic adaptation. As colors says, there's a lot of extra lore out there for fans to excavate if they want more Indy adventures. Does anyone remember the old Young Indiana Jones books that predated the TV show? I never read them myself, but my brother did. The images of Indy on some of the covers looked a bit like River Phoenix.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed,  5 Jul  2023, 14:31Thanks for elaborating on that, and that's pretty cool Short Round became a successful adventurer like Indy. Seemed like it was always in his trajectory. He clearly idolized Jones in TOD, and even to the point where he was shadowing his body language. With TOD being (I think) the first film I saw in the franchise, his absence and being essentially omitted from TLC, KOCS, and now Dial, just leaves me unfulfilled as opposed to what 'could have been'. Even something like a simple line of dialogue in "The Last Crusade" where Jones mentions that he sent an 'associate' to boarding school or something to that effect would have sufficed. Though I agree that seeing an adult Short Round in either KOCS or Dial would have been great (in the grand scheme, perhaps being sent to boarding school caused some friction between Short Round and Indy, but when the chips are down, they know they have each other's backs). Recently, any time you see Harrison Ford and Ke Huy Quan together, they genuinely seem very comradely around one another. Just a shame they never had a reunion in a film. If even just briefly.

Imagine how formidable Short Round would've been as an adult. As a kid, he was able to take on multiple grown men in combat and get the better of them. As a grownup, I imagine him being like Wang Chi from Big Trouble in Little China. Seeing him and Indy fight side by side in the following scene is like watching Batman and Robin in action.


Is Short Round proof that Robin could work in a dark movie, provided there's a note of comic relief?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  5 Jul  2023, 21:32I saw this criticism repeated a lot after it was referenced on The Big Bang Theory. But wouldn't the Nazis have acquired the Ark if Indy hadn't taken it to America? Belloq and his cohorts are eradicated after opening the Ark, but not every Nazi is present for that scene. The U-boat crew, for instance, knew that the Ark had been taken to that island, and none of them were killed during the finale. When Belloq failed to report in, wouldn't the Germans have simply gone back and collected it?

Now that I've got the Insidious series wrapped up (for the time being), I was planning to make my way through Raiders through Crystal Skull. So, I'll touch base with you about this later.

Still, I don't think this is a plot hole worth losing sleep over. The importance of Raiders goes beyond that kind of stuff. It's Spielberg and Lucas at the height of their powers, Ford is hungry and has something to prove and the movie is just PLEASURE to watch. So, if you ask me, questioning the plot mechanics too much sort of misses the point a little bit.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  5 Jul  2023, 21:32Speaking of the U-boat, another issue some fans highlight in Raiders is that the Germans would likely have submerged at some point during their journey to the island. Yet Indy survives on top of the U-boat without drowning. This was addressed in the original script, which describes Indy tying himself to the periscope using his whip and then being dragged along the surface after the U-boat submerges. I gather this scene was included in the comic book adaptation.

(https://i.stack.imgur.com/L1d5c.jpg)

Don't mistake me for an expert on the Kriegsmarine. But I was under the impression that the U-boats spent a LOT of time on the surface and even did the majority of their sailing above the surface. They only submerged for combat operations. So, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that Jones could've hitched a ride on the U-boat without drowning or getting caught because it wasn't submerged.

Obviously, modern submarines can stay submerged for much longer stretches of time. But that's a capability that those old U-boats might not have had. I swear to think I read somewhere that they didn't. But don't hold me to that.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  5 Jul  2023, 21:32We should be thankful that Disney-era Lucasfilm hasn't formed an 'Indiana Jones Story Group' and flooded bookshelves with dreadful IJ comics and novels. If only Star Wars had been so fortunate.

It is a sad situation with Star Wars.

Still, the few good EU pieces still exist. Daley's Han Solo trilogy, Crispin's Han Solo trilogy, that Star Wars quarterly comic (Star Wars Tales?), Shadows Of The Empire and other things that truly were worthwhile. Even if Lucasfilm now disregards that stuff, nothing says that we fans have to do the same.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  5 Jul  2023, 21:32I've not heard much about Shyamalan's proposal. I imagine Lucas would've been too busy directing the Prequel Trilogy at that time to worry about Indiana Jones. And I don't think Spielberg would've wanted to direct the movie without George, which makes me wonder how seriously they took Shyamalan's pitch. It would be interesting to hear more about it.

I don't think availability would've been that big of a problem, frankly. Lucas was able to write and produce two Indy films while completing two different Star Wars films. Observe:

1977- Star Wars
1979- More American Graffiti (producer)
1980- Kagemusha (producer)
1980- The Empire Strikes Back (producer)
1981- Raiders Of The Lost Ark (producer)
1983- Return Of The Jedi (producer and uncredited co-director if you believe the rumors)
1983- Twice Upon A Time (producer)
1984- Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom (producer)

For Spielberg's on part, he wasn't resting on his laurels either.

1977- Close Encounters Of The Third Kind
1979- 1941
1981- Raiders Of The Lost Ark
1982- E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
1982- Poltergeist (co-director, I don't care what anybody says)
1983- Twilight Zone: The Movie (co-director)
1984- Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom

Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan were hammering out the characters, story details, action set pieces and so forth for Raiders as early as 1978. It seems believable enough that Lucas and Spielberg gave Kasdan enough meat to get started on the Raiders script, Kasdan tinkered with it with oversight and/or revisions directly from Lucas and Spielberg with everything teed up and ready to go for filming to commence in June 1980... by which time, both directors had presided over four films between the two of them.

All of this is a long way of saying I totally believe that Lucas wasn't so preoccupied with the prequels that he couldn't have made time to develop another Indy movie.

Certainly, from about July to December 1999, Lucas would've had time to at least review IJ4 story ideas/pitches.

And frankly, I think he would've had a motive to do it as well. Beyond money, I mean. Lucas had made his Star Wars merchandising partners a LOT of promises. Chief among them was that the prequels would be released consecutively in 1997, 1998 and 1999.

Obviously, he wasn't able to keep that particular promise. Even so, the retail channels and distribution had been set aside for him anyway.

He was able to somewhat mollify his tie-in partners with the Shadows Of The Empire multimedia project. But they still wanted stuff to sell. And Lucas knew he wouldn't have much of anything aside from The Phantom Menace in 1999 and Attack Of The Clones in 2002.

So, one additional motive Lucas could've had in 1999 in develop another Jones feature was to get another Lucasfilm production up and going. No, it wouldn't be a Star Wars property. But it would be a chance for the merchandisers to cash in on something. Ever the businessman, I think that's something Lucas would most certainly have been conscious of.

My hunch is that Lucas took the meeting with Night in the summer of 1999 hoping that the pitch could result in a movie they could release in 2001. An Indiana Jones 4 toy line and other merchandise would've probably made his partners very happy indeed.

Which raises the question of why it didn't happen. I have no idea if Night's proposal is the only one that Spielberg and Lucas heard. But either way, I would wager that there was something about Night's pitch that one of the core three (Spielberg, Lucas and Ford) objected to. Business with Indy always depended on a unanimous decision. If just one of them vetoed an idea, that was the end of it.

To start wrapping up this blabber fest, my point is that I don't think the Star Wars prequels would've been an impediment since Lucas typically had at least three to six months in 1999 and 2002 (if no other time) to shepherd IJ4 along.

As to Lucas's tie-in partners, there's a strong argument that inflation alone took care of the profits they missed out on in 1998, 2000 and 2001. It doesn't sound like anybody ever went broke from going into business with George Lucas.

As I've said before, when Lucas's time comes, he'll most likely be eulogized as a director/producer. And that is a travesty to the man's true vocation. My contention is that we haven't seen media business acumen of Lucas's caliber since Walt Disney.

Raiders Of The Lost Ark rewatch is paused so I can write this.

I don't actually remember when the last time I watched Raiders might've been. I'd GUESS at least ten years. But it could be more than that.

And in all this time, I guess I'd forgotten how good the performances are. Ford's charm practically drips off the screen. But all of the cast is delivering their A-game.

What a treat!

QuoteSeeing him and Indy fight side by side in the following scene is like watching Batman and Robin in action.

Is Short Round proof that Robin could work in a dark movie, provided there's a note of comic relief?

I absolutely share this sentiment. Indy and Short Round along with the relationship Dick Tracy and The Kid shared in the 1990 film had me wholeheartedly agree that a true Boy Wonder could be pulled off in a Batman feature. I read most of the Golden Age era comics and thought that was the best approach to the character without all of his "holy-this-or-that" statements that he became known for. Good writing and characterization is key. They tried this with Zorro's son in The Legend of Zorro and he came off extremely irritating.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Mon,  3 Jul  2023, 14:13Dial of Destiny is a nice surprise because, as with any movie now, Reactionary YouTube Culture Warriors were dedicated to destroying the film's reputation before it was ever released, choosing to wave anonymous Reddit posts around like a stuttering end-times prophet standing at a street corner. Everything is a 'woke' conspiracy and Kathleen Kennedy is under your bed waiting for you to close your eyes. So, of course DOD ends up exceeded expectations. It is imperfect, but those imperfections mostly boil down to a bit of distracting CGI and a slightly soggy middle that could have used Michael Kahn's tighter, more efficient editing. Harrison Ford gives one of his most committed performances, and how can one not fall in love with Phoebe Waller-Bridge?

I'm just going to say it. I find it too long and occasionally on the bland side, but Dial of Destiny is a better film, and legacy film, than The Flash. Even if that's because Dial of Destiny is a solo film dedicated to Indiana Jones (Batman was a side character in The Flash), I'm judging what we actually see. They're now both one and done, likely never to return.

Spielberg and Lucas weren't involved, but Williams was. Neither Burton or Elfman were there for Keaton's return, even though his theme remains. We get a de-aged Indy in his prime, shortly after Last Crusade - and nothing of the sort with Keaton. I find Waller Bridge annoying, but if we're really having this conversation her competition is Ezra Miller.

Dial of Destiny makes a point of Indy's age and physical limitations, whereas Keaton puts on the suit and fights like a 30 year old.

Both backstories are valid but Dial has even more meaning behind personal pain:  Mutt was killed in Vietnam and Marion wanted a divorce through that. Indy is also a man of ancient history and relics living in the space age. Indy's old flame is not just mentioned but actually appears. Nothing of the sort with Bruce and Selina. Indy also ends the film alive.

It's not perfect, and it's probably not a film I'd watch much compared to the first three particularly, but part of me is glad knowing it exists. It's far from being what the rumors alleged it to be. Virtually none of those were true, and if they were, they've been excised out. I don't think Dial of Destiny or even Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are comparable to what happened with the Star Wars sequel trilogy. They're on another level.

Indy as a franchise is tidier than Star Wars, warts and all. I do feel compelled to get in to the comics and other franchise media. I also have the DK Indiana Jones The Ultimate Guide which I bought around the time of Skull, which is really fantastic. It has cross sections of locations and battles like the Star Wars books had, and it's a good source for Indy's backstory and history.

TOD rewatch completed.

It's... better than I remembered. But there's just no comparison between this and Raiders.

Still, it does give Indy a character arc. From fortune and glory to a more mature, ethical approach.

The gore in this film is what it is. Between Spielberg's horror phase and Lucas's divorce, it's not hard to guess the origin of someone's heart getting ripped out.

I echo what others have said. Ke Huy Quan should've been brought back as Short Round. Even if it was just a cameo appearance or something, that character deserved some kind of follow-up. That would've been a pretty natural fit for Crystal Skull, frankly. Alas...

I wish the same could be said for Kate Capshaw. She did what was in the script and what Spielberg directed her to do. But the character of Willie remains insufferable. Strange to think that over a hundred actresses auditioned for the part and she won out. But life is full of bitter truths, I suppose.

Like I say, TOD is better than I remember. But it's probably never going to be my favorite of the bunch.

The Last Crusade comes tomorrow. Or some time this weekend, at any rate.

Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade

Man, this one holds up.

My only real gripe is Elsa. Allison Doody did a great job with it. The problem is the character herself. She's neither fish nor fowl. She's a Nazi sympathizer. So, right there, you already know the audience is against her and there's no way Indy can truly love her.

Yes, she denies any affection for Germany. But as far as she knows, the Joneses are just as capable of finding the Grail as the Germans. So, why didn't she join forces with the Joneses?

At the same time, she's clearly not an evil person. She could've sold Indy out to the Germans during the big celebration thing. But she didn't.

In the end, she's too wholesome to be a femme fatale but too villainous to be a viable love interest for Jones. Worse, there's no redemption arc for her either.

Elsa is not a deal-breaker. I'm just saying she's the aspect of the movie that I just can't get past. But otherwise, the movie is a ton of fun and it's just as good as you remember.

Crystal Skull at some point this weekend.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  5 Jul  2023, 22:59Don't mistake me for an expert on the Kriegsmarine. But I was under the impression that the U-boats spent a LOT of time on the surface and even did the majority of their sailing above the surface. They only submerged for combat operations. So, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that Jones could've hitched a ride on the U-boat without drowning or getting caught because it wasn't submerged.

Obviously, modern submarines can stay submerged for much longer stretches of time. But that's a capability that those old U-boats might not have had. I swear to think I read somewhere that they didn't. But don't hold me to that.

My grandfather was a theoretical physicist who helped design the Royal Navy's first nuclear submarine, and I recall him saying something to the effect that U-boats weren't really submarines. Not technically. I'm not sure exactly what the technical distinction is, but I think it had something to do with subs functioning more efficiently underwater, while U-boats functioned more efficiently on the surface. The journey the U-boat took in Raiders was a comparatively short one, with no enemy ships around, and it would've been faster travelling on the surface. So it's perfectly plausible that it wouldn't have submerged.

I think some viewers interpret the use of the periscope to indicate that the U-boat was under water, but periscopes were sometimes used to get an elevated view even when vessels were on the surface. Moreover, we never see the U-boat submerge in the movie, and when it arrives at the dock it's clearly moving on the surface.

Even so, the scene with the U-boat submerging was filmed. Here's Harrison Ford clinging to the periscope.


One detail I always liked about the ending of Raiders is the pillar of fire that emerges from the Ark, which recalls how the Book of Exodus describes God appearing before the Israelites. Given Spielberg's Judaism, that's clearly an intentional allusion.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  5 Jul  2023, 22:59It is a sad situation with Star Wars.

Still, the few good EU pieces still exist. Daley's Han Solo trilogy, Crispin's Han Solo trilogy, that Star Wars quarterly comic (Star Wars Tales?), Shadows Of The Empire and other things that truly were worthwhile. Even if Lucasfilm now disregards that stuff, nothing says that we fans have to do the same.

I used to enjoy the Star Wars comics back when Dark Horse held the publishing rights. Some of the stories were unremarkable, but there were still plenty of classics. Dark Empire, Tales of the Jedi and Boba Fett: Enemy of the Empire are some of my favourites. The original Marvel comics from the seventies and eighties were decent too.

I tried getting on board with the new Marvel era of SW comics after Disney bought Lucasfilm, and I bought the first batch of collected editions for the various different series. They just didn't click with me. I can never forget the old EU I'd spent so many years enjoying. Eventually I'll either sell those Disney-era comics online or give them to a charity shop. But there are certain Dark Horse Star Wars comics from the old EU that I'll always enjoy re-reading.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  7 Jul  2023, 03:48I wish the same could be said for Kate Capshaw. She did what was in the script and what Spielberg directed her to do. But the character of Willie remains insufferable. Strange to think that over a hundred actresses auditioned for the part and she won out. But life is full of bitter truths, I suppose.

I don't have strong feelings about the Willie character. Her feminine vulnerability offers a strong counterpoint to the tougher and more tomboyish Marion, but her constant screaming can be grating. At times she makes Vicki Vale seem stoic. I don't mind her, but I'm not particularly fond of her either.

There's a detail I never noticed in the scene where Willie and Short Round are first captured by the Thuggees. Watch carefully and you can see that while Short Round is grabbed, Willie actually gets away from them. There was meant to be a sequence following this where Willie returns to the palace and tries warning everyone about the temple, only for Indy, now under the control of Mola Ram, to refute her claims and capture her. You can learn more about this sequence in the following video.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  8 Jul  2023, 01:05At the same time, she's clearly not an evil person. She could've sold Indy out to the Germans during the big celebration thing. But she didn't.

In the end, she's too wholesome to be a femme fatale but too villainous to be a viable love interest for Jones. Worse, there's no redemption arc for her either.

I'd argue that she does work as a femme fatale, thanks to one shot in the movie. This one.


Elsewhere she's squeamish and displays signs of conscience, hinting that maybe she's not as ruthless as her Nazi allies. But the way she smirks when Donovan doubles over in pain convinces me that she picked the wrong cup on purpose in order to kill him. It's very subtle, but I think Spielberg pans over to that reaction shot to show us how coldblooded and calculating Elsa really is. She only starts screaming when Donovan grabs hold of her. Prior to that, she observes his pain with the hint of a smile. Her next line after Donovan's death is, "It would not be made of gold" – which shows that she knew what she was doing when she picked a gold chalice. Apparently the novelisation also hints that both she and Indy knew it wasn't the Grail.

You could argue that she did this to help Indy and deny Donovan the Grail – that maybe she's a good bad guy, or a bad good guy – but she's still a manipulative double-crossing liar, and (if my interpretation of the scene is correct) a killer. So I reckon she fits the description of femme fatale, and it's for that reason she's never redeemed. At least that's my take.

Just as Willie contrasts with Marion, Elsa contrasts with both of her predecessors. The trilogy does a good job of presenting audiences with three very different leading ladies. Unlike the Bond movies, where 90% of the women are interchangeable.

One of the things I admire about the Indiana Jones movies is that they're the product of a successful collaboration between two auteur filmmakers. Compared with Poltergeist, where Spielberg's input clearly dominated that of Tobe Hooper, we find a far more balanced collaboration in the Indy films. I can clearly see Spielberg's input, but I can just as easily detect Lucas's hand. In fact if anything, I'd be inclined to say that Lucas was the dominant creative force on those movies. It was his baby after all. He came up with the concept, plotted the storylines, produced them, and oversaw the expansion of the lore across different media through projects like the LucasArts games and Young Indy TV series.

Lucas could have directed Raiders himself, and I get the impression he was planning to do so before the stress of making Star Wars impacted his health (he wouldn't direct another film after that until The Phantom Menace two decades later). Had he directed Raiders, it would've lost all the wonderful ingredients that Spielberg brought to the table, and the finished product wouldn't have been as good. But it would still have existed. Without Lucas, however, there would be no Indy.

I'm not taking anything away from Spielberg. They're as much his films as Lucas's, and that's the point I'm getting at. Both filmmakers clearly got along well, respected one another's talent, knew one another's boundaries, valued one another's input, were willing to accommodate one another's ideas, and the result speaks for itself.

It makes me sad to think of all the films Lucas might have made over the past decade if he hadn't stepped down after Red Tails (2012). I'd love it if he made a comeback. Imagine if he founded a new production company, a true spiritual heir to Lucasfilm, and spent five to ten years belting out new movies before riding off into the sunset for good. Not Star Wars or Indiana Jones films, but completely new projects. He wouldn't even need to direct them. He could just write and produce. He's almost 80 now, so it's unlikely to happen. But you never know – Eastwood's still directing and he's 93. George has got another 14 years before he reaches that milestone. And he's certainly got the money to finance such a comeback.

After seeing how badly the Lucasfilm IPs have been mishandled by other filmmakers, I imagine fans would generally be more respectful and appreciative of Lucas now than they were eleven years ago. At least I hope that would be the case.

I wonder if there's a parallel universe in which Lucas directed Raiders and Tom Selleck played Indy. If so, would it have been any good?

QuoteLucas could have directed Raiders himself, and I get the impression he was planning to do so before the stress of making Star Wars impacted his health (he wouldn't direct another film after that until The Phantom Menace two decades later).

I wish we knew more about Philip Kaufman's involvement with Raiders of the Lost Ark who is credited with developing the story with Lucas and was always subsequently credited for the characters. The only real concrete detail we have is that Kaufman was the one who came up with the Ark of the Covenant being the McGuffin. I wonder if he was originally slated to direct as well, but once Spielberg showed his interest in directing, Lucas went with him instead. A similar incident happened when John Milius was supposed to direct 1941, but when Spielberg read the script, he said he wanted to do it, and everyone obliged, because the movie's budget could increase.

My objective in starting this thread was to be pro Indy, celebrate the good times (among which I personally count Crystal Skull but I understand ymmv), maybe shine a light on the IJ expanded universe and all that stuff.

But there are some realities that I guess we should probably talk about.

#1 Dial Of Destiny exists

#2 Dial Of Destiny is in the middle of tanking it at the box office

#3 This is most probably the end of the line for Harrison Ford when it comes to playing Indy

#4 The Indiana Jones franchise as we know it is going out with a pathetic whimper rather than a bang

And honestly, Disney's Lucasfilm did it to itself. And now the movie will be lucky if it "only" loses $100 million. Lucasfilm had three franchises. And with the failure of Dial Of Destiny, we can now safely say that all three of them have been ruined by the new regime.

Meanwhile, here's me hearing the news that Dial Of Destiny is failure:


Disney's Lucasfilm had every possible warning not to go in the direction they went. First, there's no evidence that there was ever any real demand for a new Indy film. But second, even if there was, there are plenty of ways of making a fifth installment that honors the franchise's history and the fans.

I spent some time last week revisiting the entire franchise. I've made no secret of my relatively low investment in the IJ series. But I had an absolute blast watching all four of the films. And it whetted my appetite for a fifth movie that we'll never truly get.

Of all of Disney's Lucasfilm's failures, this is the one that might bother me the most in the years to come. I literally never cared about Willow and I tuned out of Star Wars even before the Disney buyout. But IJ was largely unaffected by all that stuff.

Until now.

And worst of all, it was all so unnecessary.

I've seen the movie. In terms of box office it's a failure, but apart from being made by Disney, a brand people hate for good reason, I don't see what savage hatred can be levelled against the content or how Indy is handled as a character. If what Doomcock described was real I'd feel strongly against it. But what was released wasn't that. It's possible people believe that reputation and don't know any different. At worst I'd call the movie average. The longer I thought about it, though, a certain appreciation of its tone and approach came. KOTCS used to be the 'old Indy' movie, but no longer. DOD being that by putting him further along his timeline justifies its place and for that I don't really have a problem with it existing. But indeed, from a box office perspective it's a disappointing end. But an end that was always understood to be Harrison's last stand regardless of what money it made.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_6DA2bMAP0I