General Indiana Jones Thread

I totally agree with that. They should get someone like Steven Yeun to play him, that'd be awesome.

The problem with Pratt is that under the bruises and grime, Indiana Jones is still an educated and very dedicated scholar first and foremost... destructive methodology notwithstanding. Pratt simply can't sell this. He can be an action hero, sure, maybe even a new-generation geek, but he can't do the old-school history buff, the guy that at least nominally values library research every bit as much as jolly jungle jumping and temple thrashing. And the best films are such precisely because the relics involved command the same kind of veneration from the general audience, as a real archaeologist would have toward any antique artifact.

Same applies to a possible Short Round sequel series. Find someone that can actually play the scholar, not just the bruiser. John Cho comes to mind.

edited 12th Dec '16 2:35:23 PM by indiana404

John Cho would be great, actually.

As for Indy himself, I agree with Indiana that he needs to have a balance. The best James Bonds balance ruthlessness and suavity, which is why, in my opinon, Roger Moore (just suave) and Timothy Dalton (just ruthless) were less successful. For Indy, you need someone who can be a dedicated scholar, an effective brawler, and a goof all at the same time without any one aspect diminishing the others.

edited 12th Dec '16 5:48:25 PM by Robbery

My vote for Young Indy goes to Michael Fassbender (it's the nose, man). As much as I like Chris Pratt, I cannot see him in the role.

In terms of story, you know what I wanna see? Dinosaurs.

I'm not joking. I'd love to see Indy go to the Congo and see the Mokele-Mbembe, Kongamato, Kasai rex, and all the other dinosaurs and dinosaur-like creatures rumored to live around Lake Tele. I think that kind of Lost World adventure is right up the character's alley. They can be scientifically accurate, feathered dinosaurs to differentiate them from the ones in Jurassic World.

That actually sounds like a good idea. You hardly ever see any fiction that uses the Mokele-Mbembe in it, and that's a cryptid I've always held a soft spot for.

Glad you agree. Last time I pitched that idea, somebody said, "Well, if Harrison Ford comes back, there'll be at least one dinosaur in it."

I mean, there would be :P

But seriously, somebody make that.

Apparently, Temple of Doom was filmed in Sri Lanka because the filmmakers would rather do that than make the script less offensive to the country of India in order to film there. *facepalm*

edited 23rd Apr '17 1:47:34 PM by DS9guy

edited 24th Apr '17 11:50:26 AM by DS9guy

Uh, I think that second post of your's was in the wrong thread, mate.

Aw, man! And here I thought there were Indiana Jones news for me to read.

Probably not gonna be news until later. The new film is supposed to be in 2018, right? I'd save give it a few months.

Nostalgia Critic just re-posted his episode on Temple of Doom and an accompanying Real Thoughts, so it's time for the Eternal Question to resurface:

What order do you put the Indiana Jones movies in, quality wise?

I say Crusade was best, followed closely by Raiders - bit of a drop - Crystal Skull, and Temple of Doom in last.

Crusade's got the characters, Raiders has the writing, Crystal Skull would be entirely mediocre without Indy, and Temple of Doom is ... not bad, but certainly not good.

Temple of Doom conflicts me so much. On the one hand, the most famous moments that pop culture has referenced to death are still great. On the other hand, there's literally everything else in it that's been criticized quite often. I'm not gonna, like, change the channel if it's on, but I admit I like Raiders and Crusade far more.

I'd say probably at this point I'd rank it as Crusade > Raiders > Temple > Skull. Crusade has always been a childhood favorite of mine, but I kind of go back and forth on it and Raiders. I might have to rewatch them sometime soon to see if my opinion changes, it's been quite a while. I don't hate Skull as much as I used to, but I feel like there's less in there I like compared to Temple of Doom. It's certainly not bad, but it has sizable flaws to it that, again, have been brought up quite a bit (overused CGI, Mack being largely pointless, parts of the alien plot making no sense, etc.), though in retrospect I will agree with older posts on here and say that Shia La Beouf was not actually that bad in the film.

For me Last Crusade is the best, followed by Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I have to put Temple of Doom below Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, though. I don't think I've ever enjoyed watching Doom, while I actually got some enjoyment out of Skull when I saw it in theaters. I had no standards back then because I was way younger, but still.

What parts of Skull's plot don't make sense? I thought it was pretty straightforward.

Also: to Doom's credit, that opening scene - all the way up to the plane escape - was awesome. They could make a movie like that and it would be great.

I think it was the whole business with the aliens teleporting off to who knows where all of a sudden or something. I've seen a lot of people confused about it. I'm not averse to aliens in the franchise (and I'm surprised nobody seemed to figure that out from the title), but I think it boils down to what I personally grew up with, which is admittedly biased.

I liked all of them, to one extent or another. I think Raiders and Crusade are the strongest (no controversy there, I'm sure) and I have little to criticize about them. I think Temple of Doom works just fine, except for Willie, who I found tremendously annoying. She's necessary to the story right at the beginning, but once they get to India she's just whiny baggage. I think Crystal Skull works fine for the most part as well except I would have much preferred a supernatural resolution rather than, you know, aliens.

I personally really liked the transition to Soviet enemies and aliens. Indiana Jones always mirrored the serials of the 30's - originally. It stands to reason that a sequel that came out 20 years later would be like the serials of the 50's, with new Soviet foes and a sci-fi focus.

Crusade > Raiders > Temple = Skull.

I've always thought Temple and Skull are the weakest in the series, but I don't think either them is particularly bad, or even worse than the other. I guess if I had to pick one, it'd be Skull, since at least that one isn't super duper culturally insensitive.

Personally outside of the blonde chick (I think Family Guy was spot on with it's joke of her only being there because she was sleeping with the director) I liked Temple of Doom. Actually I love all three of the original trilogy, though I do think Last Crusade was the best.

As far the culturally insensitive bits, I think the dinner scene in Temple was to show that something was WRONG at the palace.

edited 11th Jun '17 2:43:21 PM by MarkVonLewis

Okay, even disregarding the kinda sexist thought process that she was only there because she was sleeping with Spielberg, she wasn't even dating him until after the film was done.

And even if that scene were meant to show that something was "wrong" with the place, it's still insensitive to the culture by portraying it in that manner.

One of the most common causes of culture shock the world over is cuisine. I thought it was just demonstrating how provincial Billie was (you'll note Indy never complains about the food, and chastises Billie for doing so in the village where they get the mission in the first place). The people at table seem very refined, actually, and here's poor dumb Billie choking back her gorge

I think it was a characterization thing as well, showing how unworldly Willie is compared to Indy and the audience.

After all, we all know that monkey's brains, though popular in Cantonese cuisine, are not often to be found in Washington, D.C.

I know that Temple of Doom takes place in India instead of China - and monkey brains aren't popular in Cantonese cuisine at all - but I never get to quote Clue, let me have this.

edited 19th Jun '17 1:46:57 PM by Troper_Walrus

No Mutt.

Also.... was there a demand for a 5th film?