…and this is a 
Indiana Jones open thread
Category: Entertainment
Posted on: May 22, 2008 9:39 AM, by PZ Myers
You all know how the Indiana Jones movies are written, don't you? Let me recreate for you the day Steven Spielberg sat down with his head writer to put together the outline of what would be the fourth installment in the franchise.
Spielberg: Guys, here it is: the secret formula for a successful Indiana Jones movie. [Spielberg waves a tattered 3x5 index card around] Take this, and let's get to work.
Writer: Steve…this is just a scribbled sentence with some blanks.
Spielberg: Right. Haven't you ever played Mad Libs?
Writer: OK, but don't you kind of have this memorized? Why go through the motions?
Spielberg: I've forgotten everything on that card, so don't worry, it'll be new and fresh. Hollywood does this to you after a while—first it sucks the creativity out of you, then the memory goes, and you become a creature of short-term instinct. Go ahead, ask me questions to fill in the blanks, and we'll get this picture started!
Writer: Umm, name a "villainous group".
Spielberg: Easy. Naz…no, wait. I think we did that one. Let's see, uh, Communists. Yeah, we're already thinking out of the box!
Writer: Good one, sir. It reminds me of the second Indy movie, when you made the bad guys a mostly forgotten and entirely neglected Indian religious cult. That one surprised everyone with its freshness.
Spielberg: Right! We're on a roll! Next!
Writer: Name a "famous historical artifact".
Spielberg: This is always the hard part for a shark-like mind with no long term memory. Hmmmm. OK, Crystal skull.
Writer: "Crystal skull"? What's that? I've never heard of it.
Spielberg: I think I saw something about it on late night cable. It sounds cool, anyway, and it'll look eerie on film.
Writer: But it does say "famous historical artifact" here…
Spielberg: I've heard of it, so it must be famous. Besides, I bet you never heard of sankara stones before, either, and we made them famous. Now everyone talks about them.
Writer: Oh, right. That second movie again. We really are treading in the footsteps of greatness, this movie is going to be fabulous. OK, last one: name a "dangerous power".
Spielberg: Yeah, let me think. This is getting hard, I'm just about burnt out here. Are you getting hungry? No? I think I need a little nosh, let me call out for something.
Spielberg [to his office intercom]: Carol, get me a quick bite. An arugala salad, I think. Yeah, that's what I said. Write it down. You heard me, write it down, an arugala [writer starts scribbling]. Thanks.
Spielberg: Now where were we?
Writer: We're done! It's going to be a blockbuster!
Spielberg: Read it back to me.
Writer: "Indiana Jones must race evil COMMUNISTS to acquire the fabulous CRYSTAL SKULL before they can use its power of ARUGALA to rule the world!"
Spielberg: Wow. We have outdone ourselves. I want to see this movie already.
Writer: We'll be packing 'em in. I'll just plug in some of the usual plot devices and flesh it out in the script a little bit.
Spielberg: Yeah. But you know, that last bit might be a little…weak…
Writer: Now that you mention it…
[Spielberg and Writer stare at 3x5 card for several seconds, brows knit in thought.]
Spielberg: Aww, screw it. Don't worry about what the crystal skull does, or why anyone would want it. We'll just go with the flow.
Writer: Second movie?
Spielberg: You got it. We made that whole damn thing, concocted an all powerful religious cult using thousands of child slaves, all in order to acquire magic rocks that had the power to set leather handbags on fire. And nobody cared! Any MacGuffin will do if you've got Harrison Ford.
Writer: Right. I'll get you 200 pages by, say, tomorrow noon?
Spielberg: Great. Oh, and remember to stick in a couple of scenes with insects crawling all over people. And show Indy with some human weakness with a snake scene. And, oh yeah, that face-melty thing in the first movie was really popular — could we have someone's eyeballs burst into flame?
Writer: Love it, boss.
I think you can guess…I was a little disappointed. Ford was great, I think he's become a real icon of the swashbuckling hero genre, and I enjoyed his performance. The movie kept things moving with lots of action, but ultimately, it was the writing or the lack thereof that crippled the movie. There was no point to all the frenzied scurrying, and the ending was a mess, a great big gooey splort of special effects with no relationship to anything else that preceded it.
All right, everyone else who saw it can have at it in the comments. Be warned, everyone: spoilers may emerge herein. Click through only if you are prepared to be disillusioned, if you aren't already.
Comments
Our local newspaper did an article on Mitchell-Hedges skull years ago when Anna Hedges lived in the area. It was brought up again on whether the movie is based on this skull.
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | May 22, 2008 9:47 AM
I guess it's about time I went and saw the third one then...
Posted by: Jason Failes | May 22, 2008 9:49 AM
Spoilers? You mean there could be a surprise ending in this movie? Now THAT would certainly be a surprise.
Posted by: severalspeciesof | May 22, 2008 9:49 AM
Thanks for this post. I haven't seen it yet, I'll adjust my expectations accordingly.
The first oddball thing to spring to mind when reading your post was, 'Reverse Star Trek' effect. i.e. The odd numbered movies are good, the even ones stink.
Posted by: Eric | May 22, 2008 9:54 AM
You guys are missing it. Before you see any Indiana Jones movie or the like, you must be in the right frame of mind. Usually a glass or two (sometimes 3) or, for those so inclined, another substance perhaps. It should loosen you up enough to step out of your daily analytical mind-grind and into the world of fantasy and enjoy it for what these films usually are - a spectacular display of visual and sound effects, photography, etc. - screw the story line. It's so much more fun!
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | May 22, 2008 9:59 AM
I don't understand why they didn't just tart up the plot from the Fate of Atlantis game.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | May 22, 2008 10:09 AM
We often point out the absurdity of the religious, but there is another aspect of superstition that is sometimes overlooked. That is the use of things like astrology. Surprisingly enough, it is sometimes used in recruiting in business. Here is a nice crackpot site.
http://www.amanita.at/e/reading/e-01-recruiting.htm
"The ultimate goal of all personnel selection systems is to forecast the future performance of an applicant, to figure out how he or she will be doing and to select the best to fit the human resources strategy. At any rate, it's the future that counts, not the past and not even the present. Predicting the future has always been the main task of astrology."
It does mention drawbacks.
"# Reactance problems: resistance from applicants (and stakeholders), negative effects on the corporate image because of the negative reputation of astrology
# Lack of scientific proof, wrong decisions:
Almost no evidence from empirical research supporting astrology as a selection tool is available. Wrong decisions are costly and unfair to the falsely rejected applicants."
Posted by: bernarda | May 22, 2008 10:10 AM
Indiana Myers must race evil CREATIONISTS to acquire the fabulous PHARYNGULA BLOG before they can use its power of POLL CRASHING to rule the world!
Posted by: Propter Doc | May 22, 2008 10:11 AM
It was not anything different than the previous movies that everyone loved so much.
I enjoyed it
Posted by: Derik N | May 22, 2008 10:12 AM
One of the great things about Raiders was how all the action took its toll on Jones: "It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage." That's missing here; he's almost superhuman. The screenplay could've had another draft. Characters are underused; dialogue doesn't quite have the snap we expect. Liked the Oppenheimer reference, though. And Cate Blanchett was blindingly hot. Raiders is the only movie in the series that achieves true movie greatness.
Posted by: Will E. | May 22, 2008 10:15 AM
Ford's an atheist.
Posted by: danley | May 22, 2008 10:20 AM
PZ you really should have replaced Spielberg with Lucas*, then I think you would be spot on.
LeeLeeOne is right, you have consider the movie in the right context, Lucas (or was it Spielberg-so much for me being anal) wanted to be able to explain the main plot in less than...some abitrary number of words. That said, I haven't actually seen it yet, so I'll reserve final judgement.
*Lucas was facinated by crystal skulls, which apprently bemused Spielberg/Ford etc. as they had not heard of them.
Posted by: Lightnin | May 22, 2008 10:21 AM
Still, I don't get it. Studios invest hundreds of millions in making movies like this one, mainly paying for locations, stars, special effects, and they cannot put out a few more thousands to hire a talented scriptwriter or two?
There has been quite a few of these recently, extremely costly blockbusters (and I like blockbusters) which really made me cringe, so terrible were the plotting and the writing. Beowulf anybody? (and this one had Gaiman on the staff)
I mean, Spiderman 3 was so bad, I could only watch it in 5 minutes instalments.
Posted by: Arnaud | May 22, 2008 10:21 AM
http://ffrf.org/day/?day=13&month=7
Posted by: danley | May 22, 2008 10:22 AM
"Before you see any Indiana Jones movie or the like, you must be in the right frame of mind. Usually a glass or two (sometimes 3) or, for those so inclined, another substance perhaps."
This worked for me; a couple shots of whiskey beforehand at the bar, and the same for my girlfriend. She was asleep in the seat next to me by the time the 5th trailer rolled (there were 8 trailers in all) and didn't move until the Indy credits rolled.
Posted by: Will E. | May 22, 2008 10:26 AM
Since when was Indiana Jones original? It never was. :P S'how we like it too.
Posted by: Michelle | May 22, 2008 10:26 AM
You left a part out.
The part where Erich von Däniken comes in.
Posted by: Olof | May 22, 2008 10:34 AM
Posted by: SEF | May 22, 2008 10:35 AM
The movie kept things moving with lots of action, but ultimately, it was the writing or the lack thereof that crippled the movie. There was no point to all the frenzied scurrying, and the ending was a mess, a great big gooey splort of special effects with no relationship to anything else that preceded it.
SO you're comparing it to sex, then? That good?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | May 22, 2008 10:38 AM
There were at least a few moments where I definitely laughed out loud at the absurdity (some line of dialogue or a particular incident... the refrigerator comes to mind).
I liked the movie overall but I definitely found myself wondering how they could make perfectly ordinary scenes in a $150 million picture look so poorly made. It was as if Speilberg just discovered soft focus and decided he needed to use it constantly.
Posted by: Beaks of the Finch | May 22, 2008 10:41 AM
Open thread, so did you know that someone has even invented "evolutionary astrology"?
http://www.evolvingjourney.com/ArticleonEvolutionaryAstrology.html
"Let's say that the planet Pluto, Lord of the Underworld, is going to spend three years getting to know that aforementioned Gemini Sun. (More like the Sun getting to know the nature of Pluto, truth be told.) Depending on what part of the chart that Sun inhabits, predictions could include depression, an identity crisis, the end of a relationship, a time of personal empowerment. All potentially true. But from an evolutionary standpoint, none of these possibilities is set in stone, and none is the heart of this passage."
Posted by: bernarda | May 22, 2008 10:51 AM
Hey, at least they let you in.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | May 22, 2008 10:52 AM
It suffered from one of the same problems that the new Star Wars movies did. They were bringing back a popular giant after a long hiatus, and were self-consciously trying to be something - a blockbuster, funny, true to the old popular form. Too much of the movie was contrived and gimmicky, like the gophers in the beginning. Different isolated things were added for specific effects, but there was no coherence. As far as any kind of story goes, the writing was awful.
And the refrigerator scene: worst idea ever.
I did think that the ending was appropriate for the close of the Indy series, even if it was cheesy. The heavy-handed symbolism with the hat and Mudd was too much, though.
Posted by: SteveWH | May 22, 2008 10:52 AM
Arugula isn't bad, but if you want to rule the world, you need the power of spinach. ;-)
Posted by: Russell | May 22, 2008 10:55 AM
Thank you for the summary. It doesn't sounds like this will be the film to make me start going to the cinema.
I liked One and Three, though, when they came to the small screen (for all his Scottish Nationalist nuckfuttery Sean Connery can be fun). And I used to have such a crush on the Young Indy.
Posted by: Sili | May 22, 2008 11:04 AM
What? Now you tell me? These words should be in giant letters as a splash page for this blog--a warning for impressionable young creationists!
"This website contains graphic descriptions of reality..."
Posted by: falterer | May 22, 2008 11:04 AM
I'm surprised Movie-a-Minute's ultra-condensed movie list
http://www.rinkworks.com/movieaminute/
doesn't contain any of the Indiana Jones films.
Posted by: SC | May 22, 2008 11:06 AM
Now you know why I don't ever get my hopes up about any films anymore. If I don't get excited beforehand (like you did in a previous post), I usually end up satisified at the very least. Hardly ever disappointed. Disappointment only comes when you're expecting something better.
Posted by: jsn | May 22, 2008 11:09 AM
My blog is way ahead of you guys. I didn't write this, but it's good. And we'll have more in the series:
Coming Soon -- Ben Stein as Indenial Jones
Posted by: PatrickHenry | May 22, 2008 11:10 AM
OK, PZ confirmed my expectations: I'm not going. Anyone want to go see the movie with my husband? He's cute.
Posted by: Jackal | May 22, 2008 11:18 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | May 22, 2008 11:22 AM
Sorry to be a pig, but as far as I'm concerned any movie which features Cate Blanchett in black leather is OK with me.
Posted by: Tom | May 22, 2008 11:31 AM
Well, you could go to St. Paul and see a baseball game. The minor league tema there is giving away a nice little item to the first 2500 people to attend on Sunday May 25, a Bobble Foot.
Posted by: Mark B | May 22, 2008 11:43 AM
I haven't seen IJ4 but surely
would apply just as much to IJ3? Now that was a mess.
Posted by: Fergus Gallagher | May 22, 2008 11:49 AM
The only film sequels which have held up are George Romero's starting with "Night of the Living Dead" movies. Each one has been good.
Posted by: bernarda | May 22, 2008 11:55 AM
Don't blame Spielberg, blame Lucas. He's the one that came up with the "crystal skulls" idea. He's the one that rejected Frank Darabont's screenplay. One the one hand you've got the guy who wrote the screenplay for The Shawshank Redemption who comes up with a screenplay that's praised by the director of numerous classic adventure movies, and on the other hand you've got the guy who's only directed one good action movie and has been determined to muck it up ever since. I think it's pretty clear who the problem was in this collaboration.
Posted by: Citizen Z | May 22, 2008 11:57 AM
"There was no point to all the frenzied scurrying, and the ending was a mess, a great big gooey splort of special effects with no relationship to anything else that preceded it."
Ironically that makes it closer to the serials and adventure B-movies to which it ostensibly serves as a pricey homage. (Nice nod to THE NAKED JUNGLE. Ditto X: THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES.) Looking for a "point" (whatever that means) seems pretty, er, pointless in a movie where a guy survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a refrigerator. What's fun here is the lack of pretension and the shared, wholly infectious fun between the characters/actors. (The quicksand scene was a kind of subtle mini-masterpiece on its lonesome.) All things considered, this one has more soul than THE LAST CRUSADE, and Ford's reaction to Karen Allen's entrance is the stuff for which cinema was invented.
More to Pharyngula's speed: what's interesting in the Indies is that all religions turn out to be right. The Ark of the Covenant works and so can one rip out a poor schmuck's heart for Shiva. Here, though, [major spoilers, but c'mon, it's a MacGuffin anyway] the natives are wrong and their "god" is a buncha aliens. Discuss.
Posted by: Mathias | May 22, 2008 12:04 PM
I still think that they should have gone with the "realistic" version: Indy spends 2 years writing and re-writing grants, gathering permits, and writing up preliminary findings until it all finally comes together and he can go out into the field. First exciting action sequence: the weather doesn't cooperate and he's nearly killed in a freak hurricaine or sandstorm or whatever is appropriate for the area. He then spends the next several seasons carefully digging and recording every shard. Until he finally finds...another shard. But this one is different. It doesn't look like much but after extensive analysis in the lab (could be some good dramatic scenes in there where the PCR fails and the exasperated lab tech threatens to throw it out the window...oops, anachronism) it proves to be the critical piece of evidence that will change our thinking about the way pre-historic people lived forever...Hey, I'd pay to watch it.
Posted by: Dianne | May 22, 2008 12:16 PM
Here's an example of what made Raiders magical. It's one scene that perfectly combines Spielberg's direction, Ford's acting, and William's music. (The dialogue isn't here, so the music becomes even more central.) This is just movie-making at its finest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEbQKTYeDis
Posted by: oldat37 | May 22, 2008 12:17 PM
The best part was when UChicago had its shout out. My classmates and I cheered.
And, I agree, I feel no hatred towards Spielberg, it was Lucus' fault.
My blogged student-based opinion (and spoilers) of it is the link on my name. Just ignore the rest of my blog, please ;).
Posted by: Nerdette | May 22, 2008 12:20 PM
No monkey-brain eating?
When I was younger and more foolish, I always thought that if they were going to remake North By Northwest, Harrison Ford would be the guy. Then I got older and wiser and realized that remaking North By Northwest would be incredibly foolish, regardless of who got what part.
I think The Fugitive is pretty darned great, though... Even if, in real life, the movie would pretty much have ended at the dam. I wouldn't put the odds of surviving that jump at even 1 in a million.
Posted by: MikeM | May 22, 2008 12:23 PM
When I saw "Raiders" as a kid, I was floored. I don't think the first one had much (if any) pre-publicity. I taken to the theater on opening weekend expecting to be bored. ("It's about an archaeologist?") By the time Indy climbed into the airplane in the first scene, I had a new favorite movie.
Watching it again, recently, I was surprised at how it has been a little antiquated by the action genre it inspired. The editing is just not as tight by today's standards. But it's still awesome fun, great spectacle and the script is very clever.
I can't expect any of the sequels to match or exceed the original because they're not the original. And the basic premise isn't *about* anything except recreating the excitement of old style serials.
"Temple of Doom" was dreadful. "Last Crusade" was cute, the chemistry between Connery and Ford made the movie. Thanks for the forewarning on "Crystal Skull." I can't say I'm surprised.
What were really cool style choices in the first movie are now brands. They have to recycle the whip and the hat. What was so fun and unexpected in the first has become like PZ's fill-in-the-blanks.
"Godfather II" is my favorite example of a sequel exceeding the original. The original was highly stylized but it was *about* something. The sequel explored the themes and characters more deeply.
The first "Austin Powers" was very funny. But since, it wasn't about anything, the sequels are terribly formulaic and unbelievably unfunny.
Posted by: Pat McComb | May 22, 2008 12:24 PM
There's a new Indiana Jones movie?!
Thanks for the spoiler, asshats.
Geez. Some people's children.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 22, 2008 12:25 PM
MikeM, I'm curious about your opinion. I loved The Fugitive too, except... the ending. That was one of the most anti-climactic final scenes I can remember. It ended with a whimper. Until then it was definitely great (and Tommy Lee Jones was perfect).
Posted by: movielover | May 22, 2008 12:25 PM
When it comes to sequels exceeding the quality of the originals, I think of, of course, "Godfather II," then "Bride of Frankenstein," and even "Empire Strikes Back." "Aliens" isn't necessarily *better* than "Alien" as its a wholly different movie; they're both fantastic on their own.
And I must say, the trailer for "The Dark Knight" looks *amazing.*
Posted by: Will E. | May 22, 2008 12:33 PM
@#37 Mathias
Wasn't it a surprise to the characters when the "Ark of the Covenant" actually did something? Or was that just me projecting onto the film?
Anyway, it seem like it might have more to do with dramatic reversal than an actual stance regarding the supernatural. When the film treats the supernatural as "just myth" throughout, you can be assured the supernatural will turn out real, but when it's treated as real throughout the movie, it'll turn out to be superstition or some other supernatural thing.
Posted by: Jams | May 22, 2008 12:34 PM
Meh, it has that Shia LeBouf guy in it, or whatever his name is, and I refuse to abandon my stern LeBouf boycott. Stupid human being the main character of Transformers *grumble* *grumble* *grumble*
Posted by: Julian | May 22, 2008 12:36 PM
I don't get why so many people say that Godfather II was better than I. Except for the flashback scenes with DeNiro, the characters just seem flat in the second one and it's like everyone is just going through the motions. The first one was miles better.
Posted by: Midnight Rambler | May 22, 2008 12:38 PM
There was no point to all the frenzied scurrying, and the ending was a mess, a great big gooey splort of special effects with no relationship to anything else that preceded it.
Uh. That is a pretty good nutshell description of life. See? Atheism does lead to nihilism. :)
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 22, 2008 12:40 PM
Speaking of archeology, Yahoo News is reporting that Vandals have attacked Stonehenge. No word on whether Ostrogoths or Visigoths took part in the brutal tribal assault.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | May 22, 2008 1:01 PM
Silly me. I actually believed that they titled Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade with the intention that it be his last crusade. How naive of me. (Of course, I was much, much younger then.)
Back in February, when the buzz about this new movie began to ramp up, I wrote a post about possible titles for future installments in the Indiana Jones oeuvre. My personal favorite is Indiana Jones and the Wheelchair-Accessible Caverns of Despair. Catchy, no? Anyone have other ideas?
(Please remember that "Oh, so very tired" has already been co-opted by a Simpsons episode as the putative title of a future Star Trek motion picture.)
Posted by: Zeno | May 22, 2008 1:02 PM
Why am I so reminded of this Penny Arcade strip when hearing about Indy4?
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | May 22, 2008 1:03 PM
"Indiana Myers ..."
I thought Indiana was the name of the Blog dog. ;-)
Posted by: The Other Dan from Milwaukee | May 22, 2008 1:05 PM
Julian wrote: Meh, it has that Shia LeBouf guy in it, or whatever his name is, and I refuse to abandon my stern LeBouf boycott. Stupid human being the main character of Transformers....
Yeah, but he wasn't bad in "Constantine," a neglected classic as far as I'm concerned. Francis Lawrence got LeBouf and Keanu Reeves to give good performances in the same movie, which is mind-boggling. "I Am Legend," which Lawrence directed, is apparently disappointing, though.
Posted by: Jud | May 22, 2008 1:07 PM
strike "Blog"
Fouled up the HTML :-(
Posted by: The Other Dan from Milwaukee | May 22, 2008 1:08 PM
"The movie kept things moving with lots of action, but ultimately, it was the writing or the lack thereof that crippled the movie. There was no point to all the frenzied scurrying, and the ending was a mess, a great big gooey splort of special effects with no relationship to anything else that preceded it."
So . . . just how did it differ it from the first three of those crummy movies?
Posted by: Aaron Baker | May 22, 2008 1:10 PM
Lay off of "Temple of Doom". That movie was a cinematic masterpiece.
Posted by: Stanley | May 22, 2008 1:10 PM
If the dialogue sucked it was because George Lucas was involved. I can hear it now:
Lucas: Hey Steve I can save you time by helping you with the dialogues.
Spielberg: Oh really George? That'd be great!
Lucas: I know. I'll whip out my Dialogue à la Star Wars Episodes 1-3.
Spielberg: Brilliant!!
Posted by: LP | May 22, 2008 1:15 PM
Dr. Myers, no time for love?
Note: I am going to spoiler the shit out of this.
I could not disagree with all this negativity more. I think they played off of his advanced age well and appropriately. They did a turn around on the whole father-son theme from Last Crusade, explored one of the sadder things about getting older: i.e. everyone you know starts dying, and generlly played Indy as an older, wiser version of his adventuring self. There was absolutely a reason everyone wanted the skull: it was a source of radical otherworldly psychic power. I think they used the fact that it was set in the 50's to great effect: not only that the enemies were communists but they had the whole red scare thing going, and LaBeouf's character was well played as the quintessential 50's bad boy. LaBeouf didn't even ruin the movie; he gave his most brilliant performance yet... meaning he was adequate. I think that they did essentially stick to "the formula" but if they didn't it wouldn't really be an Indiana Jones movie. I think they used what they had within the formula to make it it's own movie within the series, rther than just a remake, while at the same time keeping to the spirit of both the series and the pulp genre. I loved it. As for the end? He was all "Gimme my hat, bitch!" Fuck yeah!
Posted by: T.A.C. | May 22, 2008 1:22 PM
I thought it was a lot of fun. No Raiders for sure, but certainly not the disaster everyone was expecting. And when I realized it was the love child of Indiana Jones and Red Alert, I was completely on board.
Posted by: Grand Fromage | May 22, 2008 1:23 PM
That sounds like you just described how they make every movie in Holywood, not just this one.
I can't imagine any reason why anyone over the age of 10 would be excited about seeing a film like this...although I guess they let you into this one this time so that has to be a bonus.
Posted by: AlanWCan | May 22, 2008 1:33 PM
In a strange bit of sychronicity (or if you're cynical, a deliberate marketing stunt), yesterday's re-run episode of Stargate SG-1 on SciFi was the Crystal Skull episode that turns Daniel invisible and ends up vindicating his grandfather's claims about "giant aliens". From what I'm reading here, this may have been a better story than the new movie.
Posted by: SteveM | May 22, 2008 1:35 PM
"Ford was great, I think he's become a real icon of the swashbuckling hero genre"
Your idea of a swashbuckling icon is a bland, middle class, corporate type?
Maybe there's something to creationism after all.
Posted by: John | May 22, 2008 1:48 PM
Zeno:
Indiana Jones and the Enlarged Prostate of Ennui.
Posted by: Epikt | May 22, 2008 1:50 PM
Saw the movie last night. What a disappointment. I am in shock from how bad the plot, direction and production was. I just can't believe they did this to one of my favorite movie series. If you want to remember Indy as one of your fondest movie going experiences, DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE.
Posted by: dcr3000 | May 22, 2008 1:51 PM
Dear P.Z.,
Please know I'm writing this in the most loving way.
WRITE YOUR DAMN BOOK!
I love your blog. I read it every day. I really enjoyed this funny, detailed entry. But I can't help but think all this energy and creativity could be channeled into a best seller. Are you by chance avoiding that writing for this?
Our beloved Molly Ivins would say one could tell she was on deadline because she'd be busy reorganizing her spice rack.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Lana | May 22, 2008 2:01 PM
I loved the movie.
I think the difference between me and thee, all those who didn't like it, is that I have different scales in my head for judging different things.
Gods vs. Science questions: Rational Scale.
Action movie questions: Action Movie Scale.
Action movies are made to engage your emotions fully, and your cerebrum only marginally. I think too many of us are unclear on this. Uber-critics might as well write scathing critiques of boxing matches, for failing to live up to their expectations of plot and character development.
Now if Lucas had tried to sneak in a serious, critical comment on evolution or science, I would have snapped to attention in an instant, and hated it.
...
Heh. I just realized that religious people use the Action Movie Scale for judging the Bible, and so do conservative Republicans for judging Bush.
There's a HufPost article in the idea.
Posted by: Hank Fox | May 22, 2008 2:02 PM
As promised, the next installment in the series has been posted over at my place. PZ himself is passingly mentioned. If that's objectionable, I'll edit it out (even though I didn't write this piece).
Deluders of the Noachic Ark: Part the First
Posted by: PatrickHenry | May 22, 2008 2:08 PM
I'm not understanding the sheer amount of "Kate Blanchet is hot" in this thread. She's never been hot.
Posted by: Zach Miller | May 22, 2008 2:20 PM
My Maguffin is better than Steves Maguffin :
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2008/05/blue-jade.html
Posted by: Russell | May 22, 2008 2:25 PM
#44, movielover:
I LOVED the ending. It's because I read about it before I went. It was meant to be a bit of a tribute to Enter The Dragon. Go back and see it again from that POV. If you haven't seen Dragon first, my comment may not make sense.
It was meant to be confusing, intense and violent, and I think they hit the target dead-on.
My favorite movie of 2007 was Juno. Yours? I find myself continually drawn to best-screenplay winners or candidates. In recent years, that includes Little Miss Sunshine (the pageant was delightfully creepy) and Almost Famous, which I don't think is possible to see too many times.
I'm sure I'll like this new Jones movie too, but dang, the second one was racist. Maybe I'm looking in too many corners for racism, but I don't think I was in this case. It was right there: The Brave White Guy is there to save the Little Brown Natives from Certain Death. Jeez, that was bad. Good roller-coaster ride, though.
Borat nearly caused a divorce in my house. The nude scene was so far over the top that my wife left. But I really liked the statement(s) it made about racism and sexism. He really caught people in moments of uncomfortable honesty. The scene in the gift shop was priceless. My question about that movie, though, is I bet they had a LOT of out-takes where people would look at Cohen and say, "Wow, you're really a bigot!". I have a feeling that for every "good" take they got, there were probably about four where the interviewee told Borat to go screw himself.
(And yes, I'm aware that Cohen is basically the anti-Borat.)
Posted by: MikeM | May 22, 2008 2:26 PM
Zach Miller #69's comment just shows how it is possible to be objectively wrong about such matters.
Posted by: Tom | May 22, 2008 2:34 PM
To all those saying that people don't understand that its just an action movie and its just supposed to be exciting and engage our emotions - WE GET THAT, but it doesn't give it a free ride to be ENORMOUSLY stupid, which as PZ points out, the plot absolutely is.
Raiders and Last Crusade were both fun exciting popcorn escape movies that ALSO were witty, had cool plots, and were, within the Indy universe (and this is important, of course not compared to reality) the films were believable and consistent and not over the top.
The last 30 minutes of Indy KCS stunk rotten. Shia with the monkeys on the vines? Come on - this is the same problem as the new Die Hard - they take characters who werent originally superheroes, just normal, badass dudes, and make them superheros just because they can and because they've got the special effects to do it.
Seriously - just because it is a fantasy movie based on old serials doesn't mean it has the right to be stupid, cheesy, or, most egregiously, lazy.
(i will say the middle third of the movie was pretty awesome. My gripes are with the first and third third)
Posted by: Jason Apple | May 22, 2008 2:47 PM
Agreement on the Lucas comment. He really went downhill after he had kids. The Star Wars prequels? PeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyOOOOOOOOOO. Stanky.
I'll probably see Indiana Jones once and call it good.
Posted by: Steve | May 22, 2008 2:47 PM
I don't get the all of the hate for Temple of Doom. I found the stereotyping a bit tired, but I loved the set pieces and choreography. The lack of serious character development or an amazing plot did not detract from the pure fun of a mine car chase.
Posted by: Sam | May 22, 2008 2:51 PM
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Posted by: melior | May 22, 2008 2:54 PM
First!!!
Posted by: hambone | May 22, 2008 2:56 PM
My favorite part of "Raiders" is the beginning where Jones is explaining about the ark of the covenant and then adds "...if you believe that sort of thing." What, a skeptical archaeologist?
Naturally, he's wrong, and Yahweh does have a phone that melts your face if you look at it.
Posted by: horrobin | May 22, 2008 2:59 PM
From the same source, the 6 original titles proposed by LucasFilms for Indy 4:
* Indiana Jones and the City of Gods
* Indiana Jones and the Destroyer of Worlds
* Indiana Jones and the Fourth Corner of the Earth
* Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
* Indiana Jones and the Lost City of Gold
* Indiana Jones and the Quest for the Covenant
Posted by: melior | May 22, 2008 3:00 PM
#22 "Hey, at least they let you in."
Funniest comment on this thread.
Posted by: Blondin | May 22, 2008 3:00 PM
One reviewer commented, "this is the (Indiana Jones) sequel you dreaded".
The key to why the original "RotLA" was so good was the coked-out debaucle of "1941". Desperation over a career damaging flop can lead to some great creative effort. Of course extreme success can lead to surrounding yourself with sycophants unable or unwilling to tell the Emporer he's buck naked and his script sucks. (I can't imagine that none of Lucas' posse could not see how horrible SW episodes I, II, and III were and how Jar-Jar Binks should have been left in CGI limbo)
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" rocked; the sequels - not so much.
Funny that Karen Allen is back for the 4th film. She, evidently, was such a pain in the ass on the first film, Spielberg swore he'd never work with her again. Thus the prequal "ToD" with Cate Capshaw, who succeeded Amy Irving as the second Mrs. Spielberg. After so many years - bygones, I guess...
Posted by: Jsn | May 22, 2008 3:01 PM
MikeM: I also thought "Temple" was racist.
Zach: I'll concede this is a matter of taste but Cate Blanchett is enduringly hot.
Zeno: How about "Indiana Jones and the Rambling Story that Doesn't Go Anywhere." ("Give me five bees for a quarter!")
Something else the makes the sequels not match up to the original is CGI. When Butch and Sundance jumped off the cliff, actual people jumped off and actual cliff! And someone playing Indy was actually dragged underneath a truck! (at 15 MPH, but it looked faster!) Exhilarating stuff!
I can't bemoan CGI but it has devalued action a little.
For a real thrill, check out the conclusion of Harold Lloyd's "Safety Last" (1923)
Posted by: Pat McComb | May 22, 2008 3:17 PM
"Indiana Jones and the Destroyer of Worlds"
I absolutely adore that title. How apocalyptic! How epic! How bad-ass! And what do we get? "Crystal Skull"--some mythical artifact most folks have never even heard of. At least that title was referenced in the movie, i.e., by way of Oppenheimer's quoting of the Bhagavad Gita.
Posted by: Will E. | May 22, 2008 3:19 PM
I agree with 59. I thought it was quite fun. My only concern was that the audience had a bit too much omniscience, because the "interdimensional alien" theme is such a part of popular culture. Every person in the theatre, to the last child, understood the meaning of the elongated skulls, the Nazca lines, and tales of "Where the gods live" long before the characters. And even in the end, Indy's son is still asking if they were from space.
However, as I came to think on it more, since it was set in the 50's there was no good reason for the CHARACTERS to know about Aliens, "ancient astronauts", etc. So I supose their questions might be warranted, except the audience had answered the questions themselves an hour or more before.
Posted by: Aegis | May 22, 2008 3:19 PM
I'm so disappointed... (haven't seen it yet, but can predict well enough from this thread).
The Raiders was iconic. Spielburg's actual knowledge of how to make a good movie (story, writing, pacing, ect) along with Lucas's, well vision, and ILM.
The second movie, pretty much crap. Everything except production was at the level of a made-for-TV piece (and not the new made-for-HBO/Showtime stuff that rocks).
The third, if you haven't seen it do, is perhaps my favorite. Same formula, but with snappy writing, adding Connery to the mix, and tying into good mythology again.
I was really hoping this one would be more like the third... mixed up by Indy (Ford) getting old and a bit crotchety and the times and tech moving on a bit (50s with commies and all that). Alas, when I heard 'Crystal Skull' I immediately feared that this would be a disappointing film.