quote:

Originally posted by martin:
I mean, it is true that Han shot first, but GL is the revisionist filmmaker that ...

You're right - he would make a good Leni Riefenstahl.

I just want to see this so when people ask me what it was like, I can quote Zhou Enlai and say "It is too early to tell."

Because, dammit, if we can't misquote Chinese Communist revolutionaries while giving opinions on Hollywood films, well, then, what have we got left?

Somewhere in the secrete layer of Paramount Pictures, Steven Spielberg is trying to sell he’s newest movie idea the studio bosses.

One of the execs is browsing through the pages, then reads the cover and throwns: "An E.T. remake? Steve, I am just not sure."
Spielberg: "Family entertainment!"
Exec: "Steve, I just can’t see this work with the old fan base and I don’t think the new generation will buy it. Target markets, you know."
Spielberg, obviously disappointed, thinks it over: "What if I call it Indian Jones IV?"
The Execs eyes are widening as he leans forward showing curiousness: “How is that going to work?"
Spielberg: "Well, what if Indiana Jones is helping E.T. to get back home."
Exec: "Keep talking."
...


...
Spielberg: "And this time, instead of a bicycle, the boy will use a motor bike."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Newro,

Lol. You might like this sketch: Star Wars VII.

Ken, your friend loved it! Smilingly, his single belabored nitpick (past inevitable Mormon righteousness) argues from the opposite political extremum of Marshdrifter's Critique.

A stale postscript (two weeks ago readers, listen up):

I watched Last Crusade not long ago and realized something important: while flecked by certain slightly-bad effects (airplane compositing, and more importantly: motionless hair of Indy & Dad as they biplane to safety), no one seems to criticize them. I think this is because fanly affinity for the original films has ossified into a blind, sacrosanct nostalgia. We certainly aren't jettisoning the rest of the movie for these areas.

How can one claim to be concerned about characters, story, and overall quality when one makes five-second digital rodents the fulcrum of a film's success?

In my opinion, if you're caught up on such banalities, you don't deserve to enjoy the movie.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Metro Dynamics,

quote:

Originally posted by Newro:
Spielberg: "Well, what if Indiana Jones is helping E.T. to get back home."
Exec: "Keep talking."
...
Spielberg: "And this time, instead of a bicycle, the boy will use a motor bike."

This is actually very cool.

I loved the Taken miniseries, because, to me, they felt like a mix of a lot of classic Spielberg memes (Aliens, nazis, spies, army...).

The new Indy feels the same to me, and I love it.

Also, I love the logic behind :
"We can't have Marcus Brody in the movie?
Let's put a big statue of him instead!"

quote:

Originally posted by Metro Dynamics:
Ken, your friend loved it! Smilingly, his single belabored nitpick (past inevitable Mormon righteousness) argues from the opposite political extremum of Marshdrifter's Critique.

A stale postscript (two weeks ago readers, listen up):

I watched Last Crusade not long ago and realized something important: while flecked by certain slightly-bad effects (airplane compositing, and more importantly: motionless hair of Indy & Dad as they biplane to safety), no one seems to criticize them. I think this is because fanly affinity for the original films has ossified into a blind, sacrosanct nostalgia. We certainly aren't jettisoning the rest of the movie for these areas.

How can one claim to be concerned about characters, story, and overall quality when one makes five-second digital rodents the fulcrum of a film's success?

In my opinion, if you're caught up on such banalities, you don't deserve to enjoy the movie.

Quite.

I never got your follow-up email.

quote:

Ken, your friend loved it!

It's funny; I've only read Orson's Ender's game, and only subbed to his forum to post a long indulgent screed refuting Orson's attitudes toward homosexuality.

But folks there liked me and weren't afraid to disagree, and I've been hanging there for four years.

But even Orson knows that Indy is God, and Orson is essentially theistic.

I forgot to reply, I think, to your suggestion of sending my something via email.

By all means, do so.

"How can one claim to be concerned about characters, story, and overall quality when one makes five-second digital rodents the fulcrum of a film's success? In my opinion, if you're caught up on such banalities, you don't deserve to enjoy the movie."

CGIrats are very important to some people. To each his own. Being squeamish that five-second rats were insufficiently squeamish-making is my kind of squeamishness. ("The vomit looked SO fake!)

I was looking for a comments section, hoping without expecting to be surprised by a refreshing dissention-cascade. Instead I got linked out to The Ornery American and, I must say happily, spied there your familiar praenomen. Fifteen thousand posts . . .

I used to follow hatrack until Orson's fervid red-statedness took over. Regrettably he's affirmed the whole racist-intolerance-as-synonym-for-American-Christianity perception. Sobek forbid.

UberCanine, e-mail delinquency:

Minor hiccough caused by ThinkPad AC adapter failure. Thanks for reminding me.

Ken, I did send my initial Indy 5 thoughts to you. The title was slightly strange so it might have been spam-binned. Sent from doxiadis at gmail.

Indy 4:

A friend of mine said, "I liked it, though it's not as metaphorical as the Last one."

I replied, "You're right, but there was a metaphor: knowledge as a great power. Indiana almost says this at the end, and it's embodied by the obstacle-obliterating skull itself."

Took long enough . . .

At last, Icon Factory releases their Crystal Skull set. Fantastic despite absence of Interdimensional Saucer.