Movie/TV recommendations

[LOPcagney]

Indy 4 was middling, but I'd never say it was a bag of arse, despite its faults. I still enjoyed it.

Yeah. The aliens were ridiculous and the whole first sequence was unbelievable, but it was fun, and rewatching Raiders and the Last Crusade (Temple of Doom was pretty bad), the new Indy hasn't gotten any hammier or unbelievable. The whole

nuclear test

sequence was the equivalent of having Hitler sign his father's journal in the third movie, and the deaths, even though they've gone from being stop-motioned to CG'ed, haven't gotten any less believable or over-the-top. My complaint was just that they had to introduce

sci-fi

to the formula, but it certainly didn't ruin the movie.

[Nachimir]

That was my main gripe too, but outside of that it just felt like it was ticking boxes.

[DanJW]

I'm sure it's OK, but I despise genre skipping. It was the hop from pirate ghost story to fantasy that ruined the Pirates of the Carribean movies, for instance. They may as well have had a sequence in which Indiana jumps of an increasingly large sequence of Sharks. Mutant alien robot zombie sharks.

[LOPcagney]

I'm sure it's OK, but I despise genre skipping. It was the hop from pirate ghost story to fantasy that ruined the Pirates of the Carribean movies, for instance. They may as well have had a sequence in which Indiana jumps of an increasingly large sequence of Sharks. Mutant alien robot zombie sharks.

Haha, very well put.

[Ginger]

It was the hop from pirate ghost story to fantasy that ruined the Pirates of the Carribean movies

It greatly took away from the charm of the films, but I think its biggest problem was that the plot seemed like it was written to fit in around a load of action sequences, so u get this messy story that lacks direction jammed in between overly long action/comedy sequences which don't progress events at all, oh and the plot that they felt need to spread over 2 quite long films could have easily been fitted into a single normal length film.

[Wrestlevania]

The whole

nuclear test

sequence was the equivalent of having Hitler sign his father's journal in the third movie

Surviving ground zero by hiding in a fridge is equivalent to blundering through a mass gathering of the Third Reich..?

It was the film's lazy switch from relying on mythology and mysticism that removed the Indie charm for me. What's wonderful about the original films is their exploration of stories that have been around for thousands of years, yet no-one really knows the truth about whether they're real or simply myth.

Falling back onto something that happened just a couple of decades back from the viewers' present felt shallow, cheap and rather pointless by comparison. I have no respect for the direction this film took, because it had no apparent respect for the 3 films - and everything they coveted - which came before it.

Indiana Jones used to be about demystifying the ancient; Kingdom of the Crystal Skull just felt like a 'by the numbers' cash-in.

[ThunderPeel2001]

It was the film's lazy switch from relying on mythology and mysticism that removed the Indie charm for me. What's wonderful about the original films is their exploration of stories that have been around for thousands of years, yet no-one really knows the truth about whether they're real or simply myth.

Well, the Ark is real, and that's a very cool idea (and it was by far the best movie, too), but the Sankara Stones possessing children?! A man reaching into people's chests and pulling out their still beating hearts? I think you need to watch Doom again, pronto (it's terrible!).

The Holy Grail was made up in the French poem "Perceval, le Conte du Graal" in the 1100's and even then it only became "holy" in later versions made by different authors.

By comparison, the Mayan crystal skulls actually actually ARE real and remain a mystery for modern science. There are 13 "master skulls" and we still don't know how they were made and by whom. There is ancient superstition surrounding them saying that you should never look into their eyes, too. So aside from the beginning, it does stay true to the "ancient mysteries" bit... even if it comes to an 'unconventional' conclusion.

I do understand that it's probably hard for people to swallow the

sci-fi elements. But I think they did a decent job of adding a tough sell like aliens to the Indy canon (and no friendly ETs/Jar Jars/Ewoks - which is a small blessing!).

Does that lessen your disappointment any?

Read more:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6_1.htm

http://www.mendhak.com/80-the-13-crystal-skulls.aspx

Some quick mystical/theoretical blurb about the Crystal Skulls (pre-Indy4):

One of archaeology's most compelling mysteries is that of the 13 Crystal Skulls. Skulls have been one of the most powerful objects of symbolism in human history, all over the world. Several "perfect" crystal Skulls have been found in parts of Mexico, Central and South America. Together, they form a mystery as enigmatic as the Nazca Lines, the Great Pyramids and Stonehenge.

These skulls are believed to be between 5000 and 35000 years old. During early expeditions, archaeologists were told by locals that the skulls possessed magical powers and healing properties. However, people were unsure as to where they came from, or even why they existed. Some like to believe that these were remains from the lost civilization of Atlantis. Others like to believe these are fakes. And yet another group of psychics believe that these skulls have the capability to enable us to look into the past, present and future.

Historians and social anthropologists decided to find out more about the strange skulls. Very soon, they came across an ancient Indian legend saying that there had been thirteen crystal skulls of the Goddess of Death; they had been kept separately from each other under the strict control of pagan priests and special warriors.

Searches for more skulls started; some of them were found in museums and some in private collections not only in the USA, but in Mexico, Brazil, France, Mongolia, and in Tibet. There were more than 13 skulls found. However, not all of them were as perfect as Mitchell-Hedges- was. Very likely, those were just later attempts to create something similar to the original skulls that were believed to have been gifts by God to the people.

The very construction and make of the skulls defies common logic.

[Nachimir]

By comparison, the Mayan crystal skulls actually actually ARE real and remain a mystery for modern science. There are 13 "master skulls" and we still don't know how they were made and by whom. There is ancient superstition surrounding them saying that you should never look into their eyes, too. So aside from the beginning, it does stay true to the "ancient mysteries" bit... even if it comes to an 'unconventional' conclusion.

They're fake:

A detailed analysis of the crystal skull's surface has revealed that it was cut and polished with the sort of rotating wheel common in the jewellery houses of 19th Century Europe but absent in pre-Columbian America.

Historians and scientists believe that the crystal skull was cut from a piece of Brazilian rock crystal by a lapidary in Europe, possibly Germany, and then sold to collectors as a genuine relic from the ancient Aztec civilisation of Mexico.

and Roswell has been done to bloody fucking death. All the Indy films are based on myth, but IV just doesn't have the historical cojones of any of the others.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Well it's just as fake as everything else then

[LOPcagney]

Surviving ground zero by hiding in a fridge is equivalent to blundering through a mass gathering of the Third Reich..?

The idea of establishing the time period by having the main character have chance brushes with historical figures and events.The 30's and 40's were dominated by Hitler and the Nazi party, while the 50's marked the first real decade of the Cold War.

[ysbreker]

I know the trailer promised a lot, but 'Be kind, rewind' delivered! What an awesome movie. A++ would definately watch again! :tup:

also:

http://www.bekindmovie.com/google_home.html ahahahahaha!!!

http://www.bekindmovie.com/youtube.html

[n0wak]

Well, the Ark is real:

Wait... what?

I haven't seen it yet, but do you people realize that the new Indiana Jones movie was originally supposed to be Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars. I guess "the big three" changed their minds--somewhat--again.

George Lucas wanted to call the new 'Indiana Jones' film 'Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars'.

The film's producer had his idea firmly rejected by actor Harrison Ford and director Steven Spielberg as the three men struggled to reach an agreement for around 10 years.

Spielberg said: "There was a point where I thought George and I would never agree on the story, and I was fine with that.

"George and I are best friends, and we always argue, and we always debate. That's been the nature of our relationship since we met in 1967."

'Star Wars' director Lucas had commissioned Jeb Stuart - who wrote the script for 'Die Hard' - to write his version, which saw Indy go up against Russian agents and had a climatic battle scene between the US army and alien flying saucers.

Ford added: "It takes time to get Steven, George and me on the same page. George is very stubborn with his ideas."

[DanJW]

That completely fails to surprise me. Lucas has gone proper mental. Or perhaps he always was.

[Wrestlevania]

I'd definitely say the latter, but has only had the commercial clout to wrestle the reins away from anyone else now and keep them pretty much for himself.

That's how I've determined the gulf in quality between the original Star Wars films and the new ones. It also surmises what happened to Indie (to my eyes) pretty plainly, too.

And, as I've said before, Spielberg's not made an important film for well over a decade. It wasn't a match I expected great things from, but I'm still staggered at just how shitty the outcome was.

If you haven't already, go and see Iron Man. Mrs V and me did a couple of weeks back and it's great fun; good characters coupled with a well-paced story and excellent performances from Downey Jr, Paltrow and Bridges.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Wait... what?

The Ark of the Covenant is a real lost peice of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant

Unlike the Holy Grail, it IS mentioned in the Bible (and other, more historical, documents).

I'd definitely say the latter, but has only had the commercial clout to wrestle the reins away from anyone else now and keep them pretty much for himself.

I'd say that was a bit of a myth myself. Nobody wrestled control from his hands during his first movies. His first feature film, THX 1138, was excellent in its own way and he had complete creative control. The same followed for all his movies, really.

If anything, from reading his biography and the mammoth (and utterly superb) "Making of Star Wars", he just doesn't seem to work as hard at getting the *perfect* script before he begins. Star Wars took SEVEN YEARS to perfect in script form, and even the penultimate draft wasn't much better than The Phantom Menace. (He only nailed the whole spirituality of the script in the last pass... before that it was just about crystals and things).

I respect him for sticking to his guns but at the same time I wish he'd find that fire again and put out something that *he* wanted to make artistically, rather than trying to make money from his projects (he can afford a financial dud, after all).

[DanJW]

The Ark of the Covenant is a real lost peice of history.

That article fails to include face-melting ghosts amongst the contents

Something obviously changed in Lucas' film style. The money-making seems like a good bet - like he's been influenced too much by flashy-but-crappy hollywood summer blockbusters. I remember him saying in an interview that Star Wars had to 'move with the times'. There's a lack of integrity in the work.

[n0wak]

The Ark of the Covenant is a real lost peice of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant

Unlike the Holy Grail, it IS mentioned in the Bible (and other, more historical, documents)..

Oh. Yes. It's in the Bible. That book is never wrong about anything.

[Nachimir]

It almost certainly existed. It was apparently built when the tribes were still nomadic, and later was in the most inner part of the Israelite temple where only the high priest could go. At some point though, it disappeared, most likely during the Babylonian invasion or the Roman sacking of Jerusalem, but noone ever fessed up. It just quietly went away.

Dan is right though, no mention of face melting ghosts coming out of it in the Bible, though one guy did get put to death by god for touching it when he thought a cart transporting it was about to fall off a cliff.

The existence of the Ark is pretty much one of the least outlandish claims in the bible though . Hence why the myths built up around it hold so much allure.

[ThunderPeel2001]

That article fails to include face-melting ghosts amongst the contents

Umm, did you expect it to? The Ark is real, what's inside it is up for you to decide. People believed it contained the power of God, or something like that. It is described as "the strength and glory of God" in the Bible, for instance.

Whereas the "Holy Grail" was completely made up by a French dude 1,000 years later. So at least it's a bit more historical.

Oh. Yes. It's in the Bible. That book is never wrong about anything.

Thud. What an impossibly inane comment. (No, I'm not religious.)

[ThunderPeel2001]

Dan is right though, no mention of face melting ghosts coming out of it in the Bible, though one guy did get put to death by god for touching it when he thought a cart transporting it was about to fall off a cliff.

Aye, which is why Indy and company never touch the Ark in the movie. Nice touch!

Also they designed the Ark to match the description of it from surviving accounts. Pretty damned cool

[n0wak]

Thud. What an impossibly inane comment. (No, I'm not religious.)

Two words: Citation Needed. Before you go around espousing the reality of the ark, back that shit up. I don't see how a four thousand year old myth is somehow more valid and realistic and "historical" than a one thousand year old myth.

Anyway, getting back on topic I watched two Richard Widmark films over the weekend: Panic in the Streets and Kiss of Death. Panic was so-so, but Kiss of Death was fantastic. What a classic, timeless villain. And that one scene...

[ThunderPeel2001]

Two words: Citation Needed. Before you go around espousing the reality of the ark, back that shit up. I don't see how a four thousand year old myth is somehow more valid and realistic and "historical" than a one thousand year old myth.

Sorry if I came across a little harshly. Here's what peeved me off:

I already acknowledged in my post that the Bible is a not a reliable source for history and pointed out that it wasn't what I was basing my knowledge on. (Hence my frustration at being supposedly "caught out" by you smartly claiming the Bible isn't good reference material.) If you wanted other evidence than the one I supplied, then why not use Google or even your local library?

Secondly, we're talking Indiana Jones. In the story of the film it doesn't matter one teeny jot if there's other historical documents backing it up or not: Because in the universe of the film God definitely exists, the Bible is accurate and nothing more is needed.

In the case of the Holy Grail however (which is sold as another "Biblical" story within the film), the "grail" doesn't even exist in any religious stories! So even if God definitely exists in the Indy universe and even if the Bible is wholey accurate, the Holy Grail is still openly fictional.

So once again we come to the conclusion that, for a variety of different reasons, Raiders is still the best Indy movie

[DanJW]

This argument started because of the recent debunking of the crystal skulls. But let me put it another way: with the new Indiana film mythology, it is entirely possible that they retcon all the religious artifacts - including the Ark - to be the product of alien technology. God is an alien. How would that feel? Because that's what the new film implies. Sucks don't it?

Back on topic again. I think I'm going to see The Happening next week. Not hoping for an awful lot, based on what The Village delivered, but because of the name I'm kind of hoping it's about 1940s beatniks. Totally Happening man!

[Wrestlevania]

I think I'm going to see The Happening next week. Not hoping for an awful lot, based on what The Village delivered, but because of the name I'm kind of hoping it's about 1940s beatniks. Totally Happening man!

Ooh, erm, not quite sure how to say this but I think it's got the most snigger-worthy bad trailer I've seen in years.

We dubbed it The Crappening. It just looks so... arse.

[DanJW]

Haha, you just know that the 'explanation' is going to be totally lame. Killer bees probably.

Oh well, I can get half-price tickets so it might be fun just to go and take the piss out of.