Exactly! I had similar fleeting thoughts while watching. Everything is true! I've met people who essentially held that very view. There isn't a single mystical, religious or tabloid notion that isn't immediately embraced. One of my current co-workers fits this description, and he is a Born Again Christian. I mentioned to him once that he seemed poly-theistic to me. He basically said, well, there's only one God (or trinity), and all the rest are lesser supernatural beings. I don't believe in any of the above myself, but I did tell him that I would love to be a fly on the wall at a celestial "Meeting of the Gods." Currently, they might be discussing Indy 4, and how that Lucas fellow is on to them.

I'm confused as to how so many people missed that his name was "Mutt".
I was right there on his jacket, and to whomever asked why didnt we get an explanation, he offered it himself.
Because he picked it.
He had already pieced together for us that he was a half breed sort of guy. THat his father left, he didnt really fit in.

I chuckled to find that so many felt the aliens looked like ET. thats what my nine year old said. Personally, I didnt feel that way. I kept thinking Predator.

I loved the prairie dogs. But, we knew I would. For the young people I saw the movie with, it was a good way to ease them in.

Mac.. whatever.. he built story, move on. I hated him.

Ox... god bless John Hurt... I love him.
Much like Jim Broadbent.

The ants... interesting effect. Didnt phase me in the least.
The monkeys? blegh.

For me, the best moments?
"I have a bad feeling about this" garnered applause in my theatre.
and the first "cave" , "tomb"
yeah, okay, the sand on the steps was fine. I let that go. Wind and all that rot.
but I liked that scene.

Why would he feel like a mutt? Up until the reveal he thought his dad was an RAF pilot that died during the war (if I'm remembering that correctly).

I am only bothered by the prairie dogs in hindsight. Before I knew they weren't an anomaly but rather a harbinger of the bad CGI to come.

I agree that all of the previous Indy's, even the first one, had cartoonish effects and stunts. But want to reiterate (and echo Chernabog) that this time around it felt like EVERY stunt and action sequence was stupidly over the top and inflated by (surprisingly poor) CGI.

Another thing that has been percolating for me is that the movie suffers (and this isn't fair to it, really, but remains so) from feeling like it is no longer trailblazing but simply copying its own imitators. That is no longer a riff on a bygone style of movie making but instead a riff on The Mummy and National Treasure and such things. This was brought home when I saw the ending of Crystal Skull called a mash-up of X-Files and The Mummy Returns.

With the first three Indiana Jones movies, even when they weren't sterling works of craft I still felt like they were defining themselves and a genre. I didn't feel that at all this time. Is that fair to the movie as a standalone object? No, but then it isn't like it is being presented as a standalone object
but rather a segment in a generations spanning adventure. So I don't really feel bad for considering it within that larger context.

He did say that, later. But he also knew he didnt have a father anymore, and had used Oxley as a father figure.

But I dont think I so much meant that he was a mutt in the sense of mixed breed.

He knew he wasnt the IN crowd.
But either way, he said he picked it. And questioned why Indy might think it a poor choice.

However, this was MY interpretation.

iSm: what Cherny's getting at with the "diminish the quality" remark can be summed up by looking at what the prequel storylines did to diminish the character of Darth Vader in Star Wars Episodes 4-6. Vader was the ultimate evil, and we relished that. Now that he's just a crybaby who missed his mommy, not so much.

I'm in agreement with everyone who thinks Lucas should throw in the towel. I'm also thinking Spielberg should as well in regards to making any more movies based on his past movies. If there ever is an E.T. II, I would be very sad.

I was listening to a summary of the animated Clone Wars film on NPR last night in NA's car. Yoda's quote in the clip went something like this, "Jabba the Hutt's son has been kidnapped." It made me laugh. Close the door on the whole Star Wars thing now, Georgie.

Ok, but how does the craptasticness of Darth Vader in Empire Strikes Back (where he's a COMPLETE CARTOON CHARACTER, btw) go back in time to diminsh his badassedness in Star Wars? I think the same can be asked of the lametard prequels. They may depict a previous chronology, but they don't really reach back in time to decrease the quality of earlier-produced films.

Similarly, it's not fair at all to say that Indy 4 is derivative of movies that were derivative of Raiders of the Lost Ark.


Um, by the way, there was no cartoon action in Raiders of the sort on display in every one of the subsequent Indy movies. Though his lashing himself to the submarine periscope may have been preposterous (and, btw, was not even shown in the film), it was not a cartoon action stunt that Indy couldn't have survived.


EVERYTHING in Raiders was reminicent of graphic design comics and certainly reminiscent of Saturday-morning serial action ... but it was NOT cartoony on the order of Road Runner in the least.

That changed with the first sequel (a mismatching prequel) ... and while I'll admit Indy 4 brings cartoonism to the fore as never before, it's simply continuing the trajectory unfortunately established by its predecessors.

The "diminishes previous versions/episodes" argument is all about audience reception and how future viewers will perceive it. When you really really like a movie or series of movies, especially one that had the kind of profound effect on movie making and storytelling that Lucas and Speilberg used to be capable of, you hope that they become classics and continue to positively influence movie making and movie appreciating audiences. When a remake or sequel comes out that A) you think is vastly inferior and B) despite being inferior is popular enough to replace the original in the minds of the general movie audience, it can definitely dilute the future impact of the original.

If, in 10 years, the icon of Indiana Jones is a death-defying fridge instead of escaping a boulder via fancy whip-handling skills, then it's definitely changed the influence the Indy franchise has on our culture. While you may still enjoy the originals, you can't deny that it alters how the originals are perceived going forward. Whether it's for the better, for the worse, or a wash remains to be seen, but I do believe that a bad sequel has the power to hurt the perception of the original.

To answer Ponine - I thought his name was Mud because it sounded like he said Mud. I did not notice his jacket.

Ah. This makes sense.
next time, sit in the back row under the speakers to avoid drunk teenagers. Sound, is not an issue. :rolleyes: