Lounge of Tomorrow - Indy Marathon

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Beatnik (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - Indy Marathon - Sunday 5/18 (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=7901)

Urban legend, Gemini Cricket. At least as far as I can glean from every scrap of Making Of I've ever read. Hmmm, I don't think I've ever watched the DVD extras, though. Maybe I'll check into some of that.

The screaming mummies is, I suppose, a sound-trick that just worked way better than mummies making no sound. I guess there's really no orchestral score either ... so I give sound and sound effects a lot of leeway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan4dSteph (Post 211721)

My favorite part of Raiders is when the Nazi guy eats the fly.

Eh gads, that was completely disgusting!

Having had a few days to sit on these three films, I'm liking
Last Crusade more and more. Not better than Raiders by a long shot, but I really LOVED the rapport between Sean and Harrison. It really makes the film for me.

Raiders is still the best for all it's gritty perfection. It sure has stood the test of time.

ToD, as far as I am concerned, can disappear forever and I wouldn't be very upset. I really hope I never have to experience the pain of watching it again.

God help us with the new one. If it is as good or better than Crusade, I'll be fine with it, but I fear it will have way too many shticks and contrivences and I will be left cold.

Oh, and I LOVED Young Indy and haven't seen it since it was televised the first time.

The History Channel and History International have been showing the Young Indy series in two hour blocks for the last few months.

This guy really nailed the character.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor (Post 211842)

This guy really nailed the character.

I thought he was dressed as Rick Wakeman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoasterMatt (Post 211860)

I thought he was dressed as Rick Wakeman.

Ooooo Liszt-O-Mania flashback!

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman (Post 211699)

As Hitch rightly pointed out, the Maguffin is the object which the characters care greatly about, and the audience not at all. But the bargain between the film and the audience is made only when the characters care about the Maguffin ... and the movie is improved to the extent the characters demonstrate their concern for it.

I just found this "illuminating" article from yesterday's Columbus Dispatch:
Who's Got The MacGuffin?

to partially quote:

Quote:

The best way to spot a true MacGuffin is to substitute anything else for it and ask whether the movie would change. If the microfilm in North by Northwest were papers or jewels or a safe-deposit box key, would the rest of the movie change? Not at all.
While the MacGuffin propels the story, it shouldn't be mistaken for an essential plot device. The shark in Jaws isn't a MacGuffin but a key character. It has to be a shark, or the story can't be told.
What about Indiana Jones? Are his adventures driven by MacGuffins?
Lucas and director Steven Spielberg think so, but, with all due respect to the most successful filmmakers in the universe, they're wrong -- at least by Hitchcock's definition.
To Lucas, the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Sankara stones of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the Holy Grail in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and the crystallized skulls in the forthcoming Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are the MacGuffins that drive the plots.
But if, as Hitchcock argued, a true MacGuffin is arbitrary and of no dramatic importance, none of the first three qualifies (we don't know yet about the fourth). The contents of the Ark mete out terrible justice to the Nazis in Raiders, a Sankara stone provides security for a poor village in Temple, and the Grail saves the life of Indy's father in Crusade. Each is critical to its story exactly as it is.

So I guess we'll agree to disagree. Or rather, I'll agree with Alfred Hitchcock... and you can agree with George Lucas.:p

It's a matter of perspective I suppose. By that definition I'd consider the stones a MacGuffin because, from Indy's perspective, it could have been replaced. Indy didn't go into the Temple out of some need to find those stones. Substitute any one of a zillions artifacts that might have peeked his interest and he would have gone. There was no personal pull for those particular objects.

Compared to Raiders and Crusade where Indy expressed a clear personal investment in the object of pursuit in both. If it were anything else, Indy wouldn't have been as interested.

I guess the Shankara Stones are the most Maguffinish by the textbook defintion, and certainly that's another reason why I dislike ToD ... because they didn't bother to integrate the Maguffin into the story. It could have been anything that brought fertility to the Village and had RaveScene GlowyDiamonds effects when brought together on the dance floor.

So I retract. While any powerful supernatural Jewish artifact embodying God's Mighty Power would have done, the truth is there's probably very little on that particular menu other than the Ark of the Covenant.

Similarly, though I think the Holy Grail was used to less effect, perhaps only the Fountain of Youth could have provided a similar substitute for that particular story ... and not as apt a metaphor for the film's Father-Son element as the Holy Grail (though I think that metaphor was under-explored).

So I concede the nature of the Maguffin ... but not its dramatic purpose. The movies are better to the extent Indy, pardon the expression, joneses for the item, and fights like hell (over and over again) to get it.