Indy Marathon - Sunday 5/18
 

Hey, people. We've been discussing this a bit on the Indy 4 thread, and the movie musings thread. I figured we'd better make its own thread.

Tom and I are hosting a marathon of the first three Indy films this Sunday. We're thinking of starting around noon but we're flexible. We are not planning lengthy intermissions (enough to, say, stretch our legs and grab a snack, etc.)

Who's comin'? I know iSm's on board...

I'm up for it!!

There's always simul-watching and Skype...

We just got it - to video-chat with my mother, who's house-bound and across the country.

It's not yet determined - I believe may be determined by our guests' needs! Also we'd need to snag a laptop from one of our guests (our lone desktop computer is, sadly, upstairs.)

I'm thinking we're a yes.

I'm thinking agreeance.

Kali Maaaa!!!

There's no one I hate right now more than Indiana Jones, but that should change by Sunday. Grrrr, ebay / shipping / packing / fvcking nightmare.

Who is that kissing Indy in your avatar? It looks a bit like Michael Jackson.

oh, hahaha, that's my ex, Kelly. Yeah, she does kinda look like MJ in that photo, but not in real life. And with far less plastic surgery.

MJ has had less plastic surgery than Kelly?

Too late for us. We're about to watch 3 tonight.

So, is this still on???


Will we watch 'em in production chronological order or story chronological order? Or perhaps Countdown Mode?? Hahaha,

We're still on. We previously floated a noonish start and no one seems to have contrdicted that, so does that work for all?

And I think we should watch in production order. I don't think I want to start with Temple O' Doom.

I'll be at work unfortunately :(

Noon works for me.


I'm gonna bring some vintage stuff for show & tell. :cheers:

We will be there!

Woo hoo!

I am working all weekend. Bleah. But we are off to look into laptops (finally - I won't have to carry around the bright orange clamshell anymore!) so I won't have to leave the screening room to check on and deliver art and notes back and forth from artist to client. That would've sucked!

Heheh, we could barely get the DVD to work at first, much less Skype.

Sorry that didn't work out. The Indy Marathon was great.



I thought I would find it exhausting to watch all three of those in a row, but it turned out to be invigorating and quite the best way I've seen the mediocre sequels in a long, long time.

Generally a series fun to view with friends, this was a hoot ... and a great lead-up to next weekend's Swanktacular Screening of the new Indy 4!

I had my own private showing Sunday, and I'm glad I did.

I'd forgotten how cartoonish the originals were, Indy hanging onto the outside of a sub for a thousand miles, melting wax faxes, etc...

I think I'll go into Crystal Skull with a better attitude.

Anyone want to place a bet on Crystal Skull?.... I'll lay heavy odds that....



Note the use of spoiler tags. Don't blame me if you peek. I'm just guessing but I'm still right.

Thanks LSPE and Tom for a wonderful afternoon! I had to leave before the third movie - but watched it when I got home. Then, I stayed up for hours watching old "making of" TV specials from the first three movies. Indy fever, indeed!

By the way - iSm's "show and tell" was a real highlight. Good stuff all around...

Oh, sorry you missed the second half of show-and-tell -- Vintage original release International Raiders of the Lost Ark posters from around the globe. Hahahah, if I list them on ebay, I'll send you a link so you can at least see photos.

The comic-book touches in Raiders are high drama compared to the cartoon-antics in Temple of Doom. Though I enjoyed it perhaps more than I ever have, ToD stands out like tone-deaf thumb when watching all three.

I think the two sequels work better in the context of a series.


Raiders of the Lost Ark, on the other hand, stands alone as its own film. More than that, I think it actually suffers from being part of the series. All the clever bits that hint at a fictional backstory of Indiana Jones Aventures are somehow diminished when there really are other adventures. The homage factor is kinda canceled ... and that was a good part of the original's charm.


Still .... I enjoyed the films together so much more than I expected. And it was fun to see them with friends. It's going to be a blast seeing the new one with a BUNCH of friends!

So much fun, watching them all together! I was set for this to be some sort of ordeal. Turned out it was anything but.

I now understand why fans of the original have trouble with the sequels. I barely remembered the film, saw it when I was very young, but knew the sequels practically by heart. Raiders is much more adult in tone than I expected. Good film, of course. :)

I do still enjoyed the sequels plenty, even though watching as an adult, Kate Capshaw is much more blatantly awful than I remembered, and the less-than-spectacular Knight set to protect the grail hurts the whole powerful grail concept. All the action is still fantastic, the stories are still great, Short Round makes ToD, Connery is a perfect foil for Ford...I think they stand the test of time.


Was he really supposed to have held onto the outside of the sub? I assumed he made it inside somehow. Even so, I felt it a stretch that he could make his way into a German sub so easily and without explainer.

Oh, and by the time you begin the third film, and Indy is once again calling the spirituality at hand "ghost stories" and "mumbo jumbo", it's hilarious. "The Ark? Real. The power of Kali Ma? Totally. But the Holy Grail, that's a bunch of crap." As someone at the party commented, perhaps he had a grudge against that specific legend, since his dad was so obsessed with it.

Many thanks to LSPE and Tom for hosting. I wouldn't have gotten around to them otherwise, and now I'm all pumped for next weekend!

...watching some of the "making of" stuff last night - it became clear why ToD seems a little off kilter. Apparently, Lucas, who was going through his divorce, wanted to make a horror movie. Spielberg couldn't get his head around the horror concept, so he injected "funny" into it. Not a good way to start...

Anyone notice the bouncing rock in Raiders? When Marion and Indy escape the Well of Souls, they push a large rock to get out and when it falls, the shadow shows the large rock bouncing away.

Nope, Although I did notice the guy sleeping right next to where the stone came out.

I do hope Crystal Skull keeps to the same practice of actually doing stunts like dragging Indy under the truck rather than using CGI.

Yeah, I caught him too, that was weird.

This was probably the 2nd time I'd seen Temple all the way through. It really is not a good movie. As we said many times last night, Short Round saves it.

To me, the difference is easily seen in a comparison between the bar scene in Raiders and the cabaret scene in Temple. That cabaret scene is so bloody cartoonish, with the "oh, I almost have the thing I need...damnit, someone kicked it!" gag over and over and over. Bleh.

I still had the same reaction to the 3rd one I've always had. Don't like the bookends but otherwise enjoy the movie. The suckage at the end has been discussed, but I may be the only one who despises the River Phoenix flashback. I hate those kinds of hokey origin scenes where everything is explained by a single event (whip, scar, snakes, hat, lame). You start to expect young Indy to fall into an icy cold river and be forced to skin a cow, tan its hide, and make a jacket to survive.

I think ToD is awful, too. But I do love the editing of the spike room scene. It creates so much tension it's great. But other than that, it blows.

I consider Raiders to be Spielberg's best film.
:)

Me too. I found that to be cartoony as well. It was too perfectly and easily explained...

I do think that Phoenix did a fine job impersonating Ford.
:)

It was hot at the farmer's market.

Was it because you were in a wicker basket?
:D

Bwah-


ha!

So is it too late to join in the fun?

Nope, he lashes himself to the periscope with his whip and rides the couple of hundred (not thousands) of miles to a Mediterranean island. There's a long shot of the sub approaching the island, and you can see Indy on the periscope if you look. The dialogue, in German, indicates that they're going to maintain periscope depth ... but it's a very poorly edited sequence leaving viewers wondering how Indy survives a submarine voyage on the outside of a submarine. Even if they were to illustate it better, the sequence is the most preposterous in the film.

Yes, one of my favorite errors. There are a few other continuity mistakes where things fall apart on camera, but are "restored" in subsequent shots. And I love the hand-made mistake of the cobra reflection in the glass separator, and wish they hadn't "cleaned" that up for the DVD release. Bah.

HAHAHAHAHA!!

I seem to remember another goof up with the staff of Ra. He drops it into the hole and it hits the floor. As he climbs down the rope made from flags, the staff is leaning up against a wall. But it's been awhile since I've seen the film...

Not to mention that in reality pre-WWII diesel submarines could run submerged for only short distances and did their long distance travel surfaced. So staying on wouldn't have been difficult. Even if they had decided to travel all the way there submerged but periscope up they'd have had to resurface about every 60 miles to recharge batteries.

Not being seen by the watch posted outside when surfaced would have been at least as difficult as hanging on in the first place.

Ooooh, I'll have to watch for that. If I find a new error that I've never notice before, I'll be happy and amazed.


Oh, the big error in Temple of Doom was casting Kate Capshaw just because the director had the misguided hots for her.

Though I will say that her performance gets better in the last third when all she's required to do is scream. She's a great screamer, up there with Fay Wray!

If it weren't for Short Round, that film would have precious few redeeming qualities.


But after the marathon, I think I like it better than Last Crusade, which was decidedly meh in every way. The character interplay between Ford and Connery and even with Alison Doody is terrific. But the proceedings are otherwise lackluster in some way that I can't quite quantify.



It never occurred to me till yesterday, but how are they going to account for Indiana Jones being IMMORTAL in the new film (having drunk from the Holy Grail in the last one)??

You're immortal until you pass the seal in the hall, I think. That's why the knight was there and still alive.

I thought that only held as long as you did not cross the portal.

Indy's dad was healed while in the cave so he stayed healed but if he was shot after leaving.....

What GC said.


Damn faster typist.

For those not aware of it, IMDB features a pretty good listing of goofs, mistakes, continuity errors, etc. for most every movie in their database.

RotLA
IJatToD
IGatLC

Welcome to the dark side, my friend.

If Indy fever is still going after the release of Crystal Skull, there'll be a Casa de Mousepod Screening© of some of the peripheral Indy stuff (TV Specials, a Young Indy episode or two...) plus Gunga Din and some Republic serials...

That's what we surmised, but is it ever said outright in the film?

Yesterday was also the first time I was highly amused by the Templar Knight's sad and pathetic wave of good-bye to Indy and Co. when he realizes no one will be staying behind to take over his role as immortal guardian of the grail.

LSP and Tom noted it would have been a much better ending for Sean Connery to have had his immortality depend on staying on the far side of the seal and fullfilling his life-long Grail obsession by become Guardian of the Grail ... forever.


Oooh, I'd love it. I've got permanent Indy Fever! :iSm:

:)

So? The Grail cannot pass beyond the great seal. Fine. He could have easily said the power of the Grail does not operate beyond the great seal.

He didn't.



All one has to do, in the stated mythology, to gain immortality is to DRINK from the Grail. Both Indy and his dad do so. You don't have to carry the Grail on your belt for all eternity once you've taken a drink.


SHENANIGANS. Professor Jones and Junior are both IMMORTAL. No one said that immortality is cancelled if the Grail is taken beyond the seal. No one said you have to keep the Grail in the tiny chamber if you want your immortality thirst quencher to be valid.


So why does the 700-year-old Templar Knight look younger in The Last Crusade than Indiana Jones does a mere 20-years later in Indy 4??? There can't be that much mileage!!

Except that the Knight is one of three brothers who all drank from the Grail. And the other two are long dead.

"and the price of immortality"

That does kinda imply that one needs to have the grail with you to remain immortal. That you need to continually re-up the effects by drinking out of it for eternity.

Of course, if that's the case, then what's the point in the first place? And why does there need to be a guardian knight if the only "benefit" is that you get to live in a cave forever? Who cares if the most evil person in the world succeeds in getting there if they can't be immortal outside the cave, and can't steal the grail without causing a cave in?

The gurdian is not there to protect the cups mystic powers. It's the CUP OF CHRIST. That's why it needs to be guarded. It's HOLY. You don't want those blasted infadels getting their grubby paws all over your holy relic. Just look at the controversy over one little copy of the Koran. Imagine if that had been an original copy.....

He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find the holy grail in the Castle of Aaauuuggghhh...

But they can't take it out of there. That seems like a pretty air-tight security system to me. I'm starting to think Mr. Knight thought of the whole, "Stay here and 'protect the grail'" thing himself.

And who exactly thought someone would be dumb enough to think that one of those plates was the grail?

Nope, sorry. Ghoulish Delight Johnson is right.


There's zero point in obtaining the Holy Grail if your immortality depends on baby-sitting it all alone in a dark cave inside Petra ... for the rest of time.



Also, as he noted after the screening ... Ho-Hum on the Maguffin being something that confers no tangible benefit on the Nazis, while the Lost Ark would purportedly have allowed them to conquer every army on earth via leveling mountains and laying waste to entire regions ... if it were not for the innate revenge motive of the God of the Hebrews to exact upon the Nazis ... also missing from the more ho-hum Grail of Christ.


Also ho-humming about the quest for the Grail is that the prize is not gained till the end of the movie. It's so much better in Raiders when finding the Maguffin is not nearly the climax of the film ... but getting it stolen back and forth makes the last third an exciting game of the "Raiders" of the Lost Ark, and not simply a story of Indiana Jones.


mousepod insisted Raiders is just as much walking from room-to-room for a new setpiece as Temple of Doom ... to which I reply, Balderdash.


Stereotypical as it may be (and I daresay that's the point), having the Ark captured, stolen, re-captured, re-stolen is all great story stuff relating to the stated goal, and not simply stuff that happens as Indy walks into the next room of the same big building.


Some may say it doesn't make a difference if the action is related to the Maguffin or not, but I disagree. Just as I find the later Bourne films greatly lacking without the opening "gimmick" of Jason's amnesia (not to mention a love story you care about), Temple of Doom is lacking for (among too many other things) the action not really relating to the Maguffin (and certainly not having a love story you care about)

Being good archaeologists, hopefully the Jonses reported where and when they saw the cup last. And they should also say it may be near the dead body of Elsa Schneider.
:)

Maguffin Shmaguffin.

OK: iSm gets bonus points in my book for the Blazing Saddles reference!

iSm... you can "balderdash" me all you like, but the truth of the matter is that the Indy series (and especially the first two) are a series of setpieces strung together... in fact, several setpieces were written for the first movie (the raft, the mine car) and were ditched for time and budget constraints, and were put into the second movie. The actual plot came second.

... and as a Hitchcock fan, I dispute your use of "macguffin" - I think the Ark, the Stone and the Grail all serve a purpose other than to move the story along...

I see your Balderdash and raise you a Shenanigans.

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.


Temple of Doom had zero Maguffin and Last Crusade had a boring one.



Also, as Jen pointed out yesterday, Raiders of the Lost Ark has a decidedly more adult tone than its sequels. I hated the dumming-down for kids that started with Temple of Doom. Short Round may be a great character, but he's a symptom of that slide.

The sickly sweet ForGod'sSake Save-The-Children stuff, the replacement of snappy 30's banter dialogue with stupid kid-stuff talk, the trading of twisted comic-style gore for retardedly juvenile gross-outs, the substitution of gritty outdoor shooting for glossy no-scuff set-boundness, and switching a girl you'd like Indy to sleep with for one you'd like Indy to kill are but others.


Indy 3 had some adult themes, but played them out childish ways. With some exceptions, most of the dialogue was dumbed down.

Also, the humor in Raiders was just keener and sharper than in the other films. Shooting the simitar dude, the Nazi coat hanger, and leaving Marion tied up to a pole were big laughs, and really rather witty ... especially when compared with the type of laughs in the other two films (and there are laughs, I'll admit.)



After seeing all the films back-to-back, it's harder to remember when each came out years apart ... and I expected each to stand on their own. They did not. They're much better now as part of a series, where I can just enjoy this or that setpiece or bit of business without expecting a begining, middle, end, resolution, climax or (lost) arc.

Dumb fact I learned while watching the "making of" last night. The nazi coat hanger gag was originally meant to be used by Christopher Lee in 1941, but Spielberg couldn't get it to work...

Not being able to leave with the cup doesn't to me imply that it has no value for immortality. If all drinking from it does is heal you, couldn't you return every 10 years for a rejuvenating sip? And if you do have to stay there, is it necessary for the dingy cave to remain a dingy cave? Tear down the mountain, build a fortress, and particularly in another 30 years start living a fully connected if admittedly physical restrained life.

Yes, couldn't you have a swanky cave all decked out with potato chip chairs in a sunken living room with a full bar? Couldn't you get the hottest babes in the world to come there and remain hot forever with a drink of grail water before drinking your cumloads on a daily basis for the rest of eternity?


The mythology was very poorly set out. But, as it exists, there's no requirement to stay in that room to be immortal. For all we know, the two other Brothers Templar were found impure for all the incestuous gay sex they had with each other on the long road back to France from the Crusades ... where their butchery of the Muslim hoards would not have counted against them in the eyes of the Christian God. They blew their shots at immortality when they blew each other.

Stop trying to derail this thread with sex talk.
:D

I may be wrong, but don't they find out about the you can't take the grail out of the cave part after they actually get there?? So coudn't the nazi's have wanted it for it's imortality qualities not knowing that you couldn't get it out of the cave?

That may have been the goal of the top brass, but while it'll bring them some personal glory, it's hardly a war-winning weapon, sending one cup around one person at a time.

Even Elsa said that the Nazi's just wanted it for bragging rights, while she was in it for the immortality.

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

Raiders is the best for every reason posted here in this thread. I love the other 2films a great deal - there's alot though that I don't like about them including the dumbing down of Brody and Sala in Last Crusade.

The thing about Temple of Doom, for me at least, was that I saw it in the theatre -70mm projection- from the front row and it was a great experiance. The bugs - the heart thing (which I'd like to try someday) - the minecar were all really amazing from that viewing. Seeing it on a little 19inch TV doesn't do it justice.

But...

Then you need to get a MUCH bigger TV!

Totally awesome video from Skipper Brodie (clockworkmonkey at MP).

It's Indy related.

Sure - send one over!!

If Harrison Ford didn't get dysentery, the scene where Indy shoots the guy with the scimitar would have been VERY different.

Then bless that dysentery - it would have been a much less amusing scene (and thusly subpar.)

I remember seeing that scene in the theatre and remembering how huge of a laugh it got. I mean, it went on and on. Awesome.
:)

Yes, I pointed out to the folks at the Indy Marathon how long that laugh went on during the opening night show at Grauman's Chinese Theater. It was the biggest, longest laugh I've ever heard at the movies, and finally died down to where you could hear the film again at the Indy close-up just before it's revealed he's looking at a marketplace Sea of Baskets. (Whereupon the audience began to laugh anew).



* * * *

I've had several people tell me they were fond of Temple of Doom because it's the one they first saw in theaters, bigscreen, 70mm projection.

And I thank the Gods and the Hebrew God that I was of an age to see Raiders of the Lost Ark that way (and of a mind to drop some acid on the way into the Chinese Theater). ;)

I liked Temple of Doom (and still do) because I'm fond of skulls (and occasionally ripping the hearts out of screaming peasants).

The screaming/moaning mummies were weird too in the Well of Souls... Never understood that...

I heard (I don't know if it's an urban legend) when the snake falls around Marion's neck in the pit, that it was actually Spielberg dropping the snake from a catwalk on her. Her look to "Indy" was a genuine look of annoyance directed at Spielberg. Apparently, he got a good scream out of her, too.

Ok, so maybe I have no taste in movies, or maybe it's because I saw ToD as a kid and it scared the crap out of me, or maybe it's because I saw Last Crusade before Raiders...but Last Crusade is by far my favorite.

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.

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.

I thought he was dressed as Rick Wakeman.

Ooooo Liszt-O-Mania flashback!

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

to partially quote:
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.