'Indiana Jones' plot details revealed!

[Scott_M]

11 minutes ago, Paulie Dangerously said:

Watched them all back recently and Skulls is a better film than Temple. Temple is fucking awful tripe from start to finish. Skulls had more memorable characters and better action scenes (ants aside) it's a hill I'll die on. 

I wouldn’t go that far, but Temple Of Doom isn’t a great film. At all. It has some great moments (the mine cart, the ending amongst a couple of others) but it’s not as good as the Raiders or Crusade.

I think the way films have gone in recent years isn’t set up favourably to Indy films. Look at James Bond. Before Craig, camp and a bit daft but under Craig it’s tough and hard. Arguably, the more campy films under Craig have been the worst received.

 

If you were to read the treatment for Indiana Jones, it’s inherently daft - 50’s school teacher, hunting historical artefacts, set like a 60’s TV show. It would have been the type of show Tarentino would pay homage to in OUATIMH. 
 

It worked in the 80’s where everything was a bit wink and nod, but audiences are past that now. 

 

My hopes for Indy 5 aren’t great, but James Mangold (Logan, Ford v Ferrari, Walk The Line and others) is a good director. He doesn’t often make a dud. 

[Scott_M]

Best thing about Tenple Of Doom is my LFC flag comes from it…

 

 

#topred.

[RedKnight]

No way is Crystal Skull better than Temple of Doom. ToD is problematic by today's standards and no Indy film is a patch on Raiders, one of the greatest movies ever made, but Crystal Skull has uneven plotting, dead ends, weird line deliveries and terrible CGI. Temple of Doom is better just for the bridge scene alone.

 

It's the sort of nonsense when people revise that the Star Wars prequels were actually good. They aren't by any marker of film making but at least Revenge of the Sith is entertaining.

 

As for Indy 5, Harrison Ford should've been making them in the '90s instead of Regarding Henry and its ilk. It's too late now but when it comes to Indiana Jones I compartmentalise. It's Raiders of the Lost Ark as a standalone and then there's others which are variations on a theme (horror, comedy, family) but only Raiders is, to borrow a phrase, the one true Ark.

[Paulie Dangerously]

38 minutes ago, manwiththestick said:

I tend to agree, I really don't like Temple despite enjoying it when I was a boy, I now find Kate Capshaw and Short Round very annoying.

 

I hated Crystal Skulls at first and there are still some things I don't like but like you, I prefer it to Temple of Doom.

 

Never thought I'd say that 10 years ago.

Like you, I remember ToD being my favourite when I was a child because of short round and the voodoo element. Watching with a mature eye it's clear the film is rubbish. Let's be clear here, Skull is no great film, but I'd sit through it again before Temple. 

34 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

I wouldn’t go that far, but Temple Of Doom isn’t a great film. At all. It has some great moments (the mine cart, the ending amongst a couple of others) but it’s not as good as the Raiders or Crusade.

I think the way films have gone in recent years isn’t set up favourably to Indy films. Look at James Bond. Before Craig, camp and a bit daft but under Craig it’s tough and hard. Arguably, the more campy films under Craig have been the worst received.

 

If you were to read the treatment for Indiana Jones, it’s inherently daft - 50’s school teacher, hunting historical artefacts, set like a 60’s TV show. It would have been the type of show Tarentino would pay homage to in OUATIMH. 
 

It worked in the 80’s where everything was a bit wink and nod, but audiences are past that now. 

 

My hopes for Indy 5 aren’t great, but James Mangold (Logan, Ford v Ferrari, Walk The Line and others) is a good director. He doesn’t often make a dud. 

I'm curious about the new one. I'll inevitably go and see it. 

7 minutes ago, RedKnight said:

No way is Crystal Skull better than Temple of Doom. ToD is problematic by today's standards and no Indy film is a patch on Raiders, one of the greatest movies ever made, but Crystal Skull has uneven plotting, dead ends, weird line deliveries and terrible CGI. Temple of Doom is better just for the bridge scene alone.

 

It's the sort of nonsense when people revise that the Star Wars prequels were actually good. They aren't by any marker of film making but at least Revenge of the Sith is entertaining.

 

As for Indy 5, Harrison Ford should've been making them in the '90s instead of Regarding Henry and its ilk. It's too late now but when it comes to Indiana Jones I compartmentalise. It's Raiders of the Lost Ark as a standalone and then there's others which are variations on a theme (horror, comedy, family) but only Raiders is, to borrow a phrase, the one true Ark.

I'm not overly arsed about things being problematic under the scrutiny of 2021. Having seen all 4 of them recently I just viewed skulls as a more entertaining snd enjoyable film than doom. Probably a better description would be that I disliked skulls less than doom.

[RedKnight]

I just can't have Crystal Skull's haphazard plotting that's often pointless and goes nowhere. Just off the top of my head there's:-

 

The character of Mac - pointless adds nothing to the film or plot

Mac's switching allegiances - Takes up needless time and makes Indy look gullible and stupid that he keeps falling for it.

The graveyard fight - Who are the attackers? Why are they like that? Why did they pick the worst line of delivery for Ford's "part time" line when a better one was in the trailer.

Going to the prison to look for Ox - Water-treading and full of exposition that adds nothing

The sand pit - Temple of Doom's liferaft/parachute stretches credibility but a snake as a rope?

The natives in the hidden city - They burst out of the walls, chase Indy for a few seconds and then they're all killed off-screen. Fuck me.

The spaces between spaces - Fuck me. You can't have aliens in a world where there are vengeful gods of Christianity and Hindu so let's say they're interdimensional instead.

 

Temple of Doom is coherent apart from the banquet scene which is racist, stupid and treads all over the exposition of who the Thugee actually are.

 

[RedKnight]

TL;DR I won't have it.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

13 hours ago, RedKnight said:

It's the sort of nonsense when people revise that the Star Wars prequels were actually good. They aren't by any marker of film making but at least Revenge of the Sith is entertaining.

I think the Clone Wars series has helped this revision by filling in all the plot holes. 
 

Reckon they will do something similar with Indy?

[VladimirIlyich]

First three were ok at the time.The fourth was shite, and as for the 5th 'What's the fuckin point?'

[Section_31]

Looks decent. Presume Phoebe Waller Bridge is playing Marcus Brody's daughter or granddaughter? Says Indie is her godfather.

 

 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Just can't get excited for it. Indiana Jones, for me, is live action stunts. An old man and CGI just won't cut it.

[RedKnight]

Still stand by what I said about Crystal Skull.

 

As for CGI, it's weird that films cost so much these days for what must be the CGI. Are practical effects even more expensive or can no one be arsed any more? I'd take a guy actually under a moving truck with an obvious trench over Shia LaBeouf swinging through CGI trees with CGI monkeys.

[ZonkoVille77]

I prefer when CGI is used sparingly. Really liked the last Batman film where they made the world look 'lived-in'. 

[Section_31]

15 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

I prefer when CGI is used sparingly. Really liked the last Batman film where they made the world look 'lived-in'. 

 

Same with Star Wars. The Mandalorian world was pretty small and simple. I remember watching Attack of the Clones at the pictures and almost had an epileptic fit.

[Trumo]

I don't expect it to live up to the first 3, but I would hope it's a lot better than the last one. What the Indy story really needs is for the artefact being chased to be extremely well known as it adds a lot more to the thrill of the chase and the aura behind it can be brought to life to aid the storytelling. The trailer for this one suggests loads of nostalgic callbacks to the plots and set-pieces we've seen before. No Marcus Brody as Denholm Elliott's been dead for ages, but Jonathan Rhys-Davies makes a welcome return as Sallah. We got Marion Ravenwood back in the last one, and we might see cameos from the screeching twins Short Round and Willy Scott in this.