Indiana Jones 5

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Rblu-Dblu

Now you're just pulling answers out of your a$$.

No, you misunderstand. These movies were an homage to adventure serials from decades ago. They weren't realistic. They were fanciful adventures that bordered on sci-fi. The bridge scene in III was an example of something you might find in such a movie. But because a movie is 2D, moviemakers would pull stunts like that, even though in real life it wouldn't have happened because of a person's depth perception.

[PH3AR]

Indy 4
Indy 5

[bboisvert]

Cool, now we're getting reviews of movies that aren't even scripted or released yet. I freaking LOVE the internet!

[Sabotage]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Not if Shia's in it, his character was one of the main reasons I didn't like IV.

Shia was the only bad thing about IV imo. I don't know why everyone was so angry about the whole nuclear explosion/refrigerator scene, there have been many scenes like it in the other Indiana Jones movies.

On topic now I'd love for another IJ movie.

[Rblu-Dblu]

Originally Posted by radagast

No, you misunderstand. These movies were an homage to adventure serials from decades ago. They weren't realistic. They were fanciful adventures that bordered on sci-fi. The bridge scene in III was an example of something you might find in such a movie. But because a movie is 2D, moviemakers would pull stunts like that, even though in real life it wouldn't have happened because of a person's depth perception.

No, you're saying we couldn't see the bridge because the movie was in 2d. You're saying Indiana Jones couldn't see the bridge because he was unable to see things 3dimensionally. So I'm guessing everyone in the movie has a lack of depth perception?

[bboisvert]

Folks... the frickin bridge led to an 800-year-old knight who had cups that would turn you to dust instantly if you drank from the wrong one.

Are we really going to quibble about how 'realistic' the bridge was? Really?

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

The plane thing was done for comedic purposes as a funny aside {and something that's theoretically possible}

I think explaining why someone surviving being exploded in a nuclear blast and surviving in a fridge is not only silly, but also kind-of crazy and deux ex machinae would take up far too much space for one post.

Logan

Actually, it's exactly the same: the whole "surviving a nuclear blast in a lead-lined fridge" is a joke referencing old cold-war safety protocol films, (as was the whole bomb-test scene). Even when I was a little kid in the 1980's, that was still the popular urban legend, that a lead-lined refrigerator would save you from a nuclear blast... except by then, there were new advisories telling people not to try it, because you could get trapped inside. Hence, the old general telling Indy, "didn't you know those things are death-traps?"

[Yautja]

Loved the last film, always look forward to Indiana Jones films

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Rblu-Dblu

No, you're saying we couldn't see the bridge because the movie was in 2d. You're saying Indiana Jones couldn't see the bridge because he was unable to see things 3dimensionally. So I'm guessing everyone in the movie has a lack of depth perception?

NO NO NO!!! I am saying the moviegoer couldn't see the bridge because it blended in with the background so well. Indy couldn't see it because the script said he couldn't. In real life he would have. It was just a Hollywood moment in the movie. It wasn't realistic. Most people in the audience may never have even thought of that because they were just enjoying the movie. If the movie had been in 3D, we should have been able to see it through depth perception. It was just a Hollywood trick that was not unusual for that genre of movies that Indy was paying homage to.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

Folks... the frickin bridge led to an 800-year-old knight who had cups that would turn you to dust instantly if you drank from the wrong one.

Are we really going to quibble about how 'realistic' the bridge was? Really?

No, but that was my point. The Indy movies weren't realistic. They were fantastic adventures. So there is nothing wrong with my pointing out that the bridge scene was not realistic and in real life the bridge would have been seen.

[Kryptonic]

The movies are pulpy adventure stories with fantastical elements. All of them fit that mold and I enjoy all four for what they are. I would rank them as Raiders/Doom tied for first and, then I consider Last Crusade and Skull about even as well. The latter two lack the more hard-edged punch of the first two, which is why I think they're ever so slightly lesser in quality, but still great fun.

[BluraySe7en]

They can go ahead and make another one if they like but they won't be getting my hard earned money to see it, the last one utterly dreadful and an insult to the previous 3.

Raiders is probably the greatest action adventure movie of all time, The Beards well and truly struck gold with this one, paced to perfection and just an utter blast whenever it's watched. The sequels are a considerable drop but still very entertaining, I regard 4 as completely different film and are happy to think they finished as they rode of into the sunset at the end of Crusade.

Now get the Trilogy out on Blu ray I don't care for Spielberg's later films on Blu (save Munich) but this and Jaws I want ASAP.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by radagast

NO NO NO!!! I am saying the moviegoer couldn't see the bridge because it blended in with the background so well. Indy couldn't see it because the script said he couldn't. In real life he would have. It was just a Hollywood moment in the movie. It wasn't realistic. Most people in the audience may never have even thought of that because they were just enjoying the movie. If the movie had been in 3D, we should have been able to see it through depth perception. It was just a Hollywood trick that was not unusual for that genre of movies that Indy was paying homage to.

You are, in fact, correct. I think some of you kids need to watch it again. The top surface of the bridge has an appearance that blends in perfectly with the native rock. The illusion would break down the moment Indy moved his perspective, (as it did for the audience when the camera perpective moved). For that illusion to work, Indy would have to be restricted to a specific position and visual perspective.
If he didn't know what he was looking for, it's possible he would be fooled, but odds are, in the real world, he would have noticed something, and taken a closer look. Like most movies, if you think about it too hard, the gags and gimmicks come apart. My suggestion, however, is to try not to think about it too hard, it's just a movie... which isn't always possible, some gaffes are just too stupid to ignore; but that isn't one of them.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

You are, in fact, correct. I think some of you kids need to watch it again. The top surface of the bridge has an appearance that blends in perfectly with the native rock. The illusion would break down the moment Indy moved his perspective, (as it did for the audience when the camera perspective moved). For that illusion to work, Indy would have to be restricted to a specific position and visual perspective.
If he didn't know what he was looking for, it's possible he would be fooled, but odds are, in the real world, he would have noticed something, and taken a closer look. Like most movies, if you think about it too hard, the gags and gimmicks come apart. My suggestion, however, is to try not to think about it too hard, it's just a movie... which isn't always possible, some gaffes are just too stupid to ignore; but that isn't one of them.

I don't know, I have seen some street art that is pretty convincing even when you are there. Not only that but if I remember correctly there was a bit of an edge (i.e. bridge was lower then where he was before the first step) so that would add to the difficulty. Plus we are talking about a dark cave, so lighting would also be an issue there. Don't get me wrong, with hundreds of years the illusion might be ruined with cobwebs and dust and stuff, but I am sure if someone wanted to make the illusion work today, they could (and you would not need people with impaired depth perception.

[Anthony P]

I agree with people saying that 4 was the worst and if this one is anything like it then it is better if not done. The only up side that I see is that as someone else pointed out 2 was the second worst so maybe odd numbers are lucky.

As to the person that asked why are aliens more unbelievable then a chalice that makes water into immortality or stone of powers or a magic box, I think there are two things.

1) we all tend to believe in something supernatural, if we want to admit it or not. So it is a bit easier then something we know is not right

2) it was not aliens (alone) that was the issue. We have a crystal skull, right, somehow you have a tribe of dead aliens in a small stone chamber, he puts the skull on one of the skeletons and then all of a sudden all the aliens reconstitute themselves and become alive again, then they take the ship which crash landed centuries if not millennia ago and deep enough underground and fly off to where they came from. That is where it became nonsensical and unlike the others where you need one degree of believe in the absurd you needed 10 degrees not only that aliens exist, that they crashed here, that they repaired the ship in the stone age, but that somehow if one of them has lost his head then all of them are skeletons, if the head is reattached then all of them come back alive, that someone managed to cut the head off of one of them and that somehow the repaired the ship before the head was lost but they did not want to leave until the head was chopped off and put back on.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I agree with people saying that 4 was the worst and if this one is anything like it then it is better if not done. The only up side that I see is that as someone else pointed out 2 was the second worst so maybe odd numbers are lucky.

As to the person that asked why are aliens more unbelievable then a chalice that makes water into immortality or stone of powers or a magic box, I think there are two things.

1) we all tend to believe in something supernatural, if we want to admit it or not. So it is a bit easier then something we know is not right

2) it was not aliens (alone) that was the issue. We have a crystal skull, right, somehow you have a tribe of dead aliens in a small stone chamber, he puts the skull on one of the skeletons and then all of a sudden all the aliens reconstitute themselves and become alive again, then they take the ship which crash landed centuries if not millennia ago and deep enough underground and fly off to where they came from. That is where it became nonsensical and unlike the others where you need one degree of believe in the absurd you needed 10 degrees not only that aliens exist, that they crashed here, that they repaired the ship in the stone age, but that somehow if one of them has lost his head then all of them are skeletons, if the head is reattached then all of them come back alive, that someone managed to cut the head off of one of them and that somehow the repaired the ship before the head was lost but they did not want to leave until the head was chopped off and put back on.

And that someone can survive a nuclear blast in a fridge.........

Logan

[Anthony P]

I like the idea of Atlantis, but I think an island might not be that interesting (obviously like CS there could be something interesting about the place)
I like the idea of fountain youth (plus they could make him drink from it and then we can have the new adventures of IJ with a different actor playing a younger IJ after the drink)
I was also thinking of something like Pandora's box (but that could be too similar to the Ark) or Golden fleece

But wasn't there rumors that it would start off with Genghis Khan and then the main adventure be the holly cross? where they wrong? did things change?

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

1) we all tend to believe in something supernatural, if we want to admit it or not. So it is a bit easier then something we know is not right

Speak for yourself. It's all paranormal B.S. to me. Aliens, ghosts, Jesus, magic, astrology, angels, bigfoot, etc., it's all the same to me, and there are plenty of others like me. There are also many, many people that are thoroughly convinced that all that alien-and-UFO stuff is true, (I'm NOT one of those people).

It's all legend. There is no proof of the existence of the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail. There is, however, a real Mitchell-Hedges skull, as well as many other crystal skulls. New Age kooks think these skulls have powers. Whole cults exist around those things.

2) it was not aliens (alone) that was the issue. We have a crystal skull, right, somehow you have a tribe of dead aliens in a small stone chamber, he puts the skull on one of the skeletons and then all of a sudden all the aliens reconstitute themselves and become alive again, then they take the ship which crash landed centuries if not millennia ago and deep enough underground and fly off to where they came from. That is where it became nonsensical and unlike the others where you need one degree of believe in the absurd you needed 10 degrees not only that aliens exist, that they crashed here, that they repaired the ship in the stone age, but that somehow if one of them has lost his head then all of them are skeletons, if the head is reattached then all of them come back alive, that someone managed to cut the head off of one of them and that somehow the repaired the ship before the head was lost but they did not want to leave until the head was chopped off and put back on.

Sure sounds like supernatural poop to me.

Angels and the Ark of the Covenant, Crystal Skulls, magic Indian stones, even the Holy Grail, all have something in common (besides being in Indiana Jones films): they have all been New Age/occult fads in very recent history. Go to any major bookstore, and you will find all of the aforementioned topics in the same section: occult/new age.

[vegeta88]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I like the idea of Atlantis, but I think an island might not be that interesting (obviously like CS there could be something interesting about the place)
I like the idea of fountain youth (plus they could make him drink from it and then we can have the new adventures of IJ with a different actor playing a younger IJ after the drink)
I was also thinking of something like Pandora's box (but that could be too similar to the Ark) or Golden fleece

But wasn't there rumors that it would start off with Genghis Khan and then the main adventure be the holly cross? where they wrong? did things change?

NEVER!!!




I probably would not be interested in an Indiana Jones movie with out Harrison Ford.

I just recently watched the "Basket Chase" scene from Raiders on my DVD (the single shot with the close-up is so awesome). Man does the DVD look bad. We need the Blu-ray soon.

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

Folks... the frickin bridge led to an 800-year-old knight who had cups that would turn you to dust instantly if you drank from the wrong one.

Are we really going to quibble about how 'realistic' the bridge was? Really?

This.

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Actually, it's exactly the same: the whole "surviving a nuclear blast in a lead-lined fridge" is a joke referencing old cold-war safety protocol films, (as was the whole bomb-test scene). Even when I was a little kid in the 1980's, that was still the popular urban legend, that a lead-lined refrigerator would save you from a nuclear blast... except by then, there were new advisories telling people not to try it, because you could get trapped inside. Hence, the old general telling Indy, "didn't you know those things are death-traps?"

This as well.

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

The movies are pulpy adventure stories with fantastical elements. All of them fit that mold and I enjoy all four for what they are. I would rank them as Raiders/Doom tied for first and, then I consider Last Crusade and Skull about even as well. The latter two lack the more hard-edged punch of the first two, which is why I think they're ever so slightly lesser in quality, but still great fun.

And this.