[QUOTE=GuanoLad]
Have you guys never seen the other Indiana Jones films? What’s wrong with you all? This is exactly like all the others, they’ve all been over-the-top action extravaganzas with lots of special effects.
[/quote]
There’s “over the top” action, and then “absurdly, ridiculously, visual effects enhanced” action. Much of what appears in the trailer is the latter. Except for the animation sequence in the end, essentially all of the action setpieces in Raiders of the Lost Ark were done with on-set special effects, and it shows; the framing puts you right into the action. In Temple of Doom the filmmakers made the mistake of trying to expand the scope of the action to epic scale, but using a lot of back-projection, greenscreening, et cetera, and it shows badly, as it does with the less effective bits of The Last Crusade; the best sequences in that film–that didn’t pull you out of the action–were those that were purely on-set, i.e. the intro, the motorcycle chase, and the tank chase. Compare the action sequences of the recent Casino Royale to some of the older Bond movies and you’ll see what I mean.
[QUOTE=GuanoLad]
I am totally confident that this will equal the others, as far as I’m concerned.
Your problem is you’ve all grown up, and think the movies should grow up along with you.
[/QUOTE]
That is an absurd criticism. First of all, I still think that Raiders is one of the best adventure films ever made, even moreso for being able to deconstruct the logical flaws in the plot and appreciate how the film overcomes them anyway. Second, I expect a movie to be, for lack of a better term, necessary; to provide entertainment on its own terms and by its own merits rather than simply trying to evoke the sensation of watching a predecessor. This is why many sequels are so mediocre even if they’re not actually bad films themselves; they essentially try to recreate the original film rather than tell their own story. The Bourne Ultimatum for instance, came off as just a pastiche of the previous two films, making it less interesting and predictable to a fault.
And third, it is wrong to argue that a pure action film should be given a pass from criticism about logic or plausibility (within the fiction of the film) just because it is only superficial entertainment; indeed, not having to carry around the burden of bearing some message or deep theme should leave filmmakers more time to focus on making it absorbing, to make it “work” without causing the audience to roll eyes. When Indy is chasing after the truck containing the Ark (“Truck? What truck?”) he’s not cracking jokes or lightly leaping from tree to tree like a cartoon superhero; he’s fearful, desperately trying to stay alive, and taking a lot of punishment. What sets Jones apart from his Nazi adversaries is that he’s not a characture. An action film doesn’t need to be so plausible that I could go outside and recreate the same stunts with no equipment, but it should be close enough to reality that I don’t leave the film doubting that even that character could, within his own reality, do such a thing.
Like I said, I have high critical standards for the film; I think it was ill-advised to make it with an aging Harrison Ford (who looked absurd even taking punches in Firewall); and what I see in the teaser suggests that my worst fears about it have come to pass, that instead of making an Indiana Jones film, they’re making a Tomb Raider film with Indiana Jones standing in for Lara Croft. Maybe the film will be better than I think, and regardless it will rake in big piles of cash for Lucasfilm even it is total dreck, but I’m not all that excited about what I see in the teaser.
Stranger
