I’m available.
That’s all I’m saying.
If anyone wants my input on a movie before going into production, don’t be shy… just ask.
I mention this in relation to the latest installment of Indiana Jones. The dust has settled. The filmmakers are safely in profit — they have a hit! And Indy 4 is an entertainment to be proud of. But for screenwriters, looking at all four films in the Bullwhip Quartet, it’s also a primer in the difference between good and great.
I propose that the first and the third in the series are the best. What do 1 and 3 have that 2 and 4 have less of? Let’s take a quick look at Raiders of the Lost Ark (1) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (3):
1. Both have clearly stated themes and “stories,” not just set pieces. And that is key!
2. Both 1 and 3 hit the points of the BS2 like clockwork; they are structurally solid.
3. Both show how relationships change with the action, and are not just tacked onto the story, and…
4. Both have really bad bad guys (and though it’s hard to beat Nazis, there is a point to this!)
In short, these things trump any action or set piece and without these elements, story suffers.
Let me just use the word “flabbergasted.” I was flabbergasted when I revisited the first Indiana Jones, which I did in preparation to see this summer’s installment. And right there before the adventure begins, Harrison Ford turns to Denholm Elliot and says “I don’t believe in black magic or superstition.”
Well, guess what? That’s the theme of the movie. That is the “arc” of what happens to Indiana Jones in the course of his first adventure. He goes from a non-believer, a scientist, a guy with a lot of whipsnap smarts but no heart, and slowly piece by piece finds “faith.”
The ending in which he alone, like Ulysses tied to the mast to hear the Sirens, is witness to the divine intervention of the Ark of the Covenant is proof that he has changed. And yet all along the way his “helper” characters in the B Story have been trying to convince him. “Don’t you see, it’s a radio transmitter to talk to God,” says fellow archeologist Belloq midway through the adventure. But Indiana, at this point, is unfazed.
I was also delighted when I realized how precisely the first Indiana Jones hits the marks of the BS2. It had been a while since I saw it and the joy I felt in seeing its midpoint “false victory” surprised even me. When Indiana discovers the whereabouts of the Ark, only to find Karen Allen is alive, it’s the one-two punch of a classic midpoint. I’d forgot. “Sex at sixty!” I yelled when they kissed. That’s the oldtime screenwriter’s phrase for when the boy and girl kiss at the first hour. It’s the A and B story cross, followed quickly by one of the great reverses in movies when Indiana has to tie her back up again, or risk his real rescue effort.
But it’s all to the point of the “spine” of the story, the “greatest event that ever happened to Indiana Jones” — the story about how he started without faith and, over the course of a wild adventure, found it, by amending his past misdeeds, learning to love, and discovering a power greater than himself!
A movie that’s “about something” is also part of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the third installment co-starring Sean Connery. Here again, 3 has a story beneath the hijinks, that of a relationship between a father and son, and the son’s quest to make his dad proud. Amid all the chase scenes and derring-do and wonderful set pieces, that is how each bit “moves the story forward.”
Once again, Indy is learning faith here, too. And structually, it is also one of the great examples of what I call the “Five Point Finale” in Act Three when Indy has a choice: the prize of a great archeological treasure or saving his father’s life. It is one of the great “dig, deep down” moments that ranks right up there with “Use the force, Luke” to show what real faith is.
Finally, let’s talk Nazis. It’s not a coincidence that they are part of 1 and 3 and absent from 2 and 4. “Make the bad guy badder” is sure-fire screenplay physics that guarantees your hero will be a bigger, too. In 2, the evil is vague. In 4, it’s vague-er. And there is a blur even in the script that can’t quite decide if Communism is bad at all. What are the consequences of the Soviets getting 4’s treasure? Hard to judge.
Good as they are, 2 and 4 are missing these elements. Same great character, same great team running the show, same top flight A-list writers, and yet 1 and 3 are stories that are truly memorable. 2 and 4, less so.
So take note. Your script too must be “about something” and have meaning that touches us at a primal, and even spiritual level.
Do so, and your story will be memorable, too.
And if you want to ever talk, I’m here all week! I would have started by asking: “What exactly is Indiana Jones’ ‘problem’ at the beginning of 4?” How will this be “the greatest event that ever happened to the hero of this story?” If those questions are answered in any screenplay, I believe a more satisfying story results.
25 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I was wondering what the film was about too.
Also one of the main problems I had with the movie was that there was no clear goal for Indy. 1 has the arch, 3 has graal, but what does 4 have? It has the Crystal skull, but it showed not to be the final “goal”, like graal or the arch. Its powers were too undefined all the time, so to me, the stakes were not clear, just like Blake said (what if the soviets would have gotten the treasure? nobody knows indeed).
To me, it would have helped if only they would have elaborated more on the powers of the treasure, and make it more dangerous&exciting.
I get it! It’s a “character ark.” The Old Testament makes so much more sense now.
And “sex at sixty” took on a more literal meaning at the end of Crystal Skull. But boy, wouldn’t the movie theater be an even happier place if more of Hollywood was on board with the BS2.
Bang on comments by Blake.
I got up after the movie finished and thought “Wow, that was quite a ride but …. ” I felt empty although I had consumed an extra large bag of popcorn and a dark chocolate bar.
The Crystal Skull didn’t go anywhere for me … at the end, I wasn’t sure if I was supposed to be upset by the decimation of the “land before time set” or enlightened by the fact someone had figured out we are not alone.
But now, I feel full and can RIP.
“Five Point Finale” Blake, what are the five points???!
I also love 1 and 3 the most. I thought 4 was a mess, and the biggest disapointment of my movie-going life. I even liked Phantom Menace!
But what a timely post, Blake. I’m working on a big action movie, and sometimes those important details for a character, his inner journey, can get lost in the set pieces. I’m going to go back through my script and make sure I drive home my hero’s arc. Thanks for keeping me on track. That’s why I always look forward to your blogs.
Thanks for a very helpful (And free! Yayy!) comparison and analysis. I feel like I’ve just found another piece of the map I need on my quest for the holy grail of story structure.
Man, every time I read a post here I come away more informed, more motivated, and more eager to get my hands on a copy of the third STC book–an even bigger piece of the map! And I’ll gladly pay for it! :)
Good point Blake. I’m sure we all can agree with your analysis, but there are at least two more things worth to be mentioned here, too. We should have no illusion. Good stories are always about a conflict. A powerful confrontation, most often between two engaging characters. Blake says that the greatness of a hero is a direct reflection of the dark character’s badness. That’s definitely true, but there’s something more about the bad guys that makes the confrontation memorable. They need to be… fascinating ( to some degree, of course). Charismatic, devilishly intelligent, cunning and with a style, the bad guy often becomes a mirror in which our hero spots his own fears and weaknesses. There also must be some kind of intriguing connection between them. A common interest, skill or life philosophy they are both aware of. If the bad guy is developed well enough, he can become even a cult character just like Hannibal Lecter or Darth Vader. There’s little chance that Cate Blanchett’s character becomes one, too.
The second thing is believability. One of the basic functions of every movie is to make the audience forget where they are at least for a little while, to get them carry away. But when the very hero they identify with survives in the epicenter of atomic bomb explosion, flies inside a fridge hundreds yards through the air badly hitting the ground and laughs in a face of deadly radiation, then many can feel it as an intellectual slap in the face that quickly wakes everybody up reminding that it’s just a movie. Because who won’t ask himself/herself — “Oh, c’mon, do you really want me to believe in this?” And if they do, they will distance themselves from what they see and all the magic is gone.
I think the problem here comes from the school of thought that encourages all the filmmakers to use up to the very end every piece of a set, background and location to make the action sequence the most spectacular as possible, even if reality suffers on the way. Personally, I don’t agree with the thesis that there’s a contradiction between believability and spectacularity. Perhaps it requires more research, work and ingenuity to connect the both, but what the hell, this is what the modern audience is waiting for. New generations of young movie goers are not so easy to cheat.
Oh and BTW; my greetings to all the participants of Blake’s blog as I’m new here. This site really is a great source of inspiration and help, just as Blake’s books.
Welcome Alex!! Great comment! Glad to have you aboard!
Hey Blake!
I loved your review and analysis of Indy 4.
I liked and enjoyed seeing this movie of course, but like you, I believe it was subpar for the same reasons you do.
The thing that really bothered me was the heavy handedness of the ending. I did not want to actually see the alien, but rather the implied idea that there may be aliens, and maybe they were worshipped by the Indians centuries before!
Actually seeing the alien, and therefore knowing that space saucer taking off was indeed theirs, would be like a guy dressed as God jumping out of the Ark of the covenant and shooting lasers out of his fingers! Imagine, Randy Quaid as ‘God’! hahaha
Indiana Jones, to me, is the implication of the existence of supernatural beings and/or events, and not the event of actually SEEING them!!! It removes all the wonder that was present in Raiders.
I would have had the ending of Skull, go something more like this:
The temple collapses with the final Skull placed on the neck of the skeleton, our heroes run out as it crumbles, something obscurred raises out of the ground and disappears, and our heroes, now on the top of the mountain watching the canyon fill with water, stumble upon someabandoned Russian equipment left there hours before. Perhaps a truck, some boxes….and a old school film camera that’s still running!! ( a la Raiders) Just as our heroes are about to take the camera to see what may be on it…..BOOM- the American Military shows up, seizes he camera, spouts out some jargon about ” never speaking of this again or treason” and leaving!
Then the wedding of Indy and Marion can be intercut with the familiar scenes of some guy crating up the film canisters, spray painting the sides with serial numbers, and placing it safely in the same warehouse from the begginning of the film, which is the same warehouse one that ends Raiders! Ties up nicely!
This way, all the wonder of what Indiana Jones is, is left intact! Did the Aliens exist?? Was it an American Military test saucer??? Who knows!!
Cheers,
Darin
Also…on a side note, if indeed they had to show the alien, at least make it GOOD! I am in the Computer Animation FX field and I thought it was uninspired and bad looking! Have a gander a movie from 1993 called “Fire in the Sky”. Lucas’ ILM studio also did the aliens for this film, but they were puppets, and they looked 100x better, way more realistic, and that was 15 years ago!!! Computer FX are not always the answer….
cheers,
Darin
Here are the Five Points, Martin.
“I call it “The Five-Step Finale.” And I use it all the time.
For those of you wondering how to end your story, and what needs to get done in Act Three, try this:
Think of every Finale in terms of “storming the castle.”
Step 1: The hero, and the hero team, come up with a plan to “storm the castle” and “free the princess” who is “trapped in the tower.”
Step 2: The plan begins. The wall of the castle is broached. The heroes enter the Bad Guys’ fort. All is going according to plan.
Step 3: Finally reaching the tower where the princess is being kept, the hero finds… she’s not there! And not only that, it’s a trap! It looks like the Bad Guy has won.
Step 4: The hero now has to come up with a new plan. And it’s all part and parcel of the overall transformation of the hero and his need to “dig deep down” to find that last ounce of strength (i.e., faith in an unseen power) to win the day.
Step 5: Thinking on the fly, and discovering his best self, the hero executes the new plan, and wins! Princess freed, friends avenged, Bad Guy sent back to wherever Bad Guys go when they are defeated (Two Bunch Palms?) — our hero has triumphed.”
I have it copyed in my word program.:)
I don’t agree. 3 is the worst of the series, and both 2 and 4 DO have evil villains, meaning, and clear quests.
“Temple of Doom” has a clearly defined arc for Indy. In the beginning he’s after one thing: “Fortune and glory”. The stones represent nothing to him aside from the chance to sell them to a museum and gain the glory of being the discoverer. By the end, he no longer cares about that. All that matters is rescuing the captive children. He purposely lets two of the three stones fall away, and gives the third back to the villagers.
“Temple” also has some pretty clearly evil villains. They rip people’s beating hearts out of their chests and enslave helpless children in their mines! How much more evil can you get?!
As for “Crystal Skull”… it’s a story about the power of knowledge. In all honesty, I need to see it again to put all the pieces together, but it’s no coincidence that the villains are communists who freely profess to falsifying history with their propaganda and trying to control people’s thoughts. Spalko defines her reason for wanting the psychic power of the skulls very clearly in the camp scene. I can’t do it word for word, but basically: “Imagine, to look across the world and know the minds of your leaders. To put our thoughts into your minds. To make your teachers teach the true version of history, your soldiers attack on our command. We will make you into us. And you won’t even know it’s happening.” That seems like a pretty clearly defined consequence to me. And later, the aliens are shown to have been gatherers of knowledge, “archaeologists”, as Indy says. And he realizes that knowledge, seeking truth for yourself, is the true treasure.
“Last Crusade”, on the other hand, is very thinly plotted. The father-son stuff is great, but the quest plot is feeble at best. What’s the consequence if the nazis get the grail first? “The armies of darkness will march all over the face of the earth”, Henry Sr. says. But why, exactly? It’s never made clear. As it turns out, the grail wouldn’t have benefitted them at all because it couldn’t cross the seal, so the whole thing had nothing whatsoever at stake. And the entire movie is Indy going from set piece to piece for no particular reason. What’s the story purpose of the tank chase? Henry Sr. is captured briefly and they rescue him. Take that scene out and the story isn’t affected one bit. The totally uninspired boat chase? The bad guys apologize afterwards and say “god be with you on your quest”, so what exactly was the point of all that (pretty lame) action?
Just thought I’d present a contrasting viewpoint. :)
DS, you’re definitely right about 2 having an evil villain (that guy scares me!). Even though you don’t really see him all that much in the movie (he’s sort of behind the scenes for the most part). It also had a lot of great comedy (that dinner scene is unforgettable). And to me it’s a far superior movie than 4.
I just loved 3 because it was just a lot of fun. And it really gave me all the best elements of what, to my mind, Indiana Jones is all about. Comedy. Archeology. Chases on horses. Nazis. Judeo-Christian mythology and magic. Booby traps. Romance.
(Aside: I think the comment made by Henry Jones Sr. about the “armies of darkness” is in reference to the fact that the Nazis (and Donovan, more specifically) think the Grail will make them immortal and invincible. They don’t know about the seal, because that bit is only given to them (and us) when they meet the Knight guarding it (it is the price of immortality, as he says).)
Indy 4, however, looks like it should’ve been fun. But it wasn’t. At least for me, even though i tried so hard to like it. I think there was a cool story there, waiting to emerge (if you’ve read the Frank Darabont version of the script online, you’ll see what I mean) but the movie is just filled so many bad lines and situations that make you roll your eyes (even for an Indy movie, which is saying a lot!) that for me personally… it tainted a great franchise. In fact if I could choose just one sin that was committed in my mind by the storytellers, it was the way poor Marian Ravenwood was handled. A great feisty character, turned into a cardboard cut-out of her former self.
I’ll end this comment with one of my favorite bad lines in the Crystal Skull, uttered by Mutt, that really encapsulates my feeling for the movie:
“But God’s head doesn’t look like that!”
Love your critique of Indy 4, Blake!
And I know this is going to sound like I’m peddling hype for my own (soon to come) book, but the whole business of The Object in these films needs some going over.
One of the things I came to regarding Special Objects in films is that there are three types of objects. There is the Maguffin: which is an object in the story that the characters care about, but which the audience can regard with indifference — that is, the audience only cares about it because the characters care. But there are two other types of objects: Grails and what I call Swords. Grails are objects that are always good for people. And Swords are serious things that can be used for defense or offense. The mark of these two things is that if the audience met them outside the story, they’d probably say “Yeah, these are worth having around.” In short, the audience becomes emotionally invested in the object itself, because it means something to them.
Indy 1 & 3 both have Grail-type objects (well, 3 has the Holy Grail itself). But Indy 2… the stone isn’t quite a Grail. A little bit is set up to indicate it ought to be a Grail-type (that is, the land around the village has been devastated by its lost, and is healed at its return), but not enough to get the audience invested in it. But 4? The Crystal Skull is a total Maguffin. We’re not told what the effect would be if Bad Guys get their hands on it. We’re not told what mishandling will cause. We’re not even given a reason why Indy should return the Skull to its temple (other than Indy’s hokey “It told me”). So this whole distinction between Grails & Maguffins is another reason why Indy 4 feels flatter. We’re not independantly invested in the resolution as we were with 1 & 3.
I think another problem with the film is that Lucas himself mistook the nature of Indiana. It’s a problem I have always had with Temple of Doom. Indiana is an archeologist. In that opening sequence, he should not have been trading the urn and ashes of an ancient Chinese Emperor for a diamond, no matter how huge. It should have been the other way around. So when we get to Crystal Skull, this whole alien artifact garbage is so off the mark for the character. Sure, they tried to tie it to Meso- & South American ancient cultures, but it was … not well or convincingly done.
Okay, I’ll stop ranting now. I enjoyed the movie as a ride, and it has some fun moments (I especially like the student in the library who seems unfazed by Dr. Jones riding a motorcycle into the library and creating havok. Far more important to him — “Doctor Jones! I have a question here about….” Heh.)
I don’t agree that in “Skull” we’re “not told what the effect would be if the bad guys get their hands on it”. It’s laid out pretty clearly in the tent scene, and quoted by me above. Nothing less than world domination by the communists, and the end of free thought. And we DO know why Indy needs to return it to its temple–because he needs to get access to its power before the Russians do, so that it can’t be used for their purposes. I also don’t agree that in “Last Crusade” we ARE told. There is nothing in that movie to suggest why the nazis getting hold of the grail would be in any way detrimental to the world. Can somebody quote me a concrete reason? I maintain that “Skull” is a better movie than “Crusade”, and I will go to my grave maintaining it. :)
Indy trading the urn and ashes for a diamond in “Temple of Doom” is part of his “fortune and glory” character arc. The Indy at the end of the movie wouldn’t do that, but the guy at the beginning would. This is most likely the reason why it’s a prequel to “Raiders” and not a sequel. The character was originally conceived as a soldier-of-fortune rather than a pure academic and do-gooder.
And I absolutely LOVE how they turned an alien artifact into an archaeological quest. I thought I would hate that part, but they really made it fit into Indy’s world.
Sarah, by your own definition, the stones in Temple of Doom are “swords.” The defensive function is utilized by the village for prosperity, fertility, crops, etc. The offensive function is in the form of devastation to the village when they are removed by the Thules.
Hello Blake !
We met in London last year, and i’m still a huge fan of yours. I also love everyones plot/story comments above.
I’m going to take a more ‘grants inner-child’ approach to Indy, rather than in-depth rhetoric. I adore and still adore the first 3 films. Whats missing from 3 + 4 is Indy having a fight with Pat Roach ! The giant British actor played 3 super baddies in those 2 films. Killed twice in 1 ( as a mongolian henchman in the bar – then as the big ,bald , bare-knuckle fighting Nazi by the plane ), and dispatched again in 2 whilst playing the giant Sikh head guard. Apparently he fought Indy in 3, but that scene got cut ( madness, Speilberg, madness!). If only Pat was still with us, he could have popped up as a big Russian baddy in 4, and really given Indy something to think about ! ( whilst at the same time giving Ray Winston a slapping )
So thats my tribute to Big Pat. Indys real nemesis.
Cheers Blake.
ps. someone tell George Lucas to lay off the alien obsession for a while.
Good point, Mike. It’s been a while since I last made myself watch Temple of Doom so I wasn’t sure where to put it in the collection of objects.
DS, you too have a point about the use of the Skull, though I guess I’d need to see the film again to be won over. I just recall not feeling convinced by the discussions of how its power could be used. Plus, they weren’t consistant about it: if it was magnetic, why not all the time? Sometimes it was and sometimes it wasn’t. As for mass thought control — we only see it one-on-one really, so how would it work otherwise. The Rules of the Skull’s powers just weren’t consistent.
Yeah. I’ll have to go see it again. That’d be a hardship. The things I do for my craft! ;)
First off, i like all 4 movies, and yes i agree that 1 and 3 are the best in the series.
i did listen the special features of the making of the first 3 movies and Spielberg calms that #2 is weakest, calming that the movie was to dark. I’m Photographer, not a writing and i look at imagery more that plot. i don’t think #2 was too dark, ( to put it in common langauge ) it was to whinny. Indy a superhero with two people crying his name every 5 mins. it’s was like a poor father in a mall and screaming kids, crying “i want to go home, i want a drink, i’m tired” the still gives me the chills.
Now on to #4. The first scene was the end of the movie. I bad guys roll in kill the guards, drag Indy out of the car, slap him around, Indy gives them the treasure. the movies was done, but no, they thought hey lets do it again. This time another skull. Wrong. Cut the first 12 or so mins or don’t include Indy in that scene. The other problems are they made the son to weak, make him the as strong as Indy, pass the touch to him. The last problem was a missed opportunity to visit the past. When love interest in #1 first see’s Indy she smiles and punches Indy in the mouth. #4 Why not do it again …he left her at the alter, POW, one across the old kisser. Instead she just smile and blinks at Indy. Come on knock him out just for old times sakes, and Indy fights for her love back. And as for the bad guys, they stop being bad after the first 12 mins, except for punching Indy a few more times but that’s to be expected. They did even show the poor tribe guys in the end die, maybe they were all sleeping in the end ( oh to die off camera …means for not important enough to show ). What the heck was that part about the skull tell Indy to bring back the skull and then turn around and let the bad guy do it. the alien said “you get your reward” and shreads her into a millon pieses. Maybe a fruit basket would have been nicer, since she just gave you back you head dude. This is the same aliens that was teaching the tribes farming and other important life lessons, they clearly stated that these aliens were nice, but no, one spanish guy runs off with the head and they turn evil and fly the coupe ( hundred years later waiting for the head to come back ) just left me with, they had no clue how to end this beast of a movie.
Thanks for your time
Steve
( i just bought the save the cat 1 and 2 …love it )
By golly, my foot didn’t taste as bad as I would have imagined.
And neither did the last Indy stink as much as the first time I saw it.
I just saw it again, because I wanted to give it another chance.
Yes, there are some bits that run contrary to logic or just plain common sense. But I have to say it was much much much better the second time. I really enjoyed it.
Mmm. Those toe nails do stick in your teeth…
My order would be 1,2,4, and 3. I’ve never liked Crusade very much. I think it had greater potential, but was marred by too much silliness. It is a much lighter film than 1 and 2. No surprises here. Spielberg has always said he feels Doom was too dark, and it reflected his mental state at the time. So, he tried to make up for it with Crusade. As for Doom, I can’t say why, but it is actually my favorite of the four films. (Not saying it is better than Arc, just my personal fav.) Willie is an awful character, that’s without a doubt. But, I love Short Round, and the overall darkness.
As for Skull. It was far from perfect, but it was fun. I liked it a lot. Mostly because I wanted to, or rather, needed to. Indy is an important figure in my cinematic life. So, I am probably being more forgiving than it deserves. That said, I can see that it is loaded with problems. Let’s get this out of the way — there was some good CG and some bad. But, let’s not kid ourselves. It isn’t like melting wax faces in slow-mo looked real either. My major problem was that there were too many characters along for the ride. And, Karen Allen, god bless her, was just awful. Most reviews praise her, and they are nuts. She just seemed to be smiling at the camera the entire time, no matter what level of danger was presented. As for Indy’s arc? None. But, I suppose this movie was really about Shia’s arc, preparing us Mutt Jones and the Swingin’ 60s.
Thank you for this Blake. I’m going to tape it up over my desk as a reminder, while I write the next three Madison Manes mysteries.
Blake:
I think we’re all missing something vital here. Story Arc.
I totally agree with Blake about how perfectly the beats were reticulated in 1 and 3, and just blurred a bit in 2 and 4. But that may not be due to flaws in those films but rather due to the planting of a clue.
Take 1,2,3,4 in order and let’s first consider what we learn by looking at all 4 as an entire WHOLE story, not 4 different stories. Define the beats for this envelope arc.
Indy starts by not believing in the mystical — has his nose rubbed in it — tries to live in his old world with one toe on the mystical line — gets roundly trounced (fun and games) by more mysticism (the Nazi side of the Force), and now discovers (science again) aliens from outer space, and mysticism (true love). True Love = Soul Mate = Applied Mysticism.
Indy’s discovery of Aliens messing with our History after his lifetime of “fun and games” is the rude awakening of a story-mid-point.
4 doesn’t have the feel of a “final chapter” but rather of a springboard into a whole new adventure in a whole new world.
Indy’s “Universe” has been touched and perhaps altered by alien mysticism which could throw some light on humanity’s mixed up ideas of mysticism.
In other words, 4 has the mid-way beat and BAD GUYS CLOSE IN beat — the real threat invisible in 1,2,3, now becomes central and clear. Aliens have messed with Earth History, and History is Indy’s territory. His rude awakening is a story-mid-point. You think Nazi’s are bad guys? Wait till you meet the Skulls. (that is, if I were writing this). But Indy’s OLD (like his father was).
So instead of looking at these 4 entries in the story as individual pieces, or even as one single whole — maybe we should run the “beats” setting the end of 4 as the Mid-point in the envelope beat sheet.
We have to reinterpret the first 3 movies in terms of the existence of that crystal skull and the effects it had — especially on Indy who “just knew.” What did discovering the Arc and the Challace have to do with that “just knew?” (that is the plot of #5 if this goes my way)
Those skulls have/had power.
What does that say about the Arc of the Covenant Indy found and all the rest (even objects we haven’t seen in films)? When exactly was the kid conceived? Born? Indy’s “just know” comes from channeling mystical power — what was he channeling when the kid was concieved? Power like that can change genes. Is that kid entirely human?
Match up the year those skulls were entombed with what else was going on all over the world in that year — in the Indy Universe.
I don’t think we’re looking at two films that miss the beats. I think we’re looking at some masterful worldbuilding going on in the feature film arena rather than the weekly TV series arena.
Also, as far as mysticism goes, you realize that we now have 3 generations of men marching through history revealing ultimate truths. We should keep count of the number of “wives”.
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.slantedconcept.com
This just in from the Mo’ Urban Dictionary:
“nuke the fridge”
A colloquialism used to delineate the precise moment at which a cinematic franchise has crossed over from remote plausibility to self parodying absurdity, usually indicating a low point in the series from which it is unlikely to recover. A reference to one of the opening scenes of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, in which the titular hero manages to avoid death by nuclear explosion by hiding inside a kitchen refrigerator. The film is widely recognised by fans as a major departure from the rest of the series both in terms of content and quality.
Guy 1: “Wow. Did you see the new Indy movie? What the hell was that? It was like I was having some kind of flu induced absurdist nightmare.”
Guy 2: “Yep… did or did not that series permanently Nuke the Fridge?”
Guy 1: “Oh, totally Nuked the Fridge! But I guess Spielberg is happy as long as he has the money of the people who trusted him.”
Guy 2: “Guess so…”
I’m new to this forum, but I agree with Blake that 1 and 3 were by far the best of the series. And the consistency with the Nazis being the villains helped it.
One thing I find unbelievable about the franchise as a whole, is the mish-mosh of paranormal/supernatural objects he is after.
In 1 and 3 we get basically Judeo-Christian artefacts. In 2 and 4 they are more along the lines of tribal mystical objects. In the world they’ve created it’s not very believable that both types would exist and exert some form of supernatural power.
I’m not trying to make a comment on which is better, but I think they probably should have stuck with one or the other. Either a universe where there is a mono-theistic god or one where there are pantheistic gods etc…
I agree that in #3, how the Nazis were going to harness the power of the Holy Grail was unclear. Maybe it should have been noted that they would use it to heal their soldiers with it. Or how about Hitler being after it so he could fulfil his goal of a thousand year Reich — one which he could personally preside over as an anti-Christ!!! Now that would have been cool and talk about stakes.
While in #4 the communists state that they intend to use this skull to control the minds of Americans and change the country from within, my problem was that they didn’t give any indicator as to how they would go about harnessing this power. It was unbelievable — as was the nuked fridge and Mutt swinging on vines to catch up with a runaway Jeep.
Instead of movies #2 and #4, what I would have done for a follow on would have been a story about Hitler going after the Holy Lance — the Spear of Destiny. Supposedly there is a legend that any army that possessed it was never defeated in battle. That would have been in line with the Judeo-Christian artefact theme, you’d still have great bad guys, and it would tie in with this whole race against the Nazis for supernatural artefacts.