Matthew on Indiana Jones
From enfascination
(→Fourth movie) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
And why the fourth movie was so bad | And why the fourth movie was so bad | ||
| − | Indy started in '77 on a beach | + | Indy started in '77 on a beach. Spielberg and Lucas sweating it out while waiting for the Star Wars box office returns when Stevie brings up the idea of a gadgetless James Bond. And so is born the character (Indiana Smith): an alcoholic (later dropped) Manhattan playboy (ditto) fighting Nazis, based on the serials of the 1930s. Entire plot built over a sandcastle. |
| + | |||
| + | The character's cigarette habit was dropped too, unfortch. | ||
*19 years later | *19 years later | ||
===Fourth movie=== | ===Fourth movie=== | ||
| − | Indiana is a series not a | + | Indiana Jones is a series, not a saga. Check it: Our man is an ageless, archetypal American hero. But, Lucas being Lucas (i.e., having a penchant for pummeling things into the ground), he created the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles in 1992. Here we see see Indy as a five-year old, as a teen, and as, god dammit, a 93-year old man. |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | These attempts | + | These attempts subvert timelessness with details. |
| − | Eco distinguishes between Series and Saga. Saga has time over generations. By giving Indy a birth and death, | + | Umberto Eco distinguishes between Series and Saga. Saga has time over generations. By giving Indy a birth and death, parents, he becomes a saga. |
As a franchise it shifted from cinematic to products, moving emphasis to images and the idea, the essence is diluted. | As a franchise it shifted from cinematic to products, moving emphasis to images and the idea, the essence is diluted. | ||
Latest revision as of 22:03, 9 May 2009
Indiana Jones
And why the fourth movie was so bad
Indy started in '77 on a beach. Spielberg and Lucas sweating it out while waiting for the Star Wars box office returns when Stevie brings up the idea of a gadgetless James Bond. And so is born the character (Indiana Smith): an alcoholic (later dropped) Manhattan playboy (ditto) fighting Nazis, based on the serials of the 1930s. Entire plot built over a sandcastle.
The character's cigarette habit was dropped too, unfortch.
- 19 years later
Fourth movie
Indiana Jones is a series, not a saga. Check it: Our man is an ageless, archetypal American hero. But, Lucas being Lucas (i.e., having a penchant for pummeling things into the ground), he created the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles in 1992. Here we see see Indy as a five-year old, as a teen, and as, god dammit, a 93-year old man.
These attempts subvert timelessness with details.
Umberto Eco distinguishes between Series and Saga. Saga has time over generations. By giving Indy a birth and death, parents, he becomes a saga.
As a franchise it shifted from cinematic to products, moving emphasis to images and the idea, the essence is diluted.
Lucas, after 19 years, a generation, is forced to accomodate two audiences in one movie. By this account, he failed.
By 2008, too burdened by backstory. moving to 1950 complicated things too much.
The romance
He was a smart guy. Indy doesn't do anything int he new movie, just wears fedora and leather jacket.