Did any Indiana Jones film not involve the paranor

[enda80]

Did any Indiana Jones film or TV sow episode not involve the paranormal?

The Indiana Jones series seems unusual for a non-comic book or comic strip based films series, as he encounters the paranormal despite living in a relatively mundane 20th century.

[Jeff Goldblum]

Indy is a pulp hero, much like Doc Savage or Tarzan. The problem is that most audiences see the historical elements and think, "Oh, this is supposed to be grounded in reality."

We've also reached a point where we're more familiar with comic books than pulp stories- and we're constantly trying to make those comics more "realistic".

But pulp was a genre where escapism was valued over realism. Edgar Rice Burroughs didn't think twice about shrinking Tarzan in size to meet Ant Men or sending him to the Earth's core.

[Deleted]

One thing I don't really understand is that people will still believe the Indy series when there's thousand-year old knight, a person who is alive after his heart is removed, and a ghost that melts people, but everyone has ahuge problem with a damn extra terrestrial. Anyone else bugged by this?

[Colonel John Matrix]

Dec 26, 2008 14:39:39 GMT -5 @fakemustache said:

One thing I don't really understand is that people will still believe the Indy series when there's thousand-year old knight, a person who is alive after his heart is removed, and a ghost that melts people, but everyone has ahuge problem with a damn extra terrestrial. Anyone else bugged by this?

I agree. I thought Indy 4 was shite, but I didn't really have a problem with the thought of aliens getting involved - they still used the same formula of Indy trying to get some object before the baddies. The film was just thoroughly mediocre.

[Wildey]

I think a lot of the internet generation like to claim they feel insulted by a film because it makes them feel more intelligent. And we like things to be more realistic/darker because that's, like, deep man.

That said, I though Indy IV was a load of old shite and I wasn't even expecting much from it.

[magicmikassa]

I actually enjoyed Indy IV as well. I did find it kind of insulting how the very first shot of the movie was a CG animal when Spielberg had kept insisting he was keeping CGI to a minimum. Not a good way to start the movie. However, I found the movie entertaining and largely don't see what the fuss is about over it. It wasn't my favorite Indy movie, but it didn't have the annoying woman from Temple of Doom so that's a plus.

[Jeff Goldblum]

The cgi use didn't bother me that much, since the Indy films always employed whatever cutting-edge effects were available. It's considered old school now, but the f/x in Raiders and Temple received a lot of attention at the time.

If you're really going to approach a film with the same spirit and mindset, it's to be expected that it won't be exactly the same. This is especially true when 20-30 years have passed since the previous entries.

[magicmikassa]

I actually wasn't bothered by the CGI either. I understand its place in cinema today. The CGI itself isn't what bothers me, but rather the fact that Spielberg SAID that he would keep CGI at low to no use and then starts the movie right off with a CGI gag which while cute wasn't necessary.

[Jeff Goldblum]

I thought having three prairie dog shots was overkill, but I didn't mind the one at the very beginning. It was a clever variation on the opening sequence, as they basically made a 'molehill out of a mountain'.

As for the "almost no cgi" promises, I just tend to see it from their point of view. Lucas and Spielberg are two guys that helped pioneer modern day special f/x, and have spent the last 20 years working with cgi. So for them, this film was a very old-school way of doing things. It was still heavy on practical sets, which few blockbusters employ in 2008.

There were cgi sequences I could've done without in the film, but they weren't a dealbreaker for me.

[magicmikassa]

Yeah, its good to find someone who didn't hate the movie. Most of my friends dug it when it was in theaters, but the general audience seems to hate it. I don't really get it. It was a fun adventure in my mind. That's all it needed to be and all it was. Harrison Ford is a legend and he didn't do anything in this film to change that for me.

[Jeff Goldblum]

A few years ago, I told a friend that if they made Indy 4 just like the earlier ones, it would probably be trashed online. It's to be expected, since the times have changed so much. We tend to forget how long 20 years really is, and that these films were never designed for the level of scrutiny the internet brings.

I'm not sure I would say the general audience hated it, though. The film performed at essentially the same level the previous ones did, and recieved quite good reviews. Where it missed out was winning over the teens/twenties demographic, and people that tend to take their films very seriously.

I read somewhere that Spielberg wanted to approach the film just like he did the last two, and tried to make it "no better or worse". I'd say he achieved that goal. It doesn't pack the punch of the first two movies, but it still has that same old-fashioned spirit and tone.

But like you said, it really comes down to seeing Harrison Ford back in his iconic role. The film gets pretty goofy at times, but Ford still manages to sell it with conviction. I'm also a pretty big fan of old B movies, which probably helped me enjoy it a lot better than people who were expecting an 80s flashback.