Indiana Jones: The Quest for Death...aka Harrison says kill Indy!!

[Captaindemotion]

Gaith wrote:

---

- Much more cartoonish action than anything in Raiders
- Terrorized children, where Raiders had none
- A vapid, annoying and generally useless female protagonist, where Raiders had an excellent one
- Pointless and cartoonish scenes like the jungle-noises sequence, where Raiders had none
- A random kid Indy entrusts his life to, where Raiders had none
- An Asian kid who, without any explanation or warning, suddenly knows kung-fu, and is super-strong enough to knock a large, grown man down with a midair kick, where Raiders had none
- Evil Indy hurting and scaring the crap out of that same kid
- A lack of interesting villains, where Raiders had two
- A wildly flailing tone, where Raiders had a consistent one


If you like the movie, that's dandy, but with all due respect, if you can't "get" why others don't, you're either insulting those same people by acting as if they're bereft of legitimate complaints, or severely intellectually challenged. I trust that it's the former, but still, would it rip your heart out to have the courtesy to not implicitly belittle other people's responses to a not-at-all universally-loved movie?

Where the hell is the insult or belittling coming from? What on earth is insulting about what I said? I said I don't get the hatred from it and you respond like I insulted your mother! Talk about an over-reaction. I didn't insult anyone and I've never suggested that anyone is in any way unreasonable for disliking it. But apparently I'm either belitting people or I'm severely intellectually challenged for liking it. Nice.

Get a fucking grip. It's a fucking movie and we're talking about differing tastes. I've never seen a more ridiculous response on the BBS than yours and there has been some serious competition over the years. The most generous thing I can say, allowing for the fact that it's Christmas, is that you have a seriously different meaning for the word 'gotten' than I have.

Edit - Oh, and I see that Jarod Russell is 'spiteful and condescending' for also having the temerity to disagree with you. Big on live and let live, aren't you?

[davejames]

Gaith wrote:

---

Much more cartoonish action than anything in Raiders
- Terrorized children, where Raiders had none
- A vapid, annoying and generally useless female protagonist, where Raiders had an excellent one
- Pointless and cartoonish scenes like the jungle-noises sequence, where Raiders had none
- A random kid Indy entrusts his life to, where Raiders had none
- An Asian kid who, without any explanation or warning, suddenly knows kung-fu, and is super-strong enough to knock a large, grown man down with a midair kick, where Raiders had none
- Evil Indy hurting and scaring the crap out of that same kid
- A lack of interesting villains, where Raiders had two
- A wildly flailing tone, where Raiders had a consistent one

Lol. All those things you find "annoying", I find charming and fun. I realize it has a very different tone and style from Raiders (which seems to me to be the biggest issue fans have with it), but personally I love the change of pace from the first movie.

And for me, all that gritty action and violence (as well as the touching situation of the village and their stolen kids) keeps the movie grounded MORE than enough, so that it never becomes the all-out "cartoon" critics accuse it of being.

And the fact this is the same dark and edgy Indy from Raiders (before he got softened beyond recognition for the next two movies) helps a lot too.

[davejames]

Gaith wrote:

---

To take but one example, The Mummy had

- Internally consistent action believability
- An interesting female co-protagonist
- An interesting villain
- No random kid who beats up grown men and who is tasked by the hero of protecting his own life
- A consistent overall tone of tongue-in-cheek action horror
- No superfluous scenes. None. Name one,if you can.

It was also painfully generic, and for something that was supposed to be campy fun, didn't have a trace of wit in either it's story or dialogue.

I'll take ToD over The Mummy anyday.

[RJDiogenes]

Australis wrote:

---

Wait, what....?

Well, it's a long shot, but there's no reason not to give it a shot. It would have been better if they'd found a more appropriate actor.

Or are you implying that I'm not open minded?

[Australis]

No, but perhaps stubborn.

[RJDiogenes]

Now that I will proudly admit to.

[Elzie]

Maybe Henry the Third would get better if he's given an adventure to go to, a lady friend to take along, and the action of the first three movies.

In KotCS he was just this teenager running around with Indy, as if to make the audience surely realize that Indiana Jones is now an old man.

I think that if they'd put effort to it, they could make at least a watchable film with what they got. They'd just have to be careful with not making Mutt 100% clone of Indy. Similiar basics between the two are okay though. (While Indy has his beloved hat and the whip, Mutt has his beloved hair and the sword. Plus, he wasn't too happy when the scorpion bit him.)

And if Ford wants to quit being Indiana Jones, how about a scene between Indy and his son, in which Indy says that he's had enough of adventuring, or something? He could translate a piece of paper to Mutt or something, leave it to that and live happy ever after with Marion, never to be seen again.

And if he really wants to die he could be shown as a black 'n' white photograph on Mutt's table/wallet/etc. But I really wouldn't like to see Indiana Jones die on-screen.