On what basis do you make that claim?
Why is it not possible that other groups of people may have a different definition?
The Indy Reboot is coming after 5
- Thread starter safarial
- Start date
Why is it not possible that other groups of people may have a different definition?
Yes. Yes he is.
He knows well that words can have more than one meaning, such as one that literally means "resting place" readily referring to either "cradle" or "grave" in usage. (He uses my personally preferred meaning of "literally" too, so bonus points! Although, on the other hand, he does need to be reminded that getting sidetracked into debating semantics—such as the difference between quicksand and a dry sandpit—can also be a counterproductive exercise in certain contexts, but then we all get carried away sometimes, don't we?
)
He knows well that words can have more than one meaning, such as one that literally means "resting place" readily referring to either "cradle" or "grave" in usage. (He uses my personally preferred meaning of "literally" too, so bonus points! Although, on the other hand, he does need to be reminded that getting sidetracked into debating semantics—such as the difference between quicksand and a dry sandpit—can also be a counterproductive exercise in certain contexts, but then we all get carried away sometimes, don't we?
)
Last edited:
Yep.
So what's this I hear he's fighting
Robots are cool too.
i hear what you're saying....so what genre was big in the 60's that Indy should tackle?
Indiana Jones and the Bong of DestinySomething with hippies probably.
Indiana Jones and Those Damn Long-Haired Hippy Kids With Their So-Called Music.
Woodstock could be a big distraction to cover up the activation of a deadly weapon made from the Lance of Longinus and the head of Mjolnir that was recently unearthed in New York State. The Manson family want it to start the Helter Skelter war and only Indy would believe something so strange can be so deadly so he's on his own with only his new helper Shaggy and his dog.
BTW, who made that nasty weapon, the Nazis, of course. An escaped SS officer took it to New York.
BTW, who made that nasty weapon, the Nazis, of course. An escaped SS officer took it to New York.
The author Clive Cussler wrote a whole series of books involving some ancient historical artifact lost for ages who's discovery directly impacted current events which could alter the world forever. Pretty good adventures and a couple were made into movies (although some interesting bits from the novels were left out.)
Finding something interesting for Indy to do should not be a problem.
Finding something interesting for Indy to do should not be a problem.
Completely relevant. The hypothetical example was nonsense as it was based in a false analogy. It is not coincidence that things in the real world did not actually turn out that way.
Again, I'm talking about the meaning in the context of fiction, with specific emphasis on the realm of movies. The only one intent on discussing computers is you.
Or in other words, "they do not follow in chronological sequence".
For one thing, the extent to which parallel timelines are interrelated in-universe is debatable at best, and it doesn't put their temporally corresponding events in chronological sequence with one another. Also, whatever "interrelated from an out-of-universe standpoint" is supposed to mean, it surely doesn't have anything to do with in-universe continuity.
If their estimable "understanding" leads them to insist that temporally corresponding events in separate parallel timelines should be treated as though they follow one another in chronological sequence, I wouldn't put much stock in it.
Very relevant question that I've thought on as well. Not sure I really know but I'll take a run at it.
Westerns - were still just as big in this decade, producing some solid entries like The Magnificent 7, TGtB&tU, True Grit, Once Upon a Time in the West and Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid
Espionage/Bond - Connery's era as Bond began, not sure what else qualifies if anything
Horror - the birthplace of Horror cinema perhaps with Psycho, Rosemary's Baby, The Birds, Night of the Living Dead and Cape Fear.
Those are my hunches at qualifying genre influences of the 60's.
It made sense on the 24th century shows because they were spin-off's (that were also set in the same time period, with the exception of Ent) and having a known character appear in the spin-off isn't really unique to Trek.
As for why it should not have been any older actor: because they weren't needed. Old Spock was not needed and I would've preferred that we had seen nuKirk and nuSpock actually work out their differences in order to find mutual trust. It felt like they became "friends" because they (or at least Kirk) felt like he was supposed to because that's how it played out in another timeline.
Don't get me wrong, Old Spock didn't hurt the movie for me as I'm a sucker for a good parallel universe story and "in another universe, this is how things played" scenes, but the movie could've easily worked without Old Spock or any other time travel shenanigans.
That's what I came up with basically. In trying to make something Indy-ish I was thinking for spaghetti westerns maybe he could go on a quest for El Dorado taking on some lowlifes south of the border. Or on the cold war front instead of Nazis perhaps he's trying to race against or stop Communist Russia on whatever quest he's taken. They'd have to be careful not to get too xenophobic and put people off. It's hard not to root against the Nazis.
Hammer horror was big at the time so perhaps some quest in Egypt or Romania and you could bring in the mummy or Dracula. Not necessarily Indy vs Dracula literally but with some kind of proxy or cult or something or just atmosphere. You could bring in a lot of eerie trappings to flavor the adventure.
That's even assuming you have to take the era into account. There could be simple classic adventures that could be undertaken without any underpinnings of the times.
Indy is part of the Disney empire right? Because if Universal is doing a shared monster universe, maybe Disney could do a rival universe guest starting Indy
Ahahahaha. That is awesome. I would watch the *hell* out of that movie....
Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had a really good vampire/translyvania episode, where they were looking for lost colleagues that disappeared, or something like that.
Here again you have chosen your own specific restrictions as to what you call a "chronological sequence" that others may not necessarily observe. Another reasonable view is one inclusive of all the infinite parallel timelines/realities as subsets of a greater whole.
I'll take a page from Doc Brown and draw you a picture:
_ _ 2233_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _2266_ _ _
\ _ _ _ _ _ _2259 _ _ _
Despite the divergence of timelines, there can still be seen to be an overall chronology in play, not limited to one particular timeline. Just because the specific events of one do not directly lead to the specific events occurring in the other, that doesn't mean 2259 in one doesn't precede 2266 in the other. In that larger sense there could still be perceived to be a chronological flow and order to things, even if they are happening in different parallel timelines, different "locations" so to speak. It's certainly not the only possible way to look at it, but can you really claim it's "incorrect" relative to yours?
I think you overestimate the importance that in-universe continuity may hold for many audience members. To a lot of people all this alternate-timeline-parallel-reality-mumbo-jumbo simply may not matter. When some see Pine and Quinto's Kirk and Spock having adventures, all that really matters to them is that these are younger versions of Shatner and Nimoy's classic characters. What's seen of them can naturally be related to and cause us to infer things about what's been seen before, in spite of the fact that we're technically watching alternate versions. There's a broader sense of "continuity" there that transcends the in-universe details, the kind of details which may be more or less significant to some than to others.
And even those mindful of such technicalities can't help but see the deliberate parallels in things like the reversal of Wrath Of Khan's climax in Into Darkness. These films intentionally play on a certain degree of familiarity with what's come before, expanding on and adding new context to it. Not everyone perceives it as erasing or overwriting or happening wholly separately and independently of that other "future," even if that is what's suggested to be happening in-story. This can be true even of many "harder" reboots.
None of this means you have to perceive or describe things any differently than you do, but at least try to be sensible and open-minded enough to recognize that your view is not the only conceivable one. Responses to art are individual and subjective and varied; it's not about absolutes. To me you seem to be arguing from too narrow a perspective, wanting there to be a definite "right" or "wrong" reaction and according description. What you see as the misuse of these terms, I see as merely a different use, reflective of a different interpretation of their meaning and/or a different perception of the art being described.
Okay then, don't like that analogy? Pick your own, and go take up this argument with an English professor. I'm done.
Last edited:
Similar threads
