New Testingstan

they really front loaded it with way too much action

it's kind of dull after a while

i never understood the idea that having accepted one fantastic or silly thing you are compelled to accept all such things

not that i've even seen infy 4 but still

You go to see Indy, not technical accuracy.

yeah but he was old and tired in Indy 4

and he whined a lot

I enjoyed it, don't particularly care if anyone else did.

I thought there was like a third of a good movie in there

everything else I'd seen done better elsewhere

even better Russian accents

one of these days i'll get around to watching indy 4

one of these days

VF5SS wrote:I thought there was like a third of a good movie in there

everything else I'd seen done better elsewhere

even better Russian accents

I kinda wish it didn't have his greasy kid.

say i watch a thing abuot transforming robot planes

that's pretty silly

does this then mean i cannot complain about a blue guy getting high off magic flowers with a fox

because i already accepted a silly thing

What?

robotechs mang :V

and on teo the number 1 response to 'i didn't like indy 4' is 'but the other ones were silly too' which seems to be missing the point

I asked some guy who read those books and even he couldn't tell me the secrets to Robotech

but clearly I'm just jealous of a successful artists

I don't really see a difference, its just different flavours. But I wonder how much is nostalgia.

Considering the same people (and they're everywhere) who say that sort of thing make the same sort of complaints with other movies/shows, I'm pretty sure that that defense is just a knee-jerk response to push aside criticism. If they don't like whatever it is then they're free to bitch about any number of details but if they do like it then "shhh there's magic/space/comedy in there okay don't complain about anything or else you'll sure look dumb won't you". Hell, they may even believe it when they use it but it's never a consistent idea they apply to everything.

yeah its the idea that by accepting some kind of silliness you are signing a contract that makes you intellectually unable to ever not enjoy silliness in similar works ever that is dumb

but i guess its easier than actually talking about waht people see in different works because it lets you say HAHA YOU ARE INTELELCTUALLY BANKRUPT AND THUS WRONG

Aaron wrote:I don't really see a difference, its just different flavours. But I wonder how much is nostalgia.

Some of it is for sure. But there is a lot of legitimate criticism.

Not that anyone will listen to it unless you pretend to be a woman murdering psychopath

I'm open to hearing criticism but i really don't want to sit through another hour long vid.

that kind of criticism is useless if you're trying to speak to actual people about ideas anyway

because people are going to get to page 2 of your pdf and just close it because you're overloading them with irrelevant crap

but tbh i think a lot of people don't understand the critical process beyond OH EMM GEE YOU LIKE THE DUMB STUFF

Aaron wrote:I'm open to hearing criticism but i really don't want to sit through another hour long vid.

I could put some together in text.

I did that on TEO but that one Big Orange guy stopped listening halfway through

veef i bet you could summarise a range of criticisms in a few sentences
as someone who ahs never seen it id be interested

turns out verbiage is just an attempt to get authority or weight for your arguments through sheer bulk :V

Link to that post, VF5SS?

Oxymoron wrote:Without having to go there, it's kinda sad how quick Thanas is to get offended anytime the Nazi are brought into a discussion regardless of the context.

There was some thread about Theodore Roosevelt vs Bismark, right?

And I posted a picture of the USS Roosevelt (a CVN) and a picture of the Battleship Bismark, for the intention of making the "carrier > battleship" thing to advance my cause.

He deleted that because the Nazis "sullied" Bismark's name because they used it to 'evoke legitimacy' or something. I don't remember what.

But anyway, I thought it was a pretty poor overreaction, and kinda ironic for a History Man. The battleship Bismark is, in fact, a legitimate historical fact and here he was suppressing it being mentioned.

I always thought of Indy as pulpy fictkon, kinda lkke SW was before the fattys.

That would be cool.

One thing that damages Indy 4 as compared to the other movies is that they all have a clear focus- the Ark, the Sankara stones, the Grail- while Indy 4 has the USSR, psychics, aliens, and ancient astronauts. All of these are aspects of the underlying religious theme that goes throughout the movies as we progress chronologically from polytheistic Hinduism to monotheistic Judaism to monotheistic Christianity to the New Age... but the other movies also picked one thing to focus on. A movie about the USSR and psychics, or about aliens alone, would have been (theoretically) a lot more condensed. As it is, we go all over the place in Indy 4 and it thus feels rushed and incomplete. The movie bloats and sprawls like a fat man loosing his belt, and the viewers suffer from watching a mediocre bit of pap appended to a quality franchise. At least, that's my opinion.

Knubble tov wrote:Link to that post, VF5SS?

it was on old testing

long gone

Ok here's some thoughts.

While I understand the need to get Indy into action again after a few decades of being away, the opening part of the movie feels like it should be closer to the end than the beginning. To echo some of the Plinkett review, you can't reveal everything about the movie in the first act.

We literally have the big bad guy the Russian chick

the muscle who is the Russian dude

the whole mystery of the crystal skull

and uh Mack?

What is the point of Mack?

anyways, with all these things in the opening part of the movie, there is nothing left to discover.

Why not simply have Indy meet his son at the beginning and do the chase scene trying to get away from the CIA guys or whoever they were I forget and then have them go to Area 51?

That way to keep the structure of the old movies by opening with a milder action scene that isn't tied heavily to the main plot (if at all) and then move up to a bigger action sequence

the whole Area 51 bit just kind of illustrated the issues with the time that had passed between movies

Ford just looks old and not in a good way. Some actors get tougher with age, Ford just seemed confused a lot. Indy's basic character is all about charm and wit, which the old guy wasn't really showing a lot of. You can show age with wit like Captain Picard.

Also it's kind of weird that he goes from deftly CGI stepping across the rafters to missing a whip swing. Levity is good but you can't waver on the tone.

Also Marian was kind of a waste since she doesn't do much except say "MUTT YER SON" and then act like a mom I guess

If the movie was mostly Mutt hanging out with Indy I could dig it since having him teach Mutt things was a much better idea. It plays into having Indy be older and trying to pass the torch to his son.

The alien thing is really random. Lucas tried to claim it was like old 50's sci-fi movies which is a total lie. It's just the same jungle adventure movie except this time they have a weird skull thing. Linking aliens to ancient civilizations is not a bad idea, but they clearly wanted to split the difference between Roswell aliens and ancient aliens. So all we get is a mediocre reveal of some tall Roswell alien that grimaces and flies away with little consequence.

Sure it killed the badguy, but she didn't do anything really bad. Some soldiers and natives got killed off screen. She makes some vague threats but I dunno. There weren't any real stakes to her getting the skull. She doesn't mind control anyone.

There's probably more but the Bruins are on