[Madam Corvax]

There's ONE KISS in Pride and Prejudice, and it's after they're married.

And they can barely stand to be around each other the rest of the five hours.

Okay, it's not a movie, it's a mini-series (which is exactly like the book), but still.

Laura, whcih version are you talking about? I suppose it must be the most recent one, with Colin Firth? To be honest, I prefer the older adaptation, made by BBC.

I didn't like the leading couple in the new version. Elizabeth Bennet is supposed to be a cheeky lady, not a silly cow. And Colin Firth as Darcy always wore a curious exp​ression on his face, like he was suffering from indigestion all the time.

[Jordan]

You want romance? Go see SUGAR AND SPICE.

Really good film. The Romance is over the top and cheesy. It's a bag of laughs.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 30 August 2004 - 10:26 AM

[civilian_number_two]

I really should add:

"Mighty Steel Leg" Sing and Mui from SHAOLIN SOCCER!

[Despondent]

Bogart and Hepburn from the African Queen finally got it on. that's a nice one.

[Just your average movie goer]

I can't believe I neglected to mention this one earlier -

Indiana Jones and Marion Ravenwood in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Two young attractive characters with fantastic onscreen chemistry. And when you watch it, you're just dying for them to get it together.

Probably the biggest reason why Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade wasn't able to keep the franchise alive (after the irredeemably bad second film that I won't even talk about here) was because Marion was no longer in it. And honestly, once I found out that Indiana Jones was going to be like James Bond with his girlfriends and we weren't going to see Marion again, I didn't really care about his future adventures.

Should have stuck with Marion, boy - she was a fiesty screen babe if ever there was one... and what great legs!

[Madam Corvax]

Should have stuck with Marion, boy - she was a fiesty screen babe if ever there was one... and what great legs!

Yea, I could not believe when he hooked up with Kate Capshaw in the Temple of Doom. I hate screaming damsels who cannot stand a bug or two. Give me a gun and a shot of vodka all the time

But wasn't Kate Capshaw the director's wife at that time, was she (or still is, dunno)

[Just your average movie goer]

Oh no, that's when Steven Spielberg met her. But the guy who made the call to change the heroines each movie was....

George Lucas.

Surprise, surprise.

Also, The Temple of Doom was a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark. I guess that should have been a good warning to us all.

[Madam Corvax]

Also, The Temple of Doom was a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark. I guess that should have been a good warning to us all.

Noooooo! I didn't realise. Just another proof that any idea of writing a prequel is stupid.

But I always thought that Young Indiana Jones Chronicles beat everything else in silliess and stupidity. And who was the proud creator of thisas well. No! GL too?

[Just your average movie goer]

It also explains all the inconsistencies in Indiana Jones' character.

[Madam Corvax]

Excuse me, but does he have a character (apart from the original Raiders?) All the rest of these flicks just struck me as a lot of gags and stunts put together.

(I know you guys had a whole flame war bout the Temples of Doom. I looked it up and it was not near as much nasty as your flame war with Jordan over TTT).

BTW, Jordan, sorry to have mistaken you for an American. I hope I did not offend you.

[Just your average movie goer]

He has. It's not a complicated character but he still has one. In Temple of Doom, they contradict two major parts of it - his chivalry and his intelligence.

It's good to hear you stopped by The Temple of Doom thread, Madam. I hope you enjoyed it. It was definitely one of the most enjoyable for me.

EDIT - I just realised you weren't talking about his character in Raiders but in the other two films. Sorry, you're right. In neither of those films does he have a character.

And The Last Crusade is a pretty stupid movie. It's entertaining in parts but I don't care for it much. However, a lot of people would have watched it just after seeing The Temple of Doom - in which case, The Last Crusade seems like the greatest movie ever.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 07 September 2004 - 04:59 AM

[Laura]

But... but... Sean Connery! "Thish ish intolerable!"

[Jen]

The first time I saw "The Last Crusade" I was in my high school French Class. The best past of that movie, and the only part I really remember, is when Sean Connery and Harrison Ford are tied to a chair and the room they are in catches on fire, and they have the following exchange:

HF: Papa!
SC: Quoi?
HF: Papa!
SC: Quoi?
HF: Papa!
SC: Quoi?!
HF: La planche brûle!


It was marvelous!

[Mike Mac from NYU]

I would go on a Indian Jones flick defense.......

...........but I have a splitting enough headache as it is now, and another all out war will just make it worse.

I gotta stop mixing my drinks!!!!!!!!!


Okay, where was I.

Regarding Madame's comments.

Having Karen Allen return in a Indiana Jones sequel............is like having a Bond girl return!!!

It just doesn;t work.

It also creates more problems.

1. First of all.......the relationship which was pretty well probed in Raiders, now has to go somewhere........they either have to get married or she dies in some Thugge cult ceremony. Karen and Indy's relationship reached a point., it has to come to some resolution.

2. Is Karen's character that important to the Indiana Jones series? If you really loook at it Karen is simply another sidekick of Indiana Jones. A combination love interest and temporary foil. She is as important to the series as Sallah, Short Round, & Indy's father are. Arguably any chartacter could take her place.

3. Having a women hang around Indy for that long, sort of weighs him down a little. He becomes less of a free adventurer. We also lose the opportunity to see him as a ladies man if he doesn't interact with other women.

4. Having Karen Allen as a regular would inevitable allow her to ask for a higher salary for the sequels. As good an actor as she is.........it's not worth the expense in my opinion.

5. Regrettably Karen Allen's sex appeal would probably diminish over the years. {sorry!! }

6. Finally, Karen Allen is really a part of the Lost Ark storyline. She was introduced via the search for the Ark....It kind of makes sense that she should leave when the story is over.

[civilian_number_two]

I disagree.

First, having a Bond girl return in a Bond movie is like having a Bond girl return in a Bond movie. Having Marion return in an INDIANA JONES movie would be like having Marion return in an INDIANA JONES. Indiana Jones is NOT James Bond. Flash Gordon stuck with Dale Arden through every series, and it didn't diminish his character. Tarzan had Jane, etc.

1. The relationship has to go somewhere! Oh no, that would be character development. This is bad for movies why? Add to which I don't think it was horrible to have Leia move more into an action role in JEDI, after the supporting role she played in the previous two films. I think there are places for women in action movies, outside the LARA CROFT genre. I don't think they need to be expendable.

2. Yes she would be a sidekick, or secondary character, and Jones would do most of the real work. This is precedented, and frankly welcome. Disappearing her and turning Jones into James Bond (look at his white tux and questionable values (money over preservation of the artifact) in TEMPLE OF DOOM) was just standard paint-by-numbers stuff. Keeping her around would have had the effect of creating a different kind of action series from everything else out there. "She would be a sidekick" is not an argument that she NEEDS to go.

By your argument in a sequel to TRUE LIES, Arnold would have to have divorced Jamie Lee Curtis, since their relationship problems were resolved. Now he needs a new bitch. (No, really, that IS your argument!!!)

3. The romances in the other JONES movies are terrible like all the romances in every James Bond film. This is your weakest point.

4. I guess it was cheaper to hire Sean Connery to liven up the series? I personally would have jumped at the chance to see Marion in the third film, more than Indy's dad, and I'm sure she was cheaper. Anyway, the price of actors shouldn't figure in your personal assessment of whether the characters are good or not. Let the producers worry about that.

5. Not at all:

http://imdb.com/gall...,%20Karen%20(I)

Incidentally, she's making a new movie right now in Ladner, a crappy little suburb of my hometown of Vancouver. It's a small role (literally); she's practically retired to doing smaller parts since having a child.

6. This I agree with, sure. All the same, the time to write her out was after the Ark was found, not casually between films. Leaving the two together, moving her to Aerica with him, made it look like she was someone in his life now. The return of RAIDERS characters was a lot of what was fun about THE LAST CRUSADE, and they didn't detract near as much as that awful romance (trivia: the love interest from CRUSADE turned down the role of Eowyn because she didn't want to live away from home for that long .... ). I would have loved to have had Marion a part of the cast reunion.


Bottom line: Karen Allen wasn't in the Indy sequel because Karen Allen didn't want to be in it. She turned it down after the miserable experience of being bitten by all those snakes in RAIDERS. So it was actually a business decision, and not a storywriting necessity after all, to write her out.