[civilian_number_two]

Your comment that loads of published critics liked the movie is calle the "Appeal to Authority." I don't give a shit if these guys like bad movies. All they have is a job I wouldn't want; I am a lot smarter than all of them, to tell the truth.

There is a lot more venom behind that remark than there should be. Even for you civilian. Hmmmmm. Struck a nerve.

Even for me? Hey; I'm sarcastic, not venemous. Ah, whatever.

Yes, but not the nerve you think you struck. Read the average movie review, and you'll see a plot summary, a few spoilers, and three or four words representing some kind of opinion or analysis. Most movie reviews are shit writing. These guys are the worst wiriters in journalism, and basically any community paper will test new writers by saying "why don't you write a movie review," since they're so pointless and hack. The worst of the bunch is Roger Ebert. I read a review of his a few months ago that had exactly one word of analysis: "good." The rest of the review was plot summary and the names of cast and crew.

So naturally I hate it when people bolster their opinions of ho-hum movies by saying critics liked them. Yawn. There are a few ok critics out there, but Pauline Kael is no more.

Anyway, we're well into "and another thing" teritory now:

Heck Gremlins was the movie that created the PG-13 rating. Yet there was never any real backlash from parents against TOD .

That's half true. There were two films that inspire the PG-13 rating. One was GREMLINS, and the other was INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM.

http://www.scienceda...m_rating_system

Actually, your statement is less than half true. the bit about "no real backlash" is completely false.

Having a boom mic appear in the frame is often a case of bad presentation, not always of inept filmmaking. I've seen boom mics in all sorts of competent films.

I don't care about the level of violence in TOD. I don't even care about the nonsense of guys outrunning rushing water or stupid halls of a million bugs and villains that eat monkey brains. What I don't like is that Indiana Jones isn't in the movie. Harrisson Ford is in it, but he's in AIR FORCE ONE as well, and that's no Indiana Jones film.

PS: all that stuff you were trying to do, comparing the violence in RAIDERS with the violence in TOD, there's no way you're behind that. You're out on a limb, dude. God bless you.

[Mike Mac from NYU]

PS: all that stuff you were trying to do, comparing the violence in RAIDERS with the violence in TOD, there's no way you're behind that. You're out on a limb, dude. God bless you.

What the heck is that supposed to mean. Do you think it is perfectly acceptable for a six year old to watch a man's skin melt of his face? If you bothered to read what the entire post said, JYAMG thought TOD was inappropruia

God bless you.

Oh, so know you take a religius belief


The only truly graphic violent scenes in TOD are the heart ripping scene and that big Thuggee cult guy get squashed.

Raiders of the Lost Ark has tons of graphic violence and adult themes, not too mention some religious issues that were way more unsuitable than anything in TOD.

If you want to hate


You accuse me of being jaded by my love of ROTJ and TOD. Yet you seem to ignore any possibility of faults with any of the two movies that you hold dear to your heart. You couldn;t even admit to any imperfections in ANH, and yet you come out like you have a stick shoved up you know where once I mention any accolades to ROTJ and TOD like it is some blasphemy of modern film critique to say so.

You may have have created films and projects in your career, civ.I respect you as a person that knows what he is talking about. But my statements are NOT out on a limb.

From your perspective my belief comes from not only my love for TOD and ROTJ, but my appreciation of other films of quality and not by this childhood 80s movioe lovefest that you always refer to.

I liked Top Gun as a kid. Thought it was a great. Now I appreciate mostkly for it's aerial photography and certain other points. To me now it is an average movie at best that could use several improvements. Saw French Connection when I was 12, fell asleep before it was done, understood nothing and thought it was boring. Saw it when it was 21 and it is now my #1 favoprite movie. Same with Mildred Pierce, which by the way was a movie I watched at 12 years old, and though not fully understanding it's nuances, I still appreciated it. {Wonderful performance by Joan Crawford, don't you agree, civ} So you can throw out that "80s movie lover" out the game.

When I originally posted on this forum, I had the feeling that movies were in a decline. You considered that wrong. It was not based on a belief that there were no "Star Wars" or Batmans in the last ten years., but that there have been no "French Connections" or "Mildred Pierces" in the last years. The fact that nobody makes a movie like French Connection or is willing to take the risks and the skills it took to make a movie like that is disturbing to me. This is a view shared by one of my teachers as well. The fact that big movie companies like Paramount are just shoveling out movie with no regard to quality and art and just trying to get the bottom line, is disturbing. The money side of the film business is what it is, but the day that become the deciding factor in the art of filmmaking becomes a sad day.

In 2001 (?) there was only one movie I watched that intrigued me and was not only interesting but fascinating was "Traffic" . Nothing that year left me feeling the theatres entertained. The fact that in 2002. I wanted to walk out of theatre during 5 movies, disturbs me. Something that I don;t feel I would have done if I were 21 and saw TOD or ROTJ, No Way Out or any other movie during the 80s.

I know you think of me as unbwashed heathen who know not a thing about the movie process and probably would produce crap movies if directing. But I and others like to think that when I say that TOD and ROTJ are good movies and FIT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE TRILOGIES AS A WHOLE, those beliefs do not come from the mind of a raving lunatic.

I consider each and every one of yours and JYAMG. I understand your reasons why you hate the movies and from judging your personalities, I can see why you guys would never love these movies regardless. The reasons are plane as day to me why you hate ESB and TOD.

As for your reasons, the reason that they are not legitimate greviences or things to me is that absolutely NONE of them jumped at me when watching the movies. When I saw Episode I, nearly 80% of chef elfs points jumped out at me, way befoe I even knew his list existed. Your greviences and this forum are the FIRST time I heard ANY of these comments about TOD!!!!

I think what we can all agree with is that our viewpoints of TOD are EXTREME viewpoints!!. Somewhere in between is the true nature of TOD. TOD is not as bad as you guys say it is and it is not as great as I say it is. In short, it is an okay film, that has it's flaws as well as it's moments.

Case closed.

[Jordan]

I know you think of me as unbwashed heathen who know not a thing about the movie process and probably would produce crap movies if directing. But I and others like to think that when I say that TOD and ROTJ are good movies and FIT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE TRILOGIES AS A WHOLE, those beliefs do not come from the mind of a raving lunatic.

He just likes to argue and debate. He rarely agrees with anyone ever. I would not let it get to you. He knows you are a fresh men in film school, so he is having fun with you. You broadcasted it in your name, and in your earlier posts, so I think he is just burning your ass for the sake of fun.


I hated Indiana Jones. I hate most blockbusters. 1 out of 10 movies I actually enjoy.

I've walked out of several in my time. Lately, I've been avoiding the silver screen and have been renting movies from the library. Old BBC sitcoms and inspector seiries like parrot and miss marple.

Also, I've been taking a liking to Ballet. I've been watching it alot lately.
Rudolf Nureyev and Margot Fonteyn are great to watch.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 07 May 2004 - 08:43 PM

[Mike Mac from NYU]

He just likes to argue and debate. He rarely agrees with anyone ever. I would not let it get to you. He knows you are a fresh men in film school, so he is having fun with you. You broadcasted it in your name, and in your earlier posts, so I think he is just burning your ass for the sake of fun.

Oh, no doubt! I enjoy these little skirmishes between civillian and I, As I imagine several others on this forum do as well. No problem with a little competitive banter among collegues. I am sure civilian, concurs.

I hated Indiana Jones. I hate most blockbusters. 1 out of 10 movies I actually enjoy.

Fair enough. Indy movie not your cup of tea?

I've walked out of several in my time. Lately, I've been avoiding the silver screen and have been renting movies from the library. Old BBC sitcoms and inspector seiries like parrot and miss marple.

I have actually stopped going to movie theatres. I watch only movies on DVD, and choose those that intrigue me in some way. Iwil tend toget into a moviewatching it several times for a week, writing down any ideas or concepts I get from it. I do this 1) cause I enjoy the film.. 2) because it allows me to memoruze scenes, music, dialogue and scene cuts. I read somewhere that Steve Sondberg has a visual library in his head of scenes from evrery movie he has watched that he uses as raw material for creating his movies. He coul dtell you the lighting , dialogue and music of every scene from Doctor Zhivago. I am currently into the Swedish version of Insomnia with the great Stella Skarsgard {the Alfa sub commander in Red October, remember him!} . The only TV i watch are sports programs and HBO original series. A great series on HBO is "The Wire". Check it out it is great series!! Problem is you have to watch it form episode 1 to even understand the plots and stories.

[Just your average movie goer]

It's amazing how many new posts come up sometimes. I better catch up...

I understand your points about the violence in Raiders, Mike but I don't believe I'm being hypocritical because of the nature of how the violence occurs and who it occurs to.

If I may make an example from another film series to explain how this system works for me:

In Batman, the Joker plummets to his death from a very tall building. This doesn't bother me.

In Batman Returns, an innocent girl plummets to her death from a very tall building. This is different.

The Joker killed lots of people and was a pretty bad guy. He got what was coming to him. The girl in Batman Returns was innocent.

In much the same way, we can look at the violence in Raiders and Temple.

I actually agree that the Hispanic guy being impaled was rather graphic and I wish they hadn't left the camera on him for so long - half a second was all I really needed. But having said that, I can't really say I felt too sorry for him. He had just ditched Indy after Indy had saved his life and retrieved the idol.

The bad guy burning his hand on the medallion? Seeing how he seemed really keen to torture a woman, I really think he got what he deserved as well.

A scene were a woman is surrounded with THOUSANDS of dead corpses grabbing for her.

I'm actually not going to defend this one because personally I think it should have been left on the cutting room floor. It's a pretty horrible scene and it doesn't add anything to the story. I'll give that point to you.

And lastly, the faces melting. Again, these are bad guys getting what's coming to them. Again, personally, I feel that they could have left that out as well - and I thought that while the Nazi's deserved it, Belloq got a bit hard done by.

I actually wish that Raiders had ended after the truck scene. That would have been better and as such, I think it is a flawed movie. However, it is a highly entertaining movie and very enjoyable. Temple wasn't for me.

Now the problem with the violence in Temple is that it is mostly cruelty to innocent people. Being burned alive would be an excruciatingly painful way to go and in Temple, this happens to an innocent man.

Also, innocent children are kidnapped and beaten. I seem to also remember Short Round even got whipped during the torture scene.

This is quite different from the violence in Raiders. There's something a lot more nasty at work here.

Also, when violence is inflicted upon helpless captives - who are imprisoned or physically restrained so they are unable to protect themselves - it is a lot more disturbing than violence that happens during the course of a fight.

Actually, I was a little surprised, Mike, that you didn't mention the real incident of excessive violence in Raiders... that I thought was too much:

I think the big bald guy really pummeled Indiana Jones too much

If you had brought that up, you would have got another point from me.

So, I don't think I'm being hypocritical about what I said on the violence in Temple. Hope that clarifies things for you.


And lastly on a different topic, I am from Brisbane. I'm not sure if you would have ever heard of it. Not a lot of people from outside Australia have.

Although at the moment, I live in Seoul on account of my Korean girlfriend. On the contrary, I think most people have heard of that city.

It's a nice place - quite lively with good mountains for hiking up on the weekends. The air pollution gets me down a bit though. I miss deep blue Australian skies.

By the way, I've always assumed you're a New Yorker. Is that right or am I way off the mark? (I was going on NYU. I thought it meant New York U.? .)

[Vwing]

In Batman, the Joker plummets to his death from a very tall building.  This doesn't bother me.

In Batman Returns, an innocent girl plummets to her death from a very tall building.  This is different.

The Joker killed lots of people and was a pretty bad guy.  He got what was coming to him.  The girl in Batman Returns was innocent.

Ok, I know I'm getting off topic here, but THANK YOU! So my family and I aren't the only people who object to this scene in particular as gratuitous and horrible (of course the whole movie is, but this scene really is the prime example of it in the movie). It was a joke Returns wasn't rated R. But even if it was, that scene STILL would have been terrible. I get so angry thinking about that scene in particular, and the movie as a whole. In fact, I blame Tim Burton and whoever wrote Returns MORE than Joel Schumacher for ruining the Batman franchise. After Batman Returns, Schumacher was brought in so they could make a lighter, more family-oriented Batman film like the campy 60s ones, after the unbelieveably dark, objectionable, and stupid goddamn movie that Returns was.

I think that Batman Returns is a much worse movie than Temple of Doom. It's not even close in my opinion. Sure it's not nearly as good as the other Indy movies, not nearly, but it's not horrible. True, I haven't watched it in a while, but from what I remember, it was a little action flick taking place with savages underground while Indy hung out with the Asian kid from Goonies. There was a cart chase, a bridge collapsing, and a magical stone. Someone's heart got torn out and he was lowered into the fire, and then Indy's girlfriend was, but he saves her. I don't really remember it being so objectionable, other than the quality of the movie. But Batman Returns just remade Gotham City into Hell. Temple of Doom may be graphic, but in my opinion, what it shows is not nearly as offensive as Batman Returns. In fact, I may just do a Grill a Movie on Batman Returns when I get the chance.

Hell, you can just tell how angry the movie makes me by seeing the incoherency of my post.

This post has been edited by Vwing: 07 May 2004 - 10:40 PM

[Just your average movie goer]

I've just finished reading that stuff about the rating systems. Thanks, Civilian.

It was an interesting read actually - and actually a lot to think about there.

I've always, for one, been intrigued by the notion that films with high sexual content get harsher ratings than films with high levels of violence.

And I also have to agree with you about the fact that Indiana Jones was not really present in The Temple of Doom. He seems less intelligent and just acts so differently from the character we saw in Raiders that it is hard to convince yourself that he is the same person.

The other problem is that this is not an archaelogist's adventure and technically, any Indiana Jones movie has to be about the adventures of an archaelogist... because that's what Indiana Jones is.

Anyone could have stumbled across the poor Indian village and end up saving the children from Mola Ram.

Hell, the little trio of characters could have been a family on a vacation that went terribly wrong. You've got a father (in lieu of Indy), a mother (in lieu of Willie) and their little kid (in lieu of Short Round). That would actually make the movie more acceptable in my eyes because then it would no longer be a travesty against Raiders of the Lost Ark.

But to retrieve the Ark of the covenant, we actually do require an adventurous archaelogist like Indiana Jones. Or if he's not handy, a soldier of fortune like Brendan Fraser.

[Just your average movie goer]

Thanks, Vwing, for sharing your thoughts about Batman Returns. You've also made me realise that I'm not alone either.

I really agree with you about Batman Forever being as cartoonish as it was - as a means of reviving the series after such a dark and horrible movie.

Sure, it is pretty stupid after repeat viewings (and its spawn Batman and Robin is unforgivable) but I can live with stupid.

When I saw it at the cinema, it felt like a real breath of fresh air after Batman Returns and while I pick on it a bit now (mainly because of the Riddler), I actually quite enjoyed it the first time I saw it.

Batman Returns however was awful.

And I will be quite happy to grill it with you when you get that post up.

[civilian_number_two]

Err. Not sure what I did. "God bless" means "good luck" to the Irish.

Villains melting is not the same as torture; all violence not equal.

Uh, there are several great films of the past .. ah forget it.

I'm going to quit posting under this title. Catch you guys on the next one.

Here's a suggestion: Grill a movie: AMERICAN BEAUTY.

[Just your average movie goer]

Fair enough. I think we're finished on this title now. It was fun.

I thank everyone who participated and Mike, you were a good sport for trying to defend this film. A little spar is always fun and I think fun was had.

Yes and from what I've heard, American Beauty should be grilled too.

See you all on the next one. Coming soon....

[Mike Mac from NYU]

Quote

Here's a suggestion: Grill a movie: AMERICAN BEAUTY.

I don't think American Beauty is a bad movie per se. But I will agree that it didn't deserve as many oscars as it did. To me I am indifferent on American Beauty. Don't think I will participate the grilling on that. I don;t think "Beauty" is THAT bad that it deserves a massive roasting. Besides, to be honest I have never seen the movie in it's entirety.



Grilling Spider-man is a much more interesting activity for me. Especially with it's sequel coming up.

Quote

Villains melting is not the same as torture; all violence not equal.

Violence is violence.

Quote

Err. Not sure what I did. "God bless" means "good luck" to the Irish.

I'm a second generation Scott, so I don;t know what that means to me, either. Scottish, Irish...we all share the same thing.... we hate the English



Uh, there are several great films of the past .. ah forget it.

I'm going to quit posting under this title. Catch you guys on the next one.[/QUOTE]

Wow, I have left civ., speechless!! Anyway I laid everything on the table and explained my point of view. If he refuses to respond to it, I will let no-respone speak for itself. that speak for itself.

By the way I am creating my website soon, which will have a forum called "film doctors", where we discuss how to fix bad movies. Dunno if any of you guys want to join that forum. Some of my movie ideas and credits will be on it.

My wife is expecting around these next few weeks so i will be out of the loop for a while. When I get back, I will be back to grill Spiderman fully, so wait till I make the original grilling post.

[Jordan]

FINAL WORDS


TOD is a peice of smeg, beotch.

[civilian_number_two]

Villains melting is not the same as torture; all violence not equal.

Violence is violence.

Wow, I have left civ., speechless!! Anyway I laid everything on the table and explained my point of view. If he refuses to respond to it, I will let no-respone speak for itself. that speak for itself.

1) No it isn't. Kids punching one another in a Disney film is not the same as ripping a man's beating heart out of hs chest and lowering him, screaming in fear and agony, into a volcanic maelstrom. Again, God bless you and I hope you're wearing a helmet, cause that's not a strong limb.

2) Speechless isn't something to be proud of. Frankly your last rant pissed me off, since it is full of all manner of personal claims and attacks. I don't think I said anything to piss you off like that, but I've already seen two people use me as their excuse to stop posting here. I never had any intention of working anyone up. At least not personally, and unike those other assholes, I think you know better.

I can go nine rounds on any of the things you brought up, and in some cases I have already. Given the way you brought them up, I'll stay out. That silence will "speak for itself;" you may want to consider what it's saying.

PS: when I say I am going to stop posting somewhere, it's never a strong claim. You want to pull me back in with what I quoted above, it's going to work nearly every time.

[Jordan]

At least not personally, and unike those other assholes, I think you know better.

Whose the other asshole? me?

[Just your average movie goer]

1) No it isn't. Kids punching one another in a Disney film is not the same as ripping a man's beating heart out of hs chest and lowering him, screaming in fear and agony, into a volcanic maelstrom. Again, God bless you and I hope you're wearing a helmet, cause that's not a strong limb.

Yeah, Mike was going out on a limb for sure.

Don't worry, Mike. Again, it's nothing personal... you're a nice guy but your line of defence that all violence is the same just doesn't work.

There's a HUGE difference between a fight scene and an execution/torture scene... a huge difference. Civilian's quote above is absolutely right.

The "film doctors" website sounds cool. Let us know the details when you set it up.

I hope everything goes well for you and your wife - congratulations to the both of you. You must be very excited.

And we will wait for you to begin the grilling of Spiderman.