Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Please...

Let (the) TLJ (discussion) die.


Kill it if you have to.

It’ll die to conversation when it’s no longer relevant to conversation.

The notion of being “too hung up on realism” is a method of explaining by explaining away why somebody doesn’t like a film or some part of a film.

If I say, I find plot element X to be unbelievable and you respond, well you’re just too hung up on realism, you haven’t really addressed whether X is believable or not. All you’ve managed is some ad hominem.

 Manchu wrote:
It’ll die to conversation when it’s no longer relevant to conversation.

The notion of being “too hung up on realism” is a method of explaining by explaining away why somebody doesn’t like a film or some part of a film.

If I say, I find plot element X to be unbelievable and you respond, well you’re just too hung up on realism, you haven’t really addressed whether X is believable or not. All you’ve managed is some ad hominem.

Agreed - there were a large variety of different issues various people had with TLJ which were all dismissed with disdain by the Director, critics and their ardent defenders

Some people did not like the tone.
Others the pacing and length of the film
The characters for many were weak, incoherently drawn and used and often paper thin.
Some found elements of it unrealistic within the defined universe
Some just did not enjoy it

(Personally my friends and I would have said all of the above applied to this film)

Critics were not only (very suspiciously) were almost universely falling over themeslves to say how wonderful it was but sometimes using the exact same language - almost as if they were given it in a press briefing and told/paid to churn it out.

They and the Director then attacked anyone that dared speak against their flawless masterpiece - almost as if it was orchasterated. What they did not do was actually provide counterpoints to the issues raised - just that anyone who did not like it was one of more of the following:

A "Superfan" Nerd, sexist or racist - this was then carried on forums such as this one.

Whilst you can and often the best films do in fact sacrifice "realism" for the theme, story, style whatever - sacrifcing plot, characters, tone and pacing is harder to justify when the art form is being judged.

As another example, I recently re-watched Kong: Skull Island. It’s a pretty dire film in terms of characters, plot, pacing, and a number of other points. Yet one issue it doesn’t really suffer from is being “unrealistic” - despite being about 104’ tall ape! A lot of incredible things happen in the movie that are made credible by the exposition and overall tone.

Starting to think Godwin's rule may need amending to replace Nazi/Hitler with TLJ

Personally I've adopted outright denial of the films existence, much like my conviction that there are only 2 Indy films

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Starting to think Godwin's rule may need amending to replace Nazi/Hitler with TLJ

Personally I've adopted outright denial of the films existence, much like my conviction that there are only 2 Indy films

My first impression of Crystal Skull was just that it wasn't the WORST Indy film....

 Manchu wrote:
It’ll die to conversation when it’s no longer relevant to conversation.

The notion of being “too hung up on realism” is a method of explaining by explaining away why somebody doesn’t like a film or some part of a film.

If I say, I find plot element X to be unbelievable and you respond, well you’re just too hung up on realism, you haven’t really addressed whether X is believable or not. All you’ve managed is some ad hominem.

I'm right there with you on that. I just don't want the thread to get locked. There was less threat of that when we were talking about racism.

Speaking of dismissing people with legitimate issues with a film as hung up on realism, Peter Jackson's King Kong is the film I use as a gauge for that. It's like Prometheus, but dumber.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
As another example, I recently re-watched Kong: Skull Island. It’s a pretty dire film in terms of characters, plot, pacing, and a number of other points. Yet one issue it doesn’t really suffer from is being “unrealistic” - despite being about 104’ tall ape! A lot of incredible things happen in the movie that are made credible by the exposition and overall tone.

I haven't re watched it, but I would argue that the film nailed what it was trying to do, even in terms of characters. They were not fleshed out like one would want in a movie about people, but they gave funny lines and great reactions to the monsters, which means they were better Kaiju film characters than the ones from Godzilla 2014, or most Godzilla films, really. As for pacing, I never felt bored.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

I'm right there with you on that. I just don't want the thread to get locked. There was less threat of that when we were talking about racism.

Speaking of dismissing people with legitimate issues with a film as hung up on realism, Peter Jackson's King Kong is the film I use as a gauge for that. It's like Prometheus, but dumber.

Oh yeah. It was awful. Even ignoring all the completely implausible stuff (dinosaurs hanging in vines...) it is very badly directed film. It was simply so BLOATED. Jackson's rule seems to be that why tell a scene in 1 minute if you can tell it in 10?

 LordofHats wrote:
The thing I've noticed about professional movie critics is that they tend to put a high value on novelty and technical execution.

I don't think anyone can say TLJ wasn't a technically excellent film. They probably had a huge effects budget and boy did they use it. Good sound quality. Good music. Good camera work. From a technical standpoint there's nothing wrong with the movie.

From a novel stand point the film attempts deconstruction, and does a semi-decent job at it even if they wussed out at the end. I don't think I know of a deconstructive film with good technical execution that wasn't well reviewed by movie critics.

Some films are made to win Oscars, some are made to do well with critics and the box office. Neither assures people will actually like the movie when they see it.

The fight choreography leaves something to be desired, but other than that, yes, in a technical sense it was quite well done.

But sparkly sparkly alone does not a great movie make.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Starting to think Godwin's rule may need amending to replace Nazi/Hitler with TLJ

Personally I've adopted outright denial of the films existence, much like my conviction that there are only 2 Indy films

My first impression of Crystal Skull was just that it wasn't the WORST Indy film....

Come on, Temple of Doom isn't that bad

I just assumed he meant Last Crusade.

Are you saying you thought Last Crusade was bad?

It’s fine but I like Temple of Doom much better.

 Manchu wrote:
It’s fine but I like Temple of Doom much better.

That is the first time I've heard that opinion.

Temple matches up more closely to the pulps that inspired it. It’s weird and goofy. Last Crusade, by contrast, has always seemed really safe and basic to me.

Temple of Doom also has much safer enemies to fight, making it a better "fun" film. Violence against Nazis is too controversial in 2018 for them to really work in something that is supposed to be a light and fluffy adventure series.

 Manchu wrote:
Temple matches up more closely to the pulps that inspired it. It’s weird and goofy. Last Crusade, by contrast, has always seemed really safe and basic to me.

I always got a strong serial vibe from Last Crusade. It felt like an episode of Indy's ongoing adventures. Same with Temple, but Last Crusade struck me as better paced with more enjoyable side characters. Raiders I want to like more than I actually do.

The baddies in Temple are extremely controversial in 2018 as well!

No doubt Raiders is the strongest of them all by far. But I have a lot of affection for Temple because it’s zany, straight away from the nightclub number intro right up through the villain falling into the snapping jaws of crocodiles.

Something I really hate about Last Crusade is the opening flashback where we are asked to believe that the scoundrel who seduced Professor Ravenwood’s (very) young daughter and whose motto is ‘fortune and glory,’ got into the whole business because of his noble belief that artifacts belong in museums. It’s just so vanilla. Takes the edge right off of Indy as a pulp adventurer IMO.

I like all of them, though Temple of Doom is my least favorite by a slight margin. You have a good point about Indy being less interesting as a simple boy scout, though.