Is Indy 4 that bad?

I have to rewatch them, but I also am not keen on TOD. I never liked how these "wild" people were portrayed, it did feel ignorant and cheesy. The movie has action, but lacks charme. ID4 is better in my opinion, ID 1, 3 and 4 are all cool with me.

 

Having "wild", i.e., "savage", non-white people as the villains sums up a lot of what's wrong with TOD.

 

Well you had the Shankara stone village that were good. Even with the real doings of the Thuggees being now surrounded in controversy (I had no idea there was a chance they weren't really robbers), I have no idea who else a Thuggee would be. Spielberg didn't want to do Nazis again, so he had to choose something else.

 

I'm trying to get my head around what you mean? Do you mean it's racist or that the villains aren't as good as say Nazis or Russians?

 

I don't think the filmmakers were trying to be racist (there are other LFL movies you can watch for that); but I do think there was rather an alarming lack of cultural sensitivity in TOD. Especially given that the film is basically a remake of Gunga Din, starring Indiana Jones. A movie about the heroes saving the British Empire in India from being overrun by a cult of bloodthirsty, devil-worshipping Hindu traitors doesn't play as well in the post-colonial era.

 

Indy 4 is just as good as 1-3 in my opinion, and the protagonist's age makes no difference. The alien plot is no different from the supernatural elements in ROTLA. I can't wait for the 5th one and I hope Mutt reappears, along with Marion. I'd be okay if Indy dies, if it's done the right way. Hey, I'd like to see some elements of Young Indiana Jones added in, maybe either an old friend or enemy from the series.

 

I hope Mutt reappars too. I don't want Indiana Jones to distance itself from The Crystal Skull like Disney seems to have somewhat done with the Prequels. Has Disney done anything about Indy's expanded universe, or does Disney deal with that?

 

To be honest, being of color myself, I don't get this kind of argument. Both the Nazis an the Thugees are taken directly from history. Why is it culturally insensitive to depict an Indian group of extremists with several fictional elements, and not white Nazi villains with several fictional elements?

 

Well, like I said, there's politics: the villains are Hindu rebels who plan on overthrowing the British Raj in India. In the era of Gunga Din, when the British Empire still existed, this kind of plotline made more sense. But in the modern era, asking your audience to root for a white American guy as he suppresses a cell of rebels against a European colonial regime (bloodthirsty cult or no) is rather harder.

Another aspect of the problem is that European ethnocentrism generally involves lumping all "brown people" together. Even Temple of Doom is guilty of this: the voodoo doll the Thuggees used to control the Maharajah is a practice historically associated with the New World and African-American folk magic, not with Hinduism.

And then there's the banquet scene: so gross, over-the-top, and generally offensive, it effectively fails to make its overall point in the narrative. It suggests to the audience, not that there's something sinister going on at Pankot Palace, but that the filmmakers are racist and culturally insensitive.

 

There are sympathetic Indians though, such as the villagers, and the kidnapped children.

The larger problem I see is the 'White Man's Burden' undertones of the native people being unable to save themselves, and having them rely on a white man to be the hero.

 

The fact that Indy is a white man is incidental as far as I'm concerned. I think it says more about our own prejudiced views, and fears of being racially insensitive, than about the intentions of the film makers. The banquet scene is indeed over the top, and might be seen as insensitive, but how many films have depicted Germans as fat loud mouthed sausage eating people in Lederhosen, or Russians as drunks. I think we should lighten up a bit about such things. Movies are full of inaccuracies and caricatures, and if we only start picking out the ones that involve colored people, I think that's really being racist.

 

It's not bad at all.
I rank it above TOD.

 

Not likely. The character is widely disliked and Shia LeBeouf burned bridges after the critical comments he made about Spielberg being more of a "f-ing company" than a "filmmaker".

 

IMHO is unbearable to even sit through . I believe anyone saying otherwise is just saying it for arguments sake and like the movie just to like it Bc everyone else hated it. An empty movie without any passion.

 

Or they legitimately like the movie.

 

Awesome film. Different from the 80s trilogy but in a good way.

 

Have you ever been to that part of the world? It's actually pretty accurate.

 

You are kidding aren't you?

 

Not at all. They filmed it in very poor areas of Shri Lanka. It is still very much like it was in the film. That's why they shot there. Here are some pictures of that area taken recently:

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/CWN13H/a-p...lanka-with-hut-made-of-palm-fronds-CWN13H.jpg

http://fullercenter.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/image/Sri Lanka poverty housing.jpg

http://www.uktamilnews.com/wp-conte...2129872895_1886596060859697254_n1-400x264.jpg

I mean, I agree with the not being wild and savage. I visited that area and they were all very friendly, but there is a lot of crime and poverty there. You really have to be careful where you go, there are wandering gangs all around there who will rob, rape, and kill you in a heartbeat. There is still a lot of savagery there. Although that's obviously not unique to Sri Lanka.

 

I like Indy KOTCS! Just like every Indy film, it's different.. The Music is legit, The new characters are ok, great action/chase scenes, interesting story..
What I don't like..
The nuclear bomb scene, The monkey scene, Aliens.

 

I still will go to my grave not understanding how space aliens is suddenly beyond the pale fitting into the Indy-verse considering all the crazy stuff he's witnessed over the years.

 

I liked it, the antics and fight scenes were fun and Shia Libeouf did good with his role,

It wasn't racist-it's states that the alien helped basically every civilization on the planet.

I kind of have to laugh when people say AA theorists are raacist because they talk a lot about how Greek gods, Christinaity and civilization in general is an alien creation.

Aliens are totally fine in the Indy-Verse, we have the ark of the covenant killing people, Hindu cults who actually can take out hearts, and the grale with a seven hundred year old knight.

 

Yes, I quite loved it.

However, Speil should have listened to George on Indy having a Daughter. While a son is reflective of Indy's father, a feisty, scaredy cat of snakes, adventurous daughter would have done more of interest than his son.

Daddy/Daughter would have been quite nice to see.

 

DP.

I can understand what he was implying at.

Berg is of the Hollywood system. Compared to Lucas(who was also working on the movie) he was independent and didn't seem to follow a faceless "company".

However, he loses all merit when he himself is apart of the Hollywood system(well, I'm not sure if he still is now).