Am I the only person here who likes the Tarzan sequence?

I can accept one monkey that is someone's pet and is trained to perform certain duties. There is nothing far fetched about that, it happens in real life all the time. I will roll with that.

I cannot accept Mutt becoming the king of the monkeys, swinging across vines leading an army of monkeys into battle against Russians. I cannot accept that the monkeys can differentiate between Spalko driving a car and Indy driving a car and knowing which one is good and which one is evil.

So there, I am rolling with a plausible monkey scenario in Raiders and not rolling with an impossible scenario in Skull.

 

That's cool. Me, I'm rolling along with a couple of barely plausible monkey antics.

Then again, I don't see Mutt as the king of monkeys, and assumed the monkeys were fighting the Russians on their own accord. I don't see how it's any more outrageous that these monkeys can differentiate between the good guys and bad guys than it was for the monkey in Raiders.

 

Because that was a trained and domesticated monkey. As you must be aware, dogs -- which are of equivalent or inferior intelligence to monkeys -- are able to discern, based on its master's body language, words and gestures, which visitors are its master's friends and which its enemies. Same thing here (in Raiders).

Monkeys living in the wild, with no knowledge or understanding of human communication and no stake in the precedings one way or the other, would not just arbitrarily start attacking on faction and leave the other unmolested. It's senseless and borderline insulting to the audience's intelligence.

 

I think that's a lot to assume to suggest that only a trained monkey could make those kinds of discriminations.

The monkeys see the Russian soldiers wrecking the place, they see Indy and co are fighting them, so they joined in to help out of their own interests.

Let's not insult the monkey's intelligence just to placate some people who think monkeys with political affiliations are plausible only when trained.

 

Once again, how could they differentiate between the two parties? They were both driving cars through the jungle, and they were causing equal amounts of destruction. Heck, Indy was freaking shooting rockets, causing huge explosions! Why didn't they attack him?

 

Maybe they heard that explosion, but by the time they looked, they couldn't tell it was Indy that did that.

The Russians all had uniforms on and the heroes all looked cool and individualized.

 

How does a monkey know what is cool?

But I'm going to agree that, while the monkey's only attacking the "bad guys" truck is a little far-fetched, the vine swinging part of the monkey scene was the only thing that really bothered me. When they were attacking the Russians it made me think of Jumanji.

 

How does anyone know what is cool?

I just meant that the Russians were all similarly dressed, and the heroes had a different look to them.

The vine swinging on Mutt's part was really far-fetched, but to me it fits in with the genre.

 

You are arguing ad absurdium and you surely know it! Please continue to enjoy the scene all you like. As for myself, I've studied primate behavior both in the classroom and in the field, and monkeys don't act like that.

 

Yes, we sure don't want the movie to be less than completely realistic when depicting the monkeys...

 

Vortigern, you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

Monkey King was a good friend. When I first knew him, I was amazed at how strong his upper body was...

 

Anyway, I watched Indy for the 4th time today. Yes, I can see why some said that the monkey has hair kind of like Mutt's. It's kind of a neat touch, and the monkeys are definitely lovely...

 

I only want realism of the variety depicted in Raiders of the Lost Ark. I want verisimilitude, an approach to the material that treats fantastical events as though they are really happening. I want moments such as when Marion tilts the medallion to examine it, and the candle flame flickers while the score tells us something mystical is happening. I don't want an animated homage to Tarzan films that defies both physics and observable animal behavior.

 

This thread will go down in history as the goofiest conversation ever.

I personally think this example is a PERFECT example of how CGI has ruined movie-making. If this movie were made in the 80's, this is how it would go.

Hawaiian Jungle Person: Hey, you can't bring monkeys here! We don't allow any animals.

Spielberg: Oh, whoops. I guess that means we can't shoot the scene with Mutt swinging on vines and somehow getting an army of monkeys to defeat the Russians. Hmmm...maybe we'll replace it with a scene that's actually cool, then.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, anytime a filmmaker is told he can't do something he just says "alright, let's just CGI it".

 

The monkeys are cool, they add something to the Indy movies that wasn't there before, and they're sooooo cute.

 

Yes, they are cute. It's physically impossible for monkeys, CGI animated or otherwise, to NOT be cute. You can thank evolution for that, or Mother Nature, or the Creator God, depending on your preference. But it seems a bit overreaching to congratulate the filmmakers, or to say that the movie is improved artistically or even as an afternoon's entertainment, simply because monkeys are cute!

And what they add to this film, IMO, is absurdity.

 

Well, we can agree to disagree on this.... to me the monkeys were awesome, I had a lot of fun watching them and I even wish they would sell a stuffed monkey that looked like the one in the movie.

 

I've been wondering. Mutt swings with the monkeys into the vehicle with the Russians. Then he starts fighting the Russians. The monkeys join in. But then Mutt climbs out of the vehicle, runs across the hood and then jumps into Indy's car. Would the monkeys follow? Or would they be caught up in the Russian fight?

Only wondering, because people think it's ridiculous that the monkeys would only attack the Russians. Yet, Indy and the good guys were in a whole different vehicle that Mutt had to jump across to while the monkeys were already fighting the Russians. So, i'm not sure they would actually attack the people in the other car, good guys or not, if they were real monkeys.

Would they?

 

The monkey who worked for the Nazi's in Raiders wasn't absurd? He gives a Heil Hitler salute.

 

Since a real, trained monkey can perform that action in real life -- as it clearly did, since that is not a puppet or a piece of cell animation -- then I fail to see what is so "absurd" about a real, trained monkey performing that action in the movie-universe of Raiders.

In Crystal Skull, those are supposed to be wild monkeys, not trained in any way, which inexplicably follow Mutt through the trees and begin attacking his enemies. Let me ask you something: If that had been a pack of wild, stray dogs instead of monkeys, folllowing Mutt because he was, say, running around on all fours, would this scene embarrass you or seem in any way foolish? Or would it just seem fun and funny that suddenly a pack of wild dogs was following the character and doing his unspoken bidding?

 

I thought it was great fun, and a great homage that was long overdue, since they weren't able to get it into any of the other Indy movies. I really don't see the point of not doing something fun with your characters if there is the opportunity.

 

To be honest, I'm completely neutral on this scene. I don't care about it one way or the other, really. Didn't bug me on first viewing, and on my second one I just thought, "Well, ok... but couldn't they have cut this for time and added in another 'breather' scene instead?" I agree with whoever said that it was better when filmmakers *had* to come up with ways around limitations like no monkeys in Hawaii. Those create some of the best moments in film...

Like not showing the shark in Jaws.

Or having to cut the sword fight and having Indy just shoot they guy instead

Unexpected things happen on every film, and part of the brilliance of filmmaking is working around them, writing scenes on the spot, thinking things up. It's terrifying when you're actually doing it (trust me...) but it often really, really works out. If you just say, "Eh, we'll fix it in post" you lose a lot.

Anyway, that being said... as a viewer I don't particularly hate or like the scene. I just kind of wish they would have either been creative or had more time for a character scene somewhere around there to build that side of the ending up along with the action. Doesn't necessarily have to do that much with this particular scene, I just think this is probably the one I would have cut.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

I don't know why you are even calling it a scene. It isn't. IIRC there may be 2 or 3 shots after Mutt comes face-to-face with the first monkey. It's more of a gang than an actual scene.

And it also gets a hugely enthusiastic response from every audience I've seen the film with. People really seemed to enjoy it.

 

Um... it's called a scene because it's a scene? Because "gang" is not a film term?

...



-sj loves kevin spacey