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

It is not a scene. I have yet to see a single screenplay where 2-3 shots are called a scene. I think it's legitimate to call it a short sequence or a gag that's part of the jungle chase scene.

 

Every time you have a new scene heading, it's a scene. For example:

EXT. JUNGLE - TREETOPS - DAY

That's a scene. It's counted as a scene. Every single new setting has a scene header in the screenplay. Technically speaking for purposes of production, even if someone walks from outside a house to inside one, if there's a cut it's a new scene even if conversation continues. For the purposes of just talking about film, any contained set of action is referred to as a scene.

Not only is Mutt swinging with the monkeys definitely its own scene in terms of screenwriting and discussion of film, it's actually multiple scenes broken up, together forming a sequence. This sequence (Mutt is pulled to the trees, Mutt grabs the vines and swings, Mutt spots the jeep, Mutt swings into the jeep) is part of the much larger sequence of the whole chase/fight. If you call it a "short sequence", you are by definition calling it MULTIPLE scenes.

It is absolutely, categorically, unequivocally a scene.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Scene
Action taking place in one location and in a distinct time that (hopefully) moves the story to the next element of the story.

Everything that happens in the jungle chase can be considered one scene.

 

This board is such a hilarious contrast to The Raven board. Over there, there's nothing but bashers, it seems. I honestly haven't seen anything this bad since The Phantom Menace came out. Nothing but bitterness. I can't even post over there, it's so bad.

Over here, it's the opposite. We can't even criticize certain aspects of the movie without somebody jumping in and saying "Actually, that part was great. You just don't understand filmmaking. It's an homage to _____, and it perfectly captures the feeling of _____. Besides, if you're such a great writer, how come your post has grammatical errors?"

Princess_Tina, I appreciate your enthusiasm--I really do. But solojones is right. If you have a new scene heading, it's a new scene. This is really just a pointless argument either way...but solojones knows what he's talking about. I don't have the script right here in front of me, but it's hard not to imagine the monkey sequence being written as its own scene in the script.

If you liked the monkeys, then fine. A lot of us didn't. It doesn't ruin the film, and it doesn't make us unappreciative of the film. But it was a bad scene. There are little bits of Raiders and Last Crusade that irk me too. None as bad as the monkeys in this one, but there are still bad moments here and there. It's really not a big deal.

 

Yes, Princess, we all know you think every single bit in this movie is awesome and the best thing you've seen hit the silver screen in 20 years. No need to keep repeating it.

 

Thank you for summarizing the essence of my love of Raiders and its two follow-ups while suggesting the very truth about this new movie: it's a production piece devoid of any real magic, character development, storytelling, or theme. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have become such masters of production that they have forgotten how to tell a story.

Crystal Skull was a major disappointment as a movie, and I'm shocked that so few of you are willing to admit how awful it truly was. That we are even debating a monkey swinging vine sequence exhibits how banal and shallow the message of this movie is. We hardly give a crap about the essense of the Cyrstal Skull storyline because the movie makers used it as a gimmick, not a reason to insight a quest of the imagination.

 

The only place where there's anything really negative being said about the movie, it seems, is in the fan boards. Other than that, I've heard nothing but positive things about the movie. The audiences I've seen it with had a great time, and things like the monkeys in the jungle usually get a great response. I'm not trying to put down anyone for examining the smallest little detail of a popcorn movie under a microscope. If you want to find fault with a movie that's way better than the average summer movie, sure, go ahead.

But I still think those monkeys are AWESOME!!!!

 

I guess I'm just lucky that I didn't see Raiders as being any more realistic.

 

In my experience there's no such thing as luck...

... nor, for that matter, as wild monkeys who inexplicably attach themselves to a human passerby and become his willing accomplices. /shudder/

 

As someone who has studied screenwriting I have to concur with solojones here (who, in case you missed it, has written professional screenplays and worked as a script reader for a major Hollywood studio). Even a single shot that takes place in a different locale is a scene change. This is to facilitate the production as much as it is to clarify the action, alerting the producers to the fact that they need to develop a new set, with all of the lighting, camera, labor and other technical issues that go along with a new set. During the jungle chase, for example, the drive through the jungle proper is a scene, the cliffside chase is a different scene, and the shots of Mutt swinging through the treetops constitute a different scene. These all combine together to form a sequence.

There's really no point arguing this. Please accept it and move on.

 

Getting back to the monkeys attacking only the Russians, I was always under the impression (I could be wrong) that monkeys protect their young. Mutt made friends with the monkeys and they somehow (either scent or sight or other ways) detected that Indy was Mutt's father and was in danger, and sought out to protect the clan of their new friend.


Its a far fetched theory, but it sounds good to me.

 

Well according to the rules of this board, I'm not allowed to speculate beyond luck.

It must just be magic that allowed me to enjoy this part.

 

Pure balogna. If you guys are willing to accept either divine providence (as Go-Mer seems to be doing) or some speculative yet non-existent "young-protecting" factor (which doesn't work anyway because Indy is Mutt's father, not his child!), then it seems to me you've completely turned off your critical faculties and are prepared to accept anything the filmmakers throw at you just because it's "fun".

I suppose it would be fun, too, if the Millennium Falcon swooped out of the sky to catch Mutt, jostle him around in the cockpit for a few seconds to the tune of the cantina music, and deposit him back in the jeep a few moments later. It would be an homage to STAR WARS! Awesome! And that Chewbacca is soooooo cute!!!

 

Didn't that scene happen in Monty Python's The Life of Brian?

And for the record, the Tarzan scene in Crystal Skull doesn't bother me one bit.

 

I understand why you don't like it, it's just I don't need it to be that scientifically accurate. I mean we are watching a story about a crystal skull that forms a voltron alien with a bunch of other skulls, so the idea that somewhere out there is a pack of monkeys that behave on a higher level than what science has so far observed is just more water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.

For me this movie had enough verisimilitude (I can't believe I spelled that right without a spell checker), that I was able to accept what was going on as real enough to enjoy it for the fun romp with familiar characters it was meant to be.

I'm not saying my perspective is the only way to see this movie, I'm just saying this is how I ended up really enjoying the movie myself.

I was so jazzed to see Indy back up there swinging on a whip that I had no problem meeting this film half way to suspend my disbelief.

I just felt like a kid again, I was smiling through the whole movie, so mission accomplished as far as I'm concerned.

 

I agree with the above assessment for the most part. But certain scenes, the "monkey king" scene especially, took me out of my state of suspension of disbelief and eroded the credibility of the film. We can just agree to disagree.

 

Indeed. It's still a little out there, no doubt, but in the course of adventure-type films where the hero is immune to bullets (as Indy always has been), I don't have much of a problem with some zany, monkey action.

 

Do I have a problem with Mutt swinging on vines like Tarzan? No.

Do I have a problem with more furries in Lucas movies? Yes.

I did enjoy the scene, even though it was a little hokey, and I would have loved it if it weren't for the little simians flinging themselves around and attacking the bad guys. I'm sorry, but when the heroes start getting backed up by random wildlife, they lose a couple points of cool.

Seriously, though, I find it difficult to complain about the realism in the vine-swinging scene (a kind of scene that is actually rather timeless now thanks to the Tarzan genre) when in the first 30 minutes of the film Indiana Jones survives a 20,000,000 degree nuclear explosion in a refrigerator, a several mile flight, and a several mile bounce across Nevada without a scratch. It's fun, it's glorious, enjoy!

Violetsaber

 

^^

I think thats a valid point.

Which maybe highlights the real issue: its not that Mutt swinging on the vines is unbelievable, because not much in Crystal Skull is all that believable anyway and this is at least within the realm of reality on some level.

The problem is that ITS DUMB. Its just a plain 'ol bad idea. It looks stupid.

 

There is nothing dumb about paying homage to yet another of the cinematic influences that inspired George and Steven to create the whole Indiana Jones universe in the first place. The whole series owes a lot to the old Tarzan movies and a lot of other cliffhangers they watched when they were growing up. It really would have seemed like a wasted opportunity to have a major action sequence in the movie set in the jungle and not take advantage of that.

 

I can honestly say I like this film and have less problems with it than the prequels or the special editions.
Its mainly due to he fact that this films dialogue isn't as flat, which was my main problem with the PT.

 

This is an aspect I have described to people about the differance. Raiders is realism of action, KOTCS is cgi vine swinging. Why not actually film the actor swinging from a vine or two and insert the results? The scene did not make me cringe but I'd rather it had been differant.

 

Did they actually say it was a CGI double? I've seen the movie 4 times and I'm not really sure if it was Mutt or a digital double. To be honest, I think the footage in question is less than 30 seconds in total.

 

I thought it was a cute 30 second way to get Mutt from one side of the jungle to where the rest of the crew were. I'm not quite sure why it is so hated because to me, it was right in line with the type of stunts we've seen before.

The most disturbing part of the film was the pulling on the rubber snake.