Retardo_Montalban wrote:Chairman Kaga wrote:Retardo_Montalban wrote:Historical and monetary value aside, The holy grail can cure the sick, heal mortal wounds and I don't think its power is only relegated to the cave it sits in or else it wouldn't really need a billion year old Knight to guard it.
The knight wasn't guarding it, he couldn't leave. He even says he has to drink from it daily to stay immortal.
Shit, that is laaame. What kind of idiot would waste his life sitting in a cave drinking water? That makes no sense. I haven't seen the movie in a few years, but I'm watch it again friday. Even with a huge plot hole like that, I still really dug the shit out of that film.
AtomicHyperbole wrote:Chairman Kaga wrote:AtomicHyperbole wrote:HOW is the Ark worthless? It can decimate an entire army with Gods power! Jesus, that's DANGEROUS! It's worth shitloads more than a crappy cup that can only move and deliver immortality by a few meters and an old man who's sitting in a cave.
I take the position that it's worthless because only one person can wield it. Considering at the time there was no Israel and thus no High Priest, in the film's time period no one could wield it. It wasn't a lack of humility for God that did in the Nazi's, it was that none of them were the High Priest (let alone of the chosen people).Retardo_Montalban wrote:Historical and monetary value aside, The holy grail can cure the sick, heal mortal wounds and I don't think its power is only relegated to the cave it sits in or else it wouldn't really need a billion year old Knight to guard it.
The knight wasn't guarding it, he couldn't leave. He even says he has to drink from it daily to stay immortal.
Wow, as Retardo says, that's a great way to undermine TLC. Thanks!
I can't see how you're arguing that the Ark isn't simply a far more dangerous, deadly threat to mankind than the Grail. I think you're arguing the toss, to be honest.
AtomicHyperbole wrote:I have trouble making sense of ill-thought out posts, that's for sure. Even so you undermined TLC wonderfully, I didn't quote his post but referred to it as there was no point repeating it. Follow the thread! Tut tut!
AtomicHyperbole wrote:Prepare to meet Kali... IN HELL.
I'll say this, Kaga is more coherent than Papa. I emailed his posts to the lab in the British Museum, they're having more trouble translating them than they did the Rosetta Stone.
AtomicHyperbole wrote:Prepare to meet Kali... IN HELL.
I'll say this, Kaga is more coherent than Papa. I emailed his posts to the lab in the British Museum, they're having more trouble translating them than they did the Rosetta Stone.
CeeBeeUK wrote:But did they work out what the Jewel of the Nile was?
Fried Gold wrote:CeeBeeUK wrote:But did they work out what the Jewel of the Nile was?
It was the Rabbit's Foot.
AtomicHyperbole wrote:It was useful?
RogueScribner wrote:Well, there was a nice debate going for a while, but now it's all just schtick, so no point in anything more really.
RogueScribner wrote:Well, there was a nice debate going for a while, but now it's all just schtick, so no point in anything more really.
King Of Nowhere wrote:So, who's up for a Romancing the Stone Vs The Jewel of the Nile thread?
papalazeru wrote:King Of Nowhere wrote:So, who's up for a Romancing the Stone Vs The Jewel of the Nile thread?
Can't be a versus. They are both equally as good.
How about a Centurions vs Visionaries thread?
caruso_stalker217 wrote:some shit fuck shit shit shit motherfucker shit fuck shit shit fuck
Fried Gold wrote:caruso_stalker217 wrote:some shit fuck shit shit shit motherfucker shit fuck shit shit fuck
I think you are mistaken about how much Brody is played for laughs in The Last Crusade.
A. He is shown in a different environment to that of Raiders, and he acts accordingly and not particular out of character, but one who is out of his depth now but is perhaps thinking back to his younger days (boys club handshake with Jones Snr etc)
B. He is often the source of much academic information of history and myth, very much showing his wealth of knowledge.
C. When he is part of a comic scene (of which there is only really one), it is very much in context. (ie. "Marcus will fit in, he's know dozens of languages"..."Excuse me, does anyone speak classical greek or aramaic?")
D. He works excellently as supporting character.
AtomicHyperbole wrote:papalazeru wrote:
How about a Centurions vs Visionaries thread?
HA! Awesome. Visionaries so wins.
Lord Voldemoo wrote:AtomicHyperbole wrote:papalazeru wrote:
How about a Centurions vs Visionaries thread?
HA! Awesome. Visionaries so wins.
you're dead to me.
papalazeru wrote:King Of Nowhere wrote:So, who's up for a Romancing the Stone Vs The Jewel of the Nile thread?
Can't be a versus. They are both equally as good.
Peven wrote:i think Brody works alright in the context of TLC, but i think you have to admit that there IS a change of tone to his character from Raiders compared to TLC, though mayhap not as drastic as some propose....
papalazeru wrote:Peven wrote:i think Brody works alright in the context of TLC, but i think you have to admit that there IS a change of tone to his character from Raiders compared to TLC, though mayhap not as drastic as some propose....
Could be because he has a much bigger part in TLC. They developed his character further than they did in Raiders.
Peven wrote:papalazeru wrote:Peven wrote:i think Brody works alright in the context of TLC, but i think you have to admit that there IS a change of tone to his character from Raiders compared to TLC, though mayhap not as drastic as some propose....
Could be because he has a much bigger part in TLC. They developed his character further than they did in Raiders.
and you are absolutely correct there. he has such a small role in Raiders that there certainly is room for more character exposition, but it just seems as if the direction they were going with the character in Raiders, albeit for only a few steps, was different than the direction they went with Brody in TLC
papalazeru wrote:Peven wrote:papalazeru wrote:Peven wrote:i think Brody works alright in the context of TLC, but i think you have to admit that there IS a change of tone to his character from Raiders compared to TLC, though mayhap not as drastic as some propose....
Could be because he has a much bigger part in TLC. They developed his character further than they did in Raiders.
and you are absolutely correct there. he has such a small role in Raiders that there certainly is room for more character exposition, but it just seems as if the direction they were going with the character in Raiders, albeit for only a few steps, was different than the direction they went with Brody in TLC
He never really left the confines of his home.
Peven wrote:papalazeru wrote:Peven wrote:papalazeru wrote:Peven wrote:i think Brody works alright in the context of TLC, but i think you have to admit that there IS a change of tone to his character from Raiders compared to TLC, though mayhap not as drastic as some propose....
Could be because he has a much bigger part in TLC. They developed his character further than they did in Raiders.
and you are absolutely correct there. he has such a small role in Raiders that there certainly is room for more character exposition, but it just seems as if the direction they were going with the character in Raiders, albeit for only a few steps, was different than the direction they went with Brody in TLC
He never really left the confines of his home.
when someone watches Raiders for the first time you have to admit that the impression they get from Brody is that of a more capable, serious man than the Brody depicted in TLC. i think that after you have watched both and digested it all it is natural to fill in gaps and try to connect the two depictions, and so you can look back at Raiders and see him in a different light. for some, that light ends up being less than flattering, though, and Brody ends up being less than we had imagined
Lord Voldemoo wrote:I guess i come down somewhat in the middle on this one (Brody). I agree with the "fish out of water" concept, and I think it's used for some decent gags in LC. With respect to his comment about going after the Ark himself in Raiders, I guess i always just chalked that up to exuberance/hyperbole which wouldn't be out of place from a man in his position. I think Peven's right, though, in that even if his comment about going after the Ark were just BS, Brody WAS a serious intellectual in Raiders. I didn't mind them poking fun at his expense in LC, but I wish they'd given him one or two serious moments as well and not used him purely for comic relief.
papalazeru wrote:Lord Voldemoo wrote:I guess i come down somewhat in the middle on this one (Brody). I agree with the "fish out of water" concept, and I think it's used for some decent gags in LC. With respect to his comment about going after the Ark himself in Raiders, I guess i always just chalked that up to exuberance/hyperbole which wouldn't be out of place from a man in his position. I think Peven's right, though, in that even if his comment about going after the Ark were just BS, Brody WAS a serious intellectual in Raiders. I didn't mind them poking fun at his expense in LC, but I wish they'd given him one or two serious moments as well and not used him purely for comic relief.
At the very beginning when Indy first talks to Marcus in his lecture class, I don't think he was comic relief, he was very much in the Raiders mould.
Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:I love reading this thread! How about we follow it up with a Gobot vs Transformers thread??
Fried Gold wrote:caruso_stalker217 wrote:some shit fuck shit shit shit motherfucker shit fuck shit shit fuck
I think you are mistaken about how much Brody is played for laughs in The Last Crusade.
A. He is shown in a different environment to that of Raiders, and he acts accordingly and not particular out of character, but one who is out of his depth now but is perhaps thinking back to his younger days (boys club handshake with Jones Snr etc)
B. He is often the source of much academic information of history and myth, very much showing his wealth of knowledge.
C. When he is part of a comic scene (of which there is only really one), it is very much in context. (ie. "Marcus will fit in, he's know dozens of languages"..."Excuse me, does anyone speak classical greek or aramaic?")
D. He works excellently as supporting character.
RogueScribner wrote:
Marcus is obviously suffering from Alzheimers in TLC if he once got lost in his own museum. Please, can't you just admit that Marcus wss played for laughs in TLC while he wasn't in Raiders? Sallah, too.
Matrowl wrote:Temple of Doom definetly has some of the most ingenious action scenes in movie history. It's also the most sloppily put together of the trilogy. Near the beginning, for example, when Indy is firing from the back of the car that Short Round is driving, you can clearly see that the "broken glass" is actually plastic. In a clearly visible shot Indy pulls his gun back through the hole and the fake plastic window pulls back. I could cite other examples.
I can't speak for Crystal Skull yet, but of the original three I'd say TOD is the film Spielberg was least into. I think he's actually admitted such. It's still hands down better than 90% of the garbage that passes as action these days, of course.
Lord Voldemoo wrote:RogueScribner wrote:
Marcus is obviously suffering from Alzheimers in TLC if he once got lost in his own museum. Please, can't you just admit that Marcus wss played for laughs in TLC while he wasn't in Raiders? Sallah, too.
Lucas: what can i do to lighten....hey...old, confused people and people with accents are funny! GOLD!!!!!!!!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests