Of course it is a great scene. From what I’ve heard, it was improvised rather than scripted. Not surprising considering the poor movie scripts typical of the time, and ever since.

Gail’s a nurse and she has to work very hard at not losing her enjoyment of a movie (not just the latest Indy, either – Iron Man is terrible at this) because of the horrendous trauma dealt out, after which the protagonists get up and go right on!

That’s what I like about Target Focus Training. When you throw a man into the planet’s gravity well, he’s not going to come right back up, especially with a skull fracture. Which is often what happens when people fall on concrete after being thrown around.

Trauma is scientific and objective, for anyone can look at a real injury and say “that guy’s leg is definitely not going to be working given that the knee is shaped like a dog’s hind leg”. Objective and requiring of medical attention. Hollywood, however, is purely subjective. Anything goes. Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible Two can turn his back on a villain like a macho tough guy obeying the law, wait for the villain to pick up the discarded gun, and then do a 180, draw, aim, and shoot the villain dead. In the real world, Tom Cruise would have had a small hole in his back and a very large hole on his chest if he had tried something like that with real violence.

http://movie.moldova.org/stiri/eng/76783/

If a man said Cate looked good or nice, I wouldn’t pull his card. Of course, women use the word fabulous more often, but it’s not like men won’t comment on how a woman looked in a movie, either.

Bookworm has a great defense for why she didn’t like Indy. Book has been listening to too much Conservative radio where being entertained meant being engaged in intellectual argument or considerations. She has also taken rather well to reading and in depth consideration/analysis of events from a strategist’ point of view. All of that is, of course, not present in action movies. Action movies don’t even sometimes have explainable tactics, let alone explainable strategy. Their strategy is “go to Point A, defeat Villain A, suffer plot twist, go to point B, defeat Villain B, discover how Villain B was mastermind”.

Or in the case of terminator, it was endless sequences of “go here, temporarily defeat cyborg” and so forth.

I agree about the fights, though…some of that stuff seemed gratuitous. Gail’s a nurse and she has to work very hard at not losing her enjoyment of a movie (not just the latest Indy, either – Iron Man is terrible at this) because of the horrendous trauma dealt out, after which the protagonists get up and go right on! Please. But, then….it’s a cartoon, really.

Funny thing is that it’s not so hard for me to get past that, but the whole “ant thing” in this movie almost did it for me — it was SO over the top, and so completely untrue to what “army ants” are about…..ah well. I managed to unhook and enjoy the last scene with the boots disappearing! But it is somewhat difficult to overcome my knowledge of Biology when they misrepresent something so totally…. Heh.

By the way, my daughter also liked the movie — maybe this is something people learn as they grow up and enjoy (or not) movies with family.

And in his defense…heh…he did cite your remark about Cate Blanchett, which showed a charming cloistering into some virtual dwelling from which all the men must’ve been banished to the northern sea. I know your defense is “a girl is what I am,” and that works…but you need it, because if a dude said such a thing I’d grab his MAN-CARD and rip it into little tiny pieces.

Great post. I skipped your update when you stop talking about me and start talking about Indy; looked like spoiler. I’ll reload the page tonight.

Admiral Motti: Don’t try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels’ hidden fortress…

Which seems from the Edward J. Wood Jr School of Screen Writing.

Which is why Star Wars succeeded because the people who made that movie didn’t go with Lucas’ actual writing.

I haven’t seen the latest Indiana Jones movie, am in no hurry to do so, and I think in middle age Spielberg has started taking himself too seriously. He wants to do “message”movies. And he’s made the great mistake of getting hooked up with the hysterical gay socialist Tony Kushner as script doctor. Kiss of death.

In this respect, Legend of the Galactic Heroes has fascinated me and grasped me with the power of its plot and the intricacies of the military planning and political subterfuge at effect.

You can’t stop thinking when watching it and that’s part of the fun. When you have to shut off your brain and your brain is used to the wild world of blog arguments and debates, Book, you will find it much harder to fall back into the massively dumb entertainment formulas for the masses.

But I agree that the situation with these sequels is worse. There’s been something soulless and dispiriting in the creation of all of the sequels of both these movies. Partly, it’s just a fact that moviemakers have relied too much on the technological sophistication of special effects, to the detriment of story. Of all the sequels, ‘the Last Crusade’ came perhaps the closest of creating a compelling story with the great plotline of Prof. Henry Jones, and the Templars and the Grail.

But Lucas in particular has seemed to lose all touch with story. And Spielberg’s still doing well only in non-fantasy, ie with ‘Saving Private Ryan’ and ‘Schindler’s List’. They’ve lost their ability to make the fantastic compelling and relevant. Have they lost their ability to grasp the myth? Or have they repudiated their own belief in the myths that drive the original movies?

I believe that Lucas and Spielberg have changed so much since the late 70′s that they are psychologically incapable of making the same movies. Yes, it is their fault that the recent sequels have lacked so much vitality. They’ve abandoned the myths that drove the original movies.