Movie News

M. Night writing on INDIANA JONES 4!

Published at: June 22, 2000, 6:03 a.m. CST by staff

Sigh... Harry here. Ya know... sometimes you lose the scoop waiting on confirmations, and this is one of those cases. Way back on May 11th, 2000... I received this email from Sir Arbee

Talked to a buddy this weekend who is working on "Invincible" in Philly with Bruce Willis and Sam Jackson. Anyway, he said Spielberg asked the director (same as Sixth Sense) to write a screenplay for Indiana Jones 4.Said something about wanting to make "not just a sequel, but something as good or better than the first, keeping Indy as aged as Ford now is." I know you probably get many of these types of e-mails, and this may be something you already know about, but I thought you may want to get your sources to look into this info. There- just lost my scoop cherry to you =)

-Sir Arbee

Well, gosh... wouldn't you just love for that to be true? I know I would. And given the mania around M Night's film THE SIXTH SENSE... this was one of those scoops that you continue to press sources for. Unfortunately.... I never could get this confirmed up. So... I had to put it in the.... CHECK UP ON THESE STORIES file. There's a lot of stuff in there. WELL... Today, Variety reports that M Night is talking with Spielberg, Ford and Lucas about writing the screenplay for the fourth installment beginning (allegedly) around January 2001, for Spielberg to direct in 2002. We'll see. We've heard many 'announcements' and 'We have the script!' declaration by this trio. I'll believe INDIANA JONES 4 when it gets started filming. Till then... it's still just another idea for a film that doesn't have a script to shoot with.

In other... sadder news:

I just learned that the actor who portrayed Remy (Indy's best friend) in "Young Indiana Jones chronicles" died, aged 48 in France.

His name was Ronny Coutteure.

Thanks

Toune

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 22, 2000, 6:18 a.m. CST

    I'm sure many will point this out

    by I am_NOTREAL

    but I thought M. Night's next film was "Unbreakable" not "Invincible," oh well...so I guess at the end of "Indy 4" we'll find out that Indy was really dead all along...ok, that's lame, but give me a break...somebody had to say it, so now this talkback can officially move on! See how I took one for the team?

  • June 22, 2000, 6:20 a.m. CST

    M Night S wrote a great screenplay for THE SIXTH SENSE...

    by SDG

    ...but who knows whether he can do action? THE SIXTH SENSE was almost contemplative in its pacing, although that's exactly what was called for. Besides, I have a theory that there's a logical progression in the INDIANA JONES movies, not in the order they were released but in the sequence of Indy's life, and in that progression there's basically nowhere to go after LAST CRUSADE. Check this out: (1) First we see Indy as a boy (in the prolog of LAST CRUSADE) trying to get a religious artifact (a San Damiano cross, I think) to a museum. Here Indy's first encounter with the archaology of religion in the form of a religious artifact without any suggestion of supernatural power. (2) Next we see Indy in TEMPLE OF DOOM encountering the Sankara stones of the Thuggee cult. Here Indiana has his first encounter with an apparently real supernatural power, in the form of a heathen cult. (3) Then Indiana has his encounter with the ark of the covenant. Here the supernatural is again experienced, this time in the context of biblical religion. Perhaps because of his previous experience with the supernatural, Indy the skeptic can muster enough faith to warn Marion to shield her eyes. (4) Last of all is the Holy Grail, an artifact of such matchless significance that its very name is an idiom for "the greatest and most elusive discovery" (thus, for example, the cure for cancer or AIDS might be described as "the Holy Grail of medicine"). Here the archaology of religion reaches its absolute pinnacle. There is, quite simply, no place to go from there. Of course you could tell an INDIANA JONES story that had nothing to do with the archaeology of religion -- a story about Atlantis or El Dorado or some other fool thing -- but thematically this would be utterly sui generis, having no thematic association with the thread running through the other movies. It would be like making a fourth BACK TO THE FUTURE movie that had nothing to do with time travel. And in those cases my feeling is, if you're going to do something that radically different, perhaps you should make a fresh start and tell a new story with new characters. Anyway, them's my thoughts.

  • June 22, 2000, 6:31 a.m. CST

    Approach With Caution

    by DrZarkov

    The though of Shayman writing Indy 4 is great but I doubt he will do it. I think this email is a hoax but I hope it is true. He will bring something different to the film. Plus the though of a Indy approaching 60 running around will be fun to see. i just hope that the "love" interest is about his age. Whats karen Allen doing now?

  • June 22, 2000, 6:45 a.m. CST

    SDG

    by pablolobo

    Damn you are on fire lately. I am totally hip to this; Love the character, love the story lines, love the idea. It will be interesting to see if it can still hold after all these years. Who knows. I did like in the latest issue of Wizard Magazine that in Versus section Indy kicked the crap out of Lara. Made my day. Anyhoo, taking 5 during my work day. CUlaters!

  • June 22, 2000, 6:55 a.m. CST

    Mr Attitude

    by pablolobo

    Why is it people cannot just enjoy films and suspend reality for a couple hours? Everyttme I see film I try to do that. It's always funny to read people's comments about this and that and what aboot. I mean c'mon, it's film, fiction, release. Just let go for 90-120 minutes.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:01 a.m. CST

    Another though from Dr Zarkov

    by DrZarkov

    You've just made one of the biggest films in disney history and just finishing work on your follow up with two of the biggest stars so Pop Quiz "What do you do next". Do you work as a glorified hack writer on a sequel, or do you create some thing as original as "6th Sense". I know what my answer would be......HACK, HACK HACK AWAY!

  • June 22, 2000, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Re: SDG

    by Alessan

    Action sequences are usually provided by the director` all the script has to do is provide a setting. That taken into consideration, I don't think we have much of a problem. ********* Things Indy can look for (off the top of my head): 1. Excallibur 2.The Golden Fleece 3. Mjornir 4. Atlantis\Mu 5.A unicorn\ a dragon 6. The secret behing Stonehenge 7. the secret behind the pyramids 8. Avalon\Faerie 9. The Garden of Eden 10. The Origin of Civilization or Mankind in general 11. The Meaning of Life. And that's ignoring Oriental mythology and science fiction concepts. Trust me, they'll find a way to dazzle us.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:16 a.m. CST

    NIMH-MAN (spoilers)

    by SDG

    What's your name a reference to, the awesome children's book by Robert O'Brien or the hideous monstrosity of an animated disaster movie committed by Don "Deus ex Machina" Bluth? Or something else? I hope this TalkBack doesn't get sidetracked from Indiana Jones to SIXTH SENSE. The credibility of your evaluation of SIXTH SENSE as the most "underrated movie" of the year is somewhat undermined by your evident hostility toward it ("the Osment brat", etc.). Hardly a dispassionate critique. Do you think that every man who has just lost a beloved daughter would of logical necessity give the response you mention to a boy he doesn't recognize? He wouldn't suppose that it must be a friend of his daughter he didn't know? And a boy of Osment's age isn't going to be surgically attached at the hip to a parental figure; nobody is going to question his presence at the house, everyone would naturally assume he was with someone else, especially since they're all rather occupied with something else, don't you think? Did you actually see an exchange of tickets plural? Who knows what the teller thought? When someone approaches a teller and says "Two tickets", the teller forks over two tickets even if he doesn't see the other party at the moment. He probably doesn't even wonder about it; he just assumes (if he thinks about it at all) that the other party is somewhere around and will claim his ticket at the appropriate moment. And if as the kid walked away the teller did think, "Hey, where's the other party," gee, would that really shatter the continuity of the movie? As for "wouldn't the kid be suspicious," I have discussed this at length with many people and I am firmly convinced that the kid KNEW ALL ALONG that Willis was a ghost. Knew it from the word go. But Willis was one of the "non-scary" ghosts (a distinction the kid evidently recognized long before the end of the film). As for THE USUAL SUSPECTS, when I saw it, as soon as I figured out that the name of the game was "Who is Keyser Soze?", I knew instantly, and the movie wasn't even any fun for me after that. THE SIXTH SENSE fooled me right up until the end and blew me away when we got there. BLAIR WITCH was SO not-scary. Creepy, yes, but I can't imagine who was scared by it. THE SIXTH SENSE is a much better film. Besides which, the real heart of THE SIXTH SENSE was NOT the gimmick riddle aspect, but the existential nature of the boy's predicament and the relationship between him and Willis. I for one found it deeply moving and memorable.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:16 a.m. CST

    nihm-man is a moron (spoilers for 6th sense)

    by luthardt

    SPOILER SPACE . . . . . . . . hey dumbass: Osment *KNEW* the truth about Willis. Only the audience didn't know. Clearly you didn't watch the same movie. (It was a bus not a train, k? What movie did you watch, exactly?). Near the end, after the play, Osment looks at Willis and says something to the effect of, You wont be coming to see me anymore. Why did he say that? Because he knows what happens when he helps those who come to him - they go away. He knew he helped Bruce, and that he was going away. Try to dig up a director's cut and maybe you'll see - Osment had been helping ghosts all along (the old german man and his wife's diaries), it was only the scarey ones he wouldn't help. Willis told him to help them all. "...even the scarey ones," and that's why he took the box to the father. Osment only purchased 1 bus fare because he knew that willis didn't need one. Try like, y'know - WATCHING a movie before you criticize it.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:18 a.m. CST

    Oh, and Re: NIMH

    by Alessan

    First two questions: Probably shock. Remainder of questions: The kid knew all along. I'm surprised you didn't realize that.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:26 a.m. CST

    Alessan

    by SDG

    Most of the things you mention are still an anti-climax after the Holy Grail. Excalibur doesn't hold up. Mjolnir is a regression from the Judeo-Christian imagery of the Grail and the Ark back to the pagan mythology of Temple of Doom. Atlantis doesn't even have to do with the archaeology of religion, which has always been the lietmotif of the series. Ditto most of the other things you say. The Garden of Eden is not entirely out of the question. We'll see.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:28 a.m. CST

    MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

    by The Guvnor

    If Indy was up against Han who would win? - Sorry I've often pondered this.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:34 a.m. CST

    blah blah blah

    by pablolobo

    I for one cried during Sixthe sense. Loved the filma nd was taken completely off guard. No it was not scary, but that is what made it cool and took me off guard. I sat there the entire time waiting to have the shit scared out of me and what happened? I cried like a baby. So did my wife, during the middle of a trans-Atlantic flight back to the US. And I hope to cry during Indy as well. He's soo cool and this will be the last one (more than likely) so that will make me cry. As far as what he could hunt down, trust me there is plenty out there that one can seek after. Even in the context of religion, watched Discovery Channel lately? They gots all kind of funky shit on religion that's undiscovered. And yes this is only the Christian Relgion we are talking about. There are plenty more out there.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:35 a.m. CST

    INDY IV

    by ddecatur

    I've always thought Indy should go to Maple White Land in South America and visit Prof. Challenger's Dinosaurs. Or how about back to Kong's Island for treasure.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:37 a.m. CST

    Guvnor

    by pablolobo

    Indy. Definitely Indy. Hans a pussy.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:43 a.m. CST

    SDG

    by Alessan

    You're probably right; I remember having similar thoughts when LAST CRUSADE came out. Still, if the search was for a secret - instead of an object - it may circumvent the problem. Have you read Neal Stephanson's "Snow Crash"? Something like that. ********* By the way, I'm starting to dislike the phrase "Judeo-Christian". The two faiths parted ways two thousand years ago, and are now quite different from each other. The arbitrary grouping deminishes both.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:52 a.m. CST

    Ronny Coutteure, a real class act who will be missed

    by ChrisKnight

    Harry, this is indeed sad news about Ronny Coutteure's passing. Ronny's character Remy was a really sweet touch to the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. Remember the "Verdun" episode? Remy wasn't in that long, only for a scene in the hospital but he embodied the anguish of the worst trench combat of WWI. Or the pilot episode... who would have imagined a Belgian falling in with Pancho Villa's bandits? :-) Anyway, as a fan of the show I just felt led to drop a note this morning, to offer up thoughts and prayers to Coutteure's family and just to remember him as a fine actor who made a good mark on the Indiana Jones mythology. God bless you Ronny. Chris Knight, TheForce.net

  • June 22, 2000, 7:58 a.m. CST

    Pablolobo

    by SDG

    All I'm saying is, after the Ark of the Covenant and then Holy Grail, anything else would be and should be considered anti-climactic. The stuff you're talking about is all well and good for the Discovery Channel, but Indiana Jones simply cannot take his archaeology of religion farther than he already has. M Night (or whomever) has his work cut out for him.

  • June 22, 2000, 8:13 a.m. CST

    About "Judeo-Christian", Alessan

    by SDG

    "Judeo-Christian" may be a problematic category from a Jewish perspective, but it is absolutely crucial for understanding Christianity. Judaism has developed for 2000 years in a direction different from Christianity, but Christianity still regards itself as built upon a foundation of Judaism, as coming from Judaism and dependent upon Judaism. From a sociology of religion point of view, even "Judeo-Christian-Muslim" is a useful category for describing the reality of the three great Western monotheistic religions predicated upon the Creator God who covenanted with Abraham, as against the world's other religious traditions, polytheistic, pantheistic, monistic, and non-theistic.

  • June 22, 2000, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Plot holes in Sixth Sense (spoilers)

    by pedant

    There are all sorts of problems surrounding the dead girl. First of all, despite the fact that "They don't know they're dead," she seems to be an exception. There is no other way to adequately explain her behavior. Secondly, what happened to the tape before it came into the boy's possession it is not at all clear. Presumably, the girl hid it while she was still alive. But if she knew what was on the tape, why didn't she tell someone about it before she died? Finally, there are large inconsistencies in the way that the ghosts behave. They all seem doomed to repeat the last few moments of their lives -- all, that is, except for Bruce Willis. Why is he so different? The answer to all of these questions is "lazy writing."

  • June 22, 2000, 8:38 a.m. CST

    More plot holes.

    by Dextarin

    Not only that, but Bruce Willis' characters wife at the end, when she breathes, you can see her breath. Now, even on the DVD, the director says that it only gets cold if the ghosts are angry (explaining why it wasn't cold Willis' was with the boy). Willis' didn't look angry at the end when he was with his wife. So why the hell could we see her breath? It is saddening when the director does an interview on the DVD, saying a lot of care went in to making the movie consistent, especially when it blatantly isn't. This Indy 4 news is the worst I've so far. What happened to the script Jeffrey Boam supposedly wrote for Indy 4?

  • June 22, 2000, 8:48 a.m. CST

    good talkback

    by Mean Ween

    here in philly we have something called a transpass. buy it at the beginning of the month and you don't have to buy anymore tix. if willis' character had one, all he would have had to do was flash it in front of the driver's eyes. the kid also could have had one... but then again, kids ride free. I'll have to rewatch that scene and see if any transaction btw the driver and the kid took place. if the kid bought 2 tix, one could be for a return trip. not that hard to believe. pedant - criticizing inconsistency in the actions of ghosts is like criticizing inconsistencies in the actions of people. how do you know there are rules as to how and what they do? maybe depending on their psychology, they know they're dead and need help like the girl? maybe the keep acting out the moments before thier death? maybe they don't know they're dead? maybe the girl was afraid to show her father the tape herself? maybe it took her death to get up the will to do it? does everything have to spoonfed to us? sdg - have indy find the necromonicon and have to battle evil other than nazis

  • June 22, 2000, 8:48 a.m. CST

    Reply to Pedant and Dextarin

    by SDG

    To Pedant: In the first place, the ghosts start off not knowing that they're dead. That doesn't mean they can't be brought to realize that they are dead, as happens with Willis himself. The little girl evidently realized by this point that she was dead. She didn't hide the tape in life knowing what was on it; it was simply a tape of her marionette play. Evidently she came to understand what had happened to her and what was on the tape later. In fact, perhaps it was in watching the tape, still believing herself to ber alive, that she saw herself being poisoned and realized that she was dead; just as Willis realized it when he saw the wedding ring fall from his wife's fingers. The ghosts don't necessarily relive only the last few moments before their death; they live in the time-frame in which they died, seeing the things they are familiar with. To Dextarin: I think the phenomenon of the breath is more complicated than that. It isn't active anger at the moment that triggers the cold effect, it's just being a ghost with unresolved issues and general anger at the world in that sense. I think Willis did make it cold all the time, even around the boy. Only he wasn't able to see it for the same reason that he couldn't see the blood on his shirt and the hole in his chest, not to mention the table in front of the cellar door: because "They see only what they want to see," what they are prepared to see. Willis sees his wife's breath only for a moment, and then, as he accepts his status and his issues disappear, the breath goes away too. If you think about it, he wasn't angry at his wife at the moment he did see the breath, only confused. It's a mistake to think it's felt momentary anger that triggers the cold.

  • June 22, 2000, 8:49 a.m. CST

    It's not just that there's nothing bigger than the Grail,

    by uh_Clem

    But, and folx correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the drinking from the Grail by Indy and his dad grant them the immortality the bad guys were hunting it for? I figured that was the mythical capper to the legend of Indy, the reward for the character and his fans. Not only was the Grail the pinnacle of archealogical artifacts, but the Joneses rode off into the sunset with everlasting life. It was the myth-ending parallel of Arthur sailing to Avalon, Robin Hood firing his dying arrow to mark his grave. A sequel would be worse than anti-climax. And NOW there's going to be an OLDER Indiana Jones, complaining about sore knees while hunting UFOs in Atlantis or some rot? ** Unless of course, even after multiple viewings I've been completely wrong about LC..

  • June 22, 2000, 8:50 a.m. CST

    Grail || Ark, not Grail = Ark.

    by SDG

    The Grail is parallel to the Ark in the sense that it is a typological equivalent to it. In Catholic mystical theology, the Virgin Mary is also a type of the Ark. But this doesn't mean that Mary IS the Ark. :-)

  • June 22, 2000, 8:52 a.m. CST

    Holes

    by BigDaddy78745

    Did you ever think that it was cold in the house that night ?

  • I think it was stated that the Grail gives you immortality only if you remain in the precincts of the shrine it was in. Once you step over the threshold out into the real world, you leave immortality behind.

  • June 22, 2000, 8:56 a.m. CST

    DrZarkov

    by mrbeaks

    It's in Variety, you jackass. It's for real.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:02 a.m. CST

    Plot holes rebuffed

    by samboe

    Ok, these so called plot holes you have so efficiently pointed out are not holes, but the reason why this movie was good. First of all, the girl. For one, she didn't know she was dead. When she came in the tent, she threw up and said she felt better now. Sounds to me like she she thought she was just sick. As far as showing the tape when she was alive, perhaps her father was someone who worked all the time or had to travel a lot. Who is she going to show it to? The mother that is killing her? I think not. And finally, don't you think you might be just a little pissed off if you just found out that you were dead???? You didn't start to see Malcom's wife's breath until after she dropped the ring and he made the realization that every thing he knew was wrong. Perhaps if you see the movie more than once, and pay attention next time, you might actually realize what is going on.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Sixth Sense plot holes

    by Steda Tibro

    Greetings all. Long long time reader 1st time talkbacker from the UK so please forgive any lack of etiquette. I have read with great interest this essentially Indy IV session and noted that the content is extraordinarily high, however when reading the 6th Sense points I can't help but feel that several have missed the essence of the film. The boy knew, that is canon. The boy stated that not all ghosts knew they were dead, some do some, some don't. It was always cold in Willis' presence, the mother mentioned it several times. The bus ticket, grieving father etc have been covered. In the UK the tag line is 'the must see twice film' and I wholeheartedly agree. The film had me even though I knew there was a Tyler Durden type twist at the end. IMHO the major plotholes can defintely be deemed purposeful signs/clues. Hope I don't deserve a complete flaming and by the way I'm a 1st generation SW fan and my ID is my SW name, not something clever.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:18 a.m. CST

    Steda Tibro

    by SDG

    Boy are you British. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way.) I'm an American writing a novel that takes place in England and has English characters, and I've absorbed countless British novels, newspapers, movies, etc., trying to get the dialect down. On my best days I sound something like you, but right now you make me want to throw in the towel.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Indy Plot

    by pablolobo

    We can only guess for now, but in truth to look for a new undiscovered Religious artifact is probably stretching it. However to there is one plot that is left "loose". Jones in the movies is the mortal Enemy to the Nazis (Hitler). We never have a final confrontation, or resolution to this theme. By some amazing stretch they might be able to swing a final confrontation between Indy and the Nazis. If Jones is older, post war, perhaps there are some left over Nazis that are trying to bring Hitler back to life through an ancient artifact. Then you have (Neo)Nazis, an artifact of some significance, and Jones right in the middle. Again it's a stretch, but it is one of the consistant themes in all the movies.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:24 a.m. CST

    E!Online News

    by Nora Charles

    This story (M. Night asked to write Indy 4) must be pretty common knowledge cause I saw it on eonline.com this morning. I don't know if that counts as confirmation.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:25 a.m. CST

    Hrm, you sure, SDG? eh, p'raps..

    by uh_Clem

    I admit it's been quite a bit since I saw it the fourth time, but I remember going back and forth on that point about leaving the cave, and finally landed on what I said earlier. When was that caveat about immortality revealed by the Knight, after the bad guy was tricked into drinking from the wrong cup? Or before the bad guy showed up in that room after Indy got in? Then why would he still drink from it, or why would we care if he did or not, knowing he's stuck in the cave? There'd be no tension to the scene. I didn't think the Knight was immortal, and imprisoned in the cave, because he drank from the Grail, but because that was his holy appointed duty.. Was it ever said he drank from the cup? Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong or trying to be contrarian (enuff jerks around here), just digging up from memeory the sequence of events and an old debate my friends and I, er, THOUGHT we'd resolved... ;|

  • June 22, 2000, 9:26 a.m. CST

    M Night ... doesn't he have a last name?

    by verbal2000

    Anyway, I think that he'll do a fine job. Spielberg knows talent when he sees it, so I don't think we should worry about Night's script even though he has only written Stuart Little and Sixth Sense ... They are both very different styles and they were both quite successful critically and commercially. He has proved himself to be a chameleon, and I think he'll be great as writer for the movie. But if you are still worried after all that I have said, there have been what seems like hundreds of screenplays written for Indy 4 by everyone in Tinsletown, none of which have been agreed on yet, so don't hold your breath on this one.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Hey sdg

    by Mean Ween

    have you read into some of hemingway's british characters? they have great voices coming from an american's perspective. i don't envy your task. it's tough enough writing decent dialogue with native inflection.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Wish I could be more specific, uh Clem

    by SDG

    I think the relevant info comes out after the bad guy dies from drinking of the wrong cup. That's all I remember. Perhaps someone else can help us out more.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:30 a.m. CST

    Screw you all!

    by gilmour

    Sixth Sense was a very good movie, i'm so sick of hearing people whine about how they figured out the ending in 5 minutes. Most of these people had been told there was a trick ending anyways so they were looking for it. The source didn't seem good since he named it "invincible".

  • June 22, 2000, 9:34 a.m. CST

    6th Sense talkback ... [spoilers]

    by tdibble1

    First, NIHM's problems with the movie: A wake is not a time when people are apt to notice that so-and-so is not someone they know, or that so-and-so has no apparent parental supervision. Have you ever been to a wake? Apparently not. Second, the kid bought one ticket, and Willis just never noticed the fact that he didn't have his own ticket. "They see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe." Remember that? The director's commentary on the DVD goes into quite a bit of detail on this, but your "plot holes" really were self-evident within the movie itself, had you paid attention. I think you were just clouded by a hatred of child actors after having seen Star Wars maligned by *that* kid. Second: PEDANT. You say the girl shouldn't have know she was dead. That wasn't said in the movie; only some ghosts don't realize they are dead; others don't want to go on for other reasons, such as the "unfinished business" the girl and the old lady in one of the deleted scenes both had. Second, same mistake, you say that all ghosts are doomed to repeat the last moments of their lives. The movie says no such thing, and in fact shows ghosts doing things that aren't exactly "the last moments of their lives", although their actions tend to revolve around those last moments. In Willis' case, the last moments of his life were the realization of an utter failure in treating this boy who had claimed to see dead people. The movie revolves around that realization, which is completely consistent, IMHO, with the premise and precedents set elsewhere in the movie. The other problem you had was with the videotape the girl made and kept. I think she kept the videotape more because of the puppet show she was putting on it than the evidence it contained, then after she'd died she knew she had to somehow communicate the truth to her father, at which time she remembered the tape and how she'd left it going, and maybe how she'd noticed that fact when she finally got up out of bed to hide the tape away. Even if she *did* realize what was on that tape, do you really think she would have had a chance to get that tape past her mother, to her father or someone else who would listen? I seriously doubt it, which again explains why it lay hidden under the bed. Plus, she acted like she was not supposed to be up playing with her dolls; she'd not want to hand over a tape of her doing something she wasn't supposed to be doing to her parents. Again, after her death things became a bit clearer (just as they always do when we separate ourselves from the situation a bit). Finally, DEXATRIN: The boy says the room gets cold when a ghost is angry, but not when they're happy; this is just the boy's theory based on what he's seen [remember, as with the Marky Mark character, the boy doesn't *really* know everything about the ghosts he's seeing, but he's smart enough to connect the dots]. I'd suspect that the real rule has more to do with emotional distress than anger, which is why we see Willis' wife's breath in the last scene. At least you have a better point than the above "plot holes", as yours was not directly addressed in the movie itself.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:45 a.m. CST

    And the twist ending ...

    by tdibble1

    For the record, I "figured it out" about halfway through the movie, but I HAD ALREADY BEEN TOLD THERE WAS A TWIST TO THE MOVIE. So, not fair. In any case, the movie was enjoyable, whether or not you knew the "twist". Would have been nice to go in as a "virgin" but unless you go opening day and purposefully avoid all mention of the movie (which means you'd end up going to a lot of movies that were pure crap because you won't read any reviews), that just didn't happen. Nonetheless, it was quite interesting how the movie's ending twist was almost universally respected (i still haven't heard anyone "give away" the ending if they're in possibly mixed company, and I doubt many people still haven't seen it here in the states!). Contrast that to the Fight Club twist ending, which the likes of Rosie O'Donnell, who paints herself as a theater/film super-fan, even blurbed on her national TV show. THAT was very disappointing; I'd have liked to have seen Fight Club without knowing the twist, to see if I'd be able to figure it out. Still, both are awesome movies, twist or not.

  • I read something somewhere that said Spielberg didn't want to have Nazis in his next Indy movie, what with his spiritual awakening and stuff after Schindler and Pvt. Ryan (both great flicks). That's disappointing for me to hear, because I think that's what Temple of Doom was missing: a religious artifact and Nazis. Oh and Sixth Sense: someone said that they thought it was inconsistent how only some of the ghosts acted out the lst moments of their death. That reminds me of Beetlejuice: the smoker looked all crisp when he died, Miss Argentina had slit wrists (and she was blue- what was that?), and the hunter had a shrunken head, all relating to how they died. But the Maitlands just looked normal. TECHNICALLY, if they wanted to be CONSISTENT, they would look bloated, or they would be like eternally dripping wet. But it was still agreat movie, y'know?

  • June 22, 2000, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Why they want this guy to write Indy 4

    by GornPirate

    Ford will be so old by the time they make it he will eithe look or actually be dead. So it will be this guys job to come upo with a story about the Ghost of Indianna Jones helping a small boy find the Lost holy Coco Puffs burried in Count Choculas Ass.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:10 a.m. CST

    SDG

    by Steda Tibro

    Thanks man, I feel a little more comfortable contributing now. I have to admit to being oblivious to the fact that people could write either British or American. I have always felt it a frame of mind thing for both the writer and the reader. For instance I don't buy the idea of poetry containing themes and tones etc, just that poets like to consruct stuff that will read well and perhaps paint a picture, needless to say I have no doctorate in English literature. Interesting that you make mention of your novel as I myself got about 10,000 words into one once but whay the hay somebody made it into a film called Deep Impact, the only major difference being that mine involved cryogenics and the asteroid hit home. Cue the future. Thats as far as I got. When making reference to the high standard of this talkback I particularly had your posts in mind, so forget any towel throwing. Nice speaking to ya.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:12 a.m. CST

    There are plot holes, I say!

    by pedant

    These attempts at explaining away the plot holes remind me of the lengths to which some people go to explain the "science" in Star Trek. Both involve huge assumptions that the writers never intended. I don't care if you are able to come up with a barely-plausible scenario in which everything "sort of" makes sense. I can virtually guarantee that M. Night Shyamalan wasn't thinking of the same scenario while he was writing. He sets up rules -- some explicit, some tacit -- and then breaks them. You can try to defend this by saying that this or that ghost is an "exception" to the rule, but it isn't very satisfactory. Why bother setting up rules, then? I also find it bothersome that he omits scenes which we know have occurred, but we cannot imagine HOW they occurred. This isn't subtlety; it is laziness. The reality is that Night himself couldn't explain how they occurred, so he just skips over them. And finally, even the rules that he *does* follow are merely contrivances. The reason that "they only see what they want to see" is so that Bruce Willis can make his way through the film to the big twist ending without wondering why the boy is the only one who can see him. How convenient.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:17 a.m. CST

    THE SUNSET

    by Hinesy

    If they were going to make an Indiana Jones 4, they should have saved the ride off into the sunset scene for the end of Indiana Jones 4. I think they shouldn't make it personally. He's already rode off into the sunset.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:19 a.m. CST

    immortality

    by Mean Ween

    the knight explicitly says that the gift of everlasting life cannot be taken across the seal on the floor near the opening of the cavern. they try to take the grail out, the seal splits, indy and ursula try to get it, ursula falls in, grail is lost.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:31 a.m. CST

    Holy Blood, Holy Grail

    by ChrisKnight

    Since the subject has been brought up, it might be worth something to read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln... if you have not already done so. Be warned here and now, this is NOT a book for the weak of faith. It might also be worth mentioning that the authors have distanced themselves from what they write about in this book quite a bit in the almost 20 years since it was first published. Still, as a Christian who doesn't believe in what the book is suggesting, it's FASCINATING, and does present some pretty good historical stuff (as did its sequel, "The Messianic Legacy").

  • June 22, 2000, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Okay, I definitely have to watch it again..

    by uh_Clem

    Cause it's looking more and more like my cranium's been lodged firmly in my glutes. Buuuut.. first, I assumed the Knight was referring to the Grail; and it was its crossing the threshold, not those who'd already received its gift, that brought the house down. Also, then why did Indy drink from it himself? There'd be no significance to that whatsoever (or did I forget a wound of his that needed healing?). Of course he needed the cup to save his father's life; and then Jones Senior's subsequent immortality would've been enough to collapse the cave. So was Junior just parched? I'm just trying to piece this out from a writer's cause-effect POV. And I'll definitely have to watch the flick again soon, or I'll NEVER get to sleep.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:47 a.m. CST

    the search

    by artdog

    I think there's a number of things Indy could be looking for this time around, especially since he's been looking for Judeo-Christian freaky things (for the most part) all along. THere's loads of Buddhist and Hindu stuff to cover...and even if he wanted to stick to a JC thing....well, those Templar Knights were full of tricks, weren't they (some would put that in present tense, too) Perhaps he'll find the severed head of Christ. WHo knows. All I know is that Speilberg could conceivably keep this franchise going by introducing a new character to eventually inherit Indy's title. Ford can't do these forever, but the idea and movies could go on indefinately. Instead of Nazis, there's Communists. We can always find a villian. As for the arguement about how Bruce and the Kid got on the train, my response is this : Oh, Please! It's a movie, lighten the hell up. The stars don't really look like they do in "Starry Night" either but it doesn't keep me from enjoying the painting.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:48 a.m. CST

    Indiana Jones: The Phantom Menace

    by MangusX

    Hey, what I noticed from Indy movies is that he was shearching for a major relic from a different religeon in each movie. RotLA-the arc from Juedism, ToD- those stones of Sheva from that religeon( whatever it was called) TLC- the holy grail from christianity. So maybe Indy should for somthing from Islam or try to understand some Buhdist philosophy. As for all you out there disecting the sixth sence, cee-ripes, who cares about buying stupid bus tickets, and nobody noticing the kid at the wake. It's just a movie! Next thing you know know you'll be factoring wind speed and noticing the inacurate interior paint job. You're probably the same people who point out in Star Wars that the ships shouldn't make noise in space because of the vacume

  • June 22, 2000, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Junior, just let it go...

    by KingMenthol

    Good advice. Another sequel that doesn't need to be done. There's no artifact revered enough by western civilization to make a triumphant final movement to the symphony that is Indiana Jones.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:10 a.m. CST

    An open letter to the producers

    by DarthSlater

    First of all, right off the bat, let me say that I LOVE Indiana Jones. I can pretty much recite the trilogy forwards and backwards, and I still regularly strangle ignorant fan boys who disagree that Raiders is the single greatest action movie ever made. With that said, I do not think that there should be a fourth Indy, just as I do not want to see a third Terminator, third Ghostbusters, fourth Back to the Future, or any other continuation of 80's franchises. The reason is simply because it destroys the illusion of immortality. Indiana Jones is supposed to be a mythic hero, an icon for the ages, a cinematic hero that is always tirelessly fighting Nazis, romancing beautiful women, and avoiding snakes ("INDY HATES SNAKES!!" as the back of Raider's video box proclaims). He is not supposed to grow old and eventually die. When I see Harrison Ford grimacing as he rides his horse because the impact is making his weak hips grind together, it's going to help destroy the illusion. When he gets punched and everybody in the theater shares the same though about how stable Ford's jawbone can still possibly be, it's going to destroy the illusion. When the camera is always thirty feet away from Indy during the action sequences, and you know it's because it's a stuntman who is actually doing all of the scenes, it's going to destroy the illusion. I want my Indy to be young, strong, and able to kick ass with both hands tied behind his back. Look at Ford now and tell me if his physical presence still evokes those same characteristics to you. They sure don't to me. I don't want to see Indiana Jones degenerate into a paunchy, weather-beaten old man. Ford, Spielberg, Lucus . . . the story has been told, the mythology has been forever established, and the money has been made. Take it from a true fan: There is no reason to return to this franchise.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:11 a.m. CST

    The evolution of Indy (for SDG -- or was it SGD? -- and others)

    by r_dimitri22

    Interesting topic that I myself have pondered. I'm not sure Temple of Doom works in the arc, though. I always thought that Indy had cause for and actually showed more faith in Temple of Doom than he did in Raiders. Call Hinduism a "heathen" religion if you like, but the Indiana Jones mythology would apparently have us believe that its powers are genuine. Indy falls prey to the mind-clouding blood of Kali. Indy invokes Shiva in his confrontation with Mola Ram. His statement seeming to carry the weight of more than a bit of wisdom, Indy acknowledges the power of the Sankara stones at the end of the film. Without a doubt, Indy is -- as Mola Ram had laughingly mocked -- a "true believer." And then what happens in Raiders? Indy is a complete skeptic! "You're talking about the bogey man" and so forth. Raiders has a very slow build toward the supernatural and Indy's acknowledgement of it (the spectacular "shut your eyes"/face melting scene), which makes for a great film in and of itself. But as an arc, I don't think it works. It just seemed like a rather incongruous chronology to me after all that Indy had already experienced (unless he was a fervent believer in Hindu but not Christian mysticism). Someone above mentioned the lack of Nazis making Temple of Doom less enjoyable than the other two films. Nazis are good villains, but I always theorized the reason that the American public generally didn't enjoy Temple of Doom as much as the other two was that Raiders and Crusade dealt with Judaeo-Christian (apologies to the person above who was tired of that term) concepts while Temple of Doom did not. Oops, is my agnosticism showing? That all said, I love all three films and will be there opening day for a fourth.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:15 a.m. CST

    clem

    by Mean Ween

    bad guy drinks from wrong cup, dies horrible death daddy needs healing powers of cup so he won't die, so what does junior do? if he picks the wrong cup and gives it to dad, then dad dies. junior picks the cup and gives it a go himself... not for immortality, but to see if the cup is kosher for dad (and to satisfy his own brash curiosity) i remember the knight saying something to the effect that the gift of immortality is not granted past the seal... or why wouldn't the knight have left when the place was collapsing?

  • June 22, 2000, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Jet Li as a grown-up Short-Round!!!

    by M_Bison

    While I find the idea of a fourth Indy flick interesting, they really need to go in a totally different direction with this one. It would be nice to see Connery back in maybe a cameo as the older Dr. Jones again.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:22 a.m. CST

    LETS DO THIS!

    by carlalvr

    man im totally happy about the next indy i loved the first ones (1 and 3 are my fav)but i cant wait to see what steven speilberg brings us with this one lets hope that it is one that is gonna change the face of indy movies as we know it, i love to see a movie and then go back to see the other ones and have a different prespective on it its cool isint it? well lets see what they give us ill be waitin! later fellow talkbackians!

  • June 22, 2000, 11:32 a.m. CST

    I think you're wrong Pedant.

    by SDG

    I definitely recognize the difference between a cobbled-together fanboy exculpation of creativer error worthy of a No-Prize (and if you know what I'm talking about, you'll know I'm telling the truth) and an intelligent interaction with a film from a critical point of view doesn't require everything spelled out explicitly. The film clearly shows us that there were realities around Bruce Willis that he COULD NOT see -- for example, the table in front of the cellar door he couldn't open, that in his state he imagined was simply stuck. The other ghosts, as long as they remained unaware of their status, were unable to perceive their own injuries; it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Willis' bloody shirt was there the whole time and he was unable to see it. Now, when you have the boy's mother commenting repeatedly in Willis' presence on how cold it is, and then, in the end, when Willis sees the steam rising from the wife's mouth as soon as he realizes he is a ghost and is able to perceive his own wound and the table in front of the door, it doesn't take a huge leap in logic to conclude that Willis was ALWAYS dropping the temperature around him but that he couldn't see the steam rising from people's breath any more than his own wound or the table in front of the door. Then, however, as he becomes reconciled to his state, his wife's steamy breath vanishes. To me it seems obvious that it is a ghost with unresolved issues and unfinished business, and general anger at the world in that sense, that brings the chill. The bus fare question is trivial. I don't think it's even been established that it wasn't simply that the boy paid for himself and Willis, in typical ghost blindness, didn't allow himself to notice that he didn't pay a fare. You are correct that logically there would have to be many scenes that, if we were to have seen them the way they actually occurred we would have realized what Willis' character wasn't allowed to realize, that he was a ghost. It defies credulity that the camera could have followed Willis 24/7 without ever showing him interacting with anyone and we wouldn't have noticed. SO WHAT? The whole point is, whatever the giveaways would have been, Willis wasn't allowed to notice. Yet Night could hardly have prevented US from noticing them in any way but simply not showing us the scenes. So, in a sense, we see a careful editorial hand at work choosing to show us only those scenes which are capable of standing up to our scrutiny as well as Willis'. That's no criticism of the film, that's the nature of art. Any movie with a surprise ending relies on selective presentation of reality. The "objections" to the boy's unquestioned presence at the wake are likewise trivial. To me the only serious question is why the boy talks to Willis at all, why he isn't afraid of him, when he certainly knows Willis is a ghost and has not yet figured out that the ghosts need his help. But the clue to this one comes in the church, where Willis says to the boy, "What if they all just want your help -- EVEN THE SCARY ONES?" This suggests that the boy has already long since made a distinction between scary and non-scary ghosts, and evidently for whatever reason Willis was one of the non-scary ones. Of course this doesn't explain WHY Willis was non-scary. And it would have been nice if the movie had actually showed us some other non-scary ghosts prior to the boy's coming to terms with his ability. This may perhaps be considered a "hole" in the sense of an unanswered question, though it is hardly a logical contradiction or gap in continuity.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Major Plot Hole in Raiders of the Lost Ark

    by MDH

    Raiders is in my top five fave films of all time, but after many many viewings, I've noticed a pretty big plot hole. The whole thrust of the story is Indy must get the Ark instead of the Nazis because an army that has the Ark is "invincible". However, when they open the Ark on the island, instead of making them invincible, it kills all the Nazis there. So it would have been better to just let the Nazis have the Ark, have Hitler open it in Germany, destroy him and many other Nazis, and save the world from World War II. Oh yeah, for an interesting story on Harry's ethics, go to: http://www.filmthreat.com/Features.asp?File=FeaturesOne.inc&Id=160

  • June 22, 2000, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Steda Tibro

    by SDG

    Thanks for the kind words buddy. Of course Brits are allowed to contribute. Heck, you should have seen the Revolutionary War revisited on the Star Wars TalkBack yesterday.... (grimace)

  • June 22, 2000, 11:37 a.m. CST

    DarthSlater, I understand what you're saying, but...

    by r_dimitri22

    What if they have an extremely good script that makes use of Indy's age in an interesting way? Yeah, Indy was an action hero, but the guy was by no means invincible. If it's done right, I don't think seeing Indy in an aged context is going to ruin my image of him. If they place him in a bevy of fist fights like you suggest, I agree it might be annoyingly apparent. But if they do not pretend to ignore the age factor, a new film could make for a good adventure, even if it isn't quite as action-packed as the previous ones. All I'm saying is that I'm willing to keep an open mind. Even if the fourth movie is made and turns out to be awful, I'll be able to objectively separate it from the others without their being diminished, just as all the TPM and RotJ bashers can still love ANH and TESB.

  • ...that HITLER WAS WRONG in imagining that the Ark would give HIM military invulnerability, as it did for the ancient Jews. In the Old Testament, as long as the Jews carried the ark into battle, they were invincible. What Hitler missed was what happened the last time a non-Jewish nation took possession of the ark. 1 Samuel 4-6 tells the story about how the Philistines captured the ark and put it in the temple of their god, Dagon. The result was that they were smitten with plagues of boils and rats until they returned it to the Israelites. Also the idol of Dagon fell down repeatedly before the ark, until in the end it collapsed so violently that it was shattered. I have always thought it was funny that Steven Spielberg, a Jewish director, depicted Hitler, the archenemy of Judaism, as obsessively fascinated with this archetypal (no pun intended) Jewish religious artifact.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:50 a.m. CST

    Sound Great!

    by briansanderson

  • June 22, 2000, 11:55 a.m. CST

    I know that...

    by MDH

    so why not just let the Nazis have the Ark then? Now of course the real reason why is because even though Raiders is pure fiction, it uses history as its backdrop, and we all know that Hilter and co. were not destroyed by the Ark. I just find it a little funny though that if Indy would have let the Nazis have the Ark, they probably all would have been destroyed.

  • ...they OPENED it. Perhaps if they'd left it alone they would have been able to bring it back to Der Fuhrer; and perhaps (in the logic of the film) the Ark would then have worked its deleterious effects on the whole Third Reich. But once they opened it, the power of the Ark had to destroy then and there all who dared to look upon its glory. (A more interesting question that suddenly occurs to me is, now that it's in a government vault somewhere, why isn't the U.S. being struck with plagues? A disquieting possibility: Perhaps it is!)

  • June 22, 2000, 12:07 p.m. CST

    vacume?

    by Jacks_Brain

    *****CAREFUL SARCASM AHEAD****** What? no noise? awwwcrap. see what you did? I'll never be able to watch sci-fi again since I can't possibly sit through a film without every minor flaw, no matter how insignificant, ruining the whole film for me.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:12 p.m. CST

    gotcha, mean wean

    by uh_Clem

    makes sense; been too long. HAVE to see it again now, just cause I'm curious as to how I got so muddied. I'm really not an idiot, or so I thought. but this TB's all fracked now, so outta here.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:14 p.m. CST

    M. Night Is A Guy Who Can Actually Write!

    by Buzz Maverik

    So this is great news. If they couldn't get M. Night, they should get Allan Moore, especially if they have Indy at Ford's age. This would put the story in the 1950s, dealing with commies and commie witch hunters, etc. Indy in the Cold War. I could dig it. But Spielberg would never go for Alan Moore, which is good because it'll keep those ABC Comics coming.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Indy's next quest...

    by Javus

    My friends and I discussed this a few years ago, and someone cape up with the spear of destiny. Now, I'm not a big religion buff, but wasn't anyone with possetion of this thing nearly unstopable? This would be perfect because the germans could be trying to get it after they lost the arc, and the grail. And, Indy would be hell bent on stopping them, since he now knows and believes in the power of god's relics. The only problem with this is Ford's age. He would be too old looking to play an Indy during the tail end of the war.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Thanks

    by SDG

    You hit the nail on the head. I've always felt that the Jewish Ark motif was treated more seriously and respectfully than the Christian Grail one, although I've never satisfied myself exactly why this is the case. You've given me another piece of the puzzle. (Another one is that the Grail is protected by hokey death traps, while the Ark has only its own supernatural power.) OTOH, the Ark is canonical Jewish lore, while the Grail, at least in its Arthurian form, is only Christian legend. Still, it's a point worth making. Mind if I quote you in future commentary?

  • June 22, 2000, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Oops! I meant "Thanks Gastabona."

    by SDG

    Sorry, left your name out.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Chicken Run

    by Javus

    Oh Yeah..I dont know if this is happening anywhere else, but here in Seattle, Chicken Run opened last night. It's playing at Pacific Place, and the showing last night was mostly empty. People don't know it's already out. Awesome movie!!! Drag as many people as you can to see it. now I gots to get me a DVD player. Hmm...Christmas...

  • June 22, 2000, 12:47 p.m. CST

    SDG

    by pedant

    It's because of the Disney TB, isn't it? You're just picking on me :-) I don't see much of relevance in your response, though. I'm not the one who brought up the cold air, the bus fare, the lack of questions at the wake, etc. My point is that even if we as the audience are able to explain away an apparent inconsistency, that does NOT imply that the writer/director had the same explanation in mind, or even any explanation. To continue with the Star Trek analogy, there are some apparent scientific problems with their techonology. Fans have gone to great lengths to hypothesize "new sciences" to resolve these problems, to a greater or lesser degree of success -- but at the time they left the writer's pen, they were errors. The fact that some of the errors can be resolved through an amazing feat of mental gymnastics does not retroactively make them cease to have been errors. Likewise, some of the apparent plot holes in the Sixth Sense were exactly that. It is only through dumb luck that Shyamalan avoided a major goof that could not be forgiven by fans. (By the way, he makes a big deal on the DVD about how he used the color red to indicate something that had been "tainted" by ghosts. But when you watch the movie, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to his decisions. Not exactly a plot hole, but more evidence of lazy, arbitrary work.)

  • June 22, 2000, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Indy 4

    by LK

    Someone said that a fourth indy would wreck the continuity of the series. On the contrary: the first three showed him being acquainted with relics of positive power (Holy Grail, Ark) - that is, relics whose original intent was to do good (i.e. bestow everlasting life and the power of God). So now that he has come in contact with the supernatural forces of good, Indy must face the supernatural forces of evil - maybe in the Necromicon or some kind of satanic relic. He has built up faith in the supernatural, and now the question is whether he can use that faith to stand against evil from the supernatural realm. Sorry if it sounds kind of vague; i just woke up.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Guess what?...

    by coytuck

    Despite all the nit-picking and critism, Night is living his career and living it well. He's obviously done well enough to have the second largest box office film of last year, to have sold the most expensive script in film history (unbreakable), and to attract Spielberg and Lucas for one of the most popular film series ever. Can any critics say the same? I doubt it. Apparently, those who criticize are better at searching for fault than writing their own scripts. If the film is so bad, why did any of you critics stay through the whole thing? (critics money is apparently as good as anyone else's). Better yet, why don't these critics tell Night to his face, or Spielberg or Lucas for that matter. It's easy to hide a missing spine (let alone talent) behind anonymity, than to "stand up" and be heard for fear of rejection or just flat out looking stupid. To paraphrase an old saying... "Those who can't act, teach. Those can't teach, criticize." I negative criticism is no different than remoras clinging to sharks to feed or vultures circling a dying carcass. Do something constructive, not destructive. l8r

  • June 22, 2000, 1:01 p.m. CST

    uncle cracky

    by SDG

    Believe me, I am quite familiar with the basic facts of the evolution of the Grail legend and of Arthurian legend. I know well that the only factual thing we can say is that Christ used a cup at the Last Supper. There is no basis for asserting that it went to England with Joseph of Arimathea or any of the rest of it. The Grail legends are no part of New Testament teaching or real Christian tradition. In that respect, the "Grail" is not at all parallel to the Ark of the covenant, which is solidly part of the books which comprise the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Old Testament. Nevertheless, the Grail legend, as it developed as a Christian legend, drew upon the Ark motif in the OT, and both were blended with Marian themes as well. In historical Christian teaching, he Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail, and the body of the Blessed Virgin are all in their own way holy vessels. Each of them was believed to have carried within themselves the bread of heaven and the word of God (the ark carried manna and the ten commandments, and Mary carried Christ who is called "the bread from heaven" and "the word of God"; and Christ used the cup at the last supper to convey to his disciples the conscrated wine which had become his body and blood). Each of them was set apart for divine use and not to be used for mortal purposes (thus one who touched the ark died; Mary was believed to be ever virgin; and the Holy Grail was in the legend approachable only by the purest knights, like Galahad and Percival). The difference is, Christians and Jews actually believe in the Ark, whereas no one really believes the Grail legends; and Catholics and Protestants believe different things about the Virgin Mary.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Indiana Jones: Judgment Day...

    by mephisto666

    "I see Nazis"*** "When?"*** "all the time!" Come on, had to be said. We'll have Indy try to stop the use of an artifact being used which would release all the tormented spirits of the world, freeing them from their bodies so they could go around and attack people. Oh hell, I don't know, but I'm really quite excited. And bring back Short Round (the only kid in film history who wasn't irritating- apart from the ones in Night of the Hunter that is!)

  • June 22, 2000, 1:04 p.m. CST

    the name of his true self

    by NuteG

    Manoj "Night" Shyamalan, a Kerelan (India) name

  • June 22, 2000, 1:17 p.m. CST

    re: coytuck

    by pedant

    As a matter of fact, I AM writing my own scripts. At present time, I am working on a thriller with a twist ending (not really at the end, actually at the beginning of act III). I am doing my best to ensure that there is not even the perception of a plot hole. I could take the easy way out, but I have too much respect for my audience.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:22 p.m. CST

    pedant

    by SDG

    Who's picking on whom, anyway? :-) No, seriously, I honestly don't see any real holes in THE SIXTH SENSE that look to me like "mistakes." I know exactly what you are talking about re. Star Trek and all -- that was the point of my initial remark about No-Prizes -- but I don't see that happening here. The "explaining" I did in my email to you I see as no more than intelligent interaction with the film from a point of view that doesn't require everything to be spelled out. I really don't see where I'm going beyond the bounds of what is either implied in or can be reasonably inferred from the film itself. You say the issues I discussed weren't the holes you were thinking of. Well, what were they then?

  • June 22, 2000, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Here's ANOTHER scoop: The proposed title for Indy IV is: India

    by DarthSlater

    Nobody flamed me for being a complete and dismal moron for even suggesting that the series should be allowed to gracefully retire, which can only mean one thing: nobody read my above post. That's fine, that's cool. But I just thought up an analogy that might help explain WHY this is such a terrible idea: As much as most of you seem to hate Star Wars Episode One, do you know how much more you would have hated Star Wars Episode Seven? Imagine that Lucas had decided to do Episodes Seven through Nine instead of the prequels, and picture how dismal and creepy those would be right now. Can you imagine the current Harrison Ford trying to swagger? The current Mark Hamill doing a backflip through the air (in the immortal words of Homer Simpson: "Whoo-hoo! Look at that blubber fly!")? Can you imagine the current Carrie Fischer in a gold bikini? And more importantly, would you want to? Would Star Wars Episode Seven seem like a happy reunion between old friends, or would it feel somewhat creepy and disheartening, like watching your favorite heroes wither away into fleshy dopplegangers, mocking parodies of your memories? Then why, pray tell, will a fourth Indiana Jones be any different???????--The Dark Lord of Kansas has spoken.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:37 p.m. CST

    No, DarthSlater, the reason we didn't flame you is...

    by SDG

    ...we agree.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:44 p.m. CST

    That's nice, but what's the subject matter.

    by superninja

    I wonder if they're going to do the Area 51 thing. Just hoping it's not going to be a lame X-Files "aliens are God" crap to keep the religious theme running.

  • June 22, 2000, 2:08 p.m. CST

    gee, thanks, gastabona. Maybe I should leave?

    by SDG

    But seriously... It's nice to interact with someone you can talk seriously too. Of course calling the Ark "canonical" was shorthand for "dealt with in canonical texts." The legends of the Grail and Joseph of Arimathea are late and not given historical or religious significance by Christian tradition. As you say, the life-giving aspect of the Grail legend has been connected by some to various Celtic cauldron myths -- although it can just as easily be connected to the life-giving properties of the Eucharist itself in Catholic theology. Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles are among the best children's literature ever written; I just reread them myself a few months back and can't wait till my kids are old enough to read them with me. (You want to talk about Disney's artistic CRIMES, forget about this trivial Pecos Bill stuff and rent THE BLACK CAULDRON someday, and we'll talk about artistic CRIMES.) I agree completely that LAST CRUSADE hardly gives a fleeting caricature of Christian spirituality; in sharp contrast to the much more respectful approach to the Ark in RAIDERS. On Hollywood and the Catechism, Roger Ebert's parochial-school education sometimes comes out with amusing results when he reviews bad movies like END OF DAYS, STIGMATA, and JOHN CARPENTER'S VAMPIRES. But when he likes a movie he can take too postive a view of its theological significance; as with DOGMA.

  • June 22, 2000, 2:10 p.m. CST

    I named my dog Indy

    by Maynard

    Hey!!! Good name for a dog!!!

  • June 22, 2000, 2:11 p.m. CST

    Indy 4

    by BloodiedFox

    Indy 4 should have the same plot as the Indy PC game " Fate of Atlantis". It would make a change from all the bloody relics .

  • June 22, 2000, 2:22 p.m. CST

    Superninja, I think I know the subject matter:

    by DarthSlater

    Face it, Shyamalan has practically NO INPUT on the storyline. There's a reason why "Raiders" is usually referred to as a Spielberg/Lucas joint, instead of a Spielberg/Lucas/Kasdan joint. They may have hired Shyamalan to give the script a hot buzz, but the simple fact is that Night is playing in Stevie and Georgie's sandbox, and whatever they say goes. Therefore, I'm guessing that the subject matter will be a mixture of self-important, overly-sentimental "important" material and completely off-the-wall, out of touch with reality jibberish. My sources tell me that the first hour will involve how Indy single-handedly liberated all of the WWII concentration camps, right before he put a bullet in Hitler's brain. The audience will be yanked around by their heart-strings like goddamn marionnettes, and occasionally the film will be paused so that the audience can stand and sing "the Star Spangled Banner." The second half of the film will involve Indy journeying to Area 51, where he finds a crashed alien spaceship from the planet Naboo. Indy befriends the lovable and mischeivious aliens, charmingly titled "gungans", and they accompany him on his adventures, sharing pearls of wisdom such as "Ooh, dat'sa bigga bombad Nazi mekanik! Whoooo . . . " Also, I have heard that the second half of the film will be accompanied with a laugh track, and that Indy will occasionally look directly at the camera and say, "Uh-oh, spaghetti-o's!" whenever anything goes wrong, always to a rioutous response. So hell yeah, let's have some more Indiana Jones movies!!! Let's have hundreds more, at least five or six new ones a year! We can have "Indy and the Lucky Rabbit's Foot," and "Indy and the Search for that Other Sock that Always Disappears in the Dryer," and "Indy at Woodstock," and on and on! And hey, when we get all the way up to "Indy 500", that one can be about him racing cars!! Fuck yeah!! The more the merrier! AFTER ALL, IT'S NOT LIKE THEY COULD RUIN THE FRANCHISE OR ANYTHING, RIGHT?????

  • June 22, 2000, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Superninja, I think I know the subject matter:

    by DarthSlater

    Face it, Shyamalan has practically NO INPUT on the storyline. There's a reason why "Raiders" is usually referred to as a Spielberg/Lucas joint, instead of a Spielberg/Lucas/Kasdan joint. They may have hired Shyamalan to give the script a hot buzz, but the simple fact is that Night is playing in Stevie and Georgie's sandbox, and whatever they say goes. Therefore, I'm guessing that the subject matter will be a mixture of self-important, overly-sentimental "important" material and completely off-the-wall, out of touch with reality jibberish. My sources tell me that the first hour will involve how Indy single-handedly liberated all of the WWII concentration camps, right before he put a bullet in Hitler's brain. The audience will be yanked around by their heart-strings like goddamn marionnettes, and occasionally the film will be paused so that the audience can stand and sing "the Star Spangled Banner." The second half of the film will involve Indy journeying to Area 51, where he finds a crashed alien spaceship from the planet Naboo. Indy befriends the lovable and mischeivious aliens, charmingly titled "gungans", and they accompany him on his adventures, sharing pearls of wisdom such as "Ooh, dat'sa bigga bombad Nazi mekanik! Whoooo . . . " Also, I have heard that the second half of the film will be accompanied with a laugh track, and that Indy will occasionally look directly at the camera and say, "Uh-oh, spaghetti-o's!" whenever anything goes wrong, always to a rioutous response. So hell yeah, let's have some more Indiana Jones movies!!! Let's have hundreds more, at least five or six new ones a year! We can have "Indy and the Lucky Rabbit's Foot," and "Indy and the Search for that Other Sock that Always Disappears in the Dryer," and "Indy at Woodstock," and on and on! And hey, when we get all the way up to "Indy 500", that one can be about him racing cars!! Fuck yeah!! The more the merrier! AFTER ALL, IT'S NOT LIKE THEY COULD RUIN THE FRANCHISE OR ANYTHING, RIGHT?????

  • June 22, 2000, 2:37 p.m. CST

    Now you see the true power of the dark side . . .

    by DarthSlater

    I have no idea why my posts have suddenly started appearing at the top of the pile, but this means that I'M FIRST, BABY!! You are all now officially my bitches. The Dark Lord of Kansas has spoken.

  • June 22, 2000, 2:53 p.m. CST

    No, DarthSlater, it's me they're ignoring...

    by r_dimitri22

    How would an awful Indy movie *RUIN* the franchise? Who cares about this romantic notion of untainted "franchises"? Choose to ignore it if it's so bad. That's what I do with Alien3 and Alien: Resurrection. They suck in my opinion, but that doesn't change my love for Alien and Aliens. For God's sake, I've watched the worst abomination ever -- the SW Holiday Special -- multiple times (I'm going to need lots of alcohol if I ever have to sit through it again, though), but I still love the Trilogy. Frankly, I'd rather a new Indy movie come out with the off chance that it's actually pretty good than have to be subjected to more of this Gone in 60 Seconds crap. Lots of people hated TPM, but the planet is still spinning, you know? If it shattered their worldview, they have personal issues that need attention. Likewise for a new Indy film.

  • June 22, 2000, 2:57 p.m. CST

    More Ideas For Indy's Search

    by Znosaro

    First, I like Eden and Atlantis. Eden maitnains the religious theme while being a very intriguing "origen" story. Atlantis is great too, the greatest "searc" ever, a huge piece of mythology that evrybody has always been looking for, kinda Troy-esque time 100. Anyway, this is how it works... PLOT- Indy finds an original text from Plato in a hidden Nazi bunker (perhaps Hitler's own?) and races a deranged former Nazi to find it using clues from the text. The center piece of Atlantis turns out to be Solomon's temple maintaining the religious trend. Other good ideas, 1) Noah's Ark (a cliche ending with a rainbow?), 2) Babel, 3) Aaron's staff (even though that's supposed to be in the Arc), 4) Joseph's coat (kinda boring, though), 5)The spear that pierced Christ, 6) and, greater even than the Holy Grail... the Cross!

  • June 22, 2000, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Re: SDG

    by pedant

    I don't have a problem with not having everything spelled out for me in a film. Quite the opposite, in fact. But when the mystery adds nothing to the plot, it seems less like subtlety and more like obscurantism -- like the writer is trying to cover up the fact that he hasn't thought everything through. In the Sixth Sense, there should be no mystery about the ghosts, because the "rules" were explained by HJO in his "I see dead people" scene. Yet for no compelling reason, not all of the rules apply to all of the ghosts all of the time. Sometimes they seem to know they're dead; sometimes they do not. Sometimes they act out the last moments of their lives, sometimes they do not. Sometimes they recognize the boy for who he is, and sometimes they mistake him for someone else. The only rule seems to be that they behave in whatever way is most convenient for Shyamalan.

  • June 22, 2000, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Indy and Sixth sense probs

    by Idontgiveadamn

    first: In the Sixth Sense we see Willis writing in the basement etc... Does that mean he had a pen in his pocket when he was walking around--or rather a REAL pen in his invisible pocket? Now that would be awkward for the kid to explain! :) The movie was okay--but it had awkward direction. The basis of it was a gimmick. I knew the ending before hand--but it would not have been hard to guess. Making the kid who shoots him have the same sense that the Harley J jay Joo kid has--too convenient. This film is like Titanic. Its success tends to defy common sense. As for indy 4. This series needs to rest for good. Raiders was stand alone. They should have had new characters for a sequel--with a new serial adventurer instead of bringing IJ back. But alas they didnt...The sequels were okay--but they lacked the pizzaz of the first film. I must point out that hinduism may be pagan but the religion is very much alive. It is one of those religions that predates Christianity and continues to thrive in spite of it(even Islam couldnt spread into India). To have it in an indiana jones story makes perfect sense--IJ is about supernatural adventure--not some Judeo-christian-islamic justification nonsense. Personally, if they insist on another lousy franchise decision, I think they should go Greek next and do an Atlantis story.. Indiana Jones and the Lost Continent sounds cool. PS To whoever suggested the Kong Island idea--it is cool--but did you know that KK was Hitler's favourite film? Snow White was Goebbells favourite.

  • June 22, 2000, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Rumour is rumour, report it as such

    by BonScott

    Harry, you held back a rumour on Indy?? And now your confirmation is Variety??? Way to chase down THAT story. All you had to do was call PR at any number of offices and ask for confirmation of the rumour. If you didn't think it was a worthy bit of info, you should have it lumped in with all the other nocturnal emissions and released it in a "weekly digest of unsubstaniated rumour" along the lines of Elston Gunn's recap, so all fanboys could have their wildest dreams realized and have their pearls of wisdom in a section of AICN besides TALKBACK.

  • June 22, 2000, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Indy gets enlightened in The Last Crusade.

    by superninja

    The first film had a mystical vibe. The "Wrath" of God. The second film had a darker version of Indy, and has him falling to the dark side and redeeming himself. In the last film, Indy regains his faith. So where, my homees, do we go from here? Well, I like the idea of Indy becoming a part of this mystical mythos himself -- the search for Excalibur and the Sleeping King (Arthur). He travels with a son, relative, sidekick, and finds Arthur in Avalon. Instead of coming back to the real world the old, weary professor takes Arthur's place and Arthur returns to the modern world. This leaves an opening for a new franchise with the new character, Indy NEVER dies (as he's become a part of legend himself -- a fitting end for the character), and then the potential spinoff of King Arthur takes Manhattan. Just kidding about that last part...what do you think otherwise?

  • June 22, 2000, 3:48 p.m. CST

    What, no "Chicken Run" reveiw?

    by squonk

    Umm, Maybe we could find out how Old Indy lost the eye...

  • June 22, 2000, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Sixth Sense?

    by Garbage

    I consider myself an avid film fan, but tell me...what is this "Sixth Sense" movie you're all discussing? And for that matter, who the heck is Indiana Jones?

  • June 22, 2000, 3:59 p.m. CST

    BRING BACK JOHN CONNERRIES!

    by MeezaMonkey

    Meeza think to bring backs big John Conneries as the bestest Indiana Jones movies ever! Forget M shimalamanano, we demand that Harry start campain to bring back Jimmy Bond 007 Conneries. He was grate in the 3rd Indi movie, and why not get him back??? Meeza wuv you guys!!! http://go.to/meezamonkey

  • June 22, 2000, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Who here thinks M. Night is a bad person to scribe ANY movie?

    by the_pissboy1

    M. Night...let's see he's the genius that brought us the shockingly people friendly ghost story that lacked drama, tension, character development or motivation. He's also the excellent writer credited with penning that unwatchable opus Stuart Little. Sure he should write an action-packed, witty, thrill ride with one of america's most beloeved heroes. That makes sense. A guy who can't write worth a lick should definitely be given this writing assignment. The guy can't make ghosts or talking mice interesting, how the fuck is he going to make a human hero engaging?

  • June 22, 2000, 6:16 p.m. CST

    Shut Up Stuart Little was great!

    by gilmour

    So was Sixth Sense. M Night Rocks!

  • June 22, 2000, 6:26 p.m. CST

    "Unbreakable" is the name of the movie being shot in Philly!!!!!

    by HarryWannaBe

    ...and I know cuz I live in Philly! How can we trust that "scoop" when the guy doesn't even know the name of the movie that's being filmed right now in the City Of Brotherly Love?? They were actually shooting scenes around the corner of where I work (HMV record store, 1510 Walnut) at a restaurant called Bookbinders. Both Bruce and Samuel L. have been in my store, but unfortunately I wasn't there for it.

  • June 22, 2000, 6:29 p.m. CST

    we do not need Indy 4

    by Ned Collina

    Basically, everyone is told old to make this picture. I can't quite buy into the idea of Spielberg and Ford doing light-hearted comic book fun anymore. Also, I don't think for one minute that Lucash is interested in resurrecting Indy. He's more into making Howard the Duck 2.

  • June 22, 2000, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Why does Indy 4 need another script?

    by Zap Rowsdower

    Jeffrey Boam wrote the script four years ago, and I'f I'm not mistaken, he wrote the newest script too. That's the whole reason why there making a new film because George has this new brilliant idea for a Indy movie. Rick McCallum said himself that it's just a matter of deciding what screen play to use. One of the scripts calls for Sean Connery.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Hopes and Dreams for Indy IV

    by billy_zardus

    In order to synch up Ford's age with Indy, the story would HAVE to take place post-WWII and make the Soviets the main bag guys. I hope they go back to a Raiders style adventure. I was VERY disappointed with the Last Crusade. Raiders was the ultimate thinking man's adventure movie (which had it's light and funny moments) but NEVER crossed over into eye-rolling silliness. This was not true with Last Crusade, which was basically slapstick comedy in the framework of going after an artifact. Unlike Raiders, the Nazis in Indy III were goofy caricatures, which lacked the delicious evilness of Belloq, Toht, and Dietrich from Raiders. I hope they bring back Karen Allen as Marion; they had chemistry unmatched by the other two leading ladies from Indy II and Indy III. I don't care what artifact Indy goes after as long as the story is great.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Scott Frank...hmmm

    by the_pissboy1

    Scott Frank is a talented writer, but I can't see him writing an action piece. Personally, off the top of my head I'd pick Boam as he proved with Last Crusade that he has Indy down pat.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:35 p.m. CST

    Sixth Sense--Deserving of all its accolades!

    by tritium

    It was nice to see some very intelligent responses discussing the "plot holes", or lack thereof, by some of the Talkbackers. Indeed, after seeing the movie all the way through, and then reflecting upon the masterful touch M. Night employs in unfolding the story...just wonderful stuff! I definitely feel the movie was self-consistent in its "rules" and that all the aforementioned "plot holes" have been answered eloquently be previous Talkbakers. Also, there is NO question that M. Night knew exactly what he was doing, in providing just enough hints and clues to maintain the surprise twist. The fact that one can look back on these issues after the ending, only to say "oh wow, how did I not see that", only serves to support the position that the director and cast hit all the right notes. Not to bring offense, but what movie were some of you folks watching???? Also, to respond to one of the criticisms (or unresolved plot holes)...that the ghosts didn't know the were dead. Someone mentioned something to the effect that that was an easy "out" for the director, and chalked it up to laziness. In fact, there is a long established belief within the "mystical and/or spiritual" community that some soles who have suffered a quick and/or violent death do not realize they are dead. This device has been used in numerous literary works, as well as within cinema--see Poltergeist. Kind Regards, Tritium

  • June 22, 2000, 11:18 p.m. CST

    As I said, Frank is a capable writer, but not an action writer

    by the_pissboy1

    A look at Frank's credits reveals a guy who has written a few nice films and many, many, many crappy ones. Sure he penned Out of Sight and Dead Again, but he's also responsible for the sloppiness that was Saving Private Ryan, Malice and Heaven's Prisoners. Okay writer who when he's on, he's on but he has not shown himself to be consistent. He certainly has not shown he can write action as not one of his screenplays even comes close to being action. Please don't mention SPR...that's just a joke of a script/movie and it's certainly not the in the same league as an Indy movie.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:48 p.m. CST

    I would stick with Boam...

    by Zap Rowsdower

    Well because, he already wrote the scripts, and he died this last winter.

  • June 23, 2000, 12:31 a.m. CST

    Holysh--, Boam is dead!

    by the_pissboy1

    I thought somebody was kidding. He died in January. Damn that's shocking. That guy wrote some of my fave movies of all time. He had a brilliant ear for witty dialogue. Damn...I'm flabberghasted.

  • June 23, 2000, 12:40 a.m. CST

    The "Sixth Sense" guy?! That's as stupid as letting the writer o

    by Cruel Shoes

  • June 23, 2000, 12:51 a.m. CST

    U fucking MORONS!!!

    by movieManiac

    Where the fuck do you get off saying Hinduism is "heathen" or "pagan", do u even have any idea what hinduism is all about? next time, try and use your limited brains to find out what something is, before posting your moronic know-it-all opinions about any religion. its pathetic, the way some people don't have lives, but this is ridiculous!

  • June 23, 2000, 1:04 a.m. CST

    movieManica a Pagan as defined by Webster is...

    by the_pissboy1

    Pagan according to www.merriam-webster.com is: a heathen, especially a follower of a polytheistic religion. **********************************Heathen: an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible. ********************************* Now Hinduism is polytheistic AND does not accept the God of the Bible, therefore Hindus ARE pagans and heathens if one follows the definitions of those words.

  • June 23, 2000, 1:59 a.m. CST

    Exsqueeze me? Baking powder?

    by Zap Rowsdower

    So what's the very good reason why Indy 4 could very well suck?

  • June 23, 2000, 2:17 a.m. CST

    Indy 4

    by Private Ryan

    I hope this movie finally happens. Raiders is one of the best films ever, and I loved Last Crusade. Temple of Doom was weak, but it was entertaining. Indiana Jones needs to return to the big screen, but they are doing the right thing trieing to find a great script. Hopefully, the next movie will approach the greatness of Raiders.

  • June 23, 2000, 3:18 a.m. CST

    WHY?

    by Sgt_Hartman

    Both Indy and Star Wars are franchises that can't have more sequels. The only way I could see an indy sequel would be if they come up with something VERY different from what we've seen, and they somehow have someone else take on the "Indy" job at the end of the flick. I don't know...it just doesnt feel right. I sure do hope they know what they are doing. Many critizice the fact that Lucas is doing the Star Wars prequels.. but to me it works. He has changed the way we look at the original trilogy now, it seems to have more meaning... however, ROTJ has the gloruious ending to the saga with Anakin redeeming himself and establishing the balance. If they will make Indy 4 in a similar way I'd be happy.

  • June 23, 2000, 3:25 a.m. CST

    The REAL reason this movie is getting made...

    by season

    Debate the plot holes in the Indy movies all you want, they mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Harrison Ford is bringing back Indiana Jones because he wants to win an Oscar. So what do you do? Get the biggest director in the world, now with 2 oscars under his belt, hire the writer of the biggest non-Speilberg/Lucas blockbuster of the last year, and let Ford give one last Indy performance (maybe he dies? -forget the Young-Indy "canon" that old Indy is still around). Harrison Ford will probably never win an Oscar unless the Academy "gives" him one as sort of a career achievement award (Paul Newman, Color of Money anyone?). That's not to say I don't think Harrison Ford could win an Oscar for his acting ability, I just doubt he'll ever choose a project outside the "safety net" he's put up around him. Ford never chooses interesting or risky roles. He sticks to his "tried and true" method. When I heard he was going to be in "Traffic" I almost couldn't believe it. But, just when I thought he was finally going to stick his neck out and try something different, he says "No, what I really want to do is an action film." Ford knows he can build audience sympathy and interest with the role that made him a superstar (Star Wars helped, but Raiders proved he could carry movie and not be seen as Han Solo - Hamill couldn't get past Luke Skywalker). Pulling out Indy one last time, make him older, wiser, MORTAL, etc. and let Ford emote all over the lost relic he's after. Presto! Instant Oscar campaign. Hype Ford in all the trades, emphasize his stature as the biggest box office star of all time, have the power of Spielberg behind it (Remember Dreamworks' campaigns for Ryan and American Beauty? Same thing here). I'm not saying I wouldn't go see the movie, because I'll be in line opening day like everyone else. Despite what Lucas, Ford, and Spielberg say about "revisiting the character for the fans" and all that, there's a serious motive at work. You don't resurrect a 20 year old franchise without a reason (re: $$$$$$$). Lucas is already pissed Star Wars lost out to the Matrix at the Oscars this year. If the movie turns out really well, they can promote it as Best Picture and give Lucas the Oscar as producer. He aint' gonna win one for the new Star Wars movies (not unless someone has the balls to stand up to him and says things like "JAR JAR BINKS? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING? McCallum isn't, but I digress). A man with the power and influence Lucas has is going to get an Oscar of some kind at some point in his career. Here's the perfect way to kill 2 birds with one stone. Give Lucas his Oscar and give Ford his and they can shut up now. If this isn't enough to convince you, I'll leave you with one last thought: John Wayne won his only Oscar for playing the same type of character he always played, only this time he had an eyepatch. In the Young Indy Chronicles, "old Indy" had an eyepatch. I guarantee somewhere in California, Spielberg, Lucas and Ford are trying to decide whether or not Indy should have an eyepatch in INDY IV.

  • June 23, 2000, 3:47 a.m. CST

    Yeah sure

    by JackBurton

    We know Harry, you always get everything first, whether it shows up on the site or not. Christ, talk about fucking ego. You can ban me now.

  • June 23, 2000, 4:06 a.m. CST

    Don't any of you Fanboys know what a MacGuffin is? Sheesh! Also

    by Bari Umenema

    A Million and One Posts and not one guy knows the term MacGuffin: to wit, something to get the fucking plot in motion (yes it can also wind up being the Objective, i.e. Lost Ark, Grail Cup, Shankara Stones, Harry's Dinner, Whatever!) Hey that would be fun -- Indiana Jones and the Last Supper -- Harry tags along because he Missed Lunch...

  • June 23, 2000, 4:54 a.m. CST

    Sir Arbee here, and you're right Mr Touchdown...

    by Newbisan

    I'm an idiot. My friend and I had the Indy IV conversation over drinks, so I couldn't remember Night's current project's name correctly. "Unbreakable" it is. I couldn't remember Night's name either, just the juicy bits of info above. Also, Unbreakable sounds like a pretty kick-ass movie in itself, kinda like a Superman who doesn't know he has powers. Here's hoping both movies will be good.

  • June 23, 2000, 5:12 a.m. CST

    Fight Club

    by tylerdurden

    This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time... 1st rule of Fight Club : You do not talk about Fight Club 2nd rule of Fight Club : You do NOT talk about Fight Club 3rd rule of Fight Club : When someone says stop or goes limp, the fight is over 4th rule of Fight Club : only two guys in a fight 5th rule : one fight at a time 6th rule : no shirt, no shoes 7th rule : fights go as long as they have to 8th rule : If this is your first night at Fight Club, you have to fight. I do hope some of you understand and learn all this by heart, like I do. We are the all singing all dancing crap of the world.You are not the clothes you wear.You are not the contents of your wallets.You are not your beautiful and unique snowflake.You are not your bank accounts.You are not your fucking khakies.You have to give up.You have to realise that someday you will die, until you know that, you are useless. This is your life.This is your life.This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time .

  • "Paganism" is a descriptive religious term denoting any polytheistic religious tradition, especially in the classical Roman era, where the term "pagus," or "countryside," denoted the rural context in which the older religion still flourished while Christianity spread through the cities and towns. "Heathen" is a synonymous but more general term denoting any religious tradition outside Abrahamic monotheism. It is true that in popular usage these terms have a secondary pejorative sense based upon a historical cultural acceptance of the truth of Christianity; but in my posts they are used in the purely descriptive sense.

  • "Paganism" is a descriptive religious term denoting any polytheistic religious tradition, especially in the classical Roman era, where the term "pagus," or "countryside," denoted the rural context in which the older religion still flourished while Christianity spread through the cities and towns. "Heathen" is a synonymous but more general term denoting any religious tradition outside Abrahamic monotheism. It is true that in popular usage these terms have a secondary pejorative sense based upon a historical cultural acceptance of the truth of Christianity; but in my posts they are used in the purely descriptive sense.

  • June 23, 2000, 6:21 a.m. CST

    Gastabona

    by SDG

    If you're still reading this TalkBack (and shame on you if you are!), I'd like to write to you off TalkBack. I'm going to assume that your Hotmail address is valid and that you use that account; if not please let me know. (MY UserID account IS valid.) Thanks, SDG

  • June 23, 2000, 6:26 a.m. CST

    Interesting

    by tylerdurden

    I don't know what's wrong with you, SDG, but I suggest you join Fight Club or you can also hang yourself which would be pretty annoying for us all . do something for Heavens sake .

  • June 23, 2000, 7:31 a.m. CST

    Darth Slater, you crack me up . . .

    by Knight says"Ni"

    "Uh-oh,spaghetti-o's!" Man, that's some funny shit. I just love all the dork humor in these talkbacks.

  • June 23, 2000, 8:31 a.m. CST

    SDG, I see your point about "pagan" and "heathen"...

    by r_dimitri22

    ...and I apologize for implying that you might have been using them outside their technical meanings. Still, I think my misinterpretation is understandable considering: 1) the connotation the words carry -- which you acknowledge, and 2) the fact that you used "heathen" as a descriptor to reinforce your theory about the chronological "evolution" of Indy. I'd still be interested in your thoughts on my retort to said evolution.

  • June 23, 2000, 8:54 a.m. CST

    Ronnie Coutteure's been dead for about 4-5 years now...

    by Frenchnick

    That's right. He kicked it right after the filming of the Indy series. He used to be a sort of cabaret comedian who got fame through a little french tv series called "Merci Bernard" in the early 80's. S'been playing little parts in all sorts of local french flick productions. He was an enjoyable and likeable guy. Here's a little though for him. Nick

  • June 23, 2000, 9:33 a.m. CST

    re: pendant

    by coytuck

    Good for you! I hope your story is great. But from one writer to another about another, you should know then that writing a script can be a daunting task, and that writing a good one is even more imposing. That being established, why are you so compelled to slam another's work. And come on... are you going to sit behind you pc and tell me that when you first saw that film you saw what you call plot holes? In retrospect, anyone can tear apart any story. ANY STORY. Being negative is easy. Respecting the efforts of another's work, now that takes some pretty strong self-esteem. Also, why did so many people who saw the film like it so much if it were done so poorly? Robert McKee once said that all stories have holes. It's inevitable. The better stories are the ones that acknowledge the holes within the story in such a way that it still propels the story forward. I guess that's the nature of humanity. The innate gift of failure. I seriously doubt Night had (or has) little respect for his audience. Word of mouth (the only true critic) on that film proved that. Again, I hope your script proves to be as worthy as you say. And if your script is one of the fortunate few to make it to the screen, I hope you remember your comments. Because what goes around, in fact, does come around. There's always someone (actually more than someone) who is waiting to pick you apart. There isn't a story that proved infallible yet. Do you really think yours will be the first? Oh yeah... about the scott frank thing. I met him in austin last year, as I'm sure some of you also did. And he is incredibly talented and whip smart to boot. But in the four days there, not once did he mention writing saving private ryan. Did he do some rewrites he didn't get credit for? Because I could have sworn Robert Rodat wrote that script. l8r

  • June 23, 2000, 1:22 p.m. CST

    still more 6th sense talkbacks (spoilers) ...

    by tdibble1

    PEDANT: If there is a reasonable explanation, within the universe defined by the movie itself, then it is not a plot hole. I listed several explanations for several alledged "holes" in the movie, all of which are stated right up front in the movie, with the single exception of the room being cold at the end (which was really only a minor speculation); and then someone else noticed a detail in the movie which I had missed (that the boy's mother was always saying how cold it was), which erases my conjecture and puts a more concrete explanation on the supposed "hole". Call it pathetic if you want; I'd call your bashing of a movie for no other reason than that you apparently think everything accidentally fell together in a coincidentally logical manner and that the author had no intention of it ever making sense just about as pathetic as they come! Finally, pedant, the "they only see what they want to see" may certainly have only been put in there for the twist ending (just like Bruce Willis getting shot in the beginning was only there to support the ending, and meeting the kid, and so forth ...), but it was carried throughout the script and is the basis of many other rules about the world created in the script. For instance, why did the ghosts always seem to be acting out in their own times, and not reacting to modern inventions? Because they only see what they want to see. There is a great scene in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where a space ship comes down and lands in the middle of a Soccor field and everyone averts their eyes, not wanting to see that which challenges their vision of the world ... NIHM: Congrats on resolving your inner demons ... you just didn't like the movie; no harm in that. I personally liked it quite a bit, although I wouldn't call it the best movie ever. YOU SEE, in the end, that is the judge of the movie: you enjoy or not, and ten years down the road, do you still enjoy your memories of that movie?

  • June 23, 2000, 1:39 p.m. CST

    superninja, It's been done

    by Arse of Spades

    The exact plot you just came up with was already done on a two-part episode of the cartoon Gargoyles. ... then again, Gargoyles kicks ass...

  • June 23, 2000, 4:39 p.m. CST

    The Guy Who Keeps Saying We Shouldn't Say Negative Things About

    by Buzz Maverik

    ...it's our money and we're making these clowns rich. They owe us good movies! Anyone who loves good movies has the right to criticize bad ones! Or even bad parts of good movies. Plot holes should be exposed and fuck Robert McKee if you follow him you'll only be a clone. As to the old crap about how we should be making our own movies instead of criticizing others A)It's damn hard to get into the position to make a movie; and 2)you don't need to be able to make a movie or write a movie to criticize a movie; THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT YOU'VE SEEN A MOVIE. Back when I was a wannabee, I wouldn't criticize anybody who made it either, figuring they knew something I didn't. But it's okay to criticize them. They'll do it to you, and they'll probably be wrong. I'd rather be John Milius and be able to call shit "shit" instead of being the flavor of the month and have to pretend to like shit that other flavors of the month are doing. I'd rather be Tarantino and say I like this and don't like that and do what I want before I've made it rather than be a Tarantino wannabee. See what I mean? The reason so many bad movies are made and there are so many mediocre talents working (and this doesn't include Scott Frank, Spielberg, Lucas or M. Night who are all incredible but can do crap at times) is everyone is too afraid of not making it to say "I want to do it right" instead of "I will do it like the crap you read about in Variety this morning, Mr. Producer, sir." That's filmmaker and filmmaker wannabee perspective. Here's my perspective as a fan: I want to see the best work of talented people. If they fuck up too often, make them get real jobs. I love TalkBack because it gives me a chance to bitch and from what I've heard, filmmakers read this shit. And as far as telling Spielberg or Lucas or anybody to their face we don't like their movies, that's ridiculous. How many of us know Spielberg or Lucas or any filmmakers? If we did, we'd be kissing their asses so we could get to make films too.

  • June 23, 2000, 9:12 p.m. CST

    Read latest script

    by veda

    I just wanted to make a correction. Bruce is envolved in a train crash not the subway. A trick ending is supposed to suprise you. Happy or not. You are set up for the unexpected. Yes. M. knight can write an Indy 4. His characters are well developed as well as his story. He is very talented. And,you will love every visual moment of Unbreakable.

  • June 23, 2000, 11:48 p.m. CST

    Best movie news in years!!!!

    by Rollo Tomassi

    The sky seems so much bluer today, doesn't it? For me, "Indy 4" outranks all three "Star Wars" prequels and all three "LOTR" movies put together as an event, and M. Night is a worthy addition to the clebrated creative team. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • June 24, 2000, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Biggest Plot Hole

    by Afro_Dogwhelk

    How comes no one has mentioned the biggest plot hole in the Sixth Sense? At one point Bruce listens to a recording of a ghost and Toni Collette looks at photos with an "aura" or whatever in them. Given the amount of recordings that take place - film, TV, radio, home recordings - all over the world, and the number of photos taken, someone must have noticed something. This to me seems like a lazy way of making Bruce believe in ghosts. Some of the other plot holes are suspicious, as M. Night got around this by saying that ghosts only see what they want to see. For instance, no one has asked what Bruce did between the time he was shot and the first time he met the kid. The caption says "The next fall", suggesting about a year has passed. Bruce cannot have been a ghost 24 / 7 in this time as he would have seen the ambulance coming for HIS body and there probably would have been a funeral at some point. Not to mention no one, including his wife, would have acknowledged him for a year or whatever. The same applies as to when he first met the kid, he must have just been there in the room, as he could not have knocked on the door and been let in by Toni Collette. I think Bruce's wife breathing at the end was just another way of showing the audience he was a ghost, as if to say "So what if it doesn't make sense, do it anyway." Anyway, that breath stuff is just an assumption by the kid. Bruce seems scared at the time. Perhaps the kid has never met a happy or scarred ghost. The temperature change could come from any strong emotion. Saying that, who's to say there isn't another ghost in the room at the time! Someone mentioned that ghosts act differently, but they all seem to act around the events of their death - except those hanging in the school. They don't seem to be doing anything - just hanging. How is the kid supposed to help them? Cut them down? Also, someone mentioned about the "Red" coloured stuff on the DVD. I've got the DVD, but don't understand the meaning behind all that red stuff. Someone please explain as it doesn't seem to be saying anything. Still, the film is pretty cool and I don't suggest over-analysing like I have.

  • June 24, 2000, 3:35 p.m. CST

    re: buzzmaverik

    by coytuck

    Yo, buzz... I'm the one you're talking about. Yes I made the comments about critics. Some of your points are well taken, then again... some of what you say obviously means a lot to you. And I stress TO YOU. I've seen tons of films I didn't like. Some I've hated. But hey... they got me. My money's gone now. My bad. Regardless how good or bad the story is. It is. Nobody aspires to make crap. And we are all entitled to our opinion. I just personally find slamming other people's work useless. I'd rather chalk it up to a waste of my time and move on. But if that keeps your piss in a single stream?... Then let it fly, son. When it's all said and done, you paid your money and they took it. And these writers and directors are all over these conferences and festivals. You may think they're untouchable, but they're not. They're people, and look at least as stupid as we do reading the paper while taking a shit. And their's stinks too. Hell, I once got called on like not liking Air Force One by Andrew Marlowe. Come to find out what I didn't like about the story he didn't even write (Ford did). But I never would've known had I played john milius, calling someone else's work shit. We actually had a nice conversation after that, and guess what? I didn't want anything thing from him. I never said lie. Just don't be a dick. Though I was wrong to say all critics are bad, I still feel they're like weather men. They're paid for being wrong most of the time. Roger Ebert slammed The Ususual Suspects, or course others didn't, including those who gave chris a little golden man for writing it. Voltaire referred to Shakespeare's work as "an enormous dunghill." Then again... that's his opinion. And as for the Robert McKee comment. I never said I'd rather be like him (though you did about milius). He simply made a comment I agreed with. I actually don't agree with a lot of what he says. But that's my opinion. For you to call me a clone for my comment. Not likely. I found him to be an old curmudgeon (with a hot young wife), and I'm probably half his age and twice his size. So I listen to whatever makes sense for me. Everyone has something valid to say. Even you. And A)true, it is hard to be in a position to get a film made. Then again, if it were easy... 2)you don't have to be able to make a film to criticize one. But being a dick about it... do you find that satisfying? Being a critic our case is like the electoral college. Our votes mean jack. Finally, I don't care if filmmakers read these. For me, I'd rather talk to people like you. That's more interesting. But if you feel your quasi-witty tirades will put a wrinkle in some filmmaker's head, and compel them to respond to you?... that movie has already been done. l8r

  • June 24, 2000, 9:50 p.m. CST

    by mr chicken

  • June 24, 2000, 10:59 p.m. CST

    How does it always inevitably get to TPM bashing?

    by mr chicken

    My gosh people, no matter where the posts start it always ends up in bashing TPM. Of course, these are the people who in few years will be ripping apart Indy 4. And why? Because they simply will not allow themselves to go back to the place they were as child or young person. If Indy 4 doesn't incorperate "bullettime" or some massive kung-fu style battle, you all will scream foul. This will make me unpopular as hell but, The Matrix was quite a flawed film. I won't even mention Keanu because that's a given. If it were such a masterpiece, why did they resort to the typical shoot em up ending? Anyway, I think it's a shame that the two films that seem to define our internet generation are Fight Club and The Matrix. Both good films, but not even close to the status that they seem to have been given. Wow look this was a whole post without a speck of profanity, I must be insane.

  • June 24, 2000, 10:59 p.m. CST

    How does it always inevitably get to TPM bashing?

    by mr chicken

    My gosh people, no matter where the posts start it always ends up in bashing TPM. Of course, these are the people who in few years will be ripping apart Indy 4. And why? Because they simply will not allow themselves to go back to the place they were as child or young person. If Indy 4 doesn't incorperate "bullettime" or some massive kung-fu style battle, you all will scream foul. This will make me unpopular as hell but, The Matrix was quite a flawed film. I won't even mention Keanu because that's a given. If it were such a masterpiece, why did they resort to the typical shoot em up ending? Anyway, I think it's a shame that the two films that seem to define our internet generation are Fight Club and The Matrix. Both good films, but not even close to the status that they seem to have been given. Wow look this was a whole post without a speck of profanity, I must be insane.

  • June 25, 2000, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Okay, clearly SOMEONE has to say this...

    by LesterB

    It is FACT that Cole knew that Malcolm was a ghost. Literal FACT. He knew from the moment he saw him. Shamalayan has openly said this in interviews, that that was his intention all along. It is a FACT. Now, please, can the debate on that just end?

  • June 26, 2000, 1:13 a.m. CST

    No no no! I've got it! The new title of INDY4, according to Sp

    by Pips Orcille

    Oh wait, I'm thinking of the porn version. Damn it!

  • July 7, 2000, 8:17 a.m. CST

    M. Night. and Indy

    by TubbyTumello

    To confirm what Sir Arbee reported. The M. Night has been on the info screens at Planet Hollywood Disney as well. They also reported the Jet Li = kato thing as well. Huggs and Kisses, Tubby