Thanks to everyone who came out for the live show.
I have a tendency to fix your typos.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Thanks to everyone who came out for the live show.
Damn that was fun to listen to. One of the best DIFs.
Connery as Gandalf? I can't picture anyone but McKellen saying 'you shall not pass!' but The Matrix is interesting. It would've had a totally different, campier vibe. He was too old to do his own fights, though.
Nice to hear Trey state the obvious about riding the sub. I've read many times 'it makes no sense cuz he'd drown!' Subs travel faster on the surface, they only dive if there's a reason to. These are the same people who say Decker's lips not matching the dialogue in the snake salesman scene in Blade Runner is a blooper - where really it's a quick way of showing that it was a longer conversation.
Congratulations on 100 guys, gonna be a great year. (for us!)
Speaking of the photoelectric booby trap rock, what happens at night?
I'm sure they built in overrides and auxileries systems for night, come on, it's not like we're talking about a 2000 year old civilization barely out of the stone age.
Isn't there a robot chicken episode where they spoof this scene by showing the building process? I think it has the leader excitedly explaining what he wants to some workers. Funny stuff.
... Decker's lips not matching the dialogue in the snake salesman scene in Blade Runner is a blooper - where really it's a quick way of showing that it was a longer conversation.
I think in the original cut of the film it was an editing issue. They cut out a longer scene there and instead of having the conversation they just skipped right to the point of the scene, which was that the snake guy tells him who he sold the snake to. The Final Cut has the restored scene intact without the mismatched overdub if I recall correctly.
When I was a kid I loved that movie, but that bit and a couple of other little bits felt really wrong to me. It was really cathartic to see the final cut finally and actually see that these little things that felt off about the film were actually things that the studio screwed up when they were putting together the "director's cut" (a term which is 90% of the time a blatant lie)
But yeah, this was one of the best shows ever. Can't wait to see the rest of the Indy flicks and the Anniversary show. Hopefully you guys will be able to do more live shows, cause this one yielded a great podcast.
Audio is echoey.
Very unsatisfied with purchase.
They cut out a longer scene there and instead of having the conversation they just skipped right to the point of the scene, which was that the snake guy tells him who he sold the snake to. The Final Cut has the restored scene intact without the mismatched overdub if I recall correctly.
I always assumed it was done that way on purpose but after seeing the weird 'US broadcast version' i'm willing to admit anything's possible.
... things that the studio screwed up when they were putting together the "director's cut" (a term which is 90% of the time a blatant lie)
But it sounds so much better than "marketing executroid's cut."
Just listened to this. Great, great fun.
YAY HE LIKED IT
This is a bit of a retcon, but I interpret the end of the film as the character comic to believe in the supernatural. When he packs the gun, he talks about how he doesn't believe any of that stuff, but rather than being a skeptic at the end, he has to accept that these aren't just artifacts in some temple with booby traps, this is something real, a radio for talking to god. It's a character arc that takes a character from thinking he can overcome anything with brute force to a climax where he admits his own powerlessness, a strange choice and one that would never get made today.
Being a skeptic doesn't mean being totally unwilling to believe in the supernatural, just that until sufficient evidence to demonstrate the supernatural is given, the claim isn't accepted. For a character to believe in the supernatural after having seen quite a lot of evidence in its favor would not cease to make him a skeptic -- in fact, he would be a poor skeptic to reject a proposition after a certain level of evidence is reached (see climate change, moon landing "skeptics").
On the other hand...does Indy actually see any evidence of the supernatural? When the only really irrefutably supernatural event occurs, he's got his eyes closed.
And you could argue that the fact that he goes with the myth and closes his eyes means he's bought into it, but maybe not. Maybe it's just his experience that at a certain point you go with the precautions of the lore even if you don't believe the explanation. Could be the Hovitos legends say not to step into the light or you will be smote by the Sun God. Turns out it's actually poison darts, but either way you really don't want to step into the light. Could be he didn't know WHAT would happen when the ark was opened, but he heard you weren't supposed to look at it, he was already tied to a post and helpless, so what did he have to lose? So he could conceivably still not believe in the supernatural at the end of it all and not be entirely unreasonable.
In the story conference Lucas talks about how Indy -- his original concept, anyway -- straddles both worlds a bit. He's the guy who walks into an ancient temple that's supposedly cursed and makes people drop dead, and discovers a toxic gas leak in the main chamber. But he's also a guy who's seen some serious shit and accepts that sometimes there is actually a curse, and part of his investigation is helping him find out which it is.
Whether he accepts the supernatural or not at the end (I'm inclined to agree that that's part of the arc), you're right that there is, at the last, an acceptance that doing nothing is the best course of action, whereas up until that point he's continued trying to do something and it's kept blowing up in his face.
Indy has a character arc!
Anywhere in the story conference transcripts does Lucas drop more hints that Indy is actually a replicant?
Dorkman, do you have a link for that transcript?
There's some interesting discussion in the comments section of this post over at Zarban's site: http://www.zarban.com/?p=17264
However, the person believes you guys have been doing way too much "God bashing" as of late. I don't really see it, but then I'm not especially religious and I don't practice any particular faith, so maybe I'm the wrong guy to ask about this. What say you on the subject, DiF?
Also sent Fardawg an email (he's a forumer) asking him to package up his general God-bashing argument into a paragraph, might be a good thing to bring up on the anniversary episode.
Meh. Where a movie veers into "God is real, and He's here right now" territory, God discussion becomes fair game.
At the same time, Raiders isn't Exorcist or Omen or Seventh Sign or Dogma, let alone Last Temptation or Passion, so it's good to be sensitive to what may offend listeners (ahem, white boys doing Pulp Fiction), but, hey, you gotta talk about something for two hours.
I guess what I'm saying is: William Shatner is the greatest man on earth.
I didn't want to clutter up Zarban's commentary section with a response, so it's here:
Accusations of "ignorance" come from a very provincial perspective of a specific interpretation of the theology. I may not know (or agree) with his interpretation of the Bible, but he seems to be under the impression that his is the only-possible-everyone-agrees-and-certainly-correct-one -- which is, of course, what everyone he disagrees with thinks about their own. I also find it amusing that he makes such accusations of ignorance while himself demonstrating so little understanding of the history of the development of the Bible and especially of early Judaism.
I do personally tend to try not to bring up religion in commentaries unless the movie is religiously themed, in which case I think we should be free to discuss the film's underlying mythology like we do with any other.
Did we say the n-word too much?
Nachos? ....I don't think so.
Well, it WAS black history month. And the n-word IS a big part of black history....
It's March now.
Did we say the n-word too much?
I think it is said a lot in Pulp Fiction but probably no more than is said in the actual film itself. If you said it during the Monster's Inc or the Explorers commentaries, something would be wrong. I think it was allowed in the context of the film you were commentating on