Indiana Jones IV or Iron Man

Originally posted by exanda kane
So instead you're going to see a film riding on the success of a comic-book first published decades ago - where an adaptation is not neccesary - by the Director of 'Elf' and 'Zathura,' with second-rate-Cate-Blanchett Gwenyth Paltrow, Get Rich or Die Trying' lumiere Terence Howard and Downey Jr. in one of his least exciting roles to date. As good as that ensemble is, despite their faults, you think they can match up to a franchise - with a lot more depth than Star Wars truth to be told - whose main character - with a lot more depth than Han Solo also - can be distinguished purely from his silhoutte?

Yup. Because Iron Man hasn't been done on the big screen yet, while Jones has been doing it for decades, only now doing the exact same damn things.

That's faulty logic. It's not even illogical logic. It's just stupid.

Originally posted by exanda kane
That's faulty logic. It's not even illogical logic. It's just stupid.

lol, agreed, Indiana Jones fan my ass.

I wonder if he is going to respond to my post.

Originally posted by casper_rific
I'm definitely going for iron man. the superhero genre's just taking off, and with the advances in technology they are definitely gonna be more realistic. Besides, i'm a big fan of robert downey jr. hehe.

Frankly i'm bored to death of 'superhero' movies, and i'm bored with CGI.

Aye, there only seems to be a small handful of directors who can handle CGI with finesse at the moment - and one of the most prominent happens to be Spielberg. CGI has been a bit of a houseguest, who pays his dues, but often leaves the toilet seat up, or drinks all the milk. It's a cruel beast to temper and the fact that it exists shouldn't be the reason why dozens of potentially enjoyable superhero movies are shoved into factory production.

I can't wait for a bit of the old skool B-movie schtick.

Iron Man. wasn't that big of a fan of Indy back when I was a child and the hokey "archaeology" wasn't interesting enough because of the nature of the movie. if they'd ever gone in-depth into that stuff, or immersed themselves in some real archaeological/mythological stream, then I'd be fascinated by the combination of action and story.

IronMan looks to be shaping up as a really funny, action packed and well acted first instalment of a franchise. Robert Downey Jnr's usually a good laugh in light roles, and Tony Stark is both playboy and "hero". like Batman but with a few pills 😄.

as for their respective formulaic natures, Indy +has+ to be formulaic - "respectful of its heritage" - whilst IronMan will only be formulaic in the sense that it is a conventional Summer Bluckbuster action movie narrative, stunts, explosions, a little romance, some big villain and a moment of truth which changes a character's destiny.

also, Indy has been somewhat done to death through the progressively worse Mummy movies, though Rachel Weisz adds a little something.

its hard to choose. not only iromn man or indy but also the dark knight incredible hulk.! all i godda say is all these films have a huge fanbase but also indy 4 may be the victor to do indy being 2 generations. i was born in 84 so.

Definetely Indiana Jones since hollywood has screwed up the majority of marvel comicbook films and they're usually always shit where all the Indiana Jones films were great.Although from looking at the trailers of Iron man,I have a feeling THIS time around,Iron Man may break that trend of crappy marvel hollywood films.Heres hoping.

Originally posted by janus77
Iron Man. wasn't that big of a fan of Indy back when I was a child and the hokey "archaeology" wasn't interesting enough because of the nature of the movie. if they'd ever gone in-depth into that stuff, or immersed themselves in some real archaeological/mythological stream, then I'd be fascinated by the combination of action and story.

IronMan looks to be shaping up as a really funny, action packed and well acted first instalment of a franchise. Robert Downey Jnr's usually a good laugh in light roles, and Tony Stark is both playboy and "hero". like Batman but with a few pills 😄.

as for their respective formulaic natures, Indy +has+ to be formulaic - "respectful of its heritage" - whilst IronMan will only be formulaic in the sense that it is a conventional Summer Bluckbuster action movie narrative, stunts, explosions, a little romance, some big villain and a moment of truth which changes a character's destiny.

also, Indy has been somewhat done to death through the progressively worse Mummy movies, though Rachel Weisz adds a little something.

Indy is the same way. The Formula has always been narrative, stunts, explosions, romance, and moment of truth. Anyone who has watched the 3 movies would know that. How is Indy done to death? How many "hero" like characters do you see today in mainsteam movies? You don't have people coming up with figures like James Bond, Indiana Jones, MacGyver, ect...

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Indy is the same way. The Formula has always been narrative, stunts, explosions, romance, and moment of truth. Anyone who has watched the 3 movies would know that. How is Indy done to death? How many "hero" like characters do you see today in mainsteam movies? You don't have people coming up with figures like James Bond, Indiana Jones, MacGyver, ect...

what Indy has on top is the need to be in the very specific mould of the three predecessors, to have the same gags continue (the occasional moments were Indy's mug is in close up for a rueful grin or a "gee wizz" gape etc) ... it's much more formula driven than I expect Iron Man to be. that is all. it should be a fairly simple argument to understand - "Indy fans" are fans of what, after all, but the elements common to the movies and the character's persona as established in the first 2?

I said it had "somewhat" been done to death in that the Mummy movies quite heavily borrowed from the Indy films in structure, theme and content (period setting, locations, Nazis, the elements of adventure, comedy and "archaeology" ... come on, the subtle as a hammer to the head).

as for Franchise worthy characters, which is what I presume you're talking about, well there's Jason Bourne of course, but the material is more adult and to my liking than previous Bond films (Casino Royale being rather good and more grown up than most of the recent predecessors). generally though, I'm not interested in franchise films, there's plenty of invention and innovation in movies... when I want nostalgia, I hunt out Ox Tales on youtube ✅.

Originally posted by janus77
what Indy has on top is the need to be in the very specific mould of the three predecessors, to have the same gags continue (the occasional moments were Indy's mug is in close up for a rueful grin or a "gee wizz" gape etc) ... it's much more formula driven than I expect Iron Man to be. that is all.

Indiana Jones has its formula, but it works; three great, memorable films have been made that are iconic of 'new' New Hollywood, exemplary of the unique talents of Harrison Ford and the way in which Spielberg and Lucas changed Hollywood Cinema.

You aren't shooting down Indiana Jones, that I get, but to expect more from another kind of formula we have gotten used to (Super-Hero origins), that has only rarely produced a good film in the last ten years, is overly optimistic. As it stands now, Iron Man has recieved a lukewarm reception.

yeah and you look at all the marvel films and your like thinking-Man when are they ever going to make a great marvel comicbooks movie that measures up to the greatness of Dc's comicbook films batman begins or superman? sadly,it just hasnt happened yet.

the first X-men film was good, not great but good. the 3rd Spiderman film was a hoot, really enjoyable and very well acted. Ang Lee's Hulk was pretty great as a film, not so great as a Hulk story because of its pacing and the fact that it was an origin story.

Iron Man has an excellent lead actor, a gorgeous and fairly talented lead actress (Gwyneth Paltrow) and so far, from the trailers, I see a Tony Stark who will be a riot on screen... I'm looking forward to it.

as for Batman, the very first Burton directed Batman and the Christopher Nolan directed "reboot" are the only two decent movies, add to them the first genuinely interesting Superman film - Superman Returns - and you have 3 very good comic-to-film translations for DC.

staying with comics, but outside of the superhero genre, there's the awesome Sin City and the engrossing and epic 300...

I think there's been quite a few good/great comic-to-film translations and most of the shitty ones have been squarely aimed at, and directed by, non-enthusiasts.

oh and can't wait to see the new Hulk movie either.

The new Hulk movie looked like it took a step back into the past. The CGI is not as impressive as I have seen from movies like 300, Transformers, ect..

Originally posted by exanda kane
Indiana Jones has its formula, but it works; three great, memorable films have been made that are iconic of 'new' New Hollywood, exemplary of the unique talents of Harrison Ford and the way in which Spielberg and Lucas changed Hollywood Cinema.

You aren't shooting down Indiana Jones, that I get, but to expect more from another kind of formula we have gotten used to (Super-Hero origins), that has only rarely produced a good film in the last ten years, is overly optimistic. As it stands now, Iron Man has recieved a lukewarm reception.

See, that's another thing i'm afraid of. Hollywood has a way of ruining good things. Indiana Jones has a reputation. Whether we like ot or not, Star Wars wasn't quite the same, all these rehashes of old TV shows and movies have been letdowns, for the most part. At least with Ironman there is no precedent. It's all new.

The thing that coculd possibly let down Indiana Jones is the script. But considering it has taken a decade or so for the right one, hopefully it won't impede. The reason why I don't feel it is right to compare then or even throw Star Wars into the mix is that Star Wars and these Supepr-hero adaptations are at the cutting edge of special effects technology. Even if Star Wars is not set in a contemporary universe, it is still pushing for new technologlical heights.

Indiana Jones isn't, on the other hand; it's in keeping with its own fictionalised history and universe that isn't determined cinematically by special effects of the digital age (or not applicable in that age) but by its B movie influences and credentials.

I cant believe IRON MAN is actually coming out this week on a THURSDAY! There is a theatre near me where on weekdays they show the films for only 4 bucks.Thats really cheap so I'll probably see it on opening night thursday.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I cant believe IRON MAN is actually coming out this week on a THURSDAY! There is a theatre near me where on weekdays they show the films for only 4 bucks.Thats really cheap so I'll probably see it on opening night thursday.

It's stated to be released on May 2nd, which is a Friday.

I've waited for more than a decade for another Indy sequel. Iron Man is just a big MEH!

"Dr Jones!!!!!!"

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah and you look at all the marvel films and your like thinking-Man when are they ever going to make a great marvel comicbooks movie that measures up to the greatness of Dc's comicbook films batman begins or superman? sadly,it just hasnt happened yet.

They go by the names "Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man 2".