SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: May 30 2008 05:16 pm

ReeperTheSeeker wrote:

I just remembered, didn't the Scrubs Janitor refer to Indy as Colonel? Jeeze, since when was Indy in the army and how long did it take him to rise to such a high ranking. I don't even remember the other three movies making reference to his military career.

Did no one watch the TV show?

Posted: May 30 2008 08:29 pm

Tebor i think they are referring to his ww2 service in that particular instance since everyone seemed to be going on about the war and nazis and stuff in that scene.

and i remember watching young indiana jones. it was a pretty good show.

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

Tebor wrote:

ReeperTheSeeker wrote:

I just remembered, didn't the Scrubs Janitor refer to Indy as Colonel? Jeeze, since when was Indy in the army and how long did it take him to rise to such a high ranking. I don't even remember the other three movies making reference to his military career.

Did no one watch the TV show?

No, i haven't, but since Indy 4 come out i've been wanting to see them.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

I just saw it on DVD.

I thought it had a few major flaws.

1) The entire scene where they are driving through the jungle could have been eliminated and I would have been happier. It made me feel like I was watching the scene in Return of the Jedi where they are chasing through the forest on the speeders. Swinging on vines?

2) Supernatural is fine for Indiana Jones, it is what he does. But alien is just obnoxious, the space ship at the end was horrible. I expected more depth and a better explanation. Supernatural would have been a better way to do it.

3) Indiana Jones took too many punches as an older guy. Sorry, but it wasn't believable when he was younger, but it was fun. As an old man he would have broken his hip.

Joined: Jul 15 2008 Location: Spanish Harlem Posts: 280

erock wrote:

everyone's rant about michael bay is that all hes about is explosions and effects. well if giant robots start wreaking shit in my town im gonna bet a few bucks some stuff is gonna explode and shit is gonna get broke. did you expect that they would settle arguments over a game of bridge and some tea? giant robots with lasers + evil giant robots with lasers = explosions. at least they got a director with experience in said explosions.

9.9/10

I don't know why people are griping; I loved this movie.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

uncle joe wrote:

erock wrote:

everyone's rant about michael bay is that all hes about is explosions and effects. well if giant robots start wreaking shit in my town im gonna bet a few bucks some stuff is gonna explode and shit is gonna get broke. did you expect that they would settle arguments over a game of bridge and some tea? giant robots with lasers + evil giant robots with lasers = explosions. at least they got a director with experience in said explosions.

9.9/10

I don't know why people are griping; I loved this movie.

Out of curiosity, if this got a 9.9/10, how would you rate the original 3 movies on the same scale?

Joined: Jul 15 2008 Location: Spanish Harlem Posts: 280

Oh no dude, my bad, I was rating his post.

As for the Original 3, I'd rate Raiders a 9.2; Last Crusade a 8.8 and Temple a 9. Raiders gets the nod due to the iconic ending.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Who rates movies on a ten point scale with decimal points? What is this, an imdb average? Slobberknocker!

Joined: Jul 15 2008 Location: Spanish Harlem Posts: 280

Uh, I just did it?

Posted: Oct 22 2008 02:18 pm

Why not rate them with a hundred point scale douchy?

Or explain a bit so that the numbers don't matter perhaps?

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

I didn't see it and won't bee seeing it. Here's what tipped me off to its suckiness when I first saw the trailer:

1. Skinny wisecracking white kid with whispy facial hair (Think that annoying fuck in National Treasure)

2. Overly-saturated camera shots with obvious CG. I understand the use of both, but it reaches a point where the scenery and scenes look extremely fake, and it does have a detrimental effect on acting performance.

3. Female Russian agent with a black bowl cut and red whore lipstick.

I'm not saying that those are the reasons why it looked like it would be bad, but they are usually tipoffs to bad movies for me, especially the use of stock characters.

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

Greg the White wrote:

I didn't see it and won't bee seeing it. Here's what tipped me off to its suckiness when I first saw the trailer:

1. Skinny wisecracking white kid with whispy facial hair (Think that annoying fuck in National Treasure)

2. Overly-saturated camera shots with obvious CG. I understand the use of both, but it reaches a point where the scenery and scenes look extremely fake, and it does have a detrimental effect on acting performance.

3. Female Russian agent with a black bowl cut and red whore lipstick.

I'm not saying that those are the reasons why it looked like it would be bad, but they are usually tipoffs to bad movies for me, especially the use of stock characters.

Hey hey, i'm all for bashing this piece of shit but that was actually a high point for me. Sure, not as hot as Elsa from Indy 3 but still hot.

Yah yah . . . i'd hit it.

Title: Midnight Scientist Joined: Dec 07 2006 Posts: 518

Oh yeah, I'd have have hot intercourse with that picture that is not showing up on my computer.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

Yeah, she was attractive, but if Zoolander beat you to a concept that's part of your legendary action series, just let it go.

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

kenthegod wrote:

Oh yeah, I'd have have hot intercourse with that picture that is not showing up on my computer.

it shows up on mine . . . just stare at mai then XD