I appreciate the kind comments from folks who enjoyed the video, and I almost equally appreciate the comments from people telling me they unsubscribed because I acknowledged that racism exists. I am so glad to be rid of people like you.
Stephan. I’m not trying to start anything with you or trolling. It’s just that we all know that racism exists. But many of us are just tired of wearing racism colored glasses because it is exhausting to try to find it in everything we see.
Okay. It's an issue worth acknowledging and it was relevant to why we don't tend to see many adventure stories like this anymore. A knee-jerk aversion to a brief acknowledgement of the racist history of certain media isn't something I care about catering to.
I like the cut of your jib, Mr. K! Racism exists, and it sucks, and it needs to be called out. They don't get a pass just because it's fiction, or because we're tired of hearing about it. Evil wins when good people do nothing. Thanks for not doing nothing.
@@jodysmoviesandshowschannel8698 Well get ready for the ride. Because there will always be racists in this world. But the racist person will always be important. Because people will always find ways to make them relevant. And if that doesn’t work, we pull out the magnifying glass to find it. And we won’t stop until we extract racism out of something, even if it is just one drop.
@mdiond70 You're parading around nonsense as logic, but what you said is completely vacuous. Hollow platitudes designed to vigorously defend status quo while demonizing even the lightest critique of long-term cultural failings. The solution to problems is not ignoring them, and the people who acknowledge the problems are not worse than the problem itself. If recognizing racism in media we collectively enjoy makes you uncomfortable, you could actually consider why that is rather than parroting empty talking points.
Brendan Frasier in the Mummy I'd say is a good Jones-like. He fails a few times, has emotional moments with his family in both films. Is likeable and courageous.
I feel "The Mummy (1999) is the closet Hollywood ever got to capturing the spirit of the Indiana Jones movies and the Rick O' Connell character was Indy like, but good and goofy enough to stand on own. It helped that movie was a period piece, and was based on a 1930's Universal horror monster movie. I'd be down for a fourth and final movie, but it would really need to be done well. Unfortunately, the two sequels never quite measured up to the 1999 original, despite Brendon Frasier being fantastic in each movie.
My big issue is that his description of Nate either implies he has a terrible memory or has only played Uncharted 4. The negative flaws of Nate are pretty much only brought up in 4, which is why pretty much anyone who likes good writing only likes Uncharted 4s story. The only flaw he has in the first three games is that he's technically just as much a thieving bastard as the enemies, except they then make all the villains do some magic stuff that makes them super villain tier. Uncharted 4 completely removed the magic elements and just focused on a character arc which is why its writing is so much better.
Just a reminder also, the Mummy made the indigenous people badass The Majai alongside Ardith Bay are some of the most honorable and bad ass warriors in the franchise Especially in the second film for better or worse, where they take on the Anubis army head on.
And not only that, but they give Ardeth his own distinct character traits beyond simply being a noble warrior fighting to protect the world from supernatural threats, such as his pet bird, Horus, and how he goes from initially just wielding a sword to also developing a fondness for machine guns.
@@callmev3531 Yes he is his own character as much as the main cast and that really helps to make him stand out more as independent. He's also integral to the success of the heroes and his contributions actually matter and affect the plot.
They're pretty cool for sure, but also fairly sparse in the first film. The Majai are bigger in the Returns, but that movie is unfortunately less good than the first in ways that aren't terribly interested to discuss so it wouldn't have added to the video much.
The fact they didn't cast Bruce Campbell to play Sully in Uncharted is a crime. If you've ever seen Burn notice it's basically the same relationship and he essentially plays Sully in that.
@@burhanbudak6041 Absolutely fucking not. RDJ would've been the exact same as Mark. And good god I do not want to see RDJ and Holland in a film together,
I think about why *Raiders of the Lost Arc is such a good movie ALL THE TIME and you really hit the nail on the head! 1. Indy always starts at a disadvantage 2. HE MAKES MISTAKES CONSTANTLY 3. Barely surviving each trial, he shows his ingenuity, his creativity, and his determination, which are actually the things that make him 'cool'. The people making decisions in these modern movies don't want their action heroes to be cringefail losers so they skip all the important stuff (all the good stuff!) and only show the wins. Without the failure or mistakes, the win feels empty and the character is completely uninteresting. Great video!
I watched the original Indy trilogy for the 100th time recently, and it really struck me just how often he gets the shit beaten out of him in those films. Those action scenes legit feel like they really hurt, it makes us more sympathetic to Indy and desperate to see him win, and thus makes him a more relatable hero
To refine that point a bit: the people making movie decisions these days are *so afraid of their action heroes maybe coming across as cringefail losers*, that they try to over-correct, and leave out anything that might be quirky or vulnerable or what have you. (And, in the process, I think they also don't trust their stars. I get what's being said here, about how Dwayne Johnson has never come across as vulnerable. He has this cocky, wry, sarcastic way of holding himself, when he isn't just relying on being a brick shithouse. But it leaves me wondering if someone could get a more varied performance out of him. I think part of the problem there is that movies who hire him are like, YES, we have THE ROCK! So why would we want him to stretch and not just be... The Rock? etc.) Harrison Ford, esp. back in the late 70s/early 80s when he was establishing characters like Han Solo and Indy, was (I would suggest) an unusually self-confident actor who didn't feel he'd "built his brand" on any one particular thing. We really have him to thank for making Han Solo much more than the sum of what was on paper; it sure wasn't George Lucas's direction. So by the time you get Indy, you've got a writer (Kasdan) who is familiar with Ford's work and knows what he's capable of, and you've got Spielberg and Lucas who just know "this guy knows what he's doing". They had all see him do performances of multi-faceted characters, so they knew they could have Indy be that, and Ford would breathe life into him. (I do think the point made by Stephan here is important, too: the first movie especially is written very well, and it's self-aware enough not to replicate the pitfalls of the older pulp action serials that inspired it. You've got to give a lot of credit to Kasdan as writer, and Spielberg and Lucas, for being willing to have Indy's intro be like an entire sequence of just him failing, a whole bunch of times. And, they deserve credit for deciding that Indy, as a hero, can get hurt, and SHOW that he hurts. I just can't see Doc Savage, or Quatermain, being allowed to be failures, or vulnerable. In large part because that wouldn't have fit in with their job to embody a white-supremacist hero -- I think Stephan is right on target with that observation, too. If the hero is going to be the stand in for Everything That Justifies a White Guy coming into other countries and taking what he wants, or solving their problems for them, then he CAN'T be shown to fail, and he can't be hurt, or be vulnerable. But, Indy isn't saddled with the task of embodying The Authoritative White Guy, so he can be more of a "real guy" who feels relatable.)
What you obviously don't realize is that Indiana Jones is just a rip-off of the character Harry Steele portrayed by actor Charlton Heston in the 1954 movie 'Secret of the Incas.'
@@autodidact537 I don't know, it seems like what you obviously don't realize is that it doesn't matter. It's widely known that the character of Indy, and the movies in general but specifically the first one, were very directly inspired by those old movies. Neither Lucas nor Spielberg were reluctant to discuss that -- they said it in just about every behind the scenes piece where they talked about the movie. The point, though, is that Harrison Ford's Indy is appealing because of Harrison Ford's acting (and, further, that the character is appealing because the writers recognized that he should be the underdog for much of the story, rather than the hero who always triumphs). Charlton Heston is a very different performer. Even if Raiders was nothing but a remake of "Secret of the Incas" and Harrison Ford was playing Harry Steele, it still wouldn't wind up being exactly the same character.
The mummy and Indiana Jones are ICONIC for what they dish out in terms of story, both having endearing characters which as you say have endearing traits like making mistakes, failing, and then struggling to succeed. They both take full advantage of amazing soundtracks and highly imaginative stories, it makes you feel like it’s an actual story instead of well…a story that feels brain numbingly boring because the end goal is secondary to the audience, it’s the characters which are the most important. Bare I’m mind the fact that a lot of movies just want to make really high pitched fast paced action.😊
@@autodidact537 Don't we all know that already? In every documentary about Indiana Jones they talk about the influences namely 'The Treasure of the Sierra Madre'. You're not revealing anything special pal.
@@autodidact537 It might be. Does that make it any less good or iconic? Everything has influences. Everyone builds from or riffs off what has come before. Some just do it better. Some just appeal differently.
Yes! The Mummy is amazing, and it is like dividing both sides of Indy into two different characters. Evie is a indeed a great character and Rachel Weisz pulls it off incredibly, just like Brendan retains much of the vulnerability that makes this type of action hero work, just like Harrison.
In very early production Mark Wahlberg was ment to play Drake and had already signed on to feature... the film was apparently delayed and then eventually after rewrites Holland was cast as Drake and because Wahlberg was still signed up they gave him the role as Sully...
I recently rewatched Raiders of the Lost Ark and I had never noticed him joking about how he's not actually obeying the antiquities laws and is aware of it. That had completely flown over my head in the numerous times that I watched the movie. It's kind of obvious watching him work that he isn't the sort to do a lot of paper work, but hearing him early on in the first movie be like, yeah, I don't do that and you know that I don't do that changes the character the way that character feels at the start and makes his willingness to go to all the trouble of finding the lost ark to help find his friend a bit more interesting.
I’m curious what your opinions are on the National Treasure movies? I feel like they run that fine line of being fun action movies while also incorporating some history, but Nicolas Cage can also be very over the top.
I always admire the way you analyze these productions, and put things into perspective. For example, I didn't hate Jungle Cruise, but there was something about it that made me feel "Meh". I couldn't put my finger on what it was, but now I understand. Loved the video! I hope to see more of this.
I really enjoy your video essays! No pressure to make more any time soon or anything. But I always find your perspectives to be very well-thought out and entertaining and I would not be mad if you continued to drop videos like this every so often. I totally respect your creative process and it's not like fun essays that you wanna spend a bunch of time working on pop into your head every week or anything. Great video and I hope all is well :)
@@StephanKrosecz He’s not a nerd though. He’s a badass motherfucker who happens to be scholarly in his spare time. Being smart has nothing to do with being nerdy. He’s masculine and the man could bang any of his students and get any woman he wants. He’s also a hardened adventurer who’s been shot, punched and bloodied. No way in hell a would a nerd do any of that I’m sorry but that’s a sus take
Your video essays are some of my favourites purely on based on the aesthetic, ignoring all the good stuff you've got going on other than that. 100% agree about Mark Wahlberg, always
I think Tom Holland could have been a great Nathan Drake but the movie was genuinely lost the moment I saw Mark Wahlberg as Sully. The movie had some decent moments but was overall relatively forgettable compared to what it could have been
Also the x in the Indy scene was foreshadowed earlier in the film as well. Earlier in the film Indy tells a class that x never marks the spot, which adds humor later on because x did indeed mark the spot.
I think what makes Indiana Jones work so well over most other action adventure characters, is the same reason why James Bond works so well in the original Ian Fleming novels. Take the first appearance of the character in 1953’s Casino Royale, for example. In a book bond is introduced as a very experienced, and capable agent of the British Secret Service. He’s a man who has killed at least twice before he knows that in order to stay alive, he hast to be extremely careful. But in the same book, he gets overconfident and loses twice then is pretty brutally tortured. I if I was pretty hard for his female companion in Casino Royale, and his even contempt, with resigning from the Secret Service just to marry her. But when she dies, he goes to the cold in calculating secret agent we all know. He deals with depression in 1954 is live and let die, as well as 1961s. You only live twice after his wife is murdered about four hours after their wedding. Like Indiana Jones, James Bond was written in a way so we could feel like a normal person with his own flaws. A lot of riders today completely forget that in order for a character to be relatable you need to make them human. This is part of the reason why “ because feminism“ is actually in really good argument as to why a lot of movies fail. A lot of movies today that have female leads. Focus solely on the female lead being amazing that they forget to include an actual story, or make the story of the movie, so secondary to identity politics, that it’s pretty much nonexistent. A really good example of this is the entirety of the Star Wars sequels trilogy. The character of Ray is a textbook example of feminist power fantasy where you have a female character that is it amazing at absolutely everything with no explanation. Like knowing how to use a light saber that she’s only seen once for 15 seconds better than someone who’s been trained with one for 20 years. Just knows how to fix Han Solo ship better than the guy who owned it for 50 years. That’s the same problem that Emily Blunt’s character has in jungle Cruise. She’s so good at everything that she basically has no flaws. And a lot of the criticism of having films like that where they have female leads with almost no flaws is often condemned a sexist just because they couldn’t write the characters properly. There are a lot of films with actually pretty well written, female characters and female leads. Take the 2018 version of tomb raider, for example. Was it perfect? No. But the version of Laura croft regarding the film Natalie was extremely capable, but actually felt like she could be a real person and did have her own flaws and insecurities. Same thing with the 1990s version with Angelina Jolie.
Your video was great, but I also feel like you missed an opportunity analyzing Tintin, which along with The Mummy probably comes the closest to capturing that Indy Magic.
I enjoyed "Dial of Destiny". It wasn't perfect, but they did a good job (from my perspective) of making the characters (as you say) people I wanted to go on and adventure with, particularly at the time they happened to be adventuring; so that all worked out.
This is the kind of videos I want more of. Thank you for caring more about putting out a great exploration of a viewpoint than trying to sell content. Im happily subscribed
Jungle Cruise is still enjoyable, and I find both Lily and Frank relatable with their flaws, which still matter because it’s part of what has them be them, and the movie shows that there’s nothing wrong with having flaws, especially if other people just don’t like them for whatever reason, because that’s what we all literally go through. Literally every single thing in life It’s always truly going to have at least one person who’s not going to like it no matter what no matter how otherwise it may seem. And I actually like it better than the first 2 Indiana Jones in the mummy overall
Your point about needing the main guy to be flawed is so accurate. And that’s why Daniel Craig in Casino Royale is such a great reimagining of James Bond. You go from Pierce Brosnan, flawless and effortlessly cool, to a rugged, fallible Bond in Daniel Craig. And you get a phenomenal movie and one of the best in the long history of 007.
I could listen to you talk about anything forever but movies and film especially. I'm not even all that familiar with Indiana Jones but hearing you talk about why Jungle Cruise didn't work was an eye-opening delight. I also have a newly found sympathy for Uncharted fans haha. Keep up the good work!! I'm always looking forward to your next video essay. 👍👍👍
Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and John Williams alongside Harrison Ford. Nuff said. Also the love, passion, and commitment with the cast, crew, writers, practical effects artists, EVERYONE
Glad I finally got a chance to watch this! Great video! I love the format, and I think we all love the subject matter. I hope you do more like this in the future!
Thanks again for a really great video Stephan. I people with the money can really mess up a project. When those people look at charts to determine where they want a money to go it can hurt it.
The Indiana Jones films work because they are really relationship dramas disguised inside an adventure. That's why 1 and 3 work better than 2 and 4; much more effort was made to show us the importance of the fractured relationship between people we care for (thanks to good writing and acting) and then we are given what we hoped for - a happy emotional ending and as almost an aside the quest is also completed.
8:02 Jungle Cruise is a bad remake of the 1950s movie "The African Queen". Which, despite being an old film with two white guys in an exotic environment where colonization is still present, is still a very solid picture. The main characters are ordinary people (and Humphrey Bogart plays a likeable alcoholic dork). In any case is still better than Jungle Cruise (not a great challenge)
You really do have a knack for making video essays about movies and I want more of them, but I respect that you only make them when you have something to say. Maybe that has something to do with why yours always hit? 🤔
Haven't read every comment, so apologies if this is repetition, but part of the development hell 'Uncharted' experienced was that Mark Wahlberg was attached to the project for so long he was originally supposed to play Nate. He aged out of Drake and into Sully by the time they were ready to make a movie.
This was a highly enjoyable video. I actually laughed out loud a couple of times, which is rare for me when watching these sorts of videos. I thought your analysis was really strong, your editing was also really good and I’m surprised that I haven’t seen one of your videos before, but I am subscribing because this was excellent stuff!! Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the lost Ark and Indiana Jones, the last crusade or two of my favourite movies, and I also love the Mummy. I feel like you did a great job explaining what makes them so good and what made those other films weak. ❤
20:00 Since you are also reviewing video game characters, I would love to see your take on Amicia de Rune from the "A Plague Tale" franchise. After playing the game a lot of commenters call her one of the greatest female protagonistic characters created in fiction, because she is a VERY flawed character (that even makes some call her a mass murderer), that constantly tries to overcome her weaknesses and pushing through, and has a very tragic character arc, that leaves players in tears (look up some of the ending playthrough videos, that show some players literally breaking down).
This guy says he doesn't like movies by committee, but does he realize his entire personality is built by committee. It's like watching an AI output of the prompt. Millenium youtuber explains movie archetype to show he went to college.
Just making the main character immortal is such a big mistake. I suppose it is possible to make it work and let him remain interesting and vulnerable despite such a predicament but I can't recall a single immortal character that managed it. Closest is probably Captain Jack from the Doctor Who universe.
Anyone remember the 90s live action Jungle Book movie? Romancing The Stone. Cutthroat Island. The Mask of Zorro. When I think of those films I remember real characters in authentic real settings and environments with raw physicality and earned spectacle. And I'd agree that The Mummy is still among the best of these, even with it's heavy use of cgi, at the time it was cutting edge visual effects and really the only way of bringing that story to life.
Dude, just wanna say, big props for admitting that Crystal Skull’s opening is fun. Indy silhouetted against the mushroom cloud is breathtaking. Props, man.
Oooh, is that why there is a Dr Savage in the Great Circle. He’s more of a reference than I knew. I had thought he was just a bumbling absent minded professor reference who had to have a student with sticky fingers and good intentions. IIRC From what I've heard, the Rock has stipulations in his contracts that he has to be the hero, never weak, can't lose a fight and stuff like that. Which seems like it'd be really limiting on what he can do (and feels like he is missing the point of really rounding out his 'brand'). 14:34 lol... just... lol.
This wonderful video just reminds me that Dial of Destiny truly hurt me. Without exaggeration, it’s the film I waited for my whole life. Ever since being shown the Indiana Jones trilogy and seeing Crystal Skull at age 4, I’ve been in love with the franchise and wanted just one more adventure. And then we got it… and I was underwhelmed. It didn’t feel like a classic Jones adventure and it hurt. It really hurts. I hope that in the future, the next big action/adventure movie director will learn from this and make an amazing movie…
My main issue with the majority of recent adventure action films and the last two Indy movies isn't so much to do with the individual films themselves, but with how all of these big franchise movies (for the most part) are made. The over abundance of green screen & post-visual production CGI is beyond annoying but infuriating and a cynical slap in the face. I don't accept the answer of "well that's just how it's done nowadays", although I reluctantly know it's inevitable most of the time. Denis Villeneuve, Christopher Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson, Q.T. & a few others are able to create exciting action spectacle and keep gravity, authentic physicality and genuine character performance intact without all this digital nonsense. Even in this same summer season as Dial of Destiny was released we also got Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning and Oppenheimer, two massive blockbusters in which "done practically & in camera (not totally but to a large degree)" is part of the selling point, I really don't understand WTF Indiana Jones isn't held up to the same standard. It absolutely deserves to be. The only real answer I suppose is . . . . Disney. There is also the much anticipated new Three Musketeers D'artagnan which I am eagerly awaiting for a US release, which is a huge epic action adventure which looks visually spectacular AND authentically shot with practical effects, on location and in French. It ABSOLUTELY CAN still be done today if people would just stop accepting BS and consistently lowering their cinematic standards.
Okay, I know this video is a year old and all. And you've already posted a comment on here that makes it clear that you'll have no respect for me for this, but I have to ask something here. You're saying that...If a white guy goes to another country that's mostly not white people, sees an injustice, and fights against said injustice...he's a freaking Klansman?... Couldn't he just be a guy who sees something wrong and wants to do something about it? Is it really THAT big of a crime for him to be white? I mean everybody is always harping on how bad white people are for things like imperialism and slavery (all of which literally EVERY OTHER race is also guilty of in their own right but never seems to get shamed for it), yet when we get stories that have white people NOT being slave traders, and fighting against evil doers, who just so happen to be non-whites...it's a "white supremacist fantasy?" Now, I'm sure you're about to call me a toxic, bigoted, straight white male and all, but I can't help but feel your conclusion there is being at least a little bit disingenuous. I don't think anybody doubts that racism exists in this world, but I don't think a white guy being a good guy among non-whites necessarily qualifies as that.
Love the first three movies, but "Raiders" it's the crown jewel of modern action Adventure cinema! Ask Stephen Sommers, The director of The Mummy, and of all these three gems; Raiders, Temple of Doom, and Last Crusade, he will say the first Indy movie
13:41 Frank should think the Jaguar is domesticated but every time he comes back from feeding it he's covered in claw marks, and he just is way too over confident about it, then it could pay off later with the Jaguar eating a guy. And Frank has to let the Jaguar go, and it bums him out but it's not supposed to be tamed because it's a ton of muscle that wants to be free in the jungle, like a metaphor.
If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying that The Mummy was to Indiana Jones; what Indiana Jones was to Doc Savage and Alan Quatermain. A property that sees what their predecessor did right and went a new direction with it.
Earned a subscription. Also, he succeeds in Temple too, and then willingly gives back the stone. He went to hell looking for fortune and glory, he ascends a new man, as the man saved rather than the savior.
There is a lot to the individual character, and love this deep dive. But there is also a lot to the movies themselves. Especially Raiders. They aimed to make a modern homage to the 'adventure film' genre... and made the shining example of that genre. All adventure films get graded against Indiana Jones. All come up short in various ways. Even the good ones. Raiders as a movie isn't good at a thing... it's good at EVERYTHING. Who designed the costumes? They nailed it. The Sets? Perfect. Let's appreciate the stuntment and their amazing work on that film. The cinematography, the score, the sound effects (everyone knows the sound of an Indiana Jones punch), the writing, the acting (not just Harrison, Karen Allen killed her role so well, it was a problem for the next 2 female leads... they didn't suck, Karen Allen was just too damned good as Marion Ravenwood)... hey... the guy that played Captain Katanga... that dude nailed his role. Alfred Molina's role was tiny... but he was badass in it. Every detail of that film you want to drill down on, you find perfection. This means for me to enjoy The Mummy, I need to force Indiana Jones out of my head. I have to try really hard to not compare them and enjoy Frasier's Mummy films on their own terms. If I do so? They are... really good, fun popcorn movies. I like them. I have another example of a genuinely good entry in the Adventure Genre post Indiana Jones... Romancing the Stone was damned good. But again, if we try to grade them against Indy.... I am positive even Michael Douglas would say no way is that film as good as Raiders. But they should still be proud of Romancing the Stone, that was a genuinely good movie. I've watched it several times, I can sing it's praises, but... But no, they are not even in the same league as Raiders of the lost Ark, and it's cruel to grade them on that scale. So in a weird way I have to carve these films out of the genre in order to still enjoy the genre. Movies like The Mummy or Romancing the Stone would stand as pinnacles of the genre in a universe where Indiana Jones does not exist. The first three Indiana Jones movies are SOOOOOOO good, they... they actually kinda broke the genre they were meant to honor. An army of really talented people from Lucas/Spielberg on down to... whomever was sewing costumes and killed it in their job. All did freakishly good work, and the result are some of the finest examples of cinema produced. But a key part of that was the creation of one of film's greatest protagonists. A great concept, greatly written, and greatly acted. Effectively a case study on how to create a good leading protagonist. As in, lots of film makers can learn from this character.
Raiders had a clear cut, simplistic and false villain. Indiana Jones is also imperfect and the movie doesnt try to hide his imperfections, making him that much more relatable
One of the biggest issues I had with the series was how lazy they were with the villains. It was being made at a point where there wasn't any real question about whether or not Nazis were bad, so they didn't bother to spend any time justifying why the villains were bad or give any real depth to those parts. The movies definitely suffered as a result. I think these movies are a good example of taking the trust that the audience knows Nazis are bad too far. So often, the filmmakers will beat the audience over the head with the fact that murders, rapists, pedophiles and Nazis are bad, but this is a rare case of not going far enough with that. We're just supposed to fill in the blanks and it reduces the stakes a lot. As time goes by, it will likely take more and more of the edge off the movies.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Also, Indiana Jones himself is just a rip-off of the character Harry Steele portrayed by actor Charlton Heston in the 1954 movie 'Secret of the Incas.'
A big difference is that Spielberg and Lucas made Indy. They are uniquely talented and bring specific perspectives and talents to the table that many others simply lack.
I believe Mr. Stephan is right: To make kickass characters relateable you do not even have to give them internal flaws; what works as well is stacked odds against the characters. But then again you need an equally strong motivation for that character and noone can be bothered to come up with something like that. (Btw, I had Pocahontas in mind writing this comment. Never watched the movie though. Does it apply?)
I dont think you got what he was saying at all. In all of the bad film examples, they have the odds stacked against them. It doesn't matter if all they do is win, they should have flaws and those flaws should cause them to lose, of course the odds should be stacked against them, but that's something entirely different.
I hate it when a movie feels like it was written by a committee, which is what happens with basically every blockbuster movie now. Even as a spectator I can tell, but I work on movies too and I've seen it in action. I'm sure Indy 5's quality also suffered because of this but I hope I can find something to like in it.
Your comments on the "made by committee" productions are much appreciated. Also that brief edit of Always Sunny in Philadelphia was perfect. I've found myself in an unfortunate yet completely comfortable situation where I really can't trust someone's opinion, ethics or priorities if they aren't an Always Sunny fan . . . because of the implication. Lol
Have you seen the Uncharted fanfilm? That is what the movie should have been. ;_; That feel when a fanfilm manages a cast so spot on you can't believe it's happening - and that's ontop of staying completely true to the emotional experience of the games.
X marks the spot scene in the last crusade is both for showing what Indy see but also as a joke from a scene he had in the classroom where he said that: X never ever marks the spot. Still better than Uncharted movie ;) But nothing will ever top Indiana Jones. Great video essay.
I’m sorry, but you hit the nail on the head with the Uncharted movie. That wasn’t Nathan Drake or Victor Sullivan, but more like a character mold to fit into the brand of Tom and Mark. Actors don’t play characters anymore, the characters play them. The formula for movies nowadays, seems to be to get an established I.P, only just to change it to fit the marketing of each actors brand. It’s just a business formula and the story comes second.
Mark was supposed to be Nate 11 years ago (when this movie was supposed to release) but was delayed time after time, and they moved him up to Sully ig. I was so excited for uncharted and it hurts it sucks
Because the franchise was created by 4 talented people 1) Steven Spielberg 2) The person who created Indiana Jones: George Lucas 3) The person who IS Indiana Jones: Harrison Ford 4) The person whose is the glue to the Franchise: John Williams
i get the impression that, that version of Sully was written with Bruce Willis in mind, and then somebody convinced somebody that Mark Whalberg was a Bruce Willis type.
One other movie that I feel should have also been brought up here was the Adventures of Tintin, another excellent adventure movie made by Spielberg that genuinely captures the feel of Indiana Jones. The main character Tintin may be presented as a five-star badass that excels at almost anything, yet he is balanced out by the more vulnerable Captain Haddock who is portrayed as a bumbling alcoholic who slowly develops into a better person as the story goes on. In a way, the movie felt like it was centered more on Haddock than the title character himself. That's not to say that Tintin wasn't a vulnerable character at all, though. He had his moments such as being on the receiving end of slapstick a few times, getting the MacGuffins taken from him near the end, and does end up taking the brunt of Haddock's bumbling antics. He even outright declares he's given up before Haddock snaps him out of his funk when his development kicks in. The dynamic that those two characters had was really good. And it's all tied together with great set pieces, animation, and action that absolutely does wear the spirit of Indiana Jones on it's sleeve. Still waiting on that sequel 12+ years later!
I appreciate the kind comments from folks who enjoyed the video, and I almost equally appreciate the comments from people telling me they unsubscribed because I acknowledged that racism exists. I am so glad to be rid of people like you.
Stephan. I’m not trying to start anything with you or trolling. It’s just that we all know that racism exists. But many of us are just tired of wearing racism colored glasses because it is exhausting to try to find it in everything we see.
Okay. It's an issue worth acknowledging and it was relevant to why we don't tend to see many adventure stories like this anymore. A knee-jerk aversion to a brief acknowledgement of the racist history of certain media isn't something I care about catering to.
I like the cut of your jib, Mr. K!
Racism exists, and it sucks, and it needs to be called out. They don't get a pass just because it's fiction, or because we're tired of hearing about it. Evil wins when good people do nothing. Thanks for not doing nothing.
@@jodysmoviesandshowschannel8698 Well get ready for the ride. Because there will always be racists in this world. But the racist person will always be important. Because people will always find ways to make them relevant. And if that doesn’t work, we pull out the magnifying glass to find it. And we won’t stop until we extract racism out of something, even if it is just one drop.
@mdiond70 You're parading around nonsense as logic, but what you said is completely vacuous. Hollow platitudes designed to vigorously defend status quo while demonizing even the lightest critique of long-term cultural failings. The solution to problems is not ignoring them, and the people who acknowledge the problems are not worse than the problem itself.
If recognizing racism in media we collectively enjoy makes you uncomfortable, you could actually consider why that is rather than parroting empty talking points.
Brendan Frasier in the Mummy I'd say is a good Jones-like. He fails a few times, has emotional moments with his family in both films. Is likeable and courageous.
The funny thing is...HE'S NOT THE LEAD. He's the supporting character. Evie is the lead, and she's the academic.
I feel "The Mummy (1999) is the closet Hollywood ever got to capturing the spirit of the Indiana Jones movies and the Rick O' Connell character was Indy like, but good and goofy enough to stand on own. It helped that movie was a period piece, and was based on a 1930's Universal horror monster movie. I'd be down for a fourth and final movie, but it would really need to be done well. Unfortunately, the two sequels never quite measured up to the 1999 original, despite Brendon Frasier being fantastic in each movie.
@@Theomite I feel Rick and Evie are equal leads. We see him first in the opening of the movie, before meeting Evie and her brother, Johnathan.
Hell, first introduction of O'Connell and Evie, he's literally being hung. Can't really fail much harder than that lol
There's three flimsy😳
"I didn't need the [Uncharted] movie to be good, but I needed it to not have Mark Wahlberg."
Man, I wish I could sub twice.
My big issue is that his description of Nate either implies he has a terrible memory or has only played Uncharted 4.
The negative flaws of Nate are pretty much only brought up in 4, which is why pretty much anyone who likes good writing only likes Uncharted 4s story.
The only flaw he has in the first three games is that he's technically just as much a thieving bastard as the enemies, except they then make all the villains do some magic stuff that makes them super villain tier. Uncharted 4 completely removed the magic elements and just focused on a character arc which is why its writing is so much better.
Just a reminder also, the Mummy made the indigenous people badass
The Majai alongside Ardith Bay are some of the most honorable and bad ass warriors in the franchise
Especially in the second film for better or worse, where they take on the Anubis army head on.
And not only that, but they give Ardeth his own distinct character traits beyond simply being a noble warrior fighting to protect the world from supernatural threats, such as his pet bird, Horus, and how he goes from initially just wielding a sword to also developing a fondness for machine guns.
@@callmev3531 Yes he is his own character as much as the main cast and that really helps to make him stand out more as independent.
He's also integral to the success of the heroes and his contributions actually matter and affect the plot.
They're pretty cool for sure, but also fairly sparse in the first film. The Majai are bigger in the Returns, but that movie is unfortunately less good than the first in ways that aren't terribly interested to discuss so it wouldn't have added to the video much.
Very true and I love it so much!
There's an alternate universe where we got an Uncharted movie like the Nathan Fillion fan film
In that universe, did Nathan treat his Castle co-Star Stana Katic much better than he treated her in this universe?
@@jakethet3206 idk maybe
Hopefully if they make a Uncharted 2 they set it years after the first movie and cast Nathan as a middle age Drake.
@@loganford3921 I hate to admit it, but I’d watch that.
Tbh my dream adaptation is just an animated movie with a brand new plot that uses the PS4 models, it already looks film-quality. Just Tintin it up!
The fact they didn't cast Bruce Campbell to play Sully in Uncharted is a crime. If you've ever seen Burn notice it's basically the same relationship and he essentially plays Sully in that.
I think RDJ as the scumbag mentor would have worked.
@@burhanbudak6041 Absolutely fucking not. RDJ would've been the exact same as Mark. And good god I do not want to see RDJ and Holland in a film together,
I think about why *Raiders of the Lost Arc is such a good movie ALL THE TIME and you really hit the nail on the head! 1. Indy always starts at a disadvantage 2. HE MAKES MISTAKES CONSTANTLY 3. Barely surviving each trial, he shows his ingenuity, his creativity, and his determination, which are actually the things that make him 'cool'. The people making decisions in these modern movies don't want their action heroes to be cringefail losers so they skip all the important stuff (all the good stuff!) and only show the wins. Without the failure or mistakes, the win feels empty and the character is completely uninteresting. Great video!
I watched the original Indy trilogy for the 100th time recently, and it really struck me just how often he gets the shit beaten out of him in those films. Those action scenes legit feel like they really hurt, it makes us more sympathetic to Indy and desperate to see him win, and thus makes him a more relatable hero
To refine that point a bit: the people making movie decisions these days are *so afraid of their action heroes maybe coming across as cringefail losers*, that they try to over-correct, and leave out anything that might be quirky or vulnerable or what have you.
(And, in the process, I think they also don't trust their stars. I get what's being said here, about how Dwayne Johnson has never come across as vulnerable. He has this cocky, wry, sarcastic way of holding himself, when he isn't just relying on being a brick shithouse. But it leaves me wondering if someone could get a more varied performance out of him. I think part of the problem there is that movies who hire him are like, YES, we have THE ROCK! So why would we want him to stretch and not just be... The Rock? etc.)
Harrison Ford, esp. back in the late 70s/early 80s when he was establishing characters like Han Solo and Indy, was (I would suggest) an unusually self-confident actor who didn't feel he'd "built his brand" on any one particular thing. We really have him to thank for making Han Solo much more than the sum of what was on paper; it sure wasn't George Lucas's direction. So by the time you get Indy, you've got a writer (Kasdan) who is familiar with Ford's work and knows what he's capable of, and you've got Spielberg and Lucas who just know "this guy knows what he's doing". They had all see him do performances of multi-faceted characters, so they knew they could have Indy be that, and Ford would breathe life into him.
(I do think the point made by Stephan here is important, too: the first movie especially is written very well, and it's self-aware enough not to replicate the pitfalls of the older pulp action serials that inspired it. You've got to give a lot of credit to Kasdan as writer, and Spielberg and Lucas, for being willing to have Indy's intro be like an entire sequence of just him failing, a whole bunch of times. And, they deserve credit for deciding that Indy, as a hero, can get hurt, and SHOW that he hurts. I just can't see Doc Savage, or Quatermain, being allowed to be failures, or vulnerable. In large part because that wouldn't have fit in with their job to embody a white-supremacist hero -- I think Stephan is right on target with that observation, too. If the hero is going to be the stand in for Everything That Justifies a White Guy coming into other countries and taking what he wants, or solving their problems for them, then he CAN'T be shown to fail, and he can't be hurt, or be vulnerable. But, Indy isn't saddled with the task of embodying The Authoritative White Guy, so he can be more of a "real guy" who feels relatable.)
What you obviously don't realize is that Indiana Jones is just a rip-off of the character Harry Steele portrayed by actor Charlton Heston in the 1954 movie 'Secret of the Incas.'
@@autodidact537 I don't know, it seems like what you obviously don't realize is that it doesn't matter. It's widely known that the character of Indy, and the movies in general but specifically the first one, were very directly inspired by those old movies. Neither Lucas nor Spielberg were reluctant to discuss that -- they said it in just about every behind the scenes piece where they talked about the movie. The point, though, is that Harrison Ford's Indy is appealing because of Harrison Ford's acting (and, further, that the character is appealing because the writers recognized that he should be the underdog for much of the story, rather than the hero who always triumphs). Charlton Heston is a very different performer. Even if Raiders was nothing but a remake of "Secret of the Incas" and Harrison Ford was playing Harry Steele, it still wouldn't wind up being exactly the same character.
Ark not arc
The mummy and Indiana Jones are ICONIC for what they dish out in terms of story, both having endearing characters which as you say have endearing traits like making mistakes, failing, and then struggling to succeed. They both take full advantage of amazing soundtracks and highly imaginative stories, it makes you feel like it’s an actual story instead of well…a story that feels brain numbingly boring because the end goal is secondary to the audience, it’s the characters which are the most important. Bare I’m mind the fact that a lot of movies just want to make really high pitched fast paced action.😊
I just hope to see a Mummy 4 , If Ford at 80 plays Indy, why not Brendan , who is just in his 50s, cannot play Rick O'Connell one more time?
The Mummy is good but not iconic.
Indiana Jones is just a rip-off of the character Harry Steele portrayed by actor Charlton Heston in the 1954 movie 'Secret of the Incas.'
@@autodidact537 Don't we all know that already? In every documentary about Indiana Jones they talk about the influences namely 'The Treasure of the Sierra Madre'. You're not revealing anything special pal.
@@autodidact537 It might be. Does that make it any less good or iconic? Everything has influences. Everyone builds from or riffs off what has come before. Some just do it better. Some just appeal differently.
Example of The Rock in a good Indiana Jones type movie: The Rundown. Example of Emily Blunt being a badass female lead: Edge of Tomorrow.
Sicario is SO fucking good too
Another "aha" part of the church scene in TLC is him saying " X never marks the spot".
Yes! The Mummy is amazing, and it is like dividing both sides of Indy into two different characters. Evie is a indeed a great character and Rachel Weisz pulls it off incredibly, just like Brendan retains much of the vulnerability that makes this type of action hero work, just like Harrison.
In very early production Mark Wahlberg was ment to play Drake and had already signed on to feature... the film was apparently delayed and then eventually after rewrites Holland was cast as Drake and because Wahlberg was still signed up they gave him the role as Sully...
I recently rewatched Raiders of the Lost Ark and I had never noticed him joking about how he's not actually obeying the antiquities laws and is aware of it. That had completely flown over my head in the numerous times that I watched the movie. It's kind of obvious watching him work that he isn't the sort to do a lot of paper work, but hearing him early on in the first movie be like, yeah, I don't do that and you know that I don't do that changes the character the way that character feels at the start and makes his willingness to go to all the trouble of finding the lost ark to help find his friend a bit more interesting.
I’m curious what your opinions are on the National Treasure movies? I feel like they run that fine line of being fun action movies while also incorporating some history, but Nicolas Cage can also be very over the top.
Nicolas Cage is so great, he just gets his ass kicked so much, never a dull moment, and truly he goes for it. Rules.
I always admire the way you analyze these productions, and put things into perspective. For example, I didn't hate Jungle Cruise, but there was something about it that made me feel "Meh". I couldn't put my finger on what it was, but now I understand. Loved the video! I hope to see more of this.
I really enjoy your video essays! No pressure to make more any time soon or anything. But I always find your perspectives to be very well-thought out and entertaining and I would not be mad if you continued to drop videos like this every so often. I totally respect your creative process and it's not like fun essays that you wanna spend a bunch of time working on pop into your head every week or anything. Great video and I hope all is well :)
Nerd is the wrong word. He’s professionally studious with a manly swagger not nerdy at all.
nerd
@@StephanKrosecz I’m 😎
@@StephanKrosecz Bruh
i am so sorry that i called another guy a nerd
i will think on my thoughts and deeds, and then probably do it again
@@StephanKrosecz He’s not a nerd though. He’s a badass motherfucker who happens to be scholarly in his spare time. Being smart has nothing to do with being nerdy. He’s masculine and the man could bang any of his students and get any woman he wants. He’s also a hardened adventurer who’s been shot, punched and bloodied. No way in hell a would a nerd do any of that I’m sorry but that’s a sus take
Your video essays are some of my favourites purely on based on the aesthetic, ignoring all the good stuff you've got going on other than that.
100% agree about Mark Wahlberg, always
Romancing the Stone and The Mummy are my favorite non Indiana Jones adventure movies. Oh and Jumanji (the recent one with Dwayne Johnson).
The new jumanji? Really?
He must be young because that movie is the biggest piece of dog shit@@noahmay7708
Sooooo looking forward to watching this. Just got off a brutal shift with OT. Seeing this in my notifs was fantastic
I think Tom Holland could have been a great Nathan Drake but the movie was genuinely lost the moment I saw Mark Wahlberg as Sully. The movie had some decent moments but was overall relatively forgettable compared to what it could have been
Should have been literally Nolan North. That would have been great. He can do a scumbag so well for a guy who seems pretty decent.
For Sully? I could see it. Tbh I think they just needed someone slightly more charismatic than Mark E Mark lol
Also the x in the Indy scene was foreshadowed earlier in the film as well. Earlier in the film Indy tells a class that x never marks the spot, which adds humor later on because x did indeed mark the spot.
I think what makes Indiana Jones work so well over most other action adventure characters, is the same reason why James Bond works so well in the original Ian Fleming novels. Take the first appearance of the character in 1953’s Casino Royale, for example. In a book bond is introduced as a very experienced, and capable agent of the British Secret Service. He’s a man who has killed at least twice before he knows that in order to stay alive, he hast to be extremely careful. But in the same book, he gets overconfident and loses twice then is pretty brutally tortured. I if I was pretty hard for his female companion in Casino Royale, and his even contempt, with resigning from the Secret Service just to marry her. But when she dies, he goes to the cold in calculating secret agent we all know. He deals with depression in 1954 is live and let die, as well as 1961s. You only live twice after his wife is murdered about four hours after their wedding. Like Indiana Jones, James Bond was written in a way so we could feel like a normal person with his own flaws. A lot of riders today completely forget that in order for a character to be relatable you need to make them human. This is part of the reason why “ because feminism“ is actually in really good argument as to why a lot of movies fail. A lot of movies today that have female leads. Focus solely on the female lead being amazing that they forget to include an actual story, or make the story of the movie, so secondary to identity politics, that it’s pretty much nonexistent. A really good example of this is the entirety of the Star Wars sequels trilogy. The character of Ray is a textbook example of feminist power fantasy where you have a female character that is it amazing at absolutely everything with no explanation. Like knowing how to use a light saber that she’s only seen once for 15 seconds better than someone who’s been trained with one for 20 years. Just knows how to fix Han Solo ship better than the guy who owned it for 50 years. That’s the same problem that Emily Blunt’s character has in jungle Cruise. She’s so good at everything that she basically has no flaws. And a lot of the criticism of having films like that where they have female leads with almost no flaws is often condemned a sexist just because they couldn’t write the characters properly. There are a lot of films with actually pretty well written, female characters and female leads. Take the 2018 version of tomb raider, for example. Was it perfect? No. But the version of Laura croft regarding the film Natalie was extremely capable, but actually felt like she could be a real person and did have her own flaws and insecurities. Same thing with the 1990s version with Angelina Jolie.
I really enjoyed the “glasses off/glasses on” gag at the top of the video. I got a good laugh out of it! 😊
a film video essayist who understands production, doesn't hate bait, and finds the good in the bad and bad in good? Brother you have earned a sub
Your video was great, but I also feel like you missed an opportunity analyzing Tintin, which along with The Mummy probably comes the closest to capturing that Indy Magic.
I enjoyed "Dial of Destiny". It wasn't perfect, but they did a good job (from my perspective) of making the characters (as you say) people I wanted to go on and adventure with, particularly at the time they happened to be adventuring; so that all worked out.
I liked the dial of destiny too. Good or bad, it was still a indiana jones movie. PoTc and mummy failed in that regards!
This is the kind of videos I want more of. Thank you for caring more about putting out a great exploration of a viewpoint than trying to sell content. Im happily subscribed
Jungle Cruise is still enjoyable, and I find both Lily and Frank relatable with their flaws, which still matter because it’s part of what has them be them, and the movie shows that there’s nothing wrong with having flaws, especially if other people just don’t like them for whatever reason, because that’s what we all literally go through. Literally every single thing in life It’s always truly going to have at least one person who’s not going to like it no matter what no matter how otherwise it may seem. And I actually like it better than the first 2 Indiana Jones in the mummy overall
Your point about needing the main guy to be flawed is so accurate. And that’s why Daniel Craig in Casino Royale is such a great reimagining of James Bond. You go from Pierce Brosnan, flawless and effortlessly cool, to a rugged, fallible Bond in Daniel Craig. And you get a phenomenal movie and one of the best in the long history of 007.
I could listen to you talk about anything forever but movies and film especially. I'm not even all that familiar with Indiana Jones but hearing you talk about why Jungle Cruise didn't work was an eye-opening delight. I also have a newly found sympathy for Uncharted fans haha. Keep up the good work!! I'm always looking forward to your next video essay. 👍👍👍
Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and John Williams alongside Harrison Ford. Nuff said. Also the love, passion, and commitment with the cast, crew, writers, practical effects artists, EVERYONE
Glad I finally got a chance to watch this! Great video! I love the format, and I think we all love the subject matter. I hope you do more like this in the future!
The "Oh No!" at 3:27 killed me
Thanks again for a really great video Stephan. I people with the money can really mess up a project. When those people look at charts to determine where they want a money to go it can hurt it.
The Indiana Jones films work because they are really relationship dramas disguised inside an adventure. That's why 1 and 3 work better than 2 and 4; much more effort was made to show us the importance of the fractured relationship between people we care for (thanks to good writing and acting) and then we are given what we hoped for - a happy emotional ending and as almost an aside the quest is also completed.
8:02
Jungle Cruise is a bad remake of the 1950s movie "The African Queen".
Which, despite being an old film with two white guys in an exotic environment where colonization is still present, is still a very solid picture. The main characters are ordinary people (and Humphrey Bogart plays a likeable alcoholic dork).
In any case is still better than Jungle Cruise (not a great challenge)
No wonder Tom Holland announced a break off acting. Uncharted as a production had to have been stressful as hell
You really do have a knack for making video essays about movies and I want more of them, but I respect that you only make them when you have something to say. Maybe that has something to do with why yours always hit? 🤔
Haven't read every comment, so apologies if this is repetition, but part of the development hell 'Uncharted' experienced was that Mark Wahlberg was attached to the project for so long he was originally supposed to play Nate. He aged out of Drake and into Sully by the time they were ready to make a movie.
9:14 I SAW THAT!
well, this youtube channel *definitively* has a likeable character.^^
Jungle Cruise should have been the Tale Spin cartoon show but on a boat. Hugh Jackman should have been Victor Sullivan in Uncharted.
Babe, new Stephan video essay came out. Tbh I’m still waiting on one for Dead Man’s Chest. That Curse of the Black Pearl video was a great one.
What music did you use in the beginning and end of the video? It slaps!
Always happy to see you upload :)
This was a highly enjoyable video. I actually laughed out loud a couple of times, which is rare for me when watching these sorts of videos. I thought your analysis was really strong, your editing was also really good and I’m surprised that I haven’t seen one of your videos before, but I am subscribing because this was excellent stuff!! Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the lost Ark and Indiana Jones, the last crusade or two of my favourite movies, and I also love the Mummy. I feel like you did a great job explaining what makes them so good and what made those other films weak. ❤
20:00 Since you are also reviewing video game characters, I would love to see your take on Amicia de Rune from the "A Plague Tale" franchise. After playing the game a lot of commenters call her one of the greatest female protagonistic characters created in fiction, because she is a VERY flawed character (that even makes some call her a mass murderer), that constantly tries to overcome her weaknesses and pushing through, and has a very tragic character arc, that leaves players in tears (look up some of the ending playthrough videos, that show some players literally breaking down).
My brother-in-art, this was an excellent video!
Your film theory & criticism is by far your best content. Please keep it up!
This guy says he doesn't like movies by committee, but does he realize his entire personality is built by committee. It's like watching an AI output of the prompt. Millenium youtuber explains movie archetype to show he went to college.
Just making the main character immortal is such a big mistake. I suppose it is possible to make it work and let him remain interesting and vulnerable despite such a predicament but I can't recall a single immortal character that managed it. Closest is probably Captain Jack from the Doctor Who universe.
You are right! It is all about character story and acting performance of the actors. This was brilliantly analysized with the Star Trek movies.
Great essay, nice editing
Love your work man. Also looking forward to more Fist Master
He didn't sleep with Marion until they were on that boat.
Because of Harrison ford conversation over😂😂
Anyone remember the 90s live action Jungle Book movie? Romancing The Stone. Cutthroat Island. The Mask of Zorro. When I think of those films I remember real characters in authentic real settings and environments with raw physicality and earned spectacle. And I'd agree that The Mummy is still among the best of these, even with it's heavy use of cgi, at the time it was cutting edge visual effects and really the only way of bringing that story to life.
Oi, a wokey take on Indiana Jones. We see how well that's gonna do for part 5. No thanks.
Dude, just wanna say, big props for admitting that Crystal Skull’s opening is fun.
Indy silhouetted against the mushroom cloud is breathtaking.
Props, man.
I’m actually planning on writing my own series like this with some twists and this has definitely helped.
most reddit video I've ever seen
THANK YOU FOR THE GOLD KIND STRANGER
Oh my god theres a stephan video this year? Sweet!
It's you, Dwayne the rock Johnson, you've been the Jungle Cruise this whole time
Oooh, is that why there is a Dr Savage in the Great Circle. He’s more of a reference than I knew. I had thought he was just a bumbling absent minded professor reference who had to have a student with sticky fingers and good intentions.
IIRC From what I've heard, the Rock has stipulations in his contracts that he has to be the hero, never weak, can't lose a fight and stuff like that. Which seems like it'd be really limiting on what he can do (and feels like he is missing the point of really rounding out his 'brand').
14:34 lol... just... lol.
Uncharted has never been a good pulp adventure series. It is just The Goonies for assholes.
This wonderful video just reminds me that Dial of Destiny truly hurt me. Without exaggeration, it’s the film I waited for my whole life. Ever since being shown the Indiana Jones trilogy and seeing Crystal Skull at age 4, I’ve been in love with the franchise and wanted just one more adventure. And then we got it… and I was underwhelmed. It didn’t feel like a classic Jones adventure and it hurt. It really hurts.
I hope that in the future, the next big action/adventure movie director will learn from this and make an amazing movie…
My main issue with the majority of recent adventure action films and the last two Indy movies isn't so much to do with the individual films themselves, but with how all of these big franchise movies (for the most part) are made. The over abundance of green screen & post-visual production CGI is beyond annoying but infuriating and a cynical slap in the face. I don't accept the answer of "well that's just how it's done nowadays", although I reluctantly know it's inevitable most of the time. Denis Villeneuve, Christopher Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson, Q.T. & a few others are able to create exciting action spectacle and keep gravity, authentic physicality and genuine character performance intact without all this digital nonsense. Even in this same summer season as Dial of Destiny was released we also got Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning and Oppenheimer, two massive blockbusters in which "done practically & in camera (not totally but to a large degree)" is part of the selling point, I really don't understand WTF Indiana Jones isn't held up to the same standard. It absolutely deserves to be. The only real answer I suppose is . . . . Disney.
There is also the much anticipated new Three Musketeers D'artagnan which I am eagerly awaiting for a US release, which is a huge epic action adventure which looks visually spectacular AND authentically shot with practical effects, on location and in French. It ABSOLUTELY CAN still be done today if people would just stop accepting BS and consistently lowering their cinematic standards.
Now that I gave my opinion on a small section of the video, I did watch the rest. I found Stephen's take on these films to be spot on!
That was a great review and detailed analysis! Never seen your videos before but you definitely got an intrigued subscriber now!
Okay, I know this video is a year old and all. And you've already posted a comment on here that makes it clear that you'll have no respect for me for this, but I have to ask something here. You're saying that...If a white guy goes to another country that's mostly not white people, sees an injustice, and fights against said injustice...he's a freaking Klansman?... Couldn't he just be a guy who sees something wrong and wants to do something about it? Is it really THAT big of a crime for him to be white? I mean everybody is always harping on how bad white people are for things like imperialism and slavery (all of which literally EVERY OTHER race is also guilty of in their own right but never seems to get shamed for it), yet when we get stories that have white people NOT being slave traders, and fighting against evil doers, who just so happen to be non-whites...it's a "white supremacist fantasy?" Now, I'm sure you're about to call me a toxic, bigoted, straight white male and all, but I can't help but feel your conclusion there is being at least a little bit disingenuous. I don't think anybody doubts that racism exists in this world, but I don't think a white guy being a good guy among non-whites necessarily qualifies as that.
Another Stephen video essay let's gooooooo!
Love the first three movies, but "Raiders" it's the crown jewel of modern action Adventure cinema! Ask Stephen Sommers, The director of The Mummy, and of all these three gems; Raiders, Temple of Doom, and Last Crusade, he will say the first Indy movie
13:41 Frank should think the Jaguar is domesticated but every time he comes back from feeding it he's covered in claw marks, and he just is way too over confident about it, then it could pay off later with the Jaguar eating a guy. And Frank has to let the Jaguar go, and it bums him out but it's not supposed to be tamed because it's a ton of muscle that wants to be free in the jungle, like a metaphor.
If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying that The Mummy was to Indiana Jones; what Indiana Jones was to Doc Savage and Alan Quatermain. A property that sees what their predecessor did right and went a new direction with it.
Thank you for being so honest in these.
I haven’t even watched yet and I have the answer: Harrison ford is cool. That’s it. He’s fucking cool
Earned a subscription. Also, he succeeds in Temple too, and then willingly gives back the stone. He went to hell looking for fortune and glory, he ascends a new man, as the man saved rather than the savior.
There is a lot to the individual character, and love this deep dive. But there is also a lot to the movies themselves. Especially Raiders. They aimed to make a modern homage to the 'adventure film' genre... and made the shining example of that genre. All adventure films get graded against Indiana Jones. All come up short in various ways. Even the good ones.
Raiders as a movie isn't good at a thing... it's good at EVERYTHING. Who designed the costumes? They nailed it. The Sets? Perfect. Let's appreciate the stuntment and their amazing work on that film. The cinematography, the score, the sound effects (everyone knows the sound of an Indiana Jones punch), the writing, the acting (not just Harrison, Karen Allen killed her role so well, it was a problem for the next 2 female leads... they didn't suck, Karen Allen was just too damned good as Marion Ravenwood)... hey... the guy that played Captain Katanga... that dude nailed his role. Alfred Molina's role was tiny... but he was badass in it. Every detail of that film you want to drill down on, you find perfection.
This means for me to enjoy The Mummy, I need to force Indiana Jones out of my head. I have to try really hard to not compare them and enjoy Frasier's Mummy films on their own terms. If I do so? They are... really good, fun popcorn movies. I like them. I have another example of a genuinely good entry in the Adventure Genre post Indiana Jones... Romancing the Stone was damned good. But again, if we try to grade them against Indy.... I am positive even Michael Douglas would say no way is that film as good as Raiders. But they should still be proud of Romancing the Stone, that was a genuinely good movie. I've watched it several times, I can sing it's praises, but...
But no, they are not even in the same league as Raiders of the lost Ark, and it's cruel to grade them on that scale.
So in a weird way I have to carve these films out of the genre in order to still enjoy the genre. Movies like The Mummy or Romancing the Stone would stand as pinnacles of the genre in a universe where Indiana Jones does not exist.
The first three Indiana Jones movies are SOOOOOOO good, they... they actually kinda broke the genre they were meant to honor. An army of really talented people from Lucas/Spielberg on down to... whomever was sewing costumes and killed it in their job. All did freakishly good work, and the result are some of the finest examples of cinema produced.
But a key part of that was the creation of one of film's greatest protagonists. A great concept, greatly written, and greatly acted. Effectively a case study on how to create a good leading protagonist. As in, lots of film makers can learn from this character.
Indiana Jones is just a rip-off of the character Harry Steele portrayed by actor Charlton Heston in the 1954 movie 'Secret of the Incas.'
Raiders had a clear cut, simplistic and false villain. Indiana Jones is also imperfect and the movie doesnt try to hide his imperfections, making him that much more relatable
One of the biggest issues I had with the series was how lazy they were with the villains. It was being made at a point where there wasn't any real question about whether or not Nazis were bad, so they didn't bother to spend any time justifying why the villains were bad or give any real depth to those parts. The movies definitely suffered as a result.
I think these movies are a good example of taking the trust that the audience knows Nazis are bad too far. So often, the filmmakers will beat the audience over the head with the fact that murders, rapists, pedophiles and Nazis are bad, but this is a rare case of not going far enough with that. We're just supposed to fill in the blanks and it reduces the stakes a lot. As time goes by, it will likely take more and more of the edge off the movies.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Also, Indiana Jones himself is just a rip-off of the character Harry Steele portrayed by actor Charlton Heston in the 1954 movie 'Secret of the Incas.'
1:21 doc ock, lol
You try too much not to offend. And why do you hate Mark Whalberg so much?
The best way to describe Jungle Cruise is the cutscene compilation of the Jumanji video game.
A big difference is that Spielberg and Lucas made Indy. They are uniquely talented and bring specific perspectives and talents to the table that many others simply lack.
It’s been a hot minute and I saw you uploaded a video so imagine the look on my face tuning into this video for the first time XD
I believe Mr. Stephan is right: To make kickass characters relateable you do not even have to give them internal flaws; what works as well is stacked odds against the characters. But then again you need an equally strong motivation for that character and noone can be bothered to come up with something like that.
(Btw, I had Pocahontas in mind writing this comment. Never watched the movie though. Does it apply?)
I dont think you got what he was saying at all. In all of the bad film examples, they have the odds stacked against them. It doesn't matter if all they do is win, they should have flaws and those flaws should cause them to lose, of course the odds should be stacked against them, but that's something entirely different.
I hate it when a movie feels like it was written by a committee, which is what happens with basically every blockbuster movie now. Even as a spectator I can tell, but I work on movies too and I've seen it in action. I'm sure Indy 5's quality also suffered because of this but I hope I can find something to like in it.
Crazy how I never put two and two together that Alfred Molina was the guy in the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark
The scissoring part is why i am subscribing to the channel.
Have you seen 1982 Tom Selleck - HIGH ROAD TO CHINA??????
Your comments on the "made by committee" productions are much appreciated. Also that brief edit of Always Sunny in Philadelphia was perfect. I've found myself in an unfortunate yet completely comfortable situation where I really can't trust someone's opinion, ethics or priorities if they aren't an Always Sunny fan . . . because of the implication. Lol
Have you seen the Uncharted fanfilm? That is what the movie should have been. ;_;
That feel when a fanfilm manages a cast so spot on you can't believe it's happening - and that's ontop of staying completely true to the emotional experience of the games.
Haven't watched yet, but the answer is John Williams. :P
X marks the spot scene in the last crusade is both for showing what Indy see but also as a joke from a scene he had in the classroom where he said that: X never ever marks the spot. Still better than Uncharted movie ;)
But nothing will ever top Indiana Jones. Great video essay.
I’m sorry, but you hit the nail on the head with the Uncharted movie. That wasn’t Nathan Drake or Victor Sullivan, but more like a character mold to fit into the brand of Tom and Mark. Actors don’t play characters anymore, the characters play them.
The formula for movies nowadays, seems to be to get an established I.P, only just to change it to fit the marketing of each actors brand. It’s just a business formula and the story comes second.
Mark was supposed to be Nate 11 years ago (when this movie was supposed to release) but was delayed time after time, and they moved him up to Sully ig. I was so excited for uncharted and it hurts it sucks
Because the franchise was created by 4 talented people
1) Steven Spielberg
2) The person who created Indiana Jones: George Lucas
3) The person who IS Indiana Jones: Harrison Ford
4) The person whose is the glue to the Franchise: John Williams
i get the impression that, that version of Sully was written with Bruce Willis in mind, and then somebody convinced somebody that Mark Whalberg was a Bruce Willis type.
Antonio Banderas is wasted outside comedy. I mean, Mask of Zorro? (you put the pointy end into the other guy) The Mariachi? c'mon
One other movie that I feel should have also been brought up here was the Adventures of Tintin, another excellent adventure movie made by Spielberg that genuinely captures the feel of Indiana Jones.
The main character Tintin may be presented as a five-star badass that excels at almost anything, yet he is balanced out by the more vulnerable Captain Haddock who is portrayed as a bumbling alcoholic who slowly develops into a better person as the story goes on. In a way, the movie felt like it was centered more on Haddock than the title character himself.
That's not to say that Tintin wasn't a vulnerable character at all, though. He had his moments such as being on the receiving end of slapstick a few times, getting the MacGuffins taken from him near the end, and does end up taking the brunt of Haddock's bumbling antics. He even outright declares he's given up before Haddock snaps him out of his funk when his development kicks in. The dynamic that those two characters had was really good.
And it's all tied together with great set pieces, animation, and action that absolutely does wear the spirit of Indiana Jones on it's sleeve. Still waiting on that sequel 12+ years later!
words good you have. talking happens. great time.