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.
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.
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.
@@fearedjamesthey make it so that he’s the good guy because he kills in self defense and the bad guys because they kill for fun. Otherwise both sides are thieves
@@fearedjames The same problem happens in both 2 and 3. In 2 he realizes he's in over his head and does good by the end. In 3, he realizes he is vicious and he is going to get Sully killed because of it, that's the moral dilemma of the third game. In 4, we come back to the same problem, but with his wife instead of Sully, you could argue it's lazy, but I think each game has some amazing writting on it's own
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,
Yep, Mark walberg was to ung and fit for the part. Bruce Campbell would have been perfect. If you needed an old A lister then Tim Hanks or Mel Gibson could have played a sketchy old mentor as well.
tom holland perpetually looks like he's in the high school. the film would never work without a character who is at least a foot taller than that dwarf
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Indy: -Punches Nazis and Soviets in the Face -Frees the poor from curses and slavery -Chases Army convoys by Horse -Proficient in Motorcycle Jousting -Has a Autograph from Hitler -Rarely loses his fedora in action -Uses a Fucking Whip
Brazilian person here, a lot of people from Brazil are white and still have indigenous ancestry. There is a lot of assumption that latinos aren’t white, but a lot of us are. So it doesn’t matter, Emily Blunt’s character could be brazilian and still be white.
I live in Peru and I teach English and two of my students are Brazilians with German last names and they don't stand out as being super unusual, but, of course, not all Brazilians are like that. I just see enough of it to where it doesn't phase me. Hollywood is really, really bad at portraying demographics properly. For example, in my life, I have spoken French with more black people than white people (and I've been to Paris).
I’m from Quebec. We arrived in North America to trade with the First Nations - we were never a conquering colony. That’s why New France never really grew fast enough to replace them. We bred with them for 100 years before France decided to send any women over. Once Britain invaded and conquered New France, we had become a white people colonized and economically marginalized by another white people with its own ethnic cleansing agenda. The British basically tried to drown us out with massive non French-speaking immigration for 150 years. So you can’t take the United States experience and morality, and copy paste it on the entire world.
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 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 :)
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.
@@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
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 remember watching some documentaries about the filming of Serenity, where Nathan Fillion explained he took a lot of inspiration in his portrayal of Captain Reynold from Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones performance. Indiana Jones is immensively relatable because he get utterly pummeled in every movie and Ford had became a master at selling it. He does great physical action, but we get to see the toll it has on him. In Raider of the lost ark, he's basically minced meat at the end of the car chase to steal the Ark of the covenant. He was shot, ran over by a truck, beaten and dragged on a dirt road. He prevail, but we see immediatly after, when the movie allows him to be vulnerable with Marion in the ship, how beaten he is. Everything hurt and it lead to the famous "were doesn't it hurt" answer from Marion. In the temple of Doom, Indy start the adventure in a dashing smoking suit like if he was James Bond then ends the movie in literal rags, having his heart almost ripped out of him, his feet burned by the minecart chase, his back whiped and having been brainwashed. In the last crusade, Indy get stuck on the cannon of a tank and almost get squished by a rock, being utterly powerless to do anything and owing his life to his allies, and it's mere moment before he almost get killed when the tank drop from a cliff. Every single time, Indy survive, but after getting utterly destroyed and scared in the process and having to push a bit further because the story isn't over yet. You always get that little feeling that he need a moment to breath or escaped death by a very short margin. This is something that a lot of modern adventure movies fail at. Their character aren't allowed to be afraid, to lose, to have any real struggle. I frankly cannot understand how someone like Dwayne Johnson still has a career in Indiana Jones like adventure movies when he doesn't want to lose or show vulnerability at any time. Back and forth between the protagonist and the antagonist is what make the whole middle of the film interesting. If nothing move until the end, then your story is just filler until the clima and it get fucking boring.
My biggest complaint with the Jungle Cruise is the fact that they are in Brazil and not a single person speaks the native language of Brazil, Portuguese
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.
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
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.
That scene in the Holy Grail had two effects in it as well. Foreshadowing and and the call back. Because while teaching Indy says most archeology happens in the library and X never, ever, marks the spot. So there in the library he finds X marking the spot. Hitting on him being both right and wrong at once.
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
11:24 I think the reason that a lot of people blame feminism for characters like this is that because of feminism, many film makers feel the need to make every female character Wonder Woman. Now, one could also argue that feminism doesn’t actually require this, and even as someone who’s not a feminist, I would agree. But these days it’s very difficult to tell just what feminism is or is not, because markedly different individuals have used the title “feminist” to describe varied ideologies, ranging from the idea that women should be able to vote and walk around outside without a male escort to the idea that women should be forced into the workforce to prevent them from clinging to tradition. It’s an ideology that’s been used by a hundred different people for a hundred different things, as long as the heart is about change and women. Thus, filmmakers that may be sympathetic to the basic idea often don’t represent it too well and basically just use it as an excuse to make every female character a superhero.
We have the term "girlboss feminism" for that. It's not actual feminist writing, because it doesn't allow the female characters to be vulnerable or weak or allow them to fail. This is one of the fundamental problems with Star Wars right now: you have characters who NEED to fail (Bo-Katan, Ahsoka, Sabine) or need more depth than just badass (Fennec Shand, Hera Syndulla) and they're not allowed to.
You are referring to corporate feminism, which is not interested in the empowerment or emancipation of women and instead simply wants to appeal to the people who are interested in them. We as viewers sense the shallowness of that stance because it doesnt allow for nuance or even have a stance at all.
@@MonoFlax Both you and @bewilderbeastie8899 both bring up good points on this front. Even as someone on the right end of the political spectrum and is not a feminist (at least not in the modern context of the term), I can recognize different forms of it and when films try to represent given ideologies but do it poorly. I've always seen it as box-checking. "Oh, corporate needs us to have a strong female lead? Boom. Strong female lead. Look at us, are we social justice warriors now?"
Wow. It's almost like a movie has to have a great story, with a vision shared by the creators and the director. There is a lot of reasons why the Indiana Jones movies are so cool, it starts with people who love movies making movies for others who love movies. All we need now are people who love movies to start writing, directing, and producing them.
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.
It almost works. The mushroom cloud is cool. The nuclear test village is cool. The problem is what connects them--that insane flying fridge. It's by far the least realistic thing Indy survives in any of the movies, and it's just presented in such a lazy way: "Uh, the explosion throws the fridge a couple miles away, and he lives through it, I guess." No idea what would work better to get them from point A to point B, but that gag just didn't work.
@ I disagree that it’s the least realistic thing. The inflatable raft fall in Temple of Doom is much, much worse. At least they go to the effort of showing the fridge is lead-lined in Crystal Skull. ToD just doesn’t care.
@@DefinitelyReaganHaving just rewatched Temple recently, I disagree with this strongly. The difference is, Temple shows you the stunt. Granted, anyone with a brain can guess there are no actual people on the raft. But you see it fall out of the plane, inflate in midair, slow and spin as the air catches it parachute-style, and hit the ground, all while remaining right side up, and all in a single unbroken shot. Is it *likely* that would work in real life? Of course not! But the movie does the work to get you to buy it, as much as it can be bought. For me, in the Indiana Jones context, it works. The fridge scene by contrast--the lead lining is not my issue. It's the idea that any person could survive being literally thrown that distance inside a metal container with no padding. Not to mention the randomness of the explosion throwing the fridge at all in that way. It just feels like a screenwriter's shrug. The raft stunt is not realistic, but the work was put in to allow me to buy it anyway.
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!
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.
In the movies it has always been the white guy teaching/saving the brown "savages". Indie was stealing national treasures to stick in a US museum. That is colonialism in capsule form. As a white expat, in Asia, I can give my view... When a foreigner (us) comes in and tries to "show them the right way", or "teach" them how it should be done - it is seen as colonialism. That is how they see it, and I fully understand that. It is the white knight syndrome, and people are tired of it. Look at the Philippines (my adopted home), it is a country that was created by colonial Spain. Spain mismanaged the country, converted them to catholicism with a sword, and stripped it of resources for almost 400 years. The US won the country in the Spanish American War. While some infrastructure and school improvements were made, it was for American interests, not for the sake of the Filipinos. We had the country for less than 40 years and lost it to the Japanese invasion. They finally got their independence after WWII. The Philippines has been its own country for about 75 years... they do not want to hear some old white guys opinion. They have had centuries of it. (Africa, India, China...many others, all have had more than enough) That being said - Temple of Doom is my favorite Indy movie. 😎
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? 🤔
Just realised how incredibly unimpressive Indiana finding the X was. There’s a literal giant x on the floor and he takes multiple seconds of realising and walking around it before climbing up the stairs for no reason and then triumphantly revealing it as if a five-year old couldn’t easily have spotted it immediately and just told the others. The music really saved that scene
Ive never seen jungle cruise. It doesnt intrest me. So when you said the rock was immortal my jaw just dropped. Immortal is the exact opposite of indy! Every plot is written around the fact that he can only do so much! He has to sneak around, he has to be clever and agile. And theres always one or two people in the every movie that he has no chance against, in a one on one fight! I remember as a kid when a tv station was going to air the indy movies, it advertised them with all the injuries he took. "He's been beat, shot, dragged, and beat some more! And that doesnt stop him!" Thats how they chose to advertise the films to potential strangers, hes cool because he gets hurt, a lot. But continues his adventures. How can they not get that? I mean thats highlander not Indiana jones.
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…
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.
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. ❤
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.
14:51 I’m sure that the actors for Evie and Johnathon in the mummy are not actually Egyptian, but I do appreciate how the movie includes that detail for the characters. And that mixed with their knowledge and love of history to me it makes it less colonizy
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. 👍👍👍
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.
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
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).
Johnny Thunder may not have had his own movie or series, but he's a Jones-like that stands the test of time. A lot of modern sets have references to his theme, such as a photo of him appearing in a Scooby Doo set, Johnny himself appearing both in the CMF series 19 AND the 2024 Lego City Jungle Exploration subtheme, Pippin Reede appearing in the Lego Ideas Orient Express set, the ENTIRETY of the Creator Expert: Fairground Collection Haunted House set, the curator of the Creator Expert Modular Building Natural History Museum being heavily implied to be Dr. Kilroy, etc.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
Part of what is great about the “X marks the spot” scene in The Last Crusade is Steven Spielberg’s directing, specifically the way he does extended shots that move the scene from one moment to another. There are whole video breakdowns of Spielberg’s famous blocking and framing, and I think modern-day directors could learn a lot from using his techniques. Just seeing how the disconnected walking around of characters is contrasted in the first segment with Indy seeing something, the music swelling, the crane shot up the staircase is a long crane shot that many other directors would have cut away from to create artificial tension rather than have the organic tension of not knowing what Indy was seeing, then resolved with the grand reveal and musical flourish of the massive X on the floor, conveniently framed by the other actors. It’s a masterful shot, I really don’t know why we don’t make cinema like that anymore.
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.
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 have never heard of Jungle Cruise until watching this video, but I have to know. Do either of the two British characters in this movie make any mention of the ongoing largest war in human history (at the time)? I get that it takes place in Brazil, but WWI would still be something that people were aware of
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
Have no clue what your obsession is with calling Indiana Jones a nerd. Just because he is a professor and an archeologist first, doesn't make him "nerdy." Yes, he's incredibly intelligent, more so than any other action hero of the 80's, but nerd? Far from it.
Fun analysis. Wondering what your stance on the 2005 Sahara is. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, but that was one of my favorites of the treasure hunting genre when I was growing up, but mostly because of Steve Zahn. 😂
So a cinematography thing about why the Last Crusade scene feels that way, its a Oner, as in its a single shot pretty much all the way through, so we stay on Indy building tension with no release until he's up top. Contrast that with the Uncharted scene which has multiple cuts on a very short scene and its just rips the tension out of it.
Im sorry to write this at the start of the video but the first few minutes made me realise something - videogame adaptations should never follow the gameplay route 100% or should do a completely different story, because most of the time, the failures made by heroes are gameplay connected. You controll the character and you may die a few times over and over... this makes the cutscenes where nothing goes wrong rewarding. When you do a movie adaptation, you either need to make these failures happen more often or create a scenario where they are not just happening sometimes, cause if you watch just the cutscenes, the story may loose a lot of its impact, because you cut away the players effort and failures that lead to successfull feats.
Soo... not a fan of Mark Wahlberg eh? 🙂 I think they actually miscast both Sully and Nathan. Both being too young. Maybe they were hoping the franchise would take off and then they would have some stars with a lot of years in them. But Nathan Drake should not be a young kid (which is what Tom Holland looks like).
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)
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.
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😳
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!
muh indigenous, muh representation. so cringe.
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!
"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.
@@fearedjamesthey make it so that he’s the good guy because he kills in self defense and the bad guys because they kill for fun. Otherwise both sides are thieves
@@fearedjames The same problem happens in both 2 and 3. In 2 he realizes he's in over his head and does good by the end. In 3, he realizes he is vicious and he is going to get Sully killed because of it, that's the moral dilemma of the third game. In 4, we come back to the same problem, but with his wife instead of Sully, you could argue it's lazy, but I think each game has some amazing writting on it's own
what? bro what are you talking about. i heard walberg came in on the “project” long ago with the idea of HIM playing nathan.
@@PedroOrdep-kv5vw It is not important to either game's story like it is 4.
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,
Yep, Mark walberg was to ung and fit for the part. Bruce Campbell would have been perfect. If you needed an old A lister then Tim Hanks or Mel Gibson could have played a sketchy old mentor as well.
tom holland perpetually looks like he's in the high school. the film would never work without a character who is at least a foot taller than that dwarf
I only play Uncharted 1 and never see movie, but from start I imagine Bruce Cambell as Sully. He would be great.
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.
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
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.
Another "aha" part of the church scene in TLC is him saying " X never marks the spot".
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...
Mark Walberg would of made a better Drake then he'd did Sully.
Yeah, he would. That explains a lot
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.
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.
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
The Rundown is so underrated.
Yes, Yes, Yes!
The Rundown even has guys using whips! and it was before The Rock was afraid to get beaten in a movie.
Indy:
-Punches Nazis and Soviets in the Face
-Frees the poor from curses and slavery
-Chases Army convoys by Horse
-Proficient in Motorcycle Jousting
-Has a Autograph from Hitler
-Rarely loses his fedora in action
-Uses a Fucking Whip
Brazilian person here, a lot of people from Brazil are white and still have indigenous ancestry. There is a lot of assumption that latinos aren’t white, but a lot of us are. So it doesn’t matter, Emily Blunt’s character could be brazilian and still be white.
Liberals are actual massive racists and any culture that isn’t theirs is merely a prop to them.
I live in Peru and I teach English and two of my students are Brazilians with German last names and they don't stand out as being super unusual, but, of course, not all Brazilians are like that. I just see enough of it to where it doesn't phase me. Hollywood is really, really bad at portraying demographics properly. For example, in my life, I have spoken French with more black people than white people (and I've been to Paris).
I’m from Quebec. We arrived in North America to trade with the First Nations - we were never a conquering colony. That’s why New France never really grew fast enough to replace them. We bred with them for 100 years before France decided to send any women over. Once Britain invaded and conquered New France, we had become a white people colonized and economically marginalized by another white people with its own ethnic cleansing agenda. The British basically tried to drown us out with massive non French-speaking immigration for 150 years. So you can’t take the United States experience and morality, and copy paste it on the entire world.
@ bro don’t you literally have French racial purity laws?
@@SnoopsJDawg127Yes they do. Google what "Pure Wool" means in Quebec to see the value of their 'peaceful' relationship with the natives.
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.
We really missed out on an early to mid 2010s Nathan Fillion as Nathan Drake Uncharted movie/franchise.
Wasn’t there a fan film with Nathan Fillion?
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 :)
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.
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
Sooooo looking forward to watching this. Just got off a brutal shift with OT. Seeing this in my notifs was fantastic
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
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.
*the child line, she’s simply saying she was young and in love. Not that she was like 12. She was like 18 19 and was like 24 or 25
Finally yeah most of these critics are morons.
I think she was 15, because Marion is 25 ish in movie and their romance happened 10 years ago.
Jungle Cruise should have been the Tale Spin cartoon show but on a boat. Hugh Jackman should have been Victor Sullivan in Uncharted.
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
Romancing the Stone is alot of fun, you're right!
I remember watching some documentaries about the filming of Serenity, where Nathan Fillion explained he took a lot of inspiration in his portrayal of Captain Reynold from Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones performance.
Indiana Jones is immensively relatable because he get utterly pummeled in every movie and Ford had became a master at selling it. He does great physical action, but we get to see the toll it has on him.
In Raider of the lost ark, he's basically minced meat at the end of the car chase to steal the Ark of the covenant. He was shot, ran over by a truck, beaten and dragged on a dirt road. He prevail, but we see immediatly after, when the movie allows him to be vulnerable with Marion in the ship, how beaten he is. Everything hurt and it lead to the famous "were doesn't it hurt" answer from Marion.
In the temple of Doom, Indy start the adventure in a dashing smoking suit like if he was James Bond then ends the movie in literal rags, having his heart almost ripped out of him, his feet burned by the minecart chase, his back whiped and having been brainwashed.
In the last crusade, Indy get stuck on the cannon of a tank and almost get squished by a rock, being utterly powerless to do anything and owing his life to his allies, and it's mere moment before he almost get killed when the tank drop from a cliff.
Every single time, Indy survive, but after getting utterly destroyed and scared in the process and having to push a bit further because the story isn't over yet. You always get that little feeling that he need a moment to breath or escaped death by a very short margin.
This is something that a lot of modern adventure movies fail at. Their character aren't allowed to be afraid, to lose, to have any real struggle. I frankly cannot understand how someone like Dwayne Johnson still has a career in Indiana Jones like adventure movies when he doesn't want to lose or show vulnerability at any time.
Back and forth between the protagonist and the antagonist is what make the whole middle of the film interesting. If nothing move until the end, then your story is just filler until the clima and it get fucking boring.
My biggest complaint with the Jungle Cruise is the fact that they are in Brazil and not a single person speaks the native language of Brazil, Portuguese
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.
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
I really enjoyed the “glasses off/glasses on” gag at the top of the video. I got a good laugh out of 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.
No wonder Tom Holland announced a break off acting. Uncharted as a production had to have been stressful as hell
That scene in the Holy Grail had two effects in it as well. Foreshadowing and and the call back. Because while teaching Indy says most archeology happens in the library and X never, ever, marks the spot.
So there in the library he finds X marking the spot. Hitting on him being both right and wrong at once.
He didn't sleep with Marion until they were on that boat.
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
Not everything is racist
But Indiana Jones, specially the second one, is.
11:24 I think the reason that a lot of people blame feminism for characters like this is that because of feminism, many film makers feel the need to make every female character Wonder Woman. Now, one could also argue that feminism doesn’t actually require this, and even as someone who’s not a feminist, I would agree. But these days it’s very difficult to tell just what feminism is or is not, because markedly different individuals have used the title “feminist” to describe varied ideologies, ranging from the idea that women should be able to vote and walk around outside without a male escort to the idea that women should be forced into the workforce to prevent them from clinging to tradition. It’s an ideology that’s been used by a hundred different people for a hundred different things, as long as the heart is about change and women. Thus, filmmakers that may be sympathetic to the basic idea often don’t represent it too well and basically just use it as an excuse to make every female character a superhero.
We have the term "girlboss feminism" for that. It's not actual feminist writing, because it doesn't allow the female characters to be vulnerable or weak or allow them to fail. This is one of the fundamental problems with Star Wars right now: you have characters who NEED to fail (Bo-Katan, Ahsoka, Sabine) or need more depth than just badass (Fennec Shand, Hera Syndulla) and they're not allowed to.
You are referring to corporate feminism, which is not interested in the empowerment or emancipation of women and instead simply wants to appeal to the people who are interested in them. We as viewers sense the shallowness of that stance because it doesnt allow for nuance or even have a stance at all.
@@MonoFlax Both you and @bewilderbeastie8899 both bring up good points on this front. Even as someone on the right end of the political spectrum and is not a feminist (at least not in the modern context of the term), I can recognize different forms of it and when films try to represent given ideologies but do it poorly. I've always seen it as box-checking. "Oh, corporate needs us to have a strong female lead? Boom. Strong female lead. Look at us, are we social justice warriors now?"
You try too much not to offend. And why do you hate Mark Whalberg so much?
Wow. It's almost like a movie has to have a great story, with a vision shared by the creators and the director.
There is a lot of reasons why the Indiana Jones movies are so cool, it starts with people who love movies making movies for others who love movies.
All we need now are people who love movies to start writing, directing, and producing them.
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.
It almost works. The mushroom cloud is cool. The nuclear test village is cool. The problem is what connects them--that insane flying fridge. It's by far the least realistic thing Indy survives in any of the movies, and it's just presented in such a lazy way: "Uh, the explosion throws the fridge a couple miles away, and he lives through it, I guess." No idea what would work better to get them from point A to point B, but that gag just didn't work.
@ I disagree that it’s the least realistic thing. The inflatable raft fall in Temple of Doom is much, much worse. At least they go to the effort of showing the fridge is lead-lined in Crystal Skull. ToD just doesn’t care.
@@DefinitelyReaganHaving just rewatched Temple recently, I disagree with this strongly. The difference is, Temple shows you the stunt. Granted, anyone with a brain can guess there are no actual people on the raft. But you see it fall out of the plane, inflate in midair, slow and spin as the air catches it parachute-style, and hit the ground, all while remaining right side up, and all in a single unbroken shot.
Is it *likely* that would work in real life? Of course not! But the movie does the work to get you to buy it, as much as it can be bought. For me, in the Indiana Jones context, it works.
The fridge scene by contrast--the lead lining is not my issue. It's the idea that any person could survive being literally thrown that distance inside a metal container with no padding. Not to mention the randomness of the explosion throwing the fridge at all in that way. It just feels like a screenwriter's shrug. The raft stunt is not realistic, but the work was put in to allow me to buy it anyway.
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!
Indiana Jones movies haven't been good since 1989. 36 years ago. I'd take the 90s Mummy movies over any new Indy movies.
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.
In the movies it has always been the white guy teaching/saving the brown "savages". Indie was stealing national treasures to stick in a US museum. That is colonialism in capsule form.
As a white expat, in Asia, I can give my view...
When a foreigner (us) comes in and tries to "show them the right way", or "teach" them how it should be done - it is seen as colonialism. That is how they see it, and I fully understand that. It is the white knight syndrome, and people are tired of it.
Look at the Philippines (my adopted home), it is a country that was created by colonial Spain. Spain mismanaged the country, converted them to catholicism with a sword, and stripped it of resources for almost 400 years. The US won the country in the Spanish American War. While some infrastructure and school improvements were made, it was for American interests, not for the sake of the Filipinos. We had the country for less than 40 years and lost it to the Japanese invasion. They finally got their independence after WWII. The Philippines has been its own country for about 75 years... they do not want to hear some old white guys opinion. They have had centuries of it. (Africa, India, China...many others, all have had more than enough)
That being said - Temple of Doom is my favorite Indy movie. 😎
Always happy to see you upload :)
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? 🤔
Just realised how incredibly unimpressive Indiana finding the X was. There’s a literal giant x on the floor and he takes multiple seconds of realising and walking around it before climbing up the stairs for no reason and then triumphantly revealing it as if a five-year old couldn’t easily have spotted it immediately and just told the others. The music really saved that scene
I dont agree about elsa. And they arent "white power" fantasies. 😅
Your comment is problematic for its racist undertones.
Ive never seen jungle cruise. It doesnt intrest me. So when you said the rock was immortal my jaw just dropped.
Immortal is the exact opposite of indy! Every plot is written around the fact that he can only do so much! He has to sneak around, he has to be clever and agile. And theres always one or two people in the every movie that he has no chance against, in a one on one fight! I remember as a kid when a tv station was going to air the indy movies, it advertised them with all the injuries he took. "He's been beat, shot, dragged, and beat some more! And that doesnt stop him!" Thats how they chose to advertise the films to potential strangers, hes cool because he gets hurt, a lot. But continues his adventures. How can they not get that? I mean thats highlander not Indiana jones.
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…
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.
My brother-in-art, this was an excellent video!
Your film theory & criticism is by far your best content. Please keep it up!
I loved your nonstop ranting on Uncharted. It's just so funny and over the top yet authentic. Reminded me of AVGN back when he was good.
The "Oh No!" at 3:27 killed me
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. ❤
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.
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.
Great essay, nice editing
14:51 I’m sure that the actors for Evie and Johnathon in the mummy are not actually Egyptian, but I do appreciate how the movie includes that detail for the characters. And that mixed with their knowledge and love of history to me it makes it less colonizy
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. 👍👍👍
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.
You are right! It is all about character story and acting performance of the actors. This was brilliantly analysized with the Star Trek movies.
well, this youtube channel *definitively* has a likeable character.^^
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
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).
Johnny Thunder may not have had his own movie or series, but he's a Jones-like that stands the test of time. A lot of modern sets have references to his theme, such as a photo of him appearing in a Scooby Doo set, Johnny himself appearing both in the CMF series 19 AND the 2024 Lego City Jungle Exploration subtheme, Pippin Reede appearing in the Lego Ideas Orient Express set, the ENTIRETY of the Creator Expert: Fairground Collection Haunted House set, the curator of the Creator Expert Modular Building Natural History Museum being heavily implied to be Dr. Kilroy, etc.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
Highlander, the crow.
The best way to describe Jungle Cruise is the cutscene compilation of the Jumanji video game.
Part of what is great about the “X marks the spot” scene in The Last Crusade is Steven Spielberg’s directing, specifically the way he does extended shots that move the scene from one moment to another. There are whole video breakdowns of Spielberg’s famous blocking and framing, and I think modern-day directors could learn a lot from using his techniques. Just seeing how the disconnected walking around of characters is contrasted in the first segment with Indy seeing something, the music swelling, the crane shot up the staircase is a long crane shot that many other directors would have cut away from to create artificial tension rather than have the organic tension of not knowing what Indy was seeing, then resolved with the grand reveal and musical flourish of the massive X on the floor, conveniently framed by the other actors. It’s a masterful shot, I really don’t know why we don’t make cinema like that anymore.
Oh my god theres a stephan video this year? Sweet!
Love your work man. Also looking forward to more Fist Master
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.
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!
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!
Sully should've been played by alec baldwin. Drake should have been played by... actually, mark wahlberg would have been fine there.
I’m actually planning on writing my own series like this with some twists and this has definitely helped.
I have never heard of Jungle Cruise until watching this video, but I have to know. Do either of the two British characters in this movie make any mention of the ongoing largest war in human history (at the time)? I get that it takes place in Brazil, but WWI would still be something that people were aware of
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
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
Have no clue what your obsession is with calling Indiana Jones a nerd. Just because he is a professor and an archeologist first, doesn't make him "nerdy." Yes, he's incredibly intelligent, more so than any other action hero of the 80's, but nerd? Far from it.
jokes is funny
Nerd
Indie is more of a geek a cool geek but in class He comes off as being deeply intresed in the subject he teach and comes off as easily distracted.
I did not know that Doc Ock was in Indiana Jones! It was right in my face!
Another Stephen video essay let's gooooooo!
I think the National Treasure movie duology was another good Indy-esque movie series.
most reddit video I've ever seen
THANK YOU FOR THE GOLD KIND STRANGER
It's you, Dwayne the rock Johnson, you've been the Jungle Cruise this whole time
Fun analysis. Wondering what your stance on the 2005 Sahara is. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, but that was one of my favorites of the treasure hunting genre when I was growing up, but mostly because of Steve Zahn. 😂
So a cinematography thing about why the Last Crusade scene feels that way, its a Oner, as in its a single shot pretty much all the way through, so we stay on Indy building tension with no release until he's up top. Contrast that with the Uncharted scene which has multiple cuts on a very short scene and its just rips the tension out of it.
That was a great review and detailed analysis! Never seen your videos before but you definitely got an intrigued subscriber now!
Im sorry to write this at the start of the video but the first few minutes made me realise something - videogame adaptations should never follow the gameplay route 100% or should do a completely different story, because most of the time, the failures made by heroes are gameplay connected. You controll the character and you may die a few times over and over... this makes the cutscenes where nothing goes wrong rewarding. When you do a movie adaptation, you either need to make these failures happen more often or create a scenario where they are not just happening sometimes, cause if you watch just the cutscenes, the story may loose a lot of its impact, because you cut away the players effort and failures that lead to successfull feats.
9:14 I SAW THAT!
Because of Harrison ford conversation over😂😂
Exactly.
Soo... not a fan of Mark Wahlberg eh? 🙂
I think they actually miscast both Sully and Nathan. Both being too young. Maybe they were hoping the franchise would take off and then they would have some stars with a lot of years in them. But Nathan Drake should not be a young kid (which is what Tom Holland looks like).
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)
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.