Why turn Marcus into a bumbling idiot? - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) Discussion

[–] ghostly_host 9 years ago

They were responding to critics of the previous film Temple of Doom being too dark. Marcus was seen in Raiders, true, but he was never seen in the field like he is in Last Crusade so he was just out of his element in those situations. He wasn't a bumbling fool in Venice he was very engaged in the search with Indy. It was mostly when he was in Iskenderun where he began to seem more like a confused old man. And then of course when he'd been captured by the nazies they sleep/food/water deprived him I think (like the scene where he's in the German car and they won't give him a drink). For someone of his years and out of his element he keeps it together pretty good considering. One thing I noticed though...there is a line in Raiders where they're talking about the Ark and Brody says "I might have gone after it myself 10 years ago." There are some inconsistencies from one film to the next, that is obvious.

reply

[–] Ma_MaMia 9 years ago

There are some inconsistencies from one film to the next

True, they don't really connect well. Indy's arc in Raiders was about him becoming a believer but that was botched by making Temple a prequel.

reply

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

Parents complained that Temple was too scary for kids (even though the franchise was never directed towards children), so Spielberg decided he needed a bumbling buffoon for comic relief, you know he has to put something in there to make the pre-schoolers laugh.

I have never seen anyone butcher a character more than what they did to Marcus Brody and I think it's blatantly obvious that Lucas based the Jar Jar Binks character off of Marcus Brody.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

[–] ghostly_host 9 years ago

Hippo you seem to love trolling Last Crusade a lot. Why don't you write a book about how much you think it sucks.

reply

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

I was only agreeing with the OP, how does not liking the movie make me a troll? And no I will not write a book on the matter, I will post my opinion on this message board because that is what it is for.

And by the way it was established that he once got "lost in his own museum", he wasn't just a bumbling idiot because he was out of his element, he was a bumbling idiot because Spielberg needed a Jar Jar Binks to make the toddlers and pre-schoolers laugh.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

[–] benman46 9 years ago

Did pre schoolers watch the film? Not with decapitations and other nastiness in it. Jar Jar Binks was based on the Disney character Goofy. Otherwise you were right.

reply

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

Yet there was no blood or gore in the decapitations, that violence was on the same level as a Roadrunner/Coyote cartoon. Totally slapstick.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

[–] benman46 9 years ago

As you so astutely pointed out, Roadrunner is a cartoon, with a coyote, with decapitations notably absent. Indiana Jones isn't. Without blood or gore, a decapitation is still a decapitation. Slapstick??? Do you even know what it means.

reply

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

Doesn't matter, it was played for laughs, wasn't graphic and still childish, much like roadrunner cartoons.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

[–] benman46 9 years ago

It does matter. As I thought you don't know what slapstick means, I just don't understand your attitude to the film, as it's not really that different from the others, and in terms of humour was much like the original Raiders. Though as you're trolling that makes no nevermind to you. Roadrunner cartoons are very popular with adults.

reply

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

My attitude towards the film is that all of the danger and excitement that made the first two films so great is surprisingly absent. The acting is atrocious (Ford, Connery, Elliot, Doody, Glover were all pathetic), the plot was a recycled Raiders plot, the dialogue was corny, the film was beyond boring and it was much more geared towards children when the franchise was never a children's franchise.

I do not like comedies, I do not like campy adventures, that is why I don't like Last Crusade.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

[–] benman46 9 years ago

And the ship sails on.

reply

[–] EmpireKing 9 years ago

I do not like comedies

You rated Ghostbusters, Dr.Strangelove, Little Giants, and 3 Ninja Kids a 10. Fudge you liar.

I do not like campy adventures

You rated Top Gun and True Lies a 10, and you praise Temple Of Doom, stop with the lies.

reply

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

Ghostbusters and Dr. Strangelove also cross over into other genres. As far as Little Giants and 3 Ninjas go, I watched them a lot when I was a kid so they have nostalgic value.

Top Gun, True Lies and Temple of Doom are not campy adventures, Last Crusade is.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

Raiders and Temple had very dry and dark humor which was appropriate for those types of movies and this type of character, neither of those were made for children like Star Wars was, Crusade on the other hand was a campy, childish, slapstick comedy intended solely for children plus the humor was the main focus. In Raiders the arc was the main focus, in Temple the cult was the main focus, in Crusade however kiddie humor like the Mickey Mouse Joke was the main focus, not the story.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

I said humor like the Mickey Mouse joke. And yes Temple did have some campy moments and if I were Spielberg I would have removed them, however at least the minor kiddie humor wasn't the main focus, the cult was and Temple had plenty of badass moments to make up for it.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ghostly_host 9 years ago

I'm surprised you overlooked the irresistible opportunity to say Temple of Dung there. I love Temple of Doom but Willie gets really annoying. Not quite Jar Jar Binks annoying, though.

reply

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

Temple of Doom does have dumb moments, Willie Scott is a scream queen and is close to the level of Jar Jar just like Henry Jones and Marcus. She also reminds me a lot of Kim Basinger in Batman '89. However the campy humor is not the primary focus of Temple of Doom while it is the focus of Last Crusade. Temple is about the cult, the humor is secondary. Last Crusade however the plot doesn't matter at all, it's all about the childish humor, it's pretty much an unfunny version of Monty Python.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

[–] vinnytimmler 9 years ago

Temple of Doom does have dumb moments, Willie Scott is a scream queen and is close to the level of Jar Jar just like Henry Jones and Marcus. She also reminds me a lot of Kim Basinger in Batman '89. However the campy humor is not the primary focus of Temple of Doom while it is the focus of Last Crusade. Temple is about the cult, the humor is secondary. Last Crusade however the plot doesn't matter at all, it's all about the childish humor, it's pretty much an unfunny version of Monty Python.

Yeah no Temple of Doom was just as lame as the Last Crusade was. Short round alone was just as bad as anything in the last crusade.

reply

[–] ghostly_host 9 years ago

The comedy is obviously turned up from what it was in TOD but I disagree it is the "main focus" of the film. There are plenty of serious and scary moments. But it is not R-rated. Raiders was PG and so was TOD so they obviously were interested in having a fun side to it for kids from the very beginning.

reply

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

Raiders and Temple were almost R-rated films. Spielberg had to put flames over Belloqs exploding head to avoid an R-rating and it is rumored that Temple also would have been R-rated if it was made by anyone other than Spielberg and Lucas. The ratings mean nothing.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

Raiders and Temple were almost R-rated films. Spielberg had to put flames over Belloqs exploding head to avoid an R-rating and it is rumored that Temple also would have been R-rated if it was made by anyone other than Spielberg and Lucas. The ratings mean nothing.

If ratings mean nothing, why did Spielberg have to put flames over Belloq's exploding head to avoid an R-rating? Of course ratings matter, they are directly relevant to how many people you can market the movie to. And the fact of the matter is that rumours notwithstanding, Raiders and Temple are both PG films.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I wish movies were made for human beings, instead of stupid kids or masonic satan-worshippers. Maybe then we could have an actual good movie.. (and those idiotic kids that have zillion ways to entertain themselves even without movies, could enjoy them, too, even if they don't understand everything).

reply

[–] Ma_MaMia 9 years ago

even though the franchise was never directed towards children

Are you saying Spielberg put a screaming, whining woman and a funny little kid who does kung fu in the franchise for adults? 

reply

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

He was trying to mislead the audience, he was trying to shock them when they discovered how dark and sadistic the movie really was once Indy got into the temple. Obviously you are too stupid to understand that. I personally didn't care for Willie's screaming but I'll tolerate it because the entire second half of the film is completely badass and is far from a kiddie film.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

[–] Ma_MaMia 9 years ago

He was trying to mislead the audience

Sure he was.

he was trying to shock them when they discovered how dark and sadistic the movie really was once Indy got into the temple

AGAIN, he switched the tone back again once Indy comes out his possession but you refuse to admit it.

reply

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

Right because cutting a rope bridge (that himself, an innocent woman and child are on) that sends several people to be eaten alive by crocodiles is kiddie stuff. Not to mention a guy getting crushed to the bone feet first and Indy being tortured by a voodoo doll.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

[–] Karl Aksel 8 years ago

Right because cutting a rope bridge (that himself, an innocent woman and child are on) that sends several people to be eaten alive by crocodiles is kiddie stuff. Not to mention a guy getting crushed to the bone feet first and Indy being tortured by a voodoo doll.

"Hang on, lady, we going for a ride."
"Oh my gooooood! Oh my god, oh my god, is he nuts?"
"He no nuts - he's crazy."

Sorry, the bridge scene was not "dark" as you imply - it was exciting. Should you have any doubts in that regard, the above dialogue between Shorty and Willie ought to wash that away.

Also, you seem to have a very selective memory. Willie acting out the punches while Indy and Short Round are punching their respective opponents in tandem is a comical element of the scene. The voodoo doll is completely out of place in an Indian setting, and features possibly the worst acting in any of the Indy films (I can just hear Spielberg on the set: "Maharaja kid, try to look as scary as possible! Well, I guess that'll have to do."). And before the bridge scene, there's the rollercoaster scene and the "water!" scene. Those scenes are mature, are they?

reply

[–] mcp-69798 9 years ago

As ghostly_host says, Marcus was just out of his element. In Raiders, he has less screen time and never leaves his comfort zone.

There's nothing wrong with comedy relief, anyway. Those that say comedy is "kiddie" and "dark" is "mature" are the bumbling idiots. Marcus is brilliant in Last Crusade.

reply

[–] ErgonomicSpliff 8 years ago

I don't really subscribe to the "out of his element" theory. Admittedly, Marcus is out of his element but that shouldn't mean he should have turned from a serious academian into Lou Costello.

I always thought that Marcus was in the early stages of dementia, judging by his 180 degree about face. He couldn't have been more serious in "Raiders." Denholm Elliot brought a gravitas to the first film that virtually set the tone from the moment we first see him. In "Last Crusade," Marcus is 100% comic relief in a way that even C-3P0 never was. It always made me uncomfortable to watch.

reply

[–] buddyboy28 8 years ago

I don't really subscribe to the "out of his element" theory.

Nor me. I love Last Crusade but that's a terrible excuse because Indy's line implies he's always being a bit of a buffoon.

"You know Marcus, he got lost in his own museum".

Marcus seemed to be a very respected, (even possible father figure) to Indy in Raiders and obviously that had to change here because he had his actual father along, so they changed his character. Nothing wrong with just admitting that especially when it's blatantly obvious.

reply