|
Post by MCDemuth on Jun 19, 2017 20:45:35 GMT
ps didn't Indy locate the correct resting place of the Ark? The staff that the NAZI's used in the map room with the miniature of the city was the incorrect height, because they only had half of the inscriptions off the Staff Piece. That guy only had the brand on his hand from the one side. The staff was too tall. They were "Digging In The Wrong Place". Indy had both inscriptions translated, and learned that one side said the staff had to be a certain height, but then the other side told them to subtract some of the measurement. When Indy went into the Map Room he had a staff that was the correct height and the jewel laser showed him where the Ark was really buried... Indiana Jones found the ARK!, not the NAZIS. It's just that moments after they raised the Ark out of it's resting chamber, the NAZIS took the Ark from Indy, and then tried to seal Indiana and Marion in the resting chamber with all the snakes.
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jun 21, 2017 15:56:52 GMT
Another issue about the Big Bang Theory is that the original intent was that the Ark was supposed to be transported directly to Germany via the flying wing aircraft that Jones and Marion sabotaged (inadvertently). So let's say that Jones never was involved and Marion was kidnapped or killed by Toht in Nepal and they obtained the head piece. They find the Ark without Jones' help. The Ark would have been delivered to Germany directly and Belloq would never have made the side trip to the island to examine it through a Jewish ritual. Hitler would have taken delivery (unless the plane crashed en route but that's a different story) and possibly would have been melted alive instead of Belloq and his Nazi friends. World War 2 thus would never have happened. Unless Hitler had other underlings open it in Germany without his presence but that is seriously doubtful since according to the FBI he was "obsessed with the cult."
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Jun 21, 2017 17:26:25 GMT
I liked the Cameron film, although ANtR is the better one. Any comments about the TV films? SOS TITANIC (1979) David Warner, Susan Saint James, Cloris Leachman, Helen Mirren, Ian Holm, and Frank Janseen. TITANIC (1996) The TV-mini attempt to cash-in on the upcoming film, with Catherine Zeta Jones and Peter Gallagher as adulterous lovers, Marilu Henner as Molly Brown, George C. Scott as Capt. Smith, and Tim Curry as a steward/thief/rapist. The 'Nanny kidnapper' story gets emphasis. TITANIC (2012) Julian Fellowes' rather confusing TV-film. I've seen the 1979 SOS Titanic, but not the 3 hour TV version, but the shorter cinema version, that I think was showed rather often as it was the only colour version of the disaster up untill 1996. I don't remember much of it though. It seemed costly and ambitious for it's time though. 1980 came the fictionalized story Raise the Titanic that I remember was an economical disaster for it's producer Lord Lew Grade. I don't remember much of that movie either, more than everyone waited for it to raise.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Jun 21, 2017 17:34:14 GMT
Negative side besides beeing very long, I can't help thinking about an episode from Big Bang Theory, were it was told that Indiana Jones was actually unneccesary in Raider of the Lost Ark, the nazis found what they searched and brought it to an island and melted it would have happened without Indiana Jones anyway. The same with Titanic, we know it's destiny, no matter what our heroes do, it will all go to hell, or sink. JC's lead fictional character male saved his lead fictional female from suicide, or worse a life with putrid Cal in America. A- ...my #46 all time. It was nearly a decade from its overwhelmingly memorable theatrical experience that I began to really warm up to it as a film proper. It is at the end of the day, JC's tour de force masterpiece (beyond much of T2's accomplishments). While the romance angle is pretty straightforward, it allows a lightness to bring us through the drama. As it is, the second act alone remains beyond most anything ever filmed; cgi eat your heart out. I get that it has a lot of detractors, thankfully the film is aged enough that debate is healthy enough to let bygones be bygones. ps didn't Indy locate the correct resting place of the Ark? I suppose since it being only 1936, the Nazis might've still had time to find it... unless their resources were pulled out & pooled elsewhere for their own war efforts. I deliberatly avoided naming the leading actor, because there was so many debates about him, or dirtthrowing, and all the things he was called by guys who couldn't stand seeing him on posters in their girlfriends rooms. I wanted this debate to be about the movie both for those who likes it or those who dislikes it, but without any dirtthrowing and namecalling. I gave my points and everyone else can give their views of the movie.
|
|
shawshanked
Sophomore
@shawshanked
Posts: 246
Likes: 66
|
Post by shawshanked on Jun 21, 2017 18:59:16 GMT
Overall I'd give Titanic an 8/10. The love story is sappy and weak and causes its fair share of eye roll moments but I really enjoyed the second half of the film.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Jun 21, 2017 19:18:49 GMT
...interesting anecdote follows:
I had not seen Titanic when it was released and did not intend to watch it when it came to video. I was in a Best Buy when it was first released on video...I picked up a copy to look at it and the price tag read $0.00. I took it up to the check out, and since it was obviously priced incorrectly, Best Buy gave it to me for $0.00. I watched it but prefer A Night to Remember to the DiCaprio cut.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jun 23, 2017 8:04:35 GMT
I finally saw Titanic in May 2014, in the theater. Had I viewed it in 1997 or 1998, I would have been too cynical towards it (although I would have enjoyed seeing Kate Winslet in the nude ). The film is decent—a generic and sentimental melodrama somewhat enlarged and enlivened during the climax by James Cameron's visuals and the special effects (plus Céline Dion's famous theme song during the closing credits). Certainly, as an overall movie, it is not remotely Oscar-worthy in my judgment. But I can also understand why it proved so popular. People want to believe in that kind of romantic salvation, where if you are—for instance—a guy trapped in that situation and on the verge of drowning, this girl that you have fallen in love with yet hardly know will risk life and limb to try and save you. In real life, the Winslet character would have probably just thought, "Sorry, but I've got to go," but people want to believe in something more.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 23, 2017 10:59:30 GMT
I cringed when I heard Celine yowling that song and will still change the station as quickly as possibly if it comes on the radio.
This was the last "modern" film I have gone to the theater to see. The audience in the theater actually laughed as bodies crashed into the funnels as the ship sank.
Had to wonder how many of them even knew, or cared, that it was based on a real event.
MUCH prefer A Night to Remember !
|
|