18 comments

• 

  Kiley

  1 year ago

  whoo hooo! ;) Thanks Jett! Thanks Gareth!
  reply
• 

  jettloe

  1 year ago

  Congrats Kiley - the 'one of a kind coffee stained item' will shortly be on its way to ya! :)
  reply
• 

  Phil

  1 year ago

  For a couple of guys who (warning: spoiler alert!) really liked the movie, there sure were a lot of criticims.
  
  I saw the movie and I'm the kind who lets those same criticisms get in the way of my enjoyment of the movie. I thought I-IV was "okay". Entertaining for what it was, but just too much distraction with the things that didn't work.
  reply
• 

  jettloe

  1 year ago

  Gareth and I really enjoyed it - sure it had its problems, but overall a well-crafted piece of entertainment - and for me, whatever faults I might see in the film were balanced favorably by the clever subtext and themes, (a serious film!), as we discussed in the ep.
  reply
• 

  Tom

  1 year ago

  I think a large part of your perception of the movie is related to your opinion of the old Indy films. The problem is that in the minds of these people they don't see the flaws in those movies, they come rose-tinted, especially in the minds of my generation who watched them on tv as a child.
  
  I enjoyed Indy 4, if I had any critisisms it would be that there seemed to be too many people on the adventure with indy, by the end he had Marion, Mutt, Oxley and Mac.
  
  The usual formula is Indy + Love interest + Comic relief.
  Indy + Marion + Sallah (Raiders)
  Indy + Willie + Short Round (Temple of Doom)
  Indy + Elsa + Marcus Brody (Beginning of Crusade)
  
  Oxley was a walking McGuffin, needed to be replaced by a "Grail Diary" type mechanism, and I really felt that Mac was totally unecessary.
  
  Anyway, your coments helped me place it in my own mind, it is a 50's Indy movie.
  reply
• 

  jettloe

  1 year ago

  Yeah we didn't all those folks at the end traipsing around - and the thing is it was a 50's Indy movie - i mean my god, Harrison Ford is 6 years older than Sean Connery was when he played his dad!
  reply
• 

  Tom B

  1 year ago

  I enjoyed the show guys and am glad of your return after months away.
  
  I agree with a lot of what you said about Indy 4 and am equally surprised at the backlash it received. I mean come on, I was just holding my breath and praying Lucas wasn't going to be allowed to screw it up like he did with the prequels. Thankfully that was not the case.
  
  Proof again that Lucas is only any good when forced to collaborate with others.
  reply
• 

  jettloe

  1 year ago

  Lucas' best pictures were THX-1138 + American Grafitti =
  all downhill from there.
  
  + Glad ya like the 'return' of the show Tom B - Gareth and I love doing it!
  reply
• 

  Phil

  1 year ago

  Tom - does that include "Captain EO" (starring Michael Jackson, directed by F.F. Coppola)?
  
  And Jett - didn't like Star Wars or Empire Strikes Back??? Not even as a youngster???
  reply
• 

  jettloe

  1 year ago

  Oh sure I enjoyed them as a kid - but they're not very good movies.
  reply
• 

  Phil

  1 year ago

  I just can't accept that. Lucas is reknown (renown?) for being a bad script writer...but I can't accept the fact that you deem Indiana Jones IV a good movie and these, in turn, say SW & Empire would not be (I won't even argue 'Jedi' because of the Ewoks).
  
  If Indy 4 is being hailed as being a sort of 'homage' to pulp stories or "serials" from long ago, isn't the Star Wars genre the same thing? And, something that we, at the time, had not really ever seen before?
  reply
• 

  jettloe

  1 year ago

  Per my previous comments I think THX and American Graffiti are his best pics; re: Indiana Jones = Spielberg is a much better director.
  
  What Lucas is renowned for I would argue is as a pioneer of industrial filmmaking practices, (hence the 'Industrial' in 'Industrial Light and Magic). As long as the films keep making money the actual quality of the pics seems to be immaterial.
  reply
• 

  Phil

  1 year ago

  I loved American Graffiti, and I liked THX and can accept that it be considered better than any of the Star Wars movies.
  
  I just have a hard time with the comment that they are "not very good movies". (I temper this by saying he practically ruined them by "improving" them in the late 90s, and the prequels were terrible)
  
  I would love to hear a podcast whereby you explain why you feel they are not good, when so many others would disagree (and what's Gareth's take)?
  reply
• 

  jettloe

  1 year ago

  That's not a bad idea - maybe we can do some sort of 'Star Wars' retrospective or something - but then I'd have to watch them again...and they already get too much press ! :)
  reply
• 

  Phil

  1 year ago

  Yes, but your statements are outlandish, and deserve some sort of explanation to the Star Wars fans who listen to Film Talk (me).
  reply
• 

  jettloe

  1 year ago

  Outlandish? Dude have you seen 'Star Wars' recently? Lord, it's not a good picture on just about any level - acting/writing/story, (if ya like the story check out 'Hidden Fortress' - the Kurosawa pic that was one of the inspirations for the movie).
  
  I normally would say that it doesn't deserve such harsh criticism 'cause it's a kid's film - but don't children deserve good movies too?
  reply
• 

  Phil

  1 year ago

  Of course I've seen it!
  
  And the AFI would wholeheartedly disagree with you.
  
  I might agree with you on overall acting & writing for Star Wars - Empire I would disagree on writing (I don't think Lucas wrote this one?) -
  
  Again, I'd like to hear Gareth's take.
  reply
• 

  jettloe

  1 year ago

  Not a fan of AFI Lists = 'industry promotional device' = not a mark of actual quality. :)
  
  + Will gladly take up with Mr. Gareth Higgins at the next recording session. :)
  reply