Join me as I try to break down why I think Indiana Jones has been such a successful franchise while other films like Uncharted and Jungle Cruise haven't managed to do as well. PATREON: / stephan_k TWITTER: / krosecz
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.
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.
I think another important aspect of why The Mummy and National Treasure also works is because like series like Pirates of the Caribbean, none of the main cast are amazing heroic people, they're motivated mainly by greed at the start and walk a fine line between smug and devious but also charming and by the end of the movie they end up growing as a person or come together to beat a greater evil. I do think we have kind of lost that edge a bit in a lot of summer blockbusters a bit and it's why movies like Bullet Train were such a breath of fresh air.
I think about why *Raiders of the Lost Arc is such a good movie ALL THE TIME and you really hit the nail on the head! 1. Indy always starts at a disadvantage 2. HE MAKES MISTAKES CONSTANTLY 3. Barely surviving each trial, he shows his ingenuity, his creativity, and his determination, which are actually the things that make him 'cool'. The people making decisions in these modern movies don't want their action heroes to be cringefail losers so they skip all the important stuff (all the good stuff!) and only show the wins. Without the failure or mistakes, the win feels empty and the character is completely uninteresting. Great video!
I watched the original Indy trilogy for the 100th time recently, and it really struck me just how often he gets the shit beaten out of him in those films. Those action scenes legit feel like they really hurt, it makes us more sympathetic to Indy and desperate to see him win, and thus makes him a more relatable hero
To refine that point a bit: the people making movie decisions these days are *so afraid of their action heroes maybe coming across as cringefail losers*, that they try to over-correct, and leave out anything that might be quirky or vulnerable or what have you. (And, in the process, I think they also don't trust their stars. I get what's being said here, about how Dwayne Johnson has never come across as vulnerable. He has this cocky, wry, sarcastic way of holding himself, when he isn't just relying on being a brick shithouse. But it leaves me wondering if someone could get a more varied performance out of him. I think part of the problem there is that movies who hire him are like, YES, we have THE ROCK! So why would we want him to stretch and not just be... The Rock? etc.) Harrison Ford, esp. back in the late 70s/early 80s when he was establishing characters like Han Solo and Indy, was (I would suggest) an unusually self-confident actor who didn't feel he'd "built his brand" on any one particular thing. We really have him to thank for making Han Solo much more than the sum of what was on paper; it sure wasn't George Lucas's direction. So by the time you get Indy, you've got a writer (Kasdan) who is familiar with Ford's work and knows what he's capable of, and you've got Spielberg and Lucas who just know "this guy knows what he's doing". They had all see him do performances of multi-faceted characters, so they knew they could have Indy be that, and Ford would breathe life into him. (I do think the point made by Stephan here is important, too: the first movie especially is written very well, and it's self-aware enough not to replicate the pitfalls of the older pulp action serials that inspired it. You've got to give a lot of credit to Kasdan as writer, and Spielberg and Lucas, for being willing to have Indy's intro be like an entire sequence of just him failing, a whole bunch of times. And, they deserve credit for deciding that Indy, as a hero, can get hurt, and SHOW that he hurts. I just can't see Doc Savage, or Quatermain, being allowed to be failures, or vulnerable. In large part because that wouldn't have fit in with their job to embody a white-supremacist hero -- I think Stephan is right on target with that observation, too. If the hero is going to be the stand in for Everything That Justifies a White Guy coming into other countries and taking what he wants, or solving their problems for them, then he CAN'T be shown to fail, and he can't be hurt, or be vulnerable. But, Indy isn't saddled with the task of embodying The Authoritative White Guy, so he can be more of a "real guy" who feels relatable.)
What you obviously don't realize is that Indiana Jones is just a rip-off of the character Harry Steele portrayed by actor Charlton Heston in the 1954 movie 'Secret of the Incas.'
@@autodidact537 I don't know, it seems like what you obviously don't realize is that it doesn't matter. It's widely known that the character of Indy, and the movies in general but specifically the first one, were very directly inspired by those old movies. Neither Lucas nor Spielberg were reluctant to discuss that -- they said it in just about every behind the scenes piece where they talked about the movie. The point, though, is that Harrison Ford's Indy is appealing because of Harrison Ford's acting (and, further, that the character is appealing because the writers recognized that he should be the underdog for much of the story, rather than the hero who always triumphs). Charlton Heston is a very different performer. Even if Raiders was nothing but a remake of "Secret of the Incas" and Harrison Ford was playing Harry Steele, it still wouldn't wind up being exactly the same character.
The 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.
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
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.
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.
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’m curious what your opinions are on the National Treasure movies? I feel like they run that fine line of being fun action movies while also incorporating some history, but Nicolas Cage can also be very over the top.
I always admire the way you analyze these productions, and put things into perspective. For example, I didn't hate Jungle Cruise, but there was something about it that made me feel "Meh". I couldn't put my finger on what it was, but now I understand. Loved the video! I hope to see more of this.
I really enjoy your video essays! No pressure to make more any time soon or anything. But I always find your perspectives to be very well-thought out and entertaining and I would not be mad if you continued to drop videos like this every so often. I totally respect your creative process and it's not like fun essays that you wanna spend a bunch of time working on pop into your head every week or anything. Great video and I hope all is well :)
@@StephanKrosecz He’s not a nerd though. He’s a badass motherfucker who happens to be scholarly in his spare time. Being smart has nothing to do with being nerdy. He’s masculine and the man could bang any of his students and get any woman he wants. He’s also a hardened adventurer who’s been shot, punched and bloodied. No way in hell a would a nerd do any of that I’m sorry but that’s a sus take
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 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.
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
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. 👍👍👍
Glad I finally got a chance to watch this! Great video! I love the format, and I think we all love the subject matter. I hope you do more like this in the future!
Thanks again for a really great video Stephan. I people with the money can really mess up a project. When those people look at charts to determine where they want a money to go it can hurt it.
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? 🤔
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
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
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. ❤
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.
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.
Your point about needing the main guy to be flawed is so accurate. And that’s why Daniel Craig in Casino Royale is such a great reimagining of James Bond. You go from Pierce Brosnan, flawless and effortlessly cool, to a rugged, fallible Bond in Daniel Craig. And you get a phenomenal movie and one of the best in the long history of 007.
I think the lack of dynamic filmmaking in modern action adventure flicks has something to do with it. Maybe that's because filmmakers are trying to go back to basics because they feel like everything has been done already or they are told they can't by the people holding the money.
One other movie that I feel should have also been brought up here was the Adventures of Tintin, another excellent adventure movie made by Spielberg that genuinely captures the feel of Indiana Jones. The main character Tintin may be presented as a five-star badass that excels at almost anything, yet he is balanced out by the more vulnerable Captain Haddock who is portrayed as a bumbling alcoholic who slowly develops into a better person as the story goes on. In a way, the movie felt like it was centered more on Haddock than the title character himself. That's not to say that Tintin wasn't a vulnerable character at all, though. He had his moments such as being on the receiving end of slapstick a few times, getting the MacGuffins taken from him near the end, and does end up taking the brunt of Haddock's bumbling antics. He even outright declares he's given up before Haddock snaps him out of his funk when his development kicks in. The dynamic that those two characters had was really good. And it's all tied together with great set pieces, animation, and action that absolutely does wear the spirit of Indiana Jones on it's sleeve. Still waiting on that sequel 12+ years later!
Earned a subscription. Also, he succeeds in Temple too, and then willingly gives back the stone. He went to hell looking for fortune and glory, he ascends a new man, as the man saved rather than the savior.
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.
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.
as a women my input on the Jungle Cruise thing is, well for one i haven't watched the movie but hearing you talk about it and knowing the kind of strong woman writing common in big budget things I have to say, like, what if it was more of a struggle? I mean it should be a serious imposition and WHY she has to be so forceful and strong willed to get anything. Her against the world more or less. It feels like it should be something thay chafes and hurts her and honestly if that's how it is in the film that's a decent writing choice because sexism sucks now when it's not wild to have a woman be a scientist. Maybe she also has a hard time letting people in because she has to maintain a tough exterior to be respected also that one scene of her brother you showed was incredible, thank you
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).
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.
Your comments on the "made by committee" productions are much appreciated. Also that brief edit of Always Sunny in Philadelphia was perfect. I've found myself in an unfortunate yet completely comfortable situation where I really can't trust someone's opinion, ethics or priorities if they aren't an Always Sunny fan . . . because of the implication. Lol
I believe Mr. Stephan is right: To make kickass characters relateable you do not even have to give them internal flaws; what works as well is stacked odds against the characters. But then again you need an equally strong motivation for that character and noone can be bothered to come up with something like that. (Btw, I had Pocahontas in mind writing this comment. Never watched the movie though. Does it apply?)
I dont think you got what he was saying at all. In all of the bad film examples, they have the odds stacked against them. It doesn't matter if all they do is win, they should have flaws and those flaws should cause them to lose, of course the odds should be stacked against them, but that's something entirely different.
13:41 Frank should think the Jaguar is domesticated but every time he comes back from feeding it he's covered in claw marks, and he just is way too over confident about it, then it could pay off later with the Jaguar eating a guy. And Frank has to let the Jaguar go, and it bums him out but it's not supposed to be tamed because it's a ton of muscle that wants to be free in the jungle, like a metaphor.
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.
Jungle Cruise is still enjoyable, and I find both Lily and Frank relatable with their flaws, which still matter because it’s part of what has them be them, and the movie shows that there’s nothing wrong with having flaws, especially if other people just don’t like them for whatever reason, because that’s what we all literally go through. Literally every single thing in life It’s always truly going to have at least one person who’s not going to like it no matter what no matter how otherwise it may seem. And I actually like it better than the first 2 Indiana Jones in the mummy overall
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
Love the first three movies, but "Raiders" it's the crown jewel of modern action Adventure cinema! Ask Stephen Sommers, The director of The Mummy, and of all these three gems; Raiders, Temple of Doom, and Last Crusade, he will say the first Indy movie
@@StephanKrosecz You don't know what she means???? So then it's best to take the absolute worst possible interpretation... why exactly?? You did exactly the same thing with your lazy " Indiana Jones is racist " side track. You're not " acknowledging historical racism ", and you didn't make a " brief comment " You're filtering everything through a lens, stripping any nuance, and then using the worst possible interpretation to try to malign a character. It just doesn't ring true, and comes off as an attempt to appeal to an audience. And as for anyone who responded poorly to your amazing insights. Obviously they are bad people, and there's nothing to be learned from them. At least, that's your interpretation.
You're all wrong. If you do some basic research, Lucas wanted her to be 11 or 12 but speilberg wanted to leave it out because he didn't want Indiana hated. She's suppose to be 14 to 16ish which is still young and gross.
@@amckittrick7951 No, sorry, we're discussing the movie. You're trying to bring brainstorming sessions in to it. None of which are on screen. If you take excerpts of creators trying to come up with a backstory or an interesting dynamic, strip it of nuance and assume every line is gospel... then you end up making comments like that. Once again... in the film, you can choose to interpret one line in the worst possible way if you like... but it says more about you than the film.
@Roper122 well, great job you ignored what I said. I said they wanted to cast her in the story as 11 or 12 but dropped that. As for in movie, using her would be age and some simple math she's about 14 to 16 within the context of the movie.
Have you seen the Uncharted fanfilm? That is what the movie should have been. ;_; That feel when a fanfilm manages a cast so spot on you can't believe it's happening - and that's ontop of staying completely true to the emotional experience of the games.
X marks the spot scene in the last crusade is both for showing what Indy see but also as a joke from a scene he had in the classroom where he said that: X never ever marks the spot. Still better than Uncharted movie ;) But nothing will ever top Indiana Jones. Great video essay.
Mark was supposed to be Nate 11 years ago (when this movie was supposed to release) but was delayed time after time, and they moved him up to Sully ig. I was so excited for uncharted and it hurts it sucks
i get the impression that, that version of Sully was written with Bruce Willis in mind, and then somebody convinced somebody that Mark Whalberg was a Bruce Willis type.
I admit I've never seen any Mummy films and have vague memories of Jungle Cruise. I will try to form my own opinion about Dial of Destiny when it comes out because the reviews tend to either be prejudiced or make blanket statements and paint the film as inherently good or bad. I liked Gregory in Jungle Cruise as well because he was written like an actual human being rather than a a vain token to tick boxes.
Oh man I didn't realize it was time for your yearly knowledge drop Edit: you look good with your head shaved. Your head is weirdly perfectly shaped for it. Like what a person would draw. Also props to you for leaving in that scissoring gaff. A lesser man would have definitely cut that out 😂
A big difference is that Spielberg and Lucas made Indy. They are uniquely talented and bring specific perspectives and talents to the table that many others simply lack.
What do you mean by Indy doesn't always get the girl? He sleeps with every woman in the films except his students and Irina Spalko. He slept with Marion so much they had a kid. Oh sure Elsa died, Willie didn't last long, but there is no way you can say he did not "get the girl", even if he didn't keep her. If you include games and books and comics there are tons where he does not, but I thought you were talking about the movies. In the movies, which are to an extent borrowing this from Bond, he absolutely 100% gets the girl, through a combination of his being awesome and engaging then mentally and emotionally, it's not a reward for his saving the day, it's always genuine interest on their part. His attractiveness in this respect is an essential part of the formula, so that statement really stuck out to me and I had to write this essay. Now I'll watch the video, that it's off my mind. Nope, I'm out about halfway through. You do not understand Indiana Jones, and you should not have made this video. Down vote and goodbye.
Literally what?? Elsa only slept with indie to get information out of him. She didn't care, remember she slept with his dad too. Or the girl from Temple of Doom kept pushing indie cause horny when he was distracted by the bigger picture. Her character was mostly nonexistent in that movie.
