Sunday, April 06, 2008

Indaina Jones 4 and the "Reality" of His World

The original "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is an amazing film. I watched it recently and was amazed (all over again) at how smart the movie is, at how well so many of the pieces work together to create such a great movie.

I even caught something that I'd never caught before (I hadn't seen the film in a long time): the idea that Indy starts out the movie as someone who doesn't believe in magic and superstitions and that by the end he fully believes in the power of the Ark. That's his personal journey, his "arc" or the way his character has been changed by the events of the movie.

So understandably the world is excited about the coming of the next Indiana Jones movie. It's funny, everyone seems willing to forget about the more recent two Indy movies and we are all going to pretend that they never existed and that this upcoming one will be a worthy successor to the first one, which, really, is the only movie people ever seem think of when you say "Indiana Jones".

So I hate to be a spoilsport here but there's something about the new trailer that I can't quite swallow and I suppose it's worth talking about because it comes down to a pretty fundamental belief I have about films.

The part of the trailer that sets off alarm bells in my head is the moment when Ray Winstone says "This isn't going to be easy" and Harrison Ford answers "Not as easy as it used to be" (If you haven't seen the trailer, it can be found here or here.

The reason I think this line is troublesome is that it's basically a wink to the audience that refers to the first movie and the fact that the first movie was made over twenty years ago. It's a line that would be meaningless if those first films had never been made and if we weren't all aware of them.

I have a hard time believing that anybody would ever really say that line in that situation. I know people who have aged and have made remarks about their diminished faculties but never at all the way Indy does here, and it's hard to imagine that being the first thing on your mind in the situation that Indiana Jones seems to be in here.

Anyway, my main point is that it's a reference to the first movie and the fact that the character of "Indiana Jones" knows that he exists in movie form, instead of a real character in a real world that exists and once in a while we get to look through a magic screen and spy on him and watch as he has adventures in his world.

It may be hard to see this distinction or see why that matters, I know. Let me try to explain from a different tack:

I've never been a big believer in the approach to film that some people are, that you should sit down and write a biography of your characters and figure out what led them (both emotionally and physically) to the spot they are in when you first see them on the screen. I always felt that it was important to know what they wanted and why they wanted it but I always felt like writing a whole biography for them was a kind of crutch, because you're not going to be showing that part of their life on screen, so to me, writing it down was dangerous because you know it but your audience doesn't, and you might think you're getting all of that on screen, because you've written it all down somewhere, but you're not getting it onscreen unless it's in the script or the storyboards.

So recently I was in a meeting where someone was asking a lot of questions about the characters in the movie I'm working on and we were talking all about the backstory of all of our characters. It was clearly very important to this person and he said, at one point:

"The world of your movie existed before the movie begins, and it will exist after the movie ends."

I have heard that before but never really thought too much about what it means, except that in this specific moment I realized that he was saying that because he wanted the world of our movie to feel real. The reason it's vitally important for the world to feel real is that, unless the world of the movie is real to the characters, you won't ever really believe that they can get hurt, or die, or really fall in love, or that whether or not they ever get what they want really matters at all. And no movie works unless you can believe these things.

I'm not saying that every movie has to feel like reality; not at all. "Toy Story 2" is one of the most emotional movies I've ever seen and yet I know toys don't really get up and talk after everyone leaves the room (well, I'm pretty sure they don't, anyway). Films like "There's Something About Mary" or "Raising Arizona" take place in a strange, cartoony version of our world but I still believes in those worlds, and I always do as long as they seem consistent and they seem real to the characters within it. Movies like "Alien" and "Star Wars" take place in totally alternate universes from ours, but again, if it seems real and consistent to the characters I care about and believe in, I have no trouble buying that those worlds are totally real.

Which brings us back to Indiana Jones. And the reason I am so bothered by the "unreality" of the trailer is that the world of the first movie was so great. It felt so real and so believable and each film since then seems to have dropped the ball on that one completely.

The other moment that really bugs me is when he falls back into the cab of the truck behind him, says "that looked closer" while both he and his enemies look on, dumbfounded, before he regains his composure and punches the person next to him.

There were similar moments like this in the first movie, for sure, but not quite so catoony and unrealistic. In the first film, there would be a physical consequence to something like falling that far and landing on something as unyielding as the cab of a truck. He never would have gone through something like that, had no physical consequence to such an extreme action, and then spouted off a quip while his enemies wait for him to recover.

In fact, in the first movie, all of the humor seemed to come from the fact that Indy was a real guy trying to do extraordinary things and being overwhelmed and confused and scared for most of the time. All of his reactions were humorous but still felt very real. That worked so well, it seemed so funny and it really made you feel like you were following this guy and that you might actually be just like this guy if you went through the same journey. It made you empathize with him and really feel sorry for him when things went badly and root for him to overcome everything.

It's hard to feel sorry for, or emphathize with a guy who's a superhero and never gets hurt or seems to take his peril all that seriously or be afraid of danger, because that's not how I would react in those circumstances, and also if he doesn't seem to care if he survives or not all that much then I sure as hell won't either.

In any case I am sure there are many of you who are thinking "it's just a movie, don't take it so seriously" or "so what if the world of this new movie is different from the world of the first movie"? It's just that the first movie was so great and worked so well, that's it's so frustrating to watch the film makers forget what made the first one so great and squander away what made it work so unbelievably well. I just hate going to the theater and seeing such a pale reflection of something that was once so great, but then again, maybe you will think I'm over-thinking it and aren't movies just about having fun?

Yes, but my favorite movies are ones in which I get an emotional charge out of the experience. And that doesn't mean pulling at your heartstrings or making you cry; it can also mean just putting you on the edge of your seat so that you are scared for a character or just anxious about how the whole thing will turn out in the end. And (to sum up) if the world of your movie doesn't feel like a real place to your characters, then I won't ever really think they can suffer or get hurt or die and I won't really care about how the whole thing turns out.

On a totally unrelated note, I am also concerned that Karen Allen doesn't really appear in the trailer at all. Is she only in the new movie for a scene or two? I hope she gets more to do than that. Marion was one of the greatest film heroines of all time! She was so great and Karen gave such an awesome performance in the first movie, that the actresses of the second and third movie had a giant standard to live up to and obviously neither of them came close. Marion is huge part of what makes the first film work and that's one more example of how the film makers forgot (or didn't realize) what it was about the original that worked so well.

As for those of you wondering how a guy who drank form The Holy Grail and became immortal can still be aging and suffering the effects of advancing years, I don't even know how to begin answering that!

I'm still wondering whatever happened to "Short Round".


Andrew said...

I hate to argue a point with you Mark, but I think you may just be over analyzing the "This isn't going to be easy" / "Not as easy as it used to be" line. I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing for Indy to say, given what we've seen of his character in the past and the fact that his age appears to be a theme in the new movie.

It is of course also a wink at the audience, but George Lucas' movies are filled with little moments like that. Although the Indy movies never actually break down the fourth wall, the movies are meant to be crowd pleasers. I think any double meaning is just a continuation of that tradition.

Beyond that though, I think your thoughts and analysis are, as always, really insightful and much appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Knight: "You have chosen wisely. But the Grail cannot pass beyond the Great Seal. That is the boundary
and the price of immortality."

Kris said...

I think the person who has the Grail has to keep drinking from it to stay immortal, and even then they would still age (the knight was ancient even though he stayed with the Grail and presumably had been drinking from it regularly since the 1500s).

Personally I always loved all three Indiana Jones movies. I thought the point was to be essentially 1930s pulp novels brought to screen--and they all work wonderfully in that regard.

pbcbstudios said...

I heard Indiana Jones dies in the next film and Shia becomes the heir to the Franchise throne -..............


oh wait - i hope I didn't just ruin it for you.

Anonymous said...

We are all children of God. Christ lives and the book of Mormon is another testament of Him. Joseph Smith communed with God and His son, Jesus Christ and he restored His church and is His true church on this earth.

Avram said...

Wait, didn't the first movie have that scene where Indy is dragged under a truck for a while? I thought, all those years ago, that that scene was unrealistic in the same way that you're complaining about the through-the-windshield scene in the trailer.

mark kennedy said...

andrew - it's all a matter of opinion, of course, we will have to see in May for ourselves. I think there are winks that are okay and then there are winks that undo the fabric of the movie...

anonymous - the Grail, yes, put the power of immortality? Wasn't his Father passed the seal, yet the cup healed him anyway? I dunno, somebody check the DVD for a ruling here...

kris - I tend to disagree, again, it's all subjective and tho each his own! Personally, the second and third have too many things that make me cringe, like watching him whine at his Dad in the third installment.

pbcb - if that's an actual spoiler I'm going to pee on you.

anon - so they say.

avram - what I'm saying is that he was dragged under the truck in a much more "realistic" way - he did it out of panic to avoid being crushed and certainly seemed to be flopping around and struggling about it. In that same scene he's shot in the arm and has a very clear reaction to the pain of that. Every time he's punched or hit in the first movie he reacts as though it hurts. Flying back and crashing through the cab of that truck in the trailer, he has no such reaction of any discomfort and seems no worse for the wear.

I could be wrong but I don't think there's anything quite like that in the first one.

Believe me, I knew this would be an unpopular topic.

Marco said...

"everyone seems willing to forget about the more recent two Indy movies and we are all going to pretend that they never existed and that this upcoming one will be a worthy successor to the first one"

You know, the trailer even shows us part two and three, so probably it's you who is willing to forget part two and three but not the majority or the poeople actually producing the movie.

Concerning Indy's comment I believe action movies only work with some tongue-in-cheek humour. Action flics which take themselves too serious mostly end up as the caricature they tried to avoid.

Spielberg, Lucas and Ford will choose wisely how much tongue-in-cheek is appropriate.

Matt J said...

PBCB aint spoilin' nuthin'-Indy doesn't die, he 'll stroll into the alien spacecraft at the end as Shia, Karen & an Incan tribe wave him off into a golden sunset over the Peruvian jungle . . .

THE SIR, James Suhr said...

I agree with what you are concerned about. For years since I've heard about the possibility of a remake I've been worried that this movie (like many other hollywood sequels as of late), would have sequences that all too safe and allow for the proverbial 'wink' at the camera. In its defense though, I say go into the theater thinking that maybe they showed the big, fun, 'get the dorks in the seat' shots, and that they will play up on his being old as a way to keep him real despite having this really outlandish history.

Also, while again I agree with most of your argument whole-heartedly, you did have part I didn't fully buy. It was where you were talking about how Indiana was this normal guy trying to do super-fantastic things, then you didn't like how he was in the trailer acting like 'oh well if this doesn't work'. I'm sorry to say this, but that was his attitude about doing all those crazy things, and his attitude in general about life. That's why he would make those comical cynical remarks when stuff in his life when not quite how he planned them.

Great post! It really stirs up some great discussion

Stephen said...

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Mark. Many of us saw these in the theaters (some of us numerous times) when we were young, and the original films are very special. I partially agree with your concern over the wink-wink type of comments that are sure to be in the new film, along with the obvious pause when Indy crashes through the windshield so he can make a wisecrack before punching out the two drivers. As we learned with "Phantom Menace", you can't live up to the audience's expectations with something like this. Some will love it, just because it continues the story, and others will hate it because it doesn't live up to the originals. It probably won't. But because it's Spielberg and not Lucas, I'm hopeful that it will be done true to the original films and not wallow in nostalgia or have too many old man jokes.

As for the story taking place in the "real" world, remember that the Indiana Jones films were inspired by the old serial films. We were never supposed to take them completely seriously.

christopher said...

I have been watching the trilogy recently and doing some board studies from them and your comments totally ring true to me. I first thought after viewing the trailer was that the new film is just going to be one old man gag after another. Re-watching the older films I realized the silly humor had always been there but in the later films it doesn't seem to work as well.

Also anyone notice how the violence gets toned down. In the first film in the scene in Marion's bar people are shot in the head and burned alive. I'm not for excessive violence or anything but it just seems to echo a change in thinking about the films. Almost dumbing them down and putting more humor in them to appeal to a younger audience?

Another observation I made was about how much Spielberg's directing style changed. In Raiders he uses a lot crazy angles and interesting framing almost like you would find in a film noir but by the Last Crusade his style is much more controlled.

On the grail, I heard that River Phoenix was supposed to become Indiana Jones for another trilogy after Last Crusade and Harrison Ford would become Henry Jones Sr. If this is the case the Grail could have been a set up to explain the change in age?

Personally I still like the third film. Maybe it's because it was the only one I was old enough to see in the theater? I can only hope the fourth is at least as good as Last Crusade.

Pete said...

I’ve been reading your wonderful blog for a while, although I haven’t yet posted - I just wanted to break my silence to say I’m agreement with you.

The concerns you raise about his will smith timed quip "that looked closer" after Indy slams into a front of truck.

When I watched the trailer that was the moment I just winced.

I always felt that what set Indy apart was he got hurt and when a gag occurs mid action - there is that moment of disbelief in his expression ‘did that really just happen?' - and then on with the chase. No cheesy James Bond bow tie straightening quip.

I remember watching Terminator 3 in the cinema (another pointless sequel?) having taken his biker clothes to wear walks out of the bar, and then puts on his elton john specs. Audience erupts in to laughter, hey so it's funny right? Well yes, as a tasteless parody of itself – on repeat viewings it gets more and more cringe worthy.

More importantly it interrupts any sense of reality and totally breaks your suspension of disbelief.

Oh wait it’s just a movie, you’re ‘over-thinking it’ and aren't movies just about having fun? Yes you’re right, lets all go watch Rush Hour 3.

Wink bloody wink.

Josh Cooley said...

I feel exactly the same way Mark.

But don't give up hope. Because we are making assumptions only by viewing the trailer. And I have learned over time that you can never judge a movie by it's trailer and the short lines and shots in it. Maybe those two incidents are the only two small nods to the original. If that were the case, I wouldn't care. I just hope it's not full of nods to the other movies where the characters are practically saying...."Hey remember when I did that? Remember the big rolling ball? Remember the holy grail?" I would like to see this as a continuation of Indy's adventures, not a yearbook of the past 3 movies.

Oh yeah, I hope to see Short Round too.......preferably as the villain in Indy 4.

just kidding. Don't do it George.

Felicity said...

I think you made really valid points. I'm not a fan of these particular movies but - as was the case for me with the Harry Potter series - even if don't care for the genre, if you get drawn into the film's reality and care about the characters, then you are hooked. For those that say it's just a movie, well that dismisses how important entertainment is to us and makes a nonsense of the industry spending millions to bring us quality films.
Tongue in cheek in the Bond films was taken too far when Roger Moore played him but (IMO) worked a lot better for Connery and Brosnan who played him as a more vulnerable, believable character.

k. borcz said...

Marion was always my favorite character when I was little and I wanted to be just like her when I grew up. There aren't too many awesome heroines in movies and I hope she shows up more in this issue of Indiana Jones.

I call it an issue in reference to its base in Pulp Fiction. I think that Indy is such a mythic character that he really is the only one that could say the "this isn't going to be easy..ect." without having the whole audience lose belief in the illusion. I trust the directors, and think that this will be just as action packed and enjoyable (with my popcorn of course) movie as the others.

Jean-Denis Haas said...

Don't forget that Spielberg was a lot younger when he did Jaws, Indy, Close Encounters. etc.

Now he's older and has a family. Speaking from experience, this changes you a lot. Even he said that nowadays he wouldn't have Dreyfuss leave his family in "Close Encounters" because he's a family man.
I wouldn't underestimate how life and experience changes your attitude and in his case film making.

Everybody expects Indy 4 to be just like Indy 1, or even better. This will never happen. People who have never seen Raiders and watch it today, are usually not as enthusiastic about it as the fans who've grown up with it.
Think about it, a monkey saying "Uh oh" and doing the Hitler salute? Ridiculous. But you get used to it over the years.

It will probably be a mix between Raiders and Doom (Raiders being awesome to me and Doom being silly). At least that's what I'm expecting.

I personally can't wait for the score. :)

Robin Hall said...

Hey Mark, generally I just read but don't comment, but I thought I'd put in my two cents on things.

In order for you to remain immortal, I believe you had to keep drinking from the cup, because the water's what makes the cup have it's immortal properties. You can't just hold the cup alone and be immortal. (Man, I really am an Indy geek, I fell in love with him when I was just a girl, haha)

As for the movie, I do most definitely have my doubts about it living up to the original three, but at the same time, it'll be entertainment in itself, whether it's particularly good or not. I just think you're ruining it for yourself, hating it before even giving it a chance... And no matter how good it might be, you'll end up hating it anyways because you'd just imagine it would've been better.

But I do agree with many of your points, I guess I'm just trying to say don't become too bitter that this one feels like a tack-on.

dfernetti said...

Hi Mark
I too felt uncomfortable with the movie trailers. For a different reason, though... Stories about action heroes should not go into the hero old age. Heroic adventures are a thing of youth, and no story about an aged hero can be fun and careless as they used to be. If we accept the idea of Indy being a real being, an intellectual and a man who has seen as many wonderful thingsin his life, we know that in old age he would be wise enough to avoid being tossed into a truck's cabin. For God's sake, the man is Indiana Jones and has the brains to take care of himself better!
Perhaps a fitting story for an older Indiana would have been something more like a detective story, or even perhaps something about becoming better like an old wine. And that's not blockbuster material, ain't it?
Being a fan, I can't expect a good Indiana Jones movie where there's the old cliche of the old girlfriend, the "son of" and so on. Definitely, it was a wise move not to include Henry Jones Sr. in this one, that would have been much, much worse. But I'm sure that some Hollywood producer must have thought on it seriously.

Robert said...

Part of the appeal of Indy 1 was that it was strikingly different from other movies at that time. But there's no way for a sequel to have that going for it.

Well, maybe not. The latest Bond film with that blond guy was strikingly different from previous Bond films. But they had to cast a new Bond to make that break. I don't think audiences would go for a recast Indiana Jones.

Doug said...

Spot on.. I had the exact same reaction when I watched that trailer, it's like they're breaking the fourth wall and yanking you out of the experience to give a little wink and a nudge. NOT needed!

Brad Bird talks about creating believable worlds where characters can get hurt. Because in animation it's even harder to get that reaction from an audience because they have watched cartoon violence with no consequence for 60 or 70 years.

dfernetti said...

I have watched cartoons for a full day -maybe two?- but perhaps 60 or 70 years is too much even for me.

Largent said...

I will happily put away any reservations and watch (and most likely greatly enjoy) the new Indy film, but if I were to pick a better example of what you're talking about in the films, I would go immediately to the scene in Temple of Doom where Indy reinacts the sword guy/just shoots him scene. This time there are two swordsmen and his gun is gone. Temple of Doom is dated prior to Raiders, so he's referencing something that happens in the future!

Melissa H. said...

Thank you! That line in the trailer was bothering me too, and you have put the reasons why into words so perfectly. And you have given me a lot of extra stuff to think about, thanks. But about the holy grail thing, I always understood it as once you past the seal the powers were diminished, so he would still age, just not as fast or as badly. Kind of like the knight they found in the catacombs earlier in the film.

Jenny said...

Hey! I thought "the lips" was your last post, mister! All this great new stuff!
I can't believe you're writing about this, because I've been thinking a lot about the film too. The good film--the first one.

You absolutely nail it and are imho completely correct with your points. This is a huge bugbear with me and why I felt so betrayed and disappointed in "Temple of Doom"(which of course I got up at 3am to go see in that 24 hour opening day marathon the Chinese had...boy, was I ever furious that I lost sleep for that letdown).
Whatever else can be said about it, Kasdan wrote a "real" person in a plausibly real world in "Raiders"-and Steven directed it that way, no nonsense at all. Indy was unselfconscious.

By the second film the entire film universe seemed to be always winking at the audience, which is the kiss of death, really.
Films 2 and 3 got progressively worse in their crowd-pleasing/pandering; look at the great actor(and he truly was-I got to see him on stage in London once)Denholm Elliot: his Marcus is (under)played as an utterly serious friend of Indy's in Raiders--he's key in establishing that Jones exists in a real milieu at a university and has a real life outside the plot of the film. The short scene where Marcus visits Jones at his home is fantastic in establishing mood and expectations of just how dangerous the trip is likely to be--deadly, even. Marcus' demeanor makes it plain that Indy might die and that he's worried about both him and the Ark being recovered at all.

But by "Last Crusade" this urbane, serious, dry-wittted friend's become an embarrassing, bumbling fool akin to Jar-Jar Binks! I was appalled. Another little nail in the believability coffin(one of many by that time).

Of course what everyone in the public at large remembers and talks about with "Raiders" are the so-called "serial", "comic-book", "popcorn-munching", gigantic-ball-chasing set pieces, but if not for the carefully written script and the many quiet, serious moments in the film, #1 would be just what the later films are--a "theme park ride".

But the first one's still so good that you could teach a cinema course using it-which it looks like you're doing a good job of here!

I hope the 4 is great, don't get me wrong. But at SDCC when Steven said to the fans, "We've listened to you and we're going to give you just what you want", well...Paul & I just looked at each other and said "uh oh".

Jenny said...

"As for the story taking place in the "real" world, remember that the Indiana Jones films were inspired by the old serial films. We were never supposed to take them completely seriously."

I have to add something vis a vis this: it's simply untrue.

It's been stated over and over again that the action-adventure serials of the 30s "were for kids", and it's partially true--but not exclusively for kids-they were made for audiences of all ages, and they definitely weren't made as comedies! The old trope that the serials were goofy and "silly" is the take of people from the 60s backwards--the way people of that same era/generation always, always presented all silent films as the Keystone cops or absurd, silly romances with sheiks. Um, no.

The fact is, I've watched both some serials and the other B films that Lucas was thinking of: the Mr. Moto series from Fox starring Peter Lorre, for instance: full of fog, china clippers, mysterious docklands, evil villains...ladies in lame evening gowns and nightclubs with smoky interiors. In all of this was quiet, deadly little white-suited Moto who (courtesy of a stunt double) ruthlessly kills anyone who gets in his way--and he's the "good guy". Watch the best of that kind of film and you'll see direct inspiration for Raiders of the Lost Ark. And yes, the films definitely have a slightly tongue in cheek side--but it's slight and never descends into utter silliness, or if it does to our adult, jaundiced eyes, it doesn't for the characters. Just as in Raiders the characters in the better old adventure films are always playing for stakes that are real to them.

Vanwall said...

Some nice points, by yourself and the comments, M. Kennedy, but I for one was primed for the kind of reality that Raiders needed me to believe in - my parents viewed as dubious my many formative years spent reading pulps, SF/Fantasy, comics, and watching escapist films etc. which only whetted my appetite for this - but when I first read about Raiders before it's release, the first thought I flashed on was "Now they'll do 'Secret of the Incas' with better FX!" It's curious that Charlton Heston just passed - his Harry Steele was a seminal Indiana Jones, costume included, with a tad more adult trappings and and certainly more larcenous, and when Indy used the map room and lit up the secret hiding spot, I had to bite my tongue rather than say something about the same kind of scene "Secret of the Incas"! But I loved it just the same. I was also really jazzed that they recreated the kind of almost-real world, down to some pretty tiny details, and I bought the whole premise lock, stock, and rolling stone.

It was hard to keep that whole aspect watching the sequels, tho - too much nod & a wink, and if this trailer is anything indicative, I hope they keep that to a minimum. I hope Karen Allen gets some significant time onscreen - their character's relationship was also part of the belief process, and they went a long way to making it seem real enough, if you need someone bad enough, for pain and death to happen in their 'real' world.

[Moth] said...

Hi there, Mike.

I'm a newbie on your blog, and I'm really excited about how many things I can learn with your experience and knowledge.

I enjoyed exactly the same way Riders, Doom and Crousade. Actually, Crousade was my favourite, just because is the only one I could see in theaters, as a boy. Imagine my age when i saw the previous films.

I'll argue two points, and try to justify them, maybe with weak arguments:

about "This isn't going to be easy" / "Not as easy as it used to be" line. I don't know if that men who stands next to Indy is as stranger for him as it is for me, or an old friend with whom he lived some adventures before. That will make that line a statement he could say in his real world, and as a plus, a blink to the audience. We even don't know what they're talking about! We'll have to see.

And about that crash in the truck scene... When I first saw it, it really shocked me. I just though: "What?" But! after reading about that holy grail... and assuming he could be aging anyway and still be immortal... he could be more confident about himself, just because he can't die. His immortality now is part of his world.

Just wanted to show that mad arguments. And excuse me if my english is not quite clear... i'm Spanish.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mark,

I agree with your post - well said! I'm not looking forward to any kind of torch-passing, souffle-reheating, audience-winking nostalgia trip. Speilberg better work hard to make LeBouf's character necessary. Please let the movie be smart!

I'm honestly hoping for the Return of Short Round, too. I want Cate Blanchett to be standing over Ford with a gun, about to blow him away saying, "Goodbye, Indy..." and then she gets roundhouse-kicked from offscreen and S.R. enters, saying, "You call him Doctor Jones, doll." That's one nostalgia I'll indulge in.

Anonymous said...

看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,日本料理,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,場地,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,結婚,場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,EMBA,MBA,PMP,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴,漢高資訊,漢高資訊,比利時,比利時聯合商學院,宜蘭民宿,台東民宿,澎湖民宿,墾丁民宿,花蓮民宿,SEO,找工作,汽車旅館,阿里山,日月潭,阿里山民宿,東森購物,momo購物台,pc home購物,購物,手機,手機王,數位像機,衛星導行,GPS,小筆電,機油漢高資訊,漢高資訊,在職進修,漢高資訊,在職進修,住宿,住宿,整形,造型,室內設計,室內設計,漢高資訊,在職進修,漢高資訊,在職進修,住宿,美容,室內設計,在職進修,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,住宿,住宿,整形,整形,室內設計,室內設計,比利時聯合商學院,在職進修,比利時聯合商學院,在職進修,漢高資訊,找工作,找工作,找工作,找工作,找工作,蔡依林,林志玲

Anonymous said...

看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,日本料理,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,場地,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,結婚,場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,場地,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,SEO,廣告,關鍵字,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,網頁設計,網站設計,網站排名,搜尋引擎,網路廣告,EMBA,MBA,PMP,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,EMBA,MBA,PMP,在職進修,專案管理,出國留學,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴,婚宴,漢高資訊,漢高資訊,比利時,比利時聯合商學院,宜蘭民宿,台東民宿,澎湖民宿,墾丁民宿,花蓮民宿,SEO,找工作,汽車旅館,阿里山,日月潭,阿里山民宿,東森購物,momo購物台,pc home購物,購物,手機,手機王,數位像機,衛星導行,GPS,小筆電,機油漢高資訊,漢高資訊,在職進修,漢高資訊,在職進修,住宿,住宿,整形,造型,室內設計,室內設計,漢高資訊,在職進修,漢高資訊,在職進修,住宿,美容,室內設計,在職進修,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,住宿,住宿,整形,整形,室內設計,室內設計,比利時聯合商學院,在職進修,比利時聯合商學院,在職進修,漢高資訊,找工作,找工作,找工作,找工作,找工作,蔡依林,林志玲

GuildWars2Items said...

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take scarlet blade gold, but by the moments that take our breath away scarlet blade gold. I have a simple philosophy: Fill what's empty scarlet blade gold.
Pray for powers equal to your tasks.Then the doing of work shall be no miracle, but you shall be the miracleRunescape Gold, Fear not that the life shall come to an end, but rather fear that it shall never have a beginning rs gold, At twenty years of age, the will reigns; Runescape Gold at thirty, the wit; and at forty, the judgment. What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know.It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.