posted
I hear a lot of radio talk shows mention the phrase "jump the shark". For those that don't know, "jumping the shark" is when a show does something so dumb and out of character it is never the same again (at least that's how I see it).
I hear it used by, usually, sports talk show hosts that try to venture off into other discussions. They use "jump the shark" when they really mean, "the show sucks now". There is a difference. I've heard it overused so much lately that I think the phrase will never be the same to me again. So, I think the phrase "jump the shark" has jumped the shark.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, saying that "jump the shark" has jumped the shark jumped the shark over a year ago.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read some fan justification for the "Nuke the Fridge" by saying that Indy's drink from the Holy Grail has given him a fair amount of lingering regeneration abilities.
When I saw IJATLC as a kid, I thought Indy was immortal from that point on, so I can get behind that. However, the other parts of the movie that sucked...
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I never knew where that phrase came from. My use of pop culture terminology will now be so much more self aware!
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no particular thoughts on the Motherboy episode. But I do think AD continued to be hilarious right through to the end of season 3. In fact, some of my favorite episodes of all time were in season 3, particularly the "tiny town" and jetpack episode.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Godric: It's the episode where Henry Wrinkler's character jumps a shark.
I agree - great series all the way through.
This thread has been enlightening in so many ways!
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I liked the new Indy movie, but maybe because I never seen the previous ones thus I didn't set for it the impossibly high expectations the rest of you put in it.
IP: Logged |
posted
That's funny see I always envisioned the metaphor as somebody riding an idea long enough for it to turn dangerous (like a shark). The fans expect you to keep churning out fresh new brilliant ideas in the same universe and when you finally break out people call it jumping the shark. Sorta like Jefferson's metaphor of riding a tiger, it's so mad you're riding it, but getting off isn't an option because then it will get you.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That's funny see I always envisioned the metaphor as somebody riding an idea long enough for it to turn dangerous (like a shark). The fans expect you to keep churning out fresh new brilliant ideas in the same universe and when you finally break out people call it jumping the shark. Sorta like Jefferson's metaphor of riding a tiger, it's so mad you're riding it, but getting off isn't an option because then it will get you.
Man was I way off.
I like this explanation much better.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't like it when some people all of a sudden take it upon themselves to declare popular, useful phrases as trite and old. Initially, when a phrase or word is fairly new, the early users get cool points for being the first to use it as part of everyday, normal language. Then when the phrase loses the freshness and novelty that bestow these cool points, some people try to earn further cool points by trying to become the first people who reject the coinage. They proceed to announce their rejection as loudly possible while never missing the opportunity to signal contempt for the rubes who continue to use the phrase. Caught between the early adopters and the inevitable rejectors are the people who take up the world/phrase because they find it to be a useful expression of a phenomenon or idea that would require more words to capture. The intention of this thread, then, is destructive, and we must resist it at all costs.
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I really don't like it when some people all of a sudden take it upon themselves to declare popular, useful phrases as trite and old. Initially, when a phrase or word is fairly new, the early users get cool points for being the first to use it as part of everyday, normal language. Then when the phrase loses the freshness and novelty that bestow these cool points, some people try to earn further cool points by trying to become the first people who reject the coinage. They proceed to announce their rejection as loudly possible while never missing the opportunity to signal contempt for the rubes who continue to use the phrase. Caught between the early adopters and the inevitable rejectors are the people who take up the world/phrase because they find it to be a useful expression of a phenomenon or idea that would require more words to capture. The intention of this thread, then, is destructive, and we must resist it at all costs.
Rants like this have so nuked the shark.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really didn't care for the new Indy movie at all, so the fridge nuking didn't really bother me. It would have bothered me if it was standing out as the single unacceptable implausibility in an otherwise good movie. I suspect my enjoyment of the earlier films has something to do with seeing them as a young person who didn't bother trying to criticize any movies he saw, though.
Blayne, you've given an excellent example of making sense of something that makes no sense at all when you don't understand a reference. And it's a pretty good rationalization, too. I'd like to see you take on the lyrics to a Pearl Jam song.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I suspect my enjoyment of the earlier films has something to do with seeing them as a young person who didn't bother trying to criticize any movies he saw, though.
I think this is key. For both the new Indy as well as the new Star Wars films, I think the negative fan reactions far outweigh any actual decline in quality. Most or all criticisms that can be laid against the new movies could, if one stripped away the nostalgia and wiped the rose off one's glasses, be said for the originals as well.
Particularly, implausible events re: Indy and terrible dialogue re: Star Wars.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I really didn't care for the new Indy movie at all, so the fridge nuking didn't really bother me. It would have bothered me if it was standing out as the single unacceptable implausibility in an otherwise good movie.
I hadn't watched the original films in some time, and I forgot the attitude which I should have been watching the film. I really disliked the first part of the film, because I was looking for a modicum of realism. Then there was the nuking of the fridge incident. That made me remember that I shouldn't even be looking for a smidgen of realism, and from then on I more or less enjoyed the film.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I liked the new Indy movie, but maybe because I never seen the previous ones thus I didn't set for it the impossibly high expectations the rest of you put in it.
Yeah, no kidding. Even seeing the second one will make you realize how much the last one sucked.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, the only Indiana Jones movie that is actually good is the third one. It managed to transcend the total ridiculousness of the first two (imo, they are ridiculous and fit in very well with the fourth).
I think the third movie moved the goalposts of the movie franchise for most Indiana Jones viewers. In our brains we have this higher, more serious, more intelligent standard for the movies, whereas the reality of the Indiana Jones movies is much, much lower. Those making the movies are more intimately aware of the ridiculousness of this series.
I read a released part of a early, early script for the 2008 movie in around 2005 or something. It was pretty terrible. Don't remember how much it was the same as the 2008 one, but I was shocked at how bad it was-- dialogue and plot.
I feel like this is actually where Indiana Jones is actually at. The third movie was a fluke, which somehow managed to come together in a way that, despite high-speed motorcycle chases, managed to get above the sum of its parts. The Holy Grail gave the movie undue weight and epicness that wasn't actually there in the minds of the creators.
Given the creator is George Lucas, I do not think we can be particularly surprised. It is pretty clear that Lucas is not a good storyteller or writer as a matter of course and can only capture our imaginations by mistake. Lucas succeeds because he uses epic stories-- everything else is a vast amount of corniness which people who can carry a bit of weight have to pull down as much as they can. In The Last Crusade, the subject matter (Holy Grail and Nazis, two very weighty subjects, combined with the "young Indy" aspect as well as the semi-realistic Jones-as-professor opening), Harrison Ford and Sean Connery managed to weigh the film down enough to keep its feet on the ground.
Lucas, I regret to say, probably didn't know what happened in that third movie. He merely regarded it as one of the same as the other two). He merely kept going with the apparently winning formula.
But the apparently equal bits of story (we had "life-stuff" in Crusade, we should have "life stuff" in Crystal Skull) didn't carry the same weight- Shia LaBoef does not carry the same weight as Sean Connery. Add aliens, and you lose all semblance of seriousness that, for example, child slavery could bring in One or Two (I forget which one that was).
The movie wasn't terrible though. Aside from the ridiculous fridge episode and the Totally Unneccessary Groundhog that just drove that scene right into the ground, it was a reasonably decent Indiana Jones movie-- it was just one that should be viewed on the same level as the first two movies, rather than the splendid and more serious Last Crusade.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: In my opinion, the only Indiana Jones movie that is actually good is the third one. It managed to transcend the total ridiculousness of the first two (imo, they are ridiculous and fit in very well with the fourth).
All else aside (and there's a lot):
Relic of Judaism. Relic of Hinduism. Relic of Christianity. Relic of... Aliens.
>singing< One of these things is not like the other...
I'd make a vote for the first movie being pretty good; certain scenes (sword vs. gun, coat hanger, snake pit) border on the iconic. The second one had a screechy, borderline useless female lead and a karate-kicking Asian kid sidekick.
I'd say it's like the Star Trek movies in reverse, but I'm not really wanting to give them a fifth movie to prove or disprove the point.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
