Yeah, I'm distorted because I feel I should be confused, and I'm not. MM thinks the movie should be a failure. Laga says it wasn't.

Cool.

Now, if MM says the movie was a failure, or Laga says it shouldn't be, then things are weird.

Okay, kidding on the latter.

Mostly.

Now, if MM says the movie was a failure

connie did. That's what started the whole tankapalooza.

I was curious as to how it was doing a couple of weeks out and was too lazy to look up the numbers myself.

Oh, I see! I didn't think anyone still thought it tanked, though. Did you?

like too many summer tentpoles it was a critical failure and a financial success. I feel a little guilty for liking it but my Indy love is indelible.

I didn't think anyone still thought it tanked, though. Did you?

I've heard so many people say they were disappointed in it, I was wondering what word of mouth was doing to its run. I guess Indy trumps weird 50's style commies and sci-fi.

I'm waiting for the dollar movie, but then I usually do.

weird 50's style commies

But...they should be '50s-style Commies. Because the movie takes place in the '50s.

I liked it. I dig that 50s cheese.

But it's weird for Indy. When I think Indy, I think Nazis. He should have run into the Boys in Brazil. He was in South America anyway.

It may be that the commies are too modern, too real a foe. Nazis, for all the modern skinheads and all, are safely in the past and easy to cast in the role of evil. Plus it's easy to have the Nazis hunting for magical/religious items, since they were more or less doing it anyway. Commies (I hate using that term, it's the easy shorthand of reactionaries) are too technological, their weapons are the space race and nukes. Indy's weapons are his whip and his knowledge of history and mysticism. They don't blend well, in my mind.

MM may not have perfected the teleporter but obviously his reality-distortion field is doing just fine

To clarify: I thought it should have tanked. I am aware that it didn't.