I got the impression that Spielberg liked MAKING the movie, but not the movie itself (the extras kinda of illustrate that). What they definately DID love, though, was getting a whole crap-load of money for it. :P

@major West
*LOL*

@vance
Right!

It doesn't illustrate anything different about the process than when they made Last Crusade. Just because they had different ideas about what this should be and what that should be, it's happened all before.

I think the people that dislike KOTCS are clinging onto every bare thread they can as ammunition against it. In the hopes that somebody knowledgeable about the films, like me won't come along and point out that it's not exclusive to KOTCS.

@Major West
Well, in THIS case (Skull) they had different ideas about making this movie or not making it.

But it was always clear that the made a part 3.

Clutching at straws again..

Spielberg didn't really like the Macguffin, and only made the film because he felt he owed it to Lucas. It wasn't until they added the family dynamic that his interest perked up. Despite this, he still had a great time making the film, due to the on set camaraderie.

Of course, the only problem for KOTCS haters is that the film I just described is LC. ;)


The trouble for most fans is that they are perpetually stuck in the mindset Spielberg had in 1981. They want every film to be approached with the same seriousness as ROTLA. But the reality is that the Indy sequels have always meant something different to Spielberg. After ROTLA, he felt he had already said everything there was to say. So the films became more of a guilty pleasure for him than anything else- as well as a chance to reunite with old friends.

He wasn't that excited about directing TOD, and nearly relegated himself to producer when the script wasn't ready in time. Lucas was afraid of losing him as director, and had to urge the writers to pick up the pace.

And Spielberg has repeatedly said he only made LC because of his promise to Lucas, and to make up for what he perceived as a disappointing film (TOD). He didn't think the Holy Grail was an interesting Macguffin, and it took Connery as Indy's dad to even get him excited about the project. Even then, he purposely tried to frame the movie as the final entry, because he wanted to move on from the series.

So it's definitely clutching at straws to try and argue that Spielberg didn't want to make KOTCS, since he didn't really want to make any of the Indy sequels! If fans had been online back in 1984 or 1989, I'm sure they would've tried to use his candid remarks against those sequels as well.

Regardless, there's no denying he clearly enjoyed making KOTCS. He says he formed a strong friendship with Harrison Ford that had never existed before, and is even willing to direct further installments of the series. It's kind've hard to spin a negative conspiracy theory out of that, no matter how hard you try. Spielberg already cites LC as his favorite Indy film, and it wouldn't surprise me if he ranks KOTCS much higher than TOD (or even ROTLA for that matter).

In the special features, Spielberg mentions more times than many can count that he disliked the Macguffin that Lucas came up with. It's like he was trying to tell the audience "it's not my idea." He kept telling George he didn't want aliens in Indiana Jones but then GL told him that "they aren't aliens, they're inter-dimensional being that look like aliens." Spielberg found that more fascinating and decided to go along with it.

Very reminiscent with Temple of Doom.

I don't think the issue was ever the Macguffin. In fact, I'd argue that the crystal skull is one of the best yet. Also, the original premise that Lucas put forward was a lot more alien centric a la 'Independence Day'. And whilst there is absolutely nothing wrong with a modern movie about a 1950's academic/adventurer battling Martians etc., I don't think Spielberg/Ford (and many here), wanted that to specifically be an Indiana Jones movie.

KOTCS was the best possible balance for me… as it was still grounded in the sensibilities of the original movies, but was obviously a concept more fitting to a 21st century auience. And whilst I think the natural fit for Indiana Jones will always be with religious relics of Judo-Christian origin, KOTCS demonstrated that the initial concept can be pushed in other directions… and that those other avenues are worth exploring.

I've explained why they are flawed indicators:

1. They primarily offer the opinion of a select demographic.
Case in point: IMDB's rating is heavily skewed towards 18-29 year olds.

2. They are measuring public opinion 20-30 years after the fact.
All this logically tells us is that KOTCS will likely be remembered far more fondly 20 years from now.

If you were interested in being objective, you'd recognize that there is no Indiana Jones film that is unanimously considered the "worst". Even some of KOTCS' biggest critics failed to rank it 4th in the series. It was far more common to see it criticized as "3rd best" than worst, since TOD and LC still have their share of detractors.

Bear in mind, none of this is an attempt to convince you to change your opinion of KOTCS. It's just pointing out why online polls are hardly conclusive. You were obviously deeply disappointed by the film, and are more than welcome to those feelings. By all means, nurse them for the next 20 years if you must. As for the rest of us, we now have 4 Indiana Jones films to enjoy. :hat:

Spielberg enjoyed the film and making it. He stated that he didn't want to do the film originally (like 10-15 years ago) because it was overtly alien with spaceships firing lasers & stuff and because he had made Close Encounters and ET (he hadn't gotten to War of the Worlds yet so he obviously lightened up on "no aliens"). They all said that once the skull was tied to Conquistadors and El Dorado and other myths (like Ancient Astronauts) that they agreed and liked the film because it fit with true archeology. As far as I'm concerned aliens are no more silly than God.

To this day Spielberg apologizes for TOD and states it's his least favorite (yes, more then KOTCS), does that mean it sucks and isn't and Indy movie? I love TOD and it has a lot more of Lucas' sensibilities.

@james
Well, I have to say I'm very happy that "the world" hates this movie so much. All these indicators (imdb, rottentomatoes, empiremagazine) show this: Even "South Park" is a kind of indicator.

I'm happy about it because it shows how much "the world" loves Indiana Jones. And if you really love it you can not accept this movie. ... :D

Do you suffer from some sort of disorder? Or is it that any intelligence on your part is being lost in translation? ;)

At this point… I’m actually unsure as to whether you just don’t get it, or whether you do, and you are just having a laugh…

@darth Vile
Don't get what?

You don't get the points that are presented back to you by others on these boards...

Presented back? Me? That's not right!

Mod note
 

Don't freak out - though I usually post these only when I see something I don't like I'll make an exception this time, as I must applaud you folks.

After skimming through the last few pages I saw stuff that would no doubt cause frustrations in some people, yet I see no signs of an argument that's going to get too hot to handle. Makes me glad to see that you guys here are smart enough not to get upset over something that's mostly a matter of opinion.

Keep it up, gang.

@Finn
Thanl you for this! Your welcome! :D

I'm beginning to think the concept of a "demographic" may just be getting lost here. Then again, for most fanboys, the sources you list do represent much of their world view.

But as I said, none of my points are attempts to change your opinion of the movie. I'm happy for those that were disappointed, and encourage them to still be nursing those feelings years from now. By all means, don't just dwell on films that make you unhappy, but allow this mentality to extend to every part of your life. ;)


I tend to always suspect the latter...but maybe that's just me giving the benefit of the doubt? I kind've hope some of the detractors are just kidding around, and aren't really that obsessed over the film.

Getting back to the subject of Kaminski and Spielberg, I don't know if once again it has something to do with watching KOTCS at home in the comfort of my living room, but the glaring differences between his style and Slocombe's just wasn't as jarring! Yeah there are still certain scenes which greatly differ from Slocombe's look, not to mention the films color palette is not nearly as warm, but instead cooler with a metallic feel, but overall the film's look didn't bother me as much. Some of the haziness needs to go for sure, but the overall feel of an Indy film is intact! There's definitely something to be said about taking time in between viewings, and the difference between a theatrical experience and a home theater one!

That's called "trolling", by the way, and it has a tendency to make person a subject of forced removal.

So it's a tough choice with one to be; a moron or a troll...

100% agree... Even as someone who enjoys the movie, some distance has allowed me to re-evaluate both the good and the bad.

Not trying to bring up a dead thread, but damn that was fun to read!
:whip:

DarthVile,
When I saw the film I only saw the bad. After watching it 1,123 times since the DVD, I see alot more good than bad.

That’s good to read Dr. Jonesy.

I think everyone who still hates the movie circa 12 months on, will probably always hate it. I think some of those who love it, in retrospect and after multiple viewings, may just end up liking it a lot. I think those that at first felt indifference/disappointment, will probably now appreciate it simply for being just another slice of Indiana Jones.

My view has been fairly consistent... in that KOTCS, why certainly not the best Indy movie, is certinaly not the worst i.e. it's a "solid/good" action/adventure. My appreciation/enjoyment of the movie was, and always has been tinged with slight regret that… A) They didn't make it when Ford was 10 years younger (so we could have had a modern trilogy). B) They tried too much to keep it to the Indiana Jones formula of the 1980's (so it’s therefore somewhat old fashioned). And that regret it mostly reflective of me than it is of the actual movie itself.

Spielberg and Kaminski
 

sorry- wrong entry. deleted by editor

A) They didn't make it when Ford was 10 years younger (so we could have had a modern trilogy). B) They tried too much to keep it to the Indiana Jones formula of the 1980's (so it’s therefore somewhat old fashioned). And that regret it mostly reflective of me than it is of the actual movie itself.

This is my biggest complaint/regret as well. I enjoyed Crystal Skull very much, and I wish that from 98 to 08 we would have gotten a new trilogy illustrating Indy's actions in WWII and so forth...