well to tell you honestly , i have only read some of the posts here on the subject.
i like dark knight, but not as much as i liked kotcs , that summer i saw kotcs 5 times and watched dk once, the dark knight was a good movie movie but i thought is was better than batman begins , both were long, drawn out movies.
i took kotcs as what it was and like the other indiana jones films were, a popcorn movie. it was meant to be light hearted and fun ,something not to be profound.
people can find something to argue about both films and all they want to do is complain about something , that is the way people are and have always been .
people may say that i may be dumb for liking kotcs. but it had enough action in it for my tastes, did it have some stupid stunts ? of course it did , like marion driving down a rubber tree? having mutt swing from far away to meet up with the jeep and duck to finally get the skull back ?
temple of doom had the jumping out of a plane witha boat thing , impossible , yes! but did we like it , yes!
i have seen the dark knight a few more times , i think it still an ok movie .but i like daredevil better than dark knight!
their will be always different tastes for different people .
was there a conspiracy that dark knights fans had against indy , maybe , maybe not .but is it something to worry about? no.
so just enjoy your movies and smile :D

Not particularly Kongisking. I have nothing against the actors, I just thought the entire tone of the movie was all rather self righteous... and the notion of moral conflict, which I felt was being spoon fed the audience, was all very obvious and predictable (IMHO).

Indeed. Of course, Nolan does seem to have one of the more structured, formalist approaches to storytelling around, as exhibited most strongly by his approach to dreams.

I like the Batman movies, not least because they're an attempt at popular cinema with some content, but the second one in particular is rather stifling. And most of the fun of Inception was its heist film nature.

So, yeah, while I have some measure of respect for his work, I'd much rather pop Crystal Skull into the old DVD player.

I'm reminded of the critic who praised TDK as a well-made film, while also noting it wasn't "anybody's idea of fun". (I want to say it was a reviewer from Time, but I'm not certain.)

Anyway, I wouldn't say Batfans were responsible for the hate, but I have always felt TDK/KOTCS represented a clear generational divide. The former was the kind of experience that kids who grew up online- and the adults that have tried to preserve their childhoods there- have come to crave in their films. It was realistic (sic), overly-serious, lengthy, and just itching to be analyzed and dissected for weeks online. Very much a left-brain affair.

KOTCS was the total opposite: A playful, right-brain monster that would've been far more at home in an over-the-top decade like the 1950s or 1980s. The stunts were implausible, the script was lightweight, and the ideas were almost as silly as a giant, walking marshmallow or a basketball-playing werewolf that just wants to be accepted for himself. Perhaps worst of all, it broke the very rules that aspiring filmmakers had been taught in film class to always obey.

There's plenty of room for both approaches, but for me, KOTCS is the more enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours. At the end of the day, it delivers the kind of escapism that attracted me to the character of Indiana Jones in the first place. By comparison, Batman didn't become my favorite superhero because criminals had a greater chance of winning the lottery than actually encountering him in a dark alley.

Agree 100% James. Enjoying the movies isn't mutually exclusive (you can enjoy/appreciate both), but as you state (and regardless of flaws), KOTCS is a lot closer in spirit to the originals, and the original Star Wars movies, than Batman is. That's why this particular Indy movie engages me a lot more than the current crop of superhero/action movies. The last Star Trek movie (or Sherlock Holmes movie) come close to capturing that same spirit/tone. Sure, I can see that TDK is more thoughtful and there is a "realistic" aesthetic to the script, direction and acting... but where is the escapist fun that the Indy and Star Wars movies represent?

Why does that escapism have to be present? Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is an amazing film, but you don't leave it with a smile.

"Escapism" doesn't have to be present... but for me, neither does a movie have to present you with moral dilemma's, dark subtext, conspiracy theories, 'gritty realism' or violence in order for me to deem it 'good' or with merit. Singing in the Rain, A Night At The Opera, It's A Wonderful Life, Indiana Jones and Star Wars sit proudly alongside the likes of The Godfather, There Will Be Blood and 2001: ASO in my collection. I can enjoy them all equally without thinking the less serious ones are of lesser significance. That was my point. :)

It's a Wonderful Life is escapism? :confused:

I get your point, I suppose, but now that's a movie that's compellingly dark and depressing, pulling out of that tailspin just in the last reel.



And I actually don't know that I would go this far. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was, quite self-consciously, trying to say something about both knowledge and communism, from the looks of it, or at least be suffused with more references to either than was actually necessary. In the latter case, it's the army ants and the hive mind of the skeletons, and in the former...well, as I've said previously, has there ever been a...ah, hell, I'm just gonna quote my own post...

Contradictory? Never!

No, I'd agree with that. My above intention was to simply place both films into a very generalized category.

Ironically, if released during the 80s, CS' attempts to add a little something extra would've likely resulted in an improved reputation over the past 20 years. Just think of how the darker themes in Return of the Jedi or even the simplistic hero's redemption of Temple have helped those films overcome similarly inane handicaps.

For all the lighter moments, Indy does confront a great deal of loss in CS: His friends, family, career, country, etc. He's even forced to acknowledge a life that could've been, in the form of Marion and Mutt. Those are all elements the average fan can easily identify with- much like the estranged father-son relationship of Crusade.


I do get the sense they attempted to overcomplicate* the traditional formula a bit, perhaps after realizing how much tastes have changed during the past two decades. (*Obvious examples being the MacGuffin's murky history or Mac's uncertain motivations.)

It could also stem from something we as fans have a tendency to overlook- the fact that all of these "nostalgia trips" (ie. Indy, Rambo, Rocky, Die Hard, the possible Ghostbusters 3, etc.) are largely unnatural for the talents involved. The directors and actors hail from a time where the hero outgrew his iconic role and passed it on. In addition, there's the natural self-consciousness of trying to relive your past- especially in a franchise you had publically vowed to never re-visit.

When viewed in that context, it's quite remarkable that any of these recent sequels have managed to tap back into the spirit of the originals.

I do remember a lot of Dark Knight discussion in these forums. I'm pretty sure its box office figures were also used to put down Skull. I wouldn't say the hate for Skull was due to Dark Knight’s supporters at all, but there certainly seemed to be a correlation.



This is an absurd statement.

It could be as simple as just enjoying the character of Indiana Jones more than Batman. To me, The Dark Knight fails to live up to its own rules. If you want to be taken seriously, then don't pack your movie with a zillion plot holes. The entire second half of the movie is littered with characters making one dumb or illogical decision after another.

1) Two-Face NOT shooting the murderer of his love. Instead, he goes after Gordon (?!)
2) Batman going out of his way to avoid killing the Joker.
3) The Joker escaping from jail. Because you need a cop to guard someone who is inside a locked room?
4) Batman taking the fall for Two-Face’s death when it could have just as easily been blamed on the mob boss or it could have just as easily been left as an unsolved murder.

The problem with those decisions is they exist solely to set up a potential sequel. The so called moral questions in the film fall flat for me as well. I don’t know what’s wrong with killing evil people. Sorry, but the character of Batman in this film is not the type of hero that I wish to spend time with. I mean, how horrible of an ending would it have been if in TOD Indy tried to save Mola Ram from falling? Or warned all the Nazi to cover their eyes in Raiders?

It's a pretty uplifting movie and very fairytale like... but when compared to other movies of the mid 1940's e.g. The Big Sleep, The Postman Always Rings Twice, Brighton Rock etc. (those are just off the top of my head) I'd have thought Capra's movie could be viewed as a little 'lightweight' in comparison. Indeed, I believe It's A Wonderful Life was considered to be a flop when it first came out; and recognition/appreciation grew over time (rightly so). However, if it's not a suitable example we can scrub and replace with another one... ;)

Bat-fans were justifiably frustrated...

I don't see how the two things have any kind of real connection. Indy 4 as we all know is not as good as most Indiana Jones fans wanted it to be. TDK, by comparison, was (to most Batman fans) exactly the kind of Batman movie they wanted.

And that's about all there is to it.

I personally love the character of Batman and perceived TDK as a wonderful representation of the character and blend of the comics to live action film with a fresh take on the Joker (whether you like it or not it was different). I also personally love the character of Indiana Jones and felt that KOTCS wasn't as true to the spirit of the original films which defined that character that I just said I love. So basically this paragraph is repeating the top paragraph. And once again we arrive at...

That's about all there is to it.

Correct, No Ticket.:up: There is no connection other than both films were released the same year. (and were comics, blah, blah, what else is new) That said...Superhero fans have a VERY LOUD VOICE on da intranetses!:down:

One particular Ravenhead (WK4F) tried to champion the fact that Indiana Jones was the same as Batman because he had an alternate identity!!! What a bunch of bulls*t.:sick:

Ahhhhh, I actually agree with WillKill. "Dr. Henry Jones Jr." and "Indiana Jones" are very much dual identities. "Dr. Jones" is Indy's Clark Kent, and "Indiana Jones" his Superman. Now, what needs to be asked is, which is the true Henry Jones Jr.? The hero or the scientist?

I think it's a reasonable argument to state that perhaps the tone of TDK, given its overall popularity, underlines KOTCS (and the Indy movies in general) lightheartedness. In comparisson (regardless of wether one prefers one over the other), TDK seems a much more dark, somber and serious movie... and maybe it gives us a sense of what KOTCS should have been trying to achieve in terms of tone and scope???

Personally, I was more dissapointed by TDK than I was by KOTCS. I'm not arguing that TDK isn't a good movie (although I think it's inferior to Batman Begins and Tim Burton Batman), but for me it was far too overblown and pompous.

Simple - The Dark Knight towers above KoCS as a film. It's in a diffeent league altogether.

I think we're clutching at straws if we think the 'hate' against KOTCS was the purely the doing of Batman fans.

I aren't a fan of these comic book superhero movies at all, I can count on one hand the ones I thought were good, but I enjoyed TDK much more than KOTCS.

Even as a huge fan of Indy I was very disappointed with KOTCS. I tried to like it all but there was too much wrong with it for me, and it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the hate was coming from movie goers who were fans of the original trilogy that felt let down by KOTCS.

Love ya, Kong, but I gotta disagree.:)

When Indiana Jones wears his 'adventure outfit':

- People still call him, Dr. Jones. They don't call him, Whipman.
- He doesn't hide his face like many superheroes do.
- He doesn't have a secret lair.
- He doesn't have a logo on his chest.
- He wears normal clothes. He doesn't dress up in colourful, full-bodied underwear & prance around in Peter Pan boots.
- He doesn't speak with a different voice like the stupid Dark Knight does (nor talk to people who know his 'secret' with the dumb, alternate voice like the stupid Dark Knight does).
Yes, it towers. "The Dark Knight" is a towering pile of sh*t.:sick:
Hi, Andy. Not "purely" but it's evident that they were a factor (here at the Raven in 2008, anyway, where the most prominent & vicious "Skull" bashers were rabid fans of The Clown Movie).

True it was evident here when KOTCS came out, which I found odd on an Indy forum, where you would think the majority of fans would be die hard Indy fans. But the percentage of people on here in comparison to those bashing it all over the world is minute.

But is it being suggested that the Batman fans were bashing Indy as they saw it as competition? To me the 2 types of movie are different and I thought would not draw necessarily the same audience.

You are probably right about the rest of the world but I don't read about the hate outside of The Raven, nor do I personally know anyone who passionately HATES the film to the degree of the superhero wankers. (There were folks who joined here simply in order to bash the new Indy movie while praising the new Batman movie and then they disappeared, never heard to be heard from again.) The general, movie-going public probably won't invest as much time & effort in displaying their disappointment to the level of someone who walks around wearing a Wolverine T-shirt.
The competition issue is anybody's guess. Who knows? Whatever it is, the worst, vitriolic bashing seems to be deeply rooted within the comic-book-nerd demographic.
I absolutely agree with you, Andy. Indeed, they are different types of movies but (using The Raven as an indicator) it appears that they do draw the same audience. When I joined here in 2005, there was barely any discussion about superheroes (almost none at all). In the Off-Topic sections, the crowd was more interested in talking about adventure films, adventure novels and globetrotting.:up: AFTER "Skull" was released, the superhero content started spreading like wildfire to the point where this place was becoming a Batman board love-fest.:down: Since that time, many new members have joined and some of them ONLY talk about movies based on superhero comics.:rolleyes:

It's clearly the best film ever and Heath Ledger was the best actor of all time :rolleyes:

And, I still haven't seen it! :p

However, there is a bit of duality between his Henry Jones, Jr. persona and his adventurer persona. He takes pride in being an IMMINENT ARCHAEOLOGIST and as we've seen in ToD and KOTCS, he doesn't at all appreciate being branded a "grave robber". On campus and in professional life, he's a mild mannered, glasses wearing Professor who gets embarassed when a female student expresses an attraction to him. In the field, he's a rugged, unshaven, two fisted, cursing womanizer. It isn't quite as clear as Batman or Superman, but I would say there is a bit of difference between "Indy" and "Dr. Henry Jones, Jr."

He technically doesn't wear "normal clothes". While the leather jacket, khakis, shirt and whip aren't the same as a cape and whatnot, they're also not an ensemble that was common to the average 1930s American (Willie even comments on this, sarcastically asking if Indy is supposed to be a lion tamer). For whatever reason, Indy chooses to wear a VERY specific outfit when he goes out into the field or on an adventure, much like a superhero wears his/her costume when they are doing their thing.

Outside of the secret lair, he is in some ways like Zorro. Diego de La Vega, like Dr. Henry Jones, is the man you--at first glance--would least expect to be a dashing hero; You wouldn't expect the foppish de La Vega to be a suave and cunning swordsman; likewise, you wouldn't expect the tweed and bow tie wearing, neat and orderly professor to be a mercenary for hire archaeologist. Both don't conceal their voice. Both have 'help'--Indy had Marcus to make his adventures look like legitimate expeditions; Zorro has Bernardo.

Also, not all superheroes wear logos on their chest.

Like I said, there are SOME similarities; It is clear Lucas and Spielberg were going for a certain level of a Superhero-esque duality.

They are good points Raiders12345 but Indy's outfit seems to ride a fence in that yes it is recognisable because it is a bit unusual but as Deborah Nadoolman said (and she put it together), it was to be an 'every man's image'. And Indy's character was never meant to be a super hero, in fact he was a bit of an antihero with many dubious qualities, past and present. Everyone wanted to be like Indy and felt it was possible to be so. I can get around in Indy gear in many normal situations, but not so in a Superman's outfit, not that I have one of those.

im not hip on all the "nerd" type things such as "this group hates this one" or "this is why this movie works and this one dont"..I dont keep up with any of the clubs or any such thing.

SO why in the world would batman fans hat an Indy movie? ALSO I love KOTCS..Seen it 2x in theater with my boys "they loved it"..and bought it day one and have seen it probably 20x..Its an incredible epic journey to me..love it..

I don't think they would per se. I'm a Batman fan as well as an Indy one. However, I think there is a certain demographic who are easily swayed by what appears to be 'hip', 'trendy' or otherwise... and I think it's that demographic we're really talking about rather than Batman or Indy fans (although of course it's not mutually exclusive).

This is what I was trying to articulate to my buddy Stoo. You did a better job than I did.

And also Stoo, could you possibly tone down the Dark Knight hatred? Dare I say it's a little disheartening to see someone who champions the rights of a film like KOTCS so readily mocking a film like TDK? Or perhaps hypocritical? Don't worry, I'm something of a hypocrite myself, so I'm not judging you for it. But puh-leese, stop tearing one of my other favorite films a new a-hole!

Don't make me do Bambi-eyes, man! :D

No, they aren't good points.:down: Will explain why later...but...one of the reasons includes what you said here:
Ha ha!:D This reminds me of a Halloween party back in college. An avid comic book dork showed up in a crotch-hugging, Spiderman costume that his sister made. His belly was hanging out and his whiskers were poking out of the mask...It was an embarassing, pathetic sight. The guy eventually took off the costume and changed into NORMAL clothes! Thank G_d.
Neither was I. Before joining The Raven. I wasn't hip to the "nerd" scene either. Stick around and you'll find out how geeky some members can be.:eek: (No offence intended!:cool:)
I partially agree with you, Darth. However, it seems that much of the vitriolic HATE (here at The Raven) comes from people in their late 20s and early 30s who also happen to be fans of comic book superheroes. (This is not a fact but simply my own observation.)
Raiders191873491378913079873468 did a poor job. Will explain later...;)
Kong, your claim of hypocrisy is misplaced because I criticise Indy 4 as much as I champion it (and don't indulge in those areas very often). With all due respect to you, Sir Kong, I won't stop bashing the stupid Clown Movie because it is a pile of garbage. You mentioned TDK...Funny, because I used to buy blank TDK tape cassettes in the early '80s and they were crap, too! (Some things never change!:p)

First off let me say that while I think "Kingdom" is the weakest of the Jones films, it is in no way the worst film ever made. And with that let me also add that The Dark Knight is in no way a genius film. In fact it doesn't even take the number one spot for best film adaptation of Batman... at least in my opinion.

What I'm getting at is perhaps it was the zeitgeist at the time, which is still the taste now... a more realistic gritty comic book movie, (which I think is trying to be done to death now.) "Kingdom" came out in May if I remember correctly and Nolan's Heath Ledger-a-thon came out in June. About a month. That is ample time to go to a theater and see a film. I think though that "Kingdom" just didn't get the multiple viewings that can boost those numbers. When I dig a movie I'll go see it twice. If I really dig a movie, thrice. I think most folks saw it once and perhaps even enthusiasts like myself only gave it one viewing.

Combine that with the Heath Ledger dying factor and it snowballed. I really believe had Heath lived, the film would have not become the odd phenomenon that it was. I know that sounds morbid. I'm not trying to be cold, but I see that as a BIG factor. I'm sure that I was probably intrigued by this at the time as well.

So put it all together and we have an audience waiting for the "darkness" surrounding what was The Dark Knight, contrasted with the family adventure, prairie dog, jungle swinging Mutt-a-thon that was "Kingdom". Just two completely different types of a movie.

Would "Kingdom" have made more money had The Dark Knight come out the following year. I really don't think so. I don't "not see" a film because I'm expecting another type of film the next month. I think "Kingdom" got more than reasonable box office returns and it's story problems are their own.

[quote=Stoo]No, they aren't good points

I was trying to be diplomatic! You know that old Eastern philosophy chestnut when discussing - saying "Yes, but....".

No, that goes to Paul Dini & Bruce Timm's work on The Animated Series. They would earn that accolade for not only introducing the world to Harley Quinn, but for re-imagining Mr. Freeze as a serious villain.



If you were reading comics in the late eighties, early nineties then you'll remember that following the success of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, every superhero was suddenly wandering the moors after Heathcliff or wrestling with their teenage melodrama by staring intently into the middle distance. Twenty-six years later and Hollywood is intent on repeating the same scenario.


Like Stoo said, they bear no resemblance to each other outside of the fact that they were released the same year. While I either missed or ignored the furor, the vitriol can be summed up like this: a few outsized voices here on The Raven trumpeted the exceptional success of The Dark Knight by crowing about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull's evident failures. Batman needn't exist for the hatred Skull received. No, it did that all on its own lack of merit.

:(

Im so glad that I dont analize movies,games,ect like so many people do.Making more out of them then what was originally intended.

Ive always liked what I like and if others dont...well...thats their loss..I continue to love KOTCS and the other 3 Indy movies. I continue to really like the new StarWars movies,but they will never surpass the originals..I love most videogames that most dont..and I actually still play older games. I buy 10-20$ pants from walmart, dollar stores now days. I dont care if someones pants cost what my house payment is..good,glad for them..Im just me..or am I Indy? or Rocky? or Lukeskywalker? dang..:hat:

That's good for you, mikieson, but don't be quick to judge. Some people like to analyse and that's what most of this forum centres around. In fact, the theme of analysis has several layers in the Indy universe. Indy was an archaeologist, so analysis would have been a large part of his work. Some fans so love the Indy movies they want to analyse them deeply to mine them for more enjoyment. And think of the analysis that goes into making an Indy movie or any movie for that matter. Analysis increases knowledge and understanding.

not judging..heck if it weren't for sites like this, I wouldn't know what I know now. Ive learned a lot over the last year or so from forums and research on Indy. For me I know that I over analyze things at times and it drives me nuts and my wife too..she's always like.."you think about things too much"..And she's right. Sometimes I do..BUT I try and keep my mind free when watching movies or playing video games,or listening to music ect..its a time to chill,relax,and enjoy for what they bring.."to me"..not what I can try and decipher and make them to be..

BATMAN:MASK OF THE PHANTASM...the best theatrical Batman release. And a better "begins" than "Batman Begins"

Begins...what a lame title...

Totally agree. It's just what "geek" pop culture was wanting at the time. What was extremely unusual (at least in my part of the world) was friends at the time, who had no geek interest or any interest in Batman prior, was somehow drawn to Dark Knight- I'd say that tragic death in terms of BO certainly paid off. And still have zero interest in the Bat, but are obsessed with that one film.

And for th record, as a long time Batfan myself- Batman The Animated Series is hard to top and in terms of cinematic (Mask of the Phantasm was never released in Australian cinemas- it was straight to video, but still best origin story IMO) is Batman (1989). I even prefer Batman: Brave and the Bold over Batman Begins.

"IMMINENT"?:confused: You must mean, EMINENT, as Chatter Lal calls him. Was Indy "rugged & unshaven" during his adventures in Shanghai & Venice? Would a mild mannered professor climb out his office window? Did he not begin womanizing Willie while dressed as the nerdy professor? As for his reaction to the student's flirting, that seems due to bewilderment towards HOW she flirted, rather than him being embarassed. (If you want to analyze that aspect further, let's take it over to this thread: Eye (Love You) Lid girl in Raiders)

Obviously, there is a bit of a difference/duality between the professor and the adventurer but it's NOT an ALTERNATE IDENTITY. No matter what he wears, Dr. Jones is Dr. Jones, a man who doesn't disguise himself as a mysterious, crime-fighting vigilante.
No. no & no. "Technically", his clothes ARE normal. A whip isn't an article of clothing and hats, jackets, shirts, pants & boots are regular items that people wear/wore everyday. His clothes aren't skin-tight, custom-made duds and are nothing out of the ordinary for the poor, average, working class man of 1930s America during the Great Depression. (Indy looks like a truck driver from a Teamsters union!)

Plus, the 'lion tamer' comment was largely due to the whip. Notice that she says it right when Indy walks by holding the coiled whip directly in front of her face. When Willie describes her life in Shanghai (while sitting in the puddle) it's obvious that her social circle is high-class and she meets Indy while he is dressed in a dashing tuxedo. As everyone knows, first impressions mean a lot. Willie's 'lion tamer' remark reflects much more about HER snobby character than it does about Indy's 'adventure' attire being abnormal.

Anyway, Raiders112390, you're contradicting yourself AGAIN!:D In another thread, you wrote:
"Indy manages to fit in quite well with both the Depression era '30s and the Eisenhower '50s. He doesn't seem all that out of place, and the central elements of his 'look'--The leather jacket, fedora, slacks--are at the very least common enough not to be considered strange."
:gun:
No. Indy prefers to wear a particular outfit in the field because it suits the purpose: Durable dress that can withstand scrapes & tumbles. It isn't worn as a costumed disguise in order to hide his identity.
Zorro IS NOT a superhero!:rolleyes: But since you're using him as a comparison, it must be pointed out that:

- Unlike Dr. Jones, Zorro hides his identity with a mask!
- Unlike Dr. Jones, Zorro uses a completely different name!
- Unlike Dr. Jones, Zorro DOES CHANGE HIS VOICE (and his accent) in the '30s serials!:whip:
- Your Marcus = Bernardo comparison is so ridiculous that it's not even worth debating.:rolleyes:
I never said that "all" superheroes wear logos on their chests. I simply said that Indy "DOESN'T HAVE A LOGO ON HIS CHEST". (An empty rebuttal on your part.)

The bottom line is: "Crystal Skull" and "The Dark Knight" were both released in 2008 and any other similarity is just plain wank. (Pre-internet 1989, I personally never heard anyone compare "Last Crusade" to Tim Burton's "Batman" movie..and that's probably because superhero/Batman lovers weren't part of my circle back then.:p)

Creepy stalker.

Um, I think that was what I meant to say. I never stated that Indiana Jones is a split-personality like Gollum or a completely different identity like Batman. I just meant that Indy definitely has a 'respectable' face and a 'field work' atittude seperate from each other.

And leave it to Smiffy to give us a LOL-guaranteed GIF...

Patrick Bateman loves Batman too...

or should I say Patrick BATMAN!

Raiders112390, I debunked your side of the debate with SOLID points. Are lame insults really your last resort?:confused: "You lost today, kid, but that doesn't mean you have to be sore about it.":rolleyes:
Noted and logged, Kong, buddy.:cool: However, you did agree with Raiders112390 even though he was wrong about several things.:p

---
Can you imagine if Indy speaks in a different voice to people who know him, just like D'uh Dark Knight does?

Indy: Nazi Face is 2 days ahead of us. We have to move fast.
Marion: What are you doing?
Indy: Getting us out of here.
Marion: No. I mean your stupid voice! You sound like an idiot.
Indy: Be specific, Marion. We don't have a lot of time.
Marion: Your voice, Jones! Why are you talking like that?
Indy: That's my Indiana voice. Part of my disguise.
Marion: What? I know who you are...HENRY!
Indy: When I'm dressed in these clothes, I talk this way. Accept it, Marion. That's how it is. Forget it and let's go.
Marion: Whatever you say, schizo!:eek:

How would Batman have any bearing on whether people would like or hate KOTCS? They are two totally different things. I don't go to a movie and then decide to hate all the other films that came out at the same time and I liked one better than the other or hate a film because others do. I have my own opinions and if others don't like something I do..... F*Ck EM' I say. Only sheep judge a film on others opinions. And being a sheep is a BAHHHD thing. That like me saying hated TinTin because Mission Impossible 4 came out around the same time. One has nothing to do with the other besides they are both movies and came out in December of 2011.

Yeah. To answer the thread's title question: No, most of the hate came from people who loved the Indiana Jones films then went to watch KoCS and had their excitement and joy stubbed and ground out like one of Harrison Ford's doobies.

Dark Knight, on the other hand, did exactly what it said on the tin, and then some.

Well the good news is,I hate batman.Never have liked him or his fairy sidekick. SO that gives me more reason to love KOTCS,which to me, was a great movie and more people actually liked it then not...

I like Batman. No where near as much as Indy but I thought the DK was a good film and even though KOTCS is the weakest Indy entry I still find it highly entertaining as well.

I like Indy. No where near as much as Batman but I thought KOTCS was a bad film and even though TDK is the strongest Batman entry I still find the others entertaining as well. ;)