Temple Of Doom has balls. Crystal Skull is balls. The Balls Equation never fails...

I didn't say "How can you like KOTCS when it's a sh*t movie?" So DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I basically said (I'm too lazy to go look at exactly what I said so don't try to use my not getting it right against me or something), I can't see how you could honestly think KOTCS is better when it has, IMO, so many flaws that TOD does not. You're just twisting it to make it sound worse than it was. And even if I said that, it is an entirely different thing to tell someone their daughter/son is ugly. You are elevating the opinions of movies into some ridiculously high level.... on the leve of how people feel about their kids? Please!

Who cares how short round found out fire cures the black sleep. At the time, it seemed apparent to me that he didn't know that and used the fire to stop Indy and it woke him from his sleep. That was when he figured it out. Then he uses that knowledge on the boy. Whether or not that's different in the novel doesn't matter... on film it is presented this way. Further proof is Indy attacks him then winks that he is okay and Shorty is surprised. So that's not a flaw... that's just you're too stupid to figure it out.

Yes. I'm being a jerk now because I think you're a jerk and I'm tired of you trying to belittle my posts. I direct YOU to PM for anything else you have to say about this. Doesn't mean I'm going to read them.

^WTF? Who pissed in your cereal?

You sure you want to know? I would stay out of this if I were you.

I personally don't give a **** what your problem is, just joking at the absurdity of it all.

I don't find it absurd at all. I think Darth Vile has been trying to belittle my opinions by trying to make me look like I'm someone who "jumps on the bandwagon" which is something he said to me... and he re-posts the same thing in every thread I give an opinion on about KOTCS and it's getting on my nerves.

You, on the other hand, have nothing to do with it at all. So I think you should just butt out. Thanks.

Again, I seriously do NOT give a **** about you or your little problems. But if you feel the need to respond to this message to, go ahead. Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

over and over again I keep stating how angry this movie makes people.:gun: :dead:

You're not alone there, he does the same to any criticism I make against it, as if he has some personal stake in the crappy film's success, or as if his name were on the list of credits.

That's due to your comments being asinine... not because I feel the need to defend the movie. ;)

Guys, Darth is merely winding you all up. Of course he doesn't find Crystal Skull superior and less cartoonish to Temple Of Doom - that would be quite insane.

Ahh, Darth, you're quite the little rascal this night...;)

What gives?
 

This forum section is dominated by the same people defending and bashing the film time and time again. Nothing new. With the exception of the latter's numbers having substantially increased since the release of "The Dark Knight."

What happened to class? Does anyone have work these days?

And yet you don't see your own asinine comments.....curious. Looks like you have the habit of picking on anyone in any thread who has a strong viewpoint that differs from yours. Insecure much?

There are lots of people on these boards who have both differing opinions to myself and equally strong views. There are only a very small number who have differing views and the wit of a char-grilled vegetable.

You have a X on your back so large that I'm surprised people don't use you for parachute landing practise.. ;)

As if you don't.

To be honest all the Indy movies seem cartoonish to me, Temple of Doom the most of the originals, though with CS out now I think that has the title. The thing with TOD though as cartoony as some bits seemed (may I add, cartoon isn't especially a bad thing) it had enough grit and tense moments in it to balance things.

CS I think lacks a lot of tension at times and the movie would have benefited with a darker feeling throughout. I don't mind humour, but I want to feel some danger. Okay fair enough, CS wants to use a sand pit as a joke scene. But - where is the quick sand scene where I think they might die and I am on the edge of my seat?

Crystal Skull had that great scene with Indy staring in the skulls eyes and Irina in a sinister tone explaining what she plans with the skull, and the lighting is eerie. It feels dark. However - soon afterwards that is all lost, and we don't really feel any darkness or serious again. Which makes me think if they had just cut some of the excess humour out, and put some more grit in to it, it could have at least gone from "Good" to "Great". With "great" being closer to the "excellent" of the originals.

No Ticket, When has anyone taken your opinions about the Indy series seriously? They are so simple minded that it's laughable. But that's typical for person's with the inability to comprehend a growth within a fictional universe.

This isn't a direct response to the above post, but the quote brings up something pertinent to fan reaction to KCS:

Audiences are too obsessed with 'darkness' these days.
Every movie doesn't have to be 'dark' to be good.
KCS has other merits, ones I think out-weigh 'darkness', which in reality is usually nothing more than monochromatic design/photography and a lot of melodrama (TDK anyone?). KCS has a good hearted warmth and a truly transporting fantasy story. In 20 years no one will care if it is 'dark' or not. I'm persoanlly sick of hearing about how every new goofball action/comic-book/video-game movie is gonna be so, oooh isn't it exciting, 'dark'?!?! It's time to give it a rest, it's worn itself out. The pulps & serials Indy is based on were more often silly to the point of camp (by modern standards). There really isn't any precedent for this genre to be all edgy & 'dark'.
Yeah, Raiders & TOD had some serious weird jumpy negative energy in them - and yeah, it's still cool. But I'm with GL - even if you're going to revisit an old idea, there's no reason to just repeat yourself. He always tries something new, sometimes he succeeds, sometimes he doesn't (and that itself is purely a matter of personal opinion). At least he isn't letting the audience dictate what he should do - good for him.

I've respected his opinions in the past, but why are you turning the tables of irony on yourself here?

Peacock's eye - no everyone isn't obsessed with darkness in movies, but KOTCS would have benefited with an element of it as opposed to general slap stick comedy. Perhaps dark is the wrong word; how about, urgency and seriousness. The original moves had comedy, but they also had the right balance of grit and a general haunting vibe to them - the mystery to the ark, the grail which could give eternal life, the enslaved children and a cult.

In crystal skull they had so much potential with psychic powers and the alien concept, yet they decided to have a totally slap-stick approach to it, and so - did I feel much tension for Indy? Not really. And when I talk about dark, I don't mean "The dark knight" styled darkness. In fact, I don't even care about that film.

I did enjoy CS, but consider what it is dealing with, psychic power, a race for an a higher power essentially to dictate the world...but hardly any of the events reflect the seriousness of what is at stake. Irina has that great tent scene saying how she wants to use the skull, the music is haunting - then its all dropped, and nothing like it is revisted. Having a dark nature something doesnt mean removing all light hearted warmth elements, its about balance.

Indy is comicbook like - but each movie took itself serious, and to a degree, CS doesn't very much at all. You say in 20 years no one will care if a movies dark - well consider this, is anyone going to care much in 20 years about Indy and co falling down 3 waterfalls? There is no tension the moment they fall down the forst large one and survive. We have to bascially watch about 2 minites or so of them falling down 3 waterfalls that we know will not harm them. When it is out on DVD, that scene will also be watched - and there will be zero tension or intensity to it, because simply - nothing happens.

Essentially after the first viewing of it, that waterfall scene is "empty" and "useless" on any repeat viewing. It isn't like you can notice something new, or feel the nail biting feeling you felt the first time you viewed it. I still to this day feel on edge when Indy is approaching those rip saw blades at the end of Last Crusade. Why not have Indy and co go down one waterfall that is small, then a slightly bigger one - but before the final one (which would kill) - have them scrambled through some pirahna infested water? There we have a serious meaner tone, tension - and action, which we like in Indiana Jones. And to top it off, the movie still has its humour moments elsewhere in the movie.

However in TOD, we all felt how intense things were when Indy told Shorty and Willy to tie themselves to the bridge, as he was going to cut it in half.

Making things too light will result in a total lack of intensity, too dark will make things too dramatic, and for an Indy film - it'd simply be too boring. The other movies had a perfect mix of both in a sense, and CS had too much slap stick.

Just because Steven says he'd like a vintage styled Indy - why does that actually mean he'd be repeating himself? It doesn't at all.

Crystal was a good movie - but too much excess slapstick drags it down and throws out tense moments in favour of it. And as I mentioned, considering the nature of what the artifact is, it could would have benefited from taking itself more serious. The originals did it - people love them, CS still would have been fresh if it had taken the same approach, and it still would have had lots of action in it.

Marion and Mutt in the jeep "What's he doing" "I don;t think he plans that far ahead" - Indy pops out with the launcher - great humour and action. Indy cutting? himself with the flick knife as Mutt exclaims "****" or something - excess humour, not needed. Mutt with monkeys - not needed, and it seemed very childish and distracted from the seriousness of what was happening.

People said the same things about TOD & LC. They really did.
And the rest - that's your opinion. I disagree. I think the movie works as well as the other two Indy sequels - they each have their own dynamic and their own faults. For some people Short Round & Willie and the excessive overblown action sequences ruined TOD. For others. using Sallah & Brody for comic relief, giving "the man in the hat" a Daddy who calls Indy "Jr", and showing Young Indy ruined LC.
KCS has as much urgency & seriousness as I needed to get engaged with the story. And I love the waterfall gag every time I watch it - it's brilliantly staged & acts as a perfect set of "breaks" on the breakneck speed of the preceding act. I don't find the KCS monkeys any more offensive than the comic relief monkey in Raiders.

Believe me, the monkey in Raiders is a lot different to the ones in Kotcs. And it isn't the monkeys as such that cause problem, is how they are used, when Mutt swings from the tree is seems like I am watching Disney's the jungle book.
I know what people said about Tod and LC.

I don't see you can call the waterfall sequence a gag. What's funny about it? It is apparent - they fall down 3 waterfalls. I smirked the first time...but now what else can I do? There's literally nothing to the scene.

I like the fact this movie deals with Crystal skulls. I just think the gags outweigh the urgency a lot more. The fridge, bascially a joke. The quick sand - also a joke. I can only imagine quick sand in the other movies would have been a point of urgency, hurry up and get out or die. On this - it is used as a joke scene. That would have been fine - but they also use the waterfall drops as jokes. I wanted some nail biting moments or something to have me on the edge of my seat - it never really occured, because I knew in the end - it was a song, dance and joke.

The movie was too much of a joke. My friend said to me "I didn't really ever feel Indy was in danger in this one" and he was right - you never do, not after the camp section. I love the jungle chase one problem, it is ruined by Walt Disney's monkeys. Just think of when Indy grabbed that vine in peru and swang in to the water on Raiders, to when Mutt swings on these vines with these monkeys and lands perfectly in Irina's car.

And again - my opinion - psychic powers, an alien theme. When irina enters the chamber of the skulls - the film regains some of this serious vibe it had when she was in the tent, and it felt somewhat like when Donovan enters the grail chamber. It feels haunting, mysterious. Problem is, there is so much joking going on before that part, it makes the sudden apperance of the alien killing Irina seem a bit like a joke and "means nothing".

"Oh they dropped down waterfalls, she got killed by an alien, haha, weird, oh well!"

In comparison to LC's ending segment. We have Indy's dad, provided comic relief, however he did have plenty of serious segments. At the end he is shot right in the gut. Indy is demanded to go and get the grail, and we see him having to face the traps. We have rip saw blades, a haunting melody accompanying it, Indy's dad potentially dying, and eventually the grail knight. We have the rapid aging sequence which is quite frightening for a young kid. In the end we also have the earthquake. Each of those segments keeps a serious tempo, even though there has been humour in the movie earlier -and the reason people can be biting their nails at these last parts is simply because the balance of humour and urgency was well balanced.

And while I don't expect CS to be a carbon copy, I expected it to retain a general forumula of taking itself serious enough to have me on the edge of my seat. I know each Indy film has a different direction, and I liked Irina, I liked the skulls, I didn't dislike the alien factor, I liked the locations. I just didn't like the lack of seriousness, because the film would have been so much more engrossing if I knew Indy and friends wouldn't be essentially laughing and dancing all the way to the end.

>>Believe me, the monkey in Raiders is a lot different to the ones in Kotcs.<<
I can't believe your seriously arguing for one comic relief monkey against another. I think you're just more comfortably familiar with Raiders. If Raiders came out this year I think you'd be saying, "Awesome movie - except for that stupid monkey. Stupid George Lucas!"

The difference being that if Raiders came out today George wouldn't use a real monkey he'd use a digital one. :p

So? What difference would that make?
Oh wait! I get it - real monkey comedians graduate from Clown College & digital monkeys don't. That's why they're less funny. Duh - my bad!

I wanna be like yoo hoo hoo...

No. I've already stated the monkeys are not an issue. The monkey in radiers does not even crop up as "comic relief" to me, because it is just used in a rather grounded down to Earth way. All it does is sit on Marion, and then tries to reveal her position/possibly climb in her basket with her has it has taken a liking to her. The reason they are able to use a real monkey here is because it has been trained, and is trainable.

In Kotcs, a whole group of monkeys, that are not real (not actually relevant to my case my I add) - suddenly take allegiance with a stranger, and swing with him to attack Irina. The monkeys would have been better without the Jungle Book like swinging sequence. Why not have Irina's van simply smash thru a small tree and have them annoyed at her for crashing in to them, therefore having a reason to actually attack her. Having them swing in with Mutt for no reason is just like something from Jungle Book. I liked the monkeys attacking Irina, it was amusing. Problem is - they went about it in a totally pathetic way. Even my neice who loves Indy and this film said "I think the tarzan bit could have been cut though, that seemed really un-Indiana Jones". I must admit, I can deal with waterfalls, I can deal with the fridge. But the monkey part really made me blush red in the cinema. I seriously felt like I was watching a Disney cartoon and ot Indiana Jones.

As for me being more "comfy" with Raiders, actually it is my least favourite of the orginals, I prefer Last Crusade.

I can't believe you can't see the difference between the monkey usage in Kotcs, to the one in Raiders to be honest. Consider: The bar scene shoot out in Raiders in comparison the Mutt's child-like monkey swing. As outlandish as some things are in LC and TOD - none seem as childish as that swinging segment.

As someone who doesn't like the monkey swinging either, I think this is a case of how big you want to make it. It lasts all of a minute in a 120 min movie, so for me, it doesn't all of a sudden make Skull this horrible film. The other 119 minutes made the film an enjoyable experience. If you don't like the movie, then I can see you pointing to that scene and focusing in on it.

It is true, it is a very short scene, and I actually like Kotcs. One problem, it is one scene too many of that nature. Not only do we get the monkeys we have the 3 waterfalls that are not really that interesting, and the fridge (which is also a joke scenario, as with the water falls) and also the comedy quick sand scene.

I know I probably sound like a hater, though I am not. I do like the movie, and I will get it on DVD, but it is a collection of small things such as the cartoony monkey thing, that collects and taints an otherwise enjoyable movie.

I'd have liked some actual balls to the movie, there just wasn't much at all. There was some to the others, and there is too this to a degree - but the excessive "gags" take away the effect.

>>No. I've already stated the monkeys are not an issue. The monkey in radiers does not even crop up as "comic relief" to me, because it is just used in a rather grounded down to Earth way. All it does is sit on Marion, and then tries to reveal her position/possibly climb in her basket with her has it has taken a liking to her. The reason they are able to use a real monkey here is because it has been trained, and is trainable.<<
This is the same monkey who gives the Nazi salute & says "Uh Oh!" in a Baby Olsen Twins voice...? Just checking.

Did I insult you? No. So what's with the insult there? What is so simple-minded behind my opinion of the Indy series? I'm very much capable of comprehending growth within a fictional universe... what super intelligent growth happened in KOTCS that I missed? PLEASE PLEASE explain!! I must have missed some really brilliant piece of storytelling!

I don't care if you think my opinion is "simple minded" or not... truth is that nothing all that interesting happened with any of the characters in KOTCS. So I looked at the rest of the movie to see if it did anything right in place of that... and I saw Tarzan and CGI man-eating ants.


Yes it would make a big difference. It's because you're really seeing the monkey doing the little Heil Hitler thing. It's real. It's cute. It's funny. CGI takes out all of that. Having to explain something so simple as that means that you don't and probably will never get it.

But then again. My opinions are sooo simple-minded it's laughable.

I've seen plenty of people take No Ticket seriously. So this begs the question...when has anyone taken you seriously? With ignorant and uncalled for comments like this, I doubt your own mother takes you seriously. Truth is that Crystal Skull was not received well by the majority of posters on this site. If you can't handle hearing it...leave. :up:

And just for kickers; There's nothing complex about Crystal Skull, so I fail to see how anyone can view it any way but simplemindedly. It's a dense, pitiful, and embarrassingly shallow popcorn movie.

And you're devoting all your free time to posting about it...deeply sad.

Caaaan you feeeeel the LOOooove tonight!?


... I love how this forum brings us all so much closer together.

You're saying this on a message board...so what's your point? Are you intelligent enough to understand the level of hypocrisy in this statement? You're posting on a message board too...or did you forget? I think constructive criticism is far less time wasting then mindless praise. At least it evolves an amount of thought, something that might be a novelty to your kind.

The monkey is doing it for real - it is trainable - it is something do-able. And although I do not expect exactly realism in Indiana Jones, I do expect it to stay grounded to its general limits. I can watch the monkey go "Uh oh" and not feel any problem - it sounds like a regular monkey noise, they even mimick human sounds to a degree. The monkey does nothing that obscure. Monkeys have even been trained to go in to space.

Now, although swinging from vines is not unusual for monkeys, the fact they chose within one moment to work with Mutt is a bit problematic. Also, again - it isn't even especially the monkeys that are an issue. It is how it is handled and comes across on scene. It seems really cartoony - even so for Indiana Jone's cartoon related antics. The landscape becomes totally digital, Mutt doesn't even look convincingly holding his weight on the viens properly, and the monkeys swinging looks like something from a Disney movie.

Although I do not mind CGI - the way it was done, looks really silly. If they were real monkeys swinging on real trees and landing in Irina's car you know what - I'd actually like it. But the way the whole image on screen looks animated looks like I've suddenly been shoved in to a Pixar film showing. Consider: We had Indy in Peru swinging on a vine and crashing in to water. Then, in Kotcs a polished, smooth, Jungle Book like antic. If Raiders had this kind of action - fair enough if Skull did. But Raiders being the original set the standard limits for what should follow, even as outlandish as some LC and TOD things are, they generally stay bound to the limits set in the Indy universe.


Also, Irina and Mutts sword fight - seems like something from Peter Pan - but you know what. I actually don't mind that, that was humrous and exciting - but then they went overboard with the monkeys.Altbough I still would have liked a more serious sword fight between them along side the one on the truck, - and being serious - doesn't mean unfun and unexciting.

Also I'd like to add again, even though the scene was short and I can forgive it and enjoy the movie, it doesn't mean I wouldn't chop it out of the movie if given the choice. The introduction of the monkeys attacking Irina could have been done in a much more grounded idealistic way, without seeming like a cgi animated jungle book scene.

If we could strip away this black & white, love or hate thing… there is the makings of a very interesting and valid debate here (started a few pages back by Benraianajones and Peacock's-Eye).

I’m trying to think about this as objectively as I can… so imagine if you can that we had our minds wiped of Indiana Jones. What would we make of the original three movies if they were released today (or re-made shot for shot)?

Whilst the character of Indiana Jones may remain vaguely interesting, I think most would view the movies as lightweight, non-consequential, slow, un-original and generally passé. Without doubt, these criticism can be levelled fairly at KOTCS… but ultimately my one and only true criticism of KOTCS is that it tried so hard to be like the other movies, it failed to reflect the change in modern movies and the mindset of a largly new audience.

The result is… you have a movie comprising of Crystal Skull MacGuffins, improbable set pieces, cliché humour and hyper-reality characters such as Spalko. Indeed, how can one argue whether or not the ‘3 waterfalls’ drop is better or worse than the ‘rubber raft ride’ out of an airplane or the validity of monkeys doing stupid things (real or not)? Ultimately - they are all highly improbable and extremely farcical situations… the only true difference being that Raiders, TOD and Last Crusade were products of their time, whereas KOTCS isn’t.

I'd love to see you argue the merits of a good movie, Darth...;)

Oh...you should know by now that his favorite movies suck. ;)

What like Scarface, The Red Shoes, A Matter of Life and Death, Strangers on a Train, Star Wars, Raiders, The Duellists, Papillon etc. etc? :rolleyes:

Gee you're right. About everything. I'm coming clean!
Indy4 was simple minded nonsense that only appealed to me because I'm pathetically simple minded. I confess - I fell asleep during TDK and woke up whenever there was an explosion. I still play with a rubber ducky in the bath. I have a Jar Jar poster on my bedroom wall. I still suck my thumb.
Gods, that felt good!!! Thank you FBH, you're my new hero.

How come criticism involves more thought than praise?? What a strange assertion that is..

Darth, so from what you are saying, you don't like the first 3 movies as they are slow and un original etc and you think KOTCS is not as good as them.

Why are you on an Indy chat room then?

Personally I think Raiders was executed perfectly and is a classic irrespective of when it was released and Crusade was marvelous. The other two are not worthy. I was hoping Crytal Skull was going to join Raiders and Crusade not Doom.

Whislt I have my gripes with Kotcs, I have to go along in saying that, just because people do like Kotcs are not childish simpletons.

It doesn't. Unless the praise is "I liked it," or the criticism is "I didn't like it." The problem here is that the praise here involves a lot of "I liked it," while some people who criticize actually provide reasons for not liking. A lot of times it seems people liked it because it was Indy. That's fine, I don't really care, I just hate to read that people are "simple-minded" for their opinions. Name calling is such a pathetic way for people to try to win an argument. The sad thing is it's happened on both sides.

Well yes, I do agree with you. We all have different ideas of what makes a decent film and what we enjoy. Someone liking KOTCS (or any other film for that matter) doesn't automatically equate to them being simple. Likewise if you hate it, it is ultimately just a personal reaction which you are fully entitled to.

When did I say I didn't like them? And... You've sort of missed the entire point of the post (unless you misinterpret to try make a point).

It’s folly to believe that one’s opinion of a movie isn’t open to influence. I have an emotional connection to the first 3 movies, which means it's difficult to view them objectively. Movies reflect the generation in which they were made. That’s why the majority of my movie collection (and probably of most people here) comprises of movies made within my lifetime i.e. movies made over the last circa 30 years.

Ask your average 15-30 year old which James Bond movie they prefer: 'From Russia With Love' or 'Casino Royale'? Which do you think the majority would choose? Which one would seem more passe to them? Which one is the better movie?

Close, I think I would go for Casino Royale but what about comparing Goldfinger with Die another day. Or Dr No with The world is not enough? Surely no one would ever go for the Brosnan films.

Recent movies in the last 10 years have just become formulaic rubbish designed to make money. That's it. I was hoping KOTCS would not be like this.

Trust me Darth, KOTCS will not get better over time.

Ive seen KOTCS 3 times now and at first I was trying to disect it like almost every other member on here...the next time I went into it opened minded and kept saying to myself enjoy it! Its just another one of Indy's numerous adventures...So I watched it and enjoyed it a whole lot more. No sense in disecting it. Nothing you say or do will change it. Just enjoy it as another one of our heroes adventures:whip:

When the Brosnan films first came out, that's exactly what kids would do. Each new Bond actor seems to be embraced by his generation, then quickly rejected once a new actor takes over. It happened to Roger Moore, then Timothy Dalton, and is currently happening to Pierce Brosnan.

I think Darth is right, since each generation does tend to be biased towards their own pop culture. Everyone wants to think their generation is the best. It's why most of the IMDB's "Top 250" list is heavily populated with films released within the last five years. Are we truly living in the single greatest era of filmmaking ever? Or has the internet simply provided kids with a greater outlet for expressing their likes and dislikes?

I also think KOTCS may fare better than expected 20, 30, or even 50 years from now. If you remove the intense scrutiny and personal expectations, it's just another lightweight adventure flick like the first three. It will certainly age much better than any of the Star Wars projects that have been released this decade. Stylistically, KOTCS sits more comfortably alongside its predecessors than the prequels do. It also features another strong central performance by the same lead actor (unlike the prequels).

An audience watching the series in the future won't be as likely to over-analyze each movie, or have a preset notion as to what direction each should've taken. Instead, they'll probably just regard them as a series of fun- albeit slightly campy- adventure movies. The Tarzan series (starring Johnny Weissmuller) is a very good example of how Indy could one day be regarded. It also began with two relatively serious films, before veering off into a more family-oriented direction. Yet the end result is still a popular series that continues to entertain audiences.