The movie summer would have sucked without KCS.
It made my summer moviegoing, along with Hellboy & Speed Racer, a movie far too few people "got".
So no - things would not be better for me minus KCS.

Well, they didn't need to make Raiders of the Lost Ark, but they did.

If KOTCS didn't get made, these forums would might as well be considered dead, as we would not have had all the merchandise/games/comic books etc. to discuss in addition to the movie.

Plus, it was an extremely educational movie, so as I see it, it did need to get made. Not only did it largely help make 2008 the movie year in cinema history, but I would never know what to do if I were to do if an atomic bomb were to go nor would I ever know what "I Like Ike" meant.

I can't imagine life without KOTCS anymore. ;)

That's sad that it had to teach you "I Like Ike." Since you're supposed to GET it when you hear it in the film. Plus, how exactly was 2008 the movie year in cinema history? We got a sub-par Indy movie and a good Batman movie.

Plus, the forums were not dead before KOTCS nor would they be now. People have been coming here since 2000 and I was posting on an Indy forum back in 1998 or so.

You sound like one of those people for which, defending KOTCS is what you're all about... even though I don't see how on earth you could defend a movie that is OBVIOUSLY not on the level of the others.

PLUS. They had a reason to make Raiders. The story hadn't been told. The character not developed. By LC, they had really taken the story as far as it needed to go. It had a great ending and LC was a pretty great movie so the series ended on a high note. They didn't NEED a fourth film. Might I once again bring up the "One more brust stroke would ruin the painting" thing? ... True you could say that exploring how Indy has aged would be a reason to make KOTCS... but it didn't really do that. Or explore his relationship with Marion who just suddenly is back together with him after like 20 years of not seeing him at all.

Honestly. Yeah. By your logic nothing needs to be done/made/created ever. And I don't hate KOTCS. But I am not stupid either, I know it wasn't some incredible movie. It was just okay. And I am willing to admit it, face up to it, etc.

In all fairness, Raiders could have existed all on it's own without further adventures. But there wasn't a 20 year gap between Raiders and TOD. Such a large gap makes it even more difficult to revive a franchise. Ghostbusters wouldn't be the same if they brought it back now, nor would Back to the Future. The people in charge of those franchises KNOW that's the case and don't try. If they thought it would work they'd do it.

I am glad they at least attempted KOTCS, but it didn't work out as well as I'd have hoped. And I know it didn't NEED to be done. We just wanted it regardless of what was good for the franchise/story/character...

The movie made $700 million. As long as Lucas can, he will push for a fifth. That's exactly why Crystal Skull shouldn't have been made. It sets a terrible precedent. They can pretty much get away with anything now...

Don't worry, TDK is up to about $500 million and will overtake KOTCS worldwide in a matter of weeks. Poor George is prolly scratching his nads wondering why his film didn't come flying out of the gate like a race horse with a brisk finish for the win. The difference being repeat business for TDK because it was actually worth seeing again and again. Just think, George, if you had made your movie as good as Nolan's you'd be making even MORE money right now. :eek:

Oh well, can't win 'em all, can ya Georgie boy?

No. What kind of question is that? People, you need to understand that atleast you actually got SOMETHING. Your saying that you would rather have NOTHING than SOMETHING? That's insane.
I lol'd at that.

If an atomic bomb goes off near you (which is what I think you were trying to say in that butchered sentence), what you do is simple: you die. KotCS didn't teach you that.

I'd rather have someone **** in my mouth than not. At least I got something?



But nah.... just another dumb kid. That's probably too difficult a concept for you.

It's called "negative reinforcement" in psychology, the elimination or removal of adverse stimuli. This is usually done to reinforce positive behavior, but the notion is the same. The concept may be one of simple psychology, but it's certainly not an "insane" position.

So it was so bad that you'd rather not have it? Denying Paramount milions of dollars? Dissapointing thousand, maybe millions of Fans the chance to see it? If it weren't for KOTCS, Indiana jones would be a near dead series by now. With most kids never seeing the movies. Think about others before you say something.

"let them eat cake"

Good point. I just never thought anyone would dislike it that much, especially if they were on an Indiana Jones forum. Guess I was wrong :P

Quoted for truth.



And, kid... heed your own advice; think before you open that mouth or commit those fingers to do the talking.


Paramount doesn't need my money. Doesn't need any of our money. There's plenty of other franchises or... gasp... new ideas to raid for easy cash. And if the "fans" are so easily satiated that they'll take anything regardless of the lack of quality.... well then I couldn't care a bit less for them.


But again... you wouldn't understand what it is to be an Indiana Jones fan. You're just another trend follower who rode the buzz of the new film to this board and to the character itself.



Reason 93 why kids shouldn't be allowed to use the internet.

If people haven't seen it, they haven't seen it, but by your logic, the reason people in the 90s have seen The Wizard of Oz is because of Return to Oz, which doesn't seem to be the case to me. Great works don't die off, 4 times out of 5.

"Attack the arguement, not the person."

This is quoted for TRUTH. Good movies don't die.

Awww... da wittle kid's trying to teach me rhetoric.



Grow up, bro. When you actually know what rhetoric is... then we'll talk.

But we're talking about kids here. They don't want to see an 80's adventure film(well I do :P) they want to see "super dooper iron man!!". Most, if not all kids I know didn't even like Indiana Jones until the new movie.

*Facepalm*


You just said those the same kids who want their "super dooper Iron Man."

Good, then let them have their CGI ****, KOCKS included.



The rest of us don't need a half-assed sequel.

Seriously? I hate kids today. :(

Tell me about it :P It feels like I'm the only one my age who has a liking for older movies. Luckily I have a few good friends that share the same opinions.

As I remember it... when I was a little kid, the age of the movie did not matter to me. I was open to watching anything that seemed interesting to me. Raiders was nearly a decade old when I first saw it... Wizard of Oz was... umm, A LOT older than that. That was one of my favorite movies. I watched television shows from the 60s and 50s all the time.

To be honest. I don't think kids today don't like Indiana Jones. I think the problem is a lot of them just probably haven't been introduced to Raiders of the Lost Ark. And those who don't like Indiana Jones, well... was their introduction to the character KOTCS? That would explain a lot.

I think it's a sign that you're getting old when you think that times were really "better" when you were younger. Ya know, to think that kids these days are stupid or something? ... There are obviously kids who care about older movies and appreciate them. For some that will be inspiration to get into film themselves.

But also, there was no marketing for Indy up until KOTCS. For many of those kids, Indy was not something they had heard of before. There were no toys for them to play with, no cartoon for them to watch... it's not their fault if their parents did not show them Raiders.

Sorry I didn’t post this right away, but you gave me so much to work with, that I’m only now starting to respond.

First of all, why is it so sad that I didn’t get “I Like Ike” before Indy 4? President Eisenhower lived and died before my time and not a lot of people nowadays even know his name was Ike. The fact I learned that slogan and all about it’s history proves what a educational relevance KOTCS is!

I think 2008 certainly has proven to be the best film year of the decade at least. I mean just compare it to the mediocrity of last year:

Iron Man>>>>>>>>>>>Spider-Man 3
The Chronicles of Narnia>>>>>>Shrek the Third(and I didn’t even like Narnia)
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull>>>>Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
The Incredible Hulk>>>>>>>The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
Get Smart>>>Rush Hour 3
Wall-E>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ratatouille
The Dark Knight>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pretty much every film of 2007

It’s certainly the best year in film for a very long time as I can’t think of one other year that offered this many good movies. And this year isn’t even over yet.

Well okay, the forums would never get completely dead, but if Indy 4 didn’t get made, there would be very little upcoming Indy related stuff to discuss. Even the haters have to admit, this place would have been A LOT less thrilling and fun had KOTCS never got made and put into the picture. You have to at least appreciate something from the promotion. After all, it’s the reason The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles are on DVD (for promotion).

As for me personally, no, I’m certainly not here just to defend KOTCS. I loved Indiana Jones long before this ignorant new generation with no knowledge of the franchise jumped on the bandwagon. I joined here March 2007, when KOTCS was just in preproduction and nobody in the general public knew about it. If you hadn’t noticed, I’m named my username after the Disneyland attraction, so my love for Indy goes far beyond the films. So no, I’m not just here to defend KOTCS, I’m just defending it because I just loved this film along with the rest of the franchise, and by no means find it a disgrace in any way, and a lot of these complaints I find just purely ridiculous, almost to the point of ranting just for fun. While yes, I can definitely realize the film didn’t hold a candle to Raiders of the Lost Ark(it literally would’ve had to have been the greatest movie ever made, which is an unfair expectation), but I enjoyed it a lot more than TOD and LC. I really disliked the opening of LC as not only does it have almost nothing to do with the rest of the movie, as I said in another thread, I think it cheapens the character of Indiana Jones, far more than anything in KOTCS. I also don’t like how LC was Raiders Part II. At least KOTCS broke out of this formula(mostly due to it set in a different time period, but broke out none-the-less) I also thought is was a more balanced film than TOD and it also didn’t have a character as near as obnoxious as Willie Scott.

Now that said, I love both TOD and LC, I just personally find them huge steps back compared to Raiders, and in all honesty, find KOTCS a more enjoyable movie. Okay, I may have a sympathetic bias for it as it is the first time I’ve seen an Indiana Jones movie on the big screen, but I just love that movie and I find it a worthy addition to the Indy franchise.

Did they need to make a fourth installment? No, but they don’t need to make any movie as all movies are just entertainment. It’s not a necessity, so no movie NEEDS to get made. If you really wanted to see Raiders of the Lost Ark, you could research the numerous 1930’s serials that inspired it instead. Or see a James Bond films. Like I said, no film NEEDS to get made.

But if we’re to use your definition of the word “needs” as an interesting idea not yet told on film that’s worth telling, than I disagree in that Indy 4 did need to get made. Why? As an experiment. It was set out to see if Indiana Jones could still do well in today’s time. If kids today would be interested enough in another Indiana Jones. If an Indiana Jones film can work in today’s time It was also an experiment in to see if Harrison Ford could still play Indiana Jones 20 years later, and if Spielberg and Lucas still had it and could make it. It may or may not have worked, but it was still an interesting idea too good to not try out. I know if it didn’t get made, the only discussion left would probably just be rants at how Spielberg and Lucas are evil for not making Indy 4 and why they couldn’t just try Darabont’s script. It’s just how the world works, Lucas and Spielberg are evil if they didn’t make Indy 4, and they’re evil now that they made Indy 4. There’s just no way they can win. I loved it though, and this movie certainly needto get made more than another version of King Kong or [i]another[/I[ sequel to a disposable franchise like The Mummy.

And while we’re on the topic, they’re making a 3rd Ghostbusters, as a direct-to-video animated sequel last I heard. They would’ve made a 3rd film, but Bill Murray is what has been preventing it from happened as he doesn’t like sequels(that doesn’t explain Garfield though :rolleyes: ). BTTF would’ve had a 4th film if MJF didn’t have Parkinson’s disease, although MJF did once say he’d be willing to do it if he were to be the scientist this time, so you never know.

Overall, it’s one thing to call KOTCS not as good as the original trilogy, but I wish people were a tad more respectful and not treat it as if it were the anti-chirst.

god damn it

Below is directed @ Forbidden Eye --->

Actually on the BTTF DVDs, I believe it's Zemeckis himself that laughs at the notion of BTTF 4. While it may be true that Michael J. Fox was willing, the creators of the series don't seem interested. And actually, the "third Ghostbusters" is going to be a video game. But a video game is not a movie so it doesn't matter. My point is that Ghostbusters 3 does not work. Whether animated or a video game it can't be a live action film.


And your reason for making KOTCS is................ to see if it would work in today's world? Mine at least pays relevance to art. Yours sounds like a marketing gimmick. To see if Lucas could sell toys to little kids now eh? Yeah, he probably was thinking that. I know that's not what you mean but it's probably somewhat true whether you like it or not.

And I didn't literally think you were only here to defend KOTCS Forbidden Eye. But I don't see how anyone could see KOTCS as being better than TOD. I thought the whole notion of putting Indy through HELL was much more interesting than anything done in KOTCS. Plus, I really enjoyed Connery's role in LC so that made LC interesting to me. In KOTCS, unfortunately... I wasn't as interested in the characters or the plot. I saw some stuff near the beginning of the film that caught my eye... I really do LOVE the opening. But I found pacing to be off and that it gets kind of boring and too "talkative" during the jail cell and graveyard scenes.


Then it doesn't offer a whole lot of explanation as to why Indy and Marion are suddenly in love again and willing to marry. You can't just have characters suddenly become chummy like that out of nowhere. She should have spent a large portion of the film mad at Indy. Not just silly arguments to make the audience laugh but actually ticked off after all these years. It should have explored that more and built up their affection for each other again. It didn't really do that well at all. Don't tell me it doesn't belong in a movie like this, because Raiders captures their affection for each other much better and more maturely than KOTCS does.

I'll leave out the thing Mutt does in the Jungle Chase. I found it odd that Indy is never really the "leader" pushing the other characters forward like in LC with his dad or TOD with Short Round and Willie... he is largely going along with everyone else. I did not like Hurt's character because of the reason that he takes away from Indy having more to do. The whole problem I just mentioned with him seemingly following someone else. "Where do we go next?" ... "Is that what you're talking about?" just stuff like that. Indy should be fearlessly navigating into the unknown, having the most knowledge of where he is going and letting the rest know like usual. He is the hero of the film.

I think the whole prospect of Indy returning the skull was lame. Returning? Why was there a death trap to prevent someone from returning the skull that is supposed to be returned? ... once they are there, the biggest fault for me was actually showing the aliens ALIVE.

I didn't mind so much that they were "Ancient Archaeologists" of sorts, but suddenly they all combine into one and become alive? What? It would have been more "Indy" IMO, to have them discover that room and that Aliens exist with the skeletons and everything... realize it's true... and then have the place collapse on itself. Or the UFO could still take off but seriously... it made no sense for them to just come back to life and that was just lame IMO.

I really wanted to see the US govt. chasing Indy thinking he was a spy as he tried to get his hands on the skull before Spalko did. This was how I envisioned the movie in my mind BEFORE I had seen it or anything. And I assumed the opening "adventure" would be seperate from the rest of the movie like it was in the rest but instead it actually doesn't have a separate adventure really. I mean, technically it's just the beginning of the main storyline. So this too sets it apart from other Jones flicks. I was hoping, before knowing what the initial plot was, that the opening adventure was Indy trying to get ahold of the Ark or something else in the warehouse and coming across it. While that somewhat holds true, it bothers me that the beginning is not seperate with a seperate artifact. It introduces the "skull" basically... right there....

And another thing that bothers me is the line "say it's a rope." That's kind of weak writing if you ask me for a laugh. It's much funnier in Raiders when the humor is simply that he is afraid of snakes. But he doesn't use a line like "Marion say it's a rope not a snake!" ...

It's lack of any cool traps like the challenges in LC, the boulder in Raiders or the spike room in TOD also disappointed me. Retracting stairs wasn't really all that impressive to me. It needed to be a large set piece not just a passing moment. It didn't seem all that dangerous to me either. Combine that with the baffling question of "Why are there traps when the skull is supposed to be returned? Why do they want to keep him out?"

I actually like the Jungle chase for the most part. But I didn't like the waterfall thing. The little riddle or whatever was obvious... 3 times it drops or whatever. That was kind of boring. How many times have we seen the "everyone yells as they go over the biggest waterfall" thing in movies?

And finally the Ants. I didn't like how they portrayed the creepy crawlies in KOTCS. This too separates it drastically from the original three for me. Why? WHY?!!! WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE ASK THAT? Because in all three previous entries, the creepy bugs/whatever were portrayed by REAL ANIMALS and REALISTICALLY. I could believe a sewer full of rats. That's not a big deal. Yeah and they were real! Creepy! ... I could believe bugs in TOD... gross! I wouldn't want to put my hand in there either! I can believe snakes... Cobras? That's scary! Watch out Indy!

But CGI ants who eat people alive is complete and utter fantasy. I can't be afraid or grossed out because I know they're fake ants and that no ant on earth would carry off a human being like that. AND........

They combined that scene with the big Indy vs. big guy fight and had his death, which is usually cool be brought about by CGI Ants. I can believe a man was crushed alive by a rock crushing machine or that a plane propeller could chop him up... but the ants, which I already am not afraid of because they're portrayed in a completely fake manner, just made his death seem lame. Why did it have to be through CGI creepy crawlies?

Spielberg seemed like, in the 80s, the kind of guy to know that to make it truly work on film you'd have to use the real deal. And he even requested MORE snakes to be added to the well of souls in Raiders. CGI Ants sounds like a George Lucas move. If ants don't work realistically, use something else.

These are very big differences from the originals and you can't deny them. I didn't make them up. I am capable of noticing what is and isn't the same. So no, KOTCS was nowhere close to the others in any real way. They got so much wrong. It's not just in the story quality... it's just simple things like that. It didn't have to be as good as Raiders... but it could have done without CGI ants and things like that that make it completely different.

These are reasons why I do not like KOTCS that much and I think most Indy fans would have known better than to do some of the silly things they actually DID do.

And all that stuff I mentioned as problems that differ it from the others without mentioning the fridge.