Why are people so hard on Indy IV?

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I haven't had cable in a very long time, but I found myself under circumstances to watch some of the Indiana Jones marathon that aired on USA last night. Once more, I found Crystal Skull to be a quite watchable but curiously distant film compared to its predecessors. The disparity was really noticeable. It never gets into a comfortable gear or finds a rhythm.

I find it kind of a fascinating movie to dissect. It's like there's a piece missing but you can't quite place what it is.
 

NightWalker81

New member
Udvarnoky said:
I haven't had cable in a very long time, but I found myself under circumstances to watch some of the Indiana Jones marathon that aired on USA last night. Once more, I found Crystal Skull to be a quite watchable but curiously distant film compared to its predecessors. The disparity was really noticeable. It never gets into a comfortable gear or finds a rhythm.

I find it kind of a fascinating movie to dissect. It's like there's a piece missing but you can't quite place what it is.

I agree. Though I love the movie, I share that feelings with you. Like you say it's interesting because it's difficult to explain what is different. But it's clear to me the movie is a little apart from the others in certain ways and creates a different grade of feelings.

Like I said in another post, I think the first half of the movie has more "classic Indy feeling", but the second half is more distant. It's curious and ironic, because the second half is more alike to the others (temples, traps, persecutions, fights against big guys, bugs, etc). But I think it's the energy... I can't explain it. It seems Spielberg and crew were in full shape in the first half of the movie, but they were a little tired for the second half. Like they haven't the same energy as they had in the beginning of the film. Everything is more conventional in the second half of the movie, less inspired, if you permit me say it.

And I like it so much, but I think is not than perfect (or inspired) like the others movies. The action feels more distant to me (Indy has few moments of action in solitaire) and there's no real danger or construction of tension. I think the movie lacks a little of soul. Maybe the fact Spielberg didn't want to make it was a reason to it.

I think it's a good new chapter in the saga and I enjoy it very much, but I think some times along the movie there is a little feeling of "reluctance?" in some parts.

On the other hand, I think part of this different feelings were deliberated because they wanted to place Indy in another era and to show the world that surrounds the hero has changed. It's complicated.
 

Major West

Member
Apart from the films superficial faults, it lacked a strong Mcguffin to draw the audience into the quest. That was big lacking thing for me. The two most successful films had strong Mcguffins.

The Ark of the Covenant.
The Holy Grail.

The audience could buy into the importance and significance of these things. In Crystal Skull, and despite their being plenty of explanation in IV, I'm constantly left trying to remember what the importance of it all is. There's plenty of decent action and exploration scenes, but there's no strong element to pull it together in a satisfying way. Especially at the end.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I don't think it's the artifact itself. The ark of the covenant felt important because the movie effectively built it up as a discovery and communicated a sense of awe around it. The grail felt important because its significance was couched in a relationship we cared about. With the Shankara stones, we see the suffering its absence causes a village of people and witness the power it gives the Thuggees.

With the crystal skull, we have some vague notion that the Soviets want to use it as a mind weapon, but we're given no reason to think it can be successfully weaponized, and indeed it can't. An apologist might point out that the Nazis were similarly in over their heads with the ark, but Raiders did a much better job of selling us on the intrigue and significance of the ark. Perhaps if Crystal Skull had handled that better, it would have been different.

Also, part of what is supposed to make the ark/skull frightening is the notion of it falling into the hands of really bad people. Raiders gave us memorable moments of genuine villainy from the Nazis (threatening Marion with the poker, burying the heroes alive), whereas the Soviets felt more workmanlike and undistinguished by comparison. We in the audience really don't want Hitler to get the ark, whereas Spalko just seems like an inconsequenial loon rather than a threat to the world - the movie even undermines her supposedly trademark psychic ability - and the way Indy casually assists her and conveys no real concern over his safety doesn't do any favors either.

It was probably a waste for the movie to demonstrate the power of the skull on someone we never met before. If the skull was going to drive someone mad, it ought to have been Indy. Instead he looks at the skull just long enough to kinda communicate with Ox without himself being at any real risk. It's not just weird and convenient, it misses the opportunity to make the third act a matter of Indy's sanity. I would have cared a lot more about the pursuit of Akator if Indy being driven beyond his conscious will to lead the gang there.

The ark would have come across as lame as well if it had been handled like Crystal Skull approaches its McGuffin.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
I don't think it's the artifact itself. The ark of the covenant felt important because the movie effectively built it up as a discovery and communicated a sense of awe around it. The grail felt important because its significance was couched in a relationship we cared about. With the Shankara stones, we see the suffering its absence causes a village of people and witness the power it gives the Thuggees.

With the crystal skull, we have some vague notion that the Soviets want to use it as a mind weapon, but we're given no reason to think it can be successfully weaponized, and indeed it can't. An apologist might point out that the Nazis were similarly in over their heads with the ark, but Raiders did a much better job of selling us on the intrigue and significance of the ark. Perhaps if Crystal Skull had handled that better, it would have been different.

Also, part of what is supposed to make the ark/skull frightening is the notion of it falling into the hands of really bad people. Raiders gave us memorable moments of genuine villainy from the Nazis (threatening Marion with the poker, burying the heroes alive), whereas the Soviets felt more workmanlike and undistinguished by comparison. We in the audience really don't want Hitler to get the ark, whereas Spalko just seems like an inconsequenial loon rather than a threat to the world - the movie even undermines her supposedly trademark psychic ability - and the way Indy casually assists her and conveys no real concern over his safety doesn't do any favors either.

It was probably a waste for the movie to demonstrate the power of the skull on someone we never met before. If the skull was going to drive someone mad, it ought to have been Indy. Instead he looks at the skull just long enough to kinda communicate with Ox without himself being at any real risk. It's not just weird and convenient, it misses the opportunity to make the third act a matter of Indy's sanity. I would have cared a lot more about the pursuit of Akator if Indy being driven beyond his conscious will to lead the gang there.

The ark would have come across as lame as well if it had been handled like Crystal Skull approaches its McGuffin.

The film does hint at this. Indy does say he's going to return the Skull to the Temple because it "told him to."
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
That's right, the impetus for Act III is Indy saying, "It told me to!" It really highlights the limpness of the whole thing. It would have been far better if he had no choice, and the others follow because the only alternative is abandoning Indy. It's a total cheat that there are "degrees" of insanity when it comes to looking at the skull anyway.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Raiders112390 said:
The film does hint at this. Indy does say he's going to return the Skull to the Temple because it "told him to."

So much for Henry Sr.'s influence from the movie before, where Indy didn't need to be told what to do, because he was taught "schelf reliansch."

Indiana-Jones-Last-Crusade-Pantsless-Zeppelin-Scene.jpg
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Udvarnoky said:
That's right, the impetus for Act III is Indy saying, "It told me to!" It really highlights the limpness of the whole thing. It would have been far better if he had no choice, and the others follow because the only alternative is abandoning Indy. It's a total cheat that there are "degrees" of insanity when it comes to looking at the skull anyway.

Speaking of limpness, it certainly doesn't help that "it told me to!" is on the short list for Ford's lesser line deliveries in the series. As with "their treasure wasn't gold, it was knowledge; knowledge was their treasure," we see that the film possibly could have benefitted from Ford's Star Wars/Raiders era eye for what can be written but not said.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
It's a terrible line of dialog to be saddled with. If you don't have a better propeller for the final stretch of the movie than, "Well, BECAUSE!" then the script still needs work. A good actor can weave straw into gold, but you can't ask them to weave nothing into something.

And yes, the sermon at the end about knowledge=treasure was unfortunate as well. I don't blame Ford for that either. Using the grail theme over that dialog felt like the movie was acknowledging that it was weaksauce and thus wanted to remind you of a previous Indy movie where emotional beats actually landed. It's as phony as the South American background plates painted in behind the characters.
 

NightWalker81

New member
It seems to me there are some dialogues or scenes which seems to be made (or thought) very hurriedly (ironic, if we bear in mind the screenplay had a large process of development). But it's the sensation I get sometimes from some scenes. Like if they shot them conventionally and more like "the nowadays", if I'm explaining myself well. Maybe I'm wrong, but I find the other movies to be a lot more carefully thought out. Each scene seemed to be very much studied and inspired.

I think the artifact is O.K. I like the mysteries and the topics about UFO... But it's the movie itself the one it has some lack of inspiration in some places (I opine). Even I didn't like the artifact, I think it won't be a problem. They didn't deepen too much in the topic of Shankara Stones, but the movie worked very well because it has good scenes of tension, action, fun and great moments with Indy.

If you look close enough the first half of the movie, you will see there is more dialogue, more interaction between characters and more "classic Indy spirit". But, in the second half, neither there was so much dialogue nor there was than interesting. The personal interaction was almost gone in the second half. Everybody acts like a cluster, a group run ahead, but there almost isn't personal moments or interactions. Even, the few there was, haven't passion or emotional connection. Indy movies were never cold and distant, and that may be a reason because this is a little different. I like it and I think it has great moments, but the inspiration isn't that alive. Maybe everybody (George Lucas, writers, Spielberg, Harrison, etc) wanted many things and, at the end, the movie didn't got a concrete personality but a mix of them.

Anyway, even with some little "buts", I think the movie was better than many movies of that year, and I think if you look at it like a chapter more in the saga, it's O.K., funny and with some great moments.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
NightWalker81 said:
Indy movies were never cold and distant, and that may be a reason because this is a little different. I like it and I think it has great moments, but the inspiration isn't that alive. Maybe everybody (George Lucas, writers, Spielberg, Harrison, etc) wanted many things and, at the end, the movie didn't got a concrete personality but a mix of them.

I think you're a pretty forgiving guy if this adds up to a "little but" in your final assessment. I'm guessing for a lot of people, and certainly for myself, an Indy movie being distant, uninspired and confused is pretty much a dealbreaker since those really aren't qualities that describe the rest of the series.

My take on negative audience reaction is that it comes down to exactly these faults. However, it's not easy to articulate that a movie was distant or didn't have a concrete personality. I think people simply left the theater with a sense that it didn't work, somehow. Lacking a confident way to describe that disappointment, it's easier to express it via CGI gophers, the implausibility of the fridge, a monkey with Mutt's hair style, etc. But I think in a better movie no one would have cared about those things.
 

NightWalker81

New member
Udvarnoky said:
I think you're a pretty forgiving guy if this adds up to a "little but" in your final assessment. I'm guessing for a lot of people, and certainly for myself, an Indy movie being distant, uninspired and confused is pretty much a dealbreaker since those really aren't qualities that describe the rest of the series.

My take on negative audience reaction is that it comes down to exactly these faults. However, it's not easy to articulate that a movie was distant or didn't have a concrete personality. I think people simply left the theater with a sense that it didn't work, somehow. Lacking a confident way to describe that disappointment, it's easier to express it via CGI gophers, the implausibility of the fridge, a monkey with Mutt's hair style, etc. But I think in a better movie no one would have cared about those things.

Well, I said those “negative” things because we are talking about the “low” moments of the movie and analyzing them. But if we have to talk about the good moments, at the end, the good things weight a lot of more to me than the bad. I love the movie and it has many moments I like. As for me, I didn’t went out of the cinema disappointed, indeed, I went out glad and I had desired to be able to make a film like that, funny and with adventure. I almost felt similar feelings I had when I was a kid and I was watching the old movies of Indy (with due respect to the inevitable differences) and I can say I finished the movie with a smile under my hat.

It’s only, though I love the movie, I can accept the things are not perfect. I am not fan of the extreme positions. I can’t believe whom claims Indy 4 is pure garbage. But I can’t be aside whom says Indy 4 is absolutely perfect either (I don’t think any film is perfect, indeed). Even the original trilogy has his flaws (though I love them too, but I think that’s a fact). Hence I can understand the movie has his flaws (and I can understand many people who is a little disappointed), but even with those things in mind, as for me, I can enjoy the good things of the movie (which I think they are far more than the bad things).

Yes, I find the second half, like I said, less inspired and a little more distant. But, not than distant, if I’m explaining well. For me isn’t a disaster, it’s maybe only a step lower than the others in some parts (and not in the entire movie). Less inspired and a little distant (in some parts) than the others is not equal to “disaster” to me, if you get me. Though I accept the movie could have to do some things better, but I’m very happy with the results at all.

P.S.: Sorry for my bad English again. I’m doing my best, but I’m pretty sure I’m making some mistakes XD.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
So the David Koepp interview back in October was dissected at the time in the Indiana Jones 5 forums, but I think his quote about Crystal Skull has relevance to this thread:

David Koepp said:
I think that what [Indy] looks for and when he looks for it dictates what the movie’s gonna be. So the selection of the MacGuffin is everything. I think Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, being set in 1957 there was a conscious desire to say, ‘Much like two of the other ones were World War II movies set in the 30s and early 40s, this is ’57 so a lot of our influences are gonna be science-fiction movies.’ You got that with the original [script], Jeb Stuart took the first shot at it with Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars. That was a really conscious decision that dictated a lot about what the story would be and what the movie would be like, and I think that was followed through on really nicely. I thought Steve did a really good job with that. I don’t know that the idea was most suited to an Indiana Jones movie, but that was what we did. So we tried to be very careful with the selection of the MacGuffin and the eras to give ourselves as much latitude to make the best kind of Indiana Jones movie that we most want to see. Learning how that’s the importance of the choice of the MacGuffin is a big deal.

Emphasis mine. I wanted to know what you fellas have to say about this. Making the movie about aliens was of course always going to be controversial, and I'm sure there was a certain percentage of the audience that was apt to reject the movie on that basis alone.

But I think it's facile to just point to "aliens" as if it's some password that unlocks the movies problems. Because I don't think the movie's problems have anything to do with the MacGuffin, which is diametrically opposed to Koepp's "the MacGuffin is everything" stance.

I mean, what exactly about aliens or the 50s forced the movie to have no stakes, sloppy plotting, disserviced characters and a distracting, gauze-like patina over its photography? Those are certainly some of the things that made me hard on Indy4. For me to judge whether aliens were just a bad fit for the series in a general sense, I kind of feel like I'd need to see the good version of an Indy aliens movie first. A poor execution of a concept should not be an automatic indictment of the concept. Or to put it another way, you can't blame the MacGuffin for bad storytelling.

So what do you guys think? Does anyone agree with what Koepp's implying here, which is that anything that might have negatively influenced the reception of the movie pretty much traces back to its MacGuffin? Because I don't buy it.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
So what do you guys think? Does anyone agree with what Koepp's implying here, which is that anything that might have negatively influenced the reception of the movie pretty much traces back to its MacGuffin? Because I don't buy it.

I don't buy that. The Sankara stones weren't a terribly memorable MacGuffin and we saw very little of their power actually displayed in the film, yet they worked because the story wasn't entirely focused on them. Indy eventually made it his mission to save the slave children and put his selfish ambitions aside for the greater good. Kingdom Skull didn't have that same focus, as it became all about the skull and we never really felt the threat of what would happen if it fell into Russian hands. They needed to include a few scenes where the skull really does brainwash people, something the novel (if memory serves correctly) does go into a bit more. The skull itself isn't a bad MacGuffin and certainly had potential to be interesting but there was simply too much tossed in by the end.

Look, I like the film quite a bit and have watched it numerous times over the years. I wasn't disappointed by it and I find myself enjoying it every time I see it. That being said, it has problems and I can willingly admit those flaws. It feels like too many rewritten scripts forced together to try and create a cohesive whole. If anything I blame Lucas for his insistence on aliens and a very specific story. If a different angle had been taken with the skull it could easily have been used to great effect.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
IndyBuff said:
I don't buy that. The Sankara stones weren't a terribly memorable MacGuffin and we saw very little of their power actually displayed in the film, yet they worked because the story wasn't entirely focused on them. Indy eventually made it his mission to save the slave children and put his selfish ambitions aside for the greater good.

Bingo. And the holy grail is the same way. Spielberg originally rejected it because he thought it was a weak artifact, but eventually came around to liking it after the father/son dynamic was added. The MacGuffin didn't magically get stronger; they made the story stronger.
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
Yeah I don't agree with Koepp at all on this. I hope he's simply responding to fans who were disappointed by the film and in particular the aliens. Perhaps his own private thoughts on the matter are more nuanced. The "ancient alien" stuff was totally in line with the Indy movies' pseudo-archaeology shtick.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Let me re-address a point made earlier in the thread about the look of the film. I argued that this movie looks significantly different from the first three movies. It was counter-argued that the first three movies have their own stylistic differences from each other.

To this point, the following are DVD screenshots from the main site. They are exterior, daytime shots of Indy with his hat from all four films:

193.jpg

355.jpg

293.jpg

341.jpg


Talk all you want about the nuanced differences in the photography between Raiders, Temple and Last Crusade. There's a clear outlier here.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
I felt the lighting was too bright throughout much of the film. Tombs and underground areas should be dark and dim, yet it always looks like Indy's in broad daylight throughout the entire adventure. I had no problem with the cinematography and overall look of the film, but the lighting was too soft and intrusive in many places.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I enjoyed the compositions. But there is unwelcome filtration applied to the movie throughout that gives the impression of a layer of gauze over the image. I don't just object to this because it is inconsistent with the rest of the series, but because it plain looks bad and gives the whole movie an artificial sheen, even in the location footage.

I mean, just compare the opening images of Last Crusade to Crystal Skull. Both prologues were filmed in a real desert. But while Last Crusade looks vibrant, filmic, and immediate, there's this hazy filter on top of Crystal Skull that distances us. All the halating light feels weird as well. I'd argue this artificial look is a real problem rather than just a taste thing because it prevents us from buying into even the movie's real scenery and stuntwork. It keeps us at arm's length.
 
Top