Crystal Skull hatred knows no bounds

Darth Vile

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
...and comes off condescending.

I certainly wasn't meaning to be... However, as you my friend are a major exponent of the condescending tone, you should allow others the same privilege. :)
 
Darth Vile said:
I certainly wasn't meaning to be...

...very VERY subjective...

Darth Vile said:
However, as you my friend are a major exponent of the condescending tone...

Though I question your assessment, doubtless I have written my share...

Darth Vile said:
you should allow others the same privilege. :)

I'm flattered that you believe I hold some reign on free speech!:hat:

Though I'll always remain beside you to fix your clip-on tie.;)
 
Last edited:
Darth Vile said:
As with a professional footballing foul, it's all about intent... but again, the pundits view can be very VERY subjective. ;)
Considering Eduardo DeSilva's dive vs.Celtic I'd argue perception is king...(n)
 

Major West

Member
seasider said:
AICN today posted a promotion for some Indiana Jones event where participants can eat food Temple of Doom style and other stuff. Sounds like fun but then comes the annoying bit where they emphasize that they're showing the first 3 movies and try to pretend that Crystal Skull does not exist. I understand that a lot of fans didn't like the last one but there were a lot that did and accepted it as a part of the Indiana Jones canon. It just annoys me when people do stuff like this. I mean what's wrong with just showing all 4 movies and letting the fans decide?

http://www.originalalamo.com/show.aspx?id=7162

"To celebrate the flawlessness of ALL THREE of the INDIANA JONES movies"


You can tell they are deluded fanboys as they think all three films are flawless. Raiders is the only (almost) flawless film. None of the sequels really live up to it.
 

kongisking

Active member
Oh, the shame of it all! The fans get upset over other fans having opinions! Goodness, has Kali finally begun to corrupt our minds with Anti-KOTCSism? The horror, the horror! I'm speechless at the terrible fact that there are people out there that want to defend that humongous waste of celluloid nicknamed Indy 4! What is wrong with us all? It was OBVIOUSLY terrible compared to the absolutely flawless classic trilogy! Why, oh why, did Spielberg and company bother making a sequel to a series that was so fun, so entertaining, and so, so, SO profound?

Wait a sec...this isn't the "Pretend to be an Anti-KOTCSer Thread"! Whoops! ;)
 

Dayne

New member
KOTCS may be lagging in excitment during the last half, but compared to some of LC's borderline painful-to-watch scenes, it ultimately doesn't stray very far from the "OT". Apart from the brilliant performances from Connery and Ford and the awesome tank fight sequence (and who could forget the amazing fedora cut in the beginning :hat: ), LC feels like a bit of a mess by the time the credits roll. It is MHO that Last Crusade doesn't surpass Skull in overall quality (such as plot, characters and direction) but it does have more old school Indy charm to it, making neither better than the other. To me, this basically divides the entire series into two parts. If I was hosting such an event, it would be ALL or RAIDERS (which is flawless).

When considering those god-awful attempts for a working Indy 4 script, I'm really quite grateful for what we got as the end product. Can you possibly imagine Darabont's draft on screen, let alone Jeb Stuart's!?!? My god, if those became reality, then I'd be right along side all you fanatical Kingdom of the Crystal Skull haters!...
 

Darth Vile

New member
Dayne said:
KOTCS may be lagging in excitment during the last half, but compared to some of LC's borderline painful-to-watch scenes, it ultimately doesn't stray very far from the "OT". Apart from the brilliant performances from Connery and Ford and the awesome tank fight sequence (and who could forget the amazing fedora cut in the beginning :hat: ), LC feels like a bit of a mess by the time the credits roll. It is MHO that Last Crusade doesn't surpass Skull in overall quality (such as plot, characters and direction) but it does have more old school Indy charm to it, making neither better than the other. To me, this basically divides the entire series into two parts. If I was hosting such an event, it would be ALL or RAIDERS (which is flawless)...

Whilst I don't necessarily agree, I think it's an interesting and valid view nonetheless.
 

TennesseBuck

New member
Dayne said:
KOTCS may be lagging in excitment during the last half, but compared to some of LC's borderline painful-to-watch scenes, it ultimately doesn't stray very far from the "OT". Apart from the brilliant performances from Connery and Ford and the awesome tank fight sequence (and who could forget the amazing fedora cut in the beginning :hat: ), LC feels like a bit of a mess by the time the credits roll. It is MHO that Last Crusade doesn't surpass Skull in overall quality (such as plot, characters and direction) but it does have more old school Indy charm to it, making neither better than the other. To me, this basically divides the entire series into two parts. If I was hosting such an event, it would be ALL or RAIDERS (which is flawless).

When considering those god-awful attempts for a working Indy 4 script, I'm really quite grateful for what we got as the end product. Can you possibly imagine Darabont's draft on screen, let alone Jeb Stuart's!?!? My god, if those became reality, then I'd be right along side all you fanatical Kingdom of the Crystal Skull haters!...


I truly disliked Darabont's script - it was too much of an homage to the Indy series rather than an homage to the adventure movies of the past. The whole re-enactment of the "grabbing the Idol" bit was too silly.

As for Last Crusade, it is a bit watered down in terms of intensity but it does have Connery and he played off very well with Ford. I like the Grail and the finale but in the end, it just whets your appetite for Indy 4 which is precisely what I think they wanted it to do. I love Crystal Skull because it was fresher with new characters, excepting the lovely return of Marion, it enhanced and developed the Indy character and I love the 50's period so it worked better than I expected. But the best Indy flick will always be Raiders.
 

FILMKRUSC

New member
Major West said:

"To celebrate the flawlessness of ALL THREE of the INDIANA JONES movies"


You can tell they are deluded fanboys as they think all three films are flawless. Raiders is the only (almost) flawless film. None of the sequels really live up to it.

Compared to Crystal Skull they seem like flawless Indy Adventures. :hat:
 

arkfinder

New member
All 4 dvd's laid out infront of me & I reach for "Raiders" first every time. Skull was ok. But, nothing beats the first 3.
 

FedoraHead

New member
seasider said:
AICN today posted a promotion for some Indiana Jones event where participants can eat food Temple of Doom style and other stuff. Sounds like fun but then comes the annoying bit where they emphasize that they're showing the first 3 movies and try to pretend that Crystal Skull does not exist. I understand that a lot of fans didn't like the last one but there were a lot that did and accepted it as a part of the Indiana Jones canon. It just annoys me when people do stuff like this. I mean what's wrong with just showing all 4 movies and letting the fans decide?

http://www.originalalamo.com/show.aspx?id=7162

I know what how you feel. I am a BIG Star Wars fans and the prequel hates have almost killed Star Wars for me, not Lucas. Lucas made the movies he wanted, you can't fault him for that. Sure they are not as good as the first 3 but you know, they are just movies. I don't get how a guy can bash Phantom Menace over and over and then he will tell you "I saw it about 7 times". What? You hated it but you saw it and you even own the dvd? Also they bash on Lucas so much. I just feel no matter what he did, they would not be happy. Just get over it and watch the movie for what it is, a movie. I am 100% with it? No but you know what, it's his right to make what he felt was the story HE wanted to tell. They just get a little carried away with the "Lucas raped my childhood" talk. Come on people! I am a HUGE fan but come on!
 

FedoraHead

New member
arkfinder said:
All 4 dvd's laid out infront of me & I reach for "Raiders" first every time. Skull was ok. But, nothing beats the first 3.

It seems to go in order, Raiders best. I know most people like LC more than TOD and I can see the point. I guess it was more of the "Raiders" style but Doom was just 100% pure fun. It's ten times better than any action movie today. Also I hear people that didn't like KOTCS cause no Nazi, no Henry, no this and that that the other movies had. I bet if it had Nazi, or other stuff the same people would say "They just copied the older movies, nothing new".
 

sandiegojones

New member
Wow, doesn't all this get old? Who cares about AICN. They don't have a real opinion on anything. I remember Harry drooling over the awesomeness of Episode I and then back tracking after fanboys complained about Jar Jar. Harry is a giant ginger douche!

People are entitled to their opinions about everything and I do not need anyone to agree with me to validate my own opinion. Prior to KOTCS all I heard was how awful TOD was. Years an years of *****ing about everything from the humor to the "racist depictions of Indians" (but all Germans are Nazi's, right?). TOD was always my favorite because of the humor and slightly more silly action (i.e. raft slalom, mine cart, bugs, heart ripping, etc). Also in my opinion TOD had the best soundtrack.

It's a movie made for entertainment. Same with Star Wars. They are not made to be the greatest films ever, just to entertain. Peoples personal desires have created insurmountable expectations for all these films even if they do have glaring flaws.

Is KOTCS as good a Raiders? No, not as a whole, but there certainly are unique moments that are equal to any of the other films in the series. I'm sure had it been made 15 or more years ago most people would have been more accepting of it (Again, same with SW). I didn't think HF seemed as old as some make him out to be. He's in better shape than me and I'm 30!.

I find it funny that people complain about the alien theme too because I see Ancient Aliens on History and similar shows on NatGeo about alien beings and the Mayans or Egyptians. They wouldn't keep making those shows if there wasn't a very large percentage of the population who watch and believe this stuff. The plot isn't any more far fetched than any of the other films whether you are believer or not.

I love 50's music and Americana and I find Mayans, Aztecs and Incas to be fascinating. There's a lot of historical facts in KOTCS (although exaggerated), just the skulls origins and UFO finale are totally fanciful (yet it' fits the 50's theme). The skull myth itself, the Nazca lines, Inca cemetery, deformed skulls, lost cities and ancient gold (there are still hundreds of cities to be found in Central American jungles) and even the giant ants are all based in some fact and represented about as accurately as any artifact in the prior films (which is to say only as accurate as necessary to move the plot).

I like the film. Will it be on the AFI greatest list? No but neither are about 50,000 other films made since the early 20th century. Raiders was a great film and fun. The others are just fun, but what's so bad about that?
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
FedoraHead said:
I know what how you feel. I am a BIG Star Wars fans and the prequel hates have almost killed Star Wars for me, not Lucas. Lucas made the movies he wanted, you can't fault him for that. Sure they are not as good as the first 3 but you know, they are just movies. I don't get how a guy can bash Phantom Menace over and over and then he will tell you "I saw it about 7 times". What? You hated it but you saw it and you even own the dvd? Also they bash on Lucas so much. I just feel no matter what he did, they would not be happy. Just get over it and watch the movie for what it is, a movie. I am 100% with it? No but you know what, it's his right to make what he felt was the story HE wanted to tell. They just get a little carried away with the "Lucas raped my childhood" talk. Come on people! I am a HUGE fan but come on!

sandiegojones said:
Wow, doesn't all this get old? Who cares about AICN. They don't have a real opinion on anything. I remember Harry drooling over the awesomeness of Episode I and then back tracking after fanboys complained about Jar Jar. Harry is a giant ginger douche!

People are entitled to their opinions about everything and I do not need anyone to agree with me to validate my own opinion. Prior to KOTCS all I heard was how awful TOD was. Years an years of *****ing about everything from the humor to the "racist depictions of Indians" (but all Germans are Nazi's, right?). TOD was always my favorite because of the humor and slightly more silly action (i.e. raft slalom, mine cart, bugs, heart ripping, etc). Also in my opinion TOD had the best soundtrack.

It's a movie made for entertainment. Same with Star Wars. They are not made to be the greatest films ever, just to entertain. Peoples personal desires have created insurmountable expectations for all these films even if they do have glaring flaws.

Is KOTCS as good a Raiders? No, not as a whole, but there certainly are unique moments that are equal to any of the other films in the series. I'm sure had it been made 15 or more years ago most people would have been more accepting of it (Again, same with SW). I didn't think HF seemed as old as some make him out to be. He's in better shape than me and I'm 30!.

I find it funny that people complain about the alien theme too because I see Ancient Aliens on History and similar shows on NatGeo about alien beings and the Mayans or Egyptians. They wouldn't keep making those shows if there wasn't a very large percentage of the population who watch and believe this stuff. The plot isn't any more far fetched than any of the other films whether you are believer or not.

I love 50's music and Americana and I find Mayans, Aztecs and Incas to be fascinating. There's a lot of historical facts in KOTCS (although exaggerated), just the skulls origins and UFO finale are totally fanciful (yet it' fits the 50's theme). The skull myth itself, the Nazca lines, Inca cemetery, deformed skulls, lost cities and ancient gold (there are still hundreds of cities to be found in Central American jungles) and even the giant ants are all based in some fact and represented about as accurately as any artifact in the prior films (which is to say only as accurate as necessary to move the plot).

I like the film. Will it be on the AFI greatest list? No but neither are about 50,000 other films made since the early 20th century. Raiders was a great film and fun. The others are just fun, but what's so bad about that?

Great posts... Totally agree. :hat:

I went to see Iron Man 2 last night, which in my opinion is a completely average (if likeable) action movie. If you were to believe the reviews of those who are also quick to denounce anything George Lucas (or contemporary Spielberg), you'd think Iron Man 2 was a piece of classic cinema. Those fellas at AICN etc. are so predictable in their fashionable opinions.
 
Last edited:

FedoraHead

New member
I don't think anyone really goes to AICN for reviews. If you want reviews, go to Rotten T. (All the Star Wars Prequel are even fresh on it!) I think Harry and AICN was a great site for leaked rumors, pictures, and things. It was like TMZ for movies but it's kind gotten away form that also. Seem all his news is mostly "press release" like any other site.
 

Lego Indy

Member
With CGI there is no need to develop storylines. Movies like Crystal Skull, Star Wars 1-3, Avatar, Transformers, Iron Man, etc are all flash with no substance. (n)
 

Forrestal3657

New member
I blame no one for Indy IV. I think it was an all right addition to the series, not fantastic, but not horrible. All of the sequels were like that. They weren't Raiders, but they were still entertaining. And Shia saying he dropped the ball on the series is bs because they are simply films, and as we all know, there are good and bad sequels. All of the Indy films have an overall better track record than most film franchises and I think that Indy IV did not suffer from anything, it just wasn't as interesting and was a too family friendly perhaps. It was still an Indy film, and for that I am grateful. It wasn't what I wanted but I'm not gonna destroy it, you know. :)
 
Top