I am sad for Indy

indyfan85

New member
Personally: didn't think Crystal Skull was that bad. What I read: majority of people think Crystal Skull is that bad and THEN SOME.

I kind of expected the movie to be hokey and self deprecating, I have a few issues with the Shia Character in particular but I really did enjoy much of this movie.

I think many of the things spielburg and co. said before the movies release might have stabbed them in the foot, like comparing this to Raiders. It isn't an issue of money either - it is an issue of artistic integrity in my view and it is being shat upon by fans in droves.
 

PloKoon

New member
^^

And much more to come. Seriously, all this *****ing and moaning about Indy 4 hasn't affected Spielberg or Lucas, only made them disappointed in their very small fanboy base (or in themselves xD, but I doubt it, they're freakin' richer for it, not like they were doing it for the dinero anyways).

:whip:
 
Here's the real movie poster for KOTCS...

disaster_movie_ver3.jpg
 

graz

New member
Way of the dodo said:
700 Million dollars. Nobody's crying over this movie out there in real life.


I think thats a good point. There is an awful lot of naval gazing goes on on internet sites. If you look at the bigger picture you will undoubtably find there are alot of casual moviegoers who had a good time at the movies for a couple of hours and have now moved on...:)
 

PloKoon

New member
indyfan85 said:
Personally: didn't think Crystal Skull was that bad. What I read: majority of people think Crystal Skull is that bad and THEN SOME.

I kind of expected the movie to be hokey and self deprecating, I have a few issues with the Shia Character in particular but I really did enjoy much of this movie.

I think many of the things spielburg and co. said before the movies release might have stabbed them in the foot, like comparing this to Raiders. It isn't an issue of money either - it is an issue of artistic integrity in my view and it is being shat upon by fans in droves.

wanted to also point out


Simply an awesome thread, you let people know that you you liked the film, but you don't go overboard, and in fact, you put the extremist haters to shame a little bit. Well done, and I'll be following your thread.

:whip:
 

No Ticket

New member
It wasn't THAT bad. But seriously, is it the movie you wanted to see? It isn't what I expected. One of the biggest things missing for me was the memorable thematic score. In TOD/Raiders/LC I can pick out at least ONE unique theme to each film... I can't think of anything in particular in this one that isn't re-used from the older films.

Outside of that, I just feel like the story just wasn't that interesting or something. I dunno. It didn't feel like Indiana Jones like it should have. This could be due to the fact that Indy's character has essentially changed... he is more like his father now and less like the Indy we knew. In other words... more of a stick in the mud than before "Intolerable!"

... but I get your point. It makes me feel bad too. I've been singing praises of this franchise for years and years and now that it's finally getting attention again... people are saying it just sucked.

But if they made another. I wouldn't want a repeat of the way KOTCS turned out. It has been awhile since I've seen it though, maybe I'll feel differently once it's on DVD.
 

Agent Z

Active member
No Ticket said:
But seriously, is it the movie you wanted to see? It isn't what I expected.

I can honestly say that each sequel in the series, because they are each so different in tone from one another, were nowhere what I was expecting.

Everytime I sat in the theater, I was surprised by how much different in style and tone each one was.

Looking back, I kinda liked that. As long as the story is fun and I enjoy the characters, then I'm game, no matter the template the beards decide to use to showcase the film.

Look at the Bourne series. They are all carbon copies of each other. Seen one, seen them all. I don't like my expectations being met in that matter.
 

No Ticket

New member
Agent Z said:
I can honestly say that each sequel in the series, because they are each so different in tone from one another, were nowhere what I was expecting.

Everytime I sat in the theater, I was surprised by how much different in style and tone each one was.

Looking back, I kinda liked that. As long as the story is fun and I enjoy the characters, then I'm game, no matter the template the beards decide to use to showcase the film.

Look at the Bourne series. They are all carbon copies of each other. Seen one, seen them all. I don't like my expectations being met in that matter.

I guess I can't relate. Because I can't remember the first time I saw any of the original Indy films. Maybe this is part of why it's hard to accept KOTCS. I have known the original three since I was maybe four years old.
 

Darth Vile

New member
indyfan85 said:
Personally: didn't think Crystal Skull was that bad. What I read: majority of people think Crystal Skull is that bad and THEN SOME.

I kind of expected the movie to be hokey and self deprecating, I have a few issues with the Shia Character in particular but I really did enjoy much of this movie.

I think many of the things spielburg and co. said before the movies release might have stabbed them in the foot, like comparing this to Raiders. It isn't an issue of money either - it is an issue of artistic integrity in my view and it is being shat upon by fans in droves.


To be fair... I think it's only a small number of vocal "fans" that really rip into KOTCS. Some wanted to see the world set alight by another Indy movie, most just wanted to enjoy the circa 2 hour romp (which they did).

The bottom line is that KOTCS delivered more of the same (in a good sense). It didn't re-define the genre or even try to compete with the more modern/action adventures that swamp the local multiplexes. What it did, was to bring some of that spirit (largely lacking in most summer blockbusters) from the earlier movies and transpose it into a contemporary movie.

KOTCS was always going to be constrained by its ideals e.g. having an older actor playing a leading part, resisting large-scale use of CGI and the avoidance of playing it dark and gritty (fashionable in so many modern action/thrillers). KOTCS may not have set the world alight, but it was a fun ride whilst it lasted and ultimately, Spielberg/Lucas and Ford left us with another enjoyable slice of Indiana Jones.
 

Agent Z

Active member
No Ticket said:
I guess I can't relate. Because I can't remember the first time I saw any of the original Indy films. Maybe this is part of why it's hard to accept KOTCS. I have known the original three since I was maybe four years old.

Ahhh, so you mean you had the original trilogy in one big gulp from the get-go?

Yeah, I watched each one as they debuted theatrically, so I had all those years in between each sequel to build up the hype (which is 100X worse when you are a kid)..and then get throttled in the theater seat when each sequel was doing its own thing.

Spacing them apart, you can see the major shifts in tone. If Kingdom was guilty of anything, it was in following suit with what had followed before, which was not following suit at all....
 

No Ticket

New member
Agent Z said:
Ahhh, so you mean you had the original trilogy in one big gulp from the get-go?

Yeah, I watched each one as they debuted theatrically, so I had all those years in between each sequel to build up the hype (which is 100X worse when you are a kid)..and then get throttled in the theater seat when each sequel was doing its own thing.

Spacing them apart, you can see the major shifts in tone. If Kingdom was guilty of anything, it was in following suit with what had followed before, which was not following suit at all....

I saw Raiders and TOD back when I was four... and probably LC sometime around when I was five (it had just come out). So pretty much I saw them all at once. And it was so long ago that it just seems like I've always known them. I can't remember a time when I didn't... or a time when I first saw any of the three.

As a kid... I think I remember only noticing how different TOD seemed. But it was always my favorite back then (rope bridge scene). And they thought it was too scary/dark.
 

A_True_Believer

New member
Agent Z said:
I can honestly say that each sequel in the series, because they are each so different in tone from one another, were nowhere what I was expecting.

This.

I've heard so many people complain that KOTCS doesn't "feel" like an Indy movie. Well, which "feel" were they expecting? The rough, mostly serious action of Raiders? The bipolar camp/horror of Temple? The lighthearted comedy of Crusade? The truth is that there isn't a consistent Indy "feel" at all. Each film was drastically different in tone, so why shouldn't KOTCS have it's own "feel" as well? Looking at it this way, I think it fits right in with the others.
 

The Man

Well-known member
I don't feel sad for Indy, to be honest. Crystal Skull could well the biggest earner of the year, so sympathy doesn't seem quite appropriate. Had the film bombed, that would have saddened me, oddly enough, even though I don't like the movie.
 

Jones_Happens

New member
I've talked about this issue several times in the past, but I'm happy to discuss it again! The posts above discuss each person's individual perception of the original adventures based on the age they were when they saw them, whether they saw them spaced out or all together, etc. This is an important point to consider.

My nephews (5 & 9) saw KOTCS in the theater about a week after they watched the OT. They want to know why this latest installment is SO MUCH BETTER than any of the other three. Is it because of some plot element or characterization, or score, or acting, or screenwriting? Maybe. Or maybe it's simply because that's the only of the four films they saw in the theater. Something to think about for the lovers and haters who speak in absolutes. It all depends on your personal perceptions, which can be affected by all kinds of things.
 

indyclone25

Well-known member
i went in looking to see and indy film and i got that -- i realized that this movie does take place many years later -it does involve aliens --- and that it mostly set in peru--- no desert chase like in raiders and crusade , the movie was new , refreshing and hell i had a good time watching it ---is the best of the series , no! but it is entertaining none the less . i think most people who are complaining wanted a second coming --- it isnt going to happen --- it didnt happen with the star wars trilogy in 99 and it won't happen again now ---if they make a 5th indy you will still have people that will complain " they didn't use indy enough" "they used mutt way to much" so they won't be happy unless the complain about something--- if you have misgivings about a film don't see it , if you see it fine you have your right to complain , but try not to press your beliefs onto others , which i have seen on other boards --- but like i said before i enjoyed it and i hope that if they make a indy 5 i'll be there opening day waiting to enjoy that .
 

MaxPhactor23

New member
Jones_Happens said:
My nephews (5 & 9) saw KOTCS in the theater about a week after they watched the OT.

Personally...having kids on your side doesn't improve your argument. If anything it only hurts it, proving that it's an immature and non-violent film through and through. That?s not a positive thing.
 

graz

New member
MaxPhactor23 said:
Personally...having kids on your side doesn't improve your argument. If anything it only hurts it, proving that it's an immature and non-violent film through and through. That?s not a positive thing.

Well.. my kids 7 & 10 love it and , guess what? My Wife (36) and me (39) like it too! You are right though, I am incredibly immature so maybe thats why? (or maybe you get to a certain age and just can't be bothered to take stuff so seriously...:D )
 

StoneTriple

New member
Jones_Happens said:
They want to know why this latest installment is SO MUCH BETTER than any of the other three. Is it because of some plot element or characterization, or score, or acting, or screenwriting? Maybe. Or maybe it's simply because that's the only of the four films they saw in the theater. Something to think about for the lovers and haters who speak in absolutes. It all depends on your personal perceptions, which can be affected by all kinds of things.

A_True_Believer said:
I've heard so many people complain that KOTCS doesn't "feel" like an Indy movie. Well, which "feel" were they expecting? The rough, mostly serious action of Raiders? The bipolar camp/horror of Temple? The lighthearted comedy of Crusade? The truth is that there isn't a consistent Indy "feel" at all.

Agent Z said:
Yeah, I watched each one as they debuted theatrically, so I had all those years in between each sequel to build up the hype (which is 100X worse when you are a kid)..and then get throttled in the theater seat when each sequel was doing its own thing.

Spacing them apart, you can see the major shifts in tone. If Kingdom was guilty of anything, it was in following suit with what had followed before, which was not following suit at all....

Excellent points, all.

I mentioned similar points on them myself in my original review, so we seem to be of a similar generation.
The more vocal haters seem to be of a younger generation and apparently experienced the first three films all at once, on video. With that in mind, they lacked the years of anticipation that Agent Z mentioned. Watching all three at once, they don't feel the separation of style between each that True Believer mentioned. Being introduced to the films when they were children, they lacked life experiences that help make a movie experience more personal, which could alter those absolute opinions that Jones Happens brought up.

I definately think the 20-year gap between 3 & 4 did more to divide the fan base than the story or cinematography. They were as-good or better than the other three films.

The fourth film isn't different - the audience is. A very large percentage of it wasn't in the theaters watching the first three films, 20-30 years ago. Their expectations (about many things) are very different than ours were back then.
 
Top