Cinemassacre Defends KotCS

agull · Jul 19, 2010

Mission Impossible's like that. They do things where you could not survive in the real world. In Indiana Jones, we stay just this side of it."

You can't survive nuke the fridge in the real world.

"I think Tom Cruise proved that people are getting bored with that kind of stuff," Lucas said when asked about over the top action sequences. "What they want to see is something different. And 'Indiana Jones,' if nothing else, is always different."

"A lot of people think Indiana Jones is so outrageous, it is believable.

Or look what Frank Marshall said:

we thought that maybe Indiana Jones could do some more dangerous things in this film, and still have that seem BELIEVEABLE. The key is you have to believe that Indiana Jones can do the things he does and not say ?There?s no way he could?ve survived that situation!?, so you walk a fine line.

Dr.Jonesy · Jul 19, 2010

agull said:
Mission Impossible's like that. They do things where you could not survive in the real world. In Indiana Jones, we stay just this side of it."

You can't survive nuke the fridge in the real world.

"I think Tom Cruise proved that people are getting bored with that kind of stuff," Lucas said when asked about over the top action sequences. "What they want to see is something different. And 'Indiana Jones,' if nothing else, is always different."

"A lot of people think Indiana Jones is so outrageous, it is believable.

Or look what Frank Marshall said:

we thought that maybe Indiana Jones could do some more dangerous things in this film, and still have that seem BELIEVEABLE. The key is you have to believe that Indiana Jones can do the things he does and not say ‘There’s no way he could’ve survived that situation!’, so you walk a fine line.

*Agull talks out of his rectum*

You really believe that they hate the scenes they made? If they knew they were gonna "hate them", then why the hell would they have went with it?!?!

You're telling us what they think? Psh. You can't speak for them. Why don't you call them up and tell them they think that and let me know how quickly they slammed the phone down. You can't tell us what they think when they haven't even said it. They created this film and every scene. And obviously believed in the film and its scenes enough to make them. Their existence is my proof that they "love" these scenes. Or else they wouldn't be there. They obviously have a different idea of what Indiana Jones is than you.

Accept it. Then get a girlfriend.

Montana Smith · Jul 19, 2010

agull said:
Mission Impossible's like that. They do things where you could not survive in the real world. In Indiana Jones, we stay just this side of it."

You can't survive nuke the fridge in the real world.

"I think Tom Cruise proved that people are getting bored with that kind of stuff," Lucas said when asked about over the top action sequences. "What they want to see is something different. And 'Indiana Jones,' if nothing else, is always different."

"A lot of people think Indiana Jones is so outrageous, it is believable.

Or look what Frank Marshall said:

we thought that maybe Indiana Jones could do some more dangerous things in this film, and still have that seem BELIEVEABLE. The key is you have to believe that Indiana Jones can do the things he does and not say ‘There’s no way he could’ve survived that situation!’, so you walk a fine line.

None of that quotes Lucas hating the fridge.

What Marshall says is that "you have to believe that Indiana Jones can do the things he does", not that we have to believe the guy next door can do it. That's the difference - that's the "fine line" that Lucas & co. "walk".

The fact that Lucas permitted nuking the fridge with Indy inside is evidence that he believed Indy would survive it. After all, Indy was his original idea.

Darth Vile · Jul 19, 2010

agull said:
Mission Impossible's like that. They do things where you could not survive in the real world. In Indiana Jones, we stay just this side of it."

You can't survive nuke the fridge in the real world.

"I think Tom Cruise proved that people are getting bored with that kind of stuff," Lucas said when asked about over the top action sequences. "What they want to see is something different. And 'Indiana Jones,' if nothing else, is always different."
.

Congrats on articulating a valid point (although one I don?t subscribe to)... I'd agree that KOTCS, in many places, sits within the realms of plausibility. However, I don't actually believe that the plausible/implausible worlds are as mutually exclusive as you like to imagine. For example, I personally find the motorcycle chase in KOTCS far more believable than the mine car chase (TOD) or the bi-plane/mecheshersmidt/car sequence (TLC). Does that automatically make the motorcycle chase an empirically ?better? action sequence, or by default make TOD and TLC lesser movies? I?d posit that it does not.

There is certainly more than enough live action in KOTCS to keep it on the same page as the other Indy movies. If that ?live action? doesn?t quite do it for you/me/whoever? then perhaps the problem lies elsewhere. As I?ve said elsewhere, KOTCS is far from being a perfect movie, and it may very well be the weakest Indy movie to date. However, I think many of your issues arise from a very specific interpretation of the movie, based on a very specific expectation. The net result is that your disappointment is disproportionate to the actual movie? which doesn't lend itself to rational debate.

Gabeed · Jul 19, 2010

I'd agree with agull that KOTCS has the most instances/feel of implausibility, but I also realize that it's a rather smooth transition from what we see previous Indy movies. It isn't all black and white, though I see Raiders as the most plausible movie, and for that reason and many more, it is by far my favorite of the series.

Honestly, I think I find it hard to criticize KoTCS without criticizing Last Crusade as well. They both have that "family reunion," "fun for the whole family" feel to them that lends an air of invincibility to the main characters just as much as the stunts. It can be seen in contrast to the grittiness of Raiders and the bipolar horror-gross out/comedy aura of Temple of Doom.

Montana Smith · Jul 19, 2010

Gabeed said:
I'd agree with agull that KOTCS has the most instances/feel of implausibility

Yes, KOTCS stretches the cliffhangers into greater sequences...

Gabeed said:
but I also realize that it's a rather smooth transition from what we see previous Indy movies. It isn't all black and white, though I see Raiders as the most plausible movie, and for that reason and many more, it is by far my favorite of the series.

...and we were prepared for KOTCS by TOD. ROTLA was the first movie with this new character of Indy, where Lucas & co. were testing the water, but it becomes obvious in TOD that stretching both the believability and the possibility of Indy's environment was the direction they wanted to take him.

Gabeed said:
Honestly, I think I find it hard to criticize KoTCS without criticizing Last Crusade as well. They both have that "family reunion," "fun for the whole family" feel to them that lends an air of invincibility to the main characters just as much as the stunts. It can be seen in contrast to the grittiness of Raiders and the bipolar horror-gross out/comedy aura of Temple of Doom.

Likewise, I would find it hard to remove KOTCS from the series without removing TOD and TLC as well. If I believed that KOTCS wasn't an Indy movie, I would have to be brutal and say that ROTLA was the only Indy movie ever made. Just as Dr. No would be the only James Bond movie ever made. Every subsequent movie will challenge you to accept it as part of the series, as you will invariably have to accept character progression and the gradual increase in spectacle as technology improves to provide that spectacle for an ever more demanding audience.

Dr.Jonesy · Jul 20, 2010

Gabeed said:
Honestly, I think I find it hard to criticize KoTCS without criticizing Last Crusade as well. They both have that "family reunion," "fun for the whole family" feel to them that lends an air of invincibility to the main characters just as much as the stunts.

Exactly.

Almost all my criticisms I had for KOTCS were in TOD or LC. And I never realized how much I let slide with those films. Now, any criticisms I have for the last 3 films, I really don't care anymore. I love them all to death.

Paden · Jul 20, 2010

For the record, I'm primarily a fan of the grittiness that characterized Raiders of the Lost Ark.

That said, I think a valid point is raised here. Despite the fact that KOTCS wasn't my cup of tea, it did continue the progression of "over the top" stunts and humor that we began to see in Temple of Doom. In that regard, Crystal Skull remains true to the direction that Indy's creators favored. Personally, I wish the stories had retained the more "down to earth" feel of the first installment, but I know there are many Indy fans that enjoy the later chapters most. In that respect, Lucas and company certainly made a film that falls neatly in line with the tone established by Temple and Last Crusade.

michael · Jul 20, 2010

Paden said:
Personally, I wish the stories had retained the more "down to earth" feel of the first installment, but I know there are many Indy fans that enjoy the later chapters most. In that respect, Lucas and company certainly made a film that falls neatly in line with the tone established by Temple and Last Crusade.

I'd say The Last Crusade had a very "down to earth" feel to it, probably because they went back to the "Raiders formula."

Dr.Jonesy · Jul 20, 2010

Paden said:
For the record, I'm primarily a fan of the grittiness that characterized Raiders of the Lost Ark.

That said, I think a valid point is raised here. Despite the fact that KOTCS wasn't my cup of tea, it did continue the progression of "over the top" stunts and humor that we began to see in Temple of Doom. In that regard, Crystal Skull remains true to the direction that Indy's creators favored. Personally, I wish the stories had retained the more "down to earth" feel of the first installment, but I know there are many Indy fans that enjoy the later chapters most. In that respect, Lucas and company certainly made a film that falls neatly in line with the tone established by Temple and Last Crusade.

I'm like you. I love Raiders of the Lost Ark and its grit, and I would have loved that the series kept that same set of balls. Doesn't make me dislike the sequels that came after it or not be able to love/enjoy them, but there's always that feeling I have when watching ROTLA that makes me think "Jeez, the feel of this film would've been so awesome to continue..."

That being said, I do feel that the series has progressed and TOD, LC and KOTCS were natural progressions. That's one of the reasons I think the film was received so well with critics/casual fans; they just saw it as 'another Indy sequel and a good adventure'. They viewed it in a much more simple way. Whereas some of the mixed hardcores wanted the film to be just so. And I found when I picked KOTCS to pieces, it took away from my enjoyment of the film, and the previous sequels. And that isn't right.

Raiders will always be the crown jewel of that series in pop culture. I mean how many films make reference or parody of TOD, LC or KOTCS? It's always a tribute to ROTLA. And film history will always mention 'Raiders' as one of the best films of all time. And there's a reason why the 3 sequels are always left out from those 'All Time Classics' list.

KOTCS has always fell right onto that line of the tones established in the original films. And I concur, I know alot of people who enjoy the last few chapters the most.

Rocket Surgeon · Jul 20, 2010

Darth Vile said:
...I personally find the motorcycle chase in KOTCS far more believable than the mine car chase...

Taking this thought further, the mortorcycle chase in Skull was more believable than the motorcycle chase in Crusade.

What branch of physics explains the chain reaction where a pole in the spokes = explosion? Why exactly was he popping a wheelie while un shouldering his machine gun?

Man! No Indiana Jones in Last Crusade either!

Dr.Jonesy · Jul 20, 2010

Rocket Surgeon said:
Taking this thought further, the mortorcycle chase in Skull was more believable than the motorcycle chase in Crusade.

What branch of physics explains the chain reaction where a pole in the spokes = explosion? Why exactly was he popping a wheelie while un shouldering his machine gun?

Man! No Indiana Jones in Last Crusade either!

I remember they "Busted" that stunt on MythBusters...damn...

I guess you're right. No Indy in LC...

Montana Smith · Jul 20, 2010

Rocket Surgeon said:
Taking this thought further, the mortorcycle chase in Skull was more believable than the motorcycle chase in Crusade.

What branch of physics explains the chain reaction where a pole in the spokes = explosion? Why exactly was he popping a wheelie while un shouldering his machine gun?

Man! No Indiana Jones in Last Crusade either!

In the 1980s all vehicles on film exploded even if you just looked at them wrong.

The truck of explosives in Raiders did one of those ramp tip-overs and exploded. Rough Egyptian roads could have had the same devastating effect on that cargo.

Man! No Indiana Jones in ROTLA either!

StoneTriple · Jul 20, 2010

Dr.Jonesy said:
Almost all my criticisms I had for KOTCS were in TOD or LC. And I never realized how much I let slide with those films.

That's a much broader topic and one I find very interesting. We discussed it around here a couple of years ago because it seems to be the case with a lot of people. I don't know if we were ever able to really nail it down, but the last three films are very much in the same vein, yet Temple & Crusade are regularly given a pass.

"Life raft drop & bi-plane\car\tunnel scene? - classic Indy!"
"Doom Town? - oh..my..God! - the franchise has been ruined by the very people who created it!!!"......

All I could ever figure was a sort of sentimentality for '"the good old days" - even though the good old days weren't really any different than Kingdom. Even when presented with evidence to the contrary, some fans still insist that Temple & Crusade fall in line with Raiders , but not Kingdom.

Nice to see someone openly state they were giving the middle two films a pass, realizing it, and then enjoying all four films - while there are still some fans who, for whatever reason, can't make the jump.

Montana Smith · Jul 20, 2010

StoneTriple said:
That's a much broader topic and one I find very interesting. We discussed it around here a couple of years ago because it seems to be the case with a lot of people. I don't know if we were ever able to really nail it down, but the last three films are very much in the same vein, yet Temple & Crusade are regularly given a pass.

"Life raft drop & bi-plane\car\tunnel scene? - classic Indy!"
"Doom Town? - oh..my..God! - the franchise has been ruined by the very people who created it!!!"......

All I could ever figure was a sort of sentimentality for '"the good old days" - even though the good old days weren't really any different than Kingdom. Even when presented with evidence to the contrary, some fans still insist that Temple & Crusade fall in line with Raiders , but not Kingdom.

Nice to see someone openly state they were giving the middle two films a pass, realizing it, and then enjoying all four films - while there are still some fans who, for whatever reason, can't make the jump.

To me they all require a 'leap of faith', as it were. Some moments just require a longer run-up before you make that leap!

Stoo · Jul 20, 2010

Montana Smith said:
In the 1980s all vehicles on film exploded even if you just looked at them wrong.

Exemplified in the film 1984 film, "Top Secret", where the troop car (from 'Raiders') lightly touches the fender of a Ford Pinto and....KaBOOM!

Montana Smith said:
Rough Egyptian roads could have had the same devastating effect on that cargo.

For that story, see the excellent "The Wages of Fear" (1953) and "Sorcerer" (1977).

Montana Smith · Jul 20, 2010

Stoo said:
Exemplified in the film 1984 film, "Top Secret", where the troop car (from 'Raiders') lightly touches the fender of a Ford Pinto and....KaBOOM!

I remember seeing this sad end to a cultural icon! The Pinto looks like the car we called the 'Capri' over here.

Stoo said:

For that story, see the excellent "The Wages of Fear" (1953) and "Sorcerer" (1977).

Click to expand...

Was that the same Sorcerer with the music by Tangerine Dream?

Paden · Jul 20, 2010

michael said:
I'd say The Last Crusade had a very "down to earth" feel to it, probably because they went back to the "Raiders formula."

I agree that they went back to the Raiders formula in terms of story structure. Raiders and Crusade share the same "grand quest across multiple continents" framework, which gave the latter film a comfortable familiarity to fans of Raiders. However, some of the elements in Crusade, for myself, really detracted from the movie feeling as gritty as the first. For instance, the character of Marcus Brody goes from being one of Indy's respected colleagues to serving as comic relief, all the way up to the film's close. While I can accept Brody as something of a sequestered academic, his gross incompetence really seemed at odds with the man we met in Raiders. In addition, some of the action sequences (the plane in particular comes to mind) seemed more in keeping with the inflatable raft/mine cart sequences from Temple of Doom. So while I would agree that some aspects of Crusade hearkened back to Raiders, others definitely were more in line with the different tone begun in Temple.

Dr. Jonesy said:
That being said, I do feel that the series has progressed and TOD, LC and KOTCS were natural progressions. That's one of the reasons I think the film was received so well with critics/casual fans; they just saw it as 'another Indy sequel and a good adventure'. They viewed it in a much more simple way. Whereas some of the mixed hardcores wanted the film to be just so. And I found when I picked KOTCS to pieces, it took away from my enjoyment of the film, and the previous sequels. And that isn't right.

Well said. Being one of the "mixed hardcores", I definitely came into my first viewing of KOTCS with a mixture of expectations and trepidations, all of which really detracted from the experience. Throughout the movie, I had an ongoing internal dialogue involving what I thought should have been done or what I thought should have been excluded. Needless to say, I left the theater with a bad taste in my mouth. Since then, I've made a concerted effort to enjoy the movie strictly on its own merits and have developed a much kinder opinion of it as a result. Even so, I'm still a die hard partisan of Raiders and to a certain extent, will always wish that all of the sequels had stuck closely to the tone of that first installment.

Cole · Jul 20, 2010

Paden said:
I agree that they went back to the Raiders formula in terms of story structure. Raiders and Crusade share the same "grand quest across multiple continents" framework, which gave the latter film a comfortable familiarity to fans of Raiders. However, some of the elements in Crusade, for myself, really detracted from the movie feeling as gritty as the first. For instance, the character of Marcus Brody goes from being one of Indy's respected colleagues to serving as comic relief, all the way up to the film's close. While I can accept Brody as something of a sequestered academic, his gross incompetence really seemed at odds with the man we met in Raiders. In addition, some of the action sequences (the plane in particular comes to mind) seemed more in keeping with the inflatable raft/mine cart sequences from Temple of Doom. So while I would agree that some aspects of Crusade hearkened back to Raiders, others definitely were more in line with the different tone begun in Temple.

Well said. Being one of the "mixed hardcores", I definitely came into my first viewing of KOTCS with a mixture of expectations and trepidations, all of which really detracted from the experience. Throughout the movie, I had an ongoing internal dialogue involving what I thought should have been done or what I thought should have been excluded. Needless to say, I left the theater with a bad taste in my mouth. Since then, I've made a concerted effort to enjoy the movie strictly on its own merits and have developed a much kinder opinion of it as a result. Even so, I'm still a die hard partisan of Raiders and to a certain extent, will always wish that all of the sequels had stuck closely to the tone of that first installment.

Interesting.......a franchise as iconic and beloved as Indiana Jones belongs to the public in some sense. So I do think as a result of this public "ownership" so to speak, many have their own ideas on what should have been done. They have their own idea on what they would have done. And it takes away from the experience.

'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' - considered one of the greatest films of all-time and it's one of my favorites today. But when I first saw it in high school? Hated it. I had just read the book, loved it, and the film simply couldn't compare to the grand expectations and to the movie I had created in my head. It took a few more years and a fresh new perspective to appreciate what they did with the film, and I think with in time, many might feel the same towards 'Crystal Skull.'

Darth Vile · Jul 20, 2010

Paden said:
I agree that they went back to the Raiders formula in terms of story structure. Raiders and Crusade share the same "grand quest across multiple continents" framework, which gave the latter film a comfortable familiarity to fans of Raiders. However, some of the elements in Crusade, for myself, really detracted from the movie feeling as gritty as the first. For instance, the character of Marcus Brody goes from being one of Indy's respected colleagues to serving as comic relief, all the way up to the film's close. While I can accept Brody as something of a sequestered academic, his gross incompetence really seemed at odds with the man we met in Raiders.

I personally don't get the bad rap that TLC gets over its portrayal of Brody and Sallah. Sure they both get a few more comedic moments/pratfalls in TLC but, IMHO, Marcus Brody is an infinitely better character in TLC... with some truly classic lines e.g. "I'd rather spit in your face" etc. Also worth noting who Spielberg/Lucas first had in mind to play Sallah in Raiders. That gives an idea of the way they originally wanted Sallah played i.e. more of a comic foil.

Cinemassacre Defends KotCS

Guest

Well-known member

Active member

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Member

New member

New member