Crystal Skull hatred knows no bounds

teampunk · Jun 4, 2010

i loved kocs. i think i smiled through the whole movie. the way i see it is that they will never top raiders. it just can't be done. so it's not even worth trying. really it was an unwinable war from the start. but they gave me a fun film that made me feel like a kid again. i like that. sure it wasn't original, but it sure was fun.

Cole · Jun 5, 2010

Darth Vile said:
And I think that's the key dilemma. Do you adapt and do something different with the genre... something new (which is exactly what Raiders did in 81)? Or do you just reference your own history, and by default, deliver something familiar/tried and tested... but also something potentially unoriginal/passe?

They are of course rhetorical questions, because either would alienate certain sections of the audience. I certainly couldn't blame Spielberg/Lucas for making a movie that's stylistically much closer to the originals than it is to modern action movies. However, I personally would have had more of a preference for something tangibly different... and that's not to say dour and dark (which is simply a modern trend), but just something fresh, exciting and done in a different style. But I guess that's something for younger filmakers to do rather than Spielberg/Lucas.

And that kind of goes back to Shia's comments, when he said this:

"Look, the movie could have been updated. There was a reason it wasn?t universally accepted?.We need to be able to satiate the appetite. I think we just misinterpreted what we were trying to satiate."

In many respects, he is right........I think much of the audience today is very cynical - the negative response to something as lighthearted and comedic as the prairie dogs makes this crystal clear. 'The Dark Knight' was incredibly dark (it felt like a rated-R movie), and audiences really ate it up.

But that's not Indiana Jones. Not to me. And personally, I wish LeBeouf would've kept his mouth shut, because now everyone blows his comments out of proportion and use it as yet another device to attack the movie.

This, after over a year ago, he said the viewership has changed and audiences were more innocent back then. He also went on to say Steven, George, and Harrison were the only audience members he cared about, and they were happy.

Now he's changing his tune......I don't know, I guess he's trying to help his street cred.

Spielberg said something to the effect that he wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel here. He wasn't trying to make it bigger or better than the three other great 'Raiders' pictures, he just wanted to make a blood relative to the other three...........and I think that's exactly what he accomplished.

Cole · Jun 5, 2010

Attila the Professor said:
Well, you do have a way of being (overly) fervent in your views.

Apart from that, I agree with what Darth Vile says about the action in KotCS compared to, say, The Dark Knight. Now, the Nolan is a film I really appreciate, but I find the action almost entirely uncompelling. Part of that, to be fair, is not choreography but rather cinematography, which left me never quite sure what I was seeing throughout such sequences as the chase sequence involving the truck. The converse of this (and in this respect I agree with Rocket Surgeon) is that there were certainly some design flaws in the chase...monkeys and crotch shots, namely, both of which could have been avoided easily. But the first couple minutes of that sequence? It's just exciting to see the back and forth of the six main characters involved, plus soldiers, plus the skull.

Of course it "could" have been avoided, but I don't see how it's much different than, say, the comedic breaks in the big action sequence in 'Last Crusade' with the tank.

Because that's all it is - lighthearted comedic breaks in the action.

I also prefer the action sequence in 'Crystal Skull' compared to something like 'The Dark Knight,' because 'Crystal Skull' avoids the "disorientating" effect with the fast cuts.

I think Spielberg's framing is very meticulous, and that's something I really admire - the beauty of the shots. The action scene feels like it has much more kinetic energy, more momentum than most every action film - which is the same thing with the first 3 Indy films. And that's why I love Indy and consider it to be my favorite film series.

Attila the Professor · Jun 5, 2010

Cole said:
Of course it "could" have been avoided, but I don't see how it's much different than, say, the comedic breaks in the big action sequence in 'Last Crusade' with the tank.

That's a point meriting consideration. I think the difference might lie in the bits of humor in the tank chase (or the other humorously handled action sequences - the truck chase has its share of laughs, even) seeming much more like character based humor. Hell, take a look at different moments in the jungle chase. We've got Mac getting punched in the nose, Oxley's general demeanor with the skull, Dovchenko getting knocked out - all of which are played lightheartedly, but which, I feel, are dependent on the people involved for their effectiveness. (I'm going to leave Marion's "fencing mom" routine out of this.)

Mutt getting hit in the crotch or swinging with the monkeys (apart from not really being that funny - though that's obviously a matter of opinion) aren't based on the character. It could have been anyone. It's cheap. And I'm not a Mutt hater by any means, and think they got a good amount of comedic mileage out of his bravado elsewhere - the sequence in the cemetery, say - that is consistent with the world they've created. But while things are over the top in the films, they're rarely both cartoonish and effective at once. (Because they have gone to that well - consider some of the sound effects in Temple of Doom.)

Darth Vile · Jun 5, 2010

Cole said:
I think Spielberg's framing is very meticulous, and that's something I really admire - the beauty of the shots. The action scene feels like it has much more kinetic energy, more momentum than most every action film - which is the same thing with the first 3 Indy films. And that's why I love Indy and consider it to be my favorite film series.

Agreed - It's very measured, precise and inventive... However, trying to be objective, those elements add to the fantastical feel of the sequence... which results in it losing an overall sense of reality (which I'd highlight is the same for all the Indy movies). And I don't think modern audiences really connect to that style at the moment.

Attila the Professor said:
That's a point meriting consideration. I think the difference might lie in the bits of humor in the tank chase (or the other humorously handled action sequences - the truck chase has its share of laughs, even) seeming much more like character based humor. Hell, take a look at different moments in the jungle chase. We've got Mac getting punched in the nose, Oxley's general demeanor with the skull, Dovchenko getting knocked out - all of which are played lightheartedly, but which, I feel, are dependent on the people involved for their effectiveness. (I'm going to leave Marion's "fencing mom" routine out of this.)

Mutt getting hit in the crotch or swinging with the monkeys (apart from not really being that funny - though that's obviously a matter of opinion) aren't based on the character. It could have been anyone. It's cheap. And I'm not a Mutt hater by any means, and think they got a good amount of comedic mileage out of his bravado elsewhere - the sequence in the cemetery, say - that is consistent with the world they've created. But while things are over the top in the films, they're rarely both cartoonish and effective at once. (Because they have gone to that well - consider some of the sound effects in Temple of Doom.)

I think it's worth mentioning that at the time, and up until relatively recently, much of the humour in TLC (specifically the tank chase) was frowned upon by many. For example, it was often cited that much of the action/humour going on inside the tank broke up the tension/excitement of what is, IMHO, a fantastic action sequence. I think the humour in the jungle chase is even more misplaced than that of the tank sequence (and I agree with what you say about Mutt here)... but it's worth reminding ourselves that tonally, they are very similar action sequences.

Cole · Jun 5, 2010

Attila the Professor said:
That's a point meriting consideration. I think the difference might lie in the bits of humor in the tank chase (or the other humorously handled action sequences - the truck chase has its share of laughs, even) seeming much more like character based humor. Hell, take a look at different moments in the jungle chase. We've got Mac getting punched in the nose, Oxley's general demeanor with the skull, Dovchenko getting knocked out - all of which are played lightheartedly, but which, I feel, are dependent on the people involved for their effectiveness. (I'm going to leave Marion's "fencing mom" routine out of this.)

Mutt getting hit in the crotch or swinging with the monkeys (apart from not really being that funny - though that's obviously a matter of opinion) aren't based on the character. It could have been anyone. It's cheap. And I'm not a Mutt hater by any means, and think they got a good amount of comedic mileage out of his bravado elsewhere - the sequence in the cemetery, say - that is consistent with the world they've created. But while things are over the top in the films, they're rarely both cartoonish and effective at once. (Because they have gone to that well - consider some of the sound effects in Temple of Doom.)

Well, of course it's not comedy that's going to make you die laughing in your chair....

I almost think more than anything, it's probably inspired by lighthearted slapstick humor that's been around since the very beginning of movies with the likes of Charlie Chaplin. And it's probably something not completely out of tune with the cliffhanger serials that inspired Indiana Jones. Look at the slapstick humor in John Ford's films (like 'The Searchers,' which is one of Speilberg's favorite films). This raunchy, R-rated humor we have today was non-existent before the mid-1960's. So comedy was definitely more "innocent."

So in a sense, I think Spielberg's humor is shaped by this. Whether it's character-based, or not character-based.......it's all lighthearted humor to me, much the same.

There's more than a few genuinely funny moments in all the Indy movies.

Darth Vile · Jun 6, 2010

Cole said:
Well, of course it's not comedy that's going to make you die laughing in your chair....

I almost think more than anything, it's probably inspired by lighthearted slapstick humor that's been around since the very beginning of movies with the likes of Charlie Chaplin. And it's probably something not completely out of tune with the cliffhanger serials that inspired Indiana Jones. Look at the slapstick humor in John Ford's films (like 'The Searchers,' which is one of Speilberg's favorite films). This raunchy, R-rated humor we have today was non-existent before the mid-1960's. So comedy was definitely more "innocent."

So in a sense, I think Spielberg's humor is shaped by this. Whether it's character-based, or not character-based.......it's all lighthearted humor to me, much the same.

There's more than a few genuinely funny moments in all the Indy movies.

I wouldn't disagree with that... and I think we'd all agree that TLC and KOTCS employ a similar type of humour, and inject that humour in similar situations. What's in question, I think, is wether it works best for the movie in those specific scenes i.e. the tank/jungle chase. Personally speaking, I think the amount of humour is slightly misplaced in both set pieces (specifically because it seems better suited to other scenes elsewhere in the movies e.g. Brunwald castle or the Marshall college chase). And if I had to place one above the other, I'd say that the humour in the tank chase is slightly more sophisticated (or slightly less silly depending on your view) than the jungle chase (whilst acknowledging that they are tonally very similar).

Montana Smith · Jun 6, 2010

Darth Vile said:
I wouldn't disagree with that... and I think we'd all agree that TLC and KOTCS employ a similar type of humour, and inject that humour in similar situations. What's in question, I think, is wether it works best for the movie in those specific scenes i.e. the tank/jungle chase. Personally speaking, I think the amount of humour is slightly misplaced in both set pieces (specifically because it seems better suited to other scenes elsewhere in the movies e.g. Brunwald castle or the Marshall college chase). And if I had to place one above the other, I'd say that the humour in the tank chase is slightly more sophisticated (or slightly less silly depending on your view) than the jungle chase (whilst acknowledging that they are tonally very similar).

This is becoming a pretty interesting conversation. I've not considered the precise placement of humour within the films, just that variations of light hearted slapstick and black comedy permeated the scenes as a way of atoning for the violence. From the slapstick of Indy falling on his butt during the German mechanic fight in ROTLA to the grinding of the Chief Thuggee in TOD.

Indy movies literally get away with murder while still presenting themselves as family friendly. In KOTCS Dovchenko is carried away by the ants in a scene that is so over the top that the horror becomes black comedy.

Darth Vile · Jun 6, 2010

Montana Smith said:
This is becoming a pretty interesting conversation. I've not considered the precise placement of humour within the films, just that variations of light hearted slapstick and black comedy permeated the scenes as a way of atoning for the violence. From the slapstick of Indy falling on his butt during the German mechanic fight in ROTLA to the grinding of the Chief Thuggee in TOD.

Indy movies literally get away with murder while still presenting themselves as family friendly. In KOTCS Dovchenko is carried away by the ants in a scene that is so over the top that the horror becomes black comedy.

I agree... the humour does offset some of the violence. Saying that... I do think there is a clear distinction between the humour in Raiders and the other three. The only real place Raiders gets really slapstick is during the Cairo marketplace scenes. It then allows itself to get progressively more serious throughout the well of the souls, German mechanic fight, truck chase and the uncovering of the Ark scenes (although it retains funny moments).

TOD however was one visual gag after the other. It had a semi serious section (about 15 mins worth) during the sacrifice scene, but the rest of the movie was increasingly played for laughs just as much as it was for thrills. Both TLC and KOTCS carried on this tradition (although I'd argue in a slightly more sophisticated/less cartoony manner) where the movie is (or is meant to be) as funny as it it exciting. Both TLC & KOTCS don't allow themselves to become serious until the finale. As a consequence, IMHO, the finales can't help but lack the drama that Raiders had.

Montana Smith · Jun 6, 2010

Darth Vile said:
I agree... the humour does offset some of the violence. Saying that... I do think there is a clear distinction between the humour in Raiders and the other three. The only real place Raiders gets really slapstick is during the Cairo marketplace scenes. It then allows itself to get progressively more serious throughout the well of the souls, German mechanic fight, truck chase and the uncovering of the Ark scenes (although it retains funny moments).

TOD however was one visual gag after the other. It had a semi serious section (about 15 mins worth) during the sacrifice scene, but the rest of the movie was increasingly played for laughs just as much as it was for thrills. Both TLC and KOTCS carried on this tradition (although I'd argue in a slightly more sophisticated/less cartoony manner) where the movie is (or is meant to be) as funny as it it exciting. Both TLC & KOTCS don't allow themselves to become serious until the finale. As a consequence, IMHO, the finales can't help but lack the drama that Raiders had.

Yes, TOD was full of cartoon violence and humour. It could well have been an Indy version of Road Runner - a cartoon of immense violence and sadism! One scene from TOD that sticks in my mind is the hammer (?) that flies out of a hand and accidentally lands on a guard's head. In reality it's a horrible thought, yet it's played for laughs just like a cartoon.

I liked TOD for its way out apporach. It was so diverse in its presentation that it reminds me of a chiaroscuro painting: huge contrasts in dark and light. From utterly horrific scenes to those of high camp comedy. By comparison KOTCS was less controversial in this sense, though courted controversy by playing up the absurd elements (which were cartoony, though less for comedic effect), such as the swinging monkeys and the flying fridge.

The finale of KOTCS lacked drama because it was the predictable end to such a movie: the temple is destroyed. The destruction of the key building at the finale of a movie must be almost as old as movie history itself.

ROTLA, on the other hand had a finale and an epilogue: the opening of the Ark, followed by the meeting in Washington and the very effective warehouse scene. That was a most intelligent and thoughtful ending, that spoke of conspiracy, helplessness, ignorance and almost futility. It defined the real confines of Indy's world - from which he has to break away to find adventure.

Cole · Jun 7, 2010

Montana Smith said:
Yes, TOD was full of cartoon violence and humour. It could well have been an Indy version of Road Runner - a cartoon of immense violence and sadism! One scene from TOD that sticks in my mind is the hammer (?) that flies out of a hand and accidentally lands on a guard's head. In reality it's a horrible thought, yet it's played for laughs just like a cartoon.

I liked TOD for its way out apporach. It was so diverse in its presentation that it reminds me of a chiaroscuro painting: huge contrasts in dark and light. From utterly horrific scenes to those of high camp comedy. By comparison KOTCS was less controversial in this sense, though courted controversy by playing up the absurd elements (which were cartoony, though less for comedic effect), such as the swinging monkeys and the flying fridge.

The finale of KOTCS lacked drama because it was the predictable end to such a movie: the temple is destroyed. The destruction of the key building at the finale of a movie must be almost as old as movie history itself.

ROTLA, on the other hand had a finale and an epilogue: the opening of the Ark, followed by the meeting in Washington and the very effective warehouse scene. That was a most intelligent and thoughtful ending, that spoke of conspiracy, helplessness, ignorance and almost futility. It defined the real confines of Indy's world - from which he has to break away to find adventure.

I wouldn't really call it a horrible thought since the Thugge gaurds enslave and whip children..........'Raiders' features a similar "Looney Tunes" moment when Marion runs the doorway with a frying pan, bad guy chasing behind, you hear a ping, and said bad guy falls out of the doorway.

So while 'Raiders' may be the "grittiest" it still contains laughs, and it's a pulp adventure in every sense of the word.

'Temple of Doom' probably ups the ante as far as humor in order to counter the dark tone of the picture. And I think with 'Last Crusade' and 'Skull'..........at this time, Spielberg had made personal movies that explored some gravely serious aspects of human nature - and these Indy films were an opportunity to entertain all ages.

But that's not to say 'Skull' is soft - it's still PG-13. And Spielberg's tone/style is still very much the same, so 'Skull' very much feels like a blood relative to the other Indy films.

Stoo · Jun 8, 2010

Re: Lighthearted humour during action scenes:

Cole said:
...it's probably something not completely out of tune with the cliffhanger serials that inspired Indiana Jones.

In all the serials I'm familiar with, there is NO (or very little) humour. If there are any 'funny' moments they are completely seperate from the action scenes. Which cliffhanger serials are you basing your assumption on?

Montana Smith · Jun 8, 2010

Stoo said:
Re: Lighthearted humour during action scenes:
In all the serials I'm familiar with, there is NO (or very little) humour. If there are any 'funny' moments they are completely seperate from the action scenes. Which cliffhanger serials are you basing your assumption on?

Humour in those original serials was often uninentional - like the funny outfits, the cardboard robots, and quite often the acting itself, which was more suited to the stage. Throughout the 1930s it looked as though many of the actors were still coming to terms with the medium of film.

JP Jones · Jun 8, 2010

Cole said:
And that kind of goes back to Shia's comments, when he said this:

"Look, the movie could have been updated. There was a reason it wasn?t universally accepted?.We need to be able to satiate the appetite. I think we just misinterpreted what we were trying to satiate."

In many respects, he is right........I think much of the audience today is very cynical - the negative response to something as lighthearted and comedic as the prairie dogs makes this crystal clear. 'The Dark Knight' was incredibly dark (it felt like a rated-R movie), and audiences really ate it up.

But that's not Indiana Jones. Not to me. And personally, I wish LeBeouf would've kept his mouth shut, because now everyone blows his comments out of proportion and use it as yet another device to attack the movie.

This, after over a year ago, he said the viewership has changed and audiences were more innocent back then. He also went on to say Steven, George, and Harrison were the only audience members he cared about, and they were happy.

Now he's changing his tune......I don't know, I guess he's trying to help his street cred.

Spielberg said something to the effect that he wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel here. He wasn't trying to make it bigger or better than the three other great 'Raiders' pictures, he just wanted to make a blood relative to the other three...........and I think that's exactly what he accomplished.

It seems to me like you just crawled into my head, took notes on my thoughts, and posted your notes. I can't agree with you more.

Darth Vile · Jun 8, 2010

Stoo said:
Re: Lighthearted humour during action scenes:
In all the serials I'm familiar with, there is NO (or very little) humour. If there are any 'funny' moments they are completely seperate from the action scenes. Which cliffhanger serials are you basing your assumption on?

Not sure I'd quite agree. The Tarzan serials had many a comic/cartoon like moment with Cheetah et al... and I seem to remember Zorro and Flash Gordon always had a couple of buffoon like characters who'd bumble about. Certainly the John Ford movies (which I'd also say are a direct influence on Raiders at least) used to be laced with a modicum of humour. There is a definite link between the humour in Indy movies and that of the movies/serials which inspired them. To what degree it works is more up for debate...

Cole · Jun 8, 2010

Stoo said:
Re: Lighthearted humour during action scenes:
In all the serials I'm familiar with, there is NO (or very little) humour. If there are any 'funny' moments they are completely seperate from the action scenes. Which cliffhanger serials are you basing your assumption on?

I'm admittedly not a 1930's, 1940's action-serial "expert," but something like Tarzan was coming to mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Zrtha12V0o

Certainly one thing is for sure: they didn't take themselves seriously.

Attila the Professor · Jun 8, 2010

But I think Stoo's point - or, at least, the one that seems most compelling to me - is more that the humor does not occur at the same time of the action, but takes the form of comic relief in its own sequences. Sure, Ward Bond gets skewered by Patrick Wayne's saber <I>right after</I> John Wayne sweeps up Natalie Wood into his arms, but it doesn't happen at the same time. It's an isolated moment, taking place within cuts, and bracketed, if memory serves, by an absence of scoring. It's a separate moment.

James · Jun 8, 2010

Darth Vile said:
And I think that's the key dilemma. Do you adapt and do something different with the genre... something new (which is exactly what Raiders did in 81)? Or do you just reference your own history, and by default, deliver something familiar/tried and tested... but also something potentially unoriginal/passe?

Cole said:
And that kind of goes back to Shia's comments.

In many respects, he is right........I think much of the audience today is very cynical - the negative response to something as lighthearted and comedic as the prairie dogs makes this crystal clear. 'The Dark Knight' was incredibly dark (it felt like a rated-R movie), and audiences really ate it up.

And it's not just modern action that has changed. Today even the typical animated flick usually contains a healthy dose of cynicism.

I actually think Lucas has the right idea for how to work around this dilemma: Just ignore it completely and do what you want. Sure, a radical idea is going to alienate fans in the short term, but over time they will usually respect a creative risk more than if you try to play it safe.

TOD is an obvious example. I also feel that KOTCS would be more accepted if Spielberg hadn't taken the film's second half into overly familiar territory.

Darth Vile · Jun 8, 2010

Attila the Professor said:
But I think Stoo's point - or, at least, the one that seems most compelling to me - is more that the humor does not occur at the same time of the action, but takes the form of comic relief in its own sequences. Sure, Ward Bond gets skewered by Patrick Wayne's saber <I>right after</I> John Wayne sweeps up Natalie Wood into his arms, but it doesn't happen at the same time. It's an isolated moment, taking place within cuts, and bracketed, if memory serves, by an absence of scoring. It's a separate moment.

I'm not sure we can compare, beat for beat, the Indy movies with the action movies/serials which inspired them (as they are quite diverse). Rather, it's just an acknowledgement that Indy movies, as well as the movies that inspired them, generally contain a modicum of humour/comical moments. An appropriate example would be Gunga Din... which is almost 50/50 action/comedy (and there are comical moments throughout the action sequences).

Ultimately, I think it's more about wether or not the comedy worked. IMHO, I think it worked best in Raiders, and to lesser degrees in the 3 sequels (as it became more obvious).

JuniorJones · Jun 8, 2010

Jon Stewart Zings Skull!

Stewart comparies trilogy to Rush Limbaugh marriages. BOOM!!

Go find the clip at the Daily Show website.

Crystal Skull hatred knows no bounds

Member

New member

New member

Moderator

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

Moderator

Well-known member

New member

TR.N Staff Member