The Haters thread

kongisking

Active member
Henry W Jones said:
Like I said KOTCS is not even close to my favorite film. Nor is LC. My standards are high but I don't think they can be lived up to so I choose to make the best out of what were given instead of expecting to much. Plus while KOTCS is not a great movie, I would still rank it as entertaining and it does have some decent moments. Raiders is my all time favorite film. The sequels just have my all time favorite movie character in them and are fun at best. Good luck finding your perfect sequel they are not easy to find.

Three words: The Dark Knight.

Commence the Dark Knight haters converging on my house and throwing tomatoes at the windows. :D
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Dr.Jonesy said:
Godfather Part II
Toy Story 2/3

Yeah we know, I didn't say impossible I said not east to find. How big of a sequel list can you make that are of the 1st movies caliber? Probably not many. I'll add one even. The Empire Strikes Back. What else?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
(Kill Bill Volume II :p )

Even TOD was a credible sequel, noteworthy for it's horror and the darker aspects of Indy's character.

Not that I hate KOTCS, but it signals an almost complete shift into something safe and modern. I think the word for it may be 'bland'.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Henry W Jones said:
Yeah we know, I didn't say impossible I said not east to find. How big of a sequel list can you make that are of the 1st movies caliber? Probably not many. I'll add one even. The Empire Strikes Back. What else?


I know you didn't say it was impossible, I was just adding to the list.
:p
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Not that I hate KOTCS, but it signals an almost complete shift into something safe and modern. I think the word for it may be 'bland'.

Call me crazy, but as much as I love it, I always found 'Last Crusade' to be the most bland and lifeless of the series.

:hat:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Dr.Jonesy said:
Call me crazy, but as much as I love it, I always found 'Last Crusade' to be the most bland and lifeless of the series.

:hat:

You're crazy! :p

(Just joking, of course)

TLC was pure pulp adventure. Real Nazis. An engaging femme fatale. A determined quest. Sean Connery. Indy throwing an SS officer off a zeppelin.

In contrast I found KOTCS a very laboured exercise in mimicry, with Indy forced down a route accompanied by an odd menagerie of cardboard characters.

:hat:
 

Darth Vile

New member
The list of sequels that can compare to the original is a short one. The list of sequels that are actually better than the originals gets even shorter. Given that KOTCS is actually the 4th movie in the series, not rebooted nor refitted, it's actually quite surprising it holds up as well as it does...

Looking at the larger picture, whilst Raiders will always be THE ONE, I think all the Indy movies (even when at their weakest) are still great action/adventure movies.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Montana Smith said:
You're crazy! :p

(Just joking, of course)

TLC was pure pulp adventure. Real Nazis. An engaging femme fatale. A determined quest. Sean Connery. Indy throwing an SS officer off a zeppelin.

In contrast I found KOTCS a very laboured exercise in mimicry, with Indy forced down a route accompanied by an odd menagerie of cardboard characters.

:hat:


Last Crusade relies on humor too much and not enough action compared to the first two. It also tries to hard to follow "the formula." The reason both movies are weak is the formula makes them feel written not real. I still like them both but Crusade isn't much better or different than KOTCS. While I agree overall Crusade is a bit more traditional Indy in some aspects I cringed more at the first viewing of Crusade due to dog jokes, Brody becoming an incompetent in a few year period, and action wise it lacks. I still like both movies but neither are strong movies.
 
Last edited:

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Henry W Jones said:
Last Crusade relies on humor too much and not enough action compared to the first two. It also tries to hard to follow "the formula." The reason both movies are weak is the formula makes them feel written not real. I still like them both but Crusade isn't much better or different than KOTCS. While I agree overall Crusade is a bit more traditional Indy in some aspects I cringed more at the first viewing of Crusade due to dog jokes, Brody becoming an incompetent in a few year period, and action wise it lacks. I still like both movies but neither are strong movies.

I understand what you're getting at. And I can agree.
:hat:
 

Daley

New member
Montana Smith said:
In contrast I found KOTCS a very laboured exercise in mimicry, with Indy forced down a route accompanied by an odd menagerie of cardboard characters.

:hat:

I agree with you Montana Smith, KOTCS did feel a bit forced, I felt it was a mockery of the first 3 films, and was too far removed from the original spaghetti western inspiration.. I remember at the end of it, I sat in the cinema thinking: "I've just watched an alternate version of the Mummy Returns...starring Harrison Ford.." -- a bit disillusioned because of the sheer excitement and expectations I had (maybe that's the problem to begin with?) but at least it was still entertaining.:whip:
I did find Marion to be a major irritation though, the way she fumbled through the film - Karen Allen as we know has far more to offer than that, and it was heart-breaking because there was virtually no trace of the feisty, intelligent Marion from Raiders.:(
Don't even get me started on Mutt, Mac and the OTT use of CGI ..:mad:
 

INCUBUSRATM

New member
To me, it felt too... corny? And I wish film makers would stop or limit their use of CGI. Film is so much more stunning when it uses ACTUAL locations, backgrounds, explosions, etc. Mutt swinging with the monkeys and keeping up with the chase? What? That was the most "wtf" moment for me. Other than that, it was the little corny moments like how Mutt almost puts on Indy's hat at the end. This film just didn't feel the same for me. In my honest opinion, the film is pretty decent, I liked it, but it doesn't compare to the original trilogy. I would have rather Lucas and Spielberg left us with Indy riding off into the sunset. Now that's all messed up... I'm not a hater, because I liked it, but I feel that this film tarnished the Indy films. But, on the flip side, it makes the trilogy seem that much more awesome... I just wish they still made films like they used to.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
INCUBUSRATM said:
To me, it felt too... corny? And I wish film makers would stop or limit their use of CGI. Film is so much more stunning when it uses ACTUAL locations, backgrounds, explosions, etc. Mutt swinging with the monkeys and keeping up with the chase? What? That was the most "wtf" moment for me. Other than that, it was the little corny moments like how Mutt almost puts on Indy's hat at the end. This film just didn't feel the same for me. In my honest opinion, the film is pretty decent, I liked it, but it doesn't compare to the original trilogy. I would have rather Lucas and Spielberg left us with Indy riding off into the sunset. Now that's all messed up... I'm not a hater, because I liked it, but I feel that this film tarnished the Indy films. But, on the flip side, it makes the trilogy seem that much more awesome... I just wish they still made films like they used to.

I agree 100% except I don't feel it tarnished the other films. If quality drops in the movies tarnishes the other films than each of the sequels has damaged Raiders to some extent. They are individual adventures so I try to keep them as such. Its not like Star Wars with a continual story, each one can stand alone so the previous ones can't be ruined for me. Plus if that was the case it would have happened for me in Last Crusade with Marcus being senile and revealing that Indy named himself after the dog. Not Lucas naming the character out of the film after his dog which doesn't bother me.
 

INCUBUSRATM

New member
Henry W Jones said:
I agree 100% except I don't feel it tarnished the other films. If quality drops in the movies tarnishes the other films than each of the sequels has damaged Raiders to some extent. They are individual adventures so I try to keep them as such. Its not like Star Wars with a continual story, each one can stand alone so the previous ones can't be ruined for me. Plus if that was the case it would have happened for me in Last Crusade with Marcus being senile and revealing that Indy named himself after the dog. Not Lucas naming the character out of the film after his dog which doesn't bother me.

Yeah, I can agree with that. I guess you're right.

Marcus being senile all of a sudden is weird, but I found it to be kinda funny. It didn't bother me too much. But yeah, I agree, it's odd how they changed his personality just to add some comic relief to the film. But for me, it works. Mutt swinging with the monkeys did not. All the other corny moments of KOTCS did not.

Why does the revealing of Indy naming himself after his childhood dog bother you? I find it kinda funny, because it shows he didn't want to be called Henry like his father. It helps define their relationship to the viewer. This is further developed in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which I have so far thoroughly enjoyed (I'm on chapter 6).
 

Darth Vile

New member
INCUBUSRATM said:
Yeah, I can agree with that. I guess you're right.

Marcus being senile all of a sudden is weird, but I found it to be kinda funny. It didn't bother me too much. But yeah, I agree, it's odd how they changed his personality just to add some comic relief to the film. But for me, it works. Mutt swinging with the monkeys did not. All the other corny moments of KOTCS did not.

Why does the revealing of Indy naming himself after his childhood dog bother you? I find it kinda funny, because it shows he didn't want to be called Henry like his father. It helps define their relationship to the viewer. This is further developed in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which I have so far thoroughly enjoyed (I'm on chapter 6).

It's all about personal taste. I completely get why some don't like the way Marcus Brody and Sallah are portrayed in TLC. However, for me, them being presented as comic foils works with the the tone of the movie. Same goes with Marion in KOTCS. She can't really be credibly portrayed as a feisty young tom boy because she's now a 60'ish year old woman with a son. I personally thought her role in KOTCS was good... and she was how I'd imagine an older Marion to be.

As far as the CGI is concerned - Yes... I don't believe any of us welcome the notion of CGI replacing 'real' location shooting or stunt work, but you do have to embrace the technology of the day. Go look at how many special effects shots there are in TOD as compared to Raiders. Have a look at the mine cart chase (from TOD) as a good example of how a major set piece in the originals is underpinned (and could not exist) without all the effect work. I think the mine cart chase is a better conceit, and is better constructed, than the jungle chase from KOTCS (although the mine cart chase resulted in a bigger 'WTF' moment for me on first viewing). However, the use of CGI is not a problem (IMHO) but rather it's simply the misjudged idea of vine swings and monkeys... which would have been a dumb idea in any era the movie was made.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
It's all about personal taste. I completely get why some don't like the way Marcus Brody and Sallah are portrayed in TLC. However, for me, them being presented as comic foils works with the the tone of the movie. Same goes with Marion in KOTCS. She can't really be credibly portrayed as a feisty young tom boy because she's now a 60'ish year old woman with a son. I personally thought her role in KOTCS was good... and she was how I'd imagine an older Marion to be.

She was in her late 40s (born in 1909), but I know what you mean.

The trouble is that like Harrison, Karen was older than the role she was playing. This is an aspect that works against KOTCS and any future sequel. It will be less convincing for them to portray younger characters, without moving the timeframe on further than the real passing of years. And we'll see the Jones family going out to watch the latest Bond movie.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
She was in her late 40s (born in 1909), but I know what you mean.

The trouble is that like Harrison, Karen was older than the role she was playing. This is an aspect that works against KOTCS and any future sequel. It will be less convincing for them to portray younger characters, without moving the timeframe on further than the real passing of years. And we'll see the Jones family going out to watch the latest Bond movie.

Poor Marion... all that drinking and smoking has prematurely aged her. ;)
 

Henry W Jones

New member
INCUBUSRATM said:
Yeah, I can agree with that. I guess you're right.

Marcus being senile all of a sudden is weird, but I found it to be kinda funny. It didn't bother me too much. But yeah, I agree, it's odd how they changed his personality just to add some comic relief to the film. But for me, it works. Mutt swinging with the monkeys did not. All the other corny moments of KOTCS did not.

Why does the revealing of Indy naming himself after his childhood dog bother you? I find it kinda funny, because it shows he didn't want to be called Henry like his father. It helps define their relationship to the viewer. This is further developed in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which I have so far thoroughly enjoyed (I'm on chapter 6).

I am over it now but originally my problem with the name thing is Indiana seems like a cool and mysterious name and to find out its Indy named himself after his childhood pet ruined that aspect for a joke. I don't hate LC or KOTCS but LC is where the downslide started and they aren't that much different on many levels thats all. Imho. Also while I like YIJC it ruins the character for me even more. Flannery is the worst at potraying Indy. He comes of as such a clown in the show. I really enjoy some of the episodes especially the really young Indy (no Flannery), but that show should have been way better and I'm not surprised it was cancelled so fast. My second Indy disappointment.
 
Top