What did KOTCS get right?

Perhilion

New member
KotCS got more right than people give it credit for, I think. Consider this- if it had been made at the same time as Raiders or Temple, I'm sure it would be just as loved now, not in spite of its corniness but because of it. The nuked fridge, the skull, the jungle, temple, aliens, Mutt, Marion- all are great fun elements in that classic over the top style that make the old one so good.
 

kongisking

Active member
DeepSixFix said:
Wow great post that makes a solid case and refutes the "haters," thanks!
My great pleasure, pal.

BTW, is your Username a reference to the Clive Cussler novel starring Dirk Pitt?
 

Zorg

New member
What did KOTCS get right? I think almost pretty much everything up to Chauchilla Cemetery scene (which is also classic Indy, I loved it).

After that something happens that I quite can't explain even after repeated viewings. Sure, the scenes at the Russian camp aren't that bad, and meeting (and particularly of course, fighting with) Marion is brilliant, but apart from that the last hour or so doesn't hold up, because...

– There are too many people around. They should've gotten rid of Mac already. Also it could've been a good idea to split the gang. Now it feels like there are 10 people in a bunch trying to get to prize.

– The pacing is lazy. The sense of danger is gone. Even from the jungle chase. Partly it's because of editing. And the digital jungle doesn't look very convincing, although I'm sure a lot of work went into it. Everyone is just remembering the chase from Raiders, and this just doesn't compare. It's a good effort, but not enough, not enough at all.

– When they finally reach Akator, everything just happens. It shouldn't be that easy to get to the main chamber, not even for Indy. The should be more mishaps and mistakes (just look at Last Crusade; I bet they were trying to recreate that in a way, but no, it fails far short).

– The death of Spalko. Not climactic enough, because there hasn't been enough danger before it to survive. (Compare to Last Crusade: Donovan just shot Henry Sr, and he's dying. Now, we love to see Donovan drinking from the wrong cup and die, don't we?)

Many of these faults, I'm sure, would've been corrected if only they had a stronger writer. There were so many ideas and script drafts and everything floating around, the writer(s) lost touch with the material. It feels like every damn idea was just thrown in, there's no clarity.
 

Hanselation

New member
I think most of the Indiana Jones fans see it in the same way like you.

Also the scene with the three stages of the waterfall - it's like the mostly unbelievable scene in ToD when they jump out of the plane by a rubber boat -but the 3-Step-waterfall-jump is really unbelievable.

We don't have to talk aout the fridge: If the fridge was landing less unspectacular, maybe I could like it, but the landing with all the helter-skelter makes in unbelievable that Indy will have no bone fractures or even more wounded or at least be unconscious.

More and more and more scenes were foozled.
Bad script with some nice rudiments, but at least wrong packed!

What I missed at most, was a red line, fear and at least one real stunt.(Not the cheap CGI-Illusion!)
 

Darth Vile

New member
Zorg said:
What did KOTCS get right? I think almost pretty much everything up to Chauchilla Cemetery scene (which is also classic Indy, I loved it).

After that something happens that I quite can't explain even after repeated viewings. Sure, the scenes at the Russian camp aren't that bad, and meeting (and particularly of course, fighting with) Marion is brilliant, but apart from that the last hour or so doesn't hold up, because... etc. etc.

Hanselation said:
I think most of the Indiana Jones fans see it in the same way like you.

Also the scene with the three stages of the waterfall - it's like the mostly unbelievable scene in ToD when they jump out of the plane by a rubber boat -but the 3-Step-waterfall-jump is really unbelievable.

What I missed at most, was a red line, fear and at least one real stunt.(Not the cheap CGI-Illusion!) etc. etc.

Firstly, as this is a "What did KOTCS get right?" topic, I don't believe your posts are in keeping with the spirit of the thread. Even if some of the comments are valid, to list them here could be seen as not sporting.

Secondly, one should be wary of reducing a critique to broad generalisations such as "too much CGI" or "not enough stunt work", because I'm not even sure they can even be substantiated in any meaningful way. For example, there is clearly a lot of stunt work in KOTCS (probably more so than other summer movies)... and I think that both Ford and Spielberg are on the record for stating that Ford, actually did more physical work on KOTCS, than on any other Indy movie.
 

Hanselation

New member
Right!

Right:
-Harrison played Indiana Jones
-Indy's escape in the warehouse is indylike.
-The coffee-shop scene also
-The pyramide set was nice to see and fits perfect into the (my) Indiana Jones universe.
-Some new music composed by John Williams
 

lao che & sons

New member
I just watched the movie a few days ago and remmembered how some scenes like the monkey swinging were just random and dumb. But I remmember an era were people went to the movies to be entertained. This was an era that people went to the movies to escape from hard times for an hour or so. That era is gone and few people go to the movies for those reasons instead prople go for cheap thrills and good graphics. I hate that Indy 4 looks so modern. To say that they weren't going to use CGI was a lie. If this was made in the 80s or 90s this movie wouldn't have used CGI. but the same scenes would have been done. I miss miniatures, stop motion, puppets, mattes, and all the other affects that made movie-making an art. I think they also tried making the story "epic" like the dark knight. They thought that people would say the ufo scene was "epic". Indiana Jones movies are b movies. They need to realize this for Indy 5. I did like that Indy was solving an american mystery like he did with the grail or the ark. i also loved the waterfall scenes. These were very true to the series along with the warehouse scnes and of coures the diner and motorcycle chase. The film was great but still the worst in the series to me. The original trilogy are by far the best. I hope they learn from their mistakes from KOTCS and from their possitives and use these elements in Indy 5.
 

Darth Vile

New member
lao che & sons said:
I just watched the movie a few days ago and remmembered how some scenes like the monkey swinging were just random and dumb. But I remmember an era were people went to the movies to be entertained. This was an era that people went to the movies to escape from hard times for an hour or so. That era is gone and few people go to the movies for those reasons instead prople go for cheap thrills and good graphics. I hate that Indy 4 looks so modern. To say that they weren't going to use CGI was a lie. If this was made in the 80s or 90s this movie wouldn't have used CGI. but the same scenes would have been done. I miss miniatures, stop motion, puppets, mattes, and all the other affects that made movie-making an art. I think they also tried making the story "epic" like the dark knight. They thought that people would say the ufo scene was "epic". Indiana Jones movies are b movies. They need to realize this for Indy 5. I did like that Indy was solving an american mystery like he did with the grail or the ark. i also loved the waterfall scenes. These were very true to the series along with the warehouse scnes and of coures the diner and motorcycle chase. The film was great but still the worst in the series to me. The original trilogy are by far the best. I hope they learn from their mistakes from KOTCS and from their possitives and use these elements in Indy 5.

I think audiences have always gone to the cinema to be entertained first and foremost... and not necessarily to think and be enlightened. I'd agree that it appears popular cinema has increasingly been dumbed down over the last 15/20 years (which coincides with everything in general, be it politics, education, pop music etc.), but I don't think that's as a direct result of the advent of new effects technology.

I for one don't miss "miniatures, stop motion, puppets, mattes" at all. They were poor back then, they look even worse now... That's not to say all CGI is great (it's about the application)... but it's certainly a better tool for creating more convincing vistas and effects. Personally speaking, I didn't want to see a new Indy movie that had ignored modern effect techniques. I wanted to see Egyptian vistas, colossus ancient buildings and impossible sunsets, the likes we'd not seen before in Indiana Jones. We didn't necessarily get those things in KOTCS... as I think they tried too hard to make it look like the older movies... but at least it was a step in the right direction of making a 21st century Indy movie.

I'd also disagree that The Dark Knight is epic. It's an expensive looking movie, but I don't get any real sense of grandiose scale. It's a rather small story, contained (for the majority) within a single locale. I'd argue that Burton's Batman movies and Batman Begins look and feel more epic than TDK (IMHO).
 
Last edited:

deckard24

New member
Originally Posted by lao che & sons
I miss miniatures, stop motion, puppets, mattes, and all the other affects that made movie-making an art.
I'm with you, but I do agree with Darth Vile, in that I too wouldn't want KOTCS to completely ignore all modern movie techniques. A blend of the two, ala Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings or Guillermo Del Toro's Hellboy films would be the best way to go. Both directors utilized miniatures to amazing success, and added a richness, and multilayered feel to their films that Skull was sadly lacking.

Darth Vile said:
I'd also disagree that The Dark Knight is epic. It's an expensive looking movie, but I don't get any real sense of grandiose scale. It's a rather small story, contained (for the majority) within a single locale. I'd argue that Burton's Batman movies and Batman Begins look and feel more epic than TDK (IMHO).
Agreed!

If anything The Dark Knight's runtime is what is epic, not the story, or scale. In its defense, it does take the story to more global locales, making it more epic in that sense.

Batman Begins
was indeed the more sprawling epic film of the two, but I don't know if I'd consider Burton's Batman films that epic. Due to the fact they never really leave Gotham, they look and feel smaller.
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
deckard24 said:
Batman Begins[/I] was indeed the more sprawling epic film of the two, but I don't know if I'd consider Burton's Batman films that epic. Due to the fact they never really leave Gotham, they look and feel smaller.

I guess it's how you define an "epic". For me, an epic movie would be one with lavish, grandiose sets and/or a movie that has many geographic locales (Indy movies kind of combine the two). As far as Burton's Batman movies are concerned, yes they are very much set bound... but some of the sets/set design are truly inspired. It's the design of those early Batman movies (Batman, Batman Returns), and Burton's vision that (IMHO) makes them epic (well more epic than TDK anyway). ;)
 

deckard24

New member
Darth Vile said:
I guess it's how you define an "epic". For me, an epic movie would be one with lavish, grandiose sets and/or a movie that has many geographic locales (Indy movies kind of combine the two). As far as Burton's Batman movies are concerned, yes they are very much set bound... but some of the sets/set design are truly inspired. It's the design of those early Batman movies (Batman, Batman Returns), and Burton's vision that (IMHO) makes them epic (well more epic than TDK anyway). ;)
I see what you're saying regarding the set design. The way the skyscrapers in Burton's films seem to literally scape the clouds, does give it an epic feel in terms of scale. My only issue is whenever they were down on the ground level, it felt like a smaller studio set for some reason, almost like you were watching a play as opposed to a feature film.
 

oki9Sedo

New member
Hanselation said:
What I missed at most, was a red line, fear and at least one real stunt.(Not the cheap CGI-Illusion!)

There were two red lines, when Indy fly from New York to Nazca, Peru and when they're taken by boat to Brazil.

For me, personally, the part where Dovchenko is pounding at Indy with a chain while Russian soldiers are charging towards the fight and the rocket-sled timer is getting closer and closer to zero, was as tense as anything in the previous films. The music, editing and direction were all perfect, I thought.

There were lots of good stunts too - like Indy pouncing from his jeep into the jeep full of Russian soldiers right beside him. Don't know if that was Ford or not, but still an impressive stunt.
 

James

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
I'd also disagree that The Dark Knight is epic. It's an expensive looking movie, but I don't get any real sense of grandiose scale.

deckard24 said:
If anything The Dark Knight's runtime is what is epic

I agree. Since when did a lack of editing become synonymous with epic filmmaking? It's a trend that has become far too common over the past few years. Did we learn nothing from Kevin Costner in the 90s?

A true epic is not only large in scale, but has a story that actually warrants a lengthy running time. I'm no expert on the time frame of The Dark Knight, but it felt like it was unfolding over a relatively small span of time. I suppose we could be generous and assume it was a few months, although even that seems excessive for that particular plot.

True epics usually span years, if not decades: Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Gone With The Wind, The Searchers, The Ten Commandments, etc.

There's absolutely no reason why movies about Superman, Batman, Bond, or Transformers(!!!) should be drawn out to such absurd lengths. Lucas managed to condense the entire saga of Luke Skywalker into three tightly-paced films- with only Jedi running noticeably longer than two hours.
 

deckard24

New member
James said:
I agree. Since when did a lack of editing become synonymous with epic filmmaking? It's a trend that has become far too common over the past few years. Did we learn nothing from Kevin Costner in the 90s?

A true epic is not only large in scale, but has a story that actually warrants a lengthy running time. I'm no expert on the time frame of The Dark Knight, but it felt like it was unfolding over a relatively small span of time. I suppose we could be generous and assume it was a few months, although even that seems excessive for that particular plot.

True epics usually span years, if not decades: Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Gone With The Wind, The Searchers, The Ten Commandments, etc.

There's absolutely no reason why movies about Superman, Batman, Bond, or Transformers(!!!) should be drawn out to such absurd lengths. Lucas managed to condense the entire saga of Luke Skywalker into three tightly-paced films- with only Jedi running noticeably longer than two hours.
You make some good points, and a lot of films as of late have suffered from a serious case of bloat to make them feel more epic. A Bond film really never needs to cross the 2 hour mark, and with the exception of an origin story like Batman Begins, or the original Richard Donner Superman: The Movie, there's no reason these films should cross into the realm of 2.5 hour+ runtime like Gladiator.
 
Like some movies that takes a little time getting used to especially after a long gap between movies it may seem a little strange and out of place but on repeat viewing over time Kingdom of the Crystal Skull feels as much like an Indy movies as the other three to me.

I mean I liked it from the first time I saw it but it just seemed a bit wierd after the first viewing with all the alien stuff but after repeat viewings and thinking about it it is no more wierder than many other things we see in the Indy movies. It is interesting how according to the Indiana Jones universe the Judeo-Christian God exists, Hindu spirituality exists and aliens also exist, a very pluralistic spiritual/paranormal point of view.
 

StoneTriple

New member
deckard24 said:
If anything The Dark Knight's runtime is what is epic, not the story, or scale.


James said:
I agree. Since when did a lack of editing become synonymous with epic filmmaking? ...

A true epic is not only large in scale, but has a story that actually warrants a lengthy running time.

+1 to both.

The Dark Knight was starting to wear on me by the time we got to the hospital scene and the ferry boats. I was enjoying the film, but was ready for it to wrap things up. A little too much - Joker explains the plan - again.
 

Gear

New member
kongisking said:
In addition, the delicious Irina Spalko as the villain. Boner-inducing Staring Contest Five-Time Heavyweight Champion, alluring accent ...damn, just call her Squirt-O-Matic.

It must just be me, but I don't find Spalko as... attractive as the rest of you seem to. Eh, guess she just doesn't do it for me.

kongisking said:
The badass Nuking of the Fridge. Immediately followed by "A Dynamite Stick in a Nuclear Age". As unforgettable as 9/11. (No offense, anybody...)

Careful, now. The drones will see.

bigtwat.jpg
 

ROB98374

Active member
It was a good movie. I was glad to see Indy back.
I thought they did most of the movie right.
The ONLY issues I had were...
1. It was weird seeing Indy in a different era. But unless they put a TON of makeup on him, I guess that had to do it. It has been a long time since the last movie.
2. The ending with the Spaceship. Aliens and Indy just don't seem right. They threw a little bit of Star Wars in it I guess.

Other than my two personal issues, it was a good Indy flick!
 
Top