Why are people so hard on Indy IV?

Indy's brother

New member
Finn said:
That's all. Now, bring this discussion back on line or scatter to the four winds, basking in that gloriously good feeling of justice having happened.

Well, the Ugha word for 'gold' translates as 'treasure.' But their treasure wasn't gold, it was banning. Banning was their treasure.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Stoo said:
To answer Scott's often repeated question: I think people are hard on "Skull" because they had overblown expectations. (It was actually better than I thought it would be!:p)

If I may offer a personal anecdote here, I managed to step into the theatre only knowing the title (inadvertently gleaned from here). The handful of "expectations" I had were based on the creative team's proven track record of being able to tell a story intelligently. Walking out of said theatre, however, those expectations didn't even come close to being met.

A movie is not greater than the sum of a couple of novel scenes. (n)

This commercial succeeds @ more than the entire movie did in 120th of the time.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8-ax-sNo3xs?list=SP0BFAF36FD50719A2" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Indy's brother said:
Well, the Ugha word for 'gold' translates as 'treasure.' But their treasure wasn't gold, it was banning. Banning was their treasure.

From 'Uncle' Finn to 'Ugha' Finn. Both endearing terms of course.

On topic: People are hard on Indy IV because CS needs to be whipped for all its obvious faults!:whip:
 
It is a thrilling adventure film minus the thrills or adventure. Stuff just happens for a couple of hours, you scratch your head at parts, yawn at others and laugh at the rest. Meanwhile, a bunch of obscenely rich people high five each other all the way to their offshore pension plans.
 

IndyJames98

New member
hey i loved Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. the aliens sorta bugged me, but loved it anyway. but hey it was no phantom menace thats for sure!
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Le Saboteur said:
If I may offer a personal anecdote here, I managed to step into the theatre only knowing the title (inadvertently gleaned from here). The handful of "expectations" I had were based on the creative team's proven track record of being able to tell a story intelligently. Walking out of said theatre, however, those expectations didn't even come close to being met.

A movie is not greater than the sum of a couple of novel scenes. (n)
The thing is, Sabo, you don't drone on & on & on about your aversion like some others do. Initial disappointment in 2008 is understandable but this thread's question was asked in the present tense. Taking that distinction into account, why are certain people "so hard on" Indy 4 almost 5 years later?

The disenchanted folk are "so hard on" the film while the lovers HAVE a hard-on for it!:p
Mickiana said:
From 'Uncle' Finn to 'Ugha' Finn. Both endearing terms of course.
Heh. Combine both of your names and you get a 'Mickey Finn', the infamous knock-out drink from Indy's era. (Do the Mods have a bottle of chloral hydrate stashed behind the bar?:confused:)
 

roundshort

Active member
Stoo said:
Heh. Combine both of your names and you get a 'Mickey Finn', the infamous knock-out drink from Indy's era. (Do the Mods have a bottle of chloral hydrate stashed behind the bar?:confused:)


Stoo, how else do you think Finn can pick up the chicks (or guys if that is how he swings)?
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
KOTCS' problem is that it's a good film following three classic films. It's not a poor, average or bad film; it's just a good film in a series of greats. It's like having three Einstein-esque genius children and one who is of just average to above average intelligence.
 
Raiders112390 said:
KOTCS' problem is that it's a good film following three classic films. It's not a poor, average or bad film; it's just a good film in a series of greats. It's like having three Einstein-esque genius children and one who is of just average to above average intelligence.


Its not a good film. You need to watch more films.

Oh, and only Raiders is a 'classic'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Randy_Flagg

Well-known member
There are plenty of threads already explaining why KOTCS gets criticized, but I'll sum up my main problems with it here:

1. No tension. For an action/adventure movie, there were surprisingly few moments that had me at the edge of my seat, and that's a problem. In fact, the only moment that really had me thinking, "Uh oh, what's he going to do?" was the Doomtown scene. After that, the movie has less tension than a Woody Woodpecker cartoon.

2. No emotion. I don't expect heaps of emotional content in an Indiana Jones film, obviously, but there's a brief scene near the beginning of this movie that actually kind of works on an emotional level-- it's the scene when Indy is talking to the dean. The film could have followed through on that. Instead, we never again hear about anything from that scene. Indy's concerns about getting older aren't tapped into again. His sense of feeling out of place in his own country is ignored (hell, the whole FBI subplot is entirely dropped.) Etc, etc. "Last Crusade" found a way to be fun AND incorporate some emotion. KOTCS feels as though it briefly tries to go down the same path, but then says, "Ah, the hell with it, let's just goof around instead!"

3. Too many characters. By the end of the film, Indy actually starts to feel like a relatively minor character in an ensemble cast.

4. Indy doesn't actually DO much of anything. He's supposed to be the hero, but in this film, he doesn't really do a hell of a lot to save the day. Mutt saves him, Oxley figures things out, etc. Even during the big waterfall scene, Indy does absolutely nothing other than sit there and get incredibly lucky. As far-fetched as the raft scene was in TOD, at least Indy was being pro-active. The waterfall scene is kind of like if Indy just sat in that plane in TOD and said, "Uh oh, this is going to hurt." Then crashed into the mountain, and somehow, miraculously, walked away unscathed.

So, yeah, I didn't mind aliens, and I could live with the Tarzan homage, and I can even enjoy the silliness of a nuked fridge. But making an Indy film that lacks tension and that relegates Indy to being a supporting character is really a step in the wrong direction.
 
To me its still a good film, but it could have been a great classic film, they missed out on a lot of things with it. I still see it at least on par with Temple.

To lighthearted from the start with the gophers should have been darker in parts.

Didn't like the Mac character or Mutt, they should have scraped the Mac character and replaced him with Saller had him from the start again, he should have been in it he's in Last crusade and raiders. And i really wanted Sean to come back just for one scene.

I like the fridge scene was like the raft scene in temple.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Túrin Turambar said:
To me its still a good film, but it could have been a great classic film, they missed out on a lot of things with it. I still see it at least on par with Temple.

To lighthearted from the start with the gophers should have been darker in parts.

Didn't like the Mac character or Mutt, they should have scraped the Mac character and replaced him with Saller had him from the start again, he should have been in it he's in Last crusade and raiders. And i really wanted Sean to come back just for one scene.

I like the fridge scene was like the raft scene in temple.

Saller? Is that a typo? Do you mean Sallah? I think you do and if so, I am glad they didn't bring him back again. He works in the other two films due to location. Putting Sallah in the South American jungle would make no sense. He is not an archaeologists and is a family man. He is a digger and I would imagine diggers tend to not be world travelers. So putting him in the last film would have been another attempt bring nostalgia to the film and would make the film make less sense than it already does. I enjoy the film but if it were any thinner.........
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Túrin Turambar said:
Yes Sallah..You have a point, I just thought Mac was a waste though didnt like the character could have done better with that.

Just to let you know, I meant no disrespect about the whole Saller thing. :hat: The Mac character was poorly conceived and could have been done better but that goes along with the rest of the film. I like CS but find it to be the worst chapter we have seen on the big screen.
 

Paden

Member
Having read over some of the opinions in this thread and others, I've come to realize that I'm probably hopelessly biased with regard to then Indiana Jones films. Truthfully, KOTCS probably never really got a fair shake from me from the moment I sat down in the darkened theater to view it.

Raiders of the Lost Ark remains my favorite film of the series and it's the one that, when I become nostalgic for Indy's adventures, I'm most likely to watch again. I don't actively dislike Temple of Doom or Last Crusade, but neither of those films nailed down the gritty atmopshere established by the original. I truly wish that the tone of Raiders had been replicated by the other movies in the franchise.

Somehow Raiders (at least in my mind) struck the perfect balance between pulp action and realism. In viewing it, everything "feels" plausible to the viewer, even if some of the action is clearly larger than life. There's also a fascinating set of preexisting relationships (Belloq, Forrestal, Abner Ravenwood) and an "archaeological underworld" that feels truly compelling and begs to be explored further.

Looking at KOTCS in that light, I have to be blunt: nothing feels plausible. I can recall, long before the film came out, reading the Saucermen from Mars script and laughing manically over the refrigerator sequence. Then, lo and behold, it appears in KOTCS. The action in the film really seemed more in keeping with the tongue-in-cheek tone of the Mummy movies, as opposed to Indiana Jones. And as has been pointed out previously, the relationships that were posited in KOTCS seemed manufactured: essentially characters that existed solely for the purpose of moving the plot forward. Even Indy's interactions with Marion Ravenwood seemed rather flat and anemic.

All that said, I'm obviously biased. KOTCS is a very different film than Raiders. Holding Raiders as the "gold standard" probably prevented me from ever taking KOTCS seriously. Once the atomic bomb went off, my brain slammed into neutral.

I keep telling myself that I need to give KOTCS another screening, one in which I do my utmost to set aside my preconceived notions about what an Indiana Jones film "should" be. I just haven't been able to pull that off as yet.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I think this video sums up the titular question

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IFKu_bwMoYE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Pale Horse said:
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IFKu_bwMoYE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Last time I shared this video, it and I got flamed for posting it. Good times.
 

WilliamBoyd8

Active member
I liked the film but didn't believe it was up to the standard of "Raiders" or "Last Crusade".

It did have some old coins in it (Spanish doubloons and cobs), that was interesting to me as a coin person.

:)
 
Top