Yeah, I don't think we need to argue against ill-defined group entities that aren't here, gang.
avidfilmbuff said:All I'm saying is that I think the film had a specific goal, to pay homage to 1950's b films and that most people didn't care or notice.
Udvarnoky said:Considering that the movie being an homage on some level to 50s pulp fiction was incredibly overt, I'm curious to know on what basis you've concluded that this was lost on "most people." It doesn't reflect well on the movie you're defending when your defense amounts to sweeping statements about the audience.
avidfilmbuff said:Let me give you one specific example. I recall in 2008 seeing one particularly angry YouTube reviewer.
Udvarnoky said:Again, the war you want to wage with "nitpickers" doesn't actually defend the movie.
avidfilmbuff, what I'm getting from your posts is that between Youtubers and the "many people" you've spoken to, you believe you have enough anecdotal evidence to make a judgment call about a majority of the audience. And what I'm telling you is, that's unconvincing at best and inane at worst.
Even if it wasn't though, even if you could somehow demonstrably show us that your perception of the majority of the film-going public is accurate, it still exposes an interest in judging the audience over the film itself.
It's become a trend in this thread. The critics of Crystal Skull just aren't watching the movie right! Maybe if those mouthbreathers would lighten up, or stop demanding all their movies be "Nolan-esque" (??) or had the insight to appreciate that it's a 50s homage (nevermind that it literally features a 50s style flying saucer), they would join the ranks of the enlightened!
It feels like a lot of tap-dancing in the name of avoiding an examination of the film itself. It is thus not really in keeping with the topic.
Au contraire. The audience reaction is the topic of this thread, not the film itself. The subject is supposed to be about people, as in: "Why are people so hard on Indy IV?"Udvarnoky said:Again, the war you want to wage with "nitpickers" doesn't actually defend the movie.
...
It feels like a lot of tap-dancing in the name of avoiding an examination of the film itself. It is thus not really in keeping with the topic.
avidfilmbuff said:I have examined the films, and I have discussed why I believe they are great in other threads a long time ago. The title of this thread, however is "Why are people so hard on Indy IV?" And I did my best to answer that question, and in doing so i gave my opinion on the audience, and I never once implied that these people were somehow inferior to me.
Stoo said:"Why are people so hard on Indy IV?"
NightWalker81 said:I think is absurd not to accept the power and the echo of Internet in this era.
avidfilmbuff said:Did anyone appreciate the irony of a 1930's adventurer trapped in a hostile 1950's suburban environment. No[.]
avidfilmbuff said:The internet can whine all they want about raped childhoods and all that nonsense, as for me, I'll continue to enjoy the series for exactly what it is.
avidfilmbuff said:All I'm saying is that I think the film had a specific goal, to pay homage to 1950's b films and that most people didn't care or notice.
avidfilmbuff said:And even if it was hated, it would have been at least given a chance to heal the same way Temple of Doom was.
Joe Brody said:Excellent!
The only thing better than a KotCS defender defending KotCS on the basis that viewers miss the point ("It's a homage to 50's camp, it's supposed to be bad!")(see avidfilmbuff quote below) is a KotCS defender trying to infuse the film with actual meaning
Dude, trust me. Temple of Doom gets no breaks around here. That film could have been Indy at his prime. Instead he gets saddled with silly second rate sexist and racist content. The film is an embarrassment for reasons all its own.
NightWalker81 said:But we keep having the key question... Why was people so hard?
Udvarnoky said:The problem is I don't know who "people" are. Hard to assume the position of a person or group who isn't defined. And if they were I wouldn't presume to speak for them. I can speak for myself, and in my case I feel I'm only as hard on the movie as it was hard on me. I expected a degree of diminishing returns from a fourth installment following a 19 year break, but I didn't expect something as sloppy as I got. My complaints don't include George Lucas hate or issues with the fridge. My beef is bad storytelling. And what does the magnifying effect of the internet have to do with that?
Udvarnoky said:General overreaction where? On Youtube? I could just as easily point to the movie's positive initial reviews, its sizable box office haul, and the fact that it received a standing ovation at Cannes. Whose perception of general reaction is accurate?