Shia and Koepp forced to adress the two major pseudo-complaints of KOTCS

Bvance

New member
Darth Vile said:
Not sure about that. You do know that there are many people who would rate TOD and TLC as "crap" right?

As much as one may like TOD and TLC, I don't think I could ever rate them as great movies or even excellent (unless the bar is set quite low). They have good production values of course; good ideas and some heart... but they are not exactly the pinnacle of movie making. And I think it's precisely this reason why the comments from Shia have some merit i.e. how can one logically try and overcome the opinion of those who honestly believe TOD is an excellent masterpiece of cinema (as that’s what you’d believe if you read some of the comments on these boards)?

Perhaps a comparison between TOD, LC and KOTCS is a better vantage point. I cannot think of ONE superior quality that KOTCS has over TOD or LC. The bar is set quite low with KOTCS, hence the quality of TOD and LC is enhanced by a reverse comparison. We can at least say, TOD and LC are better than KOTCS. And I believe anyone would be hard pressed to disagree, but I know there still are those who hate TOD because it wasn't Raiders II.
 

agentsands77

New member
emtiem said:
TLC's a little ragged, but it doesn't go on too long like Casino Royale; have a major element like a love story swept under the carpet with a montage like OHMSS; have Indy completely inactive like Bond in Goldfinger etc. I do love those films and I'll defend them to the hilt but I do think each is a little more flawed than any of the Indys.
I think one could make the case that the respective "sins" you mention aren't as great as the sins of LAST CRUSADE (which are numerous), or that at any rate, despite some flaws they accomplish greater things than CRUSADE manages. But I won't, since this isn't a Bond thread.

emtiem said:
I apologise; yes, I take your point- the sequels are pretty much on a level with each other; it's hard to take seriously claims that Skull is so much worse than Temple.

Skull is the weakest, I'd say, as I don't think Spielberg is as fresh or as interested as he used to be; but that's not to say that it's as far removed quality-wise as the Star Wars prequels are to the proper Star Wars films- Skull is clearly a proper Indy film and stands alongside the others easily.
That's certainly a fair evaluation. It's not necessarily one I share (I haven't made up my mind how the sequels shake out... right now, I'd say they're all about as equally flawed as each other), but at least it's not claiming KINGDOM is somehow miles worse than the two sequels that came before it.

If KINGDOM is indeed so much worse, I'd need to see a case made that had TEMPLE or CRUSADE come out in its stead that folks would have been satisfied. And frankly, it doesn't seem to me that they would be (especially in the case of TEMPLE).
 

Blade

New member
I agree that Le Bouef was alright in KOTCS but I can't fathom why Spielberg is trying to turn him into a superstar. I don't think its working as he hasn't really got the persona for it. Maybe he's Spielbergs love child?

For the record, KOTCS is appalling but I also felt TOD was appalling. The difference being is that we waited 20 years for KOTCS, they should have at least got some aspects right. As opposed to 20 years it felt the script and other ideas were done within 20 minutes.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Bvance said:
Perhaps a comparison between TOD, LC and KOTCS is a better vantage point. I cannot think of ONE superior quality that KOTCS has over TOD or LC. The bar is set quite low with KOTCS, hence the quality of TOD and LC is enhanced by a reverse comparison. We can at least say, TOD and LC are better than KOTCS.

I think most would acknowledge Raiders to be the superior movie of the four, even if it isn?t one's favorite Indy movie. Again ? citing KOTCS?s flaws and stating them to be better/worse than the other sequels is largely subjective. I can think of many elements in KOTCS that I actually prefer to TOD (as outlined in hundreds of posts elsewhere).

Bvance said:
But I know there still are those who hate TOD because it wasn't Raiders II.
That is certainly one of the reasons why I don't like it as much as the other three... but I can certainly still enjoy it.
 

jamiestarr

New member
Shia is right on the money with his comments/observations.

Watching Indy at the age of 8 versus age 28 is not the same. It's called suspension of disbelief and too many of us as we get older, become more jaded and cynical.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
agentsands77 said:
I think one could make the case that the respective "sins" you mention aren't as great as the sins of LAST CRUSADE (which are numerous), or that at any rate, despite some flaws they accomplish greater things than CRUSADE manages.

I'm curious, though: Crusade's never seemed that deeply flawed to me- what offends you?
 

IndyFan89

Member
Horse ****. The monkeys had nothing to do with the story and could have bin done without. There is nothing kike it in the OT. He claims that we have changed if this is true why do we still enjoy the movies.
 

The Man

Well-known member
Steven [Spielberg], George [Lucas] and Harrison [Ford] are the only fans that I care about.

Strange he only expresses such sentiments now, only after the global audience has paid its money...;)

For the fans...:rolleyes:

Don't wake up just yet, though, guys - you still have much work to do: get savin' for the DVD...(y)
 

Darth Vile

New member
IndyFan89 said:
He claims that we have changed if this is true why do we still enjoy the movies.

Regardless of a movies quality (be it good, bad or indifferent), one has an emotional connection to a movie first watched and enjoyed as a child/teenager. Now I'm not claiming that all movies you liked as a child/teenager are appreciated as an adult (or visa versa)... of course not... but it is a factor nonetheless.

For example, I still enjoy some of the Roger Moore Bond movies I first saw as a kid e.g. Moonraker, View to a Kill... but I also understand that some of the fun I can get from watching them is not reflective of the actual quality.

Same thing with music. Have you never heard your parents question your taste saying "this isn't real music", or "when I was young music was so much better"?

Like all things (if viewed objectively), the reality is somewhere in the middle i.e. the first three Indiana Jones movies are viewed, by many, with rose tinted spectacles and KOTCS could have been better...
 

The Man

Well-known member
IndyFan89 said:
He claims that we have changed if this is true why do we still enjoy the movies.

Because it's not true - not really. Just more apologism, only now tinted with condescension...
 

OmegaSeamaster

New member
The Man said:
Because it's not true - not really. Just more apologism, only now tinted with condescension...

That, and "don't bite the hand that feeds."

If Shia trashed SKULL for the crap that it is, he wouldn't be in Transformers 3,4 & 5, Eagle Eye 2, and the next Indy spinoff film..."Mutt Williams goes to Woodstock."

Personally, I don't blame Sean Connery for staying home for this one.
 

The Man

Well-known member
OmegaSeamaster said:
That, and "don't bite the hand that feeds."

If Shia trashed SKULL for the crap that it is, he wouldn't be in Transformers 3,4 & 5, Eagle Eye 2, and the next Indy spinoff film..."Mutt Williams goes to Woodstock."

Personally, I don't blame Sean Connery for staying home for this one.

Indeed. Having himself proposed a Mutt-centred fifth movie at Cannes, Lucas has since rowed-back on the possibility, so LaBeouf must launch a major kiss-ass offensive if he's to rekindle his chance to further defecate on the Indiana Jones series...
 

emtiem

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Like all things (if viewed objectively), the reality is somewhere in the middle i.e. the first three Indiana Jones movies are viewed, by many, with rose tinted spectacles and KOTCS could have been better...

Yes, seems fair- both sides are right.
 

Crusade>Raiders

New member
Darth Vile said:
For example, I still enjoy some of the Roger Moore Bond movies I first saw as a kid e.g. Moonraker, View to a Kill... but I also understand that some of the fun I can get from watching them is not reflective of the actual quality.

The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, and(to a lesser extent) Octo***** will always be awesome.

Also, I saw Temple of Doom for the first time a couple of years ago, and then I watched it again recently a few months ago, and I think its great. Not Crusade/Raiders, but a well-crafted film is a well-crafted film, no matter what age you watch it.
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Why is the title of the thread "Shia and Koepp forced to adress the two major pseudo-complaints of KOTCS"? We obviously have Shia's interview posted, but what about Koepp? Is there an interview of him somewhere yet to be posted here?

IndyFan89 said:
He claims that we have changed if this is true why do we still enjoy the movies.

That point would be somewhat valid if we were just talking about everyone here, or film enthusiasts, but the general public HAS changed. The movies from the 2000's are obviously much different than the films of the 1980's, which obviously mean the general public of the 2000's are interested in different films than the general public of the 1980's were. The people of today are especially moronic, they're so ignorant that they ignore almost any film that was released before the 1990's.

KOTCS certainly did very well at the box office, but that was largely because of a larger attendance from an older audience(and in a lot of cases them bringer their own kids). If the younger generation today were the same as the younger generation of the 1980's, KOTCS would've made TDK #s.
 
Last edited:

torao

Moderator Emeritus
But while LaBeouf embraced the silliness of nuking the fridge as consistent, screenwriter David Koepp already seems to be distancing himself a little from the center of the fanboy bull's-eye. Asked whether he would defend "nuking the fridge" to his dying day, Koepp was quick to point out that that moment "wasn't even my idea." (Indeed, a similar scene was in Frank Darabont's earlier version.)

"I thought the fridge was kind of cool, and I thought that was a lot of fun," Koepp said. "There's going to be stuff in movies that people like and don't like. Going into that one, I knew I was going to get hammered from a number of quarters. That movie is owned by millions and millions of people. What I liked about the way the movie ended up playing was it was popular with families. I like that families really embraced it."
[mtv]

That last sentence is so cute.
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Aw thanks, I missed that. Shame on me for not reading it all the way through I guess.

It solidifies even further what total BS MTV is though. Of course Koepp is going to point out the fridge wasn't his idea. It's rather hard to either defend of condemn an idea of a film you are involved with that wasn't your idea. Yet, MTV would like us to believe he's "distancing himself". :rolleyes: Also not sure why they bothered to ask him. Shia is obviously getting interviewed for Eagle Eye, but why are they asking David Koepp about the fridge?

World's lousiest reporting. Hands down.

Indy will have the last laugh when the DVD sells really well.
 
Top