The Frank Darabont Script

caats said:

the giant monster snake that eats indy was dumb. there wasn't really a real explanation for the giant things, just that they were close to the city.

Click to expand...

Actually, I found that kind of neat, but it would still be hard to swallow and the explanation I have should probably be given on page and not left to speculation.

Still, my understanding is that the city gives off radiation and making it a force that bestows amazing powers and abilities beyond those of mortal, well, critters is very much in keeping with the time period (Godzilla comes to mind).

giant animals are too the mummy. plus having Indy un-afraid of snakes is blasphemous.

caats said:

giant animals are too the mummy.

Click to expand...

Not really. It's actually a really valid for Jones to go. I think KINGDOM could have done more with it... giving the whole area of Akator this sort of otherworldly vibe, kind of like KING KONG (and of, course, a hoard of 1950s B-movies).

I just reread the script.

While I prefer the Koepp script, and I understand why GL probably vetoed this, if they had made CotG, I'm sure I would have liked it fine. I'm not a Frank Darabont fan. I don't like any of his movies. His Young Indy scripts are amazing, though. Bottom line: he's a million times more talented & successful than I'll ever be, so my criticisms are no more than an extra 2c for anyone who wants it

As I've said on these boards: I'm Ok with Indy as a pulp hero. The big creatures as an inversion of the "lots of little critters" doesn't bother me much. And the gigantic stunts didn't put me off either.

Things I flat out didn't like:
1. The noir thing - just a rehash of Raiders. Doesn't really fit the 50's setting. Doesn't fit the opening sequence, the monsters, or the climax.
2. Marion. No growth. *****y. Boring.
3. No sidekick. Bad idea. Indy needs someone to talk to.
4. All the drinking. Too many drunk/drinking scenes. Dreary & depressing.
5. Too many direct references to the other films.
6. No central baddie.
7. Far too long & circuitous.

I side with GL on this one. He made the right call, IMO.

Raiders is the ultimate action movie.
Temple is a non-stop thrill ride.
Last Crusade is a heartfelt adventure story.
KCS is a milkshake, sweet & enjoyable.

I am cool with all four.

Peacock's-Eye said:

1. The noir thing - just a rehash of Raiders. Doesn't really fit the 50's setting. Doesn't fit the opening sequence, the monsters, or the climax.

Click to expand...

It's not a major tonal shift, so I don't really get how it's at odds with other things in the movie. Nor do I really see how it's a rehash of RAIDERS, given that they don't share sequences.

Peacock's-Eye said:

3. No sidekick. Bad idea. Indy needs someone to talk to.

Click to expand...

He has Marion, doesn't he?

Peacock's-Eye said:

4. All the drinking. Too many drunk/drinking scenes. Dreary & depressing.

Click to expand...

Well, it's about time he got drunk again. I loved that scene in RAIDERS, when he thinks Marion's dead, and he's just polishing off the liquor.

agentsands77 said:

It's not a major tonal shift, so I don't really get how it's at odds with other things in the movie.


He has Marion, doesn't he?


Well, it's about time he got drunk again. I loved that scene in RAIDERS, when he thinks Marion's dead, and he's just polishing off the liquor.

Click to expand...

I did find the tonal shift jarring.
Marion doesn't enter until about an hour into the movie.
The drinking was unnecessary & doesn't add anything, and there's alot of it.

It's a moot point anyway - the film's on its way out of U.S. theaters already. A done deal. Maybe Darkhorse will get Darabont to adapt his script into a graphic novel one day, not too far-fetched. Or he'll patch it up with Lucas & write IndyV, and put his communist hangings & alcoholic characters back in

Peacock's-Eye said:

The drinking was unnecessary & doesn't add anything, and there's alot of it.

Click to expand...

I think it added something after Indy's been put on his leave. That, for me, felt like a dead-on response, and I would have loved to have seen it in KINGDOM.

What he does when drunk is contestable. I thought it was pretty funny, myself, but I could see why some fans would dislike it. But the idea of Indy drinking when depressed feels like it came right out of RAIDERS. I like my Indy to have some rough edges, and drinking when down seems right to me.

Peacock's-Eye said:

I don't like any of his movies.

Click to expand...

While I agree with all of your points regarding the script, really? I feel like it would be impossible to not get any sort of enjoyment out of The Mist or Green Mile.

RocketSledFight said:

While I agree with all of your points regarding the script, really? I feel like it would be impossible to not get any sort of enjoyment out of The Mist or Green Mile.

Click to expand...

It's just one of those things! Take Ron Howard - I like "Willow" and I kinda like "Apollo 13", but he rubs me the wrong way as a director. So does Darabont. He's just too melodramatic & over the top for me. I can't put my finger on it - I can just feel him directing over my shoulder, I prefer for the director to be the invisible magician conjuring the illusion, not someone sitting next to me with his arm around me - I get feeling from Darabont*. I'll give him "Shawshank Redemption" - not my cup of tea, but a classically well constructed film.

*Even in the Indy script, he talks to the "reader" too much. It gets annoying. I know it was SS reading it, but still...would the final movie have been that annoyingly "chummy"?

I would agree that his material is often presented in a little heavy-handed manner, especially in The Majestic (aka the movie I like and am very much alone in liking). But I think he is a very skilled man in the industry, and I forgive his notable director's presence within his films simply because I get the sense that he's got a childlike view of things and loves the magic of the art form (which is never more evident than in The Majestic).

He seems like one of those ultimate fanboys to me, who have actually made it in the industry. Guillermo del Toro is at the top of that totem pole, probably. His presence is just as noticeable in his work.

RocketSledFight said:

I would agree that his material is often presented in a little heavy-handed manner, especially in The Majestic (aka the movie I like and am very much alone in liking). But I think he is a very skilled man in the industry, and I forgive his notable director's presence within his films simply because I get the sense that he's got a childlike view of things and loves the magic of the art form (which is never more evident than in The Majestic).

He seems like one of those ultimate fanboys to me, who have actually made it in the industry. Guillermo del Toro is at the top of that totem pole, probably. His presence is just as noticeable in his work.

Click to expand...

Like I said above, I acknowledge that I am a failure who never got his career off the ground & I tip my hat off to guys like Darabont who have found success & done some really strong work.

I know how you feel about "The Majestic". I love many films that people dump on. "Days of Heaven", "Barry Lyndon", "Kagemusha", "The Phantom Menace", and now "Youth Without Youth". Dunno - those kinds of films feel more special, don't they?

Peacock's-Eye said:

Like I said above, I acknowledge that I am a failure who never got his career off the ground & I tip my hat off to guys like Darabont who have found success & done some really strong work.

I know how you feel about "The Majestic". I love many films that people dump on. "Days of Heaven", "Barry Lyndon", "Kagemusha", "The Phantom Menace", and now "Youth Without Youth". Dunno - those kinds of films feel more special, don't they?

Click to expand...

Agreed. Phantom Menace holds up better than people remember, I think.

For the record, I like Frank Darabont. Shawshank is great, Green Mile is great. I haven't seen The Mist or Majestic, but I have a feeling I'd like The Mist. His Young Indy episodes were probably the only ones worth watching, really. I was pumped when Darabont was announced to be the writer for Indy IV. I thought it just "felt" right. It was a shock when his script was rejected.

I still haven't gotten myself to read the whole thing, now that it's leaked. From what I've heard, I think Crystal Skull was slightly better...but at the same time, I have to wonder why George said no to Darabont completely? Why couldn't he have said "ok, great--just get rid of the giant snake, add Mutt and Spalko and only give me three waterfalls instead of four"?

I don't get the people who hate the Darabont script but still blame Lucas. "He demanded a fridge scene, a rocket sled, and a jungle fight! Nobody can make a good script from those elements!" Complete BS, if you ask me. There's nothing terrible about any of those action sequences. (Ok, maybe the fridge is a little divisive, but I personally love it.) It's not that hard to fit those scenes into a script. Heck, the overall storyline for both scripts were fine. The problems were the "little things", like rubber trees and uninvolving endings.

agentsands77 said:

Not really. It's actually a really valid for Jones to go. I think KINGDOM could have done more with it... giving the whole area of Akator this sort of otherworldly vibe, kind of like KING KONG (and of, course, a hoard of 1950s B-movies).

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure it was needed in KOTCS, since giant animals tend to draw attention to lost cities. But I do like that idea about 1950s monster movies being worked in somehow. If they end up making an Indy 5, it might be a genre they could explore.

agentsands77 said:

Nor do I really see how it's a rehash of RAIDERS, given that they don't share sequences.

Well, it's about time he got drunk again. I loved that scene in RAIDERS, when he thinks Marion's dead, and he's just polishing off the liquor

Click to expand...

I also thought he was trying a little too hard to evoke Raiders- specifically the scene where Indy and Belloq meet in the bar. Darabont even hits the reader over the head with that bit about it looking like something "out of a Michael Curtiz film".

Not sure we can really compare the two drunk scenes though. It's one thing for Indy to mourn a loved one, and another to let the government make him feel that sorry for himself. It's another area where Darabont seems to be writing the characters a little too young, since I can't see a fifty-something Indy doing any of it.

actually yeah i think the snake thing woulda worked IF he was still afraid of them and if it doesn't eat him

James said:

I'm not really sure it was needed in KOTCS, since giant animals tend to draw attention to lost cities.

Click to expand...

I suppose so, but I think that's thinking too realistically for a movie where the hero survives a nuclear explosion in a refrigerator.

James said:

But I do like that idea about 1950s monster movies being worked in somehow.

Click to expand...

It was already worked in. The ants were an homage to that. It would just be taking it a step further.

James said:

It's another area where Darabont seems to be writing the characters a little too young, since I can't see a fifty-something Indy doing any of it.

Click to expand...

I've met enough fifty-somethings turn to alcohol to buy the scene.

i agree that he doesn't write the ages correctly. plus letting go of a plane and landing on another plane is a little too much for indy. that's like TOO good. indy should always been in over his head and stuff, being able to do that is a lil outa what his character is

agentsands77 said:

It was already worked in. The ants were an homage to that. It would just be taking it a step further.

I've met enough fifty-somethings turn to alcohol to buy the scene.

Click to expand...

I was thinking more of the monster/horror 50s stuff than the mutated/atomic variety.

Oh, not that it's implausible. I'll probably be there myself one day. Just that I don't see the character of Indiana Jones doing it at that age.

Although I do not like the plane sequence and have trouble wiith the overly exaggerated giant snake, I did like the tone better overall. Marion just did not seem like marion in the Kingdom of the crystal skull. At least marion was still a firebrand in this version. Some of the situations need work but... like some have you have already voiced, something between this and skull would have been nice.

Well I just read the dang thing. Much of this script is nearly identical to the movie. Only characters, their purpose, and their prominence are different. Is it authentic, I don't know, because what is odd is that Darabount was not given a credit in the film, although Lucas and Nathanson were. So that either means this "script" is fake, or Darabount made almost no changes to the previous script. I'm not an entertainment lawyer, but that scenario leads me to believe this script is fake. It's also extremely long, and would have to have a lot cut out to fit in two hours. I liked the villains more, and Marion's role, definitely. However, the lack of Mutt was really not good. The SFX remained the same, perhaps even more outlandish. Way too much dialog taken from other Indy films. There's really nothing in this script that would have greatly improved the movie. Frankly, if it's real, I don't know why Lucas would turn it down, because the only big difference in the two was Mutt?