Man, that fist fight scene was really lazy

Crusade>Raiders

New member
Harrison Ford and the Russian have a fistfight intended to remind viewers of some of the wonderful fistfights they seen in previous Indiana Jones films. The fight fails to accomplish this, for reasons I'll get into another day. What's important to note is for the duration of this fistfight absolutely no consideration is given to what's going on in the world around the fistfight. Time seems to stand still for everyone not surrounded by a sea of ants, either that, or the ants provide some kind of cloak of invisibility to the people they're about to eat.

I'll explain, as per usual, using examples drawn from other Indiana Jones films. In each previous Indiana Jones film there was at least one fistfight that managed to cleverly juggle the audience's attention between Indiana Jones's attempt to beat up someone larger and stronger than he while making it clear that something terrible was going on around them, and keeping us abreast of the the other characters' actions.

In Raiders of the lost Ark there were two of these sequences. First, Indiana Jones fights the Sherpas and Nazis in a burning bar while Marion attempts to retrieve the head piece of the staff of Ra. Later in the film there's the beautiful sequence where Indiana Jones fights the bald Nazi while Marion is busy breaking into a Nazi plane and then using its machine gun to thin out the ranks of the approaching Nazis. In Temple of Doom there;s Indy's fight with the giant Thuggee during which short round helps out by attacking the voodoo doll-loving Maharajah. Finally, in Last Crusade, there's the fistfight with Dietrich on the back of the tank as Sean Connery and Denholm Elliot attempt to flee before they all drive over a cliff.

Every scene is a masterpiece of direction and editing as the audience both is aware of exactly what Indy's doing while never losing a sense of the overall environment, the other characters, and stakes involved in the fight.

The fight scene in Crystal Skull is both far less ambitious than previous fight scenes and far more poorly filmed. It begins with Indiana Jones and John Hurt about to be overrun by the encroaching ant hordes. Thinking quickly, John Hurt takes the crystal skull out of its burlap sack and, despite his status as a frail and malnourished old man, he lifts it above his head and then places it on the ground in front of the ants. This causes the ants to detour in a wide path around the skull, creating a small, circular ant-free zone. Whether the skull has this ability because the ants know what it is and are afraid of it or simply because its super-magnetism deters them is never made explicitly. Luckily, the ant-free zone encompasses John Hurt, Harrison Ford, and the giant Commie, so the two younger men are free to have a fistfight.

And fight they do, in a battle which, like so much else in the film, quickly wears out its welcome. I remember, in the theater, watching this sequence, which goes on for far too many minutes, by the way, I kept wondering why Indiana Jones and John Hurt weren't being shot by the Communists in the truck. Although the editing of the chase scene wasn't that great to start with, I was a relatively sure a truck full of armed Communists had survived the chase. By my calculations, the anthill was right next to the cliff side, and the Commies couldn't have been more than a few meters away from the fistfight.

So why don't the Communists did you shoot Harrison Ford, John Hurt, and the big Commie? Were they trying to preserve the big Commie's life? Is so, it would be uncharacteristically kind of them, and it would also foil the film's chance to make yet another callback to a previous Indy movie, this time the 'Shoot them both' line from Raiders. Even if it were the case that they didn't want to shoot their friend, the fight ends dramatically when Harrison Ford throws the Commie into the sea of ants, who promptly drag him into their ant hill so he can be eaten alive. So Indiana Jones successfully murdered their friend whose life they were presumably trying to preserve by not opening fire. So what's keeping them from shooting him now?

I have no idea, and apparently neither do the filmmakers either, because after the fight scene finally ends they cut to a wide shot and, lo and behold, my calculations are correct, the truck full o' commies is just a few meters away. Even if they needed Indy or John Hurt alive, which their actions up until this point certainly haven't suggested as a motive, what's stopping them from just aiming their assault rifles at Indy and demanding that he surrender and turn over the skull?

Apparently they've just forgotten Indy exists, and rather than attempt to catch him, they've elected to sling their rifles and start hanging ropelines down the cliff face. Why on earth are they doing this? At this point, the Russians have the following set of priorities: Capture John Hurt. Get the Skull. Force John Hurt to lead them to valley of the Crystal Skull. What could possibly motivate them to rappel down the side of the cliff ahead of Indy? It's not a race! There is nothing to be lost by capturing Indy and everything to be gained. It's not even like it's going to be much of a challenge - at this moment, like in the vast majority of the film, Indy is unarmend. But instead, they just hook up their lines and start climbing down the cliff, oblivious to the fact that they're letting the target of their quest escape. Actually not even escape - you can't call it an escape if your captors get confused and wander off.

So what caused a mistake this huge? Simple. In the filmmakers' minds, the Russian Soldiers weren't onscreen until the fight was over, so they didn't exist until the fight was over.

This lack of an overarching sense of location plagues even competent films. With action scenes being shot in tiny pieces over days and even weeks it can be easily to lose track of the overall picture. It's far too easy to just cut corners and pretend that nothing exists past the edge of the screen, in fact, it's the epitome of lazy film making, a sin this film commits over and over again. The previous Indiana Jones films have established that the same film making team has the ability to deliver coherent, exciting action scenes. The fact that they didn't do so here is just one more piece of proof that this time around, either they didn't really care, or they've lost whatever ability they once had.
 

Jones Disciple

Active member
Why don’t Toht, Belloq or Dietrich shoot Indiana Jones when he is hanging on to the front of the Cargo truck?

For that matter why don’t the Germans sitting in the back of the truck shoot through the canvas to knock Indy off his horse when he first shows up?

How does a little kid beat down grown men in Temple of Doom?

How does a large barrel full of water make its way over lava fields without evaporating?

Why would a German pilot need to pilot his plane so close to the ground too shoot a car that he ends up in a tunnel?

Why does Indy decide that running down to the beach in the open is the best way too evade the German plane that is trying to kill him?

Why?

The first three films are full of these issues I don’t think Skull is unique.
 

Crusade>Raiders

New member
Yeah, I understand that as a homage ol' adventure serials of the past you should suspend your disbelief, but those scenes were at least exciting and didn't my intelligence('cept that well flooding the mine shaft, that was just dumb).

It reminds me of just how much more well-crafted the finale battles of Return of the Jedi is compared to Matrix Revolutions. In RotJ, the scens keep a constant flow between all three factors:

1. The Rebel Alliance knowing too late "Its a trap!" and trying to get inside the Death Star.

2. Luke confronting his father and the Emperor

3. Ewoks somehow managing to destroy an entire fully armed Imperial force and bringing down the shields.

In comparison, Revolutions has this waaaaaaaay too long battle sequence of Zion defending itself from the Sentinels. Yes, we get it: There are a lot of Sentinels coming down on the city. That doesn't mean you have to show it for 25 minutes. After the long onslaught on your eyes, we finally get back to our main character. "Oh yeah, Neo was suppose to be saving the world or something." Although this is suppose to be going on at the same time, the fact that the filmmakers thought it would be better to have an overlong to the point of boring action scene was the price we'd pay for coherent storytelling.
 

muttjones

New member
Crusade>Raiders said:
Yeah, I understand that as a homage ol' adventure serials of the past you should suspend your disbelief, but those scenes were at least exciting and didn't my intelligence('cept that well flooding the mine shaft, that was just dumb).

It reminds me of just how much more well-crafted the finale battles of Return of the Jedi is compared to Matrix Revolutions. In RotJ, the scens keep a constant flow between all three factors:

1. The Rebel Alliance knowing too late "Its a trap!" and trying to get inside the Death Star.

2. Luke confronting his father and the Emperor

3. Ewoks somehow managing to destroy an entire fully armed Imperial force and bringing down the shields.

In comparison, Revolutions has this waaaaaaaay too long battle sequence of Zion defending itself from the Sentinels. Yes, we get it: There are a lot of Sentinels coming down on the city. That doesn't mean you have to show it for 25 minutes. After the long onslaught on your eyes, we finally get back to our main character. "Oh yeah, Neo was suppose to be saving the world or something." Although this is suppose to be going on at the same time, the fact that the filmmakers thought it would be better to have an overlong to the point of boring action scene was the price we'd pay for coherent storytelling.

but originally we weren't talking about either of those films so what you just doesn't concern this.
 

caats

New member
the "why didn't they just shoot him" is the worst argument when it comes to movies. you could say that for sooo many movies. the fact that created such a long post around that is hilarious. if we wanna talk about a fight while a big car of enemies nearby, how bout in last crusade with Indy fighting the tank. there's that massive truck that just shows up to get blown up. why didn't they just shoot him? also, that whole scene of Indy somehow riding a motorcycle right into the center of a bunch of nazis is pretty hard to believe. just passes over any confrontations cause that would take time, i'd call that more "lazy" than this. we didn't even get the fight!

how about when the locked Indy in the tomb in Raiders, obviously so he'd die. they could have shot him. or the very end when they tied him up, instead of just shooting him, when they've obviously been ok with killing him.

or Indy's fight in Temple of Doom. All those guys with guns magically appeared only when Indy had already won.

aka, this is nitpicky.
 

Jones Disciple

Active member
The Matrix series went from one of the coolest films ever to one of the worst. The last one just dropped so far from the first I was shocked. It was almost like it was directed by somebody else. My feelings concerning the last Matrix film echo how some here seem to feel about KOTCS.
 

Dr. Wolfwood

New member
Jones Disciple said:
The Matrix series went from one of the coolest films ever to one of the worst. The last one just dropped so far from the first I was shocked. It was almost like it was directed by somebody else. My feelings concerning the last Matrix film echo how some here seem to feel about KOTCS.
I admit there's a certain parallel there, but, even though I could not bear to watch KOTCS a second time (stopped after half an hour), I still think that I'll do so some day. Whereas there's NO WAY I'll ever suffer through those Matrix sequels again. The sequels were so bad they managed to soil the original as well. Luckily, the effect of KOTCS was not as bad on the originals.
 

IndyFan89

Member
Jones Disciple said:
Why don’t Toht, Belloq or Dietrich shoot Indiana Jones when he is hanging on to the front of the Cargo truck?

For that matter why don’t the Germans sitting in the back of the truck shoot through the canvas to knock Indy off his horse when he first shows up?

How does a little kid beat down grown men in Temple of Doom?

How does a large barrel full of water make its way over lava fields without evaporating?

Why would a German pilot need to pilot his plane so close to the ground too shoot a car that he ends up in a tunnel?

Why does Indy decide that running down to the beach in the open is the best way too evade the German plane that is trying to kill him?

Why?

The first three films are full of these issues I don’t think Skull is unique.

PWND, good job my friend.

KOCS is the newcomer, so of coarse it's going to be a little raw for a while. At one point in time it will just fall into place.

Even thought the Monkeys, fridge, tree, and prairie dogs bother the heck out of me, I have grown a acquired taste for Skull.

The cinematography is so clean a crisp reminiscent of old 50's movies like Vertigo or North by Northwest, those films had a kind of glow to them that KOCS takes to another level.

The Ant fight scene is quickly climbing my charts as one of my favorite Indy moments, the score is incredible as well as the beating Indy dishes out.

All in all, just be glad we got what we got, it was a fun ride and it could never be better or even the same as the originals because 20 years have past, movies are made different(probably allot worse) now.

I haven't seen a good original movie since Departed.
 

Kooshmeister

New member
Crusade>Raiders said:
Finally, in Last Crusade, there's the fistfight with Dietrich on the back of the tank as Sean Connery and Denholm Elliot attempt to flee before they all drive over a cliff.

You mean Vogel. Dietrich's head imploded two movies ago.

Crusade>Raiders said:
I kept wondering why Indiana Jones and John Hurt weren't being shot by the Communists in the truck.

Dovchenko was on it already. He leaped out, tackled Indy and Oxley to the ground, leaving just Mutt and Mac, whom the Soviets then chase and shoot at. Marion comes along in the duck and they subsequently get caught up trying to catch those three while Dovchenko was beating the snot out of Indy.

Crusade>Raiders said:
So why don't the Communists did you shoot Harrison Ford, John Hurt, and the big Commie? Were they trying to preserve the big Commie's life? Is so, it would be uncharacteristically kind of them, and it would also foil the film's chance to make yet another callback to a previous Indy movie, this time the 'Shoot them both' line from Raiders.

Why would they shoot their commanding officer? Dovchenko is a colonel, the superior of every single man in that truck.

Crusade>Raiders said:
I have no idea, and apparently neither do the filmmakers either, because after the fight scene finally ends they cut to a wide shot and, lo and behold, my calculations are correct, the truck full o' commies is just a few meters away.

'Cause they turned around and went back for Spalko. For all we know, Marion's duck and the Soviet truck were chasing each other wildly in circles while the fistfight was happening.

Crusade>Raiders said:
Apparently they've just forgotten Indy exists, and rather than attempt to catch him, they've elected to sling their rifles and start hanging ropelines down the cliff face. Why on earth are they doing this? At this point, the Russians have the following set of priorities: Capture John Hurt. Get the Skull. Force John Hurt to lead them to valley of the Crystal Skull. What could possibly motivate them to rappel down the side of the cliff ahead of Indy?

Short answer: They're trying to get away from the ants.

Longer answer: By the time the guys in truck have given up trying to catch Marion's duck and gone back for Spalko, they've realized there's a swarm of killer ants everywhere (something they were unaware of upon initially arriving). Thus they rappel down the cliff in an effort to escape; they want Oxley and the Crystal Skull, yes, but at the moment, they're mroe concerned with not being eaten.
 
Last edited:

Agent Z

Active member
Crusade>Raiders said:
I remember, in the theater, watching this sequence, which goes on for far too many minutes.....

My only criticism of the fight was that it didn't go on long enough. I wanted Indy to get in a few more shots. That wind-up double punch move was sick! (y)

Loved it! We'll agree to disagree. :)
 

Bvance

New member
With so many things about this movie that were so-so, I think that ripping on one of the best scenes in the entire movie is B.S!

There you go, this thread is B.S!

By the way Indy 4 is just a FILM, a FICTION film.

Don't get too hung-up.
 

Darth Vile

New member
I think we could pick holes in this thread all day long... But I haven't the will. This thread is just a LAZY exercise in slating KOTCS.
 

The Man

Well-known member
As perfunctory and telegraphed as the fight was, at least it involved Indiana Jones actually doing something independently, tough as it must have been for Spielberg to let the scene play out without Mutt.

The film ended for me after the ant feast. The remainder is too pointless to recall...
 

nitzsche

New member
Dude, except - no, the fight isn't taking place right by the cliff... no the truck isn't just a few meters away the whole time... no, Oxley doesn't raise the skull up over his head... yes, the fight is intercut with action going on around it (Marion, Mutt and Mac; Spalko evading the ants).

Also, why would you shoot the guys with the skull in the middle of a sea of deadly ants? You going to go get it?

Clearly, the Russians are busy trying to save Spalko and then get over the cliff safely before the ants get to the edge.

Finally, the fight doesn't drag on for minutes. I think it's even much shorter than the Raven bar fight, the Thugee fistfight, the tank battle, etc.

The geography of the scene is well established. The only error (which is barely noticeable) is Spalko and her driver are seen running right past Indy and Duvchenko and then shown again running the same distance to the point where Spalko climbs the vine.
 

Crusade>Raiders

New member
interestingly, the film seems to tacitly acknowledge the growing idiocy of the Indiana Jones character, in that he never actually has to figure anything out. He's supposed to be a brilliant archaeologist and beloved professor who uses his mind to first to solve the puzzles and uncover historical mysteries, and his gun second, when when threatened by fascists and communists - although he's very nervous about shooting communists for some reason. What's startling about this film is that it never asks Indiana Jones to figure anything out. He's just a character who gets told where to go and what to do, first by communists, then by Shia Laboeuf, then by a crystal skull.

All of this wouldn't be so bad if the audience got the sense that Indiana Jones was going to solve some major problem at the end using his wits, cleverness, or knowledge of archaeology and history. He doesn't. In fact, all of the problems have already been solved and all the discoveries made by John Hurt by the time the film begins. This raises the question why Indiana Jones is involved at all.

This is the first film to raise this question. The Last Crusade, for example, had Indiana Jones spend a large portion of the film following in his father's footsteps. Even there Indiana Jones manages to accomplish something that that Sean Connery could not. He locates the tomb of Sir Richard where his father had failed to do so by using his innate cleverness, as well as the punchline of a joke set up at the beginning of the film.

Crystal Skull follows much the same plot trajectory - rather than actually discovering anything or figuring anything out, Indiana Jones just follows the ramblings of John Hurt, and then the full-on instructions of the crystal skull. Finally he reaches the end of the trail, and the audience is left wondering what is the mystery of the temple is. What was so difficult that John Hurt was unable to do it and he required Indiana Jones to take over and save the day? What needed to be done that only Indiana Jones could succeed in doing? The answer: He had to hit a rock with another rock.

Let me restate that, for clarity's sake: John Hurt, a frail withered old Englishman, traveled all the way through the jungle, dodged natives and escaping giant animals, found the kingdom of the crystal skull, and then climbed to the top of a pyramid. At that point he was stymied by a opening mechanism that requires a person to pick up a rock, and use it to dislodge small rocks from a wall. Finding himself too weak to hit rocks with other rocks he managed to walk somewhere between one and two hundred miles back to civilization in order to return the skull to its resting place. Because he couldn't hit a rock with a rock.

I'm no elitist. I don't need every main character in a movie to be the best at something, or a chosen one, or someone fated by prophecy to succeed. Heck, most of the time those kind of plot devices just frustrate me. What I do need is for my main character is to have to do something extraordinary in order to succeed. Something that requires them to, if not have a special ability, then at least require enough resilience and determination that their actions can be seen as admirable or even, you know, heroic. What this film offers instead is a situation where Indiana Jones went through a huge amount of trouble, flying halfway cross the world, just so he could pick up a rock and hit another rock with it. This means that Indiana Jones' entire role in the film's plot, his contribution to whether the scheme succeeds or fails, could literally been performed by a monkey.
 

nitzsche

New member
This is the first film to raise this question. The Last Crusade, for example, had Indiana Jones spend a large portion of the film following in his father's footsteps. Even there Indiana Jones manages to accomplish something that that Sean Connery could not. He locates the tomb of Sir Richard where his father had failed to do so by using his innate cleverness, as well as the punchline of a joke set up at the beginning of the film.

Henry, Sr. knew the tomb of Sir Richard was in the library. The movie explicitly states this. "Dad wasn't looking for a book... he was looking for the tomb itself." Henry, Sr. didn't go into the tomb because he knew the Nazis were looking for the Grail, he knew Elsa was a Nazi, and he knew his diary clearly showed how to find the tomb of Sir Richard. But he mailed the diary to Indy, to keep the clue away from the Nazis. The movie then comically states that Henry, Sr. would have never made it past the rats. WAY TO GO INDY!


The same thing happens in Raiders... and in ToD. Someone else lays out the entire thing in front of Indy and the quest is always 80% accomplished.
 

caats

New member
i give you half a point for determination. but then minus one for wasting time. so are you trying to make people dislike it or something? it's funny cause you pretty eloquently state your case but then it all goes down the toilet when you say "indy literally could have been a monkey". :hat:
 

Crusade>Raiders

New member
What is with the film's steadfast refusal to refer to its main character by the name "Indiana Jones"?

This one was so unexpected and completely out of left field that I almost thought I was hearing things. Or rather not hearing things. Somehow every time a character goes to talk to Indiana Jones they referred to him up by his proper birth name: "Henry Jones Jr". His friends call him that. His enemies call him that. Letters address him as that. Even the government calls him that. Why? That's not his name.

It's possible that by so aggressively referring to Indiana Jones' actual name the filmmakers were trying to make a point about the character's experience with aging and his feelings about his own mortality. Maybe even that after the death of his father, the actual Henry Jones, he started going by Henry Jones Jr. as a show of honor. Those kind of deft touches and philosophical navel-gazing would be fine if this film were a much more serious movie about an aging man's attempt to continue to going on the kinds of adventures he did as a younger man and gradually realizing he's just not able to. That's not what this film is about to though, in fact except for a joke about Indiana Jones missing a swing at the very beginning, this film goes to great lengths to act like absolutely nothing has changed for Indiana Jones in the past 19 years since we last saw him gunning down Nazis.

More to the point though, at its very core this movie is not a Henry Jones Jr adventure. Look at the poster. Ask anyone who bought a ticket what character they were coming to see and you'll get one answer repeated over and over again. And it sure as heck isn't Henry Jones. So why were the filmmakers so bound and determined to re-brand the character that the franchise was built around? The only possible explanation I can come up with is that, on one level or another, it was the filmmakers who were ashamed. Ashamed to be making a movie about a character named Indiana Jones.

It's not like a bit of this attitude isn't understandable, I mean all of the principals are getting up there in years, and to them the idea that character named after a state non-ironically might seem a little silly, but those are the breaks. You created a character named Indiana and he went on to make all of you while hundreds of millions of dollars and become a beloved national icon. Whatever silliness inherent to the character is now part of the overall cultural lexicon, and people love him enough that they want to be able to enjoy him for what he is utterly non-ironically. If you don't feel like like you could make a movie about a character named Indiana Jones without sniggering the answer isn't to change the character's name, the answer is let someone else make the movie.

The only way this kind of a move could have been even slightly acceptable is if the renaming was part an of an overall character arc in which the character had, at the film's opening, given up his adventurous ways and started billing himself as Henry Jones, the staid professor. Then upon being called back to adventure, ideally via something not involving aliens, he could've hesitated at first, but then decided to go and announce his return as a swashbuckling hero by correcting someone who called him Henry or Dr. Jones. He's put on his hat and look over his shoulder, and remind everyone that his name is Indiana.

Obviously there's no other place in the Indiana Jones franchise with a problem comparable to this one, so I had to go to an entire other franchise before I found something that even came close. That franchise? The Fantastic Four. It seems that during the FF's endless development some executive got it into their head that it was too silly that main villain was named Victor Von doom. While it's perfectly acceptable that he would choose the super villain name Dr. Doom for himself after being horribly injured, somehow having Doom as a last name in the first place was just entirely too ridiculous for the audience to accept. That the Fantastic Four were scientists given magic powers by unique cosmic radiation is fine, it's just the last name Doom that went too far.

The solution? Call the character Victor Van Damme, a real last name that was similar enough that it might not offend the fans and could still justify in moving over to Doom after the whole disfigurement thing. This was a profoundly stupid idea, one that didn't make it anywhere near the finished product, because the filmmakers understood that their audiences were more than willing to accept the silliness of having a character named Victor Von Doom if it allowed them to also have the wonderfulness of a character named Doctor Doom. More fundamentally, though, they understood that he was a character with over 40 years of continuing popularity and that perhaps there was something about him that people responded to whether it was strictly realistic or not.

Just take a moment to consider that idea. The people making a Fantastic Four movie had more respect for their audience and the source material than the people making a Indiana Jones movie.

Do I have to remind everyone?

Adventure has a name.

And it's not Henry Jones Junior.
 

Agent Z

Active member
Crusade>Raiders said:
This means that Indiana Jones' entire role in the film's plot, his contribution to whether the scheme succeeds or fails, could literally been performed by a monkey.

Yes, because only a monkey could have done the research, solved Oxley's riddle, and explored the gravesite to find the crystal skull to begin with.

Just one of several points you seemed to have missed.....

Literally, a monkey could have watched the film for you and would have gotten the same conclusion you arrived at.
 

Crusade>Raiders

New member
Agent Z said:
Yes, because only a monkey could have done the research, solved Oxley's riddle, and explored the gravesite to find the crystal skull to begin with.

Just one of several points you seemed to have missed.....

Literally, a monkey could have watched the film for you and gotten the conclusion you arrived at.

I mean his contribution to the film that Oxley apperently couldn't do.

"Getting through hundreds of miles of jungle? Fine. Falling down giant waterfalls? Sure. Escaping Natives that magically pop out of stautes? I can do that! Bast rocks with other rocks? By God, I'm gonna need Henry Jones Jr. for this one!"
 
Top