Crystal Skull hatred knows no bounds

M

Mickiana

Well-known member
I gotta say a bit more. Dear Matt deMille, it's true that I worshipped the first movies, especially Raiders (as a 13yo). I really harp on about Raiders. On and on and on. Anyway, as time goes on, I'm amazed to find that Raiders does not diminish i.e., and this is very important, it has not found it's equal. Actually, even if its equal were made, the qualities that make Raiders what it is would still not be diminished. It's head and shoulders above the rest. Like all great works, literary, cinematic and so forth, Raiders borrowed from previous greats and surpassed them. This is not plagiarism, which is only a legal term, but is about artistic supremacy. It stands the Test of Time. There are many reasons for Raiders' supremacy in its genre and I won't enumerate them here. KotCS has disappointed because the makers bowed to forces and made decisions that detracted from the possibility of gaining similar heights that Raiders reached and I won't enumerate them here either.
 
J

JP Jones

New member
Mickiana said:
I gotta say a bit more. Dear Matt deMille, it's true that I worshipped the first movies, especially Raiders (as a 13yo). I really harp on about Raiders. On and on and on. Anyway, as time goes on, I'm amazed to find that Raiders does not diminish i.e., and this is very important, it has not found it's equal. Actually, even if its equal were made, the qualities that make Raiders what it is would still not be diminished. It's head and shoulders above the rest. Like all great works, literary, cinematic and so forth, Raiders borrowed from previous greats and surpassed them. This is not plagiarism, which is only a legal term, but is about artistic supremacy. It stands the Test of Time. There are many reasons for Raiders' supremacy in its genre and I won't enumerate them here. KotCS has disappointed because the makers bowed to forces and made decisions that detracted from the possibility of gaining similar heights that Raiders reached and I won't enumerate them here either.
Click to expand...
I'm willing to bet if you took a group of kids who saw KotCS and only KotCS and loved it, waited 20 years, and showed them raiders they would think it was alright, but since they grew up with KotCS, they would have a hard time accepting that anything is better than a movie that brings them back to their childhood.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
Mickiana said:
I totally disagree about Raiders being bashed if it were not made first. It stands on it's own merits regardless of when it may have come out. KotCS is not being bashed because it came out the most recently of the movies, but because it needs reprimanding on it's own lack of merit.
Click to expand...

I think you are right in that Raiders is, even today, still a class movie. It's probably a better movie than it should have been, given some of its constraints. However, movies are a product of their time... Bottom line is that as good as Raiders was/is, its power gets diminished by changing sensibilities. It's a bit like expecting Whale's 'Frankenstein' to still scare modern audiences or 'Ben Hur' to thrill your average teenager. KOTCS is a product of it's time. Spielberg and Lucas are products of their time. The late 70's/early 80's their high populalist high points. Both Raiders and KOTCS represent action movies of a bygone era (Raiders being a higher calibre example).
 
Paden

Paden

Member
Darth Vile said:
Both Raiders and KOTCS represent action movies of a bygone era (Raiders being a higher calibre example).
Click to expand...
Having been a kid when Raiders premiered on the big screen, I have to admit that this comment made me feel really old. :dead:
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
Paden said:
Having been a kid when Raiders premiered on the big screen, I have to admit that this comment made me feel really old. :dead:
Click to expand...

I'm with you there... ;)

Of course the interesting thing to note is that (regardless of quality) both Raiders and KOTCS do represent movie making of a different era... but one (Raiders) was ahead of the curve (as it presented action in a new way)... and by default (as it tried to emulate the other movies i.e. the past) one is behind the curve (KOTCS).
 
T

teampunk

Member
JP Jones said:
I'm willing to bet if you took a group of kids who saw KotCS and only KotCS and loved it, waited 20 years, and showed them raiders they would think it was alright, but since they grew up with KotCS, they would have a hard time accepting that anything is better than a movie that brings them back to their childhood.
Click to expand...
it's kind of like the excorsist. people always talked about how scary it was, and how awesome it was, and when i finally saw it a couple of years ago i thought it was pretty boring and lame. i couldn't believe people were scared of it.
 
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
teampunk said:
it's kind of like the excorsist. people always talked about how scary it was, and how awesome it was, and when i finally saw it a couple of years ago i thought it was pretty boring and lame. i couldn't believe people were scared of it.
Click to expand...

What movie scares you?
 
M

Matt deMille

New member
Mickiana said:
I gotta say a bit more. Dear Matt deMille, it's true that I worshipped the first movies, especially Raiders (as a 13yo). I really harp on about Raiders. On and on and on. Anyway, as time goes on, I'm amazed to find that Raiders does not diminish i.e., and this is very important, it has not found it's equal. Actually, even if its equal were made, the qualities that make Raiders what it is would still not be diminished. It's head and shoulders above the rest. Like all great works, literary, cinematic and so forth, Raiders borrowed from previous greats and surpassed them. This is not plagiarism, which is only a legal term, but is about artistic supremacy. It stands the Test of Time. There are many reasons for Raiders' supremacy in its genre and I won't enumerate them here. KotCS has disappointed because the makers bowed to forces and made decisions that detracted from the possibility of gaining similar heights that Raiders reached and I won't enumerate them here either.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't get me wrong. I believe Raiders is by far the superior film on its own merits. I just think that many (not all) who dislike Crystal Skull do so for no reason other than that unfortunate human quirk of behavior where we become bias in favor of things simply because they were our first impression. Many folks do indeed objectively weigh their movies and when they do Raiders usually comes out on top. I just like to point out this is not always the case, and I think Crystal Skull has more going for it than many bashers seem to realize.
 
kongisking

kongisking

Active member
teampunk said:
i don't really get scared at movies, but i'll take evil dead 2 over the excorsist any day of the week.
Click to expand...

Evil Dead is killer, I agree with you there. Army of Darkness, the third film, is a total blast. "This is my BOOMSTICK!"

Anyway, I'm off topic.

Willie said:
kongisking I really had a good chuckle reading your post and very nicely said! I've seen some sites where there a real avid haters of KoTCS and they insult and flame people and don't apologize nor respect people. Not here. I'm new to this forum and I am enjoying every minute of it! :) :D
Click to expand...

I'd give you a lolipop to congratulate you on finding this pack of ravenous, slobbering wolves any fun at all, but I'm out of lolipops.

teampunk said:
i agree. a couple of my friends hated it, but we didn't get in any fist fights over it. oddly, they all liked Transformers 2 and i thought it was the dumbest movie ever made. happily, we all agreed the The Happening was just plain horrible.
Click to expand...

Transformers 2 was a terribly disappointing mess, I agree. But I won't lie and say that it didn't have its moments. The Shanghai battle and the forest fight were hugely impressive set-pieces (probably becuase they both feature Optimus laying the smack-down on some "punk-ass Decepticon!") As for Happening...haven't seen it, but I hear it's unbearable. Poor M. Night. Used to have so much talent...

Ugh, I'm off-topic AGAIN. Someone slap me.
 
Last edited:
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
teampunk said:
i don't really get scared at movies, but i'll take evil dead 2 over the excorsist any day of the week.
Click to expand...

Context helps, in understanding your posts and being scared by a film.

JP Jones:I'm willing to bet if you took a group of kids who saw KotCS and only KotCS and loved it, waited 20 years, and showed them raiders they would think it was alright, but since they grew up with KotCS, they would have a hard time accepting that anything is better than a movie that brings them back to their childhood.
Click to expand...

A lot of "if, "and" and "but"...

I'm willing to bet if Skull was released first there would be no KotCS.net.

I'd wager that when Raiders DID come out it would have been accepted the way Casino Royal was, as "a movie that creates a new reality for the character" or : Most of the chases and stunts...take place in something vaguely approximating real space and time. Of course I know they use doubles and deceptive camera angles and edits to cover impossibilities, but the point is: They try to make it look real.
 
M

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
I'd wager that when Raiders DID come out it would have been accepted the way Casino Royal was, as "a movie that creates a new reality for the character" or : Most of the chases and stunts...take place in something vaguely approximating real space and time. Of course I know they use doubles and deceptive camera angles and edits to cover impossibilities, but the point is: They try to make it look real.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting perspective. Raiders would look to be revisionist. We'd recognize the characters, but we'd be seeing them in an environment that was closer to our own.
 
AndyLGR

AndyLGR

Active member
teampunk said:
it's kind of like the excorsist. people always talked about how scary it was, and how awesome it was, and when i finally saw it a couple of years ago i thought it was pretty boring and lame. i couldn't believe people were scared of it.
Click to expand...
True, but put yourself back in the time when that film was released, there was nothing else like it aorund then, it was breaking new ground in the genre. Horror movies hadn't been seen like that before and its possibly one of the first movies to use its musical score to the maximum effect as well. Basically I dont think audiences were used to seeing a movie like that.

These days we are so used to seeing gore and horror and everything else on TV in our own homes and on the cinema that we are probably de-sensitised to it now.

Equally as being discussed earlier, Raiders at the time was something new and set new ground and is a trendsetter in its genre (as the Exorcist was).
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
AndyLGR said:
True, but put yourself back in the time when that film was released, there was nothing else like it aorund then, it was breaking new ground in the genre. Horror movies hadn't been seen like that before and its possibly one of the first movies to use its musical score to the maximum effect as well. Basically I dont think audiences were used to seeing a movie like that.

These days we are so used to seeing gore and horror and everything else on TV in our own homes and on the cinema that we are probably de-sensitised to it now.

Equally as being discussed earlier, Raiders at the time was something new and set new ground and is a trendsetter in its genre (as the Exorcist was).
Click to expand...

I think that was the point being made i.e. movies are a product of their time... and even 'great' movies would feel out of place if released today. Point being Raiders, when originally released, was fresh and vibrant... its production values, use of technology, approach to action/set pieces was only really comparable with the Star Wars movies of the day. In short, it was pushing the boundaries of action/adventure movies.

If it were released today, in order to make the same impact, it would need to be a different movie than the one we have sitting on our DVD shelves. For example, I'd posit that it would have to incorporate the use of CGI in its visual effects pallete. It would probably have to cut down on the dialogue heavy scenes etc.
 
M

Matt deMille

New member
Darth Vile said:
I think that was the point being made i.e. movies are a product of their time... and even 'great' movies would feel out of place if released today. Point being Raiders, when originally released, was fresh and vibrant... its production values, use of technology, approach to action/set pieces was only really comparable with the Star Wars movies of the day. In short, it was pushing the boundaries of action/adventure movies.

If it were released today, in order to make the same impact, it would need to be a different movie than the one we have sitting on our DVD shelves. For example, I'd posit that it would have to incorporate the use of CGI in its visual effects pallete. It would probably have to cut down on the dialogue heavy scenes etc.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Every six months or so Raiders screens here in town (L.A.) and I always go. A nice thing the theaters do here is have an MC come out before every show (and tell people to silence their cellphones -- bravo! -- amongst other notices) At the Indy screenings, they always ask who has never seen this movie. Surprisingly, always a good third of the theater seems to be new to the Indy franchise, and throughout the adventure, they whoop and cheer and scream the same as they did in 1981 (I'm old enough to remember).

Lucas set out to make an "old fashioned" movie, but I don't think it was necessarily "old fashioned" only by 1981 standards. I believe if Raiders were made the same today and released for the first time to a modern audience, it'd get close to the same reception it did 29 years ago. Maybe not AS great (given how shallow many moviegoers have become), but close.

Also, consider M. Night's movies, like Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs. These were more like Hitchcock films, with really no CGI (except the alien's few minutes on screen), just good writing, acting, use of angles and cuts, shadows and suspense, etc. and were wildly successful. Old fashioned moviemaking that made money to compare with any blockbuster today.

I believe as movies become more of "product" and over-use CGI (badly, too), audiences are getting hungrier for more traditional approaches to film. Indiana Jones is the perfect example of the type of movie we need more of, and I think, if such movies were made today, Raiders and TOD (and maybe Crusade) would still rock the box office, just for different reasons.
 
J

JP Jones

New member
Matt deMille said:
Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Every six months or so Raiders screens here in town (L.A.) and I always go. A nice thing the theaters do here is have an MC come out before every show (and tell people to silence their cellphones -- bravo! -- amongst other notices) At the Indy screenings, they always ask who has never seen this movie. Surprisingly, always a good third of the theater seems to be new to the Indy franchise, and throughout the adventure, they whoop and cheer and scream the same as they did in 1981 (I'm old enough to remember).
Click to expand...
I don't think your right with your assumption. You say a third of the theater didn't see it, but that's like saying a lot of people have never seen star wars. Their minds know about Indiana Jones and they know it's a classic (Why else would they come?) so I'm just saying their minds aren't clear of Indiana Jones (for lack of a better word) bias.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
Matt deMille said:
Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Every six months or so Raiders screens here in town (L.A.) and I always go. A nice thing the theaters do here is have an MC come out before every show (and tell people to silence their cellphones -- bravo! -- amongst other notices) At the Indy screenings, they always ask who has never seen this movie. Surprisingly, always a good third of the theater seems to be new to the Indy franchise, and throughout the adventure, they whoop and cheer and scream the same as they did in 1981 (I'm old enough to remember).

Lucas set out to make an "old fashioned" movie, but I don't think it was necessarily "old fashioned" only by 1981 standards. I believe if Raiders were made the same today and released for the first time to a modern audience, it'd get close to the same reception it did 29 years ago. Maybe not AS great (given how shallow many moviegoers have become), but close.

Also, consider M. Night's movies, like Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs. These were more like Hitchcock films, with really no CGI (except the alien's few minutes on screen), just good writing, acting, use of angles and cuts, shadows and suspense, etc. and were wildly successful. Old fashioned moviemaking that made money to compare with any blockbuster today.

I believe as movies become more of "product" and over-use CGI (badly, too), audiences are getting hungrier for more traditional approaches to film. Indiana Jones is the perfect example of the type of movie we need more of, and I think, if such movies were made today, Raiders and TOD (and maybe Crusade) would still rock the box office, just for different reasons.
Click to expand...

So I'm not saying for a second that Raiders, as a movie, is inferior in any way to what's out there today (because I don't believe it is). However, it's madness not to recognise that movies have moved on. For example, I went to a screening of Hammer's 'The Curse of Frankenstein' and 'Dracula' several years ago. I was surprised that people in the audience were laughing out loud in places. They enjoyed the movies, they appreciated them, but they didn't react in the same way that an audience in the 1950's would act.

Raiders is a bonafide 'classic' movie that still has the power to entertain. Nonetheless, it has quite obviously dated. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I would be very surprised if any child/teenager of today would be 'shocked' by Raiders (or the sequels)... and in 1981, Raiders was cutting edge enough to shock the younger sections of the audience (be it due to impaled corpses, occasional expletives or melting heads).
 
M

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
So I'm not saying for a second that Raiders, as a movie, is inferior in any way to what's out there today (because I don't believe it is). However, it's madness not to recognise that movies have moved on. For example, I went to a screening of Hammer's 'The Curse of Frankenstein' and 'Dracula' several years ago. I was surprised that people in the audience were laughing out loud in places. They enjoyed the movies, they appreciated them, but they didn't react in the same way that an audience in the 1950's would act.

Raiders is a bonafide 'classic' movie that still has the power to entertain. Nonetheless, it has quite obviously dated. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I would be very surprised if any child/teenager of today would be 'shocked' by Raiders (or the sequels)... and in 1981, Raiders was cutting edge enough to shock the younger sections of the audience (be it due to impaled corpses, occasional expletives or melting heads).
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Age isn't always a determining factor. A movie with great acting or a great script, will always be a great movie, as those are elements that will always stand the test of time.

Special effects can look dated as technology improves, but the older style often adds to the charm. With Raiders I don't think this is an issue, as the effects were cutting edge and still look fine today. If Dietrich and Toht look like puppets, then that was probably the original intention. It's horror but not the full on horror of John Carpenter's The Thing (1982).

As we've seen with KOTCS, the ability to do special effects on a grand scale doesn't necessarily make for a better movie.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top