Harrison Ford likes Crystal Skull so much he prefers not to tell anyone

Crusade>Raiders said:

I know its all personal opinion, but what is exactly that would make someone think Kingdom is the best in the series? Honestly, even looking at it from a non-Indy fanatic P.O.V. and just as a fan of good film...I can't see it. Theres nothing in Kingdom that isn't done better in the one or more of the other films. Screenplay, editing, lighting, cinematography, direction, acting, soundtrack, plot, characters, action, comedy...what?

Click to expand...

I think it's the subject matter partly. Some people are tired of the Christian plots and liked something new. I also think age is part of it. I know older people (by which I mean closing in on 50 years old or over) and they really like it because they connect with the 50's and the sci-fi elements. There's a nostalgia element. Plus being older, they enjoy that Indy himself is not a kid (and to someone who's 50, being 30 is still a kid).

Most popcorn movies nowadays have stars that are barely 30 years old. If you're 58 like my Dad, why would you want to go see a Jake Gylenhall movie???

Also, the Mesoamerican stuff is a bit fresh compared to all the films that use religious (mostly Judeo-Christian) artifacts nowadays.

The film was made for "fans", and although the spectrum of Indy fans is broad, people who were in their 20's or 30's when Raiders came out are now in their 50's and 60's and relate more to this story than some kid born shortly after Last Crusade came out. Posters here want to say "I'm a fan and I hated it" but if you're 15 years old it was not made for you.

Everybody know how evil Nazi's were and a lot of us are taught religious dogma at a young age. Soviets and sci-fi are a little different. The fact that many kids do not know how evil the Soviets actually were and do not know of "atomic fear" and the "red scare" shows that there was more of an intended audience. I'm only 30, but because I have studied a lot of history I "got" KOTCS.

sandiegojones said:

The fact that many kids do not know how evil the Soviets actually were and do not know of "atomic fear" and the "red scare" ....

Click to expand...

Very good point.

When I was in elementary school, we had air raid drills every week. We had to practice what to do when the Russians dropped an atomic bomb on America. We practiced exiting the rooms and covering ourselves in the hallways, huddled together, guarding against flying debris. We had to know where the fallout shelters were in our neighborhood, what food & water was safe to eat & drink, how long we had to get to the shelters before we were contaminated, etc.

Those threats & fears were real. Not just for school kids, but for everyone. Cities had air raid sirens in many places and all were tested every Friday. Wherever you were, you always knew when it was noon. The Civil Defense system was tested weekly - air raid sirens, TV signals, & radio stations.

Russians plotting to take over America - "teaching their version of history" & "thinking our thoughts for us" were very real concerns.

StoneTriple said:

Very good point.

When I was in elementary school, we had air raid drills every week. We had to practice what to do when the Russians dropped an atomic bomb on America. We practiced exiting the rooms and covering ourselves in the hallways, huddled together, guarding against flying debris. We had to know where the fallout shelters were in our neighborhood, what food & water was safe to eat & drink, how long we had to get to the shelters before we were contaminated, etc.

Those threats & fears were real. Not just for school kids, but for everyone. Cities had air raid sirens in many places and all were tested every Friday. Wherever you were, you always knew when it was noon. The Civil Defense system was tested weekly - air raid sirens, TV signals, & radio stations.

Russians plotting to take over America - "teaching their version of history" & "thinking our thoughts for us" were very real concerns.

Click to expand...

I didn't live through either the '30s or the '50s, but I know that Raiders of The Lost Ark is an infinitely better film than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Its got nothing to do with context, its to do with film-making and narrative.

Oh, and by the way, judging by whats happened to the global economy, it seems those pesky Russians had it right all along, what with their hatred of market forces and all. I bet if we had had communism for the last 50 years, Indiana Jones 4 would have turned out so much better, its not funny. He might have had a furry hat for one thing, which would be cool!

replican't said:

Its got nothing to do with context, its to do with film-making and narrative.

Click to expand...

I think that depends.

KOTCS showed the 50's more than any of the others did of the 30's (TOD showed the most with the musical opening). KOTCS used the nostalgia of the 50's and more specific elements of daily political life than the other films so you kinda have be aware of the times.

Raiders almost could have taken place in any era (just swap the villains), but the 50's were crucial to KOTCS's overall plot.

sandiegojones said:

Raiders almost could have taken place in any era (just swap the villains), but the 50's were crucial to KOTCS's overall plot.

Click to expand...

I think that's a very ignorant statement. Raiders is utterly steeped in 1930s "culture," if not necessarily "history." It's the same with Crystal Skull. Actual history isn't so much important to Indy4 as the sense of paranoia it bred, which films of the period turned into B-movie scifi. You really think that the other movies lack such connections? Anyone who would give it more than a modicum of thought would realize that if you take the 1930s away from Raiders, you take a hell of a lot more than WWII and Nazis.

The Republic serials, the treasure-hunting pulp magazines, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, film noir - the incontrovertible fingerprints of all of these things are present in Raiders of the Lost Ark. To say that the movie or indeed the original trilogy in general has only superficial connection with the era is utter nonsense. That "having studied a lot of history" gave Crystal Skull extra meaning to you is nice (WOW you know about Soviets and the Red Menace?!?!?), but just because a pre-adolescent fan of Crystal Skull wasn't screened the "Duck and Cover" ads in their non-air conditioned classroom on a 16mm projector doesn't mean they can't be entertained by Indy's fridge adventure. Perhaps people Spielberg's age and older thought that the kids who loved Raiders in 1981 didn't truly "get it" either. There are lots of things in Raiders that I didn't get as a kid because I wasn't historically versed, as I imagine was/is true of a lot of younger fans (of which, hint, there are more than a few), but sometimes a good movie doesn't require anymore context than what's on screen to be appreciated.

The point is that all of the films are highly understandable by people who are not necessarily students of their inspirations, even if they'll miss out on some references and lose some potential resonance. The Indy movies have interesting influences, to be sure, but I think you're teetering on the edge of giving the movies too much credit out of some desire to feel superior to another group of people.

Of course Harrison liked KotCS. He liked working with Spielberg again, he liked donning the Indy gear again and he liked the money he made. Whatever he dislikes he is going to keep to himself. We all know Raiders was the best and always will be. They won't make something on par with it again, but Harrison's not going to admit to that. I'm glad they made Indy4, but I didn't love it - I liked it a lot though. Bring on Indy5, Harry and the beards will like it, I'm guessing I will like it. Anymore than that is just cream.

God...this just just the frosting on the cake for Skull haters. Even Steven and Harrison admit it's crap now. What's that I hear? Haters - 1! Lovers - 0!

Sorry, no frosting and no cake either. Show me the quote where HF and SS actually say it was crap. As for the scores, Haters will always be a big, fat zero. I'm not a Lover of KotCS, but I'm a-likin' it!

MaxPhactor23 said:

Even Steven and Harrison admit it's crap now.

Click to expand...

Spielberg? Where are you getting that from?

Dene said:

Spielberg? Where are you getting that from?

Click to expand...

I think Max was taking it rather far, but he prolly got it from the Spielberg's comment about having aliens in the movie that was mentioned earlier in this thread.

It's obvious that the interviewer was trying to get a negative response out of Harrison. I find it strange that people are still trying to force others to believe that they shouldn't like this film, and that no comment should be construed as a negative comment.

Udvarnoky said:

I think that's a very ignorant statement. Raiders is utterly steeped in 1930s "culture," if not necessarily "history." It's the same with Crystal Skull. Actual history isn't so much important to Indy4 as the sense of paranoia it bred, which films of the period turned into B-movie scifi. You really think that the other movies lack such connections? Anyone who would give it more than a modicum of thought would realize that if you take the 1930s away from Raiders, you take a hell of a lot more than WWII and Nazis.

The Republic serials, the treasure-hunting pulp magazines, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, film noir - the incontrovertible fingerprints of all of these things are present in Raiders of the Lost Ark. To say that the movie or indeed the original trilogy in general has only superficial connection with the era is utter nonsense. That "having studied a lot of history" gave Crystal Skull extra meaning to you is nice (WOW you know about Soviets and the Red Menace?!?!?), but just because a pre-adolescent fan of Crystal Skull wasn't screened the "Duck and Cover" ads in their non-air conditioned classroom on a 16mm projector doesn't mean they can't be entertained by Indy's fridge adventure. Perhaps people Spielberg's age and older thought that the kids who loved Raiders in 1981 didn't truly "get it" either. There are lots of things in Raiders that I didn't get as a kid because I wasn't historically versed, as I imagine was/is true of a lot of younger fans (of which, hint, there are more than a few), but sometimes a good movie doesn't require anymore context than what's on screen to be appreciated.

The point is that all of the films are highly understandable by people who are not necessarily students of their inspirations, even if they'll miss out on some references and lose some potential resonance. The Indy movies have interesting influences, to be sure, but I think you're teetering on the edge of giving the movies too much credit out of some desire to feel superior to another group of people.

Click to expand...

Quit being an A-HOLE! I was in no way trying to appear "superior" by giving my opinion, but by the tone of your comments that is exactly what you are trying to do!

My point was that I FEEL that people who lived through the era depicted in KOTCS have greater enjoyment of what was presented on screen. The people I know who like the film tend to be quite a bit older. That doesn't mean a young person can't enjoy it (nor did I say such). People of various ages have common knowledge about how evil Nazi's were (for good reason). At this point they're almost carboard villains for movies though. The Soviets, not so much. I am keenly aware of the film influences on the other movies (I spent years studying history and film at various colleges), but I just feel that KOTCS uses the nostalgia as a crutch more than the others (probably because the filmmakers themselves lived in the era too). Raiders was made in the style of a 30's serial where KOTCS was more of an homage to the 50's. The references to the 50's were far more overt than the other movies (again, with the exception of TOD).

Some people take the fridge scene too seriously and do not "get" that it is a joke because they aren't aware of the silly safety measures of the time. The same goes for the danger of accidentally locking yourself into fridges.

I'm not telling you or anyone else what to think. A question was asked and I gave my opinion which is what this site is about!

What a douche!!!

replican't said:

I didn't live through either the '30s or the '50s, but I know that Raiders of The Lost Ark is an infinitely better film than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Its got nothing to do with context, its to do with film-making and narrative.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on that, ABSOLUTELY. And if you ask me, same goes for "Temple of Doom" and "The Last Crusade".

sandiegojones said:

replican't said:

Its got nothing to do with context, its to do with film-making and narrative.

Click to expand...

I think that depends.

Click to expand...

NO, IT DOESN'T.

sandiegojones said:

Raiders almost could have taken place in any era (just swap the villains), but the 50's were crucial to KOTCS's overall plot.

Click to expand...

Oh, no, sorry man. THEY WERE NOT. DEFINITELY NOT.
The fact is that, sadly, they WANTED them to be crucial at all costs. They could have easily written a killer sci-fi oriented action adventure movie, if they really wanted to. Especially without necessarily having to put in it all of those stupid and superfluous references to the era of the 50s, that, to me personally, only contributed to produce some of the most trash moments of the last couple years of entertainment films.

Ask yourself... was the Area 51 hint REALLY necessary or useful to the plot?? Was the atomic bomb sequence REALLY necessary?? And what about those few seconds of film were they showed the anti-communist riots?? Were they necessary??

The answer is just one, and it's clear as water. The answer is NO.
But they WANTED to put all of those references in there anyway...

And I respect their choice, sure. But at least they could have tried to handle those things better, especially since they knew they were on the point of ruin the most iconic movie in the history of modern filmmaking. Damn!!

sandiegojones said:

Yeah, seriously. Most critics were positive towards the film. I work in a large office and everyone I know liked it. Everyone in my family liked it. My dozen or so friends all liked it. Seriously!

Click to expand...

So, it seems that we live in two different worlds. First, as far as I can remember, by the period of May 23, and having read A LOT of online reviews on various sites, I can say the most of them were negative to "decent film, but enormously worse than the first three, so forget about the legend". Maybe it is that that you define positive, because at least an 80% of those reviews were like that, if not even more.
Second, the great majority of people I know didn't like it much. Seriously, to use your expression. Those who liked it are obviousely those who haven't seen the first three. And in any case, they just liked it, definitely not loved it. (That's also a part of what enraged me most... after all of that time, "Indy 4" should have been THE movie. The best adventure movie of this generation. The one everybody would love. Instead it was just mediocre, so I doubt many of those people who have never seen the first three will now be interested in them after "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". I seriously doubt it. AND WHAT A SHAME!!)

NOTE: in the beginning I wanted to end this post with a little provocation. But then I changed my mind because I came to think it would have been too much for some of you. Not to mention, this wouldn't have been the perfect occasion. So, next time, maybe...

The Stranger said:

Those who liked it are obviousely those who haven't seen the first three. And in any case, they just liked it, definitely not loved it. (That's also a part of what enraged me most... after all of that time, "Indy 4" should have been THE movie. The best adventure movie of this generation. The one everybody would love. Instead it was just mediocre, so I doubt many of those people who have never seen the first three will now be interested in them after "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". I seriously doubt it. AND WHAT A SHAME!!)

Click to expand...

What is the point after almost 7 months of still making this argument. let me get out my violin!

Raiders was the first film I ever saw in a theater! I have seen each Indy film about 50 times each (probably more!). I have played the video games, and have soundtracks and have even been on the ride at Disneyland more than a dozen times. I know Indy about as well as anyone else around here! That being said, HE IS NOT REAL!

You faceless posters know nothing about the other people around here somehow want to dictate how one should feel about a movie. Let me say that again, A MOVIE!!!!

I don't worship Indy films. I watch them. I don't prey to Indy. Indy is not God. The films are not a religion! IT IS JUST A MOVIE! If you don't like it then fine, but let people just enjoy a silly movie for Chr!st's sake!

So you did not get the "end all be all" of Indy films. After a nearly 20 year gap and a lead actor who is 65, what would you expect? You all are like "after 19 years we deserved better!" It's not like GL and SS sat in a room for 19 years and worked on Indy. They made several other films and got older. You act as if they set out to disappoint YOU! Like YOU are really that important!

Some of the questions you pose are ridiculous. Did they need the musical opening in TOD? Did they need the mine cart chase? Did they need to rip out hearts? There's only one answer....yes, because THEY WANTED TO! You're arguments are paper thin.

It is what it is! Deal with it! If you don't like it don't watch.

The Stranger said:

... was the Area 51 hint REALLY necessary or useful to the plot??

Click to expand...

If the story is; Russians trying to steal an alien corpse that is hidden by (as well as knowledge-of covered up by) the US government - then yes, it was very necessary. That's where the corpse would be. The scene would have to take place there.
For the record, to this day there are thousands of people who either believe or claim to have proof that that's exactly what happened (UFO crash) & where it is (Area 51).

Was the atomic bomb sequence REALLY necessary??

Click to expand...

Was the book-burning sequence in Crusade REALLY necessary??


Both were used to show the seriousness and danger of the decade each film takes place in.

those few seconds of film were they showed the anti-communist riots?? Were they necessary??

Click to expand...

If you're trying to show how fearful Americans were of the Russians taking over the US in the 1950s (and Spielberg was), then yes, they were well-utilized.

sandiegojones said:

Some people take the fridge scene too seriously and do not "get" that it is a joke because they aren't aware of the silly safety measures of the time. The same goes for the danger of accidentally locking yourself into fridges.

Click to expand...

That's another nod to the time period that could easily be lost on the younger fans.

When I was growing up, there were occasionally public service announcements on TV and radio about the dangers of refrigerators - how to properly dispose of old ones, to stay out of them, for children to keep away from them, etc.

When General Ross says "those things are death traps", he's speaking an often-heard phrase in the late 50s, early 60s. That line got a chuckle in the theater from the audience members old enough to remember.

StoneTriple said:

Both were used to show the seriousness and danger of the decade each film takes place in.

Click to expand...

Where's the danger when all you need is a lead-lined fridge to escape the explosion?

StoneTriple said:

That's another nod to the time period that could easily be lost on the younger fans.

When I was growing up, there were occasionally public service announcements on TV and radio about the dangers of refrigerators - how to properly dispose of old ones, to stay out of them, for children to keep away from them, etc.

When General Ross says "those things are death traps", he's speaking an often-heard phrase in the late 50s, early 60s. That line got a chuckle in the theater from the audience members old enough to remember.

Click to expand...

Correct. Sadly many kids died in old refridgerators.

I wasn't saying that people unaware of that couldn't enjoy the scene, just that I felt being aware added to the enjoyment and made it funny rather than just totally ridiculous. I mean, a A-Bomb was silly, but hiding in something else that can kill you is why it's funny.

Sometimes around here you get killed for actually liking an Indy movie!

Dr. Wolfwood said:

Where's the danger when all you need is a lead-lined fridge to escape the explosion?

Click to expand...

Not everyone is as resourceful as Indy.

The Stranger said:

The fact is that, sadly, they WANTED them to be crucial at all costs. They could have easily written a killer sci-fi oriented action adventure movie, if they really wanted to. Especially without necessarily having to put in it all of those stupid and superfluous references to the era of the 50s, that, to me personally, only contributed to produce some of the most trash moments of the last couple years of entertainment films.

Ask yourself... was the Area 51 hint REALLY necessary or useful to the plot?? Was the atomic bomb sequence REALLY necessary?? And what about those few seconds of film were they showed the anti-communist riots?? Were they necessary??

And I respect their choice, sure. But at least they could have tried to handle those things better, especially since they knew they were on the point of ruin the most iconic movie in the history of modern filmmaking. Damn!!

So, it seems that we live in two different worlds. First, as far as I can remember, by the period of May 23, and having read A LOT of online reviews on various sites, I can say the most of them were negative to "decent film, but enormously worse than the first three, so forget about the legend". Maybe it is that that you define positive, because at least an 80% of those reviews were like that, if not even more.
Second, the great majority of people I know didn't like it much. Seriously, to use your expression. Those who liked it are obviousely those who haven't seen the first three. And in any case, they just liked it, definitely not loved it. (That's also a part of what enraged me most... after all of that time, "Indy 4" should have been THE movie. The best adventure movie of this generation. The one everybody would love. Instead it was just mediocre, so I doubt many of those people who have never seen the first three will now be interested in them after "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". I seriously doubt it. AND WHAT A SHAME!!)

NOTE: in the beginning I wanted to end this post with a little provocation. But then I changed my mind because I came to think it would have been too much for some of you. Not to mention, this wouldn't have been the perfect occasion. So, next time, maybe...

Click to expand...

I think your response is disproportionate to the importance/relevance/significance of the movie, and to be honest, of Indiana Jones in general. If one were being truly objective? one would have to say that the franchise, to date, consists of one extremely good movie and three average movies (take your pick which one).

Lets face it, most sequels are inferior to the original? sometimes not so much to do with that actual quality per se, but rather the elusive ?dark art? of capturing lightning in a bottle (which they did with Raiders). So to chastise KOTCS for not being as good as Raiders, is a weak argument IMHO.

Movies are a product of their time, and sadly the Indiana Jones formula is looking passé (when compared to the gritty realism of the Bourne movies, Craig?s James Bond and Nolan?s Batman)? and if you watch TOD and LC, they too appear incredibly dated now (if still enjoyable).

So ultimately, and with the greatest of respect, I think your disappointment with KOTCS is probably more a reflection of your subjectivity than it is of the actual quality.