No love for David Koepp

JP Jones said:

I'm going to have to defend myself yet again.

Click to expand...

And I think this shows us a key problem with this thread...you're taking a non-personal matter personally. Mount a defense of Koepp, sure, but not of yourself.

And if you'd actually read what I said...although what Violet Indy says in her longer, more recent post serves as something as a rebuttal to it...you'd see that I was actually complimenting some elements in the script that <I>were not</I> B-movie in nature.

avidfilmbuff said:

Here's the thing, the series as a whole is meant to pay tribute to the various forms of escapist entertainments from the past, with each film carrying different tones and feelings while basically maintaining the same basic story-line. Raiders is a Saturday Matinee Serial, Temple is a violent piece of pulp fiction, Last Crusade is a 1930's Hollywood adventure film, and Kingdom is a 50's b film.

Click to expand...

Saturday matinee serials = "pulp fiction" and Hollywood made adventure B-flicks, too. While I do understand what you're trying to distinguish, there are traces of all 4 of those elements in every Indy film. Point being, Indiana Jones movies are NOT Bs! They are made from top-notch talent in EVERY area.

JP Jones said:

Violet & Stoo, I wish you guys would listen before bashing my opinions. KotCS was meant to be a B-movie (I mean "honor" B-movies). Every other version didn't honor them. Frank Darabont's oh-so-loved script felt more like a romantic novel with action than a B-movie. The "Saucer Men" script was B-moviepaloosa. So logically one would concur that David's script is the best.

Click to expand...

Well, please re-read because in no way was I bashing your opinion. Merely bringing attention to the distinction between Indy flicks vs. B-flicks. "Skull" had splashy premieres in Cannes, New York and L.A. in complete contrast to a B which was the OTHER movie at a double feature. (The last double feature I remember was at the drive-in and do you know what the B roll was?..."Gremlins"!)

JP Jones said:

The reason it's so hated IMO is because it's 2009 and B-movies were popular in the 50s.
Can't we all just respect the guy?

Click to expand...

Again, it appears you don't fully understand the definition of a B-movie and don't take what I'm saying as disrespect to Koepp because I've never bashed him and, quite frankly, don't give a toss WHO wrote the final script!

Stoo said:

Saturday matinee serials = "pulp fiction" and Hollywood made adventure B-flicks, too. While I do understand what you're trying to distinguish, there are traces of all 4 of those elements in every Indy film. Point being, Indiana Jones movies are NOT Bs! They are made from top-notch talent in EVERY area.
Well, please re-read because in no way was I bashing your opinion. Merely bringing attention to the distinction between Indy flicks vs. B-flicks. "Skull" had splashy premieres in Cannes, New York and L.A. in complete contrast to a B which was the OTHER movie at a double feature. (The last double feature I remember was at the drive-in and do you know what the B roll was?..."Gremlins"!)
Again, it appears you don't fully understand the definition of a B-movie and don't take what I'm saying as disrespect to Koepp because I've never bashed him and, quite frankly, don't give a toss WHO wrote the final script!

Click to expand...

You're right, the Indy films are not essentially b movies themselves, but they are tributes to past escapist entertainment. And let me explain what I meant when I described each film. While a saturday matinee serial can certainly be linked to pulp fiction, I meant to say the Raiders definitely felt more like a cliffhanger serial rather than something out a comic book while Temple of Doom is certainly more like a violent pulp fiction comic book. I mean, I don't think anybody can deny that the violence in Raiders is certainly more realistic and gritty than the violence found in Temple of Doom. When I said that Last Crusade was more like a Hollywood adventure film, I didn't mean to imply that Hollywood didn't create b films, but that Last Crusade feels less like a serial or pulp fiction and instead resembles films more like some of the more big budget adventure films that Warner Brothers produced, I think this is mostly due to the fact that Last Crusade had a far more deeper story-line and less emphasis on violence. Also Last Crusade feels more like a Hollywood epic, mostly due to a stronger feeling of majesty than the other three films. Let me conclude by saying that Raiders feels like it was produced by Republic Serials, Temple of Doom feels like a violent comic book, Last Crusade feels like it was directed by John Huston, and Kingdom feels like it was directed by George Pál.

avidfilmbuff said:

Also Last Crusade feels more like a Hollywood epic, mostly due to a stronger feeling of majesty than the other three films. Let me conclude by saying that Raiders feels like it was produced by Republic Serials, Temple of Doom feels like a violent comic book, Last Crusade feels like it was directed by John Huston, and Kingdom feels like it was directed by George Pál.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...This is getting waaaay off-topic but I'll have to disagree with you on "Doom" and "Crusade". ToD is Indy-meets-Gunga Din, which was a big-budget, well-made, Hollwood production starring 3 MAJOR actors (and based on a Kipling poem) with NUMEROUS nods to Republic serials. On the same hand, "Crusade" was a re-hash of "Raiders" with several scenes inspired by Republic, etc. (Many examples can be used to back up that claim.)

Stoo said:

Hmmm...This is getting waaaay off-topic but I'll have to disagree with you on "Doom" and "Crusade". ToD is Indy-meets-Gunga Din, which was a big-budget, well-made, Hollwood production starring 3 MAJOR actors (and based on a Kipling poem) with NUMEROUS nods to Republic serials. On the same hand, "Crusade" was a re-hash of "Raiders" with several scenes inspired by Republic, etc. (Many examples can be used to back up that claim.)

Click to expand...

You're right, I forgot about Gunga Din. It's true, the story of that film is inspired by a big budget Hollywood film, but I still feel that the tone of Temple of Doom is not really like a big budget Hollywood film, even though the script may have inspired by one. I must strongly disagree with you on Last Crusade. Although I will admit that each Indy film contains elements of another Indy film, the face melting scene was definitely pulp-like, the zeppelin turning around does feel like a cliffhanger serial, and the elephant trek feels like something out of a David Lean film. But I stand by my previous statements.

Indiana Jones movies have always been 'pulp', certainly not B-movies. There is a distinction, though it can be blurred when the pulp genre is made as a B-movie (typically on a low budget, though even a big budget movie can become B grade if it is careless).

'Pulp' refers to the poor quality paper that Victorian Penny Dreadfuls and Penny Bloods and their like were written on. They were often serialized novels released weekly, with cliffhangers, scary creatures and wild adventures employed in order to make the reader purchase the next issue. Dickens also wrote novels that were originally serialized, though I wouldn't call them either pulp or B-grade.

Therefore, there is a distinction. Pulp is now known as a genre of fiction, rather than specifically for the poor quality of its media. All four Indiana movies were pulp-inspired. They're Boys Own Adventure stories of derring-do, and as such sometimes give only a cursory nod to the real world.

David Koepp was writing a pulp-inspired screenplay. If there is no love for David Koepp, maybe its because audiences aren't understanding the nature of what's being offered to them. Only in pulp could you nuke a fridge...and survive!

Matt

I thought the script was fine. The only real issues with the script I have are that Indy does practically nothing at the end (but I only noticed that once it was pointed out on these boards), Henry Sr. doesn't show up (I wanted to see all 3 generations of Henry Jones together!), and no death traps (but if returning the skull was the goal, why would there be traps to stop someone from returning it? so I guess it makes sense for the story).

The nuke/fridge scene worked for me (the fridge did say lead-lined). I just assumed the town was on the edge of the blast and Indy's (dumb?) luck saved him from another tight spot.

The overreliance on CGI (decision by Lucas and Spielberg) may have tightened the reins on Koepp so he couldn't write scenes that didn't make use of CGI.

Overall I didn't mind the script, but the faults I have with it may not be Koepp's fault. Since he had to answer to Lucas and Spielberg.

mister64 said:

Henry Sr. doesn't show up (I wanted to see all 3 generations of Henry Jones together!)

Click to expand...

That would definitely have been a nice addition, but Henry would have to have been another CGI element. Sean Connery is enjoying retirement too much to return to acting.

mister64 said:

The nuke/fridge scene worked for me (the fridge did say lead-lined). I just assumed the town was on the edge of the blast and Indy's (dumb?) luck saved him from another tight spot.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with either the fridge or the inter-dimensional 'aliens', which are two of the biggest issues people seem to have with KOTCS.

Why not a lead-lined fridge? It's the perfect Indy cliffhanger-escape. Indy's a resourceful guy, and he is possessed of the 'Jones' luck. And why not those inter-dimensional creatures? Weve seen all manner of other inexplicable things in the previous movies, and for me these new creatures tie all the others together: they're collectors of human culture and the imparters of ancient wisdom to man. That in itself may explain the inexplicable or supernatural elements present in the first three films.

mister64 said:

Overall I didn't mind the script, but the faults I have with it may not be Koepp's fault. Since he had to answer to Lucas and Spielberg.

Click to expand...

Lucas and Spielberg are very protective of their creation. They have a history of being hard on their scriptwriters - numerous scriptwriters seem to have had a go at writing an Indiana Jones film, and failed to meet the vision of Lucas and Spielberg.

Therefore, I agree that Koepp probably didn't have much room to ad lib. It's like Lucas with Star Wars: it's the universe that George built, so he has strict control over what happens in it.

I resisted watching KOTSC for a long while. At first I tried to ignore it, pretend it wasn't part of the Indy mythos. The adverts for the film didn't look promising, I thought Harrison Ford would be too old to bring this classic character back. Then I happened upon the DVD, and immediately found my old Indy enthusiasm re-ignited. Harrison pulled it off, it was tougher for him this time round, but you can't keep an old adventurer down. Twenty years on, I found that the quirky Indiana Jones character was once more alive and well.

For me, KOTCS now deserves its rightful place among the other three movies.

The difficulties with doing this film are obviously that in the 20 years since Last Crusade there are children and adults that weren't around to see even The Last Crusade first time round. To some of us Indy was a familiar character, to others he may have been a totally new character. The movie had to appeal to older fans as well as newer ones if it was to recover its costs.

Maybe it's because it had to walk this fine line, that it divides opinion so strongly. As a consequence Hasbro have suspended producing toys (hopefully its just a suspension and not an extinction). Whereas Star Wars toys continue on and on forever (unstoppable since 1995, perhaps due to the dumbing down of the second trilogy, to appeal far more to younger audiences?)

Matt

Montana Smith said:

Maybe it's because it had to walk this fine line, that it divides opinion so strongly. As a consequence Hasbro have suspended producing toys (hopefully its just a suspension and not an extinction). Whereas Star Wars toys continue on and on forever (unstoppable since 1995, perhaps due to the dumbing down of the second trilogy, to appeal far more to younger audiences?)

Matt

Click to expand...

I'd probably contest that last paragraph re. Star Wars.

I think Star Wars has (and will continue to have) a more universal appeal than Indy. This is largely because they appeal at a more basic/fundamental level (which automatically draws kids towards the premise). Whether the prequels are better, worse or the same as the originals is of course a matter of opinion… but I'd argue that the prequels are actually far less accessible, and less kid friendly, (sans the Jar Jar elements in TPM) than the originals. This is mainly due to the fact that, IMHO, Lucas tried to intellectualize the prequels and not dumb them down as you suggest. I do however believe that Lucas' attempt at a more intelligent/philosophical approach to the prequels diminished the "fun" element that the originals reveled in. Rhetoric espousing bureaucrats and pompous/stony faced Jedi do not make for a great exercise in “fun“ cinema.

The fact that kids of a certain age still absolutely love Star Wars is testament to the power of the underlying concept.

too

mister64 said:

I thought the script was fine. The only real issues with the script I have are that Indy does practically nothing at the end (but I only noticed that once it was pointed out on these boards), Henry Sr. doesn't show up (I wanted to see all 3 generations of Henry Jones together!), and no death traps (but if returning the skull was the goal, why would there be traps to stop someone from returning it? so I guess it makes sense for the story).

The nuke/fridge scene worked for me (the fridge did say lead-lined). I just assumed the town was on the edge of the blast and Indy's (dumb?) luck saved him from another tight spot.

The overreliance on CGI (decision by Lucas and Spielberg) may have tightened the reins on Koepp so he couldn't write scenes that didn't make use of CGI.

Overall I didn't mind the script, but the faults I have with it may not be Koepp's fault. Since he had to answer to Lucas and Spielberg.

Click to expand...

By the same token, Indy doesn't have much to do at the conclusion of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' either. He's tied up to a pole, but smart enough to know to close his eyes. It's all the crazy stuff happening when the ark is opened that makes for such a classic ending. Similarly, I think that's supposed to be the case here with the alien and the spaceship and all that, but inevitably it wasn't going to match 'Raiders.' On its own merit, it is still interesting and entertaining, I think.

The way in which fiction and fact was mixed - with the skulls, the Roswell conspiracies, Francisco de Orellana, etc. - made for a pretty clever story I think, and that's a staple of the Indy franchise. I don't think this aspect of the movie gets enough recognition or appreciation.

So in the end, I think a criticism that could be made is that it parallels the structure of the previous films perhaps a little too much.

Darth Vile said:

I'd probably contest that last paragraph re. Star Wars.

I think Star Wars has (and will continue to have) a more universal appeal than Indy. This is largely because they appeal at a more basic/fundamental level (which automatically draws kids towards the premise). Whether the prequels are better, worse or the same as the originals is of course a matter of opinion? but I'd argue that the prequels are actually far less accessible, and less kid friendly, (sans the Jar Jar elements in TPM) than the originals. This is mainly due to the fact that, IMHO, Lucas tried to intellectualize the prequels and not dumb them down as you suggest. I do however believe that Lucas' attempt at a more intelligent/philosophical approach to the prequels diminished the "fun" element that the originals reveled in. Rhetoric espousing bureaucrats and pompous/stony faced Jedi do not make for a great exercise in ?fun? cinema.

The fact that kids of a certain age still absolutely love Star Wars is testament to the power of the underlying concept.

Click to expand...

I agree the prequel trilogy as a whole is arguably more ambitious, but I actually like those aspects about it.

However, what Lucas gains intellectually, he seems to have lost on a personable level perhaps. The humor and the personalities weren't quite as endearing as the first trilogy........but by the same token, trying to recreate the intangible magic of the first trilogy might've been near-impossible too.

Darth Vile said:

I'd probably contest that last paragraph re. Star Wars.

I think Star Wars has (and will continue to have) a more universal appeal than Indy. This is largely because they appeal at a more basic/fundamental level (which automatically draws kids towards the premise). Whether the prequels are better, worse or the same as the originals is of course a matter of opinion? but I'd argue that the prequels are actually far less accessible, and less kid friendly, (sans the Jar Jar elements in TPM) than the originals. This is mainly due to the fact that, IMHO, Lucas tried to intellectualize the prequels and not dumb them down as you suggest. I do however believe that Lucas' attempt at a more intelligent/philosophical approach to the prequels diminished the "fun" element that the originals reveled in. Rhetoric espousing bureaucrats and pompous/stony faced Jedi do not make for a great exercise in ?fun? cinema.

The fact that kids of a certain age still absolutely love Star Wars is testament to the power of the underlying concept.

Click to expand...

Darth Vile, I concede that "dumbing down" was the wrong term to employ.

In fact the best part of the prequels, for me, was the political intrigue, creating the conditions for a desired war - it was just what Hitler did before he invaded Poalnd in 1939.

I have been a Star Wars fan from the start. My disappointment with the later movies is akin to that felt by some Indiana fans with KOTSC.

The "dumb" parts of the Star Wars prequels are precisely the ones I see as over kid-friendly - the annoying Jar Jar Binks, and over-emphasis on knockabout comedy playing alongside the serious issues Lucas was developing. Star Wars lives on now as the Clone Wars animation. The tone of the original three movies felt more adult in nature - in Star Wars there was a bloody severed arm and two burned corpses which I found quite shocking as a kid.

The change in character between the first and second Star Wars trilogies is quite distinct, and I think due to Lucas' merchandising skills. He knows exactly what age-group to market for.

In The Phantom Menace the enemies are now droids, and you can kill as may of them as you like without offending viewers. How would kids have viewed the heroic Jedi if they saw them cutting hundreds of sentient creatures to pieces? It's a shame that we're far more likely to see 'exploding battle droid' action figures than we are 'melting face Toht' action figures. I already have enough exploding battle droids - I really want that melting face Toht!

On the other hand, Koepp's KOTSC screenplay remains much more faithful to the character of the preceding Indiana films. Indy himself is little changed by the years, he's still a tomb-robber, he's still quirky, and he's still got that special brand of luck.

Montana Smith said:

Darth Vile, I concede that "dumbing down" was the wrong term to employ.

In fact the best part of the prequels, for me, was the political intrigue, creating the conditions for a desired war - it was just what Hitler did before he invaded Poalnd in 1939.

Click to expand...

I agree. The dichotomy is that the socio-political element of the prequels, which is arguably the most significant and intelligent aspect of the entire series, is also the thing that bogs the prequels down in wordy (and somewhat un-engaging) dialogue. Star Wars, which was designed as primarily a visual experience, becomes a movie that requires the sub-text to be relayed via numerous conversations between politicians, peacekeepers and bureaucrats. Ironically, I think it’s this element that makes the prequels something far more significant than simply “another Star Wars movie” or “another summer action/adventure flick”, but at the same time it also indirectly alienates (to varying degrees) the intended audience.

Montana Smith said:

The "dumb" parts of the Star Wars prequels are precisely the ones I see as over kid-friendly - the annoying Jar Jar Binks, and over-emphasis on knockabout comedy playing alongside the serious issues Lucas was developing. Star Wars lives on now as the Clone Wars animation. The tone of the original three movies felt more adult in nature - in Star Wars there was a bloody severed arm and two burned corpses which I found quite shocking as a kid.

Click to expand...

I think there has been a sea change over the past 20/30 years in the way we, the audience, view movies and what we deem acceptable as far as movie violence is concerned… and this is an argument that I’ve used when comparing/contrasting KOTCS with the other Indy movies. I’d agree that gag for gag; the prequels contain more elements of slapstick childish humour. However, I think the prequels contain substantially more graphic violence (decapitation, electrocution, dead kids, burning bodies and child birth death), and darker themes (slavery, corruption, betrayal, jealousy and the political shift from republicanism to fascism) than the originals. I firmly believe that the violence and dark themes in the prequels way exceeds that of the originals… yet there exists a perception that the prequels are more “kid friendly”…

Montana Smith said:

The change in character between the first and second Star Wars trilogies is quite distinct, and I think due to Lucas' merchandising skills. He knows exactly what age-group to market for.

Click to expand...

I agree. The OT and PT feel like they exist within the same universe, but they are substantial different in tonality. I personally find that to be a plus point... and find that sitting side by side, the prequels compliment the originals. However, I understand completely the complaint that some/much of the “fun” is sucked out of the prequels due to the nature of the content.

Montana Smith said:

In The Phantom Menace the enemies are now droids, and you can kill as may of them as you like without offending viewers. How would kids have viewed the heroic Jedi if they saw them cutting hundreds of sentient creatures to pieces? It's a shame that we're far more likely to see 'exploding battle droid' action figures than we are 'melting face Toht' action figures. I already have enough exploding battle droids - I really want that melting face Toht!

Click to expand...

Again I’d agree… It was a constraint of the prequels that by having the action focused on Jedi’s, and the use of lightsabres, that seeing them cut through a swathe of humanoids would have been nigh on impossible to achieve with the correct degree of plausibility and taste. I don’t think that could have been achieved any better in the 1970’s. Unfortunately, as it stands, you get all these Jedi in action, doing fantastical things… to droids… which is somewhat unfulfilling.

Cole said:

I agree the prequel trilogy as a whole is arguably more ambitious, but I actually like those aspects about it.

However, what Lucas gains intellectually, he seems to have lost on a personable level perhaps. The humor and the personalities weren't quite as endearing as the first trilogy........but by the same token, trying to recreate the intangible magic of the first trilogy might've been near-impossible too.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. The intelligence and ambition of the prequels serve to hamstring it as a collective experience. But still, it has something to say and manages to be it's own thing (for both good and bad).

That's a very thoughtful analysis, Darth Vile.

It's a fact that every time I watch the Star Wars prequels I warm to them a little more, but I still hold a special place for the 'classic three'. Every time I hear the Twentieth Century Fox theme, I can feel that warm and fuzzy feeling of nostaligia that I felt the first time I saw Star Wars.

KOTSC has already won me over, and I already get that nostalgic feeling, even though its still a recent event. In time, and after more viewings I will probably accept the continuity of the Star Wars prequels - believe me, I really want to. The final scenes of Revenge of the Sith are already there - the death of Padme, and the rage of Anakin against Palpatine.

The scheming of Palpatine is the complex way in which democracies plot before finally becoming open dictatorships. In our present climate I prefer to think of democracy as 'dictatorship by other means'. Dictatorship is the big stick, whereas democracy is the carrot (with the big stick concealed but ever present), that will tempt and influence us to agree to the descisions being made at the top. We only have representative democracies anyway. We elect politicians who make the decisions for us. How many popular votes did Ireland conduct on the European Union treaty until the Government got the positive result they were looking for?

But this, isn't really answering the question of love for David Koepp. To get the thread back on track, I can say that, at the very least, KOTSC brought Indy back to the big screen. Whether viewers like what was brought back remains up for discussion, but the fact he did come back is a positive note.

Matt

I think David Koepp is a great guy why do many Indy fans hate him?