who likes it?

who likes KotCS?

  • i do

    Votes: 118 81.4%
  • i don't

    Votes: 27 18.6%

  • Total voters
    145

Hans

New member
lao che & sons said:
I agree. It was good, but it wasn't GOOD. I consider the original trilogy of indiana jones and the original trilogy of star wars the best that lucasfilm has to offer.;) lately george hasn't been making them as good as usual.:(

Yah i have to say it didn't stack up to the original trilogy but i still like it though:D
 

Cole

New member
I think it's fairly unreasonable to expect something as good as 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.........not only that, but it is impossible for a new film to compete with our nostalgic memories of 'Raiders' as well.

While it may not be as great as 'Raiders,' it was still special to see Indy again, and it was very entertaining. It can stand proudly against the other 3 films.

To me, that's a huge success.
 
I liked it, but you could tell there were going to be problems when they put out the trailer for the film. Dune music, digital alterations...one of my favorite parts from the trailer, Harrison's delivery of "part time" wasn't even the take they used in the film, which wouldn't have been so bad if the final cut wasn't such an impotent choice...

Which really cuts to it...the choices were off.
 

Cole

New member
Yep, because the minute difference in the delivery of the line "Part-time" is one of the glaring problems with the movie.

That's great criticism. You should have a column in the New York Times.
 

monkey

Guest
Can't say I like it.....'cause I don't.

First of all, it should never have been made. To place Indiana Jones in the 1950's was wrong from the start.

But given that, I decided to give the movie a chance.

It failed.

First of all, the plot was far too complicated. Second of all, the action scenes were 'forced'. But Thirdly, it had Aliens in it............!

It was too far "out there".

As I've said so many times, Indiana Jones belongs in the 1930's.........fighting bad guys of the 1930's.......and there are plenty of them....there are so many plots, stories, potential movies.....that one has to wonder why Lucas and Spielberg just HAD to make this KOTCS movie?

Maybe it is all about "Marketing".
 

Wilhelm

Member
Young Indy's adventure in LC is set in 1912 and it's a completely new environment for the character and it works perfectly, presenting to us the origins of the character.

Now in KOTCS we see the last days of Indy, just the opposite of Young Indy in 1912.

In fact using a circus train is as surreal and out of place as the Doomtown sequence for a Indiana Jones adventure.
 
Cole said:
Yep, because the minute difference in the delivery of the line "Part-time" is one of the glaring problems with the movie.

That's great criticism. You should have a column in the New York Times.
Cole my Troll, does it still sting?

Wow, your powers of observation never disappoint do they, nor your appetite for abuse.

I'll endeavor to explain, go run off and get Mommy to help.

These are all just symptoms of greater pains on their way, (much like trying to discern logic in your posts. Like your "Searchers" example for one).

Now, who reads the New York Times for Movie reviews? This is a "symptom" of your greater "ills". Now get your bags, the Short bus just pulled up...now that they know you THEY won't even wait long for you.

Oh, did you like the review of Crystal Skull in the Times?:rolleyes:
 

nitzsche

New member
I liked the move. It still holds up well on repeat viewing. I am surprised at how much it actually relies on the LC template though and if I had a legitimate critique about the movie it's that; it seems forced into a paint-by-numbers paradigm based on LC's formula. Obviously it has to follow the Indiana Jones formula, but I am talking about something beyond that, something too familiar and predictable about the way the movie evolves and resolves itself. It's a little too polished and pat.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
I liked it, but you could tell there were going to be problems when they put out the trailer for the film. Dune music, digital alterations...
The type of wariness could be chalked down as internet-age knowledge being detrimental to the anticipation & 1st viewing experience. The "Dune" music was identified within days of the trailer's release and A/B comparisons of the US/International trailers were available for all to see. Wthout internet access, the average IndyFan769034 would have no clue as to differences between them. (By the way, the Canadian version had BOTH the guns pointing AND the flag.:p)

Ex. The 1st trailer for "Empire Strikes Back" used music from "The Golden Voyage of Sinbad" and it took me over 15 years to figure that out all on my own! It's common practice for trailers to feature music/shots that aren't in the final product (which I'm sure you know). Those things don't really bother me.

Having never really given my opnions on "Skull" before, I'll do it for you. The parts that I like far outweigh the ones I don't. In no particular order, what I really dislike:

-The treatment of Marion (especially her introduction at the camp)
-The sand-pit (For me, the most CRINGE-WORTHY scene in the entire film!:sick:)
-Oxley
-SEEING the living alien/inter-dimensional being (but I looooved the shot of the saucer!)
-The Cemetary Warriors
-The way the skull was found

My biggest regret is reading too many spoilers because there were only 1 or 2 surprises in the film. I think it was Crack that whip who started a thread about "What did you know before going in?". I knew too much and came out a tad disappointed.

However, a film-snob friend of mine said, "It was better than I thougt it would be" while a friend of my brother's (average Joe) walked out of the theatre and related, "I expected more from Lucas & Speilberg".

Do *I* like it? Hell, YEAH! If I can accept "Crusade", I can accept "Skull". It's all Indy.:whip:
 
Cole said:
I think it's fairly unreasonable to expect something as good as 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.........not only that, but it is impossible for a new film to compete with our nostalgic memories of 'Raiders' as well.

If you start doing something with the premise that it's impossible, then it's YOUR fault when you fail.
 

Darth Vile

New member
The Stranger said:
If you start doing something with the premise that it's impossible, then it's YOUR fault when you fail.

"Do or do not... There is no try" hey? Alternatively, the old adage of "Under promise and over deliver" seems to sum up many movies that get a better response than their quality sometimes warrants.
 

Crack that whip

New member
Stoo said:
Ex. The 1st trailer for "Empire Strikes Back" used music from "The Golden Voyage of Sinbad" and it took me over 15 years to figure that out all on my own! It's common practice for trailers to feature music/shots that aren't in the final product (which I'm sure you know). Those things don't really bother me.

Indeed, trailers are frequently assembled before their movies' scores have been recorded (or even composed), so often if the trailers are going to have music, there's no choice but to use something composed for something else. At least with something like an Indy movie, they can always use recordings of the primary themes that were done for previous movies (the Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull trailers use music from the previous Indy adventures, naturally). That doesn't explain the use of the Dune music, of course; I think the thing there is just that they wanted something totally different from the classic "Raiders March" to open the teaser, largely because approaches to film scoring have changed a lot over the years since '81, and the movie's marketers wanted to "transition" the audience from a more contemporary sound into the familiar Indy universe (also, they undoubtedly wanted to sync the opening of the theme with the shot of Indy getting his hat and putting it on, seen in shadow against the car, but they could presumably have used some other music from the original movies in the earlier part of the teaser if they'd wanted to).

A cool resource one can use to identify music used in trailers (since it's so frequently from something other than the movie the trailer is for) can be found here at Soundtrack.Net.

Stoo said:
Having never really given my opnions on "Skull" before, I'll do it for you. The parts that I like far outweigh the ones I don't. In no particular order, what I really dislike:

-The treatment of Marion (especially her introduction at the camp)
-The sand-pit (For me, the most CRINGE-WORTHY scene in the entire film!:sick:)
-Oxley
-SEEING the living alien/inter-dimensional being (but I looooved the shot of the saucer!)
-The Cemetary Warriors
-The way the skull was found

Oh, unfortunate, but oh well. Your list of dislikes includes some of the things I actually quite enjoy (mainly Oxley and the sand pit). I really love Marion, though I do wish she'd gotten to do more. I'm not entirely crazy about the cemetery warriors, though; they're just too... undefined. Their presence does make for a fairly nifty few moments of action, but they otherwise seem to have no role in the story, and just raise questions about Indy's behavior that some less-muddy scriptwriting could've avoided. Ah, well.

Stoo said:
My biggest regret is reading too many spoilers because there were only 1 or 2 surprises in the film. I think it was Crack that whip who started a thread about "What did you know before going in?". I knew too much and came out a tad disappointed.

However, a film-snob friend of mine said, "It was better than I thougt it would be" while a friend of my brother's (average Joe) walked out of the theatre and related, "I expected more from Lucas & Speilberg".

Do *I* like it? Hell, YEAH! If I can accept "Crusade", I can accept "Skull". It's all Indy.:whip:

Same here!

I did indeed start a thread asking how much people knew before going in. I tried to stay spoiler free, and came pretty close, though some spoilers spilled out into the spoiler-free sections here at the Raven, I'm mostly sorry to say. I did have some inkling about the A-bomb escape by fridge (which had been alluded to in discussion of scripts for years, of course), and I suspect my suspicion this scene would be in the movie may actually have made it easier for me to buy than it was for many of those who went into the movie with no idea and who were totally put off by "nuking the fridge."

One thing I'd come across inadvertently actually "de-spoiled" me, if I can say that. I did find out about the briefly posted, hastily withdrawn press release that (erroneously, as we now know) stated Ian McDiarmid would reprise his role of Professor Levi (!), and that Hurt's character was none other than Abner Ravenwood (!!), so I was actually surprised that wasn't the case.
__________________​

Anyway, I do have my issues with the movie, but they're not great enough to prevent me from enjoying the things I do like about it (some of them quite a great deal), and it's a major part of the Indy canon, so I'm very glad to have it.
:whip:
 
Stoo said:
The type of wariness could be chalked down as internet-age knowledge being detrimental to the anticipation & 1st viewing experience.
I agree unreservedly! For better or worse it's part and parcel of the cinematic experience, (or should I say: attachment and email?). The guns would not have bothered me but the change made to his delivery of "part time" was really distracting! The cut in the trailer was satisfying, hit the right beats, and had attitude, the cinematic cut was just flip. It might seem minor, but symptoms are just that, of greater problem.

Stoo said:
Wthout internet access, the average IndyFan769034 would have no clue as to differences between them.
The guns/flag, sure that's incidental stuff but like I mentioned the shift in character was glaring.

Stoo said:
Having never really given my opnions on "Skull" before, I'll do it for you. The parts that I like far outweigh the ones I don't. In no particular order, what I really dislike:

-The treatment of Marion (especially her introduction at the camp)
-The sand-pit (For me, the most CRINGE-WORTHY scene in the entire film!:sick:)
-Oxley
-SEEING the living alien/inter-dimensional being (but I looooved the shot of the saucer!)
-The Cemetary Warriors
-The way the skull was found

I agree, Marion was squandered, apparently Spielberg was pissed about constant mechanical failures during the sandpit scene and just decided to take the best take. We're on the same page...the cemetary warriors might have benefitted from a few tweeks, (I wasn't too soured on them)...it just seemed like it was half baked.

Stoo said:
My biggest regret is reading too many spoilers because there were only 1 or 2 surprises in the film. I think it was Crack that whip who started a thread about "What did you know before going in?". I knew too much and came out a tad disappointed.
Spielberg and Lucas mentioned it's "Raiders tone, which got me excited, but Frank Marshall came out saying it's most like Crusade in tone...so I had a good idea what to expect. I was just happy to see Indy back, I decided to turn the blind eye and sluff off the overly outrageous stuff.
 

Col. Detritch

New member
Loved It! Great film! I just think we are so lucky to even get another Indy film after 19 years since the last... dosn't happen much!

Originally Posted by monkey
Indiana Jones belongs in the 1930's

One problem monkey, Harrison's age!(y) Now I think it would have been sooooo much more disliked if they had Indy (Harrison) in his late 60's trying to claim he was still in the 30's!:hat:
 

Wilhelm

Member
I agree. We have Old Indy in the 50s, like we see Young Indy in 1912 in Last Crusade.

The corpus of the character are the 30s, but we also have the beginning (1912) and the end (1957). Both years represented with 2 hat scenes(Fedora - Young Indy, Mutt - Old Indy).

The circle is complete.
 

monkey

Guest
Wilhelm said:
The circle is complete.

So that's it? The circle is complete.......and that's it? No more films? No more Indiana Jones?

Do we put him in a chest and store him in an attic somewhere to gather dust?

I still wonder at the desire of so many fans of Indiana Jones to seek some kind of 'closure' for the character.

OK, close it out. If that's what you want.

As for myself, I'd like to see some more Indiana Jones movies and stories.
 

Darth Vile

New member
monkey said:
So that's it? The circle is complete.......and that's it? No more films? No more Indiana Jones?

Do we put him in a chest and store him in an attic somewhere to gather dust?

I still wonder at the desire of so many fans of Indiana Jones to seek some kind of 'closure' for the character.

OK, close it out. If that's what you want.

As for myself, I'd like to see some more Indiana Jones movies and stories.

"Closure" for Harrison Ford's portral perhaps. ;)
 
Top