kongisking
Active member
michael said:
I like how you use the word "epic." I was thinking the very same thing.
The Indy IV hate is getting REALLY old......
- Thread starter Dr.Jonesy
- Start date
I like how you use the word "epic." I was thinking the very same thing.
kongisking
Active member
Johnny Nys said:
High-Five, bro!!!!!!!!
Grizzlor
Well-known member
Many of the parts people have screamed about, like the gophers, fridge, Tarzan Mutt, and the aliens, bother me less and less each time I watch it on DVD. I hardly notice them now. The special features/behind the scenes stuff really does a lot for me. Steven especially really hits on many of the questions I had about the movie, and why they did certain things. The decision was to have it be done in the style of a 50's B-Movie. A lot of people hated that route. I don't think it was that big a deal. Going in, the thing I most wanted from this film, was to be able to pop it in the DVD player whenever I had an urge, just like the first 3 films. I can thankfully say, yes, I can do that. I rarely cringe, and the only part that puts me to sleep a little are the scenes in the sanitarium and cemetery. That's less than ToD, which I watch less and less.
Dr.Jonesy said:I'm serious. I mean I understand disliking this film, but then you have the a$$holes who try and state that hating this film makes them intellectually suprerior to you and that the notion that this film sucks is a "FACT" and they give you the evidence as to why it's the worst film of all time.
The worst place for this is the IMDB Crystal Skull Boards. It used to be a great board but the trolls took over and are doing the exact thing that drives me insane: Trying to prove to you that it is a fact that the film blows.
The hate is getting old. I guess history repeats itself when it comes to Indiana Jones. I bet all the TOD fans had to go through the same hell when it came out. Hype killed TOD in '84 and now it's happening again in 2008.
I can't wait til this film ages, it'll be liked so much more. But as of now, the hate is kinda ruining the enjoyment of the film for me. Aside from some of the crappy scenes, *cough* Monkeys/Tarzan *cough* I still love the film and it's my 3rd fave out of the 4. Though it would be stupid for me to deny the disappointment of the film.
But in all seriousness, the hate is getting really annoying. Mostly at IMDB. Which that place is the most Anti-Indy IV board. I mean c'mon! This film was a critical and commercial success! The DVD sales did great. I think the haters are probably the minority.
If people didn't like the film, they need to get over it and move on.
I understand people's diappointment, but they take it too far.
Long live the fridge!
I agree. People need to realise this ain't real life, its a movie and its better than most crap we have today. (and he is Indiana Jones)
Personally, I was rather dissapointed by The Dark Knight, while Heath Ledger was a great actor, I felt that many just saw it because He died, However that what I *personally* think.
Infact, Indy got a better rating on Rotton Tomatoes than most movies today.
I understand some people are annoyed because of the alien ending, however, It kind-of makes sense doesn't it? In the 50s, there were lots of stuff revolving Aliens, The Crystal Skull would've come from some sort of Alien, since when does a Human have a skull like that
Temple of Doom is now a classic, so I'm pretty sure in 10-20 years time, People will recognise Crystal Skull as a Classic.
Raider Indy
New member
The only thing getting older than the overdone hate for 'Crystal Skull' is the overdone praise for 'The Dark Knight.'
I loved both of them, but the respective aformentioned practices have fully and annoyingly run their course, IMO.
I loved both of them, but the respective aformentioned practices have fully and annoyingly run their course, IMO.
See... I just don't remember this happening. Most of the fans (and by fans I mean kids) that I knew at the time loved it... even some of the critics (Roger Ebert's review is a great example, and one of the best TOD reviews that I've ever read). Sure, not all of the critics were so positive (I can think of Leonard Maltin's review off the top of my head... but then again, I don't think that I've ever agreed with any of his reviews anyway), but still, the one thing that I just don't remember, and that everyone keeps talking about, is this huge backlash of hate from all the fans when the movie first came out...Dr.Jonesy said:
I don't remember an enormous amount of hype before TOD came out either... If anything, compared to the other movies, I think it was actually under marketed at the time (in fact, I think one of the reasons Struzan was brought on to do a second version of the movie poster was because of disappointing box office returns from the opening weekend)...Dr.Jonesy said:
All in all, with KOTCS, it feels like an almost opposite set of events:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zFSBz60YKM0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zFSBz60YKM0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
opening to mostly raving reviews from critics... and very mixed feelings from fans (though it seems like critics lately have been changing their tune...), so I just don't understand why when every time someone defends KOTCS, TOD is used as an example...
I don't mean to diminish Indy4's expectations with general audiences, but I think it has been overstated by people who want to justify the fact that the movie didn't live up to many fan's expectations, no matter how realistic such an achievement may or may not have been.
If any of the sequels had impossible expectations to live up to, it was Temple of Doom. You can't follow up Raiders of the Lost Ark and win, and it didn't in the eyes of critics at the time. The voluntarily made Indy4 is a totally different scenario. The 19 year interim gave expectations a lot of time to brew, but I also think that the distance from Crusade was an advantage as well. Namely, a lot of people were going to be content with getting another dose of Harrison Ford in the hat and whip again, with everything else, like the film's quality, being a secondary concern. I think that helps explain why critics were so much harsher on Temple than Indy4. First and foremost, people were thankful to get an Indy4 at all. It's why I've never understood the people who accuse those disappointed with Indy4 of expecting another Raiders. This was the fourth Indy movie guys...every fan knows a thing or two about how sequels work at this point.
In my opinion, Indy4 "only" needed to be a solid Indiana Jones movie, whereas Temple of Doom had to be worthy of Raiders of the Lost Ark. To me, the fact that Temple of Doom wasn't as good as Raiders isn't nearly as disappointing as the fact that Indy4 was so average as a movie in general. Time has been kind to Temple, whose inventiveness and willingness to go its own way as become a lot more appreciated in the years following its theatrical release. It'll be interesting to see how age affects Crystal Skull.
If any of the sequels had impossible expectations to live up to, it was Temple of Doom. You can't follow up Raiders of the Lost Ark and win, and it didn't in the eyes of critics at the time. The voluntarily made Indy4 is a totally different scenario. The 19 year interim gave expectations a lot of time to brew, but I also think that the distance from Crusade was an advantage as well. Namely, a lot of people were going to be content with getting another dose of Harrison Ford in the hat and whip again, with everything else, like the film's quality, being a secondary concern. I think that helps explain why critics were so much harsher on Temple than Indy4. First and foremost, people were thankful to get an Indy4 at all. It's why I've never understood the people who accuse those disappointed with Indy4 of expecting another Raiders. This was the fourth Indy movie guys...every fan knows a thing or two about how sequels work at this point.
In my opinion, Indy4 "only" needed to be a solid Indiana Jones movie, whereas Temple of Doom had to be worthy of Raiders of the Lost Ark. To me, the fact that Temple of Doom wasn't as good as Raiders isn't nearly as disappointing as the fact that Indy4 was so average as a movie in general. Time has been kind to Temple, whose inventiveness and willingness to go its own way as become a lot more appreciated in the years following its theatrical release. It'll be interesting to see how age affects Crystal Skull.
Last edited:
Darth Vile
New member
You are correct in that all I wanted was a "solid" Indiana Jones movie (which I think I got)... but I just don't see TOD (or didn't at the time) as being a "worthy" sequel to Raiders. If there are gaps in quality, I think the dip in quality between Raiders and TOD is far more acute than that between TLC and KOTCS.Udvarnoky said:
Darth Vile
New member
Inbanana said:
The reason that TOD is often cited, by many, in these debates is because it was seen (and is still seen) as the low point in the Indy saga. The baseline benchmark so to speak.
I too was there on opening day when TOD first came out. I was just a kid, but I can still clearly remember that whereas Raiders was viewed as “cool”, TOD seemed childlike and bordered on fairytale. For all its “Blood of Kali” moments, it's still a very comic book sort of movie… which seemed a world away from the more serious Raiders. TOD was the movie where Indiana Jones became “uncool” for me and many of my friends.
I don't think there was a "huge backlash of hate from the fans" simply because the technology didn't exist to endlessly debate it's merits/shortfalls (other than the play ground). That's not to say that people didn't feel negative towards it though - as they did.
No Ticket
New member
I'm kind of over it all now. I mean who cares what anyone thinks besides yourself anyway. I don't think it's THAT bad of a movie, but it certainly didn't feel enough like Indiana Jones to me. Whatever that means. I'm not the only one to say this either, lots of people I've talked to agree with me. They all seem to agree it's not that bad, but it didn't really feel as good as the other movies did... and they all agree the opening was the best pretty much.
That's good enough for me. No amount of posts or complaining is going to change what we have. I'm still kind of glad we got it over nothing, because despite what a ton of fans really like to believe... it's existence hasn't changed the other movies at all. I can watch them anytime I want and they're just like they always were. Yeah so what if they "ruined" the warehouse ending of Raiders. I could have just as easily imagined that and it wouldn't make any difference. It's not like any of this is real and you have to BELIEVE that's exactly how it went.
I guess what I'm trying to say is. They're just movies, lol. I know they mean a lot more than that to some people but they are just movies, the meaning you take from them is all yours. And KOTCS can't REALLY change that unless you let it.
That's good enough for me. No amount of posts or complaining is going to change what we have. I'm still kind of glad we got it over nothing, because despite what a ton of fans really like to believe... it's existence hasn't changed the other movies at all. I can watch them anytime I want and they're just like they always were. Yeah so what if they "ruined" the warehouse ending of Raiders. I could have just as easily imagined that and it wouldn't make any difference. It's not like any of this is real and you have to BELIEVE that's exactly how it went.
I guess what I'm trying to say is. They're just movies, lol. I know they mean a lot more than that to some people but they are just movies, the meaning you take from them is all yours. And KOTCS can't REALLY change that unless you let it.
Indy's brother
New member
Darth Vile said:
You're definitely onto something with that. If you look at the films on the Indy timeline, then it peaked at the second movie (ROTLA), then slowly tapers off from there. Raiders kind of screwed the rest of the installments just by being so awesome. How on earth do you make another film like that? We can all offer suggestions and speculate on how it could be done, but really, the talents and careers of all parties involved just aligned perfectly in one blinding flash that was Raiders of the Lost Ark. Beautiful and sad when you think about it. That we even got another IJ film this far down the line is pretty amazing on it's own. In hindsight, I'm surprised that I let my expectations soar as high as they did. All things considered, I think that time will be much kinder to KOTCS than it was to TOD. Sure, the debate between fans will continue forever on where to rank Kingdom, but as far as irrational slamming by the fanbase is concerned, the worst has passed. Vile, I think that thematically, you're absolutely right. Kingdom is more in keeping with ROTLA and TLC. A question we should ask is, where would TOD and Kingdom rank if they were filmed in each other's places? A younger indy in KOTCS, and an older Indy in TOD? Ow. That kinda hurt my brain a little.
Darth Vile said:
Which was my point. Such is the nature of sequels to financially successful classics. They're made because they have to be (from a financial if not artistic standpoint), and can't be good enough. On one hand, the sequels can be seen as existing on an entirely different plane than Raiders - if you agree with that, then it's clear that the expectations for Indy4 were simply for it to be on the same plane as the sequels (a mark I still maintain it failed to reach).
I can see that on some level, but on another, I can see the original trilogy as three films that are more or less the same. Although Raiders tends to be isolated as the masterpiece it is, for a lot of people those three movies sit pretty comfortably next to each other in terms of the entertainment they provide (see: Roger Ebert's sausage analogy). Even Spielberg himself, when he was last asked, cited Last Crusade as his favorite of the movies. So he obviously thinks a sequel can be worthy.
But my original point was, Indy4 was a different kind of sequel than Temple or Crusade with regard to the motivations. After 19 years, there's gotta be a bigger incentive than money to bring the man in the hat back again. I don't think the money was irrelevant, but the fate of the series is entirely in the hands of the Big Three. Fox owns Die Hard, so they can make Die Hard 4 if they feel like milking the franchise. Paramount can't do that with Indy, because its creative forces happen to be incredibly powerful people, and they only had to make it if they wanted to. There were two possible incentives for the crew to make Indy4: a compelling artistic drive, or to appease a clamoring fan base. I think we can all conclude based on what we know that the answer was much more the latter. I'd like to know what would have happened it was more of the former.
Darth Vile said:
Is it still seen as the low point? You seem to be speaking in general here and not just for yourself, and I gotta say I really don't get that sense at all. Not that I need public opinion to be in sync with mine - I was always calling everyone around me idiots for liking Last Crusade over Temple of Doom for years. And you guys are still idiots!!!!1111ELEVEN
Darth Vile said:
It reminds me of what someone said on this board previously - the more Indy movies that are made, the better picture we get of what Indy really is to the people that made him, and the less we like it. The inspirations that fueled Temple of Doom were the same that fueled Raiders (like comic books), but at the time in our minds Raiders of the Lost Ark was the only right way to do Indy, whereas in the minds of Spielberg and Lucas it was just one of the many directions they could take a character who could occupy any adventure from pulp adventure serials of film and page. For us, each new movie is a step (in whatever respective distance) away from Raiders, but that is with the viewpoint that Raiders is the immaculate center to which all its sequels should aspire.
It's why I appreciate Temple so much more than the other sequels. It just seems so much more in keeping with what Indiana Jones ought to be about - totally self-contained adventures that each borrow from a different segment of the 30s (during the 80s, anyway) pulp fiction tapestry. Raiders of the Lost Ark had its own distinctive influences. Last Crusade and Crystal Skull were distinctly influenced by Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Last edited:
eroc
New member
Udvarnoky said:
Why can't all the movies be appealing to people in different ways? I like them all. Some more than others, yet I find all of them appealing in one way or another. Hell, even Spielberg isn't that fond of Doom, although I disagree with his reasons. At least we have them to discuss.
Darth Vile
New member
We’ll never really know the true intentions of the moviemakers… but if I could look into the hearts of Spielberg, Lucas and Ford and see no other reason but $$$$’s, I’d be disappointed. However, I’m much more cynical about TOD’s existence than KOTCS (as that seemed to be about starting a franchise). KOTCS, at worst (I believe) was an exercise in re-living past glories and pleasures by Lucas/Ford and Spielberg. It may not have the artistic intentions that Raiders perhaps had, but re-exploring something to replicate the enjoyment of an experience is no bad thing (assuming the experience isn’t just ££££’s).Udvarnoky said:
I should have of course stated, “is still the low point as far as I’m concerned” (I can’t speak for others on that specific point). However, it still appears that (generally speaking) out of the 1st three movies (and up until KOTCS), TOD seems to be the least enjoyed/most derided. If KOTCS replaces TOD at the least enjoyable, it just goes to demonstrate that it’s relative… as I’ve always believed that there is much to enjoy about TOD (even though I believe it to have the most issues).Udvarnoky said:
Although I agree with your overall sentiment, I’m not sure about the first couple of sentences. Raiders is very much a homage and reflects the movie experiences of Lucas and Spielberg. TOD, as mentioned above, appears (to me anyway) more about establishing a franchise than a work of love or inspiration (although I accept that some of the set pieces in TOD may be more fresh/distinctive than TLC/KOTCS… purely because they came first).Udvarnoky said:
Production values/quality differences aside, all 4 movies are interchangeable in that they are pretty much stand-alone and relatively 2-dimensional. I’m pretty sure that if TOD/KOTCS had been made first, they still would have launched a franchise simply because the character is so strong and the production so distinctive… but I agree that TOD is the natural follow up to Raiders because it’s tonally different... and in a bizarre way is “it’s own thing” (not sure if that’s by design or fluke). Of course that doesn’t mean it’s the best movie (but rather that it works best as a direct sequel that doesn’t imitate note for note what went before).
Darth Vile said:
Raiders of the Lost Ark was about starting a franchise, or at least the potential for one. There's a reason that when Raiders was made, Ford was locked in for four more possible sequels. When a producer makes a movie, he always wants to be on the lookout for sequel potential, and you can bet Lucas was doing that. Indiana Jones was always to have sequels in the event of its success. You can even hear in documentaries Spielberg talking about how he shelved set pieces from Raiders of the Lost Ark to be used later for "another Raiders movie."
Once Raiders became so huge, Temple of Doom's existence was an inevitability rather than a probability. But it was always prepared for.
Darth Vile said:
If TOD is the exclusive result of establishing a franchise, then I wish Spielberg would have had that mentality when making Indy4. Instead his mentality seemed to be, "I'll make this because the fans want it, not because I actually want to." The results speak for themselves.
Darth Vile said:
If the waterfalls or the disappearing stairs or the Indian chase or the water gears sequences would have been in Temple of Doom, the reaction would have been exactly the same - that there was no suspense, excitement, or even much design going on. The idea of escaping booby traps would always have been a well established tradition by Indy4 (I'd argue this was true by Temple), but that does not excuse the movie's utter languidness in their execution. The spike chamber in Temple worked because of how it was staged. Indy4 thought its set pieces worked just by the sheer virtue of the fact that secret doors and spikes and the like were present.
Darth Vile said:
They were standalone before Last Crusade, when Spielberg got cold feet and decided to abandon the original Bond-like idea and make the rest of the sequels homages to Raiders more than homages to anything else.
Darth Vile said:
TOD, yes. Indy4...I'm not so sure. The movie rests too many of the pleasures it offers on past laurels. If it wasn't for the boon of seeing an old friend in his hat and whip again, Indy4 wouldn't have offered me anything I couldn't have gotten from The Mummy. The only thing Indy4 has over any other action adventure movie is the impeccable production values. Too bad when they're not in service of something special, they're utterly useless.
Darth Vile said:
Spielberg and Lucas knew at the time that the best way to make a sequel to Raiders was to not repeat themselves, but instead go in a new direction. After everyone reacted negatively to the film's darkness Spielberg backpedaled, disowned it, and "apologized" by making Last Crusade into Raiders 2.0, which is apparently something that both a lot of audiences and he himself wanted, as evidenced by the fact that it's more highly thought of in general, and by the fact that Spielberg has called it his favorite. Last Crusade was an entertaining and superbly made movie, but it is also risk-free and relatively unoriginal.