The Haters thread

The Drifter · Sep 8, 2011

While I'm afraid of what will become of Indiana Jones if another one is ever released, it confuses me why some hate the idea of it. Is your faith in the brand that low? It's also like some here are more of a fan of the first three films than being a fan of the character.
I fully support another one, but we'll never see it. So, there's no use sweating it.

Montana Smith · Sep 8, 2011

The Drifter said:
While I'm afraid of what will become of Indiana Jones if another one is ever released, it confuses me why some hate the idea of it. Is your faith in the brand that low?

No, just my faith in what Lucas and Spielberg would do with the character. Likewise I wouldn't want Lucas to do another Star Wars movie. He's too self-destructive, and self-obsessed about the images and ideas he's released to the public, to the extent that he will change character motivations to suit his current feelings.

He did that with KOTCS, attempting to clean up Indy the way he cleaned up Han, just because he isn't comfortable presenting a 'hero' who sets a bad example.

From his track record there's nothing to suggest that Lucas wouldn't further soften Indy and his world in another movie. A Lucasian Indy V would have us begging for some hardcore Disney action!

The Drifter · Sep 8, 2011

Montana Smith said:
No, just my faith in what Lucas and Spielberg would do with the character. Likewise I wouldn't want Lucas to do another Star Wars movie. He's too self-destructive, and self-obsessed about the images and ideas he's released to the public, to the extent that he will change character motivations to suit his current feelings.

He did that with KOTCS, attempting to clean up Indy the way he cleaned up Han, just because he isn't comfortable presenting a 'hero' who sets a bad example.

From his track record there's nothing to suggest that Lucas wouldn't further soften Indy and his world in another movie. A Lucasian Indy V would have us begging for some hardcore Disney action!

I can understand that, because that's one of my fears also.
But, how do we know that this will be the outcome? George and Steve "apologized" for ToD by giving us Crusade, so why wouldn't they also do the same for the next installment? Surely, they know that Skull was met with luke-warm responces. So, maybe there is a glimmer of hope to be had somewhere in the storm?

Montana Smith · Sep 8, 2011

The Drifter said:
I can understand that, because that's one of my fears also.
But, how do we know that this will be the outcome?

I surmise the probable outcome from the way Lucas has re-edited his films and characters.

The first three Indy movies form a more complete whole, which then expanded in a new direction with the Young Indiana Jones series, in which we see a much softer version of the rogue of TOD's 1935. His next Indy film, KOTCS, then has Indy forced to atone for his bad habits by his son.

George is passionate about education, and the morality that education imparts. He is apparently far more conscious now about the influence he wields. Anakin's 1983 'death-bed' remorse wasn't enough. The Star Wars prequels showed the transformation of the 'sweet child' into a monster, albeit a not very convincing attempt to justify a character's atrocities. Han Solo's redemption by returning to the battle in 1977 wasn't enough. George couldn't accept that Han was a muderer, hence Greedo had to pull the trigger first.

I don't think George would dare to repeat Indy's shooting of the Cairo Swordsman, but this scene is now so iconic there would be outrage if it were removed. In consequence Indy has to be redeemed by further acts - and those in KOTCS (including marriage and family) are the first stages.

The Drifter said:
George and Steve "apologized" for ToD by giving us Crusade, so why wouldn't they also do the same for the next installment? Surely, they know that Skull was met with luke-warm responces. So, maybe there is a glimmer of hope to be had somewhere in the storm?

The difference is that TOD was far more in keeping with the brutality of Raiders, but it was a film derived from a difficult period in their lives. It wasn't the film they had intended to make when they began, and it went beyond the bounds of perceived 'good taste' with regards to its intended family audience. TOD was the horrific live-action Tom and Jerry cartoon of its day. (And some of the scenes from those '40s and '50s cartoons were fairly disturbing, with issues of murder, suicide, torture, dismemberment).

Yet, KOTCS was a film they both seemed comfortable with. This was the direction they had chosen to take Indy. The path of redemption, which began in 1992, is highly unlikely to be broken.

Darth Vile · Sep 9, 2011

I think Raiders and TOD reflect the time in which they were made just as much as they reflect the men making them. The truth is that Raiders would be a different movie if made today, even if we could guarantee the younger sensibilities of a 30/40 something Lucas and Spielberg making it. Having a gritty, more post modern Indiana Jones would be just as removed from the originals as having a CGI laden politically correct one a la KOTCS. And whilst I?ll remain open to the idea of experiencing either one; I recognise they would stand apart, and probably fall short (even the ?grittier? version) of the originals for me.

I was speaking to a couple of friends the other day (much younger than me) who were telling me how good they thought the new Fright Night movie was (IMHO it?s poor). I asked them if they?d seen the original and they proceeded to laugh and tell me how lame the 80?s version was? I of course disagreed, but ultimately accepted that to these guys, in their early 20?s, the original Fright Night appeared just as lame as the Hammer movies did to me when I was that age.

As far as Star Wars is concerned, I think that naturally has more scope/longeivty than Indiana Jones; as it's not based solely on one leading actor or character. I'm pretty sure we'll see other good Star Wars movies being made over the next 10/15 years (and with Lucas in charge). I actually think there is more potential for a better one now he's got 'Anakin's story' out of the way and that baggage is removed e.g. The Old Republic, Darth Bane etc. etc.

Rocket Surgeon · Sep 9, 2011

Darth Vile said:
I think Raiders and TOD reflect the time in which they were made just as much as they reflect the men making them. The truth is that Raiders would be a different movie if made today, even if we could guarantee the younger sensibilities of a 30/40 something Lucas and Spielberg making it.

Agreed, but only because Raiders is the product of finance and other mitigating factors, (but none as important).

The stars were aligned. I remain positive that while the model cannot be truly replicated the process can be...

Dr. Gonzo · Sep 10, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
I remain positive that while the model cannot be truly replicated the process can be...

I agree... :hat:

kongisking · Sep 10, 2011

Montana Smith said:
I surmise the probable outcome from the way Lucas has re-edited his films and characters.

The first three Indy movies form a more complete whole, which then expanded in a new direction with the Young Indiana Jones series, in which we see a much softer version of the rogue of TOD's 1935. His next Indy film, KOTCS, then has Indy forced to atone for his bad habits by his son.

George is passionate about education, and the morality that education imparts. He is apparently far more conscious now about the influence he wields. Anakin's 1983 'death-bed' remorse wasn't enough. The Star Wars prequels showed the transformation of the 'sweet child' into a monster, albeit a not very convincing attempt to justify a character's atrocities. Han Solo's redemption by returning to the battle in 1977 wasn't enough. George couldn't accept that Han was a muderer, hence Greedo had to pull the trigger first.

I don't think George would dare to repeat Indy's shooting of the Cairo Swordsman, but this scene is now so iconic there would be outrage if it were removed. In consequence Indy has to be redeemed by further acts - and those in KOTCS (including marriage and family) are the first stages.

The difference is that TOD was far more in keeping with the brutality of Raiders, but it was a film derived from a difficult period in their lives. It wasn't the film they had intended to make when they began, and it went beyond the bounds of perceived 'good taste' with regards to its intended family audience. TOD was the horrific live-action Tom and Jerry cartoon of its day. (And some of the scenes from those '40s and '50s cartoons were fairly disturbing, with issues of murder, suicide, torture, dismemberment).

Yet, KOTCS was a film they both seemed comfortable with. This was the direction they had chosen to take Indy. The path of redemption, which began in 1992, is highly unlikely to be broken.

Quite the elegant argument, Smiffy. All very good points, and it actually is quite depressing listening to you so intelligently state why the Jones character has been tarnished, since it makes guys like me who still enjoy the crap out of KOTCS look foolish.

But I take no offense. Your examples and evidence are all valid, and I fully support the examination of popular films even if it is in a slightly negative light. It's only when it's in a full blown hate-filled frenzy of uncompromising rage that I refuse to tolerate.

But isn't it ironic that the most (visually) memorable Indy film is the one that Spielberg and Lucas are now most ashamed of?

Montana Smith · Sep 10, 2011

kongisking said:
Quite the elegant argument, Smiffy. All very good points, and it actually is quite depressing listening to you so intelligently state why the Jones character has been tarnished, since it makes guys like me who still enjoy the crap out of KOTCS look foolish. But I take no offense. Your examples and evidence are all valid, and I fully support the examination of popular films even if it is in a slightly negative light. It's only when it's in a full blown hate-filled frenzy of uncompromising rage that I refuse to tolerate.

Thanks for the compliment, kong.

But there's no need to feel foolish. KOTCS isn't total crap.

It still has Harry playing the character I completely idenitify with Indiana Jones. It's just that the execution, situations and direction (of plot and character) don't tally with what I would have wanted. I'm not a fan of what George and Steve did with him.

It's like saying, "Uncle George and Uncle Steve, thank you for taking me to the funfair today, but I really would have preferred to go to the zoo. And tomorrow, if you're really going to go to Disneyland, I'd rather stay home and watch my old Indy DVDs."

Rocket Surgeon · Sep 11, 2011

Montana Smith said:
KOTCS isn't total crap.

No doubt...it one of the best craps.

This IS the haters thread.

Montana Smith said:
It's like saying, "Uncle George and Uncle Steve, thank you for taking me to the funfair today, but I really would have preferred to go to the zoo.

Hmmm, time to bring back the food metaphors. Wouldn't it be more like:

"Uncle George and Uncle Steve, thank you for taking me to the funfair today, but going on the rides is too much work. Let's just hang out at the Fried sticks of Butter stand."

Darth Vile · Sep 12, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
Agreed, but only because Raiders is the product of finance and other mitigating factors, (but none as important).

The stars were aligned. I remain positive that while the model cannot be truly replicated the process can be...

That's true... and I agree that there is no reason why replicating a process can't produce quality. However, I still see the late 70's/early 80's as really the pinnacle (thus far) of intelligent, quality driven, mass appealing ground breaking blockbusters. It really was a generation of filmmakers who were emerging and trying to do different things in popular cinema. Have we really got the contemporary equivalent of Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, Scorsese et al? Not that I was around at the time, but what happened in the mid/late 70's in American cinema seems similar to what was happening in British music in the mid 1960's i.e. contemporaries who were influencing, challenging and working with each other to redefine the genre.

kongisking · Oct 2, 2011

Montana Smith said:
Thanks for the compliment, kong.

But there's no need to feel foolish. KOTCS isn't total crap.

It still has Harry playing the character I completely idenitify with Indiana Jones. It's just that the execution, situations and direction (of plot and character) don't tally with what I would have wanted. I'm not a fan of what George and Steve did with him.

It's like saying, "Uncle George and Uncle Steve, thank you for taking me to the funfair today, but I really would have preferred to go to the zoo. And tomorrow, if you're really going to go to Disneyland, I'd rather stay home and watch my old Indy DVDs."

I think I'd have some very different words to say to Uncle George if I was within even ten feet of him...

*cough*howdareyoumakeVaderyellNOOOOOO!inReturnoftheJedi!*cough*

JP Jones · Oct 2, 2011

kongisking said:
I think I'd have some very different words to say to Uncle George if I was within even ten feet of him...

*cough*howdareyoumakeVaderyellNOOOOOO!inReturnoftheJedi!*cough*

*cough*getoverit*cough*

seriously.

kongisking · Oct 3, 2011

JP Jones said:
*cough*getoverit*cough*

seriously.

*cough*don'tworrydudeIdon'tsuddenlyhateStarWarsnow.IactuallyrewatchedtheprequelsandfoundthembetterthanIremembered.Ijustthinkthatparticularchangewastoomuch,andI'mstillkindastuckinfanboy-angstmodeatthemoment.Iunderstandwhyyou'dgetexasperatedatme,though.Idotendtobealittleoverdramaticattimes,asyoucantellfromthisridiculouspost*cough*

JP Jones · Oct 3, 2011

kongisking said:
*cough*don'tworrydudeIdon'tsuddenlyhateStarWarsnow.IactuallyrewatchedtheprequelsandfoundthembetterthanIremembered.Ijustthinkthatparticularchangewastoomuch,andI'mstillkindastuckinfanboy-angstmodeatthemoment.Iunderstandwhyyou'dgetexasperatedatme,though.Idotendtobealittleoverdramaticattimes,asyoucantellfromthisridiculouspost*cough*

touche dude... touche.

Rocket Surgeon · Oct 26, 2011

Empire Magazine

What's so wrong with Aliens? Well when Spielberg helms a film he doesn't like we get Crystal Skull.

Let’s move onto the subject of Indiana Jones 5 shall we?

“You have to ask George Lucas. George is in charge of breaking the stories. He’s done it on all four movies. Whether I like the stories or not, George has broken all the stories,” he said, adding, “He is working on Indy V. We haven’t gone to screenplay yet, but he’s working on the story. I’ll leave it to George to come up with a good story.”

Okay it looks like that won’t be happening for quite some time since Lucas doesn’t seem to care for anything else but Star Wars. But what about the criticisms for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?

“I sympathise with people who didn’t like the MacGuffin because I never liked the MacGuffin, he explained. “George and I had big arguments about the MacGuffin. I didn’t want these things to be either aliens or inter-dimensional beings. But I am loyal to my best friend. When he writes a story he believes in – even if I don’t believe in it – I’m going to shoot the movie the way George envisaged it.”

Let's hope we get an apology for Crystal Skull...via Indy V!

Attila the Professor · Oct 26, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
What's so wrong with Aliens? Well when Spielberg helms a film he doesn't like we get Crystal Skull.

Eh. I still feel like the aliens are a distraction from what was actually wrong with the film. (Alien-hater is probably a more interesting line of distinction for Stoo's capsule summaries than Mutt-hater, really; I find it hard to muster up strong feelings in either direction about Shia's work.)

Rocket Surgeon said:
Let's hope we get an apology for Crystal Skull...via Indy V!

Here here!

Montana Smith · Oct 26, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
What's so wrong with Aliens? Well when Spielberg helms a film he doesn't like we get Crystal Skull.

Let's hope we get an apology for Crystal Skull...via Indy V!

You jest!

(I hope!

)

Indy V will be George's story again. And Steve will take his ridiculous ideas and make the best he can out of them for the sake of loyalty.

Attila the Professor · Oct 27, 2011

Carrying on with my incessant quoting of Onion AV Club articles and comments, here's perhaps the most concise way this has ever been expressed:

I don't think it was the logical next step. There's no rule that says you've got to switch genres because you've switched decades. I know that was Lucas' reasoning, but I never thought the text was metafictional enough to justify the shift.

Read more on Spielberg's recent confessions here. (Not more than what we already know, but more of what other people think.)

Montana Smith · Oct 27, 2011

Attila the Professor said:
Carrying on with my incessant quoting of Onion AV Club articles and comments, here's perhaps the most concise way this has ever been expressed:

And this sums up the fear for any #5:

...fans are still hypothetically seeking another Indiana Jones movie, despite being all but assured the same anticlimax that was Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, which [SPOILER ALERT] wasn’t very good.

And this, in a nutshell, could explain why #4 felt so flat, compared to the original trilogy:

So anyway, next time you’re bemoaning the metaphysical, science-fiction twist of Crystal Skull, or bristling at those scenes of Shia LaBeouf swinging through the jungle like a greaser Tarzan, don’t think of the film as an iconic, beloved character revived only to be forced groggily through a series of meaningless, garish CGI set-pieces for no greater purpose beyond franchising. Think of it as Steven Spielberg saying to George Lucas, “I love you, buddy.”

We knew long ago that Spielberg didn't like the alien idea, but with his latest admissions you can read between the lines to see that the division ran deeper. As a mess that comprised the good, the bad and the ugly, KOTCS appears like the film Spielberg didn't want to make, but was compelled by his professionalism to do the best he could.

I always thought that Ray Winstone and John Hurt never looked comfortable either.

This tallies with my view as well:

Fortunately for him, Lucas has long since found a way to break down angry criticism from jilted fans into life-sustaining protein, so he should find this latest batch savory and delicious.

As I wrote elsewhere, George employs a self-deprecating humour to counteract difficult questions or negative points. He lets it wash over him, because he's simply powerful enough to not let it bother him. He makes home movies for a global audience. Spielberg's latest revelations also fit the Lucas mould. If the position is indefensible, turn it into humour and laugh at yourself.

The Haters thread

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

Guest

New member

Active member

Active member

Guest

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

Guest

Moderator

Active member

Moderator

Active member