Shia: We botched the last Indiana Jones film

I wonder is Shia is old enough/with it enough to recognize this:

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull performed/was received much like the other sequels to Raiders of the Lost Ark were.... to mixed reviews and a rung or two down from the top spot at the US box office.

Both Temple of Doom* and Last Crusade received less favorable reviews than Raiders. Both were beaten at the domestic box office by other flicks: Ghostbusters in 1984 and Batman in 1989.

*In fact, I maintain that the initial reaction and backlash that Temple of Doom received from critics/fans in 1984 was much more harsh and negative than anything the small segment of modern day internet fanboys can whip up for Crystal Skull. Can you imagine the ill talk about Willie and Short Round that would have occured had the internet been around?

Gabeed said:

I would think that Shia name-dropping false opinions of Harrison's would elicit a quick response decrying Shia's comments, but I could easily be completely wrong.

My opinion of this whole affair is that I never gave Shia much credibility, and continued to not give him much after merely reading the title of the article--I mean, this was the same guy who was lauding the film before it came out, obviously to give it some good press. What his true opinions are, then or now, are difficult to discern.

I have to admit I'm pleased that this article came out, though. If they don't realize it already, this article will make it clear to Spielberg and Lucas that their latest Indy film was perceived as a mixed bag (a generous description, in my opinion), and they should probably go in a different direction should they make Indy 5. It's kinda like Last Crusade being the apology for Temple of Doom, though to be honest I find Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to be closest to Last Crusade in tone, so . . . maybe the American audience wants a new Temple of Doom, sans annoying characters and possibly offensive dinner scenes.

Click to expand...

I think if anything, if we are to assume that the major players concerned acknowledge KOTCS to be vastly inferior (which I wouldn't agree with anyway), then it will more than likely be the nail in the coffin to any possibility of another Spielberg/Lucas & Ford Indiana Jones... i.e. I can't really see how Indy V could be vastly improved other than bringing in a different creative team and leading man to play Indy.

Maybe Harrison likes Crystal Skull and Shia is either lying to promote his new film or misinterpreted a conversation with Harrison we'll never hear for ourselves. Both of these are very possible.

But still, as much as I hate to admit it, even if Shia is right and Harrison didn't like it, judging by several of his recent roles(excluding this one) that also doesn't appear to be saying much.

Darth Vile said:

I think if anything, if we are to assume that the major players concerned acknowledge KOTCS to be vastly inferior (which I wouldn't agree with anyway), then it will more than likely be the nail in the coffin to any possibility of another Spielberg/Lucas & Ford Indiana Jones... i.e. I can't really see how Indy V could be vastly improved other than bringing in a different creative team and leading man to play Indy.

Click to expand...

I am, I think, in the minority of people who loathed KoTCS but would love an Indy 5, so I'm hoping that Spielberg and Lucas are only considering Indy 5 to have the series go out in a glorious bang. Indy isn't like Shrek, where all the stories of the first movie and its sequels are somewhat connected, and after awhile all you run out of plot hooks for sequels and all that's left are the same annoying characters. I've got enough blind faith in Spielberg and Lucas that they can see the flaws in Indy 4 and make a better Indy 5.

Gabeed said:

I am, I think, in the minority of people who loathed KoTCS but would love an Indy 5, so I'm hoping that Spielberg and Lucas are only considering Indy 5 to have the series go out in a glorious bang. ................. I've got enough blind faith in Spielberg and Lucas that they can see the flaws in Indy 4 and make a better Indy 5.

Click to expand...

You are not alone.

I still like the film. This changes nothing. Never thought nor expected it to be a four star film. It's entertaining. Whatever.

Gabeed said:

I am, I think, in the minority of people who loathed KoTCS but would love an Indy 5, so I'm hoping that Spielberg and Lucas are only considering Indy 5 to have the series go out in a glorious bang. Indy isn't like Shrek, where all the stories of the first movie and its sequels are somewhat connected, and after awhile all you run out of plot hooks for sequels and all that's left are the same annoying characters. I've got enough blind faith in Spielberg and Lucas that they can see the flaws in Indy 4 and make a better Indy 5.

Click to expand...

If one believes those flaws exist, in order to create a better movie, one must have the ability to identify the root cause and address those issues. The biggest overall gripe I have about KOTCS is that, apart from some CGI, it didn't embrace the changes (stylisticly) in the way modern action movies are made. Therefore, the action in KOTCS (although always imaginative) is somewhat passe/old fashioned. I think that has something to do with Spielberg/Lucas wanting to make an Indy movie that felt like the others, but more importantly, I think that some of the passe action is ultimately reflective of Spielberg's style.

I'm not sure how many would agree, but for me, Spielberg was already being surpassed by better action directors by the late 80's e.g. 'Die Hard' etc. By 2008, Spielberg's style (re. action) is not that representative of modern Hollywood action/adventure.

Bottom line.... you could cut much of the CGI out, you could improve some of the dialogue, you could shoot more location footage, but with Spielberg still behind the camera... the action (which is what counts in an Indy movie) will still seem somewhat outdated/old fashioned. And with Harrison Ford in role, the action will still be centred around an actor, who is undeniably way past his prime i.e. he will never have the ability to portray Indiana Jones as good (physically) as he did in Raiders or TOD.

So with Spielberg and Ford still onboard, I'm not sure how much better an Indy V could be. If you liked KOTCS, this won't be an issue. If you didn't, then expect to be disappointed if the same team were to make Indy V.

Re Gabeed, my sentiments precisely.

jamiestarr said:

*In fact, I maintain that the initial reaction and backlash that Temple of Doom received from critics/fans in 1984 was much more harsh and negative than anything the small segment of modern day internet fanboys can whip up for Crystal Skull. Can you imagine the ill talk about Willie and Short Round that would have occured had the internet been around?

Click to expand...

Very true. I clearly remember the reviews that TOD got back at the time of its release. But for me TOD, arguably the weakest of the original trilogy, is still a much better film that KOTCS turned out to be. KOTCS never got the abuse that TOD had from the critics.

Darth Vile said:

If one believes those flaws exist, in order to create a better movie, one must have the ability to identify the root cause and address those issues. The biggest overall gripe I have about KOTCS is that, apart from some CGI, it didn't embrace the changes (stylisticly) in the way modern action movies are made. Therefore, the action in KOTCS (although always imaginative) is somewhat passe/old fashioned. I think that has something to do with Spielberg/Lucas wanting to make an Indy movie that felt like the others, but more importantly, I think that some of the passe action is ultimately reflective of Spielberg's style.

I'm not sure how many would agree, but for me, Spielberg was already being surpassed by better action directors by the late 80's e.g. 'Die Hard' etc. By 2008, Spielberg's style (re. action) is not that representative of modern Hollywood action/adventure.

Bottom line.... you could cut much of the CGI out, you could improve some of the dialogue, you could shoot more location footage, but with Spielberg still behind the camera... the action (which is what counts in an Indy movie) will still seem somewhat outdated/old fashioned. And with Harrison Ford in role, the action will still be centred around an actor, who is undeniably way past his prime i.e. he will never have the ability to portray Indiana Jones as good (physically) as he did in Raiders or TOD.

So with Spielberg and Ford still onboard, I'm not sure how much better an Indy V could be. If you liked KOTCS, this won't be an issue. If you didn't, then expect to be disappointed if the same team were to make Indy V.

Click to expand...

Interesting points. I found that with the action being in the style of previous Indy films meant that it fitted with the tone of the others. If we had some more modern action scenes in the style of the Bourne series or the Matrix then it just wouldn't have fitted. I'm glad they kept the style like the others. It never occurred to me that it was old fashioned, it was just Indy action.

I agree that some of the CGI elements didn't fit too well, in particular the monkey scene that this thread relates too. But for me the dislike in KOTCS has nothing to do with how the action was, the score, how old Harrison is. All this I accepted and enjoyed. What let me down, was the story and the material that the actors were given to work with, more so the 2nd half of the movie. It seemed too rushed to me, with no point to the skull or the quest and I think they struggled to convey this on screen. There were too many heroes on screen at the end and a few filler scenes that seemed out of place. The movie for me seemed to lack the scope and sweep that we have seen on previous Indy movies. Add to that the badly handled relationship between Indy and his son and also Indy and Marion and I was really struggling through the 2nd half of the movie.

However I share the sentiments of others, my thoughts on KOTCS do not in any mean that I dont want to see an Indy 5. I'd love them to do it. If they can get a better story for the 5th then I see no reason for it not to be a decent film because the elements I didnt like in KOTCS can be fixed in the next movie.

Prince of Persia Star Owes it All to Indy!

Gyllenehaal took role so he could fulfill his Indyfan dreams!

Jake Gyllenehaal said Indy was his boyhood hero and when offered "Prince of Persia" asked if there would be derring-do like he loved ala Indy!



Now he would have been a GREAT choice to have been Mutt Williams..maybe Lucas can have ILM digitally replace Shia with Jake!

Source: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/article/812284--jake-gyllenhaal-lands-in-a-better-place?bn=1

Mitchellhallock said:

Now he would have been a GREAT choice to have been Mutt Williams..maybe Lucas can have ILM digitally replace Shia with Jake!

Click to expand...

OMG nooooo!

sandiegojones said:

OMG nooooo!

Click to expand...

As hilarious as that is, I'm going to side with Mitchell on this one. Jake would have made an awesome Mutt.

Darth Vile said:

The biggest overall gripe I have about KOTCS is it didn't embrace the changes (stylisticly) in the way modern action movies are made. Therefore, the action in KOTCS (although always imaginative) is somewhat passe/old fashioned. I think that has something to do with Spielberg/Lucas wanting to make an Indy movie that felt like the others, but more importantly, I think that some of the passe action is ultimately reflective of Spielberg's style.

I'm not sure how many would agree, but for me, Spielberg was already being surpassed by better action directors by the late 80's e.g. 'Die Hard' etc. By 2008, Spielberg's style (re. action) is not that representative of modern Hollywood action/adventure.

Click to expand...

I think this merits more discussion due to your interesting point of view. Which modern action movies are you thinking about in the above post?

Mike00spy said:

I think this merits more discussion due to your interesting point of view. Which modern action movies are you thinking about in the above post?

Click to expand...

Straight off the top of my head... Iron Man I & II, Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, JJ Abrams' Star Trek, Cloverfield, Wanted, 28 Weeks Later, Bond, Bourne, Eagle Eye, MI3, Watchmen, The Matrix, Zombieland, Inglorious Bas*ards etc.

That doesn't mean that I necessarily believe those movies to be superior, but rather that they are stylistically closer to each other (in terms of constructing action scenes) than that of KOTCS (which is more reminiscent of early 80's action movies - IMHO)... and that Star Trek or Iron Man, for example, are more reflective of modern cinematic tastes (as in the last 10/15 years) than KOTCS is.

There was an opportunity with KOTCS, to make the action a lot more realistic than the previous Indy movies... by adopting more hand held camera work, less glossy cinematography or by employing less bombastic symphonic music. However, being true to the previous movies, KOTCS maintained a very traditional approach to its action. As a relatively good example, compare and contrast 'Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone' to 'Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince'. It's basically the same movie approached in two different ways; one very reminiscent of Hollywood movies of the past, and one almost bordering on the more contemporary documentary style of cinematography, direction and editing.

Indy's brother said:

As hilarious as that is, I'm going to side with Mitchell on this one. Jake would have made an awesome Mutt.

Click to expand...

Well, his film is not besting KOTCS on the tomatometer so I don't know how much of an improvement he'd be (none IMO).

He's prettier than his sister though, I'll give him that!

Indy's brother said:

As hilarious as that is, I'm going to side with Mitchell on this one. Jake would have made an awesome Mutt.

Click to expand...

He would have suffered under the weight of the same material as Shia did, though I have to laugh that while Shia is being haunted by the specter of "Skull". Gyllenhal and crew are envoking Raiders to promote their movie at every turn.

Death Proof is more like Raiders than anything I've seen in reference to "Persia" OR Skull, it has a certain feel to it...and some tension.

Darth Vile said:

Straight off the top of my head... Iron Man I & II, Batman Begins/The Dark Knight, JJ Abrams' Star Trek, Cloverfield, Wanted, 28 Weeks Later, Bond, Bourne, Eagle Eye, MI3, Watchmen, The Matrix, Zombieland, Inglorious Bas*ards etc.

That doesn't mean that I necessarily believe those movies to be superior, but rather that they are stylistically closer to each other (in terms of constructing action scenes) than that of KOTCS (which is more reminiscent of early 80's action movies - IMHO)... and that Star Trek or Iron Man, for example, are more reflective of modern cinematic tastes (as in the last 10/15 years) than KOTCS is.

Click to expand...

There seems to be a few different catagories that modern action movies use. There is the complete CGI fest that Iron Man II and Transformers take.
There is the faster editing/ gritty approach that filsm like Taken, Bourne, and the Daniel Craig Bond films use.

Indy is an anachronism. We have 1980s films playing homage to 1930's serials. Indy 4 is a 2008 movie in the same style of those 80s movies with a 50's flair. I'm not quite sure though how any of modern approaches actually fits an Indiana Jones movie. At least not any Indiana Jones movie that we are used to experiencing.

I think back on the Craig Bond films and the faster editing used. This isn't really new for Bond. It was done for the fight scenes in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. When watching OHMSS, the editing takes me out of the experience- it doesn't quite feel right. However, it doesn't bother me with the modern Bond film.

Take the Truck Chase from Raiders as an exmaple. A perfect action scene. Would a Bourne style edit with super fast cuts and a less bombastic score (For the life of me, I can't even recall what any Bourne style music sounds like) improve the scene?

Darth Vile said:

There was an opportunity with KOTCS, to make the action a lot more realistic than the previous Indy movies... by adopting more hand held camera work, less glossy cinematography or by employing less bombastic symphonic music. However, being true to the previous movies, KOTCS maintained a very traditional approach to its action. As a relatively good example, compare and contrast 'Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone' to 'Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince'. It's basically the same movie approached in two different ways; one very reminiscent of Hollywood movies of the past, and one almost bordering on the more contemporary documentary style of cinematography, direction and editing.

Click to expand...

I undersand your agrument, though. It wouldn't surprise me if Indy gets updated at some point in our lives and a film is made like you describe. We'll never know until it happens, but that type of movie making would seem at odds with Indy to me.

Indy 4, like you said before, was deliberate in the way it was made. It was supposed to be nostalgic and kept in the same tone as the others. Am I right to say that, in your eyes, the traditional Indy movie is dead?

Mike00spy said:

Indy is an anachronism. We have 1980s films playing homage to 1930's serials. Indy 4 is a 2008 movie in the same style of those 80s movies with a 50's flair. I'm not quite sure though how any of modern approaches actually fits an Indiana Jones movie. At least not any Indiana Jones movie that we are used to experiencing.

Click to expand...

This is actually one of the things I love most about KOTCS, is how old-fashioned it is, stylistically. "Too much CGI", my ass. It was only used to fill in the scenery. Therefore, it's acceptable. I happen to not be one of those CG-hating dumpers that are infesting the Internet. I'm glad Spielberg didn't update the action. I want epic, grandiose, over-the-top craziness in my action scenes (Live Free or Die Hard has some of the most preposterous-yet-awesome stunts ever put on film), and IMO, KOTCS had that. I loved it. I loved it, I loved it, I loved it. I won't stop saying it until I join Henry Jones Sr. up in the "great kingdom above".

P.S. I actually think Jake Gyllenhaal is a fairly decent actor. Have any of you seen October Sky?

kongisking said:

"Too much CGI", my ass. It was only used to fill in the scenery. Therefore, it's acceptable.

Click to expand...

Wha-...? The groundhogs, the car, the fridge, the monkeys, the ants, the fleshed-out alien.

And as much as I like John McClane, him riding on the back of a fighter jet was that series fridge-nuking scene. That kind of over-the-top is fine if that is what the source material dictates. But once you stretch the credibility of an existing film universe to that extreme, well then you suffer the wrath of your loyal fan-base.

kongisking said:

I happen to not be one of those CG-hating dumpers that are infesting the Internet.

Click to expand...

It's fine that you like that stuff, but you can't imply that it's wrong to like practical effects and real locations more, especially when the films creators told us that was what we could expect.

Steven Spielberg stated before production began that very few CGI effects would be used to maintain consistency with the other films. During filming however, significantly more CGI work was done than initially anticipated as in many cases it proved to be more practical. There ended up being a total of about 450 CGI shots in the film, with an estimated 30 percent of the film's shots containing CG matte paintings.

Click to expand...

*sigh* yeah, wikipedia, but this tired argument can be found all over these boards and I'm not going to dedicate any more of my life looking for the original Spielberg quote again.

Mike00spy said:

There seems to be a few different catagories that modern action movies use. There is the complete CGI fest that Iron Man II and Transformers take.
There is the faster editing/ gritty approach that filsm like Taken, Bourne, and the Daniel Craig Bond films use.

Indy is an anachronism. We have 1980s films playing homage to 1930's serials. Indy 4 is a 2008 movie in the same style of those 80s movies with a 50's flair. I'm not quite sure though how any of modern approaches actually fits an Indiana Jones movie. At least not any Indiana Jones movie that we are used to experiencing.

I think back on the Craig Bond films and the faster editing used. This isn't really new for Bond. It was done for the fight scenes in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. When watching OHMSS, the editing takes me out of the experience- it doesn't quite feel right. However, it doesn't bother me with the modern Bond film.

Take the Truck Chase from Raiders as an exmaple. A perfect action scene. Would a Bourne style edit with super fast cuts and a less bombastic score (For the life of me, I can't even recall what any Bourne style music sounds like) improve the scene?



I undersand your agrument, though. It wouldn't surprise me if Indy gets updated at some point in our lives and a film is made like you describe. We'll never know until it happens, but that type of movie making would seem at odds with Indy to me.

Indy 4, like you said before, was deliberate in the way it was made. It was supposed to be nostalgic and kept in the same tone as the others. Am I right to say that, in your eyes, the traditional Indy movie is dead?

Click to expand...

You mention the word 'anachronism'... and I think that word sums up Indy’s current state.

Whilst Raiders was a tribute to the movies /serials that inspired Lucas/Spielberg, KOTCS was ultimately a homage to itself. I’m not sure whether that was by design or by default, but it certainly makes KOTCS less culturally/cinematically significant (IMHO).

The reality is that anyone old enough to have seen Raiders in the cinema, can probably (to various degrees) relate to the serials that inspired it (as repeats of Zorro, Tarzan, Flash Gordon etc. were the staple of early morning weekend/holiday TV when I was a kid). So when I first watched Raiders, as a kid, (although I couldn’t articulate it at the time), I could totally relate to it as a natural progression of what I watched at the weekends, but turned into a big, loud technicolor post-modern tour de force i.e. like Star Wars, it may have had its origins in the past, but it was something not experienced before in the cinema.

However, circa 30 years on, the frame of reference for anyone watching KOTCS, or its peers (‘The Mummy’, ‘National Treasure’ ‘Prince of Persia’ etc.) is not the Buster Crabbe, Errol Flynn or Douglas Fairbanks Jr movies, but the Indiana Jones movies of the 1980’s. Therefore, regardless of KOTCS actual merits (or any possible Indy V done in the same style), it is not only repeating itself, but is repeating itself to an audience who don’t necessarily understand (or care for) the frame of reference/context.

Again, I’m not trying to make a case for KOTCS, but merely suggesting that an improved KOTCS or 'better' Indy V (done in the same style) would ultimately still be moribund in the scheme of things.