Brace yourselves! - The first wave of negative buzz

The Man

Well-known member
agentsands77 said:
Because Spielberg was perfectly happy with the film. He said as much: "The best news is that, when I saw the movie myself the first time, there was nothing I wanted to go back and shoot, nothing I wanted to reshoot, and nothing I wanted to add."

However, Spielberg isn't infallible. He's made some weak movies (though I'd argue he hasn't made a film that's a total wash since 2000). But at least we know he is happy with the finished product.

I think it was clear from the beginning not everyone would like INDY IV... and that has become especially clear to me from a lot of the spoiler information. No need to take these rumblings of KINGDOM being bad for anything more than they are: one person's opinion. If we start to hear a lot of people disliking it, I'll raise my eyebrows. For now, the info can't really sway me either way.

The previous three all arrived in a nine-year stretch, so any hype was contemporarily contained. Can any film emulate a 19 year wait? Probably not. Keep everything in context and we should love Indy 4. I truly cannot believe they've made a bad film.
 

Darth Vile

New member
agentsands77,

I agree. You know what? This type of info makes me more positive. Lets look at some of the facts...

1) All associated main players seem happy with what they have done with this movie.
2) Spielberg doesn't require any extensive re-shoots.
3) By all accounts the movie is over 2 hours long. Stinkers/turkeys tend to be edited back to the bare bones.
4) IMHO, lack of over the top promotion at this stage makes me think that Spielberg/Lucas believe the movie will have it's own legs (otherwise they'd be pushing it down our throats).
5) Why go for a Cannes premier if they don't think it's a solid movie?

Now I'm not stating that any of these reasons will mean it's a great movie, and as agentsands77 has already stated, if you don't like the concept the movie will suck for you regardless... but I do think it suggests that the movie will be of a certain quality e.g. strong/good popcorn flick.
 

xVendetta17x

New member
Mike Dowswell said:
TRAILERS

Trailers, have got ridiculously out of control across this decade...totally, totally ridiculous.

Now I want to see some new shots from KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL as much as the next person, and if a really long trailer came out I wouldn?t be able to stop myself from watching it...but, I?m extremely happy that there hasn?t been a long trailer been released, and hope there never will be. It keeps the entire thing FRESH when you finally get to see at the cinema. I can actually remember in 1996 when the picture Dragonheart was about to come out, and I managed to see just about every single effects shot there was of the Dragon on the TV. I got to the cinema...and quite literally there wasn?t anything much left to see (effects wise)

That?s one example anyway. Another would be the trailers for Spider-Man 2 and 3 which seemed to show you the entire story.

Stanley Kubrick had the right idea about trailers...just keep it brief.

Trailers to me are also like book covers, think about it, they?re so out of context...you don?t really get a feel for what your going to see because its been diced up...which gets me onto movie clips.

MOVIE CLIPS

I think movie clips are much better, a little clip can give you a feel for what the film is like, I don?t think ten minutes is a good idea (which is another trend that seems to be happening) but yeah, maybe a minute clip or a minute thirty is a good thing.

A perfect example of overdoing the trailers clips is Iron Man
Now as an Iron Man fan, who is highly anticipating this movie i've managed to only watch one or two trailers and none of the clips
But from what i've heard they've basically shown way to much of the movie in the released clips
 

HFFan

New member
Darth Vile said:
agentsands77,

I agree. You know what? This type of info makes me more positive. Lets look at some of the facts...

1) All associated main players seem happy with what they have done with this movie.
2) Spielberg doesn't require any extensive re-shoots.
3) By all accounts the movie is over 2 hours long. Stinkers/turkeys tend to be edited back to the bare bones.
4) IMHO, lack of over the top promotion at this stage makes me think that Spielberg/Lucas believe the movie will have it's own legs (otherwise they'd be pushing it down our throats).
5) Why go for a Cannes premier if they don't think it's a solid movie?

Now I'm not stating that any of these reasons will mean it's a great movie, and as agentsands77 has already stated, if you don't like the concept the movie will suck for you regardless... but I do think it suggests that the movie will be of a certain quality e.g. strong/good popcorn flick.

You pretty much covered everything I've been thinking. I also was thinking what if the internet blogs and film sites were around during the filming of TOD and word started to leak about Harrison having to be flown to the US for emergency back surgery, and he'd be out of commission for weeks? My God... the internet would've exploded!! Granted, some feel TOD was the weakest film, but it holds up fine. People need to relax about these rumors.
 

torao

Moderator Emeritus
http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/04/indy-4-advance.html


Don't believe anything you read about Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull based on people who have actually seen it because as far as I know, Steven Spielberg has only shown it to the Cannes Film Festival (read Todd McCarthy's story here). Yes, the movie will show in Cannes, as we initially reported, on May 18. It will screen in the states that same day. There will be no junket.

Besides, Spielberg's films have been running long lately. Terminal ran over two hours at 128 minutes; Catch Me If You Can was 141 minutes; and Munich was 164 minutes long. So at least he's going backwards! By comparison, these items at CHUD and Slashfilm, which reports that running times on the Indy films-- "Previous installments ran 115, 118, 127 minutes respectively (and in order from Raiders to Last Crusade)"-- are based on actual reporting. Well, excuse me.
I don't get that part. Seriously.

All the controlling behavior on Munich only backfired. Spielberg has an old-fashioned view of the marketing and PR world. He may not realize how fast-moving everything is now. Saving up for the big reveal can backfire in a huge way, as last year's The Da Vinci Code proves. (At least Indy 4 is not slated for opening night.) In other words, you better have the goods.
 
Darth Vile said:
agentsands77, 5) Why go for a Cannes premier if they don't think it's a solid movie?

I agree with all of these points except that premiereing at Cannes is not a statement of being a good movie. Son Of The Pink Panther premiered at Cannes...
 

xVendetta17x

New member
There are always indescretions
Who knows maybe Son of the Pink Panter is a fantastic film that will be critically praised and maybe even be nominated for an Academy award
But I seriously doubt it
 

commontone

New member
Regarding the sudden CHUD bad buzz, what are the track records of the particular people writing this stuff? I know I could research it but I have a feeling someone here already knows.

What movies have they predicted to be good, or bad, in the past, and how right were they by general concensus? Were they the writers saying that "300" looked like it was shaping up to be amazing (or something like that)? Because that turned out to be just another blue screen extravaganza with little to no substance.

Just curious if anyone knows the history of these writers.
 
xVendetta17x said:
There are always indescretions
Who knows maybe Son of the Pink Panter is a fantastic film that will be critically praised and maybe even be nominated for an Academy award
But I seriously doubt it


Son Of The Pink Panther was released in 1993 and is one of the great stinkbombs.
 

No Ticket

New member
I've been attempting lately, to just stay away from all things Indy here in the last little stretch before May 22nd. I don't wanna get burnt out on Indy. Or have looked at too many of the new photos/marketing, etc. I don't even know if the new trailer is out yet. (but I doubt it) ...

I half-expect the movie to not be good. It's just like one of those things. But then I remember who the people involved are and I figure it has just as good of a chance of being awesome.

So in other words. I'm just trying not to worry either way and just get Indy off my mind for now until the movie hits. I'm sure it won't last long... but all I need is for this new movie to not be sw prequel quality. If it's a pretty decent film comparable to the others I'll be happy, even if it's not amazing.
 

deckard24

New member
No Ticket said:
I've been attempting lately, to just stay away from all things Indy here in the last little stretch before May 22nd. I don't wanna get burnt out on Indy. Or have looked at too many of the new photos/marketing, etc. I don't even know if the new trailer is out yet. (but I doubt it) ...

I half-expect the movie to not be good. It's just like one of those things. But then I remember who the people involved are and I figure it has just as good of a chance of being awesome.

So in other words. I'm just trying not to worry either way and just get Indy off my mind for now until the movie hits. I'm sure it won't last long... but all I need is for this new movie to not be sw prequel quality. If it's a pretty decent film comparable to the others I'll be happy, even if it's not amazing.
I'm with you man! As long as it's not along the lines of the SW prequels in its quality, I'll be perfectly content(I think!LOL). If it's as good as LC, I'll be thrilled! I can't see it coming close though to matching up with ROTLA or TOD, but then again I'd love to be pleasantly surprised!
 

torao

Moderator Emeritus
From HE.

Rich S.:One of the more annoying aspects of the Star Wars prequel trilogy was their need to somehow tie everything in that trilogy to something in the first trilogy. Anakin came from Tatooine and raced in pods for Jabba the Hutt. Boba Fett's father was the basis for all the cloned Stormtroopers. Yoda fought alongside Chewbacca in the Clone Wars, and so on. It made Lucas' original broad universe feel small and constricted, like it consisted of a total of ten planets.

The more I read about Indy 4, I keep getting more of that same feeling. Marion is back (if only for a cameo). Russian agents get loose in the warehouse where they're storing the Ark. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the South American Temple in the trailer is the one from the beginning of Raiders.

I'll bet it was that "tying everything up in a neat little package" quality that took them so long with the script. If anything sinks the movie, it will be that.


Wells to Rich S.: You've just hit it on the head. Feeling a need to "tie everything together" is the bane of the old-school screenwriter. New-school screenwriters are more into the aesthetic of "this is what it is because I wrote it that way and **** trying to tie everything together with a big symmetrical bow so it flows and balances." As soon as I read your words a little gong sounded in my chest. That's it! Lucas and Spielberg are determined to try and tie it all together!

And yet something apparently didn't quite work or Lucas wouldn't have said "it's just a movie...just like the other movies." What other movies does he mean? The Star Wars prequels? Willow?

Any time a filmmaker says about his or her film that "it's just this" or "I hope you like it" or "it's not the Second Coming," they're saying without actually saying that it's underwhelming on this or that level. I've seen this happen at festival screenings dozens of times. The filmmaker gets on the mike before the film starts and the crowd is wildly cheering and he/she says in a half-joking, half-uncertain way, "Whoa...I hope you cheer as loudly after you see the film!"


It outright scared me how convincing this comment by Wells seemed at first. But after thinking about it for a minute... Well, this is George Lucas. He made three movies which (I've heard) weren't so good and he didn't temper any expectations at that time. It makes far more sense to regard his comments as connected to the not so positive perception of the prequels than to his own low regard of IndyIV.

Why does everybody all of the sudden give a **** about Lucas' opinion anyway? (I've never lost my basic sympathy. Us cultural anthropologist folks have to stick together. )Wasn't there some kind of secret agreement over the fact that he doesn't know anything about storytelling (Lucas doesn't like Darabont's draft = Darabont's draft is great) anyhow?
 
Last edited:

The Man

Well-known member
This notion that Lucas never totally discarded The Saucer Men script is a worry. Let's hope this movie isn't just an amalgam or, worst still, a hodge-podge of every ill-fitting idea they've had for a decade...
Spielberg is the one on whom the pressure will rest.
 

Mike00spy

Well-known member
torao said:
From HE.







It outright scared me how convincing this comment by Wells seemed at first. But after thinking about it for a minute... Well, this is George Lucas. He made three movies which (I've heard) weren't so good and he didn't temper any expectations at that time. It makes far more sense to regard his comments as connected to the not so positive perception of the prequels than to his own low regard of IndyIV.

Why does everybody all of the sudden give a **** about Lucas' opinion anyway? (I've never lost my basic sympathy. Us cultural anthropologist folks have to stick together. )Wasn't there some kind of secret agreement over the fact that he doesn't know anything about storytelling (Lucas doesn't like Darabont's draft = Darabont's draft is great) anyhow?

Not only that, the Star Wars prequels didn't fail b/c of those "tie-ins." Far from it. But, I feel no need to go into a multipage article discussing that.

Plus, Lucas has been making these types of comments since filming began. Are we to believe that ever since he started WORKING on the movie, he knew it was a dud and did nothing about it? Please.

So, his whole line of reasoning is flawed.
 

Dr.Sartorius

New member
And yet something apparently didn't quite work or Lucas wouldn't have said "it's just a movie...just like the other movies." What other movies does he mean? The Star Wars prequels? Willow?

Gee, I wonder what "other movies" Lucas was referring to. Let me brainstorm for a few minutes...:rolleyes:
 

commontone

New member
Well, as far as we know, there are only two major elements returning from the original Indy movies...Marion, and the Ark warehouse. Two. Rich S sounds a little silly after accurately illustrating all the ways the SW prequels built on the originals, and then, well, we've got two things returning for Indy 4.

It's not the same thing at all. The prequels developed MANY backstories simultaneously for the future characters of the trilogy...Darth Vader, Jaba, Boba Fett, Yoda, Obi Wan..and the list goes on from there.

It's always sounded to me like Spielberg, Lucas and especially Ford were worried about the exact same thing, not wanting to reference the other films excessively, and that's one of the reasons they took so long to agree on a script. At the same time, over three movies Indy has developed as a character, and you couldn't just have him go off on an adventure with absolutely no ties to the other films. THAT would disappoint people, surely. So they've got an old flame returning, with his son, and they're developing something from the first film--"top men" and the warehouse--that was really intriguing but was never touched again in the other two films.

The ark will probably be mentioned at least. And Marcus Brody will be mentioned, too. All fine. You can't keep this film hermetically sealed from the others.

To me, it sounds just about right. They're not pretending the other films didn't happen, they're staying true to Indy's character and his life. But there are NO signs that almost everything in the film will be related to the others, like with the SW prequels.

This sudden negative backlash is a little disturbing. You can just see it creeping out of the woodwork before your eyes. To me it's just a phenomenon, not entirely unexpected, and doesn't really hamper my expectations at all.
 

lynchpin

New member
Just got invited to a press screening on May 18th

Matt Holcomb said:
"I was told a long time ago - when the movie was still filming - to not expect to see Crystal Skull until maybe a day or two before domestic release.


I just got my invitation to a press screening in Indiana (the state, mind you) on May 18th. That's a good couple of days before the premiere. Attendees have been reminded that no reviews should appear until the day of the premiere. Doesn't sound much different than any other press screening.
 
Top