Shia and Koepp forced to adress the two major pseudo-complaints of KOTCS

oki9Sedo

New member
Darth Vile said:
Really? What about angles/demons, brimstone and fire pouring from the Ark? Voodoo dolls, the black sleep of Kali, hearts being ripped out, molten pits and runaway mine carts that can make impossible turns and leaps? What about meschersmits in tunnels, ancient Grail Knights and cups that can age one to death or restore perfect health to those dying??? I must have been watching different movies all these years… ;)

There's a key difference, in fairness. Suspension of disbelief involving magical, mystical phenomena is one thing. That stuff could happen for all we know about the universe etc.

Suspension of disbelief involving a man escaping a nuclear blast by hiding in a lead-lined refrigerator is different. That goes against known scientific fact.

They're different things altogether, you see.

That said, I did actually like the fridge thing. Its an "Only Indiana Jones" moment.
 

The Man

Well-known member
ninepinejones said:
The way I took the monkey tarzan scene was that the crystal skull has an effect on not only humans but animals and insects,for example when the ants avoided the skull,they moved away from who ever was holding it. When I first saw the monkey scene I thought that the monkeys were influenced or under the spell of the skulls mysterious powers. The swinging on the vine scene was an obvious attempt from Lucas to give homage to the 1950's tarzan movies. It came off as being cheesy but those tarzan movies back in the day were certainly cheesy,swiss.... if I may.

Perhaps the monkeys wanted the Skull for themselves and were 'tailing' the Russian convoy all along...
 

Indy's brother

New member
You know, although Indiana Jones is derivative of 30's serials, the Shia vine thing was derived from Tarzan films, etc...I don't care. I never watched serials or tarzan and this far into the series, the IJ character has a mythos all his own. To continually rip off other genres and pay tribute to them within the indyverse is no longer a necessity for a good IJ yarn. The Indiana Jones theater experience should have become it's own source material by the 4th installment. It is it's own entity at this point. Both GL and SS have become a little too superstitious about following their formula instead of just exercising good judgement. On some level they already realize this, as the fridge incident was not an homage to anything, but went way over the top anyway. There's nothing wrong with tributes and nods to other sources, but to cram these elements onto the screen (then beat us to death with the idea) just to have them there is ridiculous. The vine swinging I would have been more comfortable with if it would have been really brief. We're not dummies, we would have gotten the reference. (Indy did it in Raiders, and it was fine) And one shot of a monkey would have been enough as well.
 

Benraianajones

New member
Darth Vile said:
Really? What about angles/demons, brimstone and fire pouring from the Ark? Voodoo dolls, the black sleep of Kali, hearts being ripped out, molten pits and runaway mine carts that can make impossible turns and leaps? What about meschersmits in tunnels, ancient Grail Knights and cups that can age one to death or restore perfect health to those dying??? I must have been watching different movies all these years… ;)



Jaded? Not sure. Cynical? I think so. Over-analytical? Absolutely.

The angels and demons coming out of an ark containing God's power is totally different the ark is supernatural, Mutt isn't. The Ark, voodoo, the grail knight and his aging grail/ever lasting life = supernatural. Indiana Jones is about that, a supernatural element. Hence why I don't mind the alien.

Mutt is a mortal man. The way the vines suddenly pull him up in to the air and he learns to swing, along with child-like monkey activity, is totally different. I know Indy is about supernatural macguffins. Jungle book action-shots, as opposed to the action shots of guns, fist fights and such from the others? No.

Think of ROTLA's clumsy comical swing Indiana Jones does in the Peru jungle to Mutt's. You'll see the difference easily.

Unless the monkey and Mutt are supernatural. Also not cynical, the monkey scene is just blindingly childish and cartoony even for Indiana Jones.

My neice who is 19 and loves all the movies and loves CS, even said "i loved it, the only part I cringed at and thought should have been missed out, was when he swang with the monkeys, I was like ..what the heck..other than that, it was pure Indy".
 

OmegaSeamaster

New member
Benraianajones said:
It is true fantastical stuff happened in the originals, but within reason. The only part I can think of out of reason was the dingy/cliff drop, that was it.

Yeah, and it wasn't too bad because you kind of thought the raft was "inflatable" and balloon like, which might have saved their lives.

Now try going over three waterfalls in a heavy vehicle, perhaps hitting some rocks on the way down...ugh. Just stupid all the way around. That, and heavy vehicles get saved by rubber trees.
 

Wilhelm

Member
All of this reminds me Alan Dean Foster's review of TOD in Starlog (Nov 84):

"An effort like Temple of Doom is in trouble even before the title appears on the screen. Not only is it a sequel to a hugely successful predecessor, but Steven Spielberg and George Lucas hace placed themselves in the unenviable position of having to top themselves every time out (...) The audience expects Temple of Doom to do the impossible. It does not, and because the expectations for the picture are so high, all of its lapses and failures are magnified. Instead of being rated against itself or other films of the same ilk, viewers find themselves comparing it not only to Raiders of the Lost Ark, but to E.T. and Star Wars. This does not obscure the fact that Romancing the Stone is a better film of the same type. (...) What the audience will not accept is someone stepping out of an airplane with only an inflated rubber life raft to cushion his fall of several thousand feet (...) What the falling-out-of-the-plane bit does is shout to the audience "You must accept this because it's only a movie". That's fatal to a fantasy. The audience feels cheated, doubly so when the impossible plunge is repeated seconds later as the raft careens over a precipice. By ignoring the laws of reality, the illusion of reality that the film aspires to its destroyed. The dream has been punctured. It's popcorn time.
Toward the end of the film, Indiana and his friends are being chased through a mine tunnel labyrinth. Both pursued and pursuers race along a breakneck speed in runaway mine cars. So far so exciting. And then we're smacked in the face with another "Awwwww, come onnnn!". A section of track is missing and there is a gap and drop before they resume. The decidedly unaerodynamic mine car carrying Indy and his friends rockets off the broken rails, lears the gap, and lands with a precision no space shuttle crew could achieve on the rails opposite, to continue its journey. You can't sell this stuff to kids, much less to adults. They've been educated to the perils of speed: by Tv cops shows, by Driver's Ed in school, by Disneyland. Everyone in the audience knows such a feat is impossible. (...) It's the writers who must bear the blame for the story's lapses of logic. As Indiana is fleeing gangsters in Shanghai, he escapes to a waiting plane. How does the airport agent know Indiana has 2 companions coming with him? For that matter , since the gangsters own the plane and have already planned to maroon Indiana aboard it, why they chase him all over the city and risk getting shot? (...)
Another difference, and an important one to the audience, between Raiders and Temple of Doom is the absence in the second film of fantasy elements. About all we're given is the sequence showing Ram removing the heart of his still-living victim, an effect done better and more frequently in David Cronenberg's Videodrome. Temple of Doom boasts no swirling evil spirits, no blasts of supernatural fire, no boiling clouds. Again the trouble is with expectations. We expect the out-of-ordinary from Spielberg and Lucas. (...) I also thought better use could have been made of the Sri Lanka locations.(...)
Story, story, story, and it's not only the pacing that suffers in Temple Of Doom. Why is Mola Ram sacrificing people? Nothing in Temple Of Doom is ever explained. It's an idiot plot, where characters do things solely for the benefit of the film, not because it bears any relationship to the story. In Raiders we know why everybody's after the Ark of the Covenant, we know what the Nazis want, we see relationships developing between REAL people. There are no real people in Temple of Doom; only ciphers. Characters must have motivation. It's not enough for Mola Ram to act evil: he has to have a reason to be evil. Mola Ram is coming from nowhere and going noplace. Cipher. (...)
And that, in the last analysis, is why you leave the theater feeling uncomfortable at the conclusion of Temple of Doom. You know you've watched a well-made, lavishly produced film that seems to have delivered all it promised. It just doesn't sit right, and the reason why is simple. No magic".
 

Indy's brother

New member
Regarding the TOD comparison, only time will tell if Indy fans come around to embrace KOTCS at all over the next two decades as they have come to accept TOD. TOD still has it's detractors around here, but it's not as hated as KOTCS. But since we don't have time on our side to let history be it's judge quite yet, the debate will rage on for years to come.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
Wilhelm said:
All of this reminds me Alan Dean Foster's review of TOD in Starlog (Nov 84):

This is brilliant; thanks for posting.

Alan Dean Foster said:
What the audience will not accept is someone stepping out of an airplane with only an inflated rubber life raft to cushion his fall of several thousand feet

I do; it's fun.

Alan Dean Foster said:
It's an idiot plot, where characters do things solely for the benefit of the film

Yeah, okay. Fine with me! :) I'm happy for anyone to do anything that benefits the film I'm watching!
 

emtiem

Well-known member
oki9Sedo said:
There's a key difference, in fairness. Suspension of disbelief involving magical, mystical phenomena is one thing. That stuff could happen for all we know about the universe etc.

Suspension of disbelief involving a man escaping a nuclear blast by hiding in a lead-lined refrigerator is different. That goes against known scientific fact.

Just like an inflatable raft saving three people from a drop from an aeroplane. And if there was even such a thing as a self-inflating raft in 1935 (I don't know)! It's just a bit of fun; if it makes sense within the rules it has set out (which in Indy is: if it passes a cursory pass of logic, it's fine. Inflatable things are light and have wind resistance; lead is impenatrable by radiation. The exact equations as to how successful both of those are is unimportant) then there's no problem. It really is just a pulpy movie: it's not supposed to be real life.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Wilhelm said:
All of this reminds me Alan Dean Foster's review of TOD in Starlog (Nov 84)

Wilhelm thanks for that. I have many of the original reviews too, gathering dust in the attic. I'll have to dig some of them out...

You see, some who dislike KOTCS will try and argue that TOD and TLC are much better movies and were applauded in their day... but as evidenced in your Alan Dean Foster review, they were having very much the same things criticized but, 20-30 years later, are viewed by many as "classics".

Some may respond with the usual? ?But surely none of the things pointed out by Alan Dean Foster are as bad as fridges, gophers and monkeys?? I would posit that even if some elements of KOTCS push credibility beyond the realms of TOD and TLC, it?s only marginal and not that significant within context of the series.
 

Darth Vile

New member
emtiem said:
Just like an inflatable raft saving three people from a drop from an aeroplane. And if there was even such a thing as a self-inflating raft in 1935 (I don't know)! It's just a bit of fun; if it makes sense within the rules it has set out (which in Indy is: if it passes a cursory pass of logic, it's fine. Inflatable things are light and have wind resistance; lead is impenatrable by radiation. The exact equations as to how successful both of those are is unimportant) then there's no problem. It really is just a pulpy movie: it's not supposed to be real life.

Spot on. It's either something you can buy into, and have fun with, or not. But all four movies are very consistent in the way they approach improbable and outrageous situations.
 

JediPug1

New member
Not having had time to read all the previous posts in this thread (I should be working! :p ) I will just toss in my two cents. Shia was given a job to do and he did it very well. It's not his job to defend, explain, or aplogize for any element of KOTCS that some folks didn't like.

All of the Indy films have elements that are implausible, not just KOTCS. No one needs to defend them, IMO. It's just good old fashioned escapism. Let go and enjoy the ride. :D
 

Benraianajones

New member
But that is just the thing, excluding the supernatural elements that make up Indiana movies, the rubber dingy was the only HUGE fantstical moment in the rest of the series, and it was a one off. It could be over-looked.

KOTCS has 2 huge moments in it - the fridge nuking, and the 3 waterfalls. Personally I don't mind the fridge. The rubber tree.The waterfalls I don't mind, but the writers could have done a much better job with that waterfall part. Then, to top it off, we get the tarzan scene which doesn't seem Indiana Jones at all. And it isn't especially even the concept tha is awful - it is how it is portrayed on screen.

They bascially try and cram too much non-supernatural "huge stunts" in to KOTCS, and it kills it a bit I think. Enjoyable, but I will watch it on DVD and think "missed oppurtunity" when I see various parts. I may find the overall film KOTCS skull enjoyable, and for what it is, it doesn't mean I am a cynic or a misery just because I see faults in the movie which could have been ammended to make it more interesting and engaging and more in the spirit of Indiana Jones.

The fridge is like the dingy. It is crazy, but you can deal with it.It is a big "bang" to finish the start portion of the film.(Then the rubber tree occurs/3 waterfall drops along with the tarzan swing, which can and does ruin it for a lot of people). For me, the waterfalls I can accept, but I know for a fact it'd have been better if Indy and co fell down a small waterfall then tried to escape the others, and have the cast do something as opposed to sit there. Then have the empty jeep plummet down the other 2 waterfalls.

The tarzan scene, just remove it.Or have Irina crash in to a bush and angered monkeys attack. The rubber tree part, it's ok, just make it somehwhat explained by Marion that she found the lowest part of the cliff. I know she scouts the area/tree and smiles, but that is cause she has seen the tree she smiles, not cause she knows its the lowest part of the cliff.

No one would really have complained about those more logical and engaging scenes. Even "The_Man" said he could have forgiven the movie for the fridge - if the rest of the movie took itself somewhat serious and did away/toned down the huge stunts.

As much as I wish these things were altered, I do accept movie making has changed since the olden Indy films, and that is why I don't dislike KOTCS, it could have been a lot worse than what we got.
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
Benraianajones said:
But that is just the thing, excluding the supernatural elements that make up Indiana movies, the rubber dingy was the only HUGE fantastical moment in the rest of the series, and it was a one off. It could be over-looked.

Again that?s largely subjective. As I stated in a previous post, I would argue that unfeasible mine cart leaps, outrunning tons of pouring water, surviving collapsing rope bridges, being chased by meschersmits through tunnels are all ?fantastical?. You either buy into it or you don?t.

Benraianajones said:
KOTCS has 2 huge moments in it - the fridge nuking, and the 3 waterfalls. The fridge is like the dingy. It is crazy, but you can deal with it. It is a big "bang" to finish the start portion of the film.
Completely agree. I think the fridge scene is even more preposterous than what?s gone before, but that certainly doesn?t make the rubber life raft any less implausible than it is. I think both scenes are tremendous fun.

Benraianajones said:
Then the rubber tree occurs/3 waterfall drops along with the tarzan swing, which can and does ruin it for a lot of people. For me, the waterfalls I can accept, but I know for a fact it'd have been better if Indy and co fell down a small waterfall then tried to escape the others, and have the cast do something as opposed to sit there. Then have the empty jeep plummet down the other 2 waterfalls.
I see it differently. The vine swinging thing is just poorly executed, it?s not a bad idea per se (as it could have been achieved with better effect without CGI). The ?rubber tree? and 3 waterfalls scenes I personally don?t have issues with. I?d compare them to other scenes in the previous movies e.g. the mine cart chase, running from the water, the rope bridge, escaping the catacombs, meeting Hitler, escaping the Zeppelin, escaping the meschersmits etc. etc. They are all a combination of fairly silly or not brilliantly executed scenes.

The only thing I?d change in the movie, if I had the power or inclination, would be the CGI alien and flying saucer (I'd just cut the vine swing thing). Those are the only two elements, IMHO, that seem out of keeping with the other movies.

Benraianajones said:
They bascially try and cram too much non-supernatural "huge stunts" in to KOTCS, and it kills it a bit I think. Enjoyable, but I will watch it on DVD and think "missed oppurtunity" when I see various parts. I may find the overall film KOTCS skull enjoyable, and for what it is, it doesn't mean I am a cynic or a misery just because I see faults in the movie which could have been ammended to make it more interesting and engaging and more in the spirit of Indiana Jones.
I wouldn?t call you a cynic. Your points are valid. It?s just that I believe that 99.9% of all the critisims can be levelled at the other movies (specifically TOD and TLC).

Benraianajones said:
As much as I wish these things were altered, I do accept movie making has changed since the olden Indy films, and that is why I don't dislike KOTCS, it could have been a lot worse than what we got.
Agreed.
 

Benraianajones

New member
Darth Vile said:
, I would argue that unfeasible mine cart leaps, outrunning tons of pouring water, surviving collapsing rope bridges, being chased by meschersmits through tunnels are all “fantastical”.


I see it differently. The vine swinging thing is just poorly executed, it’s not a bad idea per se (as it could have been achieved with better effect without CGI). The “rubber tree” and 3 waterfalls scenes I personally don’t have issues with. I’d compare them to other scenes in the previous movies e.g. the mine cart chase, running from the water, the rope bridge, escaping the catacombs, meeting Hitler, escaping the Zeppelin, escaping the meschersmits etc. etc. They are all a combination of fairly silly or not brilliantly executed scenes.

The mine cart leap is much more grounded than 3 huge drops though. You're more likely to survive that cart derailing and landing on the ground, than dropping 3 huge waterfalls. Yes, both incidents are verging on obscure, but the mine cart jump didn't take up 5 minutes of the movie, and nor did it jump over 2 or 3 holes, which would have made it much more to the level of the waterfall drops.

The rope bridge collapse - not everyone does survive the drop. A lot of guys fall to their death, and at the end of the day they had a real bridge falling in half and had dummies attached to it. It was just lucky our heroes survived it. Also, that is what Indiana Jones is about - gritty stunt work, not cartoony CGI polished Jungle book action. It still felt plausable Indy and co could have died if they fell down from the bridge on TOD despite their dingy incident earlier. In KOTCS, Indy seems immortal. My friend said "Indy seemed like he was in no danger at all in that film", which is true, he didn't. He lost his "average man that is lucky to survive" status and crossed over to "superman" in KOTCS.

And again, what makes the waterfall scenes worse, is the fact it has already had a huge bomb blast earlier and the rubber tree bit. They could easily have had them drop down one smaller waterfall, have an interesting struggle to get to shore, and some character development along the way,let us see the jeep plummet as they gasp. As opposed to sat there close to brain-dead allowing themselves to just fall down 3 deathly drops. I don't believe Indiana Jones would have allowed it and just sat there.

In KOTCS, they went too far with the non-supernatural action, and opted for it as opposed to parts where they could have developed the plot/characters more, that is what bothers me. If they had just calmed themselves down with the rubber-tree and waterfalls and made it more engaging and sensible, and just cut the tarzan scene out, the movie would have been a lot better. I don't require those scenes for the movie to be fun - it is fun enough without it, and feelin a thrill of intensity as they fell down the waterfall/escaped it, would have been even more fun and exciting for the movie.

It may be argued TOD does not have "any" character development, thou actually Willie does, even if she does still scream, and TOD didn't especially need it. Indy and Willie are just throw in an adventute together. However KOTCS did need it! Indy has a son, and he is meeting the love of his life after 19 something years, also, the fact is is simply 19 years after the originals tells us alone we'd like some development and information on the characters.

I'd still take KOTCS over the other script people like though, I'd rather have a waterfall scene with 3 drops, than a giant snake eating Indiana Jones and him living, I find that harder to believe than the nuke/dingy, which seem realistic in comparison.
 
Last edited:

tnswman

New member
OmegaSeamaster said:
I agree. The stupid plot elements came directly from Lucas.

I'm sick of hearing Shia's defense uttered by both himself and other apologists.

"But the vine-swinging and the nuke are just in keeping with the other three! It's the viewers that have become jaded!!!"

Umm...could it be that it could be the filmmakers that have lost their mojo?

Sorry, but you know you've seen something that doesn't work when you just want to shrink in your chair and hide in embarassment...aka "nuking the fridge."

One other instance that comes to mind is when James Bond out-surfed a tidal wave in "Die Another Day." That was just pushing the boundaries of the character and the cheese-factor.


No, it is the truth...the majority of Indy Viewers could not look past their personal wants to enjoy the movie as it was. It was in the totally same line as the other movies with the main difference being the sci-fi feel which was typical of the time period. EVERY complaint I have heard here since May, 22nd is brought on because of the viewers inability to love Indy as a whole. All most of you folks wanted wasa straight re-hash of YOUR favorite parts from the OT just re-played with an older Indy.

GROW UP and let Indy GROW as a character..KOTCS worked in sooo many ways that it's a shame they have to be pointed out. The biggest shame is that Shia is right. These "fans" are nothing more than "what have you done for me" folks.

This is why the Critics ranked it so high. They looked at the big picture instead of getting upset because the story was not tailor made to them. The OT was not perfect either by ANY means. However, 30 years ago all of you haters didn't have 18 years worth of writing your own versions of Indy 4..You had to take what Lucas and Co. gave you!! They did not ask you what you wanted to see then, and they NEVER WILL!!!
 

tnswman

New member
The Man said:
Such condescending bullsh!t will only serve to antagonise viewers further. The kid-gloves are now off. We're done being relatively restrained...

THE SCREENPLAY F*CKING SUCKS! IT SUCKS BALLS! MY BALLS, YOUR BALLS, ALL BALLS! WHOSE FAULT IS THAT, LABEOUF? OURS?


If you have ever re-read ANY of your pathetic arguments over KOTCS, you will find that it is YOUR fault. You try to spill your personal Hate and shortcomings onto others and it does not work. For every KOTCS Hater, there is 5 people who LOVED it or got exactly what the expected from an Indy film. The numbers don't lie!
 

The Man

Well-known member
tnswman said:
If you have ever re-read ANY of your pathetic arguments over KOTCS, you will find that it is YOUR fault. You try to spill your personal Hate and shortcomings onto others and it does not work. For every KOTCS Hater, there is 5 people who LOVED it or got exactly what the expected from an Indy film. The numbers don't lie!

Don't be silly - the sucky screenplay is not my fault...
 

Darth Vile

New member
In the first instance, I hope you take my posts in the fun way I intend them, rather than some irreverent dig about your opinions.

Benraianajones said:
The mine cart leap is much more grounded than 3 huge drops though. You're more likely to survive that cart derailing and landing on the ground, than dropping 3 huge waterfalls. Yes, both incidents are verging on obscure, but the mine cart jump didn't take up 5 minutes of the movie, and nor did it jump over 2 or 3 holes, which would have made it much more to the level of the waterfall drops.
I think the mine cart chase is longer than the 3 waterfalls scenes. And whilst I think the mine cart scene is actually more fun (because of the pace and music), it involves not only impossible leaps, but coming off the rails on hair pin bends, tug of war with Shorty over lava flows and not forgetting Indy braking the mine cart with his foot. Hardly grounded… and I think if you actually replicated the scene for real, most people would be dead within the first 30 seconds.


Benraianajones said:
The rope bridge collapse - not everyone does survive the drop. A lot of guys fall to their death, and at the end of the day they had a real bridge falling in half and had dummies attached to it. It was just lucky our heroes survived it. Also, that is what Indiana Jones is about - gritty stunt work, not cartoony CGI polished Jungle book action. It still felt plausable Indy and co could have died if they fell down from the bridge on TOD despite their dingy incident earlier. In KOTCS, Indy seems immortal. My friend said "Indy seemed like he was in no danger at all in that film", which is true, he didn't. He lost his "average man that is lucky to survive" status and crossed over to "superman" in KOTCS.

So again, whilst I enjoy the rope bridge collapse, I understand that it’s highly improbable. Indy would not survive. Even if you managed to cling onto the falling bridge, your bones would have been shattered with the collision with the rock face. I’d also posit that there is actually more real life stunt work in the jungle chase than there is in the rope bride scene.

Benraianajones said:
And again, what makes the waterfall scenes worse, is the fact it has already had a huge bomb blast earlier and the rubber tree bit. They could easily have had them drop down one smaller waterfall, have an interesting struggle to get to shore, and some character development along the way,let us see the jeep plummet as they gasp. As opposed to sat there close to brain-dead allowing themselves to just fall down 3 deathly drops. I don't believe Indiana Jones would have allowed it and just sat there.
As I’ve posted before, Indy “just sat there” because he believed that they had to traverse the 3 waterfalls to get to their goal (Akator). Now that doesn’t mean it was the best way to handle that scene. Perhaps it would have been better if Oxley’s clues weren’t even a part of it… I’m just pointing out that Indy’s reaction was in keeping with the premise of the situation.

Benraianajones said:
If they had just calmed themselves down with the rubber-tree and waterfalls and made it more engaging and sensible, and just cut the tarzan scene out, the movie would have been a lot better. I don't require those scenes for the movie to be fun - it is fun enough without it, and feelin a thrill of intensity as they fell down the waterfall/escaped it, would have been even more fun and exciting for the movie.
Agree 100% with the Tarzan/monkey swing thing being cut… who wouldn’t agree? But as far as the jungle chase, ants, rubber tree and waterfall scenes are concerned (holistically speaking) I think it’s an Indy high point i.e. from the hero’s tied up in the back of the truck to arriving at Akator, it’s pretty much non-stop high-octane action (very much in the Indy tradition).

Benraianajones said:
It may be argued TOD does not have "any" character development, thou actually Willie does, even if she does still scream, and TOD didn't especially need it. Indy and Willie are just throw in an adventute together. However KOTCS did need it! Indy has a son, and he is meeting the love of his life after 19 something years, also, the fact is is simply 19 years after the originals tells us alone we'd like some development and information on the characters.
Sure – I would have liked even more character development (the more the better)… but I thought they did enough within context of an action/adventure movie.

Benraianajones said:
I'd still take KOTCS over the other script people like though, I'd rather have a waterfall scene with 3 drops, than a giant snake eating Indiana Jones and him living, I find that harder to believe than the nuke/dingy, which seem realistic in comparison.

Quoted for truth…
 

Darth Vile

New member
tnswman said:
If you have ever re-read ANY of your pathetic arguments over KOTCS, you will find that it is YOUR fault. You try to spill your personal Hate and shortcomings onto others and it does not work. For every KOTCS Hater, there is 5 people who LOVED it or got exactly what the expected from an Indy film. The numbers don't lie!

A little unfair...


The Man said:
Don't be silly - the sucky screenplay is not my fault...

As much as I may disagree with you... you do keep your cool. ;)
 
Top