Why are people so hard on Indy IV?

Mickiana

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
I'm not watching that video. I don't need some snarky guy on the internet explaining to me what was wrong with Crystal Skull for 15 minutes.

What was wrong was perfectly evident to everyone would watched the movie. It is a bizarrely lethargic film with lazy writing and a lack of considered ideas. I can't think of a movie more disinterested with itself. Throwing out all these promising concepts that it refused to develop - Spalko's psychic powers, the FBI subplot that was utterly abandoned after Act I, the side characters it didn't know what to do with.

It lacked any of the decent one-liners or memorable cliff hangers that all the previous movies had. The much-maligned Doomtown sequence is the only thing in the damn movie that even resembles a classic Indy setup. We're given clumsy swathes of exposition that were only necessary because of the goofily unwieldy plot points (somehow both undercooked and overcooked at the same time) that could have easily been streamlined. The whole hand-waving business with Oxley's letter, the pointless shrouding of Marion's identity, and the inconsequential mystery of the conquistadors were just set dressing, elements that served to take up running time but didn't add up to a damned thing.

The movie was wall-to-wall with missed opportunities that came to be downright distracting - Indy never once trying to outwit his captors and instead assisting them at every opportunity and even complaining upon rescue, the jungle cutter that was immediately destroyed, the natives that served as nothing but a gag, the obelisk puzzle that Indy isn't allowed to solve. It feels like a first draft that they somehow took 19 years to write.

There was no menace or stakes, the material de-fanged to the point where Indy never once fires his gun. At one point the lead villain allows Indy, Marion and Mutt to play out their Jerry Springer routine at the jungle camp, before finally cocking a gun behind Marion's head. In response, Indy and Marion keep right on quipping. If the characters don't see the villains as a threat, why should the audience? It's no wonder Marion doesn't care, considering she seems fully aware that she's in a movie, like when she drives gleefully off the cliff onto the tree, confident that she will survive.

The movie has a strange, cheap look to it, with Kaminski imposing this glow-y, diffusive style that doesn't just make it seem out of place with the other movies, but at times like it's set on a different planet. This boggling creative choice is aggravated by the stagebound nature of the production. The previous movies were shot in striking locations like Tunisia, Skri Lanka, and Petra. Crystal Skull was filmed in Los Angeles and...the surrounding area. They did not expose one frame of film outside of the U.S. during principal photography. And why bother physically filming the jungle chase in Hawaii if the whole thing is going to be digitally molested to the point where it all looks green-screened anyway?

The movie was even outright incompetent at times. The demise of Mac is the most embarrassing bit of staging I've ever seen in a Steven Spielberg film.

There were no moments of gravity, and when they were attempted the movie had to invoke the previous films, like when they reprised the Grail Theme during Indy's horrible "Knowledge was their treasure" wrap-up at the end without having earned that right at all. That scene is perfectly indicative of how the movie never stands on its own two feet, and relies entirely on our goodwill for the previous movies to get by.

And that's what makes Crystal Skull so objectionable, at the end of the day. It merely gets by, and not because its reach extended its grasp, but because that appears to have been the height of its ambition. It doesn't even have the decency to be bad in a memorable way. It's just a dull, soulless, inert movie. At the time I remember there being a contingent of people chiding others for their bloated expectations, but what was so unreasonable about expecting something even along the lines of the previous movies? No one was anticipating brilliance, just for the Beards to be able to come with something more than mediocrity.

That was a very in depth explanation of what was really wrong with it. The 'Everything Wrong With....' clip also highlighted wrongs, but they were in the manner of instances in the viewing. But that is what they do for their format of critique.

Udvarnoky, your essay approach more appropriately sums up the larger conceptual issues surrounding the entire movie.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Mickiana said:
Udvarnoky, your essay approach more appropriately sums up the larger conceptual issues surrounding the entire movie.

I think conceptually it was solid. The underlying ideas were all fine, but at some point the brainstorming session has to end and those ideas need to be corralled into an engaging story, and the end result feels like they rolled cameras before they got to that part. It's just sloppy, sloppy stuff.
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
A very good analysis, Udvarnoky.

They took the audience for granted, along the lines of "let's just put a fedora on Ford and fans will be happy anyway".

Sadly, judging by some of the comments in this thread (and, ominously, in the Indy 5 threads too), they weren't completely wrong. :mad:
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Let's hope the beards themselves are not part of that group. Because I kinda doubt it'll work a second time. After all, "fool me once..."

But if they are, then we'll have to trust on the bean counters to interfere.






I kinda like the irony of that.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Spielberg has retrospectively stated that he's happy with Crystal Skull. There's an interview with Koepp somewhere where he expressed pride in his work as well. I can't dig it up now, but it exists...he says something along the lines of being pleased by how well the movie did with families and how he considers it an appropriate finale.

You could argue Spielberg's being diplomatic, but he turned on Temple pretty quickly after release, so I'm forced to conclude he really is happy with Crystal Skull and not just sparing George's feelings.

So, yeah. We pretty much have to pin all of our hopes on the fact that this movie won't have to lasso 19 years worth of brainstorming and rejected scripts into a cohesive whole, and that's what will make the difference. Because we're dealing with the same people here.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Udvarnoky said:
Spielberg has retrospectively stated that he's happy with Crystal Skull. There's an interview with Koepp somewhere where he expressed pride in his work as well. I can't dig it up now, but it exists...he says something along the lines of being pleased by how well the movie did with families and how he considers it an appropriate finale.

You could argue Spielberg's being diplomatic, but he turned on Temple pretty quickly after release, so I'm forced to conclude he really is happy with Crystal Skull and not just sparing George's feelings.
Let's not forget that we live in a different media age, which could explain his behavior now. On the other hand, the scales are weighed a bit differently, which could instead explain his criticism towards ToD.

Given how heavily lambasted KotCS is and was as it was, the director may have thought it a bit excessive if he threw the film under the bus too. The Internet would have erupted. Expressing criticism towards ToD in 1985 meant far less hullaballoo.

The alternate angle: Consider KotCS as an entry in a series that spans three movies and other extended media, and you'll notice it does not stand out like a sore thumb, even if one can't call it the franchise's most shining piece either. In 1985, the only point of comparison was the masterpiece called Raiders of the Lost Ark, so perhaps the director felt it was a no-brainer move to admit it wasn't as good as that.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
This gets into armchair psychology, but I suspect Spielberg's badmouthing of Temple is borne out of a shame he has with its self-indulgent nature. I know there are the factors involved, like his sympathy to the backlash against the violence and dark themes, the accusations of racism, the possibility that he associates the movie with a particularly dark time in his life. But I think he's primarily, and wrongheadedly, embarrassed by the unabashed indulgences of Temple.

Some guy on the internet once put it perfectly when he said that Temple is "The Kill Bill of the 80s." The comparison works on a number of levels. Spielberg and Lucas are making non-stop references to the pulp entertainment they grew up with and loved. But because they're talented film makers themselves, the end result is not derivative, but transcendent. They're using old pieces and parts to make something new that's arguably better than the original influences.

Of course, what I'm describing is also a perfect description of Raiders of the Lost Ark. But Temple pushes into a shameless, unfettered extreme. It's pure Spielberg id, in all its undisciplined, uncut, unadulterated glory. The only thing that comes close in his filmography in 1941, but with Temple he was more refined a film maker and of course the material was a much better fit for the kind of exuberant insanity on display, so it works like a dream (at least to us Temple-lovers).

Because Spielberg is not Tarantino though, I think he sees that self-indulgence as a sin to be ashamed of. Which is too bad, because it's probably out of all four Indy films the one that most closely resembles that out-of-the-frying-pan, into-the-fire spirit of the actual Republic serials.

Temple was very noticeably an end to the Spielberg era that began with Jaws. His next project was The Color Purple and thus began his journey to be a "serious" film maker. He'd still go back to the blockbuster realm with a third Indy, Jurassic Park, etc. but those movies weren't made by the same guy.
 

seasider

Active member
Udvarnoky said:
The previous movies were shot in striking locations like Tunisia, Skri Lanka, and Petra. Crystal Skull was filmed in Los Angeles and...the surrounding area. They did not expose one frame of film outside of the U.S. during principal photography. And why bother physically filming the jungle chase in Hawaii if the whole thing is going to be digitally molested to the point where it all looks green-screened anyway?

I definitely would like to see a return to shooting at foreign locales and working at Elstree or Pinewood studios in the U.K instead of Hollywood. It was reported that Spielberg shot stateside because he wanted to be close to home but I don't think that was entirely true. Back then you had a bunch of states deciding to offer huge tax breaks for movie studios so the rationale was probably like "Why shoot overseas when we just can stay in the U.S?" Spielberg films like Munich (2005), War Horse (2011) and Bridge of Spies (2015) and The BFG (2016) all had foreign location shooting so it's not like he's opposed to the idea of leaving U.S soil to make a movie. My guess is they will try to go foreign for Indy 5 but the locations will be restricted to countries with an established movie infrastructure and access to food that won't make you sick.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I remember reading somewhere that it actually made Crystal Skull more expensive to shoot domestically the whole way through, but don't quote me.

It's obvious Spielberg is perfectly willing to go overseas to film a movie. The fact that he didn't on Crystal Skull speaks to the "whatever" attitude toward this particular project, not a general mindset on Spielberg's part.
 

The Man

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
I remember reading somewhere that it actually made Crystal Skull more expensive to shoot domestically the whole way through, but don't quote me.

It's obvious Spielberg is perfectly willing to go overseas to film a movie. The fact that he didn't on Crystal Skull speaks to the "whatever" attitude toward this particular project, not a general mindset on Spielberg's part.

Speaking circa the film's publicity gauntlet, Spielberg stated that he would prefer to spend as many evenings as possible with his children. Whether that influenced - or restricted - the breadth of the narrative and the extent of Indy's travels, who knows? Does it suggest that the movie was more akin to a distraction, a duty, than a passionate, crucial endeavour? Hmmmmmm...
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I don't see how you draw another conclusion. It's not like staying close to his family during production was a requirement that endured after Indy4.
 

The Man

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
I don't see how you draw another conclusion. It's not like staying close to his family during production was a requirement that endured after Indy4.

And, at the risk of belabouring the point by means of a well-known video elaboration, witness his ambivalent, shoulder-shrugging, grudgingly-acquiescing attitude to the whole affair. Didn't want to do another after Crusade, hoping to achieve maturity afterwards. Didn't want aliens, but agreed to them by another term. It comprehensively radiates the feeling of "oh, f@ck it, whatever, okay."

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rE7fzr6lQ-s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>​
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Of course, it's also the case that most (all?) of those recent films that Spielberg has made abroad have filmed in Europe. This is the guy who ate out of cans the entire time they were in Tunisia. Personal comfort might be a factor as well.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Finn said:
Let's not forget that we live in a different media age, which could explain his behavior now. On the other hand, the scales are weighed a bit differently, which could instead explain his criticism towards ToD.

Given how heavily lambasted KotCS is and was as it was, the director may have thought it a bit excessive if he threw the film under the bus too. The Internet would have erupted. Expressing criticism towards ToD in 1985 meant far less hullaballoo.

The alternate angle: Consider KotCS as an entry in a series that spans three movies and other extended media, and you'll notice it does not stand out like a sore thumb, even if one can't call it the franchise's most shining piece either. In 1985, the only point of comparison was the masterpiece called Raiders of the Lost Ark, so perhaps the director felt it was a no-brainer move to admit it wasn't as good as that.

But KOTCS is a sequel. Not a spin-off. It's a sequel. Raiders of the Lost Ark has two sequels and a prequel.
 
Last edited:

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Raiders112390 said:
But KOTCS is a sequel. Not a spin-off. It's a sequel. Raiders of the Lost Ark has two sequels and a prequel.
And this notion relates... how exactly to my point?
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Finn said:
And this notion relates... how exactly to my point?

"The alternate angle: Consider KotCS as an entry in a series that spans three movies and other extended media, and you'll notice it does not stand out like a sore thumb, even if one can't call it the franchise's most shining piece either."

The implication being that KotCS is just a side-project, or spin-off; a quasi-unrelated article of lesser canon than the "three films". Basically, it implies (as does this board, which suggests Raiders only has one sequel) that KotCS is not an Indiana Jones film proper, but merely just another object in a huge franchise that only has the "Indiana Jones brand" in common with other media. The fact that Harrison starred in it, Spielberg directed it, and Lucas produced and wrote the story for it doesn't seem to sway it from its semi non-canon status as I've seen as of late great disdain if not contempt for all three.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Raiders112390 said:
The implication being that KotCS is just a side-project, or spin-off; a quasi-unrelated article of lesser canon than the "three films". Basically, it implies (as does this board, which suggests Raiders only has one sequel) that KotCS is not an Indiana Jones film proper, but merely just another object in a huge franchise that only has the "Indiana Jones brand" in common with other media. The fact that Harrison starred in it, Spielberg directed it, and Lucas produced and wrote the story for it doesn't seem to sway it from its semi non-canon status as I've seen as of late great disdain if not contempt for all three.
Looks like you misunderstood the point completely, then. There are no hidden implications.

Therefore: Please not read the statement as if there was more to it than there is. If you do that, and find yourself jumping into some wild conclusions and making off-key counterarguments, that's definitely not my fault.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Finn said:
Looks like you misunderstood the point completely, then. There are no hidden implications.

Therefore: Please not read the statement as if there was more to it than there is. If you do that, and find yourself jumping into some wild conclusions and making off-key counterarguments, that's definitely not my fault.

But then why refer to the films as the 'three films'?
 

JasonMa

Active member
I'm somebody who hated (or fairly close) KOTCS. I honestly don't think I had seen it since the theater on opening weekend. Last night it was on Esquire and I watched the whole movie.

I found that the parts I hated I REALLY hated (nuking the fridge, the more ridiculous aspects of the jungle chase, random natives hanging out inside carvings, etc.) but that if I looked past those there are some good parts of the movie that I didn't give enough credit to. The early parts of Indy and Mutt in Nazca is pretty good for example. The opening in the warehouse, before Indy ends up in the nuclear test facility, is fun.

Overall the movie has some issues. One the editing sucked. Most scenes seemed to go on far too long. For example the fistfight with the random solider while Oxley is diverting the ants with the skull. It felt like that fight wasn't going to end. Also some editing around the jungle chase in general would have made that a better scene. The other thing was what Udvarnoky mentioned up-thread. The glow-y diffusive style of the film. Its really distracting in the opening scenes but it never really gets better.

After watching it again though I had to admit it wasn't nearly as bad as I felt. It wasn't good, and pales in comparison to the first three, but it has some good scenes that make it worth rewatching occasionally.
 
Top