Crystal Skull hatred knows no bounds

No worries Lance. Don't get your panties in a twist. It's hard to read an intended context in someone's words I suppose. I was somewhat paraphrasing some lines from the character of Tyrell in Bladerunner when he confronts Roy Batty. I was trying to create an irony. Looks like I failed. In other words, I totally agree you. CS could have and should have been a whole lot better.

Lance Quazar said:

I think there are ways you can have an older character and still have an exciting movie. Take something like "In the Line of Fire" or even "The Fugitive" - there's a lot of physicality with those characters, but they are also thinking heroes that survive and triumph due to their wits, not their fists.

Indiana Jones is known for its stunts and action sequences, obviously. To reiterate, I'm not saying I wanted Ford to be wheezing and creaking through the movie.

But to make him more invincible at 60 than the character was at 35? That just doesn't make sense, it's not interesting, it's not compelling. I think you underestimate the audience by saying people wouldn't "buy it" or wouldn't want to see an elderly Ford get roughed up a bit.

Yes, the audience wouldn't have bought it if Ford was beating up dozens of soldiers on his own. But the Indy films were never about that, anyway. Again, the character (at least in the first 2 films) had a vulnerability and fallibility that made him compelling.

I just think they could have found the balance, but appeared to make no effort.

Click to expand...

‘In The Line Of Fire’ and ‘The Fugitive’ may be better thrillers/dramas than KOTCS, but they are certainly not better action/adventure movies (IMHO)… Of course we all want an Indy movie to be better than the best… but the bottom line is that they are action/adventure movies (albeit expensive/big production value ones). Of course that's not to say I wouldn't want to see a cross genre Indy movie (I've been vocal about wanting to see a Hitchcock type Indy movie for any possible Indy V).

As for dealing with encroaching age/mortality... Am I saying that there isn’t room for an Indy movie that goes down the ‘Unforgiven’ or ‘Gran Torino’ road? Hell no… I’d love to see that Indy movie… and that’s what I ultimately wanted KOTCS to be. However, regardless of my wishes, I’m just stating that I believe the vast majority of the movie going public wouldn’t buy into that vision (especially younger audiences). And if you’re not going to explore that type of complex narrative with a 70 year old Harrison Ford in role, then you may as well just play it as a slightly older Indiana Jones (which is exactly what they did). That’s not my preference, but I think it was really the only way they could ensure that the movie ‘felt’ like the originals.

Also – as already mentioned… I totally agree… Indy’s ‘vulnerability’ and ‘fallibility’ is one of the reasons why he was (and still is) such an engaging character. However, whilst I still believe the character still embodies those fundamental traits, Indy became pretty much a comic book/Superman character from TOD onwards. I believe KOTCS is pretty much consistent with the Indy that the sequels presented e.g. someone who can leap out of windows, jump out of planes without a scratch etc. Sure, he gets a cut lip and an occasional shirtsleeve pulled off… but who are we trying to kid? Sans a gun shot, which miraculously healed overnight, Indy is pretty much as invincible as James Bond ever was.

Ultimately, if you want real drama in an Indy movie, then they'll have to go for the real big underlying narrative/themes of death and loss that age brings. I just don't believe Indy showing a flesh wound (which he would always just shirk off anyway) or feeling every single body blow is going to add any other layers to the movie or gets us to the level/depth of 'Unforgiven' or 'Gran Torino' that we may want to see.

Lance Quazar said:

How about having him react even SLIGHTLY like a human being might react to that situation? With at least a grunt or a grimace instead of a tossed off quip? Or even a grunt or a grimace BEFORE the quip. Something remotely believable, relatable.

In "Raiders" and "Doom", Indy feels it when he gets punched, hit, thrown, beaten, etc. Amazingly, it doesn't seem to bring the pacing of those films to a screeching halt as you're suggesting.

Click to expand...

It could take away from the line, "Damn, I thought that was closer."

When Indy staggers out of the regrigerator or during the fist fight - I think all that's still there.

Darth Vile said:

Lucas/Spielberg. I don't think there is any big division between these men. If you read the transcripts and various other reading material, Lucas had a lot more initial control over Raiders than he did the others (certainly KOTCS). Based on this, one could argue that KOTCS would have been better if the making of it had been less of a democracy with Lucas as the senior partner. On a related note. Assuming that all the CGI is as a result of Lucas' wishes is a big (and I don't believe entirely accurate) assumption to make. Spielberg has to be the one responsible for transposing the written word onto the screen. For an example, if the script called for a prairie dog, I would imagine it would be Spielberg's choice as to how that was realised on screen.

Click to expand...

Hmm, actually, there's an interesting story there. Take it as you will. These two got into a heated argument on set over whether a set should be built or greenscreened (I won't say how I know, suffice it to say, I know). They're still good friends, but even the best of friends have fights. Moreover, Lucas pushes ILM. He's a businessman, can't fault him for that. But I think one reason they DIDN'T get into it (as much) on the first three Indy movies is that CGI wasn't an issue. It didn't exist. Spielberg was happy to let George do whatever he wanted in post because post-effects back then were still part of the "classical moviemaking" world that Spielberg loved. It was easier to agree back then as there were less choices.

Mickiana said:

No worries Lance. Don't get your panties in a twist. It's hard to read an intended context in someone's words I suppose. I was somewhat paraphrasing some lines from the character of Tyrell in Bladerunner when he confronts Roy Batty. I was trying to create an irony. Looks like I failed. In other words, I totally agree you. CS could have and should have been a whole lot better.

Click to expand...

My post was, perhaps, overly cranky. But accurate.

No probs, Lance. To cure our ills, we all need a good dose of another (great) Indy flick. Great like ROTLA (I'm a hopin'!).

Mickiana said:

No probs, Lance. To cure our ills, we all need a good dose of another (great) Indy flick. Great like ROTLA (I'm a hopin'!).

Click to expand...

I think we'll all have to look elsewhere for that...

Darth Vile said:

I think we'll all have to look elsewhere for that...

Click to expand...

Indeed. Nothing lasts forever.

I was watching KoTCS again last night. My brother hadn't seen it yet and he too liked it better than The Last Crusade.

Darth Vile said:

All your points are valid and well made... However, I think it would be a real challenge to make a set of movies without evolving the central character. I'm not sure any of the Indy sequels would have been better for having the same Indiana Jones as the one who appeared in Raiders. That version may be the definitive, 'Indy' but I think that version is best contained to a single movie. I would, however, have liked to have seen more of the bumbling college professor type 'Indy' we saw at the start of Raiders. I think they could have had some real fun in the sequels with a self conscious 'geeky' professor Jones by day and hard faced adventurer Indiana Jones by night...

Click to expand...

The Indy character has indeed matured over time in the movie series. My personal favorite of all the films is "Raiders" I really liked the portrayal of the character in the film. I also liked the portrayal of the character in KoTCS. It was fun to watch.

Darth Vile said:

As for dealing with encroaching age/mortality... Am I saying that there isn?t room for an Indy movie that goes down the ?Unforgiven? or ?Gran Torino? road? Hell no? I?d love to see that Indy movie? and that?s what I ultimately wanted KOTCS to be. However, regardless of my wishes, I?m just stating that I believe the vast majority of the movie going public wouldn?t buy into that vision (especially younger audiences).

Click to expand...

Truthfully, I believe that more than anything, a film contending with the themes of Gran Torino/Unforgiven was precisely what I was hoping for as well. But you're correct, the majority of ticket buyers are not going to be interested in such an interpretation. To make a guess, I'm presuming that what most moviegoers wanted was the humor and larger than life feats that they recalled from the prior installments. Comic book escapism. There's certainly nothing wrong with that. It just isn't what I had personally hoped for from the next Indy installment.

Paden said:

Truthfully, I believe that more than anything, a film contending with the themes of Gran Torino/Unforgiven was precisely what I was hoping for as well. But you're correct, the majority of ticket buyers are not going to be interested in such an interpretation. To make a guess, I'm presuming that what most moviegoers wanted was the humor and larger than life feats that they recalled from the prior installments. Comic book escapism. There's certainly nothing wrong with that. It just isn't what I had personally hoped for from the next Indy installment.

Click to expand...

Indiana Jones done kind of like Unforgiven? Hmmm, I could see that. Could make for a very cool movie. Interesting perspective.

Matt deMille said:

Indiana Jones done kind of like Unforgiven? Hmmm, I could see that. Could make for a very cool movie. Interesting perspective.

Click to expand...

I saw Watchmen last night, and loved the tone of the film. The theme of the aging hero was a big part of it. Of course, it went to places where an Indy movie couldn't go. Any Indy movie is going to be limited by its intended market, and KOTCS more than most. The serious, introspective tone of Watchmen, on the nature of anachronistic heroes, aging, and even the true nature of 'heroes', isn't a place KOTCS could have gone, so it always had to pull back to a half-way position which was bound to upset a certain group of original fans.

Montana Smith said:

I saw Watchmen last night, and loved the tone of the film. The theme of the aging hero was a big part of it. Of course, it went to places where an Indy movie couldn't go. Any Indy movie is going to be limited by its intended market, and KOTCS more than most. The serious, introspective tone of Watchmen, on the nature of anachronistic heroes, aging, and even the true nature of 'heroes', isn't a place KOTCS could have gone, so it always had to pull back to a half-way position which was bound to upset a certain group of original fans.

Click to expand...

Yeah, last thing I want to see is Indy and Marion having sex with "Hallelujah" playing in the background. Or do I?

JP Jones said:

REALLY?!!

Is this the kong we know and love? The kong that would spit in the face of any hater if he saw them? Who are you and what have you done with the real Kongisking?

Click to expand...

He's been kidnapped by Anti-KOTCSers and is currently hanging by his toenails in a castle dungeon somewhere. I am a cleverly-designed decoy, created to spread hatred of KOTCS to all who will listen. But you've found me out! Egad! Time to abort!

Actually, I'm just trying to be a little less hypocritical in my opinion. Lately, I've been thinking: how fair is it to criticise and villify people if they hate something I like, when they have all the right in the world to think something sucks? Sure, I disagree with them 100%, but still, they are human beings too. Now, where I DO draw the line is when haters start personally insulting Pro-KOTCSers. That, and Yo Mama jokes.

BTW, nice to know some of you love me...awww, shucks!

kongisking I really had a good chuckle reading your post and very nicely said! I've seen some sites where there a real avid haters of KoTCS and they insult and flame people and don't apologize nor respect people. Not here. I'm new to this forum and I am enjoying every minute of it!

kongisking said:

He's been kidnapped by Anti-KOTCSers and is currently hanging by his toenails in a castle dungeon somewhere. I am a cleverly-designed decoy, created to spread hatred of KOTCS to all who will listen. But you've found me out! Egad! Time to abort!

Actually, I'm just trying to be a little less hypocritical in my opinion. Lately, I've been thinking: how fair is it to criticise and villify people if they hate something I like, when they have all the right in the world to think something sucks? Sure, I disagree with them 100%, but still, they are human beings too. Now, where I DO draw the line is when haters start personally insulting Pro-KOTCSers. That, and Yo Mama jokes.

BTW, nice to know some of you love me...awww, shucks!

Click to expand...

i agree. a couple of my friends hated it, but we didn't get in any fist fights over it. oddly, they all liked Transformers 2 and i thought it was the dumbest movie ever made. happily, we all agreed the The Happening was just plain horrible.

I had the same thing happen: Some friends who bashed Crystal Skull also loved not only "Transformers" 2, but "G.I. Joe" as well (I place them in quotation marks because they are not those properties, save in name only).

I had to ask them why.

They said it's "okay" for "TF" and "Joe" to be silly, stupid and all that because they were based on toys. Okay, I said, but why then hate Indy IV? Raiders was never intended to be anything other than a silly, stupid serial, the 1930s equivalent of being based on a toy. Well, immediately they dug in their heels and started sputtering about how Indy was great. And, yeah, I'm in agreement. Indy IS great. But I think the concepts and original design of Transformers and G.I. Joe are great too, and *their* movies didn't live up to them.

I really don't understand why people bash one movie by the same criteria with which they praise another. Personally, I loved Crystal Skull (and hated "TF2" and "Joe", by the way, because they DIDN'T try to be what they should have been).

I think those who bash Crystal Skull are mainly those who worship the earlier films with the same simple-minded approach with which humans worship most anything else: They enjoyed it as a kid (or had a kid-like mentality), so age makes it better, etc. They're defending a simpler, more comfortable view of the world which new data and new analysis' intrudes upon. But when one looks at things objectively, Crystal Skull really isn't any different than Temple or Crusade. I think "Raiders" is a bit different (more serious, Indy talks less, he means more business, and the McGuffin is feared rather than coveted), but they're all approached the same and done well.

I bet if Crystal Skull was made first, those same people would bash Raiders itself because it introduced religious themes when Indy is "supposed" to chase after ancient aliens.

Some people . . . seesh.

Matt deMille said:

I bet if Crystal Skull was made first, those same people would bash Raiders itself because it introduced religious themes when Indy is "supposed" to chase after ancient aliens.

Some people . . . seesh.

Click to expand...

That deseves a cyber-five!

I totally disagree about Raiders being bashed if it were not made first. It stands on it's own merits regardless of when it may have come out. KotCS is not being bashed because it came out the most recently of the movies, but because it needs reprimanding on it's own lack of merit.

Mickiana said:

I totally disagree about Raiders being bashed if it were not made first. It stands on it's own merits regardless of when it may have come out. KotCS is not being bashed because it came out the most recently of the movies, but because it needs reprimanding on it's own lack of merit.

Click to expand...

Beautifully put.