A new found fondness for KotCS as a film student and writer

Henry W Jones

New member
Indyfan82 said:
I have heard many of the complaints about "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and I have to say that I don't agree. I have seen this movie a number of times since it was released to theaters and it is just as much a favorite for me as all the other movies.
I know people balk at the scenes that stretch the believability factor- Indy surviving a nuclear blast in a lead-lined refridgerator, Mutt swinging on vines like Tarzan, etc. But what's so unbelieveable about swinging on vines? Surely that's possible. And it's not the first time the Indy movies have had scenes that would stretch imagination and force viewers to suspend disbelief. Some of the scenes in Raiders of the Lost Ark could be in this category. (The boulder, the closing stone slab, not getting hit with arrows while climbing on the plane, etc.)
Even with the fridge thing, I like that it is based on science fact- namely, that the lead-lining does help prevent radiation- which is why lead-lined suits are worn when dealing with radioactive materials.
There are other scenarios that might be unbelieveable in this movie- but in the end, it's just a movie. It works because it's Indiana Jones- he can do that. And I just enjoy it and don't worry about it.
I know others may have other reasons for disliking this movie and that's okay- obviously not everyone is going to agree on this.
For me, I enjoy all of the Indy movies and can't wait to see a 5th. one!:) :cool: :whip:

I like Skull but the jungle chase has a feel to it that bugs me. The reason the vine swing is unbelievable is 1) the monkey with the 50s hair 2) Mutt swings just like the monkeys and it looks ridiculous 3) the rest of the film looks good but the CGI there is so obvious its takes out of the moment. Otherwise I like the film overall. I was expecting another LC and that is essentially what it is.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
kongisking said:
Unfortunately for you, this is a fan-base that for some weird reason now expects 100% realism in their pulp adventure stories. Don't know how the heck it happened, but there ya go...;)

It has little to do with realism* but much more to do with writing and execution.



* Because ROTLA, TOD and TLC were all fantasies.
 

Indyfan82

Member
It has little to do with realism* but much more to do with writing and execution.
For the amount of time and effort spent on it, the writing and execution was fine for me. Obviously, it didn't meet everyone's standards- but I guess I'm not as critical on those things.

I like Skull but the jungle chase has a feel to it that bugs me. The reason the vine swing is unbelievable is 1) the monkey with the 50s hair 2) Mutt swings just like the monkeys and it looks ridiculous 3) the rest of the film looks good but the CGI there is so obvious its takes out of the moment. Otherwise I like the film overall. I was expecting another LC and that is essentially what it is.

Okay- valid points. I've never really noticed any of the monkeys having a '50s hair style- that was probably just a joke on the part of the CGI animators. And perhaps Mutt swinging looking like the monkeys' swinging was due to limitations of the CGI- or it was just easier to reuse some of the work. (i.e. they didn't make an effort to make it look different.) In any case- it's not a real long thing and I just think it's funny more than anything- it doesn't take me out of anything and doesn't really bother me.
I'm not sure what the comparison is here by calling it another "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"- but I'm gathering from what the general consensus seems to be- Not nearly as good as "Raiders of the Lost Ark", but still not nearly as bad as "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"- thus, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"- the in-between compromise.
(Just playing up the stereotypes here- not trying to criticize anyone for their preferences.;) It's okay if some prefer some movies over others.)
As it happens, I basically just look for movies to generally be clean and be uplifting- hopefully even with a positive (and perhaps even spiritual truth and Christian message) theme- and ultimately to entertain. I think "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" meets those criteria, so I'm satisfied. And I love all the Indiana Jones movies equally.:) :cool:
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
As a huge fan of 40's and 50's B-film sci-fi and horror films, I still think Indy IV was an epic failure. Not only did it fall short of expectations for an Indy film, it didn't even approach a successful homage to the aforementioned film genre. I wanted to find something to like about it, but there it is. Fail.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
HovitosKing said:
As a huge fan of 40's and 50's B-film sci-fi and horror films, I still think Indy IV was an epic failure. Not only did it fall short of expectations for an Indy film, it didn't even approach a successful homage to the aforementioned film genre. I wanted to find something to like about it, but there it is. Fail.
I'd agree, if its supposed to be a 50s b movie it doesn't achieve what it sets out to be. I'm watching it again now as I type this. From the moment they arrive in the jungle I think the film becomes steadily worse, In the end it doesn't feel like an Indy movie. I enjoy the first half much more than the second. The introduction of ox and Marion drag the film down. Inter dimensional beings? Space between spaces? Did anyone think about this before writing it? Personally I think they should of kept it as the others and gave it a religious theme and it ends being neither an Indy feel movie or a 50s alien film.
 

gabbagabbahey

New member
Without having gone through every thread in the last five years & rehashing what has already been said I've got to ask, are (some) of you guys serious? Indy 4 was no less believable than the first 3. In fact, it's more likely that that aliens have visited us in the past than there is a supernatural god. Yes, some of it was silly (the monkees), but most of it was plain old fun. I enjoyed it the day it came out & still thinks it is not a bad movie at all. This genre of film (pulp/action/adventure) have always been over the top & require the viewer to suspend belief a bit.

It's all good. It would be a boring world if we all agreed.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
gabbagabbahey said:
Without having gone through every thread in the last five years & rehashing what has already been said I've got to ask, are (some) of you guys serious? Indy 4 was no less believable than the first 3. In fact, it's more likely that that aliens have visited us in the past than there is a supernatural god. Yes, some of it was silly (the monkees), but most of it was plain old fun. I enjoyed it the day it came out & still thinks it is not a bad movie at all. This genre of film (pulp/action/adventure) have always been over the top & require the viewer to suspend belief a bit.

It's all good. It would be a boring world if we all agreed.

Hey, hey, we're the Monkees
And people say we monkey around :D
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
gabbagabbahey said:
It would be a boring world if we all agreed.

Allow me to make it a bit more exciting by thoroughly disagreeing with you.

CS: woulda, coulda, shoulda. It was a confused mish mash of trying to please everyone. As Spielberg said, "We made it for the fans." He didn't want to make it and it was obvious. Koepp wrote a script that had too many directions it was trying to follow. But Harry was the only force that carried it to whatever low level heights it got to, despite the over-the-top family outing it degenerated into.

I don't hate it, but I don't like it much it either. Subsequent viewings only allow more distance to critique it further for all its various faults, not to warm me up to it.
 

Indyfan82

Member
Without having gone through every thread in the last five years & rehashing what has already been said I've got to ask, are (some) of you guys serious? Indy 4 was no less believable than the first 3. In fact, it's more likely that that aliens have visited us in the past than there is a supernatural god. Yes, some of it was silly (the monkees), but most of it was plain old fun. I enjoyed it the day it came out & still thinks it is not a bad movie at all. This genre of film (pulp/action/adventure) have always been over the top & require the viewer to suspend belief a bit.
I would disagree on the point regarding the believability of aliens over one supernatural god. Though I find it interesting that some people are more willing to believe in aliens rather than God. Considering that we always seem to ascribe godlike powers to aliens anyway, I kinda wonder- what's the difference?
Anyway- that's just a side point and I think it's neat that the Indy movies explored it- along with belief in God in the other movies. In any case, the nice thing with all four movies is that there is some basis for belief in all these movies- these aren't just made up things- there are groups of people who do share the beliefs of Judaism, Hinduism and Christianity- there are real crystal skulls that exist in the world and people that believe in aliens, etc. - Though of course there are a lot of legends and things that are stretched and imposed in these movies- there are also factual items beneath it that they're all based on and I always appreciate that aspect of the Indiana Jones movies.
 

gabbagabbahey

New member
Without dragging this whole thread into a discussion about god/religion IMO there is just as much evidence for aliens, magical unicorns or leprechauns as there is for a god, any god. If you have any (actual) evidence to the contrary I'd like to hear it, because you'd be the first.

The difference between an alien from another planet and a god is while an alien may be a highly evolved being, with much greater intelligence and much finer developed sense of instinct & intuition it still operates within the known laws of nature. A god doesn't. He is just magic. The only magic I believe in is movie magic. : )
 

Montana Smith

Active member
gabbagabbahey said:
Without dragging this whole thread into a discussion about god/religion IMO there is just as much evidence for aliens, magical unicorns or leprechauns as there is for a god, any god. If you have any (actual) evidence to the contrary I'd like to hear it, because you'd be the first.

The difference between an alien from another planet and a god is while an alien may be a highly evolved being, with much greater intelligence and much finer developed sense of instinct & intuition it still operates within the known laws of nature. A god doesn't. He is just magic. The only magic I believe in is movie magic. : )

Exactly.

All the Indy movies are based on fairy tales (or myth-history at best). KOTCS was merely based on a more modern fairy tale. ROTLA would likely have been as well, if Lucas had been working alone during the creation process.

And even then, the Holy Grail only appears in the 12th century which makes it a more recent fairy tale. The Last Crusade is an Arthurian fantasy as opposed to a specifically religious one.

Aliens aren't the barrier to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull's greatness, but the practical elements of story-telling, dialogue, acting and direction.
 

Indyfan82

Member
Without dragging this whole thread into a discussion about god/religion IMO there is just as much evidence for aliens, magical unicorns or leprechauns as there is for a god, any god. If you have any (actual) evidence to the contrary I'd like to hear it, because you'd be the first.

The difference between an alien from another planet and a god is while an alien may be a highly evolved being, with much greater intelligence and much finer developed sense of instinct & intuition it still operates within the known laws of nature. A god doesn't. He is just magic. The only magic I believe in is movie magic. : )
Okay- interesting points. I would say there is much more evidence for God than for aliens or leprechauns. (Although there are some references to unicorns and I don't know if I would rule them out entirely. I wouldn't ascribe them magical properties though.) For me, I look at the evidence for Jesus Christ, of which there are sufficient amounts. Of course, this would take the question to whether or not someone believes Jesus to be God. (Of course, I do- but I know people differ on that and I don't want to derail the thread into an argument about that.)
One last thing to point out though- aliens are not always seen to to operate within the known laws of nature. E.T. had the power of flight and levitation of other objects, for example. When it comes to God though- well, the One who created the laws of nature is certainly not limited by them and is entitled to operate outside of them if He chooses to do so.:)
Exactly.

All the Indy movies are based on fairy tales (or myth-history at best). KOTCS was merely based on a more modern fairy tale. ROTLA would likely have been as well, if Lucas had been working alone during the creation process.

And even then, the Holy Grail only appears in the 12th century which makes it a more recent fairy tale. The Last Crusade is an Arthurian fantasy as opposed to a specifically religious one.

Aliens aren't the barrier to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull's greatness, but the practical elements of story-telling, dialogue, acting and direction.
I think the Indiana Jones movies go better than myth-history, but this is obviously going to be a matter that will be different for everyone. I do believe in the historicity of the Ark of the Covenant and the cup that Jesus drank out of at The Lord's Supper (or The Last Supper, as it's also called.) However, I don't ascribe magical properties to either item. The Bible does speak of the Israelites carrying the Ark before them in battle and defeating their enemies. But the power comes from God who resided in the Ark at the time- not from the item itself. (As the Israelites found out when they tried to use the Ark of the Covenant in battle outside of God's will- Just read 1 Samuel 4-7 for that account.)
As to the Sankara stone, while I am willing to believe in its historicity, assuming there is evidence for it (I have not really researched this one, so I am not as familiar on this)- however, I would not attribute any magical powers to it- except for perhaps demonic activity.
The same would go for the crystal skulls.
(By this, I don't mean to disparage any adherents to Hinduism or anyone who might have at some point in history or even now would worship the crystal skulls- however, I do hold to The Bible and for a Christian, 1 Corinthians 10:18-22 makes clear that there are only two sources of power in the world- God and the devil. God has revealed Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ and has made restitution for us through Christ's death and Resurrection and thus made salvation available to all who will put their faith in Christ. The Bible says that the devil masquerades as an angel of light and leads many astray with false religions from Jesus [who says in John 14:6 that He is The Way, The Truth and The Life and no man comes to The Father but by Him.] Everyone is of course free to believe as they choose and I recognize that- this is just what I believe, based on what The Bible says.)
So the bottom line is that the power comes from God and not from the objects- but that wouldn't make the movies nearly as interesting, I suppose. So while I recognize these things when watching the movies, I can still enjoy in indulging in some fantasy in the movies.
And as far as "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" goes- I think the story-telling, dialogue, acting and direction are all great. And I don't have an issue with the inter-dimensional beings or any other elements of the movie.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Montana Smith said:
Exactly.

All the Indy movies are based on fairy tales (or myth-history at best). KOTCS was merely based on a more modern fairy tale. ROTLA would likely have been as well, if Lucas had been working alone during the creation process.

And even then, the Holy Grail only appears in the 12th century which makes it a more recent fairy tale. The Last Crusade is an Arthurian fantasy as opposed to a specifically religious one.

Aliens aren't the barrier to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull's greatness, but the practical elements of story-telling, dialogue, acting and direction.
I thought aliens were a big part of KOTCS flaws, along with the other barriers you mention.

The whole ending was a mess. What was the point of the skull? Why did aliens suddenly appear on screen? Why did the ship take off? Interdimensional? Space between spaces? Its rubbish.

For me the more earthly artifacts and how the story's were handled in the first 3 were more believable than what ended up happening at the end of KOTCS. Maybe that's down to the original 3 being more cohesive story wise. But aliens did not fit at all in an Indy movie for me.

Maybe there's the possibility that if the story and characters were handled better that it would sit better with me. But having watched it again over Xmas I can't believe no one during filming or any part of the process thought the aliens and the whole ending made sense and worked well. Because it just doesn't.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Indyfan82 said:
I do believe in the historicity of the Ark of the Covenant and the cup that Jesus drank out of at The Lord's Supper (or The Last Supper, as it's also called.)

The Grail was a creation of Chrétien de Troyes in his 12th century Perceval, le Conte du Graal. It was distinct from the chalice of the Last Supper, and it was from this salver that a wealth of Arthurian romances grew. The Last Crusade is a continuation of that questing tradition, by merging the myth of the cup the Jesus supposedly drank from with the different cup that supposedly caught his blood on cross.

AndyLGR said:
I thought aliens were a big part of KOTCS flaws, along with the other barriers you mention.

The writing and everything else certainly didn't help the cause of the aliens!
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Montana Smith said:
The writing and everything else certainly didn't help the cause of the aliens!
So true and that's one of the biggest disappointments of KOTCS. They knew what was at stake with this film and the writing and characters and 2nd half (at least) of the story was a total mess. What were they thinking? It seems rushed. Like they said lets make something... Anything just to get the film out.
 

gabbagabbahey

New member
Indyfan82 said:
Okay- interesting points. I would say there is much more evidence for God than for aliens or leprechauns.

Such as? Saying that we know it's true because it says it in the bible and we know the bible is true because the bible tells us it is true does not count. That's a circular argument.

Indyfan82 said:
For me, I look at the evidence for Jesus Christ, of which there are sufficient amounts.

Yes, there may have been a philosopher named Jesus who lived a couple of thousand years ago. There is no actual proof, however, that he was supernatural in any way. Yes, we have stories. But we also have stories of people getting abducted & probed by aliens, seeing bigfoot and even stories of spiritual people being able to perform miracles today. If we don't believe their stories, when we can interview them and examine the evidence for their claims today, why in the world should we believe stories from 2000 years ago?

Indyfan82 said:
One last thing to point out though- aliens are not always seen to to
operate within the known laws of nature. E.T. had the power of flight and levitation of other objects, for example. When it comes to God though- well, the One who created the laws of nature is certainly not limited by them and is entitled to operate outside of them if He chooses to do so.:)

Well isn't that convenient? : ) In other words, he's magic and can do whatever he wants. OK. Prove it.

Please understand I say these thing with no anger, but with honest skepticism. The days of the religious getting a free pass ended on 9/11/2001, when we saw what blind conviction without proof can lead to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
It's fun to break out an old piece of boilerplate now and then...

TR.N Staff Notice

The discussion in this thread shows that members of The Raven Message Board are a diverse and international community. However, it appears that the discussion has strayed from the original topic or does not remain Indiana Jones related. It is important to stay on topic and within the Indiana Jones genre, so as to prevent confusion among those participating in the discussion or visiting this site for the first time. This topic is moderated and future off-topic discussion could lead to the unfortunate closing of this thread. - TR.N Staff
 

Indyfan82

Member
Such as? Saying that we know it's true because it says it in the bible and we know the bible is true because the bible tells us it is true does not count. That's a circular argument.

For me, I look at the evidence for Jesus Christ, of which there are sufficient amounts.

Yes, there may have been a philosopher named Jesus who lived a couple of thousand years ago. There is no actual proof, however, that he was supernatural in any way. Yes, we have stories. But we also have stories of people getting abducted & probed by aliens, seeing bigfoot and even stories of spiritual people being able to perform miracles today. If we don't believe their stories, when we can interview them and examine the evidence for their claims today, why in the world should we believe stories from 2000 years ago?

One last thing to point out though- aliens are not always seen to to
operate within the known laws of nature. E.T. had the power of flight and levitation of other objects, for example. When it comes to God though- well, the One who created the laws of nature is certainly not limited by them and is entitled to operate outside of them if He chooses to do so.

Well isn't that convenient? : ) In other words, he's magic and can do whatever he wants. OK. Prove it.

Please understand I say these thing with no anger, but with honest skepticism. The days of the religious getting a free pass ended on 9/11/2001, when we saw what blind conviction without proof can lead to.

I particularly appreciate your last statement here. I don't want to say things out of anger either. There's nothing wrong with honest questions- I believe God honors those. While I could get into further evidences (beyond just "The Bible said so", though that is good enough for me:)- there are historical writings outside of The Bible, archaeological finds, etc.)- in view of the above post from the moderator, this would not be the appropriate place to go into that. If you are further interested in this, perhaps we can do private messages or start a separate thread in an appropriate forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Henry W Jones

New member
You guys are going to get this thread closed. The topic is new fondness for CS. Make a new thread or find one about religion.
 
Top