The World without KotCS, a better place?

tnswman said:

No Ticket, When has anyone taken your opinions about the Indy series seriously? They are so simple minded that it's laughable. But that's typical for person's with the inability to comprehend a growth within a fictional universe.

Click to expand...

Did I insult you? No. So what's with the insult there? What is so simple-minded behind my opinion of the Indy series? I'm very much capable of comprehending growth within a fictional universe... what super intelligent growth happened in KOTCS that I missed? PLEASE PLEASE explain!! I must have missed some really brilliant piece of storytelling!

I don't care if you think my opinion is "simple minded" or not... truth is that nothing all that interesting happened with any of the characters in KOTCS. So I looked at the rest of the movie to see if it did anything right in place of that... and I saw Tarzan and CGI man-eating ants.

Peacock's-Eye said:

So? What difference would that make?
Oh wait! I get it - real monkey comedians graduate from Clown College & digital monkeys don't. That's why they're less funny. Duh - my bad!

Click to expand...

Yes it would make a big difference. It's because you're really seeing the monkey doing the little Heil Hitler thing. It's real. It's cute. It's funny. CGI takes out all of that. Having to explain something so simple as that means that you don't and probably will never get it.

But then again. My opinions are sooo simple-minded it's laughable.

tnswman said:

No Ticket, When has anyone taken your opinions about the Indy series seriously? They are so simple minded that it's laughable. But that's typical for person's with the inability to comprehend a growth within a fictional universe.

Click to expand...

I've seen plenty of people take No Ticket seriously. So this begs the question...when has anyone taken you seriously? With ignorant and uncalled for comments like this, I doubt your own mother takes you seriously. Truth is that Crystal Skull was not received well by the majority of posters on this site. If you can't handle hearing it...leave.

And just for kickers; There's nothing complex about Crystal Skull, so I fail to see how anyone can view it any way but simplemindedly. It's a dense, pitiful, and embarrassingly shallow popcorn movie.

FishbowlHead23 said:

I've seen plenty of people take No Ticket seriously. So this begs the question...when has anyone taken you seriously? With ignorant and uncalled for comments like this, I doubt your own mother takes you seriously. Truth is that Crystal Skull was not received well by the majority of posters on this site. If you can't handle hearing it...leave.

And just for kickers; There's nothing complex about Crystal Skull, so I fail to see how anyone can view it any way but simplemindedly. It's a dense, pitiful, and embarrassingly shallow popcorn movie.

Click to expand...

And you're devoting all your free time to posting about it...deeply sad.

Caaaan you feeeeel the LOOooove tonight!?


... I love how this forum brings us all so much closer together.

Peacock's-Eye said:

And you're devoting all your free time to posting about it...deeply sad.

Click to expand...

You're saying this on a message board...so what's your point? Are you intelligent enough to understand the level of hypocrisy in this statement? You're posting on a message board too...or did you forget? I think constructive criticism is far less time wasting then mindless praise. At least it evolves an amount of thought, something that might be a novelty to your kind.

Peacock's-Eye said:

>>
This is the same monkey who gives the Nazi salute & says "Uh Oh!" in a Baby Olsen Twins voice...? Just checking.

Click to expand...

The monkey is doing it for real - it is trainable - it is something do-able. And although I do not expect exactly realism in Indiana Jones, I do expect it to stay grounded to its general limits. I can watch the monkey go "Uh oh" and not feel any problem - it sounds like a regular monkey noise, they even mimick human sounds to a degree. The monkey does nothing that obscure. Monkeys have even been trained to go in to space.

Now, although swinging from vines is not unusual for monkeys, the fact they chose within one moment to work with Mutt is a bit problematic. Also, again - it isn't even especially the monkeys that are an issue. It is how it is handled and comes across on scene. It seems really cartoony - even so for Indiana Jone's cartoon related antics. The landscape becomes totally digital, Mutt doesn't even look convincingly holding his weight on the viens properly, and the monkeys swinging looks like something from a Disney movie.

Although I do not mind CGI - the way it was done, looks really silly. If they were real monkeys swinging on real trees and landing in Irina's car you know what - I'd actually like it. But the way the whole image on screen looks animated looks like I've suddenly been shoved in to a Pixar film showing. Consider: We had Indy in Peru swinging on a vine and crashing in to water. Then, in Kotcs a polished, smooth, Jungle Book like antic. If Raiders had this kind of action - fair enough if Skull did. But Raiders being the original set the standard limits for what should follow, even as outlandish as some LC and TOD things are, they generally stay bound to the limits set in the Indy universe.


Also, Irina and Mutts sword fight - seems like something from Peter Pan - but you know what. I actually don't mind that, that was humrous and exciting - but then they went overboard with the monkeys.Altbough I still would have liked a more serious sword fight between them along side the one on the truck, - and being serious - doesn't mean unfun and unexciting.

Also I'd like to add again, even though the scene was short and I can forgive it and enjoy the movie, it doesn't mean I wouldn't chop it out of the movie if given the choice. The introduction of the monkeys attacking Irina could have been done in a much more grounded idealistic way, without seeming like a cgi animated jungle book scene.

If we could strip away this black & white, love or hate thing? there is the makings of a very interesting and valid debate here (started a few pages back by Benraianajones and Peacock's-Eye).

I?m trying to think about this as objectively as I can? so imagine if you can that we had our minds wiped of Indiana Jones. What would we make of the original three movies if they were released today (or re-made shot for shot)?

Whilst the character of Indiana Jones may remain vaguely interesting, I think most would view the movies as lightweight, non-consequential, slow, un-original and generally passé. Without doubt, these criticism can be levelled fairly at KOTCS? but ultimately my one and only true criticism of KOTCS is that it tried so hard to be like the other movies, it failed to reflect the change in modern movies and the mindset of a largly new audience.

The result is? you have a movie comprising of Crystal Skull MacGuffins, improbable set pieces, cliché humour and hyper-reality characters such as Spalko. Indeed, how can one argue whether or not the ?3 waterfalls? drop is better or worse than the ?rubber raft ride? out of an airplane or the validity of monkeys doing stupid things (real or not)? Ultimately - they are all highly improbable and extremely farcical situations? the only true difference being that Raiders, TOD and Last Crusade were products of their time, whereas KOTCS isn?t.

Darth Vile said:

If we could strip away this black & white, love or hate thing? there is the makings of a very interesting and valid debate here (started a few pages back by Benraianajones and Peacock's-Eye).

I?m trying to think about this as objectively as I can? so imagine if you can that we had our minds wiped of Indiana Jones. What would we make of the original three movies if they were released today (or re-made shot for shot)?

Whilst the character of Indiana Jones may remain vaguely interesting, I think most would view the movies as lightweight, non-consequential, slow, un-original and generally passé. Without doubt, these criticism can be levelled fairly at KOTCS? but ultimately my one and only true criticism of KOTCS is that it tried so hard to be like the other movies, it failed to reflect the change in modern movies and the mindset of a largly new audience.

The result is? you have a movie comprising of Crystal Skull MacGuffins, improbable set pieces, cliché humour and hyper-reality characters such as Spalko. Indeed, how can one argue whether or not the ?3 waterfalls? drop is better or worse than the ?rubber raft ride? out of an airplane or the validity of monkeys doing stupid things (real or not)? Ultimately - they are all highly improbable and extremely farcical situations? the only true difference being that Raiders, TOD and Last Crusade were products of their time, whereas KOTCS isn?t.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see you argue the merits of a good movie, Darth...

The Man said:

I'd love to see you argue the merits of a good movie, Darth...

Click to expand...

Oh...you should know by now that his favorite movies suck.

MaxPhactor23 said:

Oh...you should know by now that his favorite movies suck.

Click to expand...

What like Scarface, The Red Shoes, A Matter of Life and Death, Strangers on a Train, Star Wars, Raiders, The Duellists, Papillon etc. etc?

FishbowlHead23 said:

You're saying this on a message board...so what's your point? Are you intelligent enough to understand the level of hypocrisy in this statement? You're posting on a message board too...or did you forget? I think constructive criticism is far less time wasting then mindless praise. At least it evolves an amount of thought, something that might be a novelty to your kind.

Click to expand...

Gee you're right. About everything. I'm coming clean!
Indy4 was simple minded nonsense that only appealed to me because I'm pathetically simple minded. I confess - I fell asleep during TDK and woke up whenever there was an explosion. I still play with a rubber ducky in the bath. I have a Jar Jar poster on my bedroom wall. I still suck my thumb.
Gods, that felt good!!! Thank you FBH, you're my new hero.

How come criticism involves more thought than praise?? What a strange assertion that is..

Darth Vile said:

If we could strip away this black & white, love or hate thing? there is the makings of a very interesting and valid debate here (started a few pages back by Benraianajones and Peacock's-Eye).

I?m trying to think about this as objectively as I can? so imagine if you can that we had our minds wiped of Indiana Jones. What would we make of the original three movies if they were released today (or re-made shot for shot)?

Whilst the character of Indiana Jones may remain vaguely interesting, I think most would view the movies as lightweight, non-consequential, slow, un-original and generally passé. Without doubt, these criticism can be levelled fairly at KOTCS? but ultimately my one and only true criticism of KOTCS is that it tried so hard to be like the other movies, it failed to reflect the change in modern movies and the mindset of a largly new audience.

The result is? you have a movie comprising of Crystal Skull MacGuffins, improbable set pieces, cliché humour and hyper-reality characters such as Spalko. Indeed, how can one argue whether or not the ?3 waterfalls? drop is better or worse than the ?rubber raft ride? out of an airplane or the validity of monkeys doing stupid things (real or not)? Ultimately - they are all highly improbable and extremely farcical situations? the only true difference being that Raiders, TOD and Last Crusade were products of their time, whereas KOTCS isn?t.

Click to expand...

Darth, so from what you are saying, you don't like the first 3 movies as they are slow and un original etc and you think KOTCS is not as good as them.

Why are you on an Indy chat room then?

Personally I think Raiders was executed perfectly and is a classic irrespective of when it was released and Crusade was marvelous. The other two are not worthy. I was hoping Crytal Skull was going to join Raiders and Crusade not Doom.

Peacock's-Eye said:

Gee you're right. About everything. I'm coming clean!
Indy4 was simple minded nonsense that only appealed to me because I'm pathetically simple minded.

Click to expand...

Whislt I have my gripes with Kotcs, I have to go along in saying that, just because people do like Kotcs are not childish simpletons.

graz said:

How come criticism involves more thought than praise?? What a strange assertion that is..

Click to expand...

It doesn't. Unless the praise is "I liked it," or the criticism is "I didn't like it." The problem here is that the praise here involves a lot of "I liked it," while some people who criticize actually provide reasons for not liking. A lot of times it seems people liked it because it was Indy. That's fine, I don't really care, I just hate to read that people are "simple-minded" for their opinions. Name calling is such a pathetic way for people to try to win an argument. The sad thing is it's happened on both sides.

Niteshade007 said:

It doesn't. Unless the praise is "I liked it," or the criticism is "I didn't like it." The problem here is that the praise here involves a lot of "I liked it," while some people who criticize actually provide reasons for not liking. A lot of times it seems people liked it because it was Indy. That's fine, I don't really care, I just hate to read that people are "simple-minded" for their opinions. Name calling is such a pathetic way for people to try to win an argument. The sad thing is it's happened on both sides.

Click to expand...

Well yes, I do agree with you. We all have different ideas of what makes a decent film and what we enjoy. Someone liking KOTCS (or any other film for that matter) doesn't automatically equate to them being simple. Likewise if you hate it, it is ultimately just a personal reaction which you are fully entitled to.

Blade said:

Darth, so from what you are saying, you don't like the first 3 movies as they are slow and un original etc and you think KOTCS is not as good as them.

Why are you on an Indy chat room then?

Personally I think Raiders was executed perfectly and is a classic irrespective of when it was released and Crusade was marvelous. The other two are not worthy. I was hoping Crytal Skull was going to join Raiders and Crusade not Doom.

Click to expand...

When did I say I didn't like them? And... You've sort of missed the entire point of the post (unless you misinterpret to try make a point).

It?s folly to believe that one?s opinion of a movie isn?t open to influence. I have an emotional connection to the first 3 movies, which means it's difficult to view them objectively. Movies reflect the generation in which they were made. That?s why the majority of my movie collection (and probably of most people here) comprises of movies made within my lifetime i.e. movies made over the last circa 30 years.

Ask your average 15-30 year old which James Bond movie they prefer: 'From Russia With Love' or 'Casino Royale'? Which do you think the majority would choose? Which one would seem more passe to them? Which one is the better movie?

Darth Vile said:

When did I say I didn't like them? And... You've sort of missed the entire point of the post (unless you misinterpret to try make a point).

It?s folly to believe that one?s opinion of a movie isn?t open to influence. I have an emotional connection to the first 3 movies, which means it's difficult to view them objectively. Movies reflect the generation in which they were made. That?s why the majority of my movie collection (and probably of most people here) comprises of movies made within my lifetime i.e. movies made over the last circa 30 years.

Ask your average 15-30 year old which James Bond movie they prefer: 'From Russia With Love' or 'Casino Royale'? Which do you think the majority would choose? Which one would seem more passe to them? Which one is the better movie?

Click to expand...

Close, I think I would go for Casino Royale but what about comparing Goldfinger with Die another day. Or Dr No with The world is not enough? Surely no one would ever go for the Brosnan films.

Recent movies in the last 10 years have just become formulaic rubbish designed to make money. That's it. I was hoping KOTCS would not be like this.

Trust me Darth, KOTCS will not get better over time.

Ive seen KOTCS 3 times now and at first I was trying to disect it like almost every other member on here...the next time I went into it opened minded and kept saying to myself enjoy it! Its just another one of Indy's numerous adventures...So I watched it and enjoyed it a whole lot more. No sense in disecting it. Nothing you say or do will change it. Just enjoy it as another one of our heroes adventures

Blade said:

Close, I think I would go for Casino Royale but what about comparing Goldfinger with Die another day. Or Dr No with The world is not enough? Surely no one would ever go for the Brosnan films.

Click to expand...

When the Brosnan films first came out, that's exactly what kids would do. Each new Bond actor seems to be embraced by his generation, then quickly rejected once a new actor takes over. It happened to Roger Moore, then Timothy Dalton, and is currently happening to Pierce Brosnan.

I think Darth is right, since each generation does tend to be biased towards their own pop culture. Everyone wants to think their generation is the best. It's why most of the IMDB's "Top 250" list is heavily populated with films released within the last five years. Are we truly living in the single greatest era of filmmaking ever? Or has the internet simply provided kids with a greater outlet for expressing their likes and dislikes?

I also think KOTCS may fare better than expected 20, 30, or even 50 years from now. If you remove the intense scrutiny and personal expectations, it's just another lightweight adventure flick like the first three. It will certainly age much better than any of the Star Wars projects that have been released this decade. Stylistically, KOTCS sits more comfortably alongside its predecessors than the prequels do. It also features another strong central performance by the same lead actor (unlike the prequels).

An audience watching the series in the future won't be as likely to over-analyze each movie, or have a preset notion as to what direction each should've taken. Instead, they'll probably just regard them as a series of fun- albeit slightly campy- adventure movies. The Tarzan series (starring Johnny Weissmuller) is a very good example of how Indy could one day be regarded. It also began with two relatively serious films, before veering off into a more family-oriented direction. Yet the end result is still a popular series that continues to entertain audiences.