Spielberg Interview = Less Violence In KCS

The Man said:

How long after Doom did Spielberg start to express his regrets? He could hardly start slagging it that early after its release.

Click to expand...

Good question. Probably a few years later. You can't talk crap on your own film while it's making you mucho money. That?s simply not good business and unfortunately filmmaking is more a business then an art form these days. I chock that up to George Lucas himself. He paved the greedy golden bricked road. But time will tell. True opinions only stay inside when the PR is going down. I think Steve will inevitably bash Crystal Skull. I know a ton of people that disliked Temple of Doom and then felt it was elevated to a worthy status when Crystal Skull was released.

MaxPhactor23 said:

I know a ton of people that disliked Temple of Doom and then felt it was elevated to a worthy status when Crystal Skull was released.

Click to expand...

I read someone say "Crystal Skull is the reason Temple of Doom need worry no longer". I admit I chuckled like an evil villian.

Quickening said:

I read someone say "Crystal Skull is the reason Temple of Doom need worry no longer". I admit I chuckled like an evil villian.

Click to expand...

I've seen few people place Crystal Skull above any of the original films, whether they liked it or not. I've not seen anyone say it was their favorite. That would be absurd in my eye. Either that or it's their first Indy film.

MaxPhactor23 said:

I've seen few people place Crystal Skull above any of the original films, whether they liked it or not. I've not seen anyone say it was their favorite. That would be absurd in my eye. Either that or it's their first Indy film.

Click to expand...

That's something that worries me. Im tempted to take my ten year old nephew to see the film. He has watched and loved the originals but Im curious as to how he will react to this one. Just because has been brought up seeing CGI and just generally the kind of film Crystal Skull is. Maybe he'd prefer it over the others for that reason.

EDIT: And the reason it worries me is that if they find a mass audience that loves KOTCS with the younger generation then you can bet on more of the same.

Quickening said:

That's something that worries me. Im tempted to take my ten year old nephew to see the film. He has watched and loved the originals but Im curious as to how he will react to this one. Just because has been brought up seeing CGI and just generally the kind of film Crystal Skull is. Maybe he'd prefer it over the others for that reason.

EDIT: And the reason it worries me is that if they find a mass audience that loves KOTCS with the younger generation then you can bet on more of the same.

Click to expand...

I can only tell you which route I’d go. I’d pass on taking him to Crystal Skull and show him Iron Man or Hulk instead. I’d saved the classic Jones pictures for a special private home viewing. I would want my child to grow up knowing what Indiana Jones conceptually was. Crystal Skull was far more of a 50's social commentary then it ever was an Indiana Jones movie. In my opinion, if you show a child Crystal Skull first, their idea of Indiana Jones will be skewed for life. It’s too different from what the former films represented. It’s sort of like how I’m going to raise my children upon the classic original Star Wars trilogy. Those prequels will come later…if ever.

MaxPhactor23 said:

I can only tell you which route I?d go. I?d pass on taking him to Crystal Skull and show him Iron Man or Hulk instead. I?d saved the classic Jones pictures for a special private home viewing. I would want my child to grow up knowing what Indiana Jones conceptually was. Crystal Skull was far more of a 50's social commentary then it ever was an Indiana Jones movie. In my opinion, if you show a child Crystal Skull first, their idea of Indiana Jones will be skewed for life. It?s too different from what the former films represented. It?s sort of like how I?m going to raise my children upon the classic original Star Wars trilogy. Those prequels will come later?if ever.

Click to expand...

I agree. KOTCS is not what Indiana Jones is. It misses the mark in some respects. Those that have seen the original trilogy can get where it's coming from and see some of the old spark but I think KOTCS wouldn't give anyone who had never seen an Indy movie before the right impression. In fact, it might make them assume the others suck because it fails at making it's hero "Indiana Jones" truly shine like he does in the old ones.

... maybe KOTCS really didn't need to be made. I kinda liked it, but only because it was Indiana Jones, I realize.

I agree too. I hate to sound bitter, but I’ve always seen Crystal Skull as unnecessary exposition. Lets face it, we didn’t need a fourth film. It just wasn’t required. Riding off into the sunset was the ideal farewell to the character of Indiana Jones. A wedding…not so much! Crystal Skull would give the wrong impression of Indiana Jones to a young and susceptible child. It would be like showing a little boy a James Bond story in which he never fires his gun and settles down. You’ve just ruined (for the little kid) one of the main attractions people have had to the character for decades. You just can’t do it! To be perfectly honest, I’m getting tired of revival films to begin with. What’s with this unoriginal Hollywood trend anyway? Lets reanimate a long dead franchise some two decades later…because we’ve run out of new and fresh ideas. I’m getting tired of them feeding off our nostalgia, and usually these revival films scar more then entertain. I wish some franchises could just be left to die with dignity.

MaxPhactor23 said:

I agree too. I hate to sound bitter, but I?ve always seen Crystal Skull as unnecessary exposition. Lets face it, we didn?t need a fourth film. It just wasn?t required. Riding off into the sunset was the ideal farewell to the character of Indiana Jones. A wedding?not so much! Crystal Skull would give the wrong impression of Indiana Jones to a young and susceptible child. It would be like showing a little boy a James Bond story in which he never fires his gun and settles down. You?ve just ruined (for the little kid) one of the main attractions people have had to the character for decades. You just can?t do it! To be perfectly honest, I?m getting tired of revival films to begin with. What?s with this unoriginal Hollywood trend anyway? Lets reanimate a long dead franchise some two decades later?because we?ve run out of new and fresh ideas. I?m getting tired of them feeding off our nostalgia, and usually these revival films scar more then entertain. I wish some franchises could just be left to die with dignity.

Click to expand...

I think the whole superhero movie/revived franchise thing is running out of steam personally. I wanted them to make another Indiana Jones so badly but I knew we didn't need another one. Now that they have (along with more rambo/rocky, etc.) I'm feeling satisfied. There's really nothing else I care to see "revived." And they can't make an Indy movie as good as Last Crusade again so what's the point in making a fifth? They can't top the old ones and they could probably only pull off something slightly better than KOTCS.

And if they want to f'n prove me wrong then do it, but for the love of God get it right this time. Indy shoots people!

MaxPhactor23 said:

I agree too. I hate to sound bitter, but I’ve always seen Crystal Skull as unnecessary exposition. Lets face it, we didn’t need a fourth film. It just wasn’t required. Riding off into the sunset was the ideal farewell to the character of Indiana Jones. A wedding…not so much! Crystal Skull would give the wrong impression of Indiana Jones to a young and susceptible child. It would be like showing a little boy a James Bond story in which he never fires his gun and settles down. You’ve just ruined (for the little kid) one of the main attractions people have had to the character for decades. You just can’t do it! To be perfectly honest, I’m getting tired of revival films to begin with. What’s with this unoriginal Hollywood trend anyway? Lets reanimate a long dead franchise some two decades later…because we’ve run out of new and fresh ideas. I’m getting tired of them feeding off our nostalgia, and usually these revival films scar more then entertain. I wish some franchises could just be left to die with dignity.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%. Sometimes they pull it off. To me, Rambo and Rocky were successful returns to form (especially Rambo). Die Hard and Indy... not so much. Of course people will agree and disagree with which of those was a success but it just seems very hit and miss and it's perhaps better to let these things lie.

It actually irritated me when in an interview one of the three, when asked how they could follow on to the perfect sunset ending in Crusade, said "well that was the ending of that film, not the series". Nonsense. I can't count the number of times Ive seen them say in interviews that Last Crusade was going to be the final film and that they all felt the sunset ending was the perfect way to end it. There has been a strange amount of skullduggery from the three through this. Promises of minimal CGI, making it for the fans, it not being a father son film...

And the wedding ending bothered me. I have no problem with Indy being married in principle, but not in this slap bang manner. Since when was Indiana Jones a soap opera? Yet sometimes I feel like im in a twilight zone because I see people saying things like "Indy always wanted a family" and "Marion was always his true love". And Im thinking, "since when?"

Quickening said:

Agree 100%. Sometimes they pull it off. To me, Rambo and Rocky were successful returns to form (especially Rambo). Die Hard and Indy... not so much. Of course people will agree and disagree with which of those was a success but it just seems very hit and miss and it's perhaps better to let these things lie.

It actually irritated me when in an interview one of the three, when asked how they could follow on to the perfect sunset ending in Crusade, said "well that was the ending of that film, not the series". Nonsense. I can't count the number of times Ive seen them say in interviews that Last Crusade was going to be the final film and that they all felt the sunset ending was the perfect way to end it. There has been a strange amount of skullduggery from the three through this. Promises of minimal CGI, making it for the fans, it not being a father son film...

And the wedding ending bothered me. I have no problem with Indy being married in principle, but not in this slap bang manner. Since when was Indiana Jones a soap opera? Yet sometimes I feel like im in a twilight zone because I see people saying things like "Indy always wanted a family" and "Marion was always his true love". And Im thinking, "since when?"

Click to expand...

That's a great way to put it. KOTCS is like Indiana Jones in the Twilight Zone. haha.

MaxPhactor23 said:

The crispy commies cooked by the rocket sled wouldn't exactly be seen in a Disney picture.

Click to expand...

You haven't seen the Piarates of the Caribbean movies have you? They are Disney films and far more violent than KOTCS. I don't see what the nig deal is about the crispy commies. It's just a 2 second shot of commies engulfed in CGI fire.

MolaRam2 said:

I don't see what the big deal is about the crispy commies. It's just a 2 second shot of commies engulfed in CGI fire.

Click to expand...

Yeah but "Mola Ram" would say that

Quickening said:

That's something that worries me. Im tempted to take my ten year old nephew to see the film. He has watched and loved the originals but Im curious as to how he will react to this one. Just because has been brought up seeing CGI and just generally the kind of film Crystal Skull is. Maybe he'd prefer it over the others for that reason.

EDIT: And the reason it worries me is that if they find a mass audience that loves KOTCS with the younger generation then you can bet on more of the same.

Click to expand...

You'd really keep him from watching it because he might actually LIKE it? You're worried that it would be his favorite Indiana Jones movie? That's nuts! That's like somebody in 1981 refusing to take kids to see Raiders because it's not as good as [whatever that Charleton Heston movie is called that supposedly was ripped off by RotLA].

I mean...I understand where you're coming from. OUR childhood memories are so much better than this generation's childhood memories. But it just seems kind of odd to keep new movies away from a kid just so they won't like them better than your favorite old movies. Let the kid see it! Do you really think he's going to walk out of the theater and say "yes! That movie rocked solely due to the fact that Indiana Jones never shot anybody with a gun!".

I took my five year old son to watch KotCS and he loved it. (He doesn't play favorites like we do--he likes all four Indy movies the same.) I didn't love the movie myself, but seeing Indy in the theater with my son and seeing him get excited seriously made the whole experience worthwhile. Well, that and being able to buy M&M bags with Harrison Ford's sexy face on them.

[edited slightly because the post came off sounding more insulting than I had wanted it to. please accept my apologies. I'm just goofing off, here. no serious insults intended]

CasualJeff said:

You goof--you'd really keep him from watching it because he might actually LIKE it? You're worried that it would be his favorite Indiana Jones movie? That's nuts! That's like somebody in 1981 refusing to take kids to see Raiders because it's not as good as [whatever that Charleton Heston movie is called that supposedly was ripped off by RotLA].

I mean...I understand where you're coming from. OUR childhood memories are so much better than this generation's childhood memories. But it just seems kind of odd to keep new movies away from a kid just so they won't like them better than your favorite old movies. Let the kid see it! Do you really think he's going to walk out of the theater and say "yes! That movie rocked solely due to the fact that Indiana Jones never shot anybody with a gun!".

I took my five year old son to watch KotCS and he loved it. (He doesn't play favorites like we do--he likes all four Indy movies the same.) I didn't love the movie myself, but seeing Indy in the theater with my son and seeing him get excited seriously made the whole experience worthwhile. Well, that and being able to buy M&M bags with Harrison Ford's sexy face on them.

Click to expand...

No I wouldn't be worried if my nephew liked it or not. But if he did then Id worry that it was a sign that maybe this is what the new generation wants and thus is what we can expect more of.

Quickening said:

No I wouldn't be worried if my nephew liked it or not. But if he did then Id worry that it was a sign that maybe this is what the new generation wants and thus is what we can expect more of.

Click to expand...

I can see your point. But I think he should see the originals FIRST. Just like we did. Then if it's his favorite well.....

No Ticket said:

I can see your point. But I think he should see the originals FIRST. Just like we did. Then if it's his favorite well.....

Click to expand...

Yeah he has seen the originals and loves them. So Im interested to see what someone of his age makes of the new one.

Quickening said:

No I wouldn't be worried if my nephew liked it or not. But if he did then Id worry that it was a sign that maybe this is what the new generation wants and thus is what we can expect more of.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but he's just one kid. Keeping him away from bad movies won't stop bad movies from being made. Might as well let him enjoy it and have a nice bonding moment.

I remember being somewhat reluctant to take my son, since Indy movies are typically violent. (The original movies are on video, so I can skip over the gorier scenes) Going into the movie, I had thought "I hope they don't go TOO overboard with the gruesome deaths...". And then walking out of the theater, all I could think was "her eyes caught on fire? That's it???"

CasualJeff said:

Yeah, but he's just one kid. Keeping him away from bad movies won't stop bad movies from being made. Might as well let him enjoy it and have a nice bonding moment.

I remember being somewhat reluctant to take my son, since Indy movies are typically violent. (The original movies are on video, so I can skip over the gorier scenes) Going into the movie, I had thought "I hope they don't go TOO overboard with the gruesome deaths...". And then walking out of the theater, all I could think was "her eyes caught on fire? That's it???"

Click to expand...

Hehe, actually I went to see it with my mum first because we spend so little time with each other and it was a special "motherly" thing for her since I loved Indy all my life. It was her that first suggested I take my nephew but she changed her mind after the big henchmans death by the ants. Im not sure if that is too much for a ten year old. But if he has seen the originals then I can't imagine why not.

Death by ants is bad, but melting faces/hearts being ripped out/aging a thousand years in ten seconds is okay?

I made sure my little brother saw the originals before the new one, and he puts this one behind Raiders. I laugh at such silly notions, but whatever.

Quickening said:

Hehe, actually I went to see it with my mum first because we spend so little time with each other and it was a special "motherly" thing for her since I loved Indy all my life. It was her that first suggested I take my nephew but she changed her mind after the big henchmans death by the ants. Im not sure if that is too much for a ten year old. But if he has seen the originals then I can't imagine why not.

Click to expand...

How can a 10 year old not handle KOTCS? This movie was obviously made for 5 year olds or it wouldn't have the cutesy cgi animals and a lack of real horror.