Shia: We botched the last Indiana Jones film

Darth Vile

New member
The Stranger said:
I don't think it's a matter of tact. In the case Spielberg refused to reply, I think it would more probably mean that he agrees with Shia. Plain and simple.

Don't forget that, after all, he was the one who personally apologized to the fans for "Temple of Doom". And everyone who does have a minimum sense of taste knows perfectly that "Temple of Doom" is at least 10 times better than "Kingdom" under ANY aspect.

I don't sincerely believe that Spielberg is particularly proud of the fourth Indy film. Same goes for Harrison, and now Shia. It's pretty clear to me that they only did it because they enjoyed working together, and they sort of wanted to do Lucas a favour.

At least now they seem to be inclined to admit it.

Utter tosh... Spielberg is more or less 100% responsible for what is on screen throughout KOTCS (both as a director and as a creative partner). If he believes there is something to apologise for (which I personally don't believe), then he should be man enough to do so... and not hide behind the coat tails of someone who is, more than likely, passing through celebrity. Do they secretly believe that KOTCS is significantly inferior to Raiders? I'd imagine 'yes' (the majority of us do)... but then by that criteria both Spielberg and Ford should be apologising for 95% of their output post 1981. We all wanted KOTCS to be up there with Raiders... but the fact is, Spielberg was surpassed by other action directors many years ago.. and a 70+ Ford is never going to compare with a 30 something Ford. KOTCS wasn't as good - where is the surprise?

Things can be taken out of context of course... I have neither heard or read Shia's comments verbatim. Was he talking generally or was he talking specifically about certain sections of the movie (as we all know the vine swing scene was not something to be proud of)? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt till I know otherwise... but if he is suggesting that KOTCS is worse than majority of the fodder he's appeared in, and endorsed (including the new Wall Street movie), then I'd suspect his comments to be a tad insincere and populist.
 

Prime Blue

New member
The Stranger said:
And everyone who does have a minimum sense of taste knows perfectly that "Temple of Doom" is at least 10 times better than "Kingdom" under ANY aspect.
Not if you subtract nostalgia...

Darth Vile said:
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt till I know otherwise... but if he is suggesting that KOTCS is worse than majority of the fodder he's appeared in, and endorsed (including the new Wall Street movie), then I'd suspect his comments to be a tad insincere and populist.
This, probably. I guess for some reason he felt the need to apologize, though there was really no problem at all with his performance in the movie. How he drew these conclusions about the audience is beyond me. I don't see how the average Joe might not have enjoyed KotCS as a mere summer movie.
There's the purist fans and nostalgic moviegoers who expected a Raiders rerun and would never have been satisfied anyway, and then there's the internet idiot force which bashes anything as long as others did it before. And there you have it, "public opinion". Who else actually cares about dropping the ball? Pick it up, wipe it clean, have another go. I'll be there when they do.
 

Gabeed

New member
Darth Vile said:
I'd ignore the guy above, anyone who thinks that to like a movie amounts to simply being an 'apologist' is a dick.

Also, I'd agree... If Shia wants to talk about movies that 'drop the ball', he needs to look at the Transformers movie, which never warranted a sequel in the first place, and are pretty much without any merit. Makes you wonder how much s*it Shia got for the monkey swing i.e. sounds more like peer pressure.

Maybe it's because I'm not a Transformers fan, but I don't see Transformers as having "dropped the ball" in the manner that KoTCS did. A couple Transformers movies being made, and being god-awful (which is what they were), is really not that surprising--there are no previous Transformer movies to compare them to . . .and . . .I mean, c'mon. It's about a bunch of talking alien robots who fight each other. Indy 4, on the other hand, better fits the scenario of "dropping the ball" because the Indy trilogy was generally regarded as an amazing trilogy of movies. So while I'd agree that the Transformers movies are worse movies, I find Shia apologizing for Indy 4 more apt.
 

avidfilmbuff

New member
The Stranger said:
And everyone who does have a minimum sense of taste knows perfectly that "Temple of Doom" is at least 10 times better than "Kingdom" under ANY aspect.

I don't mean to sound rude, but films, and art in general, are judged by opinions not facts. It's as simple as merely liking or disliking a film. A person could say that Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made, while another would say The Bicycle Thief is the greatest film ever made, while someone else may choose a film that nobody else even considered.

Nobody can refer to the quality of a film as a fact, that is just impossible; even if the quality of a film may seem obvious to you or me, there may be others who would strongly disagree.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Gabeed said:
Maybe it's because I'm not a Transformers fan, but I don't see Transformers as having "dropped the ball" in the manner that KoTCS did. A couple Transformers movies being made, and being god-awful (which is what they were), is really not that surprising--there are no previous Transformer movies to compare them to . . .and . . .I mean, c'mon. It's about a bunch of talking alien robots who fight each other. Indy 4, on the other hand, better fits the scenario of "dropping the ball" because the Indy trilogy was generally regarded as an amazing trilogy of movies. So while I'd agree that the Transformers movies are worse movies, I find Shia apologizing for Indy 4 more apt.

That may very well be the case, but I don't remember Jonathan Ke Quan coming out to publicly apologise for TOD after it's release (and many thought that TOD "dropped the ball" after Raiders). The fact is, he didn't need to... 1) Because the movie was good enough (despite it being largely perceived as inferior to the original). 2) Because he's a jobbing actor and he was quite happy to take the money. Same applies to Shia.

Of course Shia is entitled to make his own pronouncement on his work, and I'm still unclear as to wether he's being critical of himself (based on personal feedback) or wether it's a veiled critique on Spielberg. My point being is that I'm not sure Shia has a large enough and qualitative CV to take a moral high ground on any movie.
 

seasider

Active member
In fairness to the Transformers movies, they weren't made to please film critics. They were made to entertain summer moviegoers and make money and in that respect the movies delivered raking in a combined gross of about about 1.5 billion.

Most people don't realize that KOTCS ended up with a worldwide box office take of $786 million which isn't Avatar business but still pretty solid for a film that was released in a very competitive summer season. Rottentomatoes also shows has it 77% fresh. So where was the ball dropped? I think it was just a case of the voices of the haters of the film being much louder than those that liked it. Most people I know who liked the movie, just like it and aren't that passionate about expressing their approval of the film. It's possible that as time goes, people will soften up a bit on the movie but it's hard to tell in the information age.
 

Darth Vile

New member
seasider said:
In fairness to the Transformers movies, they weren't made to please film critics. They were made to entertain summer moviegoers and make money and in that respect the movies delivered raking in a combined gross of about about 1.5 billion.

Most people don't realize that KOTCS ended up with a worldwide box office take of $786 million which isn't Avatar business but still pretty solid for a film that was released in a very competitive summer season. Rottentomatoes also shows has it 77% fresh. So where was the ball dropped? I think it was just a case of the voices of the haters of the film being much louder than those that liked it. Most people I know who liked the movie, just like it and aren't that passionate about expressing their approval of the film. It's possible that as time goes, people will soften up a bit on the movie but it's hard to tell in the information age.

To be fair, as someone who likes the movie, I think the debate has moved on. It seems that most people readily accept that KOTCS was a hugely popular movie, if somewhat a lesser movie than the other sequels. However, there is a schism (amongst the fan community at least) between those who think the movie was good enough, and those who believe it wasn't (or even worse, that it tarnishes the reputation of the series).

For me personally, I always hoped it would be up there with Raiders and TLC, but ultimately I knew that a middle aged Spielberg and Ford couldn't compete with their glory days... and I stand by my original opinion (when first speculating about Indy IV) that no matter how good the movie could potentially be, it was a flawed premise i.e. a crusty Ford playing an even crustier Indiana Jones, done in the style of a 1980's action movie.

I'm glad KOTCS was made, I thought it was resoundingly "good enough" (I thought many elements worked better than the other sequels), and I even enjoyed Johnny Williams' OST. However, I'm increasingly of the opinion that if I were Lucas/Spielberg and Ford, I wouldn't touch Indy V with a barge pole
 

Indy's brother

New member
Prime Blue said:
And there you have it, "public opinion". Who else actually cares about dropping the ball? Pick it up, wipe it clean, have another go. I'll be there when they do.

In all sincerity I for one couldn't give a toss about Shia, his character, or his comments on the character. The only interest I have are ramifications of, or indications in his comments on the status of Indy 5.

I will be right standing right next to you in line at the box office for that one.

In spirit, Prime Blue. I'm not stalking you.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Although we havent seen his comments in full, the reports I've read start with talking about the monkey scene so I assume his set of comments are in relation to that particualr scene?

The actor's job is to make it come alive and make it work, and I couldn't do it. So that's my fault. Simple."

Going further, LaBeouf said his co-star Harrison Ford agreed with his opinion of the movie.

We had major discussions. He wasn't happy with it either," the actor is quoted as saying.

"Look, the movie could have been updated. There was a reason it wasn't universally accepted."

But LaBeouf said he was not worried about upsetting his mentor Steven Spielberg, who directed the film.

"I'll probably get a call," LaBeouf said, "but he needs to hear this. I love him."

"He's done so much great work that there's no need for him to feel vulnerable about one film. But when you drop the ball, you drop the ball.'


Someone mentioned earlier that if he was man enough he should have spoken up when promoting the film. There is no way on this earth an actor in one of the best loved series in film history is going to slate it during the promo interviews.

Maybe its a cheap shot speaking up now, but I still think hes talking in relation to that one scene that isnt the most convincing of the film. Maybe hes responding to some of the criticism thats been circulating on the net? But then again, the movie is now 2 years old, so why dig it up now?

For me there are plenty of worse aspects to the film than the monkey scene though.
 

The Tingler

New member
Darth Vile said:
For me personally, I always hoped it would be up there with Raiders and TLC, but ultimately I knew that a middle aged Spielberg and Ford couldn't compete with their glory days... and I stand by my original opinion (when first speculating about Indy IV) that no matter how good the movie could potentially be, it was a flawed premise i.e. a crusty Ford playing an even crustier Indiana Jones, done in the style of a 1980's action movie.

I'm on the "good enough" side too, but I disagree with the assertion that it was bad from the beginning. I'm of the opinion that if just a number of tweaks and frankly simple changes were made here and there the movie would be massively improved, even if it's just to up the tension/pace and downsize the unsubtle parts.
 

Darth Vile

New member
AndyLGR said:
Someone mentioned earlier that if he was man enough he should have spoken up when promoting the film. There is no way on this earth an actor in one of the best loved series in film history is going to slate it during the promo interviews.

Maybe its a cheap shot speaking up now, but I still think hes talking in relation to that one scene that isnt the most convincing of the film. Maybe hes responding to some of the criticism thats been circulating on the net? But then again, the movie is now 2 years old, so why dig it up now?

I mentioned that if another posters assertion is true, that Spielberg himself doesn't like the movie, then Spielberg should be man enough to speak for himself rather than use Shia as a mouth piece.

The Tingler said:
I'm on the "good enough" side too, but I disagree with the assertion that it was bad from the beginning. I'm of the opinion that if just a number of tweaks and frankly simple changes were made here and there the movie would be massively improved, even if it's just to up the tension/pace and downsize the unsubtle parts.

I agree. Some small tweaks would have improved KOTCS threefold. Hell, moving the vine swing and monkeys alone would have avoided much of the criticism here. However, some of the more substantial criticism about lack of suspense, being over sentimental etc. is (IMHO) more to do with Spielberg's direction i.e. he's a different director than he was 30 years ago, he's a bit more pedestrian when it comes to fictional story telling, and action movies (and the way they are made) have moved on. I still firmly believe that if KOTCS would have been released in the 80's, with a younger Ford, people (as in more of the fan community) would have been a lot more willing to accept it.
 
Last edited:

AndyLGR

Active member
Darth Vile said:
I mentioned that if another posters assertion is true, that Spielberg himself doesn't like the movie, then Spielberg should be man enough to speak for himself rather than use Shia as a mouth piece.
It will be interesting to hear his response (if he gives one of course), but I'm sure that whenever he next makes an appearance or gives an interview that the comments Shia has made will be broached by the reporter in question.


Darth Vile said:
I still firmly believe that if KOTCS would have been released in the 80's, with a younger Ford, people (as in more of the fan community) would have been a lot more willing to accept it.
I think this is spot on, a 19 year gap is so huge that expectation would go beyond those of a normal gap of roughly 3 years between the originals. For me the problems of the film not only relate to the scene Shia mentioned but also the story. So in addition, a lot of the blame also rests with the whole team of creators, not just one actor. But thats just my view, there are people here that love this movie and will disagree with any negativity.
 

Dene

New member
I hope this isn't too off-topic, but all this debate about what Spielberg may think of Indy 4 reminds me of this interesting section in an interview he gave in June 2002 when Minority Report came out:
He says he doesn’t analyse his films, but he watches himself all the time. In fact, he deliberately waits for up to four years before watching his films after their release.

“I’ve been shocked by how bad one of my movies is when I thought it was so brilliant at the time and also by how brilliant something is that I’d dismissed as a piece of fluff.”

“Which ones?”

“I’m not saying.”
Now, what do we think these are? I'm going for Amistad and Last Crusade -- that Ford/Connery combo is hard to beat.
 

Sharkey

Guest
Botched is right. These guys phoned in Crystal Skull and profited on the Phantom Menace business model. Old (Harrison) Fat (Lucas) and Lazy (Spielberg) doesn't make for a good film.

Meaning: Don't care, Over indulgent, and Resigned.
 

JuniorJones

TR.N Staff Member
I think this thread is becoming rather distastful and disrespectful. It's very sorry to see people lose their perspectives and objectivity over something so trivial.

Lets see a bit more Loooooooooooove!
 

Darth Vile

New member
Sharkey said:
Botched is right. These guys phoned in Crystal Skull and profited on the Phantom Menace business model. Old (Harrison) Fat (Lucas) and Lazy (Spielberg) doesn't make for a good film.

Meaning: Don't care, Over indulgent, and Resigned.

If that's the case I take my hat off to them... for being able to take the money out of the hands of ole' cynics like you... ;)
 

Sharkey

Guest
Darth Vile said:
If that's the case I take my hat off to them... for being able to take the money out of the hands of ole' cynics like you... ;)
Love is blind, not hope...and who said they got ANY money out of me?
If that idea makes you happy, who cares what YOU think about Indiana Jones.
 
Top