What do you dislike about Indy 4?

TennesseBuck

New member
Hey Hammond, I appreciate the idea that someone hates E.T. I don't hate it, but it is nice to know that not everyone agrees with the positive assessment from critics at the time, or for that matter, the audience. Back in 1982, when i told my friends I liked E.T., I was banished from their friendship. Kids preferred RAIDERS, as do I.

As for AI, it wasn't just Spielberg but the Kubrick Estate as well (Jan Harlan and Christiane Kubrick) who said that Spielman was always intended to direct the film, not Kubrick. The ending was fairly close to Kubrick's version except for *SPOILER*

>>>>the vision of the robot's mother slowly disappeared when she is reintroduced by the advanced computer mechas. Spielman changed that considerably. Check out AI DVD, if you dare, and there was a screenwriting magazine that went into detail on the production and Kubrick's original notes. I'll have to check to see if I still have it :)
 

Kingsley

Member
loganbush said:
Alien, no. But I think they won't be involved prominently fro what we've seen. I hate Shia with a passion, he's just not right for this role.
If Aliens are only mentioned as some kind of origin for an artifact or civilization, that's enough for me to dislike the alien concept.

TennesseBuck said:
As for AI, it wasn't just Spielberg but the Kubrick Estate as well (Jan Harlan and Christiane Kubrick) who said that Spielman was always intended to direct the film, not Kubrick. The ending was fairly close to Kubrick's version except for *SPOILER*
Yes, AI begins like a Kubrick film and seems forced by Spielberg to reach some kind of happy ending when that wasn't possible anymore. It's one of those Spielberg movies that are very extreme in their good and bad points. But it has a lot of good points!!
 

Barty

New member
ClintonHammond said:
"The "aliens" are actually far more developed versions of the films "mechas""
Then I'm even more vindicated, because that doesn't play out at all!

Actually, what is shows is you couldn't even follow the basics of the plot, nullifying your criticisms. If you think Aliens showing up on Earth makes more sense than Mechas becoming the last remnant of a lost humanity than I don't know what to say. The entire film of A.I. covers the three stages of theoretical A.I. development. The first is A.I. being used as helpers to humans, the second is A.I. becoming undifferentiated from humans, and the third is the A.I. supplanting humans.
 

AHegele

New member
The only things are have me a little (not even that really) worried are

1. Lucas shelving a script Spielberg called "the best Raiders screenplay he ever read".

2. The lack of locations outside the U.S. Come on guys, this is an INDY feature!
 

No Ticket

New member
Most of what I don't like has already been listed. I'm not entirely confident Lucas really knows what he is talking about artistically. I mean, the last good movie he directed was ANH. Yes, ROTS is cool but anybody could have directed that and made it cool. It's not that hard, you just throw Darth Vader into a lava pit with Obi-Wan and have them duel. I'm sure if someone else had done it, we would've had all the cool parts of the movie retained while the lame ones were thrown out. Lucas is just.... kind of lame, honestly. He's a geek who just happened to fantasize about two cool ideas that hundreds of other people helped flesh out into something worth a damn.

Spielberg is a good director. I stand by that notion. I like most of his movies, although the ones of the last seven years or so are not exactly my favorites. The last movie he directed that I'd consider something awesome was Saving Private Ryan. I realize he's done other cool films, but nothing was really all that special to me to place it in any kind of special recognition. WOW was a good movie but I wouldn't call it "classic" or anything by any means.

Clinton has got it perfectly 100% right on Ford. Well, maybe 90%. I don't think he was too old to play Indy last time. But I think it might be true this time, we'll see I guess. But more so, Ford definitely hasn't done any really good movies in the past 10 years... that's a sad fact. And part of the reason is his typecasting problem. In addition to the fact that I think he probably just picks crappy projects to work on like K-19 or whatever it was. I didn't really like that or What Lies Beneath (which is technically a MP movie, not a Ford movie)... and Hollywood Homicide.... I want to pretend that didn't exist. Please. Someone tell me that was a bad dream. Firewall was slightly better but still bland and weak. That's not the kind of thing Ford needs to be associated with. He's so much better than that.

... in addition, Lucas shelving that script also worries me. That just makes me think of how much Lucas THINKS he knows about his own franchises but maybe he doesn't. I mean, decisions like that led to the prequel trilogy killing the childhood memories of thousands of fans. lol.

I think Lucas and Spielberg and Ford are all well... getting OLD. I think it affects their creativity, their decisions and etc. A younger Spielberg didn't care about guns in E.T., an older one thinks he does. I think they've lost some of the drive and spark that young people have to prove themselves because they all feel as though they have proved what they can do. Now their passion is fading as they have milked it for all it's worth.

I guess we'll see what happens. Hopefully all of them can pull it the hell together for ONE film at least and make something as good as they did almost twenty years ago.

... the ark coming back is a dumb idea... double-edged sword in how it could be cool and also destroy the ending of Raiders.

... Shia being Indy's son. I really didn't want Indy to have a son... seems soooooo................. expected. A daughter would've bee a nice twist but I guess at his age, not having any kids and going adventuring would be weird. I don't necessarily hate the idea. I'm just not gung-ho until I see how they did it.

... Marion's back. Whoop de doo. Unlike some, I don't have a childhood crush on her (based on SOME of the threads I've visited ;)) and I think she's back for nostalgic reasons to link you back to the older trilogy than anything. I guess it might be cool.

... Aliens. If it has aliens in it. That just kind of sounds dumb. I'm trying to be open minded. But then I visualize an alien standing next to Indiana Jones.



But despite myself sounding very negative. I am excited for the movie and hope it's awesome.
 

Niteshade007

New member
I agree with a lot of your points, No Ticket, as I often do.

Aliens are just such a bad idea for Indy. You'd think that would be obvious to ANYONE, especially the people who created Indy, but then you look at the films they made, and well...they definitely have an interest in the supernatural.

I hope that the alien rumor is false. I also really hope that the whole rumor about the ark returning is false. I don't really believe everything I read, but if it is true that the ark is returning, it will really be a disappointment for me. Don't get me wrong, I think the ark was the best artifact Indy went after, far more interesting than the stones or the grail in my opinion, but it would be way too obvious that they were trying to recreate Raiders' magic by bringing back the ark.

Strangely, though, I am perfectly alright with them bringing back Marion. Perhaps it's because she was my favorite Indy girl (although she is, in my opinion, the least attractive. She looks good, but the two that followed were far better looking.) I also don't have the fanboy crush on her, I just liked her characterization. It's also nice that they aren't bringing in a younger actress to play the love interest. As much as I love Cate Blanchett, and no matter how badly I wanted her to be Indy's love interest when I first heard of her joining the cast, now it seems a bit ridiculous to think that Blanchett would interested in a man Ford's age. I mean, people have gone for someone twice their age in movies before (look at anything Cary Grant did later in life, particularly films like Charade and North by Northwest, those women were half his age). But Ford lacks the same gentlemanly charm that Grant possessed. Ford is seen more as a ruffian, especially in the Indy films, and while women do find it attractive, it is more attractive in younger men.

Shia as Indy's son is also retreading old ground, however, I don't really care one way or the other with this one. I think a daughter would have been a more interesting idea, but I'm not particularly upset or excited about Indy having a son.
 

Kingsley

Member
No Ticket said:
But more so, Ford definitely hasn't done any really good movies in the past 10 years... that's a sad fact.
What Lies Beneath isn't a bad movie... It's not the Fugitive, but its still the best movie Ford did in the past 10 years, truth is he is not the main character.
Actors have only the power of choosing good projects... they themselves can't turn something bad into something good only with their presence. At least if they are a limited type of actor as Ford. In the last 10 years he chose poorly ;)
Give him Indy and the last 10 years doesn't mean anything.

No Ticket said:
A younger Spielberg didn't care about guns in E.T., an older one thinks he does.
He changed the guns in E.T., but he made Tom Cruise kill a man with cold blood in War of the Worlds, and he played with a blurred line of moral ambiguity in Munich. Munich was probably his best movie since "Ryan", and it was his last.

Lucas, I will not defend him... he worries me. If he could he would have put Hayden Christensen as Indianas son.
 

No Ticket

New member
Kingsley said:
Munich was probably his best movie since "Ryan", and it was his last.

Lucas, I will not defend him... he worries me. If he could he would have put Hayden Christensen as Indianas son.

... I didn't like Munich much. I thought it was interesting, but not a GREAT film. .... lol @ the Christensen remark.
 

Kingsley

Member
No Ticket said:
... I didn't like Munich much.
It was more personal than others I think... It's not a pleasant movie, but I liked it very much. Another good movie was Minority Report. If Indy 4 is in that level I will be pleased.
 

Zorg

New member
I also think that Munich was an excellent film. The thing is that it's just so different from the Indy genre. Does Spielberg still got it with the kind of light-hearted action adventure film?

I think he does. And the proof is in the ComicCon video message from the set. I just don't think you can fake the kind of enthusiasm.

And the case of Ford. It is true the last decade hasn't been good for him artistically. He just has made bad choices, choices that surely bought him easy money but didn't challenge him as an actor. But there's something interesting coming. He's revisiting the favorite character of his career. He's making Crossing Over. All this is a strong indication that Ford wants to come back with a bang.
 
"someone hates E.T."
E.T. is a tragically flawed piece of over-sentimental tripe (One thing that Steven does over and over and over....) It has a glaring plot-hole that I even noticed the first time I saw it in theatres.... (I was 12)

"Check out AI DVD"
Barf... I sat through that POS once already... I'm not doing it again. Nor am I putting any money into whats-his-faces bank account.
 

Niteshade007

New member
ClintonHammond said:
E.T. is a tragically flawed piece of over-sentimental tripe (One thing that Steven does over and over and over....) It has a glaring plot-hole that I even noticed the first time I saw it in theatres.... (I was 12)

Just out of curiosity, what plot hole is that? I haven't seen the movie since I was a kid (and I didn't like it then), so I don't really remember much of the movie. I do remember going on the ride at Universal, and all the other aliens calling him ET, which I thought was odd, since that kid named him ET, didn't he? And even if he didn't, other aliens wouldn't call another extraterrestrial ET, it doesn't really make sense.
 

chapter11

Well-known member
Here's something I dislike: That this thread has significantly more replies than the "What do you like about Indy 4" thread. People, come on! We're getting a new Indiana Jones movie. Where's the excitement? :gun: :eek:
 

JimmyPSHayes

New member
chapter11 said:
Here's something I dislike: That this thread has significantly more replies than the "What do you like about Indy 4" thread. People, come on! We're getting a new Indiana Jones movie. Where's the excitement? :gun: :eek:
I have to agree with you, but since I'm posting in here, I better come up with something. So here's my gripes:
Aliens-They have NO PLACE in an Indy movie, in my opinion. I really am not interested in seeing aliens with Indy. If I want that, I'll watch Star Wars.
The only other thing that I don't like about this movie is that it took TOO LONG getting made!:D
 
"what plot hole is that?"
The most memorable shot from that movie is Elliot and his passel of nerd friends flying on their bikes in front of the moon... If ET can FLY, when the FK didn't he fly after the ship that left him behind and save us from having to sit through that 2 hour saccharine fest! It was over-sweet enough to kill diabetics at 300 paces!

BIG FN Plot Hole... That Steven didn't turn to Mathison and ask "WTF?!?!" is just another example of him being a lame director.

"Where's the excitement?"
Where's good reason to BE excited?
 

AHegele

New member
ClintonHammond said:
"what plot hole is that?"
The most memorable shot from that movie is Elliot and his passel of nerd friends flying on their bikes in front of the moon... If ET can FLY, when the FK didn't he fly after the ship that left him behind and save us from having to sit through that 2 hour saccharine fest! It was over-sweet enough to kill diabetics at 300 paces!

BIG FN Plot Hole... That Steven didn't turn to Mathison and ask "WTF?!?!" is just another example of him being a lame director.

"Where's the excitement?"
Where's good reason to BE excited?

In that rational, since a bird can fly, why the f*ck doesn't he go to the moon?

Or a 747? If a penguian has wings, why can't THEY fly?

blah blah blah.... It's not a plot hole, you are just reaching for anything you can get.
 

chapter11

Well-known member
ClintonHammond said:
The most memorable shot from that movie is Elliot and his passel of nerd friends flying on their bikes in front of the moon... If ET can FLY, when the FK didn't he fly after the ship that left him behind and save us from having to sit through that 2 hour saccharine fest! It was over-sweet enough to kill diabetics at 300 paces!

That's your plot hole? Lame, man. Lame.

ClintonHammond said:
"Where's the excitement?"
Where's good reason to BE excited?

Oh, Clinty. If you're going to put me on your ignore list, at least be consistent about it and have the decency not to quote me.

JimmyPSHayes said:
So here's my gripes: Aliens-They have NO PLACE in an Indy movie, in my opinion. I really am not interested in seeing aliens with Indy. If I want that, I'll watch Star Wars.

I mostly agree with this, although I recently saw a fascinating documentary on "Ancient Aliens" on History Channel or Discovery or one of those stations. I think the whole theory that it was aliens that Moses saw, etc. etc., is ridiculous... but no more so than the idea that it was God or an angel or whatever. Anyway, my point is that if the story raises this possibility, and Indy reacts skeptically to it and disproves it... then I'm OK with Aliens. Do I want him fighting them or watching the mothership land? No, but I can't imagine they're headed in that direction. And in the context of the UFO-obsessed 1950s, it even kind of fits.
 
Last edited:
"If a penguian(sic.) has wings, why can't THEY fly? "
Duh.... One word.... Aerodynamics... For the exact same reason an Ostrich can't fly, even though it has wings... Do you need that spelt out for you?

"In that rational, since a bird can fly, why the f*ck doesn't he go to the moon?"
Hardly.... that a bird can't fly to the moon is completely 100% consistent with the mechanics of how it can fly... It requires air pressure and lift and such... not to mention air to breath...

E.T. on the other hand is tragically internally inconsistent.... That's why it's flawed... It pulls this horribly lame, contrived "Deux Ex Machina" out of its leathery little alien butt that completely flies in the face of the basic premise of the entire movie. If you LIKE the movie, that fine and jim-dandy.... But let's not for a SECOND try to pretend that the story isn't flawed.... and for me it's flawed so badly that I cannot endure it. If that little, big-eyed, turd-looking puppet can fly, how the F did he get left behind?!?!?!

You wouldn't swallow it so easily if, for example, one scene of a movie stated that something is supposed to be 5 feet tall, and then later, that thing towered over a character you KNOW is bigger than 5 feet tall.... Or maybe you would swallow that... Maybe I just expect more... and I'm not saying that as an insult to anyone else.... Everyone gets different mileage out of entertainment....

But there is a big difference between "Like & Dislike" and "Good & Bad".... Feel free to take a half-way decent critical thinking class if you require more information on that subject.
 

oki9Sedo

New member
Kingsley said:
This is the dark side of the other thread... because you can like things you know so far about Indy4, but there are surely things you don't like that much. Mine...

- I don't like the title... Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is too long and too static... and it has the crystal skulls in it!!
- I don't like the crystal skulls rumour
- I don't like the aliens rumour :sick:
- I don't like the lack of foreign filming locations

But that's pretty much all I can remember now, not so bad then...

I don't like the lack of foreign filming locations either, but I'll reserve judgement until May 22nd.
 

AHegele

New member
Clint, so you are pissed because they didn't explain how the mechanics of their alien worked? Would you have liked a BBC documentary on his species prior to viewing?

Dude, you have no idea how that organism works, so stop pretending like its some great plot hole. The penguin example is just a comparison to your shallow argument- "from what I know of A means that if you add B it must equal C". Honestly thats the lamest argument against E.T. I have ever read.
 
Top