What did KOTCS get right?

Indy's brother

New member

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Benraianajones, it sounds like you and I basically agree with each other but you just can't bring yourself to say that the idea of surviving a nuke or swinging with monkeys isn't any more nuts than similar moments in the previous movies. From the way you're actually elaborating your thoughts though, it's clear that from both of our perspectives the problem with Indy4 was its tone, and that they could have used the exact same ideas they did with much better results if they'd approached the movie differently.
 

Benraianajones

New member
The events in KOTCS are more outlandish than TOD on the whole. The fridge I can accept being on par with the TOD dingy drop (though even so, the fridge thing is a bit more outlandish than the drop). The 4 drops (cliff/waterfalls) is too much for a movie with already such a large outlandish moment. The mine cart jumping the track is much more believable, and also only a very small segement compared to 3 waterfall drops and a cliff one. I'd have been willing to accept the waterfall drops in another movie - and also if some peril was added to it.

The monkeys are just simplt very childish and it looks too polished and awful, it isn't especially outlandish. Even a quick shot of Mutt swinging down in to the jeep along with a couple of real monkeys would have been better and at least look and come across generally plausable.

Besides as said - it is how they come across on screen - TOD's come across more beliveable, and KOTCS has a few too many large stretching the realm of reality moments to even them out as plausable.
 
Last edited:

Benraianajones

New member
Darth Vile said:
But I think you are excusing the unreality in one and not the other. Now if you find the unreality in KOTCS more troubling than TOD, then that is of course your prerogative… but as Udvarnoky previously stated, there are a myriad of things in TOD where credibility is stretched in very much the same way.

Also, I don’t find TOD to be serious/realistic at all (and there is certainly little or no character development). Sure – not every second is played for laughs, but it’s always underscored by jokey, jokey humour or preposterous scenarios. For example, the spike chamber scene (which could have been as dramatic as the idol temple in Raiders) is reduced to a comedy scene. Now don’t get me wrong, KOTCS suffers from the very same things in its set pieces (particularly the jungle chase)… it’s just that, IMHO, TOD has more of these moments.

I agree with you about the serious tone… in that I would have preferred KOTCS to be more rooted in realism a la Raiders, but ultimately it’s closer to the sequels… and that in itself, I believe, is no reason for it to be regarded inferior to the other sequels.

There are simply far too many "surreal epic" moments - the fridge, and 4 huge plummets. Nothing in TOD (it has 2 drops - the equv of at least the fridge) and then the mine cart jump - which isn't especially that outlandish or as huge as plummeting down 4 huge drops. If KOTCS just had one outlandish moment on this scale I could liken it to TOD - but it doesn't - it has far too many large ones for me to even base them as being on the same realms of reality.

Indy felt vaunrable and in danger in the originals - in KOTCS he seemed like superman. If you are able to liken TOD and KOTCS's cartoony realities, that is good for you. I can also liken their cartoony antics - but I think KOTCS's takes them a bit too far and they are also very "polished" (Mutt's pixar jungle book swing) as opposed to TOD's.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Benraianajones said:
There are simply far too many "surreal epic" moments - the fridge, and 4 huge plummets. Nothing in TOD (it has 2 drops - the equv of at least the fridge) and then the mine cart jump - which isn't especially that outlandish or as huge as plummeting down 4 huge drops. If KOTCS just had one outlandish moment on this scale I could liken it to TOD - but it doesn't - it has far too many large ones for me to even base them as being on the same realms of reality.

Indy felt vaunrable and in danger in the originals - in KOTCS he seemed like superman. If you are able to liken TOD and KOTCS's cartoony realities, that is good for you. I can also liken their cartoony antics - but I think KOTCS's takes them a bit too far and they are also very "polished" (Mutt's pixar jungle book swing) as opposed to TOD's.

Hmmm - I'm not sure you addressed my comments... but that's fine as this is where it becomes largely subjective. Indy never felt vulnerable or in real danger in the originals to me (apart from perhaps Raiders)? and if you actually count the number of baddies that Indy either kills or disables in TOD, when compared to KOTCS, I?d posit that it?s TOD that portrays Indy as a one man army ?superhero? and not KOTCS.

I too don't like the way they created the Mutt vine swing thing. I think it may be the worst moment in any Indy movie to date... but it's such a fleeting thing that I can overlook it (similar to the Chewbacca Tarzan cry in 'Return of the Jedi').
 

Benraianajones

New member
Darth Vile said:
Hmmm - I'm not sure you addressed my comments... but that's fine as this is where it becomes largely subjective. Indy never felt vulnerable or in real danger in the originals to me (apart from perhaps Raiders)… and if you actually count the number of baddies that Indy either kills or disables in TOD, when compared to KOTCS, I’d posit that it’s TOD that portrays Indy as a one man army ‘superhero’ and not KOTCS.

I too don't like the way they created the Mutt vine swing thing. I think it may be the worst moment in any Indy movie to date... but it's such a fleeting thing that I can overlook it (similar to the Chewbacca Tarzan cry in 'Return of the Jedi').

Though I do agree in TOD Indy is more of a one man army than he is in KOTCS, in KOTCS Indy appears to be much more of a superhuman being in another was, as he is indestructable. In the originals I at least felt some terror for him as he approached the rip saw blades at the end of Last Crusade, and I also felt Indy was a man who could potentially die on the rope bridge even though we had seen him plummet from a plane earlier - because that was the most outlandish stunt - right at the start - and the Indy life threatening forces were not as extreme as that from that point on. I always felt if anything would kill Indy anyway it would be a sword or gun shot.

I don't think Chewie's tarzan swing is quite in the same road as Mutt's, Chewie swings on a physical vine and it somewhat is passable that Chewie as a Wookie and jungle dweller may make a "war cry" or even use trees in that manner. Mutt is a human and wouldn't really be swinging with forest dwelling monkeys, at least he didn't make a tarzan war cry. The Mutt swing isn't enough to kill the movie, and even with the large stunts the movie isn't ruined - but I think they could have benefited from dropping one in favour of another and having a slightly grounded life risk in its place - perhaps having the nuke scene - then later Indy and co drop down a smaller waterfall - realise the one (or 2 ahead) would be life threatening, so they have to jump out and swim against the raging waters to get on land, and at least give us some suspense and something to look at, as opposed to them just dropping down 3 waterfalls with no real suspense or amusement, which may as well just have been one. I also think that swimming against a waterfall's current of that magnitude, as unlikely as it would be for them to get to land, would be a much more believable stretch of reality as opposed to just plummeting down all three - and the mine cart jump is on this scale of unreality.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Benraianajones said:
I don't think Chewie's tarzan swing is quite in the same road as Mutt's, Chewie swings on a physical vine and it somewhat is passable that Chewie as a Wookie and jungle dweller may make a "war cry" or even use trees in that manner.

I agree... but my point is that both are fleeting moments. And as moments that makes me wince, the wince factor for me is comparable (although the Mutt swing is more overt).

Benraianajones said:
Perhaps having the nuke scene - then later Indy and co drop down a smaller waterfall - realise the one (or 2 ahead) would be life threatening, so they have to jump out and swim against the raging waters to get on land, and at least give us some suspense and something to look at, as opposed to them just dropping down 3 waterfalls with no real suspense or amusement, which may as well just have been one. I also think that swimming against a waterfall's current of that magnitude, as unlikely as it would be for them to get to land, would be a much more believable stretch of reality as opposed to just plummeting down all three - and the mine cart jump is on this scale of unreality.

I understand why some don't like the fridge scene, and whilst I enjoy it, I too can see that it stretches the boundaries of believability in an Indy movie. The waterfall scene on the other hand is something I have no issue with at all. I don't think the scene was designed to be suspenseful (could have been better as a more suspenseful scene I agree), but rather it was designed just for the fun and spectacle of it (which I think it achieved with aplomb).
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Benraianajones said:
then later Indy and co drop down a smaller waterfall - realise the one (or 2 ahead) would be life threatening, so they have to jump out and swim against the raging waters to get on land, and at least give us some suspense and something to look at, as opposed to them just dropping down 3 waterfalls with no real suspense or amusement, which may as well just have been one. I also think that swimming against a waterfall's current of that magnitude, as unlikely as it would be for them to get to land, would be a much more believable stretch of reality as opposed to just plummeting down all three - and the mine cart jump is on this scale of unreality.

See, there's a good point, but it belongs in a discussion about poor execution rather than lack of reality.

I agree with Darth Vile in that I enjoyed the waterfall scene, but I also agree with you that it was weirdly uninvolving. Why did the characters not even try to find some way of escape (even if it would be only to fail...that would be classic Indy anyway). Why didn't they have something to deal with while they were going towards the rapids, like a tree trunk they hope they could latch onto or a herd of crocodiles? The problem with the waterfall scene from my perspective is not that it's unrealistic - falling down three waterfalls is perfectly fine in an Indiana Jones movie - but rather that it's a totally missed opportunity. We simply watch characters go over three waterfalls, without trying to do anything about it. It's just imagery and no engagement. In a better movie, Indy or all five heroes would be trying some desperate gambit to escape that would have kept the suspense up, probably to fail at the last second and they all plunge down the falls. But even if the end result would have been the same, the scene would have had excitement where the final product did not. Additionally, it would have served as a scene with Indy using his noggin and taking charge, which the Indy4 screenplay sadly deprived him of way too much. The waterfall scene in Indy4 would be like if the rope bridge in Temple of Doom broke apart not because Indy cut it, but because it just collapsed on its own. (See also: the killer natives and obelisk puzzle scene)
 

Benraianajones

New member
Udvarnoky said:
See, there's a good point, but it belongs in a discussion about poor execution rather than lack of reality.

I agree with Darth Vile in that I enjoyed the waterfall scene, but I also agree with you that it was weirdly uninvolving. Why did the characters not even try to find some way of escape (even if it would be only to fail...that would be classic Indy anyway). Why didn't they have something to deal with while they were going towards the rapids, like a tree trunk they hope they could latch onto or a herd of crocodiles? The problem with the waterfall scene from my perspective is not that it's unrealistic - falling down three waterfalls is perfectly fine in an Indiana Jones movie - but rather that it's a totally missed opportunity. We simply watch characters go over three waterfalls, without trying to do anything about it. It's just imagery and no engagement. In a better movie, Indy or all five heroes would be trying some desperate gambit to escape that would have kept the suspense up, probably to fail at the last second and they all plunge down the falls. But even if the end result would have been the same, the scene would have had excitement where the final product did not. Additionally, it would have served as a scene with Indy using his noggin and taking charge, which the Indy4 screenplay sadly deprived him of way too much. The waterfall scene in Indy4 would be like if the rope bridge in Temple of Doom broke apart not because Indy cut it, but because it just collapsed on its own. (See also: the killer natives and obelisk puzzle scene)

I agree with that.They don't even attempt to escape, like you'd imagine they would in the other movies, they simply allow themselves to go over 3 waterfalls without considering or attempting to negotiate the falls wit any other means. And again as I say, a Nuke with the fridge - stretching it but I can accept it. I can accept even the waterfall drops, but I think with both being such large "stunts", they'd have been better off with one or the other as opposed to both in the same movie. Both in the same movie is too much.

KOTCS is a good fun movie, but it has blindingly missed oppurtunities in it. We could have had Indy getting on to land and then even saving Marion from the rapids as the jeep went off the final large waterfall. It would have given their relationship in the movie at least some development. (And btw Darth Vile, I disagree TOD has NO character development, it does have some in the form of Willie, we see her being totally selfish and full of glamour, to a woman who does become quite resourceful and even motherly with Shorty, she even assists the children getting out of their chains, sure shes going to live a star-like life still and want the pretty things, but she definitley learned something new about herself).

Concering the waterfall scene again, the things they could have done were endless. KOTCS gets the waterfall scene right in some ways - it is a fun, crazy scene for an action adventure film. However as mentioned, could have benefited from having is more engaging and somewhat serious. Make the first small waterfall a slight joke, then have the final 2 propose danger. Let the team try and escape to land, let them fight thru the rapids, let them try and grab on logs or something, or even save one another, but not simply fall down deathly waterfalls with no fight.
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
I agree with Darth Vile in that I enjoyed the waterfall scene, but I also agree with you that it was weirdly uninvolving. Why did the characters not even try to find some way of escape (even if it would be only to fail...that would be classic Indy anyway). Why didn't they have something to deal with while they were going towards the rapids, like a tree trunk they hope they could latch onto or a herd of crocodiles? The problem with the waterfall scene from my perspective is not that it's unrealistic - falling down three waterfalls is perfectly fine in an Indiana Jones movie - but rather that it's a totally missed opportunity. We simply watch characters go over three waterfalls, without trying to do anything about it.

I think there is a straight forward reason why Lucas/Spileberg don?t overtly play the peril card with the waterfall scene. From recollection, Indy and co believe they have to traverse the 3 waterfalls to get to Akator. So narratively speaking, there is little reason to attempt escape from the waterfalls? as over the top and down the other side is the route prescribed.

Of course that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been done better... Just pointing out that there was no reason to try and escape.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
That explanation doesn't fly. There is a reason to try to escape, and indeed the characters do. Don't you remember the part where everyone was frantically trying to "put it in reverse!" before going over the first waterfall? Whether it was the way down or not, those characters didn't want to go down a huge waterfall. Remember there was a route by land land as Spalko took and Ox had taken on his first trip.

And anyway, even if there was no other route, is it that crazy an idea for characters to not want to drop down a giant deadly waterfall? The Indy movies have always sacrificed logic for thrills, but in Indy4 they just sacrifice logic for the hell of it. Have them try, even if it's fruitlessly, to do something about their predicament after the first waterfall. Stack on yet another danger like crocodiles or piranhas for them to have to deal with in addition to their impending plight (that's what the movies are all about, one mess after another) In short, give us a scene instead of an idea. The waterfall scene was not bad, but it should have been a classic Indy moment if they'd actually taken advantage of it. Again, same with the killer natives. A good idea that no one making the movie had any idea how to use.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
That explanation doesn't fly. There is a reason to try to escape, and indeed the characters do. Don't you remember the part where everyone was frantically trying to "put it in reverse!" before going over the first waterfall? Whether it was the way down or not, those characters didn't want to go down a huge waterfall. Remember there was a route by land land as Spalko took and Ox had taken on his first trip.

And anyway, even if there was no other route, is it that crazy an idea for characters to not want to drop down a giant deadly waterfall? The Indy movies have always sacrificed logic for thrills, but in Indy4 they just sacrifice logic for the hell of it. Have them try, even if it's fruitlessly, to do something about their predicament after the first waterfall. Stack on yet another danger like crocodiles or piranhas for them to have to deal with in addition to their impending plight (that's what the movies are all about, one mess after another) In short, give us a scene instead of an idea. The waterfall scene was not bad, but it should have been a classic Indy moment if they'd actually taken advantage of it. Again, same with the killer natives. A good idea that no one making the movie had any idea how to use.

That's not my reading. When they are approaching the first waterfall, Indy et al have not realized that the "Three times it drops" riddle is referring to the actual waterfall itself (but the audience gets it straight away). So when they do realize what “Three times it drops” relates to, it becomes largely academic for the audience to expect an escape (as the audience knew before the characters), and narratively speaking, for the characters to attempt escape.

Also, I think the book states that although there is an alternative less wet route (which Irina takes), Indy isn’t aware until they are approaching the third drop (so it would have been pointless to include that realization in the movie).

This entire scene is a lot more underplayed in the book... and whilst I agree that it would have been better to get a real sense of danger involved, I think they would have had to omit the riddles and "Three times it drops" clue for it to work properly - as that's the bit that undermines the sense of peril.
 

Blade

New member
Darth Vile said:
That's not my reading. When they are approaching the first waterfall, Indy et al have not realized that the "Three times it drops" riddle is referring to the actual waterfall itself (but the audience gets it straight away). So when they do realize what ?Three times it drops? relates to, it becomes largely academic for the audience to expect an escape (as the audience knew before the characters), and narratively speaking, for the characters to attempt escape.

Also, I think the book states that although there is an alternative less wet route (which Irina takes), Indy isn?t aware until they are approaching the third drop (so it would have been pointless to include that realization in the movie).

This entire scene is a lot more underplayed in the book... and whilst I agree that it would have been better to get a real sense of danger involved, I think they would have had to omit the riddles and "Three times it drops" clue for it to work properly - as that's the bit that undermines the sense of peril.

The waterfall scene is absolutley stupid. One of the most insulting action scenes in film history.

Its worse than John Mclane riding on the back of a fighter plane.

It should have been in a road runner cartoon not an Indy film
 

Darth Vile

New member
Blade said:
The waterfall scene is absolutley stupid. One of the most insulting action scenes in film history.

Its worse than John Mclane riding on the back of a fighter plane.

It should have been in a road runner cartoon not an Indy film

It's difficult to respond to a post that's so emotional and subjective...
 

Benraianajones

New member
The riddle may have been "3 times it drops" - but even Indy and anyone searching for treasure would be aware that following clues directly is not always the key and they certainley would not have just sat there allowing their lives to be tossed over a 3 waterfalls. In the film, they could easily have gone down a moderate sized waterfall, Ox could have stated "3 times it drops" - Indy would have clicked on by this point easily as he saw a 2nd large drop ahead. Just because the riddle states it drops 3 times, it doesn't grant them immunity to losing their life in the process of following the riddle.

This is where the group should have scurried for land - at least attempted it. If they did make it to land, we could have been treated to a shot of their vehicle unmaned, approaching and falling down the remaining 2 waterfalls as the crew gasped and watched at what they could have been involved in. The 3 times it drops riddle would still have been easy to follow.
 

Bvance

New member
Benraianajones said:
This is where the group should have scurried for land - at least attempted it. If they did make it to land, we could have been treated to a shot of their vehicle unmaned, approaching and falling down the remaining 2 waterfalls as the crew gasped and watched at what they could have been involved in. The 3 times it drops riddle would still have been easy to follow.

Yes! I remember when I first watched this scene I thought, what the heck was that? I saw the TV spot where it shows them going over the waterfall and I cracked-up thinking about Indy getting himself in another mess, but when I watched the film and saw them simply drift over each one I was a little tee'd off.

Now, if when they reached the 2nd waterfall, they would have all tried to bail out of the jeep and swim to shore as the current is dragging them away from it, with tense music playing and certain doom for all. Ox could have even dropped the skull down the fall or something, but luckily they make it to the shore as the jeep smashes to bits on the jagged rocks below.

Better idea? I think so, but that's one man's opinion.:)
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Like I say, it was, like so many scenes in the film, a wasted opportunity. There's absolutely no excuse for a scene where Indy and his friends go over triple waterfalls to be completely dull, yet that's exactly what happened. It should have been a great Indy moment. We've all made different suggestions as to things that characters could have done to make the scene more exciting, but the point is that having them do anything would have been an improvement. Going over three waterfalls is an excellent recipe for a classic Indy scene, but nobody behind the camera ever bothered to actually make a dish out of it. It's frustrating considering the budget and the talent behind this movie. I'll be damned if 1980s Spielberg wouldn't have made a scene with three waterfalls fun, even if it was at the expense of being over-the-top. Here we just have the over-the-topness, and nothing to risk it for.

I've come to the belief that the alleged silliness of many of Indy4's action scenes are the result of the movie leaving us nothing else to take away from them. The idea behind the action scenes in Indy4 aren't all that much crazier than the stuff in the first three movies, but if we're not enjoying a scene where characters survive an impossible situation, what are we left with but simply an impossible situation? I assert that you can get away with just about anything if you're giving the audience a good ride, but Indy4 just gave us the outlandishness alone. Why not having something actually happen in the waterfall scene other than exactly what we expect it to? The whole point of suspension of disbelief is not the lack of realism of the event, but the effort that the movie makes to make you not care. Indy4 was perfectly content that you didn't care, and I found that really disheartening.

I saw the TV spot where it shows them going over the waterfall and I cracked-up thinking about Indy getting himself in another mess, but when I watched the film and saw them simply drift over each one I was a little tee'd off.

Good quote. After the fact and from the standpoint of being disappointed in the film as a whole it's easy for people to say, "The scene sucked because going down waterfalls is implausible and silly lol!" but deep down any self-respecting fan would love nothing more than to see a goofy scene of Indy and co. going down a massive waterfall...provided that the scene doesn't somehow go out of its way to be unengaging.
 
Last edited:

Sankara

Guest
@Udvarnoky
Yes, you are right! It's very strange to read somthing like this about "Skull"...

Making of Indiana JonesBook:

"The first thing Steven said was he didn't want this look like a slick action-adventure movie with digital backgrounds and effects or stunts that you coludn't do in reality," Kennedy says. "Part of an Indiana Jones story is that you want to believe that Indy - and consequently Harrison Ford - is doing his own stunts..."


George Lucas, Vanity Fair,Issue 570, Page 168

GL talking about the great and realistic ActionScenes in the Bourne Movies:

"... but when you get to the next level, whether it's Tomb Raider or the Die Hard series, where you've got one guy with one pistol up against 50 guys with machine guns, or he jumps in a jet and starts chasing down a freeway, you say, I'm not sure I can really buy this. Mission Impossible's like that. They do things where you could not survive in the real world. In Indiana Jones, we stay just this side of it."
 

Kingsley

Member
Udvarnoky, great point of view!

I agree... 'anything' would have been better.
If Spielberg and co. were the masters in this stuff in the past, why do they seem like beginners now? (maybe it's not about 'beginning' but about 'ending')
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
My take on it is that 2007 Steven Spielberg was not equipped to make an Indiana Jones movie. The man is immensely talented, and he's got a ton of experience behind him, and from a craftsmanship standpoint Indy4 is excellent, but what an Indiana Jones movie really needs is that endlessly inventive, youthful energy that he brought to the original trilogy. Not that I think the first three movies were shoddily made, but it's obvious that Spielberg's decisions on them were swayed more by "Hey, wouldn't this be cool?!" than anything else, and that's the kind of mentality that you really need to have when making an Indy movie. The first three movies were made by a kid at heart, but this movie was made by someone trying to emulate his inner child rather than truly embodying it. It was like, "Okay well, this is an Indiana Jones movie, so we need a scene like this:" instead of it just coming naturally, or at least that's how it felt on screen. I don't know if it's entirely Spielberg's fault, he really is a different director than he was back then, and you can never entirely go home again. In a sense, the Spielberg who made Indy4 didn't know how to make an Indiana Jones movie, and perhaps to some degree Spielberg himself knew that, which is maybe why he was so reluctant to join the project.

I don't mean to sound so harsh, though. I don't really think Spielberg has "lost it," I just think he needed a chance to find it again. Crystal Skull, despite being the fourth installment in a franchise, felt a lot like growing pains to me, because Spielberg was trying to get back in the groove of this comic book inspired action hero after 20 years of Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan and his grittier scifi flicks. I think it took the entire production of Indy4 for Spielberg to fully get back into Indy mode, and I'd hate to see that rediscovery wasted, which is why I'm one of the proponents of Indy5. I have some confidence that he could make it great now that he knows what he's doing again. It's true you never forget how to ride a bike, but after twenty years you might need one circle around the block before you can start jumping ramps and popping wheelies again.
 
Top