Forbidden Eye
Well-known member
deckard24 said:
So you consider critic's view a strong indicator of a film's caliber? I certainly wouldn't.
Indy 4 - Who's most at blame?
- Thread starter mindy muffles
- Start date
So you consider critic's view a strong indicator of a film's caliber? I certainly wouldn't.
Well now you're changing your tune!Major West said:
You first said:
This statement says that if a movie is "bad", which would indicate its quality, it would do poorly at the box office! There's a difference between "bad" and "popular"!
Now I agree with your new statement that if a movie is not very popular, that it will be shown in the box office!
James, while I agree that KOTCS was a success at the box office and for the most part received favorable reviews, that still doesn't change in my mind that it was a so-so Indy film! 77% is a C grade last time I checked, and that's nothing to write home about! Just compare KOTCS's average to Iron Man's 93% or The Dark Knight's 95% to see the difference in the critics' opinion of its overall quality. I don't hate KOTCS with every fiber of my being like some around here, and I did find some genuinely entertaining moments in the film. Still, I think it's horribly flawed and a real letdown coming off the heels of the first three films. Yes, TOD and LC had its flaws too, but for me there's just something really hollow and flat about KOTCS.
This review in my opinion sums it up nicely:
http://chud.com/articles/articles/1...D-THE-KINGDOM-OF-THE-CRYSTAL-SKULL/Page1.html
Yeah I would, for the most part the critics are spot on! Not all the time, but I'd definitely say the majority of the time!
Yeah but that grade is based on reader's reviews of the film, not nationally recognized critics. Not to mention these are heavily biased reviews based on hardcore fanboy opinion!
Last edited:
Major West
Member
The boxofficemojo rating for this film is a 'B'.
Major West
Member
deckard24 said:
So when it comes to the critics reviews that said Temple of Doom and Last Crusade wern't good films, what do you do?
Well based on the average at RT TOD has an 84% average and LC has an 89%, that's a solid B and B+-A-! If you read my above post I stated that both TOD and LC are flawed, but on a whole in my opinion they are stronger films and less flawed then KOTCS! Not to mention I'm sure those averages have increased over time, because when they both first came out I'm pretty sure the averages would have been less. But, I saw those films as a kid, and it took many years for me to see the actual flaws that were always present. Now though as an adult I don't have the rose colored glasses on that I did as a kid, and I can see the caliber of a film like KOTCS a whole lot clearer! For that very reason when I re-read the reviews for TOD, LC, and KOTCS, I can see exactly where the majority of those who saw them lacking were coming from!Major West said:
Major West
Member
deckard24 said:
You said you valued critics reviews more though, rather than votes from the public.
Indeed.
deckard24 said:
My primary argument here is that the film was generally received as a successful blockbuster- and performed very respectably for a 30-year-old franchise. When you lack the benefit of being the shiny new franchise (ala Iron Man and TDK), 77% ain't bad (at all) for your third sequel. As you yourself pointed out, it's a percentage that few modern franchises are able to achieve.
I think most of us just consider the whole hate campaign leveled against the film to be a little absurd. It's one thing to be disappointed- we all experience that every year- but quite another to pretend that the entire world supports your opinion. The film did not crash and burn the way many had predicted back in May. So now the new argument seems to be that it won't hold up well over time.
But realistically, how do you think this film will be judged, say, 50 years from now? This is something that was touched upon in another thread recently. If history is any indication, Indiana Jones will be judged as a franchise- rather than four (or five) individual entries.
Most people rarely buy just one Tarzan or Thin Man film. They buy the Charlie Chan collections and the Sherlock Holmes boxset. Even when these series are judged individually, any shortcomings are compensated for by the overall experience. It will likely be the same way with Indy, and even similarly 'disappointing' films such as Spiderman 3 or POTC 3.
Major West
Member
deckard24 said:
Critics are just viewers at the end of the day. There are only about one or two real critics I would ever pay heed to.
Well if you asked me back in May before KOTCS's release how it would've shaped up, I'd have said it would most likely win the summer box office crown and be on par with TOD and LC in overall quality! I was never naive enough to think it would be as good as Raiders or even top it, but there was definitely room for hope. In the long run I think KOTCS will show its quality by coming in a solid 4th in the film series, and not be looked at as the bastard son of the franchise that some suggest. I do think time will only help KOTCS, as opposed to the Star Wars prequels which were so vastly different then the original films, that their longevity was destined to diminish! Do I hate KOTCS...no, but like I've said many times before it's a subpar sequel that in my opinion doesn't even top the weakest film in the series TOD!James said:
Now if a fifth and sixth film are made, I don't know how those will pan out? Lucas has the potential to really tarnish the series if he's not careful! I guess we'll have to wait and see?
While that's true, they have for the most part studied the art medium of film in a way that most average filmgoers haven't! The serious respected critics are extremely well versed in film history, and many have published work to prove this. For this reason they are much more qualified at critiquing a film, as opposed to the typical viewer. While I might have a basic knowledge of film and film history, I by no means know all the ins and outs of the industry, and everything behind how a film is made. Also, I have seen my fair share of classic and foreign films, but nowhere near what would be enough to be considered an expert! It's the dedication and immersion in the world of film that sets these critics reviews above the average filmgoers!
Last edited:
The Man
Well-known member
James said:
So, Crystal Skull gets a free pass because it's an Indiana Jones film? I fully agree that's the primary reason it's received so much attention and financial success. Had the main character been anybody else, this laze of a movie would have disappeared from consciousness months ago. It certainly can't thrive on its own merits. It's milking sentiment and little else.
deckard24 said:
I agree, and think it will likely age much better than the prequels.
The Man said:
This was actually a response to one of your posts- where you suggested that it would probably fare no better than Spiderman or Matrix Reloaded. You were taking a myopic view of the idea, and limiting it to what we've seen in recent years. But in a sense, yes, it will ultimately get a free pass because it's an Indiana Jones film. The same will hold true for TOD and LC, which also have their share of haters.
50 years from now, people will view the films far differently than film geeks in 2008. Does Tarzan and the Amazons get a free pass because it's a Tarzan film? Of course. But it's also regarded with pretty much the same enthusiasm and nostalgia as any of the other sequels.
Major West
Member
The Man said:
All the films bar Raiders would have been rubbish if you had anybody other than Ford in them. Think about it.
Darth Vile
New member
James said:
All good points... If TOD or TLC didn't sport the moniker of Indiana Jones, they too wouldn't be so high in the conscious of moviegoers. Also, I think you are correct (something I've discussed in other threads), that similar to any series of movies with a reoccurring character/hero e.g. James Bond, the name becomes synonymous with a collection of iconic moments and standout scenes - rather than any one particular movie.
History will view Indiana Jones as a single body of work… a collection of great set pieces, impossible scenarios and fabulous characters – and not as any one movie. No matter how much some may dislike it, KOTCS will forever make up and be a part of that iconography (just as much as TOD and TLC).
deckard24 said:
The problem with this argument is that if most people really didn't like the movie, it would likely have topped out at around $200 million world wide. The fact that it has made almost $800 million means that people were going to back to see it a second and third time. People don't go back to see movies they don't like, the low box office of the late 80s Bond films is a testament to that.
Doug
Darth Vile
New member
I think some on these boards are getting a little confused (or are desperately trying to find anything to flog KOTCS with).
No one on these boards would automatically equate good box office with good movie. But some people seem to equate their dislike of the movie/some mixed reviews, to "unsuccessful". That is patently incorrect. KOTCS was hugely popular and immensely successful. That is a fact. Whether KOTCS is any good or not is largely subjective.
No one on these boards would automatically equate good box office with good movie. But some people seem to equate their dislike of the movie/some mixed reviews, to "unsuccessful". That is patently incorrect. KOTCS was hugely popular and immensely successful. That is a fact. Whether KOTCS is any good or not is largely subjective.
AtomicAge said:
I too agree with the first part. However to play Devils Advocate Doug and Darth, are films and for that matter albums truly subjective.
For example, I'm not over keen on The Lord of the Rings, but it is highly regarded. I cant therefore say I think its rubbish, I understand that its a classic trilogy but its not for me. Beatles Revolver is a classic but I dont want to listen to it.
Also if fims are just subjective, what is the point of the Oscars. By definition they are rewardeing excellent work, but if its just subjective and not based in fact whats the point? They should have the winner for the most subjective film!
I would say religion is subjective, your favourite football team is subjective, but would I say the quality of a film or music album is quite as subjective?? Clearly you can like what you want but that doesnt mean what you like is necessary quality.....my football team for example.