Indy 4 - Who's most at blame?

Who was most to blame for the failure that was Indy 4?

  • Steven Spielberg

    Votes: 5 5.0%
  • George Lucas

    Votes: 41 40.6%
  • Harrison Ford

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I blame em all!

    Votes: 16 15.8%
  • I blame the "jaded" viewer!

    Votes: 18 17.8%
  • Nobody is to blame.

    Votes: 21 20.8%

  • Total voters
    101

Raider Indy

New member
Niteshade007 said:
I have to disagree with some of what you are saying.

For starters, expecting a movie of the caliber of the trilogy isn't really the fault of the viewer. If the other three were good quality products, I would hope that the fourth would be as well. A lot of people (myself included) did not feel it was the same quality of film. I didn't want a rehash of Raiders, I feel we covered that with Last Crusade. If anything, I feel we got a watered down version of Last Crusade, and that's already the watered down version of Raiders. I don't care much for Crusade, so perhaps that contributed to my overall dislike of the film. I definitely wouldn't say I hated the film. I enjoyed myself a great deal, but I don't think it lived up the sequel and the prequel, which I already feel don't live up to Raiders.

I think the major problem with the alien is that it is part of such a different genre. Sci-fi is a huge genre that both Lucas and Spielberg are known for. The Indiana Jones films are three films that have not gone into that genre, or really strayed from "adventure." So for the new one to go into something completely different from what we come to expect is a little surprising. The fact that it wasn't done well makes it all the more disappointing.

I honestly don't mind CGI. I think it makes sense to use CGI in the film. It's 2008, why the hell not? However, some of it looks pretty bad, and it takes the viewer out of the movie watching experience. Some of the jungle scenes in particular stand out to me. And when they used doubles for the actors and performed actual stunts, they probably should have hired someone who looked a bit more like Shia. That really took away from the movie, because you can tell it's not him on the motorcycle or straddling the cars.

And of course there are lots of things that contributed to people not liking the movie, all of them discussed at length in other threads.

I see what you're saying.

But see, you refer to 'Kingdom' as a watered down 'Crusade' which was a watered down 'Raiders.'

So if people were going into 'Kingdom' expecting anything more then that, then it would be their own fault.

And with as much apparent disappointment in the film as I'm seeing, then there's no way that people didn't go into 'Kingdom' expecting it to be something that it just wasn't know?

And the CG didn't bother me either. I just personally like tangible visual effects. They may seem dated on many occasions, but there's an honesty and a weight to them that I really admire...especially since doing a VFX film back then was a totally different story then today.
 

oki9Sedo

New member
I have to agree with Finn entirely on this one. Its as imaginative, original and fresh as the others were, it just hasn't had time to sink into the public consciousness like the other three.

Note: that is a statement/excuse that the makers of any bad sequel could hide behind. However, I really think it is true of this one, as opposed to The Godfather Part III or The Phantom Menace, where there genuinely is a deficit in quality compared to their predecessors.
 

StoneTriple

New member
oki9Sedo said:
I have to agree with Finn entirely on this one. Its as imaginative, original and fresh as the others were, it just hasn't had time to sink into the public consciousness like the other three.

Add me to that list as well.

When Temple & Crusade came out, they received their fair share of negative press. The criticisms were largely because they weren't enough like Raiders. I remember plenty of friends, co-workers, and fellow fans who were less than generous about the silliness, the stories, and the effects.

Now, 24 years later they've somehow become "classics". The be-all, end-all of Indiana Jones sequel potential.

Kingdom more than holds its own against both.
 

The Man

Well-known member
oki9Sedo said:
Note: that is a statement/excuse that the makers of any bad sequel could hide behind. However, I really think it is true of this one, as opposed to The Godfather Part III or The Phantom Menace, where there genuinely is a deficit in quality compared to their predecessors.

Can't really agree there, Oki. Whilst both movies you cited are inferior to earlier entries, they're also far better than their now-legendary 'standing' would have you believe - certainly The Godfather Part III. Now these two have been subject to a level of rabid, retrospective, mostly unwarranted scorn that Indy 4 hasn't even begun to experience. The future's bleak...

In it own terms and in comparison to the originals, Crystal Skull is ultimately worse than both...
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
KotCS' production values are top notch. All the sounds and visuals are as they're supposed to be. None of the actors come out with a performance that make the viewers wish they could be somewhere else. Only thing there is to hate really is the story that takes a few outlandish turns here and there.

And that leaves very little base ground to call it "bad" as if everyone around you agrees.

And as much as some haters around here would like to see their side of the argument become the truth written in stone, it's actually sad to see so much effort lost... you can't call it good or bad. As it truly is a piece that is dividing minds.
 

Darth Vile

New member
The Man said:
Can't really agree there, Oki. Whilst both movies you cited are inferior to earlier entries, they're also far better than their now-legendary 'standing' would have you believe - certainly The Godfather Part III. Now these two have been subject to a level of rabid, retrospective, mostly unwarranted scorn that Indy 4 hasn't even begun to experience. The future's bleak...

In it own terms and in comparison to the originals, Crystal Skull is ultimately worse than both...

As much as I truly appreciate The Godfather III, and as much as I think it's hugely underrated... I'm not sure one can claim it to be better than KOTCS (apart from on it's exploration of more adult themes). The Godfather III is still viewed with derision... and it's only more enlightened people like you and I that can view it with some objectivity. ;)
 

The Man

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
As much as I truly appreciate The Godfather III, and as much as I think it's hugely underrated... I'm not sure one can claim it to be better than KOTCS (apart from on it's exploration of more adult themes). The Godfather III is still viewed with derision... and it's only more enlightened people like you and I that can view it with some objectivity. ;)

Yes, Dear Darth, we are as one now...forever.
 

Sankara

Guest
@Raider Indy
So, you agree that "Skull" is the worst of the Indy Movies?
Well, I never expected a second "raiders" but of course we expected a movie as good as "Temple" or "Crusade" otherwise there was no need for this movie!

I mean, which Indy Fan wants 3 masterpieces and one "nothing great" Part 4? So, in this case it would be better they never would done this movie...
 

Agent Z

Active member
Sankara said:
I mean, which Indy Fan wants 3 masterpieces and one "nothing great" Part 4? So, in this case it would be better they never would done this movie...

3 <i>masterpieces</i>?!

I mean, why am I shocked to see you going overboard with hyperbole......again!? :p
 

Blade

New member
Darth Vile said:
As much as I truly appreciate The Godfather III, and as much as I think it's hugely underrated... I'm not sure one can claim it to be better than KOTCS (apart from on it's exploration of more adult themes). The Godfather III is still viewed with derision... and it's only more enlightened people like you and I that can view it with some objectivity. ;)

Godfather 3 is ok but when compared to 1 & 2 it is clealry the odd one out. Coppolla wanted to call it "The death of Michale Corleone" which would have been a good idea so as not to compare it to the first 2.

Coppolla regrets a lot of aspects about G3 and so do most of the audience. For me, Godfather is a great story and about many different people and family life. By G3 it just becomes the Michael Corelone show.

Coppolla lost his directing greatness after Apocolypse Now. Do you think Spielberg has lost his and if so after which movie did he?
 

Darth Vile

New member
Agent Z said:
3 <i>masterpieces</i>?!

I mean, why am I shocked to see you going overboard with hyperbole......again!? :p

You should always take seriously the views of those who actually believe themselves to be Indiana Jones. ;)
 

Niteshade007

New member
Raider Indy said:
I see what you're saying.

But see, you refer to 'Kingdom' as a watered down 'Crusade' which was a watered down 'Raiders.'

So if people were going into 'Kingdom' expecting anything more then that, then it would be their own fault.

And with as much apparent disappointment in the film as I'm seeing, then there's no way that people didn't go into 'Kingdom' expecting it to be something that it just wasn't know?

And the CG didn't bother me either. I just personally like tangible visual effects. They may seem dated on many occasions, but there's an honesty and a weight to them that I really admire...especially since doing a VFX film back then was a totally different story then today.

I suppose, but I still don't think it's the audience's fault for them not to deliver a good film.

Obviously you aren't going to please EVERYONE. It's impossible. No one movie is universally appealing.

Okay, well, I've backed myself into a corner, I suppose. If I say that the movie isn't good, I have to provide reasons, and I feel I've stated those elsewhere throughout the board. Bottom line for me is that I went in expecting a good story and didn't see one. That's as simple as I can make it. I don't feel it's my fault, considering I didn't write it.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Niteshade007 said:
I suppose, but I still don't think it's the audience's fault for them not to deliver a good film.

Obviously you aren't going to please EVERYONE. It's impossible. No one movie is universally appealing.

Okay, well, I've backed myself into a corner, I suppose. If I say that the movie isn't good, I have to provide reasons, and I feel I've stated those elsewhere throughout the board. Bottom line for me is that I went in expecting a good story and didn't see one. That's as simple as I can make it. I don't feel it's my fault, considering I didn't write it.

I think it's about reasonable expectations... and even then it's very subjective. If I came out of a James Bond movie disappointed that there wasn't enough lightsabre action, then clearly it would be an unreasonable expectation on my part. Of course one should expect a "good story", and it's difficult to mitigate against individual disappointment... but personally I thought the story was up there with TOD and TLC.
 

arkfinder

New member
I blame the jadded viewer. Come on folks! Lucas & Co. took only the mystery of "Area 51" from their childhood and ran with it. KOCS is a fun movie.
 

Ericjones

New member
The even number of Indiana jones movies are always the odd one out

Of all the Indiana jones trilogy DVDs, I watched the TOD least compare to ROTLA and LC. It is not that I do not enjoy it but I watch it less compare to the other two. I might do just the same with Indy 4 DVDs.

As for Indy 4 , GL wanted to take it to a new dimension and recreate a the 50's genre of space alien B movies with the back bones of 30's B movies. This is not different when SS brought Indy to a 'darker side' when he direct the TOD. In LC, the two of them decided to go back to ROTLA with introduction of the background and the father who made Indy who he is. That was just nice and the ending was really good. Having waited 20 years, most audiences are expecting similar line of stories like ROTLA and LC.
However, I do not fault them for trying to merge the 30's B movie genre to 50's B movie. As that is what makes them the iconic figures of movie-making and greatness in transforming the world of movies. If they have stick to similar previous formula, what is the difference between Indiana Jones and The Mummies movies?

At the same time, they also introduce the son and marion back which I think is very good. The presence of Oxley and Mac however has kind of diluted the chemistry and character development between Indy and his son, even with that of Marion. It would have been nice though if GL and SS fill us in the gap: what happen to Indy after LC and up until 1957.

The even number of Indiana jones movies are always the odd one out. The good news is given that, if they are going to make Indy 5, it will be definitely better than Indy4 and if there's any chance that it will be the 'last' Indy movie (not counting possibility of future Mutt Jones movie), given HF age; I think they will do a fantastic job wrapping it up like they did in LC.
Ericjones is online now Reply With Quote
 

oki9Sedo

New member
Darth Vile said:
As much as I truly appreciate The Godfather III, and as much as I think it's hugely underrated... I'm not sure one can claim it to be better than KOTCS (apart from on it's exploration of more adult themes). The Godfather III is still viewed with derision... and it's only more enlightened people like you and I that can view it with some objectivity. ;)

There's no point in comparing whether Godfather III or KOTCS is better.....just which is better relative to its predecessors.

The answer is Crystal Skull. Its far closer in quality to its predecessors than Godfather III was, which, if not a tumble down, was a good few steps down anyway.
 

arkfinder

New member
I just think that the fans built this film up to what they wanted it to be. When it didn't meet their thinking they say it's not a good film. Wrong, it's a very good film and I can't wait for # V!
 
Top