Crystal Skull hatred knows no bounds

JuniorJones said:

Stewart comparies trilogy to Rush Limbaugh marriages. BOOM!!
Go find the clip at the Daily Show website.

Click to expand...

Did you understand that clip?

He said he thought Rush's 2nd wedding was the best and then went on to say that he feels the opposite towards the Indy franchise. That means he thought Indy's second outing (ToD) was worst. Why is this even on a KotCS thread.

I'm not trying to be mean, but wrong thread.

JP Jones said:

Did you understand that clip?

He said he thought Rush's 2nd wedding was the best and then went on to say that he feels the opposite towards the Indy franchise. That means he thought Indy's second outing (ToD) was worst. Why is this even on a KotCS thread.

I'm not trying to be mean, but wrong thread.

Click to expand...

Because he said Rush's 2nd and FOURTH weddings were the best, opposite of how be feels about the Indiana Jones films.

In other words Temple of Doom and Skull sucked.

You did not understand the clip.

Sharkey said:

Because he said Rush's 2nd and FOURTH weddings were the best, opposite of how be feels about the Indiana Jones films.

In other words Temple of Doom and Skull sucked.

You did not understand the clip.

Click to expand...

Forgive him. He maybe from South Carolina. I hear they have problems understanding the combination of words AND pictures.

THANKYOU South Carolina! BOOM!

JuniorJones said:

Forgive him. He maybe from South Carolina. I hear they have problems understanding the combination of words AND pictures.

THANKYOU South Carolina! BOOM!

Click to expand...

I always watch the Daily Show and that joke was great.

Darth Vile said:

Not sure I'd quite agree. The Tarzan serials had many a comic/cartoon like moment with Cheetah et al... and I seem to remember Zorro and Flash Gordon always had a couple of buffoon like characters who'd bumble about. Certainly the John Ford movies (which I'd also say are a direct influence on Raiders at least) used to be laced with a modicum of humour. There is a definite link between the humour in Indy movies and that of the movies/serials which inspired them. To what degree it works is more up for debate...

Click to expand...

Of course some of the serials had buffoon characters (they were intended for kids, afterall) but I'm talking about COMEDY during EXCITING ACTION and, specifically, in 'cliffhanger serials' as Cole wrote. John Ford movies are irrelevant to my point. Any sprinklings of humourous moments were filler material before/after the thrills.

Re: Cheeta in Tarzan serials: Perhaps you're thinking of the movies? Even though the number of Tarzan serials is small, the majority didn't have cute, chimpanzee bits because there were no chimp sidekicks! The couple that did have a chimp (not named Cheeta) restricted the comedic moments to their own setpieces - not during the action. (Unless you count shots of a chimpanzee jumping up and down watching Tarzan in peril.)

Cole said:

I'm admittedly not a 1930's, 1940's action-serial "expert," but something like Tarzan was coming to mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Zrtha12V0o

Certainly one thing is for sure: they didn't take themselves seriously.

Click to expand...

Does that look like an action scene to you? (Not sure if you know but that clip is from the opening of "Tarzan the Fearless" with Buster Crabbe, one of the only Tarzan serials with a chimp sidekick.)

Attila the Professor said:

But I think Stoo's point - or, at least, the one that seems most compelling to me - is more that the humor does not occur at the same time of the action, but takes the form of comic relief in its own sequences. Sure, Ward Bond gets skewered by Patrick Wayne's saber right after John Wayne sweeps up Natalie Wood into his arms, but it doesn't happen at the same time. It's an isolated moment, taking place within cuts, and bracketed, if memory serves, by an absence of scoring. It's a separate moment.

Click to expand...

The most one could probably find within an adventure serial would be reaction shots of animals (like the prairie dogs watching the rocket sled in "Skull") or something similar. For anything more than that, we're talking Keystone Cops, etc. territory. There's no character-based wit or slap-stick antics during a fight/chase/trap and dialogue is almost nil.

Darth Vile said:

I'm not sure we can compare, beat for beat, the Indy movies with the action movies/serials which inspired them (as they are quite diverse). Rather, it's just an acknowledgement that Indy movies, as well as the movies that inspired them, generally contain a modicum of humour/comical moments. An appropriate example would be Gunga Din... which is almost 50/50 action/comedy (and there are comical moments throughout the action sequences).

Click to expand...

Indeed, the brilliant "Gunga Din" was ahead of it's time in that regard but again, it is not a serial. Even if you could find an example of humour within action in a 'cliffhanger', it wouldn't have been the norm. Claiming (or defending) the notion that Indy's action-humour was inspired from 'cliffhangers' is an odd thing to champion.

Stoo said:

Of course some of the serials had buffoon characters (they were intended for kids, afterall) but I'm talking about COMEDY during EXCITING ACTION and, specifically, in 'cliffhanger serials' as Cole wrote. John Ford movies are irrelevant to my point. Any sprinklings of humourous moments were filler material before/after the thrills.

Re: Cheeta in Tarzan serials: Perhaps you're thinking of the movies? Even though the number of Tarzan serials is small, the majority didn't have cute, chimpanzee bits because there were no chimp sidekicks! The couple that did have a chimp (not named Cheeta) restricted the comedic moments to their own setpieces - not during the action. (Unless you count shots of a chimpanzee jumping up and down watching Tarzan in peril.)
Does that look like an action scene to you? (Not sure if you know but that clip is from the opening of "Tarzan the Fearless" with Buster Crabbe, one of the only Tarzan serials with a chimp sidekick.)
The most one could probably find within an adventure serial would be reaction shots of animals (like the prairie dogs watching the rocket sled in "Skull") or something similar. For anything more than that, we're talking Keystone Cops, etc. territory. There's no character-based wit or slap-stick antics during a fight/chase/trap and dialogue is almost nil.
Indeed, the brilliant "Gunga Din" was ahead of it's time in that regard but again, it is not a serial. Even if you could find an example of humour within action in a 'cliffhanger', it wouldn't have been the norm. Claiming (or defending) the notion that Indy's action-humour was inspired from 'cliffhangers' is an odd thing to champion.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are saying??? Are you saying that because the Raven bar fight, German mechanic fight or truck chase scene contain elements of humour/slapstick, it means that Raiders can't claim to be stylistically influenced by/similar to serials and movies from the 30's and 40's?

I don't think you can automatically discount those influences just because they are not, beat for beat, the same. What serials/movies like Gunga Din, The Searchers, Zorro etc did was to mix the action, fantastical and humour in a very accessible/popular way. That is what Raiders did, and that is what the subsequent Indy movies did (perhaps to a lesser degree). Just because the 1938 version of Robin Hood didn't contain Nazi's, sassy women or deus ex machina endings doesn't mean it wasn't an influence on the style of Indiana Jones... it doesn't have to be a carbon copy for the claim of 'stylistically influenced by' to be a valid one (IMHO).

It really seems sadly that KOTCS is one of the most hated, if not the most hated, movie in cinema history.

Raiders112390 said:

It really seems sadly that KOTCS is one of the most hated, if not the most hated, movie in cinema history.

Click to expand...

Talk about exaggerating......

DocWhiskey said:

Talk about exaggerating......

Click to expand...

Indeed. Where's the emoticon of a little man hitting his head repeatedly against a wall when you need one?

Raiders112390 said:

It really seems sadly that KOTCS is one of the most hated, if not the most hated, movie in cinema history.

Click to expand...

Well, it may not be that hated (lots of us here like it), but in my mind it's the most underated movie in cinema history. There is a huge magority of people, fans, and critics who loved it, yet EVERYONE hates it.

JP Jones said:

but in my mind it's the most underated movie in cinema history.

Click to expand...

Oi!

There's only ONE Indy film that the most ANYTHING in Cinema History...

Rocket Surgeon said:

Oi!

There's only ONE Indy film that the most ANYTHING in Cinema History...

Click to expand...

They ALL make up the greatest franchise in cinema history...

JP Jones said:

They ALL make up the greatest franchise in cinema history...

Click to expand...

100% agree..........Indy 4 got a pretty good/lukewarm reception at Cannes, by the critics, and by the mass audiences.

The real hate has only been particularly evident on the internet, and it almost seems like it has become the "trendy" pick among some groups as a result.

The mere level of hate and the degree of irrationality only reassures me that their opinion means nothing.

Ya, Indy 4 may not be the "best" Indy film......honestly, did you expect it to be better than 'Raiders' or 'Crusade?' That's almost impossible. So you can argue what makes it not the "best," which seems fairly useless to me........or, if you're a real Indy fan, I would think you would appreciate the fact that it feels like a blood relative to the other films, we get to meet up with our old pal Indy again, and make a few new pals.

And what's particularly special about 'Skull' is it gave whole new generations like myself the opportunity to experience a brand new Indy film in the theaters. So for that reason, 'Skull' will always be particularly special to me.

Stoo said:

Of course some of the serials had buffoon characters (they were intended for kids, afterall) but I'm talking about COMEDY during EXCITING ACTION and, specifically, in 'cliffhanger serials' as Cole wrote. John Ford movies are irrelevant to my point. Any sprinklings of humourous moments were filler material before/after the thrills.

Re: Cheeta in Tarzan serials: Perhaps you're thinking of the movies? Even though the number of Tarzan serials is small, the majority didn't have cute, chimpanzee bits because there were no chimp sidekicks! The couple that did have a chimp (not named Cheeta) restricted the comedic moments to their own setpieces - not during the action. (Unless you count shots of a chimpanzee jumping up and down watching Tarzan in peril.)
Does that look like an action scene to you? (Not sure if you know but that clip is from the opening of "Tarzan the Fearless" with Buster Crabbe, one of the only Tarzan serials with a chimp sidekick.)
The most one could probably find within an adventure serial would be reaction shots of animals (like the prairie dogs watching the rocket sled in "Skull") or something similar. For anything more than that, we're talking Keystone Cops, etc. territory. There's no character-based wit or slap-stick antics during a fight/chase/trap and dialogue is almost nil.
Indeed, the brilliant "Gunga Din" was ahead of it's time in that regard but again, it is not a serial. Even if you could find an example of humour within action in a 'cliffhanger', it wouldn't have been the norm. Claiming (or defending) the notion that Indy's action-humour was inspired from 'cliffhangers' is an odd thing to champion.

Click to expand...

Well, as I said before........lighthearted humor is lighthearted humor to me just the same - whether it's during the action or not.

I'm almost afraid we're exaggerating the issue now........it's not like there's one bad slapstick gag after another in the Indy adventure scenes.

The tanks chase in 'Crusade,' and the jungle chase in 'Crystal Skull' still manage to be intense.

i never did understand why adults are upset over the new star wars or indy movies. they were always intended for kids. lucas even said in an interview before phantom that he was mainly going to make movies that his children would like. that's why they aren't R rated.

teampunk said:

i never did understand why adults are upset over the new star wars or indy movies. they were always intended for kids. lucas even said in an interview before phantom that he was mainly going to make movies that his children would like. that's why they aren't R rated.

Click to expand...

We've discussed this, and to summarize:

Raiders was not a childrens movie. It was originally given an R rating. It barely squeeked by with a PG. Indiana Jones evolved into a cartoon character and THAT is why adults "get upset" over the new indy movies.

Darth Vile said:

I'm not sure what you are saying??? Are you saying that because the Raven bar fight, German mechanic fight or truck chase scene contain elements of humour/slapstick, it means that Raiders can't claim to be stylistically influenced by/similar to serials and movies from the 30's and 40's?

I don't think you can automatically discount those influences just because they are not, beat for beat, the same. What serials/movies like Gunga Din, The Searchers, Zorro etc did was to mix the action, fantastical and humour in a very accessible/popular way. That is what Raiders did, and that is what the subsequent Indy movies did (perhaps to a lesser degree). Just because the 1938 version of Robin Hood didn't contain Nazi's, sassy women or deus ex machina endings doesn't mean it wasn't an influence on the style of Indiana Jones... it doesn't have to be a carbon copy for the claim of 'stylistically influenced by' to be a valid one (IMHO).

Click to expand...

Who is saying that the Indy films must be beat-for-beat? Not me. You're COMPLETELY missing my point. Cole understood, why can't you? ...and what the heck do "Gunga Din", "The Searchers" and "Robin Hood", 1938 have to do with serials? Cole suggested that the lighthearted humour during the action scenes of Indiana Jones movies was probably inspired by 'cliffhanger serials'. That is what I disagree with. Please try to stay on track.

Cole said:

Well, as I said before........lighthearted humor is lighthearted humor to me just the same - whether it's during the action or not.

I'm almost afraid we're exaggerating the issue now........it's not like there's one bad slapstick gag after another in the Indy adventure scenes.

The tanks chase in 'Crusade,' and the jungle chase in 'Crystal Skull' still manage to be intense

Click to expand...

All I'm pointing out is that comedy during cliffhanger action is not a common characteristic of the old serials. That is all.

---
Back on topic:

This thread exists because an Indy film marathon in Texas ignored the latest entry...so the 'Crystal Skull hatred knows no bounds'. If this was a case of a solo screening of "Raiders" in Kalamazoo would that constitute a thread for "Doom & Crusade Hatred Knows No Bounds"?

Rocket Surgeon said:

Raiders was not a childrens movie.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a children's movie, but it was intended as a movie the entire family could enjoy. In this respect, it was a major departure from action films of the time- which actually were dark, gritty, and violent. Just as a film like Dirty Harry helped set the tone for the 1970s, in many ways, Raiders did the same for the 1980s.

Not every kid was allowed to go see stuff like Rolling Thunder, Death Wish II, or Sharkey's Machine, but even the grandparents were willing to sit through Indiana Jones. When Indy shot someone in cold blood, it was meant to be funny.

You couldn't get a teacher to screen Sudden Impact for the class, but they recognized the fact that Raiders was different. It was lighter and had a playful sense of humor. When Toht hopped around in the snow, it was a much different level of violence than when William Devane had his hand pushed into a garbage disposal.

The problem is that no franchise can exist in a vacuum the way most fans would prefer. Lucas and Spielberg are much different people today, as is their approach to crafting something for the entire family.

I'm not saying I necessarily prefer the way it has evolved to how it started out- just that it's easy to see how it happened.

James said:

It wasn't a children's movie, but it was intended as a movie the entire family could enjoy. In this respect, it was a major departure from action films of the time- which actually were dark, gritty, and violent. Just as a film like Dirty Harry helped set the tone for the 1970s, in many ways, Raiders did the same for the 1980s.

Not every kid was allowed to go see stuff like Rolling Thunder, Death Wish II, or Sharkey's Machine, but even the grandparents were willing to sit through Indiana Jones. When Indy shot someone in cold blood, it was meant to be funny.

You couldn't get a teacher to screen Sudden Impact for the class, but they recognized the fact that Raiders was different. It was lighter and had a playful sense of humor. When Toht hopped around in the snow, it was a much different level of violence than when William Devane had his hand pushed into a garbage disposal.

The problem is that no franchise can exist in a vacuum the way most fans would prefer. Lucas and Spielberg are much different people today, as is their approach to crafting something for the entire family.

I'm not saying I necessarily prefer the way it has evolved to how it started out- just that it's easy to see how it happened.

Click to expand...

Tonight is a night for cross-overs.

I just lifted this from another thread:

Montana Smith said:

It's pulp, as we know. The best kind of pulp. Pulp takes liberties with reality in order to take adventure to the limits. As grounded as Raiders was, it has a style different to something like Saving Private Ryan.

Now that I'm really getting into Bond I can see that Indy is stylistically in that camp. I agree that the Indy movies that followed the first have progressively stretched the limits of Raiders, but amid it all the character of Indy is intact. The thing that binds them is (and I've said this countless times) his supernatural level of good luck. It was only natural that the cliffhangers would get more and more extreme...

Click to expand...

James said:

It wasn't a children's movie, but it was intended as a movie the entire family could enjoy. In this respect, it was a major departure from action films of the time- which actually were dark, gritty, and violent. Just as a film like Dirty Harry helped set the tone for the 1970s, in many ways, Raiders did the same for the 1980s.

Click to expand...

You could compare it to Debbie Does Dallas and sure it's more of a family film. Dirty Harry was Rated R. It had sexual situations, nudity, AND violence, profanity...etc.

There are movies where a single scene can command that rating or it's an overall thematic R.

We're going to have this out yet again, but bloody corpses, drinking contests graphic head wounds and exploding/imploding/melting heads do not make for childrens fare.

Instead of comparing it to a Rated R movie, which it was at one time compare it to a rated G movie like, maybe, oh lets say Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, truely intended as a movie the entire family could enjoy.

I get your point, but Indiana Jones was established/submitted and garnered an R. I'm responding to someone who posted:

...they were always intended for kids. ...that's why they aren't R rated.

Click to expand...

Stoo said:

Who is saying that the Indy films must be beat-for-beat? Not me. You're COMPLETELY missing my point. Cole understood, why can't you? ...and what the heck do "Gunga Din", "The Searchers" and "Robin Hood", 1938 have to do with serials? Cole suggested that the lighthearted humour during the action scenes of Indiana Jones movies was probably inspired by 'cliffhanger serials'. That is what I disagree with. Please try to stay on track.
All I'm pointing out is that comedy during cliffhanger action is not a common characteristic of the old serials. That is all.

---

Click to expand...

WTF are you going on about??? It was quite obvious that Cole was being a bit more general with his observation... as was I. If you are simply stating that Indy movies aren't like the old serials because they have more humour in the action scenes... then so what?