Why is it "cool" to hate on KOTCS?

Henry W Jones

New member
Montana Smith said:
You said the Prequels, and that's what I was referring to. TPM and AOTC in particular.

I am not saying that SW prequels are great though I see why it came off that way. I was just commenting off of....
LawgSkrak said:
My kids, and every other kid I know, sat through each new Star Wars movie and Indy 4 with that same sense of wonder and joy on their faces as I did when I was a kid, watching the originals. And ultimately, it's what the kids think that's important.

The prequels are about as well done as KOTCS (n) But they have more things in them and characters that are kid relate-able. Also they have more action than KOTCS and are obviously designed with kids in mind. All I was really saying is this kid was aware at 12 the difference in a well done Indy film and not all kids sat through Indy 4 with a sense of wonder and joy on their face.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Henry W Jones said:
I am not saying that SW prequels are great though I see why it came off that way. I was just commenting off of....

That's exactly what I meant: a 12 year old liked the Prequels, yet found KOTCS corny. That's the shocking indictment if replicated. It would mean that a kid-oriented KOTCS failed to impress a... kid!
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Montana Smith said:
That's exactly what I meant: a 12 year old liked the Prequels, yet found KOTCS corny. That's the shocking indictment if replicated. It would mean that a kid-oriented KOTCS failed to impress a... kid!

Agreed. He also liked G.I. Joe. So what does that say? :D
 

Stoo

Well-known member
replican't said:
I'm hung like a hoover, look like Johnny Depp's sexier brother and taught Jimi Hendrix to play guitar. Does that make me cool?
Ha ha!:D Sounds pretty cool to me but you taught Hendrix how to play guitar? "What are you, like, 80?" (Hendrix was self-taught, by the way.)
Dr.Gonzo said:
Kingdom for me fails because,...
You're cool, Gonzo, but we need to know if you're a "Skull" hater or not.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
I didn't see TLC until I was an adult, as it didn't even hit the cinemas until 1989.

Lucas and Spielberg were still lopping off heads and offering up casual sex in Venice.

My point was that they were making family movies. That is, movies that weren't specifically directed at children, but for any age to enjoy. The pathetic dialogue in KOTCS and the Prequels is enough to suggest that the target is largely immature. That's before starting on Disney Pixar prairie dogs.

I don't see any evidence to suggest that the target audience for any of the Star Wars or Indy movies have changed. Revenge of the Sith is infinitely more violent than any of the originals. If anything, Lucas tried to make the prequels too sophisticated that they lost some something in the mix... probably a sense of 'fun', but I wouldn't be as obtuse to suggest that just because ROTS had dismemberment and burning flesh it was evidence that the movie was better, and evidence to suggest that the directer was making a more mature movie.

Henry W Jones said:
I just talked to my friends kid yesterday who told me he saw KOTCS and Indiana Jones is stupid awhile back. I told him he needed to watch the first 3 before judging Indiana Jones. He took my advice and told me yesterday he thought the first 3 were good and he still thinks KOTCS sucks. He is 12 years old. He likes the SW prequels but he called KOTCS corny. So while I agree when you are a kid your view of things is different. A 12 year old proves that a weaker Indy movie is a weaker Indy movie. I like KOTCS but I also feel it is a lesser film than the previous films. I feel the sequels have all been lesser than the previous film.

I'd agree with that as my nieces and nephew feel the same about KOTC... however they say it's largely due to the fact that they can't take Harrison Ford seriously as an action hero i.e. he looks like their grandad (which backs into the other thread about Ford's age).

Montana Smith said:
When Lucas made the the original SW trilogy, and when he and Spielberg made the orginal Indy trilogy, they had the family audience in mind.

KOTCS is geared to a younger audience, who go for things like fwuffy ickle animals and pantomime villains lacking any real menace. This was going to be Lucasfilm's toy spawning money spinner. But even that fell flat on it's face.

But what a shocking indictment this would be if replicated enough times:

Can you direct me to the quote Montana where Spielberg/Lucas state that they made KOTCS for younger audiences than the originals? I'd be interested in seeing that. If true, then I guess they did make it for younger audiences...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Henry W Jones

New member
Darth Vile said:
I'd agree with that as my nieces and nephew feel the same about KOTC... however they say it's largely due to the fact that they can't take Harrison Ford seriously as an action hero i.e. he looks like their grandad (which backs into the other thread about Ford's age).

My friends kid said for him it was more about the Monkeys, The fridge, ect. Have your nieces and nephew watched ROTLA? What did they think?
 

Crack that whip

New member
Darth Vile said:
Montana Smith said:
When Lucas made the the original SW trilogy, and when he and Spielberg made the orginal Indy trilogy, they had the family audience in mind.

KOTCS is geared to a younger audience, who go for things like fwuffy ickle animals and pantomime villains lacking any real menace. This was going to be Lucasfilm's toy spawning money spinner. But even that fell flat on it's face.

Can you direct me to the quote Montana where Spielberg/Lucas state that they made KOTCS for younger audiences than the originals? I'd be interested in seeing that. If true, then I guess they did make it for younger audiences...

I'd be interested in seeing that as well.

While I do agree KotCS inevitably exhibits some of its makers' evolution as they age, I don't think they specifically intended to present a movie that was distinctly more "kid-friendly" than the first three. After all, it's still a movie in which a pretty fair number of people are killed in violent ways (up to and including the major villain being melted and burned from the inside of her skull out with flames leaping from her eyes), as well as a significant story element being one character's out-of-wedlock birth. If there's any diminished impact in these things or a reduced feeling of "edginess" in general, I'd chalk it up more to the generally undercooked quality of Koepp's script, which took some basic story material with enough potential to yield a movie as good as one of the two preceding it and just didn't quite mine it as effectively as one would hope. As far as being another "toy spawning money spinner" for Lucasfilm goes, I think that's more dependent upon Lucasfilm (and its licensors) never quite having gotten the approach down just right for Indy merchandise the way they have with Star Wars. Note that even though the first three movies didn't have as much merchandise associated with their releases, they did still have some, and what was out there spanned largely the same breadth as KotCS did, including Raiders of the Lost Ark coloring books, childrens' read-along book & records for the three movies, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom fast food glasses, action figures, trading cards, etc.

And as for "pantomime villains lacking any real menace," I not only find it profoundly unlikely this was the intention, I personally don't even agree it was indeed the result - if nothing else, I think Irina Spalko is a stronger, scarier, more compelling villain than Walter Donovan, at least. No, she's not quite up there with Belloq or Mola Ram, but that's really just because the villains in the first two movies (the original especially) are so good. I think Spalko is still strong enough to hold her own in the overall Indy rogues gallery, though.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
Can you direct me to the quote Montana where Spielberg/Lucas state that they made KOTCS for younger audiences than the originals? I'd be interested in seeing that. If true, then I guess they did make it for younger audiences...

Where are the ickle fwuffy animals in the orignal Indy trilogy?

Where is the moralizing 'ooh, it's bad to steal' in the original trilogy?

What we get is moralizing revisionism by creators trying to make up for creating an anti-hero (just like Lucas had to rectify Han murdering Greedo).

Crack that whip said:
a significant story element being one character's out-of-wedlock birth

Which is remedied by marriage.


KOTCS has no bite. No adult asides. Rollins did his best to spice up the material that was muted for the visual audience.
 
Last edited:

Crack that whip

New member
Montana Smith said:
Where are the ickle fwuffy animals in the orignal Indy trilogy?

Well, one of them lent Indy his name. :p Some would also argue for the monkey in Raiders, even though she was a minion of the bad guys. Certainly it was played for laughs, and arguably cuteness as well.

Montana Smith said:
Where is the moralizing 'ooh, it's bad to steal' in the original trilogy?

What we get is moralizing revisionism by creators trying to make up for creating an anti-hero (just like Lucas had to rectify Han murdering Greedo).

Perhaps, but I don't think it's out of place. It's not like the originals ever asked us to cheer on thievery; it's simply an aspect of the character.

Montana Smith said:
Which is remedied by marriage.

Somewhere in the neighborhood of two decades later, of course, and the marriage was pretty clearly intended more as a "let's finally get our hero and his greatest romance together after all these years" moment than a "let's put right this moral transgression" moment.

Montana Smith said:
KOTCS has no bite. No adult asides. Rollins did his best to spice up the material that was muted for the visual audience.

Perhaps, but I think there's a difference between a script being weak because David Koepp didn't hone it enough (or isn't that great a writer to begin with) and a script being softened for a "kiddie" audience.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Crack that whip said:
Some would also argue for the monkey in Raiders, even though she was a minion of the bad guys. Certainly it was played for laughs, and arguably cuteness as well.

He was trained to be a little Nazi.

Crack that whip said:
Perhaps, but I don't think it's out of place. It's not like the originals ever asked us to cheer on thievery.

That's just it. Indy's morality was ambiguous from the start of ROTLA. There was no need to justify his actions. He stole and killed for fortune and glory. He was as self-seeking and roguish as Han.

Crack that whip said:
Somewhere in the neighborhood of two decades later, of course.

Because he only just found out.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Henry W Jones said:
My friends kid said for him it was more about the Monkeys, The fridge, ect. Have your nieces and nephew watched ROTLA? What did they think?

They don’t particularly like Raiders, as they find it a bit too slow, but they do like TOD and TLC (TOD is the most liked mainly because of the slapstick element – Indeed I’d argue that TOD is the one most overtly directed towards kids). They don’t dislike KOTCS, but take the p*ss out of “grandpa Jones and the curse of his arthritic back” i.e. they don't particularly take it seriously.

Montana Smith said:
Where are the ickle fwuffy animals in the original Indy trilogy?
So in fact Spielberg/Lucas said no such thing about aiming KOTCS at a younger audience then??? I don’t know about the “ickle fwuffy animals” but they had ickle funny Nazi saluting monkeys (which was done purely for comic/cutesy effect before you argue that it was "a deep and meaning metaphor pertaining to the Third Reich" or something daft like that), ickle baby elephants and barfing gags and lots of ickle jokes aimed at ickle kids...

Montana Smith said:
Where is the moralizing 'ooh, it's bad to steal' in the original trilogy?
Are you being serious? Have you not seen the originals? “It belongs in a museum”, and the shunning of “fortune and glory” for the sake of a bunch of kids… “You could've kept it. They'd just put it in the museum, it'd be another rock collecting dust”. Etc. etc. That’s a real good example Montana of how people can gloss over the same sensibilities in the originals and make out that they are so much “cooler” or “adult” just to support their own stance. That's certainly not cool. ;)

Montana Smith said:
What we get is moralizing revisionism by creators trying to make up for creating an anti-hero (just like Lucas had to rectify Han murdering Greedo).
An opinion I don’t happen to agree with. Indiana Jones was never an anti-hero. He was a HERO with it emblazoned in bold on his chest. But some will claim he was a multi-layered character just so they can justify their fetish for wearing leather jackets and hats.

Montana Smith said:
KOTCS has no bite. No adult asides. Rollins did his best to spice up the material that was muted for the visual audience.
I’d agree that it lacks something the others had i.e. a certain element of youthful zing (from both the moviemakers and lead actor) and the originality that Raiders and TOD certainly had in terms of being a genre breaking action/adventure movie… However, I think it that has less to do with the script or its target audience leanings than you would have us believe (certainly when compared to TOD and TLC). "Adult asides" indeed...
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
Are you being serious? Have you not seen the originals? ?It belongs in a museum?, and the shunning of ?fortune and glory? for the sake of a bunch of kids? ?You could've kept it. They'd just put it in the museum, it'd be another rock collecting dust?. Etc. etc. That?s a real good example Montana of how people can gloss over the same sensibilities in the originals and make out that they are so much ?cooler? or ?adult? just to support their own stance. That's certainly not cool. ;)

So stealing something to put it in a museum makes it right?

Indy comes to his own understanding of right and wrong. Until KOTCS when it has to be spelled out to him by a wannabe.

Darth Vile said:
An opinion I don?t happen to agree with. Indiana Jones was never an anti-hero. He was a HERO with it emblazoned in bold on his chest. But some will claim he was a multi-layered character just so they can justify their fetish for wearing leather jackets and hats.

He was a thief and a killer.

KOTCS was a lame excuse to get one more Indy out of Harrison.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
"It's everything we got into Archaeology for in the first place."!!!! That doesn't even sound academic, let alone altruistic in any way. Indiana Jones was originally written as an anti hero. He was morally ambiguous, ruthlessly ambitious and was very much motivated by his want of aggrandisement. And that's what we liked. However, the character changes bit by bit through the succession of the movies (which contradicts the timeline of the stories) until he seems quite different by CS. Disregarding the furore it may cause, I will quote a now banned member, who was mostly right - "In CS that wasn't Indiana Jones."
 

tambourineman

New member
Indy was always intended as an anti-hero, I dont know why anyone would argue differently. But its an unfair criticism to accuse CS of "moralizing revisionism" and turning Indy into a straight out hero. It was Last Crusade that did that, and (much as I love that film) it was far more moralizing than anything in CS and Indy was never more altruistic. Indy's character in CS was nothing more than an older version of the character in Last Crusade.
If Indy "wasnt Indiana Jones" in CS than he certainly wasnt in Last Crusade either.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
tambourineman said:
Indy was always intended as an anti-hero, I dont know why anyone would argue differently. But its an unfair criticism to accuse CS of "moralizing revisionism" and turning Indy into a straight out hero. It was Last Crusade that did that, and (much as I love that film) it was far more moralizing than anything in CS and Indy was never more altruistic. Indy's character in CS was nothing more than an older version of the character in Last Crusade.
If Indy "wasnt Indiana Jones" in CS than he certainly wasnt in Last Crusade either.

In TLC Indy was still ambiguous. As a boy he sees Fedora taking the Cross of Coronado, then makes it his life work to take it back from Panama Hat. Yet Fedora was doing nothing different from what Indy was inspired to do by Fedora himself.

One man's museum or private collection is another's fence for stolen objects, on the subterfuge that public display is a justification for taking something that others may have better claim to.

With TLC what we do get is a personal quest rather than one initially begun for profit.

And on the subject of target audiences, ROTLA wasn't intended solely for kids. Indy was more scoundrel than plain hero, and therefore an anti-hero.

From The Story Conference Transcripts:

GEORGE LUCAS : He could have known this little girl when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven.

LARRY KASDAN : And he was forty-two.

GEORGE LUCAS : He hasn't seen her in twelve years. Now she's twenty-two. It's a real strange relationship.

STEVEN SPIELBERG : She had better be older than twenty-two.

GEORGE LUCAS : He's thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she was only twelve. It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.

STEVEN SPIELBERG : And promiscuous. She came onto him.

GEORGE LUCAS : Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it's an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she's sixteen or seventeen it's not interesting anymore. But if she was fifteen and he was twenty-five and they actually had an affair the last time they met. And she was madly in love with him and he...

Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan were creating a pulp representation distilled for a varied modern audience.

In ROTLA Marion had been fifteen during her fling with Indy, and she virtually blamed him for having to take up prostitution.

In TLC Elsa was a virtual 'Vice Girl of Venice', sleeping with men to get closer to the Grail.

I don't think Lucas et al were bothered with how Indy's representation would be received in the 1980s, because rogues are fun characters. (And to iterate yet again, Lucas wasn't bothered in 1977 that Han shot Greedo first - this is constantly important to illustrate Lucas' changing mindset). Yet, with the passing of time Lucas became much more aware of the education value of film: first came the moral and historically educational tales of the Young Indiana Jones series, and when Indy finally returned to the big screen he was set right by his son on grave robbing, and he ultimately marries to presumably put an end to his womanizing ways.

The tone of KOTCS differs from the first three movies. It's safe and bland nature strongly suggests a younger target audience.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
In TLC Indy was still ambiguous. As a boy he sees Fedora taking the Cross of Coronado, then makes it his life work to take it back from Panama Hat. Yet Fedora was doing nothing different from what Indy was inspired to do by Fedora himself.

And on the subject of target audiences, ROTLA wasn't intended solely for kids. Indy was more scoundrel than plain hero, and therefore an anti-hero.

Oh c'mon Montana... I mean, Indy was presented in a boy scouts outfit for Franks sake. There's no ambiguity there. Or perhaps it?s so sophisticated a character/movie that the boy scout outfit was just a cover for the teenage depravity beneath. Wow - Perhaps Young Indy is cool afterall??? As it stands, even Mutt is more morally ambiguous than Indiana Jones because he dropped out of school, is a greaser and carries a switch. ;)

It?s clear from the start, well to me anyway, that Indiana Jones has a very strong moral compass (wether you take the start as Raiders or the prequel in TLC). Just because the character is presented as a loveable ?rogue? or ?scoundrel? doesn?t define anti-hero to me. Nor is the propensity for smoking, drinking or infidelity per se? if it were, then I?d be struggling to think of any character, other than perhaps Superman, who could be described as a pure dyed in-the-wool ?hero? (and even Supes f*cked Louis Lane out of wedlock right?). I?d personally identify the likes of Othello, Hamlet or (in terms of cinema) Michael Corleone or Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver) as arcitypal ?anti-hero?s - where there is an actual sense of ambiguity around their moral compasses, their beliefs and modus operandi? but not Indy, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo etc.

I?d even go as far as to say that Belloq, Elsa and Mac were much more in anti-hero territory than Indy. I never feared, at any point in any of the movies that Indy was going to jump ship and join the Nazi?s or run off with Spalko and become a ?Commie?. What ambiguity in Indy was so skin deep that I don?t think it?s worthy of consideration?.and as you state, making him roguish was simply to afford him more ?fun? as a chracter and not as a method for creating drama.


Montana Smith said:
The tone of KOTCS differs from the first three movies. It's safe and bland nature strongly suggests a younger target audience.
I?d disagree because the sizeable tone shift is between Raiders and TOD. The tone shifts between TOD, TLC and KOTCS, if any, are slight in comparison. I agree that KOTCS is a ?safe? movie? and that?s one of the issues I have with it. But it?s not safe as in terms of tone (well no more than the others anyway), but in terms of technique and style i.e. it tries too hard to be like the previous movies when it should have tried to be something new I.e., in James Bond terms, it?s the equivalent of Goldeneye, when it should have been Casino Royale. You are also making a huge assumption when you equate ?safe? and ?bland? to targeting a younger audience. Even if true, who says ?safe? and ?bland? equals younger target audience??? The truth is probably that Spielberg/Lucas were a little too risk averse with KOTCS because they wanted to ensure the movie had mass appeal. That unwillingness to take a risk with technique/style secured the box office/home entertainment sales, but didn?t make for a movie that was as bold or as significant as the originals. However, that?s not at all the same thing as targeting the movie for a younger audience (as you suggest).
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
Oh c'mon Montana... I mean, Indy was presented in a boy scouts outfit for Franks sake. There's no ambiguity there. Or perhaps it?s so sophisticated a character/movie that the boy scout outfit was just a cover for the teenage depravity beneath. Wow - Perhaps Young Indy is cool afterall??? As it stands, even Mutt is more morally ambiguous than Indiana Jones because he dropped out of school, is a greaser and carries a switch. ;)

It?s clear from the start, well to me anyway, that Indiana Jones has a very strong moral compass (wether you take the start as Raiders or the prequel in TLC). Just because the character is presented as a loveable ?rogue? or ?scoundrel? doesn?t define anti-hero to me. Nor is the propensity for smoking, drinking or infidelity per se? if it were, then I?d be struggling to think of any character, other than perhaps Superman, who could be described as a pure dyed in-the-wool ?hero? (and even Supes f*cked Louis Lane out of wedlock right?). I?d personally identify the likes of Othello, Hamlet or (in terms of cinema) Michael Corleone or Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver) as arcitypal ?anti-hero?s - where there is an actual sense of ambiguity around their moral compasses, their beliefs and modus operandi? but not Indy, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo etc.

An anti-hero is one who doesn't fit the general archetrype of hero. Indy was created as a thief and a seducer of underage girls. One of his inspirations was Eastwood's 'man with no name' - hardly traditional hero material. He's not Captain America, but a mercenary who lifts objects for money, the thrill of the chase, and the kudos of beating his rivals.

Do you really believe that objects are better off in a museum than in the hands of those who have a claim to them? That's the imperialist in Indy, the pulp heritage of the dominant white man who knows better than the savages. Yet Indy is also a conflicted character, because he's also an enlightened individual capable of deeper understanding. The desire for fortune and glory is always in danger of getting the better of him - as it almost did in TOD. His conscience can never be clear, because he knows what he's doing. Belloq was correct in saying that they weren't much different.

Darth Vile said:
I?d disagree because the sizeable tone shift is between Raiders and TOD. The tone shifts between TOD, TLC and KOTCS, if any, are slight in comparison. I agree that KOTCS is a ?safe? movie? and that?s one of the issues I have with it. But it?s not safe as in terms of tone (well no more than the others anyway), but in terms of technique and style i.e. it tries too hard to be like the previous movies when it should have tried to be something new I.e., in James Bond terms, it?s the equivalent of Goldeneye, when it should have been Casino Royale. You are also making a huge assumption when you equate ?safe? and ?bland? to targeting a younger audience. Even if true, who says ?safe? and ?bland? equals younger target audience??? The truth is probably that Spielberg/Lucas were a little too risk averse with KOTCS because they wanted to ensure the movie had mass appeal. That unwillingness to take a risk with technique/style secured the box office/home entertainment sales, but didn?t make for a movie that was as bold or as significant as the originals. However, that?s not at all the same thing as targeting the movie for a younger audience (as you suggest).

I?m simply building a case to answer the question, ?Why is it ?cool? to hate on KOTCS?? (which I don?t, as I see a progression of the Indiana Jones character within the film).

There?s a dumbed down otherness that runs through KOTCS, compared to the previous entries. TOD may have had it?s over the top silly moments, but it didn?t shy away from horror. Instead it reveled in heart ripping, child slavery, voodoo, flayed humans. ROTLA and TLC had their Hammer House of Horror style puppet destruction and decapitation, a scene of torture interrupted.

There is no trace of offensive material in KOTCS. It's completely kiddie safe. Rather than give it mass appeal, as the original trilogy had, it alienates the original audience.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
An anti-hero is one who doesn't fit the general archetrype of hero. Indy was created as a thief and a seducer of underage girls. One of his inspirations was Eastwood's 'man with no name' - hardly traditional hero material. He's not Captain America, but a mercenary who lifts objects for money, the thrill of the chase, and the kudos of beating his rivals.
If that’s the case then I’d refer to my earlier post… as it means that every other protagonist in every other action/adventure movie can be legitimately referred to as an ‘anti-hero’…be it James Bond, Iron Man, Luke Skywalker or Howard The Duck… and if that is the case, then ‘anti-hero’ becomes the norm, standard and safe way to depict the protagonist. Perhaps Indy in KOTCS is more off the wall and daring than we give him credit for… as it at least bucks the current trend of commercial/industrialised Hollywood cinema's depiction of the 'hero'???

Montana Smith said:
Do you really believe that objects are better off in a museum than in the hands of those who have a claim to them? That's the imperialist in Indy, the pulp heritage of the dominant white man who knows better than the savages. Yet Indy is also a conflicted character, because he's also an enlightened individual capable of deeper understanding. The desire for fortune and glory is always in danger of getting the better of him - as it almost did in TOD. His conscience can never be clear, because he knows what he's doing. Belloq was correct in saying that they weren't much different. .
I think that’s just a justification of a big assumption. I think the movies make it pretty clear that Indiana Jones is a ‘good guy’… and the quest for the Ark, Sankara Stones, Holy Grail and Crystal Skull have little to do with his personal acquisition of wealth or power. The closest he gets to personal gain is with the Sankara stones and he ultimately gives it back to the village. We knew he was going to give it back to the village, so did the Shaman… just as we knew he was always going to free the kids. I don’t see any sense of ambiguity there. What there is, is scant, routine and by the numbers. It doesn't cause drama or tension...


Montana Smith said:
I’m simply building a case to answer the question, “Why is it ‘cool’ to hate on KOTCS?” (which I don’t, as I see a progression of the Indiana Jones character within the film).
That’s fine by me. I don’t necessarily disagree with some of the conclusions e.g. KOTCS is a safe movie, it seems somewhat pedestrian in parts, a lacklustre finale, overuse of CGI in some scenes etc. I just disagree with how you get there… and I think it's dissproportionate.

Montana Smith said:
There’s a dummbed down otherness that runs through KOTCS, compared to the previous entries. TOD may have had it’s over the top silly moments, but it didn’t shy away from horror. Instead it reveled in heart ripping, child slavery, voodoo, flayed humans. ROTLA and TLC had their Hammer House of Horror style puppet destruction and decapitation, a scene of torture interrupted.
Dummbed down implies a drop in intelligence/sophistication. I don’t agree because I think KOTCS is as intelligent as the other Indy sequels (well as intelligent as TOD anyway)… it’s just that it plays it all too safe and nice. The net result may be the same… but I don’t think it has anything to do with integrity, lack of quality per se or less intelligence on the filmakers part (more boredom on their part perhaps).

Re. TOD’s horror. I personannly never found TOD scary – even as a kid. Neither did my childhood mates and girlfriends. It was titillation… nothing more (IMHO) and one could argue that by introducing the culture of ‘titillation’ into the movie, it helped in “dumbing down” the entire concept. I think there’s been a move away from the playful (almost childlike) violence of mainstream Hollywood movies of the 80’s to a more pervasive and subtle depiction of violence and sexualisation - where you can’t show a head butt yet you can portray women as purely as sexual objects and amass body count like a game of Call of Duty (but that’s another debate). But I’m not sure you can blame Indiana Jones or KOTCS for that cultural shift. Neither does it make KOTCS less intelligent just because of the ever changing sensibilities. Nor does it explain why it isn't an issue for "kid friendly" movies like Iron Man, Spiderman and Thor (to name but a few).

Montana Smith said:
There is no trace of offensive material in KOTCS. It's completely kiddie safe. Rather than give it mass appeal, as the original trilogy had, it alienates the original audience.
I think it alienates the adults who want an excuse to see an Indiana Jones movie without fear of being called juvenile. :p
 
Top