What do you dislike about Indy 4?

Kingsley

Member
This is the dark side of the other thread... because you can like things you know so far about Indy4, but there are surely things you don't like that much. Mine...

- I don't like the title... Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is too long and too static... and it has the crystal skulls in it!!
- I don't like the crystal skulls rumour
- I don't like the aliens rumour :sick:
- I don't like the lack of foreign filming locations

But that's pretty much all I can remember now, not so bad then...
 
Artifact is highly visible in the real world - where´s the mystery??

Son of Indy involved - may be done well, but other option would have been better.

Nathanson and Koepp given the chance to dilute and pollute the Darabont original.

US-based filming hints at complacency.

Any further explanation for the Ark and its mysteries will detract from the splendour of the original.

Setting of ´57 is within the Rock n Roll period, just beforehand in ´52 or ´53 would have been more amenable to the Indy universe. I fear ´Mutt´will grate.

Artifact, if the skulls, lacks the gravitas and ´already-in-the-subconscious´ impact of ROTLA and LC. TOD without a younger Indy won´t work - its been done once, we need development, surely?
 

commontone

New member
StwongBwidge said:
Artifact is highly visible in the real world - where´s the mystery??

I thought about that, but keep in mind, there have been "Arks" purported to be the real deal, which were proven not to be; same thing with the Grail. At the very least, there are similar Arks and Grails out there. But they're not *the* Ark or Grail.

You could go the same way with the crystal skull. Yes, there are some fakes out there. There's the Mitchell-Hedges skull which most think is fake. Yet South American Native lore *does* describe such a thing. So think of it this way; it's visible in the real world--but those aren't *the* crystal skulls with special powers. See what I mean...?
 
commontone said:
I thought about that, but keep in mind, there have been "Arks" purported to be the real deal, which were proven not to be; same thing with the Grail. At the very least, there are similar Arks and Grails out there. But they're not *the* Ark or Grail.

You could go the same way with the crystal skull. Yes, there are some fakes out there. There's the Mitchell-Hedges skull which most think is fake. Yet South American Native lore *does* describe such a thing. So think of it this way; it's visible in the real world--but those aren't *the* crystal skulls with special powers. See what I mean...?

But the Ark and Grail were being debated and faked 2,000 and more years ago. Not 1924. Big difference.
 

commontone

New member
Yes, you're right, there is a difference.

But that's why I'm intrigued (not to be too OT) by the rumors of alien lore being in the story. If the skull were properly tied in to some kind of alien lore, involving the ancient Mayans--don't ask me how, but I know it could be done--then *there's* your gravitas. For me, as much as the ideas have been mocked, abused, etc., the root concept of aliens has an even bigger undertow of wonder, intrigue, etc. than biblical stuff.
 

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
The possibility of aliens scares me. I don't want aliens. I'd rather watch Indiana Jones versus Poltergeist. I'll be pretty PO if there's aliens.

Crystal Skulls don't really intrigue me and I don't see and understand how Lucas thinks this is the best MacGuffin yet in those Empire interviews last year. It works in Phantom (no alien ties, I will point out), but I don't know if it would work in IV especially with the Alien tie rumoured. It's just too Stargate for me.

I would have liked Connery in it and I would have prefered it if Blancett wasn't in it, so then my Mum would want to come along to go see it as a family.
 
Harrison Ford hasn't turned in a performance that didn't blow Chunks-The-Monkey in about 10 years... Not to mention the fact that he was too old to play the character when last he did it... Now it's just a pathetic joke.

Lucas hasn't put his hand to ANY good work in more like 15 years.

Spielburg is one of the WORST thing to ever happen to film unless you like tripe...

What I have heard about the script sounds exactly like the garbage I've come to expect from George & Steven...

Son?!?! Oh please... are we going to retread that tired old ground.... it was lame when it was done in Empire Strikes Back... It's even more lame now.

Old Indy? Sigh.... I have ZERO interest in stories of heroes trying to come to grips with their mortality. It's boring. It's been done (pardon the pun) to death.... and it's been done way better than George and/or Steven will ever be able to do. (Again, I'll like their track record, the skite-stains they've cranked out as 'films' over the last couple of decades speak for itself.... )

Aliens?!?! So now, what? This is going to be like the end of A.I. (A damn fine movie until Steven rubbed his crap-covered hands all over it) all over again?!?! If that is the case, this movie is going to stick out like a sore thumb when put beside the other Indy films....

I have ZERO call it 'faith' for lack of a better word in George.... I have little more than contempt for Steven.... I mourn the passing of the acting skills that Harrison Ford USED to possess. (He was FANTASTIC in movies like Mosquito Coast or Regarding Henry.... after that he was typecast to play this same boring thing over and over and over and over, and I for one am sick to death of him doing it.... and of late I'm sick of him phoning it in like he's done most recently in films like "Hollywood Homicide" and "Firewall". In both, he may as well not even have been there.)

These are just some of the reasons I'm firmly of the opinion that Indy 4 is a BAD idea that is going to stink worse than a homeless dock-side whore at low tide.

Do I WANT to be wrong?!?! You're FN right I want to be wrong!!!
I just don't see any single reason to even entertain the idea that I might be wrong at this point.... Even Karen Allen isn't going to be enough to save this P.O.S. movie.
 

kongisking

Active member
ClintonHammond said:
Harrison Ford hasn't turned in a performance that didn't blow Chunks-The-Monkey in about 10 years... Not to mention the fact that he was too old to play the character when last he did it... Now it's just a pathetic joke.

Lucas hasn't put his hand to ANY good work in more like 15 years.

Spielburg is one of the WORST thing to ever happen to film unless you like tripe...

What I have heard about the script sounds exactly like the garbage I've come to expect from George & Steven...

Son?!?! Oh please... are we going to retread that tired old ground.... it was lame when it was done in Empire Strikes Back... It's even more lame now.

Old Indy? Sigh.... I have ZERO interest in stories of heroes trying to come to grips with their mortality. It's boring. It's been done (pardon the pun) to death.... and it's been done way better than George and/or Steven will ever be able to do. (Again, I'll like their track record, the skite-stains they've cranked out as 'films' over the last couple of decades speak for itself.... )

Aliens?!?! So now, what? This is going to be like the end of A.I. (A damn fine movie until Steven rubbed his crap-covered hands all over it) all over again?!?! If that is the case, this movie is going to stick out like a sore thumb when put beside the other Indy films....

I have ZERO call it 'faith' for lack of a better word in George.... I have little more than contempt for Steven.... I mourn the passing of the acting skills that Harrison Ford USED to possess. (He was FANTASTIC in movies like Mosquito Coast or Regarding Henry.... after that he was typecast to play this same boring thing over and over and over and over, and I for one am sick to death of him doing it.... and of late I'm sick of him phoning it in like he's done most recently in films like "Hollywood Homicide" and "Firewall". In both, he may as well not even have been there.)

These are just some of the reasons I'm firmly of the opinion that Indy 4 is a BAD idea that is going to stink worse than a homeless dock-side whore at low tide.

Do I WANT to be wrong?!?! You're FN right I want to be wrong!!!
I just don't see any single reason to even entertain the idea that I might be wrong at this point.... Even Karen Allen isn't going to be enough to save this P.O.S. movie.

Clinton, you never fail to make me laugh my head off while simultaneously making me annoyed and uncomfortable about your hatred-attitude toward everything that is considered good in the world...I still like you though! ;) :p :hat:

The only thing I truly hate right now is the whole return-of-the-Ark rumor...the beauty of these movies is that they stand alone. I want a new, original MacGuffin!!!
 

Barty

New member
ClintonHammond said:
This is going to be like the end of A.I. (A damn fine movie until Steven rubbed his crap-covered hands all over it) all over again?!?! If that is the case, this movie is going to stick out like a sore thumb when put beside the other Indy films....


I won't give a rebuttal to your tirades against Spielberg, because they are silly. However, the ending of A.I. is exactly how Kubrick plotted it. So, in this case, you are wrong when you blame Spielberg for it.
 
"hatred-attitude toward everything that is considered good in the world"
Hardly.... I know LOTS of people who recognize Lickas and Shpewburg for the garbage factories they both are.

"ending of A.I. is exactly how Kubrick plotted it"
Proof?

Cause I ain't gonna believe it just cause you say it....
 
"The information about who decided what in reference to the story of AI is detailed in this interview with Steven Spielberg"

Except that I don't trust him as far as I could kick him....

He's not what I would call a reliable source.... He's the one who thought it would be a good idea to CGI the GUNS our of ET.... He's the one who thought that ET was a good idea in the first place.

"The "aliens" are actually far more developed versions of the films "mechas""
Then I'm even more vindicated, because that doesn't play out at all!
 

sttngfan1701d

New member
I don't like the aliens rumor.

I don't like that Shia was cast, and that he may play Indy's son.

The plot sounds complacent from many angles.
 

chapter11

Well-known member
ClintonHammond said:
He's the one who thought that ET was a good idea in the first place.

Oh my god... you even hate ET? Boo! (n)

Kingsley said:
I don't like the title... Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is too long and too static... and it has the crystal skulls in it!!

Actually, at least if the title is any indication, it has a single crystal skull. I can't say why exactly, but I think this is an important distinction. If I had to guess I'd venture that it distinguishes it from all the various fakes that have surfaced since the 1920s, and focuses instead on the legend that prompted all the fake skulls. I think it's kind of cool.
 

loganbush

New member
Alien, no. But I think they won't be involved prominently fro what we've seen. I hate Shia with a passion, he's just not right for this role.
 
loganbush said:
Alien, no. But I think they won't be involved prominently fro what we've seen. I hate Shia with a passion, he's just not right for this role.

Send me a copy of the film and I'll be better placed to comment on whether you are right or not.
 
Top