Cinemassacre Defends KotCS

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
What pisses me off the most is how no matter what you like, dislike or believe, if it's been parodied on South Park, people use it as some sort of evidence to you being wrong.

Ex)
Person: "I recently converted to Scientology, I agreed with its principles. It's very legitimate in my opinion..."

Person's Response: "What?! Scientology makes no !#$%ing sense! Look, they even parodied it on South Park on episode (Insert Here) so it's gotta be dumb!"

Same thing with Indy.

Person: "I loved Indy IV! It topped Temple of Doom!"

Person's Response: "Haha they freaking RAPED him! South Park had it right!"



That's the only thing about South Park that pisses me off. People using it as "evidence" towards their opinion on not just Indy, but with everything.
 

Cole

New member
Dr.Jonesy said:
What pisses me off the most is how no matter what you like, dislike or believe, if it's been parodied on South Park, people use it as some sort of evidence to you being wrong.

Ex)
Person: "I recently converted to Scientology, I agreed with its principles. It's very legitimate in my opinion..."

Person's Response: "What?! Scientology makes no !#$%ing sense! Look, they even parodied it on South Park on episode (Insert Here) so it's gotta be dumb!"

Same thing with Indy.

Person: "I loved Indy IV! It topped Temple of Doom!"

Person's Response: "Haha they freaking RAPED him! South Park had it right!"



That's the only thing about South Park that pisses me off. People using it as "evidence" towards their opinion on not just Indy, but with everything.
Well-said. Same with Shia's comments. Same with Raimi saying Spiderman 3 "wasn't his fault."

I wish people would stand behind their work. I think that's much more noble.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Dr. Gonzo said:
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/46795355@N07/4539206418/" title="lucas rapes jones by Chad Bronder, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4016/4539206418_e1a8064a5b.jpg" width="500" height="373" alt="lucas rapes jones" /></a>

Lucas during sex is equivalent to being constipated?:eek:
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Cole said:
Well-said. Same with Shia's comments. Same with Raimi saying Spiderman 3 "wasn't his fault."

I wish people would stand behind their work. I think that's much more noble.

An individual, If it's his work, if he's the decision-maker? I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging the flaws. It's an insight into the creative process that I consider valuable and interesting. It also shows humility.

Now, buck passing isn't respectable - although let's be cognizant of the fact that it can have some truth to it. Let's not pretend that studios can't exert pressure on a process, to take Raimi's case. How's the latter end of Orson Welles's career look, hmm? There's always compromises to be made.

Really, though, who cares what South Park says, or if people take its opinions as justification for their own. It's nice to see one's self as part of a community of believers, whether it's religious or regional or artistic or whatever, but there's usually something to be said for those who don't belong. Try to see the reasons and impulses behind something like South Park's view point, but if you just can't make that leap, consider leaving it aside. Looks like you'd be a lot happier.

As for me? Eh, I like the show, but I've got limited tolerance for the voice acting, so I've only seen a handful, and not this particular episode. And KotCS certainly could have been better, but could have been worse too. And I don't see anything wrong with critiquing the film, or wishing elements of it were otherwise than they are, while still liking it overall. Honestly, I see a lot right with it.
 
Last edited:

Cole

New member
Attila the Professor said:
An individual, If it's his work, if he's the decision-maker? I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging the flaws. It's an insight into the creative process that I consider valuable and interesting. It also shows humility.
Sometimes it can also be unfair to the fans, their co-workers, and can be seen as unprofessional.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Cole said:
Sometimes it can also be unfair to the fans, their co-workers, and can be seen as unprofessional.

Plus I think it's kinda unprofessional to throw a well respected actor under the bus too.

When Shia mentioned Harrison it was kind of like; "Err...don't yell at me! *Points* He thought it sucked too!!"

There's a difference between acknowledging flaws and berating the entire product. Shia still is an actor that has to pursue work. And as an employer, would you want to hire an employee who has a history of publicly bad mouthing their former boss and company?

I can guarantee you, you wouldn't.

Personally, I believe Shia was sincere in some part but was more-so trying to gain more respect from internet fanboys with those comments. I know he reads the internet and IMDb, so he probably would think Indy IV was one of the worst received sequels ever made even if it wasn't.

I think if you were a director and had a direct hand in the OVERALL product, you may critique your work, then that's fine. Because the criticism falls on you and you wouldn't have a boss being pissed to worry about. Film distributors only worry about money, and if you pull in the big bucks, you're wanted no matter if you're selling a polished sculpture of bovine feces or Casablanca.

But as an actor berating the overall product of which he had no affect on is un-ethical. He has to worry about the higher boss. He has to worry about getting work. And what he said about his performance was fine, but he went on to throw Harrison under the bus and then critique the overall product based on Spielberg's direction. That was un-professional. A conversation like that should've stayed behind closed doors.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
Really, though, who cares what South Park says, or if people take its opinions as justification for their own. It's nice to see one's self as part of a community of believers, whether it's religious or regional or artistic or whatever, but there's usually something to be said for those who don't belong. Try to see the reasons and impulses behind something like South Park's view point, but if you just can't make that leap, consider leaving it aside. Looks like you'd be a lot happier.

...

And I don't see anything wrong with critiquing the film, or wishing elements of it were otherwise than they are, while still liking it overall. Honestly, I see a lot right with it.

Here at The Raven whenever somebody says they "hate" KOTCS there are a number of opponents who take offence.

Why take offence?

Another's "hate" shouldn't detract from one's "love", especially when the object in question is a pulp movie.

Those who "love" the movie will claim that "haters" shouldn't "bash" it.

It's like the movie is a religious artifact that cannot be questioned. There's nothing wrong with critiquing a movie, as long as the critique actually has some substance and reasoning behind it.

As Attila wrote, "there's usually something to be said for those who don't belong". I see that as standing on the outside looking in, seeing both sides, and not blinded to a single path. In KOTCS there are some things I love and some things I hate. The total of love/hate = like.

Like most movies KOTCS is a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly. The perfect film is a rarity, even an impossible Holy Grail. Somebody's bound to hate it.

Film critics often have an agenda. They like to grab headlines, and appear to try and create or match popular trends. A powerful critic can second-guess public reaction and make that reaction seem to be the generally accepted one. Shows like South Park also do the same. They go for shock, and it's easier to get a laugh from making fun of something than it is from worshipping it.

I'm not a fan of South Park. My cartoon preferences lie with Family Guy, who approach these subjects a little differently. For example, Seth MacFarlane is constantly making fun of Star Wars. Yet he is also a big Star Wars fan. His comedy is a form of honouring the iconic status of the Star Wars series.

Likewise, actors in movies are free to express their feelings about the movies they appear in. If that wasn't the case all we're left with is denial and the brick wall of supreme confidence dictated by marketing concerns. That is, all that bull that actors say to the press when their films are just about to come out. The proof of the pudding only emerges when an individual goes to see it, and makes their own judgement, regardless of the judgement of others, lest we all drift around like sheep in search of the greenest grass.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Cole said:
Sometimes it can also be unfair to the fans, their co-workers, and can be seen as unprofessional.

To the fans? Now that I just don't see. Because they're saying that they don't like something that the audience does? They're all allowed to retain their own aesthetic judgment, but, again, the view of those involved is in many respects more interesting, if not necessarily more valid, than that of a general observer. Do i want to hear where Spielberg sees these films fitting into his body of work, why Temple of Doom is something he's not proud of? Yes. Even if I disagree, it's illuminating information. I don't need him to agree with me.

But I'm really not talking about the Shia case, other than to say that buck-passing is not something that I'd advocate for. I'm not defending him anymore than you are. (I think, as you suggest, that there's something to be said for his words about his own fault in the matter.) And was it fair for him to drag Harrison Ford into it? Obviously not. That's up for him to say. But does Shia get to say, "yeah, I wish I had sold some of my performance a bit better?" I see no reason why not.

And this is worth hearing twice:

Montana Smith said:
Likewise, actors in movies are free to express their feelings about the movies they appear in. If that wasn't the case all we're left with is denial and the brick wall of supreme confidence dictated by marketing concerns. That is, all that bull that actors say to the press when their films are just about to come out. The proof of the pudding only emerges when an individual goes to see it, and makes their own judgement, regardless of the judgement of others, lest we all drift around like sheep in search of the greenest grass.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
Here at The Raven whenever somebody says they "hate" KOTCS there are a number of opponents who take offence.

Why take offence?

Another's "hate" shouldn't detract from one's "love", especially when the object in question is a pulp movie.

Those who "love" the movie will claim that "haters" shouldn't "bash" it.

It's like the movie is a religious artifact that cannot be questioned. There's nothing wrong with critiquing a movie, as long as the critique actually has some substance and reasoning behind it.

As Attila wrote, "there's usually something to be said for those who don't belong". I see that as standing on the outside looking in, seeing both sides, and not blinded to a single path. In KOTCS there are some things I love and some things I hate. The total of love/hate = like.

Like most movies KOTCS is a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly. The perfect film is a rarity, even an impossible Holy Grail. Somebody's bound to hate it.

Film critics often have an agenda. They like to grab headlines, and appear to try and create or match popular trends. A powerful critic can second-guess public reaction and make that reaction seem to be the generally accepted one. Shows like South Park also do the same. They go for shock, and it's easier to get a laugh from making fun of something than it is from worshipping it.

I'm not a fan of South Park. My cartoon preferences lie with Family Guy, who approach these subjects a little differently. For example, Seth MacFarlane is constantly making fun of Star Wars. Yet he is also a big Star Wars fan. His comedy is a form of honouring the iconic status of the Star Wars series.

Likewise, actors in movies are free to express their feelings about the movies they appear in. If that wasn't the case all we're left with is denial and the brick wall of supreme confidence dictated by marketing concerns. That is, all that bull that actors say to the press when their films are just about to come out. The proof of the pudding only emerges when an individual goes to see it, and makes their own judgement, regardless of the judgement of others, lest we all drift around like sheep in search of the greenest grass.

Good post Montana... I don't think it's all cut & dried/black and white as "lovers" and "haters", but I agree with your sentiments.:)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
Do i want to hear where Spielberg sees these films fitting into his body of work, why Temple of Doom is something he's not proud of? Yes. Even if I disagree, it's illuminating information. I don't need him to agree with me.

Yes. If it's a film I'm really interested in, I want to hear everything there is by those involved in making it. I do want to hear the good, the bad, and the ugly (and you may guess from my second use of those words today, I'm currently really getting stoked by Sergio Leone's stylish movies). I like to listen intently to film-makers commentaries on DVDs, I want to know what they really feel about their work, not just listen to them praising themselves. I like it when an director says a certain actor was hell to work with, rather than listen to them say "he was a darling man". With honesty comes respect, and artists of all kinds rarely feel they've achieved perfection.

Attila the Professor said:
And this is worth hearing twice:

Thanks, Attila. :hat:

Darth Vile said:
Good post Montana... I don't think it's all cut & dried/black and white as "lovers" and "haters", but I agree with your sentiments.:)

Thanks, Darth. :hat:

That's why I find myself sitting in the middle in the "like" category. ;)

Sometimes it feels like a civil war!
 

Sharkey

Guest
Montana Smith said:
Here at The Raven whenever somebody says they "hate" KOTCS there are a number of opponents who take offence.

Why take offence?

Another's "hate" shouldn't detract from one's "love", especially when the object in question is a pulp movie.

Those who "love" the movie will claim that "haters" shouldn't "bash" it.
To echo the others, fine post. But the answer is quite simple. Crystal Skull has introduced Indiana Jones to a new generation of fans and they define Indy on terms of a superhero, so as they become members of the Raven they are destined to lock horns with the old timers with a blind passion of a young heart AND mind, in the case of the inexperienced and the young understanding will come in time and more likely after a few bumps and bruises.

With that said, Crystal Skull was huge disappointment.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Sharkey said:
To echo the others, fine post. But the answer is quite simple. Crystal Skull has introduced Indiana Jones to a new generation of fans and they define Indy on terms of a superhero, so as they become members of the Raven they are destined to lock horns with the old timers with a blind passion of a young heart AND mind, in the case of the inexperienced and the young understanding will come in time and more likely after a few bumps and bruises.

With that said, Crystal Skull was huge disappointment.

Yes, there would have been a weight of expectation when news first broke that Indy IV was going into production. Back then I wasn't bothered about seeing Indy come back. However, I got around to seeing KOTCS, and it wasn't as terrible as I'd expected it would be. Nowhere near perfect, yet not as bad as it could have been. Now I'm feeling the weight of expectation for Indy V, because the potential for something better is there.

The media, which thrives on division and controversy, will drive in a wedge anywhere they can find a crack in popular culture, and they'll attempt to pry it open until it becomes fair game for mockery. It's not necessarily their true opinion, or the opinion of a majority, but it's what they do. So for those that love the movie, they shouldn't take it as a personal attack. Nobody should be really able to take away how you actually feel about a film, a book, a piece of art, or a piece of music.

Indiana Jones has entered the collective consciousness, and we all have different ideas about what he means, and with each successive movie there is more opportunity for the character to grow further away from our own expectations.
 

Cole

New member
Attila the Professor said:
To the fans? Now that I just don't see. Because they're saying that they don't like something that the audience does? They're all allowed to retain their own aesthetic judgment, but, again, the view of those involved is in many respects more interesting, if not necessarily more valid, than that of a general observer. Do i want to hear where Spielberg sees these films fitting into his body of work, why Temple of Doom is something he's not proud of? Yes. Even if I disagree, it's illuminating information. I don't need him to agree with me.

But I'm really not talking about the Shia case, other than to say that buck-passing is not something that I'd advocate for. I'm not defending him anymore than you are. (I think, as you suggest, that there's something to be said for his words about his own fault in the matter.) And was it fair for him to drag Harrison Ford into it? Obviously not. That's up for him to say. But does Shia get to say, "yeah, I wish I had sold some of my performance a bit better?" I see no reason why not.

And this is worth hearing twice:
I think directors, actors, whoever can still provide interesting and unique insight without bashing their own movie.

Why I think it can be disrespectful to the fans? You pay money to see it, and if you like it, you have something of an emotional investment in it.

I'm not saying it should change your opinion of the film.........but it can be disheartening when a filmmaker/actor tries to "disown" their work. It kinda cheapens it. Hence, unfair to the fans. You know? You sign on to do it, you do your best - stand by it.

Besides, artists aren't always the best judges of their own work - they should just leave that to others.

I think we could at least agree they should eloquently choose their words. Not EVERY situation is the same either.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Cole said:
I think directors, actors, whoever can still provide interesting and unique insight without bashing their own movie.

You and I agree. I just think that we might have different standards for what constitutes bashing.

I've got this friend. She's worked with me on a number of the plays I've directed and been in. She is incapable of allowing me to engage in any sort of self-critique, be it artistic or otherwise. I can't stand this tendency. Call me a navel-gazer, but I think self-critique is one of the most valuable things we have. To quote Last Crusade script doctor Tom Stoppard, "if knowledge isn't self-knowledge, it isn't doing much, mate."

I'm not positing this as a hard and fast rule, largely because there are gradations of validity and thoughtfulness that come into any such judgments. Have you ever spent some time reading interviews with writers, actors, or directors? I'm talking real interviews, not just "what are you working on now and what funny things have happened to you lately?" kinds of things (which I enjoy, but aren't that informative). Just a simple assessment as "I think I was more successful with this work than that one" or "the critics weren't wild about this, but I think it's one of the films I stand by most" can speak volumes. Woody Allen can't stand <I>Manhattan</I>, which is pretty universally regarded as one of his best, and I agree with that consensus. He hasn't quite said why, but it's a fascinating question.

Cole said:
Why I think it can be disrespectful to the fans? You pay money to see it, and if you like it, you have something of an emotional investment in it.

I'm not saying it should change your opinion of the film.........but it can be disheartening when a filmmaker/actor tries to "disown" their work. It kinda cheapens it.

Maybe you and I have different approaches to this sort of thing, then. Be disheartened if you like, but I take it as an opportunity for insight and reflection on a work that I regard highly, and try to get a grasp for its nuances and some of its implications that I might not have spent any time on. It's like that book that classifies Raiders and the rest of the 1980s Indy movies as Reaganite entertainment, ultimately violent and jingoistic. On the whole, I think it's wrong, but there's truth in that - certain facets of Temple of Doom spring to mind. And that's just if I'm in a thoughtful mood; I'm also perfectly willing to just say, "hey, I think it's entertaining. It's not great art, and it doesn't have to be. This doesn't affect my enjoyment of it in the least."

Cole said:
Besides, artists aren't always the best judges of their own work - they should just leave that to others.

No single group has a monopoly on aesthetic judgment, neither artists nor critics nor the man in the street. I definitely want the artists included in the conversation though.

Cole said:
I think we could at least agree they should eloquently choose their words.

Sure, though coupled with the recognition that things can come off quite differently in print than they might have been intended verbally, and that we say many things when put on the spot that might not have as much thought going into them as we'd like.

Cole said:
Not EVERY situation is the same either.

Indeed.
 

Cole

New member
Sharkey said:
To echo the others, fine post. But the answer is quite simple. Crystal Skull has introduced Indiana Jones to a new generation of fans and they define Indy on terms of a superhero, so as they become members of the Raven they are destined to lock horns with the old timers with a blind passion of a young heart AND mind, in the case of the inexperienced and the young understanding will come in time and more likely after a few bumps and bruises.

With that said, Crystal Skull was huge disappointment.
I don't think anybody is defining Indy as a superhero.

It's not like the younger generation who saw the film was not familiar with Indiana Jones......I'm sure the vast majority was already familiar with the first 3 films. 'Crystal Skull' was simply the first opportunity to see a brand new Indy film in the theater, which is what makes it particularly special to me.

So I don't think there's some generational battle going on. I have to laugh at people who saw the films released in the 80's and think their opinion is somehow more entitled and that they know the character better.
 

Cole

New member
Attila the Professor said:
You and I agree. I just think that we might have different standards for what constitutes bashing.

I've got this friend. She's worked with me on a number of the plays I've directed and been in. She is incapable of allowing me to engage in any sort of self-critique, be it artistic or otherwise. I can't stand this tendency. Call me a navel-gazer, but I think self-critique is one of the most valuable things we have. To quote Last Crusade script doctor Tom Stoppard, "if knowledge isn't self-knowledge, it isn't doing much, mate."

I'm not positing this as a hard and fast rule, largely because there are gradations of validity and thoughtfulness that come into any such judgments. Have you ever spent some time reading interviews with writers, actors, or directors? I'm talking real interviews, not just "what are you working on now and what funny things have happened to you lately?" kinds of things (which I enjoy, but aren't that informative). Just a simple assessment as "I think I was more successful with this work than that one" or "the critics weren't wild about this, but I think it's one of the films I stand by most" can speak volumes. Woody Allen can't stand <I>Manhattan</I>, which is pretty universally regarded as one of his best, and I agree with that consensus. He hasn't quite said why, but it's a fascinating question.



Maybe you and I have different approaches to this sort of thing, then. Be disheartened if you like, but I take it as an opportunity for insight and reflection on a work that I regard highly, and try to get a grasp for its nuances and some of its implications that I might not have spent any time on. It's like that book that classifies Raiders and the rest of the 1980s Indy movies as Reaganite entertainment, ultimately violent and jingoistic. On the whole, I think it's wrong, but there's truth in that - certain facets of Temple of Doom spring to mind. And that's just if I'm in a thoughtful mood; I'm also perfectly willing to just say, "hey, I think it's entertaining. It's not great art, and it doesn't have to be. This doesn't affect my enjoyment of it in the least."



No single group has a monopoly on aesthetic judgment, neither artists nor critics nor the man in the street. I definitely want the artists included in the conversation though.



Sure, though coupled with the recognition that things can come off quite differently in print than they might have been intended verbally, and that we say many things when put on the spot that might not have as much thought going into them as we'd like.



Indeed.
I think self-critique is a must - not just for art, but all facets of life.

But if you try your hardest at something and you believe in what you're doing.......you can critique it in some sense, but I think you should still be behind it. It's more noble to stand behind it, rather than try to disown it when opinion turns (eh hem, Shia and Raimi).

Multi-million dollar movies in the public eye are a very unique and different kind of animal.

When asked what he thought of the movie, Harrison Ford said he's got two heads or something - and one knows when to shut up. Probably because he knows his comments are going to be dissected, analyzed, exaggerated and any critique is gonna headline every major media outlet. Kind of like the Shia thing.
 

Sharkey

Guest
Cole said:
I don't think anybody is defining Indy as a superhero.

It's not like the younger generation who saw the film was not familiar with Indiana Jones......I'm sure the vast majority was already familiar with the first 3 films. 'Crystal Skull' was simply the first opportunity to see a brand new Indy film in the theater, which is what makes it particularly special to me.

So I don't think there's some generational battle going on. I have to laugh at people who saw the films released in the 80's and think their opinion is somehow more entitled and that they know the character better.
Not better or worse, just different.

Indy HAS become a Super Hero. Like it or not the generation who saw the originals in the theater had a different experience to those who have just seen Crystal Skull. Time doesn't Necessarily equal a better understanding, but I'm sure for those old timers who spend time here at The Raven, it does.

I laugh when a headstrong newcomer can't handle contrary opinions.
 
Sharkey said:
Not better or worse, just different.

Indy HAS become a Super Hero. Like it or not the generation who saw the originals in the theater had a different experience to those who have just seen Crystal Skull. Time doesn't Necessarily equal a better understanding, but I'm sure for those old timers who spend time here at The Raven, it does.

I laugh when a headstrong newcomer can't handle contrary opinions.


Cheers, Sharkey. :hat:
 

StoneTriple

New member
Cole said:
I don't think there's some generational battle going on. I have to laugh at people who saw the films released in the 80's and think their opinion is somehow more entitled and that they know the character better.

I don't think there's a generational battle going on, but I do think there are fundamental differences between older fans and younger fans. Those differences may sometimes come across as a battle.

I saw the films in their theatrical releases. While I don't know the character better than newer fans, I certainly have a much different insight into the character & the passage of time he struggles with in the film. When I saw Kingdom, I felt a different kind of connection and appreciation for the character.

There are quite a few younger fans here who - no matter how much they want to imagine it - simply cannot possibly understand aging to the extent that our hero has. When I saw him struggling with things or reacting differently, I understood it. I don't want the same character that I saw when I was sitting in the theater in 1981 - because I'm not the kid I was back then.

Many of the younger fans around here, who grew up with a video 3-pack, saw Kingdom and reacted with "he's slower, he didn't shoot anyone", etc. My reaction was - yeah, the years have been brutal and life is starting to take things away. My criticisms of the film have nothing to do with the character - they nailed it. My criticisms are minor things that I would have done differently (Tarzan, showing ship fully, etc). They have nothing to do with me having been on board since the beginning.

My life experiences are much different than yours Cole, that's why I don't "have to laugh at people who" don't view the character the way I do. They'll get where I am one day - and things will make much more sense to them.
.
.
.
 
Last edited:
Top