The Haters thread

Udvarnoky said:

I gotta say, if my only motivation was loot I'd have taken my chances with the Indy gang once we'd escaped the Russians over the waterfalls and were on our way to the city of gold. Helping Spalko get there doesn't seem particularly beneficial to me at that junction.

Click to expand...

And that's the problem with Mac. He flip-flops just to move the plot. He knew Indy, and as a gambling man he would've known that Indy was the safest bet.

Montana Smith said:

And that's the problem with Mac. He flip-flops just to move the plot. He knew Indy, and as a gambling man he would've known that Indy was the safest bet.

Click to expand...

The safest bets don't normally come with best odds.

Sometimes, every gambler has to take a big risk if he wants the big prizes.

On the subject of Mac's death: While I hold Koepp completely responsible for Mac's bad character work, Spielberg probably deserves most of the blame for the way the character's demise was handled, at least from a staging standpoint. The way Koepp scripted the climax (and this is true in the novelization, which is faithful to the screenplay), the portal that sucks Mac and the Russians in is depicted as just a big, black, expanding sinkhole - a lovely 50s B-movie conceit. Obviously, the image of Mac holding onto Indy's whip for dear life while a giant black hole swirls directly behind him is a more harrowing and clearer one than what we got in the final film.

At some point during the design of the movie, Spielberg came up with the idea of reimagining the portal as the underside of the spaceship. This is a nice, creative idea, but the problem is that he did not alter Mac's doom to fit the new premise. I think this is a big reason why the staging comes off as so awkward in that scene. In the script, Mac recognizes that he's a lost cause and that he's only going to end up taking Indy with him, so he basically makes a call of "Well, might as well see where this goes!" and lets go of the whip. In the movie, Winstone seemingly resigns himself to death while lying flat on his stomach and not even being pulled away by the gravitational force of the portal yet, and when he does fly off he screams in terror, making it (I think unintentionally) ambiguous as to whether or not he even releases voluntarily. It's a complete mess.

Kernunnos said:

The safest bets don't normally come with best odds.

Sometimes, every gambler has to take a big risk if he wants the big prizes.

Click to expand...

Indy survives against enormous odds. He's always the safest bet, even if it takes him a couple of goes.

Montana Smith said:

It was to pay off gambling debts.

Click to expand...

Is this stated or implied in the film? If it was, I can't remember...unless you mean when he said he "couldn't go back empty-handed again."

Udvarnoky said:

Short Round was certainly conceived and executed the way you describe, but doesn't he still work? For me, Mutt was certainly not as engaging, and Mac is in no way a classic Indy character. Now, I think they very much could have been engaging, classic Indy characters, but I'm obviously going to give Temple more credit for succeeding in its arguably low-ambition character work than I will Indy4 for failing it's characters just because I can see where there was potential.

Click to expand...

It?s certainly a valid argument to say that TOD was more successful given its lower criteria for success (in terms of characterisation). But ultimately, for me anyhow, I think KOTCS ambitions at least allow me to connect with and appreciate characters (even when said characters are sold short and don?t meet the ambition). I don?t know? I find Stanforth and Mac much more engaging/interesting, as secondary characters, than I do with any character from TOD (other than Indy and Mola Ram perhaps). Is it a script or actor thing? Not sure, but the net result is that I find TOD vacuous (in terms of characterisation), where KOTCS is disappointing. I?m more forgiving of the ?disappointing? obviously.

Udvarnoky said:

You do not necessarily have to care about the characters, but you do have to care about something, even if it's just for the high of an action sequence to be sustained. That's what engagement is all about - being interested in what's happening on screen beyond watching passively. I think that's what you're getting at here, but I think it's important to clarify that not caring about the characters isn't the same as not caring at all.

Click to expand...

Yep that was my point. You don?t need to feel emotionally involved with the characters (other than superficially), or even that interested in the outcome, to be pulled into and appreciate a great action sequence. Nor does a great action sequence make for a great movie ? of course. The fact that KOTCS can?t rely on a great action sequence/sequences, to help it match or surpass the others, underlines some of its other problems... problems that I?d argue are evident in the previous movies (at least TOD anyway).

Udvarnoky said:

I do not follow you in your conclusion that Indy4's fix for this would have been Spielberg being less old-fashioned in his approach, though. He just never seems to be able to get any momentum going, and that's an issue that transcends the style of the action. You seem to sincerely believe that if Indy4 as it exists would have been released in 1991 the action scenes would have been much better received, and I sincerely doubt it. A study of how the set pieces function in the trilogy versus Indy4 makes it pretty clear, I think, that the problems aren't shallow enough to be resolved with a shallow remedy. We can argue all day about whether or not or how much a change-up on Spielberg's part would have livened up or freshened the movie, but to me that's a bit like painting a new color on a car when the engine's defective.

Click to expand...

I?m not really sure that?s how it works. I don?t think the jungle chase, for example, is as good as the truck or tank chase (not sure I?ve ever argued that)? but it is stylistically very similar. Therefore the jungle chase not only suffers from being directed/edited in a fairly dated way (by the very fact it?s aping something from the 1980?s), but it?s also not quite as interesting/pure given that it?s just a riff on a theme from the original movie. TLC suffered from this to some extent (as we?ve discussed in threads before). KOTCS, IMHO, is the continuation of the weakness when one conceptualises and directs action in very similar style over several movies. For example, I?d argue that On Her Majesty?s Secret Service is equally as good as some of the best Connery Bond movies. But several movies down the line, it?s only real distinction is that it?s ?the one with that other actor?.

AlivePoet said:

What exactly do you favour about Mac? I thought Ray Winstone was solid in the role, considering what he had to work with, and he was probably the strongest supporting character in the film, but he didn't stick out as particularly unique in the Indy universe. We've seen the double agent idea played out in Elsa. He's not as clever as Sallah in Raiders, nor as funny as Sallah/Marcus/Henry Sr. in Crusade (imo). If he has a deep character, it's been clouded by his own words, regarding what he wants: a lot of gold. No clue as to what he wants to do with the wealth. Just that he's a greedy SOB, and he's willing to betray his close friends multiple times to get what he wants. What other sidekick has been portrayed as this shallow?

If you have a case for what makes Mac "classic" or why you favoured his character, I'd be quite interested in hearing it.

Click to expand...

Whilst I don?t necessarily think the character was written better (or even as good), I think he?s a more interesting character than both Sallah and Marcus Brody. I?m not sure you can compare Mac to Elsa as she was a ?leading lady? type and Mac is a sidekick. But I certainly don?t see him as inferior to the other sidekicks (even though I fully recognise they sold him a bit short at the end).

AlivePoet said:

Is this stated or implied in the film? If it was, I can't remember...unless you mean when he said he "couldn't go back empty-handed again."

Click to expand...

I can't remember whether it was in the film or just the noveization, but it was his motive. (If only in one, then it was the novel).

Darth Vile said:

I’m not really sure that’s how it works. I don’t think the jungle chase, for example, is as good as the truck or tank chase (not sure I’ve ever argued that)… but it is stylistically very similar.

Click to expand...

This would seem to support the belief that style doesn't have a particularly gargantuan bearing on quality. I mean, I could just as easily say that all the set pieces in all four movies are "stylistically very similar"; it's a valid observation but not a smoking gun. There must be more at work here or else we wouldn't be singling out the jungle chase in the first place.

You frame Indy4's faithfulness to the series' style as "aping," but surely it's aping the other movies no more than the other sequels were aping Raiders? It's simply being consistent - the twenty year gap really isn't germane unless we're talking about audience expectations or Spielberg's ability to recapture the old spark, but you're not really invoking that.

You say that the tank chase in Last Crusade suffers from similar originality issues as the jungle chase, yet we both seem to agree that it works far better. So why, then? If the jungle chase is simply continuing Last Crusade's weakness, shouldn't it be as good? What's the missing piece? Am I supposed to just chalk it up to diminishing returns and exonerate the scene from examination at the mechanical level?

Darth Vile said:

(not sure I’ve ever argued that)

Click to expand...

I don't think you did either?

AlivePoet said:

Is this stated or implied in the film? If it was, I can't remember...unless you mean when he said he "couldn't go back empty-handed again."

Click to expand...

Well, what he says right before that makes it pretty explicit: "I've had a run of bad luck with the cards lately, mate."

Udvarnoky said:

Well, what he says right before that makes it pretty explicit: "I've had a run of bad luck with the cards lately, mate."

Click to expand...

Also, in the screenplay Spalko says to Mac:

"You?re a gambler. Have you never played a hung that proved correct?"

It's right before she tells him about killing the baby rabbits in the submarine.

Udvarnoky said:

This would seem to support the belief that style doesn't have a particularly gargantuan bearing on quality. I mean, I could just as easily say that all the set pieces in all four movies are "stylistically very similar"; it's a valid observation but not a smoking gun. There must be more at work here or else we wouldn't be singling out the jungle chase in the first place.

Click to expand...

I’m singling out the jungle chase, as it’s the set piece most reminiscent of the truck/tank chase. I think you’d argue that it’s a weaker set piece because there is no emotional investment in the characters or narrative drive to the action… whereas I’d argue that it’s significant weakness is simply that it’s all been done before. Unfortunately is difficult for us to prove either way because we can't take back time and see what would happen if...

Udvarnoky said:

You frame Indy4's faithfulness to the series' style as "aping," but surely it's aping the other movies no more than the other sequels were aping Raiders? It's simply being consistent - the twenty year gap really isn't germane unless we're talking about audience expectations or Spielberg's ability to recapture the old spark, but you're not really invoking that.

Click to expand...

I think the passing of time and the fact that Spielberg/Lucas are being regressive, as opposed to progressive, with KOTCS is very significant. What was once the definitive style for a modern action movie (in 1980) can now appear slow and pedestrian. The more time elapses, the further away you are from the source you’re trying to copy/emulate… and of course audience perception, taste and attitudes change. For example, most people (IMHO) would not now be gob smacked by the effects in the original King Kong or scared by Bela Lugosi’s Dracula. What followed immediately after those particular movies was a natural progression of that style/genre… be it The Bride of Frankenstein or The Mummy etc. etc. KOTCS is not a natural progression of the modern action movie (IMHO); as it’s taken a step backwards not forwards (unlike Raiders and TOD).

Udvarnoky said:

You say that the tank chase in Last Crusade suffers from similar originality issues as the jungle chase, yet we both seem to agree that it works far better. So why, then? If the jungle chase is simply continuing Last Crusade's weakness, shouldn't it be as good? What's the missing piece? Am I supposed to just chalk it up to diminishing returns and exonerate the scene from examination at the mechanical level?

Click to expand...

It's a weaker set piece largely because... 1) It’s a tired largely unoriginal sequence (mainly due to the other movies). 2) I don’t think Spielberg is quite as good at directing the rollercoaster type action as he used to be (or at least he’s out of practice).

Darth Vile said:

I’m singling out the jungle chase, as it’s the set piece most reminiscent of the truck/tank chase. I think you’d argue that it’s a weaker set piece because there is no emotional investment in the characters or narrative drive to the action… whereas I’d argue that it’s significant weakness is simply that it’s all been done before. Unfortunately is difficult for us to prove either way because we can't take back time and see what would happen if...

Click to expand...

I don't think that's what I would argue, although those things wouldn't have hurt. Certainly, it's got no less narrative drive than other, better sequences in the previous films. I think what's missing are clear and interesting obstacles for the characters to deal with admist the flurry. There's an odd passiveness to the whole thing - it doesn't feel like characters are ever really making calls so much as just being subjected to a series of a prescribed events they're not quite surprised enough by.

There's always some sort of struggle or goal within the set pieces for the audience to latch onto in the other movies. The spike chamber is really about Willie getting to the lever. In the conveyor belt scene, the goal is Shorty getting to that voodoo doll in time. The mine cart chase has the heroes forced to solve a bunch of little problems along the way - Indy has to figure out how to lose that cart on his tail and starts using the environment to his advantage. The tank chase has Henry Sr. and Marcus having to deal with the guy in the tank, Indy having to hang onto his dad before he slides off, Indy having to find a way to extracate himself before he gets smacked against the rock wall, etc. These little mini-conflicts with immediate stakes are the things we're really involved in when watching the scene - the frenetic stuff surrounding it heightens the entertainment, but alone it would just amount to audiovisual assault. There's a lot of serendipity in the original trilogy's action, but also a lot of decision-making.

The jungle chase doesn't really have that element. The goal is "hold on to the skull and drive faster than the Russians." It plays out like a really inconvenient game of hot potato and nothing more. It's missing those individual moments of setup and payoff. Stuff just happens. Mutt engages Spalko in a duel, Indy punches a bunch of dudes, Marion slams the breaks, vertiginous cliffs are straddled and there's a lot of flying bullets but it's all got a very blithe feeling to it that none of the comparable scenes in the previous movies exude so exclusively. Shorty gets to the maharaja after an ascent that we see him make every step of the way. The fortune that allows Mutt to befriend a group of monkeys and effortlessly glide to the vehicles in time to save the heroes from being pushed off the cliff (our heart is in our mouth at this point!) requires more black magic than any of the hocus pocus in Temple of Doom. The silliness of the image is secondary to the fact that Mutt is charmed enough to wind up in the circumstances.

Darth Vile said:

I think the passing of time and the fact that Spielberg/Lucas are being regressive, as opposed to progressive, with KOTCS is very significant. What was once the definitive style for a modern action movie (in 1980) can now appear slow and pedestrian. The more time elapses, the further away you are from the source you’re trying to copy/emulate… and of course audience perception, taste and attitudes change. For example, most people (IMHO) would not now be gob smacked by the effects in the original King Kong or scared by Bela Lugosi’s Dracula. What followed immediately after those particular movies was a natural progression of that style/genre… be it The Bride of Frankenstein or The Mummy etc. etc. KOTCS is not a natural progression of the modern action movie (IMHO); as it’s taken a step backwards not forwards (unlike Raiders and TOD).

Click to expand...

This paragraph is part of a worthy, completely separate discussion. I'm talking about why Indy4's set pieces may or may not hold up favorably to what came before in the same series. In doing this we're looking at these movies in a vacuum, comparing them only to each other, and therefore public tastes/attitudes/perception are irrelevant. They should be irrelevant to us anyway, since we understand that this movie is following a particular style that might not necessarily still be in vogue.

And I'm going to have to give in to temptation here and say the obvious: Bringing up the original King Kong's special effects as an example for what you're saying here is completely ridiculous because a) the subject of directorial action style has nothing to do with special effects, and b) Indy4 completely embraced modern special effects just as the other movies did.

Darth Vile said:

It's a weaker set piece largely because... 1) It’s a tired largely unoriginal sequence (mainly due to the other movies). 2) I don’t think Spielberg is quite as good at directing the rollercoaster type action as he used to be (or at least he’s out of practice).

Click to expand...

You've shifted away from "it's dated" in your reasoning, which I think is sensible. I will say though that if the scene is unorignial (I'm not sure if that's a problem, myself), blaming the other movies is a bit of a weak defense.

The jungle chase is a bad scene due to poor writing and execution. The previous films have nothing to do with the scene not being well received. The problem is for me at least, the blade for the jungle cutter goes right through a vehicle, misses everyone in the vehicle and the vehicle still runs. A sword fight on two jeeps in a bumpy jungle and no one loses their balance and the driver never considers hitting the brakes and knocking Mutt off. The stupid nut shots. The monkey swing is the worst and the cliff edge Spalko tries to run them off looks so CGI it kills the feeling of real danger. And then Spalko jumps her jeep and drives over our heros ducked down in a topless vehicle and everyone is okay. Give me a break!!!! Comparing that scene to the truck or tank scene is pointless. You are comparing full on stunt work to CGI and that alone changes the tone of the scenes. Also while some of the original scenes have over the top elements to them, (like being dragged behind a truck) they keep it reasonable and don't put a ton impossible things in one scene like KOTCS. It was overkill.

Udvarnoky said:

I don't think that's what I would argue, although those things wouldn't have hurt. Certainly, it's got no less narrative drive than other, better sequences in the previous films. I think what's missing are clear and interesting obstacles for the characters to deal with admist the flurry. There's an odd passiveness to the whole thing - it doesn't feel like characters are ever really making calls so much as just being subjected to a series of a prescribed events they're not quite surprised enough by.

There's always some sort of struggle or goal within the set pieces for the audience to latch onto in the other movies. The spike chamber is really about Willie getting to the lever. In the conveyor belt scene, the goal is Shorty getting to that voodoo doll in time. The mine cart chase has the heroes forced to solve a bunch of little problems along the way - Indy has to figure out how to lose that cart on his tail and starts using the environment to his advantage. The tank chase has Henry Sr. and Marcus having to deal with the guy in the tank, Indy having to hang onto his dad before he slides off, Indy having to find a way to extracate himself before he gets smacked against the rock wall, etc. These little mini-conflicts with immediate stakes are the things we're really involved in when watching the scene - the frenetic stuff surrounding it heightens the entertainment, but alone it would just amount to audiovisual assault. There's a lot of serendipity in the original trilogy's action, but also a lot of decision-making.

The jungle chase doesn't really have that element. The goal is "hold on to the skull and drive faster than the Russians." It plays out like a really inconvenient game of hot potato and nothing more. It's missing those individual moments of setup and payoff. Stuff just happens. Mutt engages Spalko in a duel, Indy punches a bunch of dudes, Marion slams the breaks, vertiginous cliffs are straddled and there's a lot of flying bullets but it's all got a very blithe feeling to it that none of the comparable scenes in the previous movies exude so exclusively. Shorty gets to the maharaja after an ascent that we see him make every step of the way. The fortune that allows Mutt to befriend a group of monkeys and effortlessly glide to the vehicles in time to save the heroes from being pushed off the cliff (our heart is in our mouth at this point!) requires more black magic than any of the hocus pocus in Temple of Doom. The silliness of the image is secondary to the fact that Mutt is charmed enough to wind up in the circumstances.

Click to expand...

The ‘Jungle Chase’ is after all a chase sequence. The audience know (I would assume) that the objective is to get hold of the skull and be the first to get to Akator. It’s not particularly original, but it is straightforward enough to understand. I think there is a sense of ‘passiveness’ to the sequence, in that there is an element of ‘so what?’, but I’m not sure that’s borne out of characters ‘not making calls’ as the whole sequence is driven by Indy’s intention to seize control and take the initiative away from Spalko et al. The real difference between the jungle chase and the tank chase is, as you’ve highlighted, the mini cliff-hangers. I’d agree that the jungle sequence doesn’t have these… or rather Spielberg doesn’t make the most of them – the most obvious (IMHO) being the sword fight and jeep bumping cliff edge sequence (which could have been much more intense if directed with a bit more ‘va va voom’.

Udvarnoky said:

And I'm going to have to give in to temptation here and say the obvious: Bringing up the original King Kong's special effects as an example for what you're saying here is completely ridiculous because a) the subject of directorial action style has nothing to do with special effects, and b) Indy4 completely embraced modern special effects just as the other movies did.

Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter if the example is regarding the introduction of sound, colour or special effects… the point is that these things have to be viewed within context. Something highly unique, original and without peer in 1930, 50 or 80 is not going to be viewed the same once its stylistic nature become commonplace. KOTCS is basically copying a formula which was fast running out of steam by TLC (IMHO).

Udvarnoky said:

You've shifted away from "it's dated" in your reasoning, which I think is sensible. I will say though that if the scene is unorignial (I'm not sure if that's a problem, myself), blaming the other movies is a bit of a weak defense.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure that I’ve moved away from that statement… and it’s not about blaming the other movies. It’s about acknowledging that stylistically it’s passé. Just as I’m not blaming Ford for being old. Rather – I’m acknowledging that his age is a big obstacle for the movie... and one they didn't overcome (IMHO).

Darth Vile said:

The ?Jungle Chase? is after all a chase sequence. The audience know (I would assume) that the objective is to get hold of the skull and be the first to get to Akator.

Click to expand...

So why are Spalko and her mates getting ready to abseil down a cliff when Indy and his mates are close by with the skull?

The whole jungle sequence is bollocks from the second Indy fires the bazooka, until the rubber tree pings up and knocks some Russians off the cliff. I've never been able to suspend my belief enough to even remotely enjoy it.

Why didn't the Russians open up on Indy et al right after the bazooka made everyone pull over?

It was bollocks.

Darth Vile said:

The ?Jungle Chase? is after all a chase sequence. The audience know (I would assume) that the objective is to get hold of the skull and be the first to get to Akator. It?s not particularly original, but it is straightforward enough to understand.

Click to expand...

"Straightforward" and "understandable" are conspicuously absent from what I said the jungle chase did not achieve.

Darth Vile said:

I think there is a sense of ?passiveness? to the sequence, in that there is an element of ?so what??, but I?m not sure that?s borne out of characters ?not making calls? as the whole sequence is driven by Indy?s intention to seize control and take the initiative away from Spalko et al. The real difference between the jungle chase and the tank chase is, as you?ve highlighted, the mini cliff-hangers. I?d agree that the jungle sequence doesn?t have these? or rather Spielberg doesn?t make the most of them ? the most obvious (IMHO) being the sword fight and jeep bumping cliff edge sequence (which could have been much more intense if directed with a bit more ?va va voom?.

Click to expand...

I largley agree here. After reducing the fraction, we're looking at a failure on the movie's part to use everything that's available to its advantage. It's an issue that is not limited to the jungle scene to my lights.

Also, cliffhangers have a way of forcing characters to make calls.

Darth Vile said:

It doesn?t matter if the example is regarding the introduction of sound, colour or special effects? the point is that these things have to be viewed within context.

Click to expand...

But we've established that the context here is the other movies! Unless you're arguing that the law of diminishing returns alone caused things to get stale by the third entry out of four movies, the position that Last Crusade's or Crystal Skull's set pieces are weaker than what came before would have to - and I'm sure could be - buttressed by specifics. Without those specifics, you're serving up empty calories.

Darth Vile said:

I?m not sure that I?ve moved away from that statement? and it?s not about blaming the other movies. It?s about acknowledging that stylistically it?s passé. Just as I?m not blaming Ford for being old. Rather ? I?m acknowledging that his age is a big obstacle for the movie... and one they didn't overcome (IMHO).

Click to expand...

The problem I have with an argument that begins and ends with "stylistically it?s passé" is that it's a deflection, a convenient way to avoid actually discussing the mechanics of the scene. It has officially become your crutch. Personally, I think trying to pin it all on "style" is like trying to nail down smoke, and I've explained why.

Less than zero suspense, and sphincter-clenchingly bad characters. Those are KOCS'' glaring faults. It's a film on rails, a parade of frames that move us inexorablly towards its creaking, cheesecrust conclusion. Spielberg and Lucas (and whichever overpaid moron was responsible for the excrementary script) should win an award for their film making here. Never before have I witnessed such a towering achievement in creating a film so utterly undemanding of involvement from its audience. All of the characters - from poor,shrugging, confused old Indy to his plastic surgerised annoying missus and punchable twat of a son, right the way down to the cardboard cut out Russians and cgi extras moonlighting between Madagascar sequels - are wheeled on so we can watch them dance and flop around with sh*t-eating grins, flailing motivations and blank eyes, seemingly oblivious to the fact that we ache for them to just clear off the screen sharpish so we can get on with more interesting stuff like the washing up and cutting our toenails.

Any film that makes me actively prefer to confront my own sorry life, well it's begging for a merciful bullet between the eyes. And a boot to the groin while it's going down, just to be sure.

replican't said:

Less than zero suspense, and sphincter-clenchingly bad characters. Those are KOCS'' glaring faults. It's a film on rails, a parade of frames that move us inexorablly towards its creaking, cheesecrust conclusion. Spielberg and Lucas (and whichever overpaid moron was responsible for the excrementary script) should win an award for their film making here. Never before have I witnessed such a towering achievement in creating a film so utterly undemanding of involvement from its audience. All of the characters - from poor,shrugging, confused old Indy to his plastic surgerised annoying missus and punchable twat of a son, right the way down to the cardboard cut out Russians and cgi extras moonlighting between Madagascar sequels - are wheeled on so we can watch them dance and flop around with sh*t-eating grins, flailing motivations and blank eyes, seemingly oblivious to the fact that we ache for them to just clear off the screen sharpish so we can get on with more interesting stuff like the washing up and cutting our toenails.

Click to expand...

Harsh but true.

replican't said:

sphincter-clenchingly bad characters. Any film that makes me actively prefer to confront my own sorry life, well it's begging for a merciful bullet between the eyes.
...
the excrementary script
...
we can watch them dance and flop around with sh*t-eating grins...

Click to expand...

You obviously, have an obsession with sh*t!.

Stoo said:

You obviously, have an obsession with sh*t!.

Click to expand...

Maybe replican't would be interested in this thread?