TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
User Name
Password

View Poll Results: Which one would you have liked seen in KOTCS
Henry Jones Senior 35 36.84%
Short Round 34 35.79%
Willie Scott 13 13.68%
Sallah 56 58.95%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 95. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-29-2010, 02:58 PM   #51
Webley
IndyFan
 
Webley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Short Round is cooler than Indy
Posts: 1,716
I would have like to have seen Willie pop out of the cake at Indys bachelor party.
Webley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 12:33 AM   #52
chicago103
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 191
Henry Jones Sr., he was in an early draft of the script afterall.
chicago103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 01:33 AM   #53
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicago103
Henry Jones Sr., he was in an early draft of the script afterall.

If only Sean Connery had said yes - he would have added a bit of weight to KOTCS. Having the father of Indy instead of the lightweight son of Indy would have improved the film no end.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 04:18 AM   #54
Wilhelm
IndyFan
 
Wilhelm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Berlin
Posts: 271
I prefer Sean Connery in his own film and story: Last Crusade. That will make that movie special forever.

In each new Indy movie he has to go with a new companion: Marion, Willie, Shorty, Dad, Mutt... and little participation of past friends (Marion, Sallah, Marcus).

Sean Connery was the origin of the character of Dean Stanton, so if he only appeared in that brief scene the haters would say that Connery has little screen time for such a great actor etc. Also his death makes a better development for Indy's solitude in the beginning of the story.
Wilhelm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 05:02 AM   #55
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilhelm
I prefer Sean Connery in his own film and story: Last Crusade. That will make that movie special forever.

In each new Indy movie he has to go with a new companion: Marion, Willie, Shorty, Dad, Mutt... and little participation of past friends (Marion, Sallah, Marcus).

Sean Connery was the origin of the character of Dean Stanton, so if he only appeared in that brief scene the haters would say that Connery has little screen time for such a great actor etc. Also his death makes a better development for Indy's solitude in the beginning of the story.

You think Connery was the origin and not Denholm Elliot's Marcus?

There's always fors and againsts. Adding Connery in a cameo would leave us wanting more Connery, and without him (and Marcus) we have the pathos of Indy's loneliness in a world that's threatening to leave him behind.

Yet, Sean in place of Shia is also an appealing idea. Though, it would be retreading old ground.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 02:35 PM   #56
Wilhelm
IndyFan
 
Wilhelm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Berlin
Posts: 271
Not the origin of the character, but the origin of the scene with the Dean. Maybe in a previous draft Indy goes to Connery's home and they talk about family, time etc...

They did a quick rewrite and add the character of Broadbent. I think the movie works better without Connery, because we could see that Indy is now the father.

For me the whole movie is about the 2 sides of Indy: academic and adventurer. The academic side is influenced by Marcus Brody and Henry Jones Sr. The first time in the movie that we see Indy reacting like his father is in the University chase, specially when the russians break the statue of Marcus (Symbol of the academic side).

And after watching the eyes of the Skull in the camp Indy is more Henry than ever: Ox calls him "Henry", his reactions when he sees Marion or in the sand pit. In fact the Crystal Skull is from an alien that is also an archaeologist and academic so the influence is bigger. I see the movie as the need of Indy to show the world that he's a professor and academic more than a grave robber, so the whole subplot of the CIA firing him from the university is an excuse to show Indy returning for the first time in his career the artifact (Unlike the beginning of Raiders) and to appreciate more knowledge than "gold". Ox and Mac also represent this 2 sides of his personality. And the wedding as the final result of his new life.

Last edited by Wilhelm : 06-04-2010 at 02:48 PM.
Wilhelm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 06:43 PM   #57
Mr Jones
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In My UFO
Posts: 19
I think Sallah & Short Round should have been at The wedding at least.
That would have made the end Enjoyable
Mr Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 08:49 PM   #58
The Stranger
IndyFan
 
The Stranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Italia
Posts: 326
To briefly answer the title question (and then I really, REALLY should go study)...

There were already enough chaos and non-sense in this movie, even without needing other unnecessary and more than redundant extra characters.
The Stranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 01:57 PM   #59
Cole
IndyFan
 
Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 474
Had Connery accepted, it would've been a different film........I suspect John Hurt may not have been in the film - Hurt was hired almost immediately after Connery declined.

So would Connery have been the one spellbinded by the skull? I don't know.

Would it have have been nice if Connery returned? Was I disappointed when he declined? Of course.

But after seeing 'Skull,' his presence wasn't essential. The passing of his father led to an interesting character dynamic for Indy. In a sense, Indy almost fulfills his father's shoes. Mutt was the main sidekick this time around.
Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 02:41 PM   #60
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Had Connery accepted, it would've been a different film........I suspect John Hurt may not have been in the film - Hurt was hired almost immediately after Connery declined.

Lucas stated that Connery was not part of the main adventure in the script, implying that even if he had appeared in the film, it would have been a cameo appearance in the Connecticut scenes. The character of Oxley was already in the script, no doubt.

I agree with you, though, that his presence wasn't essential to the storyline. Spielberg and Lucas probably thought it would have been nice thematically to have the three generations of Jones boys together at the end, but I'd argue Henry Sr.'s death probably gave more impact to the theme of Indy's isolation in the first act.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 05:30 PM   #61
AndyLGR
IndyFan
 
AndyLGR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 837
Was Oxley always in the script? I was under the impression he was a late addition to the story.

I was disappointed that Connery wasnt in it, but after seeing KOTCS it made me wonder if he recognised the film might not be all that great? It would be interesting to know what changes they made once Connery wasnt going to be onboard.

Anyway, before the movie opened I was intrigued and pleased to see that Karen Allen was back in as Marion, but I think they handled the relationship between the main characters very badly, it didnt seem to fit right and she wasnt given the chance to add some balls to the character. She seemed incidental and arguably expendable to the story imo.

Its trying too hard to shoe horn in a familiar character to make the audience want to like / see and feel familar with the film. And for KOTCS I dont think it worked. Its something Lucas did with the SW prequels with varying degrees of success.

I like the way they went with TOD in that they had no characters in there from Raiders and making it a prequel ensured their were no references to them either. Personally if they did another one I'd like it to be with new characters with Indy.
AndyLGR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 07:13 PM   #62
arkfinder
IndyFan
 
arkfinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the spirit of God
Posts: 409
Sallah. End of story. It would have been a bit closer to the heart if Indy and Sallah had the talk about Marcus & Henry sr.
arkfinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 10:44 PM   #63
Cole
IndyFan
 
Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
Was Oxley always in the script? I was under the impression he was a late addition to the story.

I was disappointed that Connery wasnt in it, but after seeing KOTCS it made me wonder if he recognised the film might not be all that great? It would be interesting to know what changes they made once Connery wasnt going to be onboard.

Anyway, before the movie opened I was intrigued and pleased to see that Karen Allen was back in as Marion, but I think they handled the relationship between the main characters very badly, it didnt seem to fit right and she wasnt given the chance to add some balls to the character. She seemed incidental and arguably expendable to the story imo.

Its trying too hard to shoe horn in a familiar character to make the audience want to like / see and feel familar with the film. And for KOTCS I dont think it worked. Its something Lucas did with the SW prequels with varying degrees of success.

I like the way they went with TOD in that they had no characters in there from Raiders and making it a prequel ensured their were no references to them either. Personally if they did another one I'd like it to be with new characters with Indy.
Seeing Marion back was a real treat......and I thought it worked intelligently within the story. I have to disagree the relationship is handled badly........to me, it probably has the 2nd most satisfying personal story behind 'Last Crusade.'
Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 10:52 PM   #64
Cole
IndyFan
 
Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkfinder
Sallah. End of story. It would have been a bit closer to the heart if Indy and Sallah had the talk about Marcus & Henry sr.
Mmm, can't completely disagree.......everyone loves Sallah.

But I thought Stanforth was a great new addition.
Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 11:07 PM   #65
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
Was Oxley always in the script? I was under the impression he was a late addition to the story.

A character named Harold Oxley can actually be found in the Frank Darabont draft, and although he was a rather different character, it's reasonable to assume that by virtue of the fact that he was carried over at all that he was always part of the basic storyline that ultimately became the finished film. I'm not saying he didn't undergo any changes of purpose along the way, but I think it's pretty clear that Connery choosing not to be involved in the project did not lead to his creation.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 11:11 PM   #66
ATMachine
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
A character named Harold Oxley can actually be found in the Frank Darabont draft, and although he was a rather different character, it's reasonable to assume that by virtue of the fact that he was carried over at all that he was always part of the basic storyline that ultimately became the finished film. I'm not saying he didn't undergo any changes of purpose along the way, but I think it's pretty clear that Connery choosing not to be involved in the project did not lead to his creation.
Actually it was Vernon Oxley in the Darabont draft. Too close a name to Vernon Dursley of Harry Potter for my comfort! Then again, seeing as how Darabont named two characters in his script "Carl Stalling" and "Reggie Nalder," I suppose it could've been much worse...
ATMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 03:27 AM   #67
AndyLGR
IndyFan
 
AndyLGR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Seeing Marion back was a real treat......and I thought it worked intelligently within the story. I have to disagree the relationship is handled badly........to me, it probably has the 2nd most satisfying personal story behind 'Last Crusade.'
Agreed on LC, Indy and his dads chemistry is what makes that film great for me.

But for KOTCS, it was as if they were wrote Marion and Indy to be arguing continuously in a comedy way which didnt work for me. I wanted to see a more human reaction to their relationship and the fact they also have a son. It just seemed too forced to try and squeeze her in there, plus she had some of the worst cheesy one liners of the movie. It was a total change from how she was dominant in her scenes in Raiders to see her mugging her way through some of her scenes in KOTCS, shes a better character than that imo and it was one of the things that really disappointed me about KOTCS, because the Marion Indy relationship I was looking forward to.
AndyLGR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 09:16 AM   #68
Wilhelm
IndyFan
 
Wilhelm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Berlin
Posts: 271
I think that the problem is that the Indy / Marion relationship was the main theme of Raiders. In Darabont's draft it was also the main theme and that was too similar to Raiders. His relationship was fully explored in Raiders.

I think that each new movie must explore new aspects of Indy's character and in KOTCS it was his loneliness and the desire of creating a family (Mutt and Marion) being respectable (Professor Henry Jones Jr). So the use of Marion was only an extended cameo like Sallah and Marcus in Last Crusade.
Wilhelm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 01:20 PM   #69
Cole
IndyFan
 
Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
Agreed on LC, Indy and his dads chemistry is what makes that film great for me.

But for KOTCS, it was as if they were wrote Marion and Indy to be arguing continuously in a comedy way which didnt work for me. I wanted to see a more human reaction to their relationship and the fact they also have a son. It just seemed too forced to try and squeeze her in there, plus she had some of the worst cheesy one liners of the movie. It was a total change from how she was dominant in her scenes in Raiders to see her mugging her way through some of her scenes in KOTCS, shes a better character than that imo and it was one of the things that really disappointed me about KOTCS, because the Marion Indy relationship I was looking forward to.
It's still Indiana Jones. Usually the personal relationships are discovered along the journey, and I think it's the same thing here.

From her very first line ("Get your hands off me you Ruskie son of a *****!" = very Marion) and Indy's boyish grin......I just loved having her back. I thought their banter was witty and comedic. And I thought it stayed that entertaining until the end, which was a satisfying conclusion to me. It's unique because we all saw 'Raiders of the Lost Ark,' so we all know the backstory, we are all familiar with these characters.......and I think that makes it even more special.

But Marion isn't in the movie that much - at least not compared to 'Raiders of the Lost Ark.' She shows up in the 2nd half, she's not like the "main sidekick" this time around. So I don't know, maybe that's why people are disappointed.
Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 04:26 PM   #70
AndyLGR
IndyFan
 
AndyLGR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
From her very first line ("Get your hands off me you Ruskie son of a *****!" = very Marion) and Indy's boyish grin......I just loved having her back. I thought their banter was witty and comedic. And I thought it stayed that entertaining until the end, which was a satisfying conclusion to me.
Theres the problem for me, I didnt find the humour to be funny, but I accept that others will like it. But I was hoping to see the same kind of spark they had together in te first film, not a comedy parody of it
AndyLGR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 05:05 PM   #71
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
Theres the problem for me, I didnt find the humour to be funny, but I accept that others will like it. But I was hoping to see the same kind of spark they had together in te first film, not a comedy parody of it

Indeed. The line was "very Marion" because she had almost precisely the same line in the first film.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 06:45 PM   #72
Cole
IndyFan
 
Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
Theres the problem for me, I didnt find the humour to be funny, but I accept that others will like it. But I was hoping to see the same kind of spark they had together in te first film, not a comedy parody of it
Just because her role contains comedic elements does not make it a parody.

Her opening appearance is clearly a wink to 'Raiders' (hands on hips: "Indiana Jones..."), but it doesn't make it a parody. It was a great introduction to her character halfway through the film.

And if Indy was going to end up with a woman, who else would it be than Marion Ravenwood? Like I said, very satisfying to see her again after no mention of her in 'Temple of Doom' (set before 'Raiders' anyway), or 'Last Crusade.'

If the film took 5-10 minutes for Marion and Indy to have a serious discussion about their relationship, or something like this - it would be out-of-tune for Indy and misdirected towards its audience.

I think their banter in the camp and on the truck manages to be both entertaining and manages to fill the audience in on the status of their relationship.
Cole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 06:55 AM   #73
AndyLGR
IndyFan
 
AndyLGR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Just because her role contains comedic elements does not make it a parody.

Her opening appearance is clearly a wink to 'Raiders' (hands on hips: "Indiana Jones..."), but it doesn't make it a parody. It was a great introduction to her character halfway through the film.

And if Indy was going to end up with a woman, who else would it be than Marion Ravenwood? Like I said, very satisfying to see her again after no mention of her in 'Temple of Doom' (set before 'Raiders' anyway), or 'Last Crusade.'

If the film took 5-10 minutes for Marion and Indy to have a serious discussion about their relationship, or something like this - it would be out-of-tune for Indy and misdirected towards its audience.

I think their banter in the camp and on the truck manages to be both entertaining and manages to fill the audience in on the status of their relationship.
I just would have liked to have seen it handled with some emotion when they meet and not for Indy to join in a comedy routine, thats all.

The fact her entrance is reminiscent of Raiders doesn't make it good for me. Within that 5-10 min screentime of them meeting again, the quicksand and then to the back of the truck - the scenes between Indy, Marion and Mutt just didnt do it for me.

Like I said, some real emotion to handle the revelation of a son, plus meeting up with his old flame / true love would have added some depth to it. Instead they went for cheap laughs. I just don't get why they used Marion for the cheap laughs and cheesy one liners, (her instructions to Mutt when he's fencing are particularly bad). How she was written in this film seems totally against what we think of her to be or what I think of her to be at least. When film makers try too hard to funny invariably it doesnt work.

The family interaction and bond between chracters could have been a real emotional strong point in KOTCS, just as it was in TLC.
AndyLGR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2010, 11:20 AM   #74
StoneTriple
IndyFan
 
StoneTriple's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
Connery in a cameo would leave us wanting more Connery, and without him (and Marcus) we have the pathos of Indy's loneliness in a world that's threatening to leave him behind.

I agree. One of his close friends ended up turning against him as well. I think his emotional isolation made for a much better character.
StoneTriple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2010, 11:37 AM   #75
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneTriple
I agree. One of his close friends ended up turning against him as well. I think his emotional isolation made for a much better character.

The more I think about that, the more profound it becomes in the story. Older Indy, last seen in the 1930s, is now fighting to keep his reputation both academically and in the field of adventuring. Academically he's being branded a communist and temporarily removed; with the adventuring he's trying to do the things that age is making harder.

Because he is so isolated, he's trying to prove himself amongst those who haven't witnessed him in his prime (his father, Sallah, Shorty, Marcus, Willie etc). The only one who's with him from the start of the film is Mac, and he's double crossing him anyway. Later, he meets Marion, who he knows he really has nothing to prove to (apart from his ability to remain a one-woman guy), but also Mutt, who at first treats him without much respect, as just another old man in a modern world.

The main story element then becomes the idea that age is no barrier. It would be fitting, then, if KOTCS was the first in a second trilogy.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03 AM.