Harold Ramis Calls KOCS "A Disaster..."

Cole

New member
Chewbacca Jones said:
Yes, it is just you... and others of like mind. ;) I know it might be shocking that I only like 2% of it, even though I really love Indy. Perhaps I love the Indy of old too much to like the new. I guess I'm old fashioned.
Really? Because I think the tone and style of the movie very much reflects the first three films.
 

Jack Nelligan

New member
Morning Bell said:
KOTCS was the second-highest grossing film of 2008 and many people I know enjoyed it immensely, myself included (I saw five times in theaters). I also remember going to buy the DVD the day it was released and it seemed like many other people in the store were also buying a copy or at least seriously considering it. I think the majority of fans and the general public liked the film and were glad to see Indy back.

I agree that the hate and whining has grown tiresome, especially after South Park spoofed it, in which it seemed that everyone suddenly rallied around that episode and treated it as if it were gospel or something. If someone doesn't like the film then that's fine; we're all entitled to our opinions. As for me, I'm too busy enjoying it to care what others think.:hat:



KOTCS is by far NOT the worst Indy film. I rank them in order from Best to Worst as follows:

1. Raiders
2. LC or KOTCS (tie for second)
3. KOTCS or LC (tie for third)
4. TOD
My sons who are 7 and 2 ½ like TOD the best. That is either because it is the most campy, or because of Short Round, not sure which!

The original will always be the best!

For example: Star Wars, Caddie Shack, Vacation, and Coke?
 

Chewbacca Jones

New member
Cole said:
Really? Because I think the tone and style of the movie very much reflects the first three films.

See, now that's probably a fundamental difference between us, because I just don't see it. I see a flimsy, shallow imitation of the tone and style of the first three films.

However, the fact that you, a dedicated fan, feels that way would indicate that "the beards" were not talking out their you-know-whats when they claimed to be making a "movie for the fans." Apparently, some fans do get it. But the fact that people like you and I could disagree on such a core level says that what makes a TRUE Indy movie is not universal in fan minds.

But we'll always have Cairo.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Chewbacca Jones said:
See, now that's probably a fundamental difference between us, because I just don't see it. I see a flimsy, shallow imitation of the tone and style of the first three films.

However, the fact that you, a dedicated fan, feels that way would indicate that "the beards" were not talking out their you-know-whats when they claimed to be making a "movie for the fans." Apparently, some fans do get it. But the fact that people like you and I could disagree on such a core level says that what makes a TRUE Indy movie is not universal in fan minds.

But we'll always have Cairo.

I think you hit the nail on the head there re. what constitutes a “TRUE Indy movie”... I certainly don't think KOTCS is as fresh, original or even as dynamic as the originals (certainly Raiders). They were movies made by relatively young men (including Ford), and one can't simply replicate the same views, enthusiasm or energy one had circa 30 years ago.

Also, as these boards have demonstrated exceedingly well, whilst we all desire something fresh (or say we do)... we can’t help ourselves, it seems, defining Indy movies on the fluff e.g. “how many times he uses his gun, “how many times he uses his whip”, “how many booby traps”, "how many companions" etc. etc. The bottom line is that above and beyond anything else, the majority here (and externally too) want a new Indy movie to look and feel like the ole’ Indy movies (otherwise, for example, the use of his gun wouldn’t be an issue for so many detractors). So (IMHO) it’s not really about how successful KOTCS was as a standalone movie (although perhaps it should be), but rather how successful KOTCS was in reproducing the look and feel of those earlier movies. And to some extent, that’s a no win scenario for messrs. Lucas/Spielberg and Ford.

So, it’s true… those involved with making KOTCS aren’t the same young men they used to be… but… I think their older/wiser sensibilities can (and have) brought other qualities to the table… and speaking personally, I’ve tried to judge KOTCS on how effectively those older sensibilities have re-shaped “Indy”, as well as how successful KOTCS was in replicating the look and feel of the earlier movies.
 

Uki

Member
As much as I love Ramis, I don't particularly care what he has to say about KOTCS. I do want to see him strap on a proton pack again soon, though.... :D
 

IndyFan89

Member
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull =
poop.gif
 
Does anyone know why he called it a disaster other than he just called it a disaster?

Obviously he's in the "Raiders is the best" camp and I can't fault him for that.

Everyone makes concessions for the other films, and Skull is the latest in the ever increasing line of disappointing Indy films.
 

MaxPhactor23

New member
I’ve never understood some of these mentalities…and quite frankly, I wouldn’t want to. I place my opinions before my fandom; something I think is only respectable. So when people say “How can you be an Indy fan when you hate Crystal Skull,” I ask…how can’t you be? Begrudgingly there are four films, as much as it pains me to admit. Mindless obedience toward the franchise does not equate to true fan. This is such a narrow-minded misconception. In fact, could it not be argued that the ones that rightfully criticize out of genuine concern for the quality and longevity of the franchise are in turn doing the fandom a far more practical favor than those that just praise out of what could be viewed as lapdog-like compliance? Does this mean that, because you classify yourself as an Indiana Jones fan, you’d be able to predictably say that you’ll enjoy anything that has the banner of Indiana Jones stamped upon it? Never underestimate the uninspired writing of contemporary George Lucas. So you’d hypothetically like anything Indiana Jones without even seeing it? Indiana Jones and the Mystery of Sasquatch, surprise! He’s a wookiee! I can’t help but find that rather…mind-controlled. Put yourself before your hobbies. Have some self-respect!

Nor do I understand the comparisons that people tend to make to manipulatively steer away from the truth. In politics, I believe they call this spin. This is something that’s all too common. Because Harold Ramis has had his faults in the past does not negate Crystal Skulls! So what’s the rational point of bringing up something like Year One? Whether it sucks or not doesn’t take away from that fact that many people also felt Crystal Skull sucked.
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
MaxPhactor23 said:
I’ve never understood some of these mentalities…and quite frankly, I wouldn’t want to. I place my opinions before my fandom; something I think is only respectable. So when people say “How can you be an Indy fan when you hate Crystal Skull,” I ask…how can’t you be? Begrudgingly there are four films, as much as it pains me to admit. Mindless obedience toward the franchise does not equate to true fan. This is such a narrow-minded misconception. In fact, could it not be argued that the ones that rightfully criticize out of genuine concern for the quality and longevity of the franchise are in turn doing the fandom a far more practical favor than those that just praise out of what could be viewed as lapdog-like compliance? Does this mean that, because you classify yourself as an Indiana Jones fan, you’d be able to predictably say that you’ll enjoy anything that has the banner of Indiana Jones stamped upon it? Never underestimate the uninspired writing of contemporary George Lucas. So you’d hypothetically like anything Indiana Jones without even seeing it? Indiana Jones and the Mystery of Sasquatch, surprise! He’s a wookiee! I can’t help but find that rather…mind-controlled. Put yourself before your hobbies. Have some self-respect!

So what you say is sound, but I think the point one of our fellow posters was making was simply that if one likes the conceit/the world of Indiana Jones, then it's probable one will like some element of any given Indy movie... be it Harrison Ford, the effects, the music etc. That of course doesn't mean you are a bigger or better fan if you can look past the flaws and embrace everything with the same enthusiasm (who does?). By that logic one would have to enjoy Batman & Robin because one is a Batman fan... However, I don't think anyone was really making a case that if you are a fan you should/must like everything.

Personally speaking, I really enjoy the Indy movies and OST's, but I dislike all the games (apart from maybe Lego), books, comics and the other myriad of offshoots because I think they are poor. Perhaps that means I'm a lesser fan? I don't know and I don't really care... 4 movies, 4 soundtracks and that's it for me... everything else is guff of varying degrees. ;)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
So what you say is sound, but I think the point one of our fellow posters was making was simply that if one likes the conceit/the world of Indiana Jones, then it's probable one will like some element of any given Indy movie... be it Harrison Ford, the effects, the music etc. That of course doesn't mean you are a bigger or better fan if you can look past the flaws and embrace everything with the same enthusiasm (who does?). By that logic one would have to enjoy Batman & Robin because one is a Batman fan... However, I don't think anyone was really making a case that if you are a fan you should/must like everything.

Personally speaking, I really enjoy the Indy movies and OST's, but I dislike all the games (apart from maybe Lego), books, comics and the other myriad of offshoots because I think they are poor. Perhaps that means I'm a lesser fan? I don't know and I don't really care... 4 movies, 4 soundtracks and that's it for me... everything else is guff of varying degrees. ;)

Darth, this is where I stand with regards to Indy. Being a 'fan' is a very personal experience for many. Just as the enjoyment of any given film or book is a personal experience.

I enjoy the four Indy films and the novelizations of them. I also enjoy the toy and model related merchandise related to Indy, because I've been collecting toys and models for years, and I'm drawn to periods, styles and genres that appeal to my imagination.

I haven't been tempted into the world of the Young Indiana Jones TV series and I don't dress up like Indiana Jones, so I suppose that excludes me from being a true fan in some eyes.

I'm right with you with the Batman and Robin reference. There were some truly awful films using the Batman character, that followed on from Tim Burton's vision. And now that I've seen Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, I have no wish to go back to the Tim Burton version. As a fan of Batman I have a mental picture and sense of what Batman means to me - it's the tragic, lonely character, brooding atop some tall building, looking down at the horrors of the world below. This vision, of course, is at odds with the 1960s comic TV series, and the Jim Carrey Riddler/Tommy Lee Jones Two-Face versions.

As a fan I take what I want from the media - why would anyone accept something they did not like?

With Indy, all four films appeal to me, as they are consistent with the way I see the character and the series. Yet, there is a section of Indy fans to whom KOTCS is so repellent that they are incapable of seeing what someone else might find likeable in it. They seem to explain a like for KOTCS as some form of psychosis, that 'fans' are brain-washed into blindly following something they shouldn't.

My view is that no film is perfect. Star Wars Episodes I and II certainly didn't match the expectations that my imagination had created during all the years spent waiting for that part of the story to emerge. Even 'The Dark Knight' wasn't perfect - Harvey Dent shouldn't have died (just as the Joker shouldn't have died in Tim Burton's Batman).

However, there are enough positive elements in all four Indy films, and enough consistency in character, for me to like them all. I find it hard choosing a favourite out the four, simply because each adds something to the story and the character. They all have their imperfect moments, and I certainly don't hold Raiders up as the perfect specimen of movie history (if such a thing actually exists).
 
Montana Smith said:
And now that I've seen Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, I have no wish to go back to the Tim Burton version.

For people who dismiss us who would have a better prequel then Temple this is exactly the direction I wish they would have taken Indy.

For everyone who likes to believe that the series is for kids, I'll agree in so far as thats how the the other projects evolved.

I'm not sold that:

two graphically impaled people, one whose decomposed skull slowly turns to frame

a drinking contest

on screen bullets to the brain, Nice blood sqibs too!

dead monkey(y)

another drinking contest

fist fights in bars in markets on planes and cars, (fine trucks but cars rhymes!)

melting, shriveling and exploding heads

and the final line of the film...going for more drinks

constitutes a film for kids or is family friendly!

Too bad temple wasn't taken seriously as The Dark Knight was...and more in line with Raiders.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
For everyone who likes to believe that the series is for kids, I'll agree in so far as thats how the the other projects evolved.

I'm not sold that:

two graphically impaled people, one whose decomposed skull slowly turns to frame

a drinking contest

on screen bullets to the brain, Nice blood sqibs too!

dead monkey(y)

another drinking contest

fist fights in bars in markets on planes and cars, (fine trucks but cars rhymes!)

melting, shriveling and exploding heads

and the final line of the film...going for more drinks

constitutes a film for kids or is family friendly!

Too bad temple wasn't taken seriously as The Dark Knight was...and more in line with Raiders.

Raiders is a hard film to classify. We know that it is in the pulp serial genre, and it has violence and rotting corpses (as do all four films - and these things no longer seem to disturb children!) Whilst some of the violence is of the visually brutal kind in Raiders, some is definitely of the cartoon variety. Overall, I have been beginning to see the films as black comedy. Kids can see them from a cartoon perspective (and I'm referring to the brutal cartoons characterized by Tom and Jerry, which the Simpsons parodied with Itchy and Scratchy), whilst adults may be more likely to see the reality in the violence.

Think of the moment the German mechanic punches Indy in the face. In reality he would probably have broken his nose, but the moment becomes a brilliant piece of comedy. Indy falls on his butt and his expression is of astonishment. From then on he knows he's going to have to fight dirty to beat this opponent.

In Temple the Chief Guard gets dragged into the roller by his sash - it's both brutal and funny (if you see it in the light of a cartoon).

Violence goes hand in hand with the sort of adventuring associated with pulp serials.

Temple was a strange mixture that goes beyond black comedy in the two instances that still seem out of place to me. I've mentioned them before: ripping the heart from an innocent victim could have no humour intrinsic to it -as it's not the sort of violence where you're cheering for the bad guy to get his just desserts.

The other one is the human skins, which really seem out of place. We've come to expect rotting corpses in these kinds of movies, but not human skins. A corpse will rot naturally, but a skin has to be removed with skill and determination by another human. In the cartoon world Tom has been skinned alive, but we don't see the same happening to humans. (It occurs in Silent Hill, which I found to be a disturbing, though likeable, film. I'm surprised that this movie was only a 15 certificate, as it is far more graphic than a lot of 18 certificate moves used to be. So maybe a lot more aspects of graphic violence are becoming officially 'kid-friendly'!)

Whilst I really like the intensity of The Dark Knight, I don't think the Indy films ever set out to go to that level darkness. The Joker, as played so brilliantly by Heath Ledger, was a sociopath whose only rules were chaos: "Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos." Gotham has always been full of insane characters, right back to the 1940s.

The Joker is an unsettling character (albeit an anti-hero), and his violence is graphically displayed, as with forcing the mobster's hand down onto the spike.

The most evil character in Raiders would be Toht, but we don't actually see him torturing Marion. Indy prevents him using the poker, and in the tent the film cuts away. This would be in line with old style horror films, and with the pulp serials. Sometimes they can be more effective, as the imagination can often envisage violence more horrific than film can convey.

I see the four Indy films as pretty similar to one another in their attitude to violence. KOTCS isn't a great leap away from Raiders, as you can't take the violence in Raiders too seriously. Raiders was a vehicle for high adventure, and that's the format the others have followed. With high adventure you need a durable hero who can soak up the "mileage", and remain standing for the finale (even if he is supported by a wooden post!) Indy can soak up the damage in a way a cartoon character is able to. (Even Batman sustained a broken back, courtesy of Bane). Indy remains constant, whereas Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are revisionist - they show how a mortal vigilante with almost limitless funds could appear to be a super-hero. Christian Bale's Batman needs armour to protect him from damage, whereas Indy barely receives a rip in his trousers in Raiders.
 
Last edited:

MaxPhactor23

New member
Darth Vile said:
So what you say is sound, but I think the point one of our fellow posters was making was simply that if one likes the conceit/the world of Indiana Jones, then it's probable one will like some element of any given Indy movie... be it Harrison Ford, the effects, the music etc. That of course doesn't mean you are a bigger or better fan if you can look past the flaws and embrace everything with the same enthusiasm (who does?). By that logic one would have to enjoy Batman & Robin because one is a Batman fan... However, I don't think anyone was really making a case that if you are a fan you should/must like everything.

Personally speaking, I really enjoy the Indy movies and OST's, but I dislike all the games (apart from maybe Lego), books, comics and the other myriad of offshoots because I think they are poor. Perhaps that means I'm a lesser fan? I don't know and I don't really care... 4 movies, 4 soundtracks and that's it for me... everything else is guff of varying degrees. ;)

Well at least I hope not, but I did get slightly that impression from some people. But in the end, what really matters is to live by that old saying "To each their own," which is a indeed a wonderful way to live. I have a very love-hate relationship with the film, the irony being that some of the stuff most flamed didn't bother me at all. Outside of the Tarzan moment, I actually rather liked Mutt. But I can't say I really felt it up to par with the classics. But hey...that's me.
 
Montana Smith said:
I see the four Indy films as pretty similar to one another in their attitude to violence. KOTCS isn't a great leap away from Raiders, as you can't take the violence in Raiders too seriously. Raiders was a vehicle for high adventure, and that's the format the others have followed. With high adventure you need a durable hero who can soak up the "mileage", and remain standing for the finale (even if he is supported by a wooden post!) Indy can soak up the damage in a way a cartoon character is able to. (Even Batman sustained a broken back, courtesy of Bane). Indy remains constant, whereas Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are revisionist - they show how a mortal vigilante with almost limitless funds could appear to be a super-hero. Christian Bale's Batman needs armour to protect him from damage, whereas Indy barely receives a rip in his trousers in Raiders.

Well Raiders Indy was shot twice,so to hades with his trousers. I see the violence as leagues apart. CS took the violence off screen. And more to my point Raiders was not a family movie, Crystal Skull was.

I didn't equate Dark Knight to Indy, I used it as an example of howyou can take a movie like Batman Begins and follow it up while taking the subject matter seriously...something Temple did NOT.

All in all as Max says: to each his own...and in that spirit I must agree with Ramis, that a Crystal Skull was a disaster.

The matte paintings in Raiders were flawless, the CGI sucked, the compromises in Raiders made it the film that we embrace to a level that we can accept Crystal Skull, the movie with NO compromises beside artistic integrity.

Hey,we complained enough that when they got their divorce settlements, tax returns, and investment returns, we got another movie.

Yea!

I'm sure if you asked him about Caddy Shack II he would put it besides Crystal Skull, they're related to their predecessors the same way!
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
I'm right with you with the Batman and Robin reference. There were some truly awful films using the Batman character, that followed on from Tim Burton's vision. And now that I've seen Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, I have no wish to go back to the Tim Burton version. As a fan of Batman I have a mental picture and sense of what Batman means to me - it's the tragic, lonely character, brooding atop some tall building, looking down at the horrors of the world below. This vision, of course, is at odds with the 1960s comic TV series, and the Jim Carrey Riddler/Tommy Lee Jones Two-Face versions.

I think Burton’s Batman (Batman and Batman Returns) are the best cinematic outings for Batman to date. Largely because they are beautiful to look at, and because Burton gets an almost note perfect balance of the gothic/dark, comic book and cinematic. It’s Batman as a modern fairytale (which I believe best suits the story/character). That shot of Bruce Wayne (Batman Returns) sitting pensively in the dark, waiting for the Bat sign, encapsulates Batman to me. Whilst I like Nolan’s first shot with Batman Begins, I thought TDK was a little too pretentious and self-aggrandizing for it’s own good (even though I enjoyed many elements of it). :)

Rocket Surgeon said:
For everyone who likes to believe that the series is for kids, I'll agree in so far as thats how the the other projects evolved.

I'm not sold that:

two graphically impaled people, one whose decomposed skull slowly turns to frame

a drinking contest

on screen bullets to the brain, Nice blood sqibs too!

dead monkey(y)

another drinking contest

fist fights in bars in markets on planes and cars, (fine trucks but cars rhymes!)

melting, shriveling and exploding heads

and the final line of the film...going for more drinks

constitutes a film for kids or is family friendly!

Too bad temple wasn't taken seriously as The Dark Knight was...and more in line with Raiders.

So I agree that there is a modicum of violence in Raiders (above and beyond what TLC and KOTCS contain), but at the same time the violence, I believe, is designed specifically to engender a response of “that was cool” from kids/teenagers (men who should know better), rather than to blatantly shock or scare the audience. Violence, and its interpretation, is very much about context. For example, the context of gun play in Raiders is different from that of Death Wish or Dirty Harry. Within context, a sniper taking out a woman with a single shot to the head (Dirty Harry) is more violent than a Mongolian assailant being shot in the head. I suppose that’s one of the reasons why Raiders was given a PG rating.

I’m not sure why the violence was toned down for TLC and KOTCS. Perhaps it was political correctness, perhaps Lucas/Spielberg felt they needed to appease the classification board, perhaps it was an unconscious choice. Who knows? But still, I'm not necessarily sold with the notion that the originals were scary or particularly violent (no more so than the Bond movies of the day anways).
 
Darth Vile said:
Within context, a sniper taking out a woman with a single shot to the head (Dirty Harry) is more violent than a Mongolian assailant being shot in the head.

Well I don't agree with that at all!

Maybe more gratuitous because it's initially done without apparent reason. But MORE violent? No.

The Mongolians death is far more graphic and personal which is the point of the post, Raiders is not family fare, (and comparing it to an R Rated film which Raiders was initially, supports my Crystal Skull comparison/contentions).
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Well I don't agree with that at all!

Maybe more gratuitous because it's initially done without apparent reason. But MORE violent? No.

The Mongolians death is far more graphic and personal which is the point of the post, Raiders is not family fare, (and comparing it to an R Rated film which Raiders was initially, supports my Crystal Skull comparison/contentions).

Perhaps KOTCS is just a symptom of the way cinema is viewed nowadays. There has been so much hype in the media over the past years about violent films and computer games, and their apparent influence on young audiences.

Uber-violence isn't necessary to enhance the telling of a great adventure story, unless the director is portraying something true-to-life. I don't mind a bit of blood-letting, though, if it helps to bring a story to life. Remember the films of the 1950s, especially westerns, when people got shot and there was no blood, and not even a bullet hole in their clothes. That was a kid-friendly style, but on the other hand it might have taught the very young that shooting somebody doesn't have an effect.

Cinema ratings have changed a lot over the last 20 years or so. Movies that were an 18 certificate here in the UK in the 1980s appear quite tame now. Films such as Silent Hill, as I mentioned earlier, are much more graphic (and more psychologically disturbing), and yet only receive a 15 certificate.

It seems that the ratings boards accept that kids grow up faster today, that they are ready to watch at 15, a film that would have once been an 18.

To achieve a rating lower than 15, however, as Lucas would want for an Indiana Jones film, means that he has to steer a route through the media hype over violence influencing younger kids, which wasn't such a hot issue in 1981.

The violence portrayed in Raiders is akin to that of a war movie that you're likely to see on a Sunday afternoon.

Indy is primarily an adventurer, and violence to him is an occupational hazard. Violence is a means to an end, and the end justifies the means. There is a funny line in the novelization of Last Crusade, when Indy is searching for a German soldier to mug for his uniform as disguise. He knocks out one solder and takes his uniform, but finds that it's too small. Henry Sr. comments: "Next time pick on someone your own size."

Whilst a grave robber isn't your average role model, Indy does have limits, and his aim is ultimately just. He isn't a serial killer, but he will do what's necessary to prevent Hitler, Stalin or Mola Ram from achieving their objectives.

Rocket, you wrote ealier that, "CS took the violence off screen." That said though, KOTCS does contain it's share of violence.

Indy's introduction is being dragged from the boot/trunk of the car and thrown to the hard ground. That's quite a shocking way to treat an 'old guy' right from the start.

In the rocket sled room Indy fights desperately with Dovchenko and is almost strangled.

There's the controversial nuclear explosion, which is a representation of the single most violent act of the 20th century. (The atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as much a demonstration of American power to the Soviet Union, as they were an attempt to bring about Japanese surrender).

After this, I admit that most of the 'violent' moments are more of the playful kind (in the cafe, in the jungle), apart from the final fight with Dovchenko, which ends with his being carried off by the ants, which would be horrific if it happened for real.

As for "taking the violence off the screen", Raiders did that with Toht's torture of Marion. Whereas Mola's heart ripping was only removed from some editions of the film, which would make Temple more gratuitous than Raiders.
 
Last edited:
Top