Why is it "cool" to hate on KOTCS?

The Drifter

The Drifter

New member
gabbagabbahey said:
If anything, this movie (which I enjoyed) was over written and over thought instead of just shooting from the hip. I often see this in movies. Too many plot twists. Too many characters. Too many story lines. You know what they say, keep it simple stupid.
Click to expand...

You know, I have been on the fence with Kingdom every since I seen it on opening day back in May of 2008.
I've mulled and brooded over if I love it or not. I enjoyed it, and I still do, but there was always the gnawing thought that the film was missing something, and I racked my brain trying to figure it out.

I just read your post, and I heard the sharp ring of a hammer against an anvil in my head. You just described what I thought for years, but could never figure out.
This is what was bothering me with Kingdom, what was missing was the quick "bang-bang-bang' shooting style of Raiders, and to an extent Temple and Crusade.
Kingdom was over-thought, over produced, and over-done (some could argue that maybe Crusade and Temple were also, but I'd disagree).

Kingdom was too full, too bloated, it needed to let out a good belch and let out some of that gas.
Gone was the simple straight-forward good guy vs. bad guy trope, and we had instead, too many twists and turns in the road (Look at Mac, how many times did he switch sides?), we had too many characters tagging along behind Indy like a line of ducklings waddling after their mama.
The film was over produced, missing that raw element that made the earlier Indy films so good. They really felt like the 30's era, but Kingdom never felt like an older relic of a by-gone era. It felt to modern. It felt like it could have took place today rather then the 50s.

At any rate, I still enjoy the movie. But you opened up new realm for me to think about.
Also, I love that user name, The Ramones were awesome.
 
R

Raiders90

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Snakes, scar, whip, fashion sense, second occupation. A very busy day indeed!

It is odd, in the chronology, that he went through the horrors of the Great War and still the Fedora side of his character development hadn't yet materialized. Which is why I see the revisionism of the older Lucas taking hold after TLC.
Click to expand...

Indy's character development is all messed up really. He's this anti-hero, rogue type in Raiders and ToD who basically cares for nothing except "fortune and glory" and suddenly he's a good guy in TLC. I think placing the change from where he turned back to being a good guy, is harder than placing when he became a bad guy.

There's a 15 year gap from when the YIJC ends to the start of ToD. That is enough time for Indy to internalize everything that's happened (and if we take the novels into account) and develop into the man we see in ToD.

He was already starting to become cynical and jaded toward the end of the YIJC and there are moments when that jaded side comes right out. Hell, he never mentions any Museum in Treasure of the Peacock's Eye--Both he and Remy want fortune and glory.

But the 180 shift from the guy in TOD and Raiders, to the adult boy scout of LC is much more rapid and less believable--there's only 2 years between Raiders and LC chronologically and somehow in that two years his sense of morality reverted back to his Boy Scout years.
 
G

gabbagabbahey

New member
The Drifter said:
I just read your post, and I heard the sharp ring of a hammer against an anvil in my head. You just described what I thought for years, but could never figure out.
This is what was bothering me with Kingdom, what was missing was the quick "bang-bang-bang' shooting style of Raiders, and to an extent Temple and Crusade.
Kingdom was over-thought, over produced, and over-done (some could argue that maybe Crusade and Temple were also, but I'd disagree).
Click to expand...


Thanks. Yeah, they had a little too much time to write the movie, a little too much money & were a little too smart for their own good. I could just see a room full of writers each trying to out do each other w/plot twists and turns.

They would have been better off doing it "Ramones" style. ""Hellowe'regladtobebackinnewyorktakeitdeedee1234!!!!!!"
 
R

Raiders90

Well-known member
The Drifter said:
You know, I have been on the fence with Kingdom every since I seen it on opening day back in May of 2008.
I've mulled and brooded over if I love it or not. I enjoyed it, and I still do, but there was always the gnawing thought that the film was missing something, and I racked my brain trying to figure it out.

I just read your post, and I heard the sharp ring of a hammer against an anvil in my head. You just described what I thought for years, but could never figure out.
This is what was bothering me with Kingdom, what was missing was the quick "bang-bang-bang' shooting style of Raiders, and to an extent Temple and Crusade.
Kingdom was over-thought, over produced, and over-done (some could argue that maybe Crusade and Temple were also, but I'd disagree).

Kingdom was too full, too bloated, it needed to let out a good belch and let out some of that gas.
Gone was the simple straight-forward good guy vs. bad guy trope, and we had instead, too many twists and turns in the road (Look at Mac, how many times did he switch sides?), we had too many characters tagging along behind Indy like a line of ducklings waddling after their mama.
The film was over produced, missing that raw element that made the earlier Indy films so good. They really felt like the 30's era, but Kingdom never felt like an older relic of a by-gone era. It felt to modern. It felt like it could have took place today rather then the 50s.

At any rate, I still enjoy the movie. But you opened up new realm for me to think about.
Also, I love that user name, The Ramones were awesome.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this but wouldn't you say that a lot of thought went into Raiders as well? I'd say the only one "shot from the hip" was ToD. That's the real fun, no holds barred rollercoaster ride of the series. It's also the most original. Raiders is a classic no doubt and it's very raw and kinetic--but it's got too much exposition for most modern action audiences; Younger viewers who I've shown the series too find Raiders slow paced, whereas ToD is right up their alley.

And I agree--there was something of a "modern" feel to KOTCS, despite all the hammy '50s references. It didn't feel like an old film because it wasn't made using old methods. They should used the same type of stuff they did in the 80s and also gotten a cinematographer to truly emulate Slocombe's style. I think that's the most glaring difference from the original three: The original three all have a certain raw, real sort of look despite their times. KOTCS has this overlit, dreamy sort of look to it just due to the lighting alone.
 
R

Raiders90

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Which is probably the actual reason why, for some, it's "'cool' to hate on KOTCS". :D

Do the following appeal more to a juvenile mind?

This has to be one of the corniest and most cringeworthy gags on film (it beats a hammer on the head):

246.jpg


And this is the other one (it beats a mine cart jumping the tracks):

344.jpg


And those Disney characters:

073.jpg


These all just seem highly tactless in the light of the edge that the previous three movies have over this. They're silly to the point of undermining any other threat and menace that might be building elsewhere in the plot.

TOD may not have been scary, but a child may not see the correlations between what's on screen and what it means in reality. The menace of the Soviets in KOTCS was nothing compared to Toht or Mola Ram, or even Vogel's brutality for that matter.

The flayed skins in the Temple of Doom in 1935 was something the Japanese were doing before and during the war.

As I wrote before, Rollins did his best to put the brutality, pain and suffering back into the story of KOTCS, things which were excised from the film. He even makes the fridge landing appear more reasonable.

The book is intended for a more mature audience, which implies that film was intended for a less mature one.
Click to expand...

The film has such a fake look to it, in the lighting and everything...Compare the screenshots to screenshots from the previous three. There is a layer of grit which was present in the original films (not in terms of tone, just the LOOK of the films) which isn't there in KOTCS.

It's the same thing with the SW prequels. Compare the crappy future of the A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back to the glittery, fake, CG grandeur of the prequels. Grit removed.

Maybe smaller budgets make for better films.
 
Crack that whip

Crack that whip

New member
Montana Smith said:
Which is probably the actual reason why, for some, it's "'cool' to hate on KOTCS". :D

Do the following appeal more to a juvenile mind?

This has to be one of the corniest and most cringeworthy gags on film (it beats a hammer on the head):

246.jpg


And this is the other one (it beats a mine cart jumping the tracks):

344.jpg


And those Disney characters:

073.jpg


These all just seem highly tactless in the light of the edge that the previous three movies have over this. They're silly to the point of undermining any other threat and menace that might be building elsewhere in the plot.

TOD may not have been scary, but a child may not see the correlations between what's on screen and what it means in reality. The menace of the Soviets in KOTCS was nothing compared to Toht or Mola Ram, or even Vogel's brutality for that matter.

The flayed skins in the Temple of Doom in 1935 was something the Japanese were doing before and during the war.

As I wrote before, Rollins did his best to put the brutality, pain and suffering back into the story of KOTCS, things which were excised from the film. He even makes the fridge landing appear more reasonable.

The book is intended for a more mature audience, which implies that film was intended for a less mature one.
Click to expand...

Different perspectives, I guess. I personally don't see the gags in your first two screenshots as being all that corny and cringeworthy, and no more so than the two Temple of Doom moments to which you compare them. It's not like there's some sort of corny-ometer one can hold to the screen and get a precise measurement; it's down to different viewers' interpretation. I thought the snake-as-rope thing was actually kind of a nice touch (though I might've made Indy slightly less-reluctant to touch it; it's not like he hasn't been around much scarier snake situations). Similarly, the bit with the tree doesn't strike me as any sillier or less plausible than a mine cart landing just right on the tracks (perhaps a bit less, actually). And honestly, the prairie dogs aren't made nearly as much of in the actual movie as they are in our discussions here.

Moreover, regardless of what one thinks of those moments, they don't really say anything about the intended viewership of the movie.
 
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
Vindication:

Originally posted by Steven Spielberg
...I never liked the MacGuffin, he explained. “George and I had big arguments about the MacGuffin. I didn’t want these things to be either aliens or inter-dimensional beings.
Click to expand...

If that doesn't make it cool nothing ever will.
 
M

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Vindication:



If that doesn't make it cool nothing ever will.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about starting to actively hate KOTCS, on a temporary basis at first, but with a view to permanency, since the more I think about this film the more I realize how corny, safe and ridiculous it was. ;)

The movie seems to be getting more popular here, and I so dislike being among the majority. :(

Now would then be a good time to change my opinion, as I can cite Spielberg:

Spielberg said:
But I am loyal to my best friend. When he writes a story he believes in – even if I don’t believe in it – I’m going to shoot the movie the way George envisaged it.
Click to expand...


i.e. "I will create crap to the best of my ability because my buddy George wills it."

:p
 
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
Montana Smith said:
I've been thinking about starting to actively hate KOTCS, on a temporary basis at first, but with a view to permanency, since the more I think about this film the more I realize how corny, safe and ridiculous it was. ;)

The movie seems to be getting more popular here, and I so dislike being among the majority. :(

Now would then be a good time to change my opinion, as I can cite Spielberg:
Originally Posted by Spielberg
But I am loyal to my best friend. When he writes a story he believes in ? even if I don?t believe in it ? I?m going to shoot the movie the way George envisaged it.
Click to expand...
i.e. "I will create crap to the best of my ability because my buddy George wills it.":p
Click to expand...

Its important to note that Spielberg has a responsibility to his partners, (beyond Lucas) to make them money, and promotion is part and parcel bad movie or no.

He said from the word go he didn't want to do aliens, and when Lucas said they wouldn't it was the best news ever...then they rebranded the aliens.:rolleyes:

Lucas called it as well, saying people were going to hate it, but it was just another wacky adventure.

Ah, screw the both of them! I quit Indiana Jones...

I'm back!

...and that's the staying power of Raiders.

...and they know it.
 
M

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Its important to note that Spielberg has a responsibility to his partners, (beyond Lucas) to make them money, and promotion is part and parcel bad movie or no.

He said from the word go he didn't want to do aliens, and when Lucas said they wouldn't it was the best news ever...then they rebranded the aliens.:rolleyes:

Lucas called it as well, saying people were going to hate it, but it was just another wacky adventure.

Ah, screw the both of them! I quit Indiana Jones...

I'm back!

...and that's the staying power of Raiders.

...and they know it.
Click to expand...

And I'll never hate KOTCS, no matter how hard I try, because it has the bloke from Raiders in it, and because it was really just more frustrating that hateful. Hell, it was just one adventure in 1953 that I didn't like, and he's had plenty of others that were better, including the three big ones from 1935, 1936 and 1938.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
I've been thinking about starting to actively hate KOTCS, on a temporary basis at first, but with a view to permanency, since the more I think about this film the more I realize how corny, safe and ridiculous it was. ;)

The movie seems to be getting more popular here, and I so dislike being among the majority. :(

Now would then be a good time to change my opinion, as I can cite Spielberg:
Click to expand...

Whilst accepting the fact that the fridge was Spielberg's idea...;)
 
T

teampunk

Member
If Indy lives in a world where The Ark has super powers, Stones can make it rain and crops grow, The Cup gives unlimited life, and a man can survive getting his heart ripped out, then Indy can survive a nuclear blast in a fridge. Plus the Indy silhouette in front of the blast is pretty awesome.
 
G

gabbagabbahey

New member
teampunk said:
If Indy lives in a world where The Ark has super powers, Stones can make it rain and crops grow, The Cup gives unlimited life, and a man can survive getting his heart ripped out, then Indy can survive a nuclear blast in a fridge. Plus the Indy silhouette in front of the blast is pretty awesome.
Click to expand...


Exactly. I've always thought it was funny how some fans got so wound up about how unbelievable flying saucers and the blast were in Skull. It's all just good popcorn entertainment IMO.
 
The Drifter

The Drifter

New member
gabbagabbahey said:
Exactly. I've always thought it was funny how some fans got so wound up about how unbelievable flying saucers and the blast were in Skull. It's all just good popcorn entertainment IMO.
Click to expand...

The nuked fridge, or the flying saucer never bothered me at all, really. I was more annoyed with all the rag-tag sidekicks tagging along, and Mutt's Tarzan moment.
And, I really disliked Mac's character. Not because I was supposed to, but just because it was needless. At least Ox was needed as he helped them throughout the adventure.
 
M

Montana Smith

Active member
teampunk said:
If Indy lives in a world where The Ark has super powers, Stones can make it rain and crops grow, The Cup gives unlimited life, and a man can survive getting his heart ripped out, then Indy can survive a nuclear blast in a fridge. Plus the Indy silhouette in front of the blast is pretty awesome.
Click to expand...

While I applaud the absurdity of the fridge, and the 1950s atomic statement it makes, there is a difference between magic and a kitchen appliance. If it was a magical kitchen appliance there wouldn't be an issue, but this one tests the imagination.

I put it down to Indy's uncanny luck!
 
M

Mickiana

Well-known member
I like to analyse the pluck out of it. That's why I enjoy coming here and reading everyone else's opinions and analyses. I do it to religion too. It's not enough to just like something. I have to know why.:gun: Oy vont tu no evryting!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top