Do you think the reaction to KOTCS was exaggerated?

Raiders90

Well-known member
Do you think the reaction to Crystal Skull was exaggerated? What I mean is, while it clearly wasn't Raiders II, it also wasn't a terrible film or even a poor film, yet so many people (even the media, like South Park) act like it's one of the worst films ever or something along those lines. I myself go back and forth between loving the film and feeling it could've been much more--but I don't feel it was a bad film in any way and don't feel Indy was "raped".

Where did this reactionary line of thought toward films come from? That a film can't simply just be "good" or "average"; it has to be a film that "raped your childhood"? Any film that doesn't meet incredibly unrealistic expectations is treated as if it is The Phantom Menace....The Hobbit is going through this right now for example.

I mean, did we get the IDEAL Indiana Jones 4? The film that could've come out in 1994 based on Fate of Atlantis that would've been most fans' dream film? The perfect sequel to Raiders that really none of the other films were? No. But Raiders has never really had a sequel on the same quality. Raiders is a classic film. It's a B Movie that somehow rises above B Movies to become something great--something to be taken seriously. TOD and LC and KOTCS are just fun action/adventure films.

As a side note, will the "Trilogy" section and the "KOTCS" section ever be merged into one? The Trilogy section refers to "Discuss Raiders of the Lost Ark and its prequel & sequel.", and segregating KOTCS from the other films is almost the forum's way of saying it's not viewed as canon. I mean, KOTCS is Raiders' second sequel. Shouldn't it be in the same section of the forum as TOD and LC?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
Where did this reactionary line of thought toward films come from? That a film can't simply just be "good" or "average"; it has to be a film that "raped your childhood"? Any film that doesn't meet incredibly unrealistic expectations is treated as if it is The Phantom Menace....The Hobbit is going through this right now for example.

Hype and expectation, coinciding with easy internet access.

It wasn't the worst film ever made, but it deserved better taking care of.

And remember, don't believe everything you read.

Raiders112390 said:
TOD and LC and KOTCS are just fun action/adventure films.

TOD and LC were fun. KOTCS was hard work. Nobody looked like they were having fun in KOTCS, apart from the ants and monkeys.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Hype and expectation, coinciding with easy internet access.

It wasn't the worst film ever made, but it deserved better taking care of.

And remember, don't believe everything you read.



TOD and LC were fun. KOTCS was hard work. Nobody looked like they were having fun in KOTCS, apart from the ants and monkeys.

My thread there wasn't my feelings. I have my share of gripes with KOTCS, depending on the day really, but if you go on places like IMDB, a lot of the posters act like it's as bad as Phantom Menace or Plan 9 from Outer Space. i was simply asking posters here if they shared that sentiment--asking Raveners if THEY feel it was really that bad. I don't feel KOTCS "raped" Indy and I don't feel it should continue to be excluded from the section of the "Indy films" on this site, treated as not a sequel to Indy but some spin off. I can see Young Indy having it's own section--it was a spin off. But KOTCS, like it or not, was a sequel, and this section or subform should probably be merged with the "Indiana Jones Trilogy" section.

I actually think it looked like most of the cast was having fun. I'd actually say Ford seemed like he was phoning it in more in parts of LC (except for the scenes with Connery) than in KOTCS. All of them genuinely seemed into it. Let's be brutally honest: Raiders of the Lost Ark is the only film in the Indy series which can be regarded as anything more than a fun summer B movie. It's basis was B movies, but it's much more.

The others all share in common slapstick humor to greater or lesser degrees, moments of total stupidity (see for a prime example the tunnel scene in LC), moments of total implausibility (The raft scene, heart scen and lava pit scene in TOD; the fridge and waterfalls in KOTCS); Any returning characters were dumbed down (Marcus, Sallah, Marion); All of the films after Raiders were pure B Movies, nothing more.

In each film, the Macguffin never touches on the greatness, power, mystery and glory of the Ark. None of them have the same impact. The Grail is mysterious and steeped in lore, but it isn't even really the heart of the story--Henry Sr. is. Where limit of the Ark's powers are relatively unknown and creepily hinted at throughout Raiders, we know already what the Grail does, the limit of it's power--and while the Ark is seen and chased for almost half the movie, we don't see the Grail until the very end. It isn't powerful in the way the Ark was, it wouldn't suffice as a weapon. And it's power is limited to nor further than beyond the Great Seal, so it's technically useless to anyone who wants to possess it unless they plan on hanging with the Knight. The Sankara Stones are interesting, but their mythos isn't really familiar in Western culture and thus doesn't have the mystique or effect that the Ark had, and their exact power isn't really clearly explained or shown in TOD. The Skull is a lot like the Sankara Stones in that respect. Both are rather unfamiliar to the West and to mainstream moviegoers, both have potentially great powers, powers that could've made them as fearsome a weapon as the Ark if they were presented correctly, but we never quite get to really know what they're all about.

The Sankara Stones are shown to be able to glow and set things on fire when Shiva's wrath is invoked, and MAYBE it gives you the power to rip out someone's heart and render them still alive--or is that the Dark Magic of Kali at play? It's never made clear. We're told the Stones will cause the Hebrew, Hindu and Christian Gods to fall and be forgotten--but we're never shown how that could be, what power it truly has beyond being Shiva's personal flamethrower. The Skull has power over the minds of man and animal and is potentially a VERY powerful weapon to any army who'd posses it--but again, it's a missed opportunity to showcase a dangerous artifact, like the Stones.

My point is, I don't think Lucas & Spielberg ever got it right after Raiders. Raiders has no "real" sequel in that it has no equal, none of it's sequels or prequels even come near it in quality, and none of it's sequels attempt at greatness. That film was lightning in a bottle. I think the rest of the films feel quite dumbed down in comparison to Raiders. Raiders perfectly rode this fine line between exposition, action, humor and intellect. It wasn't a boring film, nor simply a mindless action film, nor was it overly intellectual and Detective-ish, and neither was it overly humorous. It is a perfect action/adventure film that both redefined the genre, brought the Serial genre to a new generation, and is the film which all other adventure films are judged and inspired in some way by. It is the standard and it has not been surpassed or even equalled either by it's own sequels/prequels or by it's imitators or by films inspired by it.

LC attempts to be a remake of Raiders structurally, hoping to recreate the magic by hitting all the beats (Nazis, Christian artifact, Marshall College, Marcus, Sallah, Desert Chase scene, etc), but has none of the seriousness or grit or reality that makes Raiders both believable yet fantasy. I think each film after Raiders are great popcorn films--but nothing more. And all are equally good in different ways. I don't really see a big difference in quality between the three because if you want to nitpick LC and TOD, like KOTCS was nitpicked, you could tear those films apart too.

TOD is a mess and can't decide whether it wants to be a slapstick comedy or a dark horror film. LC borders on buddy comedy and feels almost like a parody/remake of Raiders, with Sean Connery saving it from being average. KOTCS features an older Ford and has aliens. They're all flawed. But they're also all good.

I'll put it this way: I'd put every Indy film, including KOTCS, over any Mummy film or Lara Croft film or National Treasure Film. Even a "bad" Indy film is better than the best of those series.
 
Last edited:

Le Saboteur

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
Do you think the reaction to Crystal Skull was exaggerated?

No, but this is. The Hollywood Reporter has announced one of the most entertaining lawsuits ever.

The Hollywood Reporter said:
It comes from Dr. Jaime Awe, director of the Institute of Archeology of Belize. This real-life Indiana Jones is suing on behalf of the nation of Belize over the Crystal Skull artifact, popularized in the 2008 Steven Spielberg film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Dr. Awe is demanding the return of the Crystal Skull from a treasure-hunting family that allegedly stole it 88 years ago from Belize. And if that's not enough, the lawsuit targets Lucasfilm, its new owner the Walt Disney Co. and Crystal Skull distributor Paramount Pictures for allegedly using a replica "likeness" of the Crystal Skull. Among the damages claimed are the "illegal profits" of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The movie grossed about $786 million worldwide.

According to the lawsuit, the Crystal Skull is attributed to Mayan culture and is a hardstone carving from clear or milky quartz that resembles a human skull. It's believed to have magical or otherwise supernatural powers, and there are four known valuable Crystal Skulls in the world. Three are on public display at the British Museum in London, the Musee du quai Branly in Paris and the Smithsonian in Washington.

Full article and court filings can be read here.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Le Saboteur said:
No, but this is. The Hollywood Reporter has announced one of the most entertaining lawsuits ever.
Wow. That's insane.:D
Raiders112390 said:
Raiders is a classic film. It's a B Movie that somehow rises above B Movies to become something great--something to be taken seriously.
---
Raiders of the Lost Ark is the only film in the Indy series which can be regarded as anything more than a fun summer B movie.
---
All of the films after Raiders were pure B Movies, nothing more.
The Indy films are not B-movies.:rolleyes: They are multi-million dollar productions made by people with top-notch talent.

That aside, what does your long-winded, 2nd post have to do with negative reaction to "Crystal Skull"?:confused:
 

I Don Quixote

New member
Personally, I believe it was exaggerated. It definitely isn't as good as Raiders, no chance. But it wasn't bad. People just had their expectations too high after nearly 20 years.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Stoo said:
Wow. That's insane.:D
The Indy films are not B-movies.:rolleyes: They are multi-million dollar productions made by people with top-notch talent.

That aside, what does your long-winded, 2nd post have to do with negative reaction to "Crystal Skull"?:confused:

What I mean by a B-Movie is that it's a fun, not overly intellectual sort of film. It's not a B-Movie in QUALITY, but in tone or spirit. The sequels are not something like The Conversation, intellectual, grounded in realism. The only Indy film which has any bit of grit or realism about it is Raiders. The rest are just popcorn fun.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
My personal journey was that when it first came out I was going to think it was good regardless, because it was Indiana Jones. But a dawning objectivity plus time sobered up my views and I eventually realised that the initially repressed feelings of uneasiness at the first viewing were the most telling.
 

IndyBr

Member
Yes, I think it was exaggerated.
At least all that hate towards the movie, there was no reason for that. I can see why some people don't like it, but hate it? I guess that's just too strong.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Skull is heavily flawed but still entertaining. I think over expectations and hype was the real culprit. Along with a few really bad scenes.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Going back to the question in the thread title, what was the "reaction" that is being referred to? That should be clarified first.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Do you think the reaction to Crystal Skull was exaggerated? What I mean is, while it clearly wasn't Raiders II, it also wasn't a terrible film or even a poor film, yet so many people (even the media, like South Park) act like it's one of the worst films ever...
Montana Smith said:
It wasn't the worst film ever made, but it deserved better taking care of.
Raiders112390, your other (immediately closed) thread which Monty Smiff linked to has now been erased but it was the same subject as this new one you've started. (Your other one was titled: "Is KOTCS the worst film ever made?)
Raiders112390 said:
My thread there wasn't my feelings. I have my share of gripes with KOTCS, depending on the day really, but if you go on places like IMDB, a lot of the posters act like it's as bad as Phantom Menace...
---
Any film that doesn't meet incredibly unrealistic expectations is treated as if it is The Phantom Menace.
Merely a week before starting this thread, you wrote: "George Lucas is nothing but a curse. Since 1996, everything he touches or associated with turns to crap". At the same you also wrote that "Lucas did a good job wrecking" Indy with KOTCS, just like he wrecked 'Star Wars' with the prequels.

One week ago, you put "Crystal Skull" on the same level as "Phantom Menace" so you are guilty of the exact, same reaction that you're complaining about, Raiders112390.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Maybe he has a doppelganger and this other side comes to life in the dark of the night to contribute contrary opinions?:p
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Mickiana said:
Maybe he has a doppelganger and this other side comes to life in the dark of the night to contribute contrary opinions?:p
Yes, Mickie, that appears to be the case:

Day 01 - Raiders112390: "Crystal Skull wasn't a terrible film."
Day 02 - 093211srediaR: "!parc saw llukS latsyrC"
Day 03 - Raiders112390: "Why are people trashing Crystal Skull?"
Day 04 - 093211srediaR: "!tihs llukS latsyrC edam sacuL egroeG"

...And so on...and so on...and so on...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oCjmDI4AJlk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Vance

New member
Raiders112390 said:
I'll put it this way: I'd put every Indy film, including KOTCS, over any Mummy film or Lara Croft film or National Treasure Film. Even a "bad" Indy film is better than the best of those series.

I would have to put the three Mummy movies over TOD and KOTCS, myself. I would put the two National Treasure films over KOTCS... but the Laura Movies are definately at the bottom of the list.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Meant to address this earlier:
Raiders112390 said:
What I mean by a B-Movie is that it's a fun, not overly intellectual sort of film. It's not a B-Movie in QUALITY, but in tone or spirit. The sequels are not something like The Conversation, intellectual, grounded in realism. The only Indy film which has any bit of grit or realism about it is Raiders. The rest are just popcorn fun.
Well, you did say: "All of the films after Raiders were pure B Movies, nothing more." and the term, 'B-movie', has a lot to do with production costs/quality so to say that they are "pure" & "nothing more" is absolutely absurd. In terms of tone & spirit, B-movies cover all sorts of genres and PLENTY of those types of flicks are gritty & realistic!:gun:

Plus, you wrote that RotLA was "something to be taken seriously". Hate to burst your bubble but RotLA is NOT an "intellectual" film nor is it "to be taken seriously". Don't delude yourself, Raiders112390. All 4 of the Indy movies are "popcorn fun".

---
That said, what was the point of your 2nd post? Was it your plan to derail your own thread as soon as possible?:confused:
 
Last edited:

The Drifter

New member
Stoo said:
Plus, you wrote that RotLA was "something to be taken seriously". Hate to burst your bubble but RotLA is NOT an "intellectual" film nor is it "to be taken seriously". Don't delude yourself, Raiders112390. All 4 of the Indy movies are "popcorn fun".

I couldn't agree more. I can't count how many times I've read how someone tries to pass Raiders off as some sort of intellectual, artsy-fartsy film, when in truth. it's just pure popcorn fun as the other three are.
 
Top