Koepp Script
- Thread starter torao
- Start date
Maybe... I could imagine a lot of pages...
www.worstscriptinmoviehistory.com
or
www.Indiana-jones-movie-without-indiana-jones-in-it.org
www.worstscriptinmoviehistory.com
or
www.Indiana-jones-movie-without-indiana-jones-in-it.org
Bjorn Heimdall
Active member
Kinda hard to publish something written on a napkin
Sorry I couldn't resist
Sorry I couldn't resist
ResidentAlien
Guest
Moedred said:
I've only just perused it so far and it's every bit as amateur and horrendous as I'd imagined. Counted 3 rather ugly typographical errors so far. Tsk, tsk. How many millions and they couldn't even be arsed for a proofreader? For shame.
So we can now conclusively put the bulk of the blame on Koepp for being a total hack.
Hooray.
Ok, back to my apathy for this horrendous flick.
agentsands77
New member
What a terrible, terrible screenplay. This is, by far, the weakest INDY IV draft we have available to us. Those may have been uneven, but they at least had some real bright spots; this, however, is a prime example of utterly limp screenwriting.
I daresay the finished film plays a lot better than this screenplay would lead me to expect it would. Spielberg actually improved on this unwieldy mess of a draft by a substantial amount.
In my opinion is the best script I have read for Indy 4, combining the best elements of Stuart / Darabont. For example, we can see the great condensation of the opening from Darabont to Koepp and the new elements added: Roswell instead of plutonium or the dramatic entrance of Indy inside the trunk. For me comparing both drafts is a great lesson of synthesis.
agentsands77
New member
Both Stuart's and Darabont's drafts are far superior to this lazy, flaccid mess of a screenplay. They had their issues (sometimes significant issues), but at least there was a decent structure in place, and things were actually exciting to a degree. That thrill ride feel was well in place.Wilhelm said:
The way Koepp puts his script together, it plods along from one talky section to another talky section (with even more gratuitous conversation and dumb humor than ended up in the film), without any real sense of intrigue. There's the occasional moment of proper synthesis from earlier drafts, but any positive change is quickly undermined by the fact that this script is a snooze, and with no real sense of discernible structure.
I understand Koepp was shouldered with a lot of last-minute rewrites, but he couldn't put anything together better than this?
Well, after reading this in its entirety, my reaction is the same as that when I was sitting in the theater: What a weak screenplay.
A lot of people have wondered how Spielberg could have signed off on this, but if we want to be honest for a second, Spielberg hasn't exactly been the best judge of screenplays in the last fifteen years. A lot of modern Spielberg films are just a bunch of well-directed scenes that don't really comes together into a cohesive whole - I'm thinking of War of the Worlds (another Koepp gem) specifically.
I think what a lot of people have hypothesized is true - the long years of bickering between Spielberg and Lucas over the years was over story elements, and the priority of the writing even being serviceable got lost along the way. Lucas spent so much time insisting on a full-fledged 1950s Indy, and Spielberg spent so much time resisting, that the search for a screenplay just became about having enough of certain elements to placate both parties, everything else be damned. Koepp's script, I suspect, simply represents the first script that had enough of George's scifi stuff to placate him, and had enough traditional stuff for Spielberg to not be totally adverse to it. I really think that after all those years, Spielberg (and especially after the Darabont draft was nixed) just threw up his hands and said "Whatever, let's just make a new Indiana Jones movie already."
The irony of ironies is that Indy4's storyline isn't really that bad, but ultimately the story, which is what all this 19 year strife was apparently about, is a lot less important than the storytelling. You need excitement, decent characterizations, decent dialog, some kind of structure, and Koepp fails to to deliver on all of the above. This screenplay is a mess - an awkward hodgepodge of ideas that feel like they all originated from separate scripts, and likely did. That sense I got in the theater of just "watching scenes" that were just kind of there is one that revisited me when I read this script last night. It's interesting to see some of the things that got cut, and they're some lines in there I would have left in, but ultimately any such improvements would have been inconsequential - this script is the movie. The lack of any kind of thrills was still there. The completely bizarre pacing that makes the whole thing come off as disjointed is still there. The handling of all the secondary protagonists is as horrendous as it is on screen. And there's still no excitement. There's no "How's he gonna get out of this mess?" Where were the classic Indy escapes? And what interest the storyline could have offered (and what I think it still does on paper) is totally choked out by the languid way it's told - usually through clunky, weirdly placed exposition. agentsands77 nailed it when he said there isn't any real sense of intrigue. We don't care about anything that's happening in this movie. And the move is totally fine with it.
Koepp's script, unfortunately, is what I already knew it to be. Shame on Spielberg for caving in and doing a bully's homework.
A lot of people have wondered how Spielberg could have signed off on this, but if we want to be honest for a second, Spielberg hasn't exactly been the best judge of screenplays in the last fifteen years. A lot of modern Spielberg films are just a bunch of well-directed scenes that don't really comes together into a cohesive whole - I'm thinking of War of the Worlds (another Koepp gem) specifically.
I think what a lot of people have hypothesized is true - the long years of bickering between Spielberg and Lucas over the years was over story elements, and the priority of the writing even being serviceable got lost along the way. Lucas spent so much time insisting on a full-fledged 1950s Indy, and Spielberg spent so much time resisting, that the search for a screenplay just became about having enough of certain elements to placate both parties, everything else be damned. Koepp's script, I suspect, simply represents the first script that had enough of George's scifi stuff to placate him, and had enough traditional stuff for Spielberg to not be totally adverse to it. I really think that after all those years, Spielberg (and especially after the Darabont draft was nixed) just threw up his hands and said "Whatever, let's just make a new Indiana Jones movie already."
The irony of ironies is that Indy4's storyline isn't really that bad, but ultimately the story, which is what all this 19 year strife was apparently about, is a lot less important than the storytelling. You need excitement, decent characterizations, decent dialog, some kind of structure, and Koepp fails to to deliver on all of the above. This screenplay is a mess - an awkward hodgepodge of ideas that feel like they all originated from separate scripts, and likely did. That sense I got in the theater of just "watching scenes" that were just kind of there is one that revisited me when I read this script last night. It's interesting to see some of the things that got cut, and they're some lines in there I would have left in, but ultimately any such improvements would have been inconsequential - this script is the movie. The lack of any kind of thrills was still there. The completely bizarre pacing that makes the whole thing come off as disjointed is still there. The handling of all the secondary protagonists is as horrendous as it is on screen. And there's still no excitement. There's no "How's he gonna get out of this mess?" Where were the classic Indy escapes? And what interest the storyline could have offered (and what I think it still does on paper) is totally choked out by the languid way it's told - usually through clunky, weirdly placed exposition. agentsands77 nailed it when he said there isn't any real sense of intrigue. We don't care about anything that's happening in this movie. And the move is totally fine with it.
Koepp's script, unfortunately, is what I already knew it to be. Shame on Spielberg for caving in and doing a bully's homework.
Last edited:
agentsands77
New member
I imagine so.Udvarnoky said:
Exactly.Udvarnoky said:
I don't quite agree that "this script is the movie," if only because this script is even more unwieldy and drawn-out than the film was (most of the edits, I think, were wisely made). Furthermore, I think a lot of scenes in the film - for various reasons - come off better than written. Amazing though that may sound to some folks. Part of that is Spielberg's editing out of some of the gratuitous dialogue, and part of that is just that the actors manage to make something a bit more out of this very dull material.Udvarnoky said:
But if you just mean to suggest that the script is the root of all the problems with the film, well, then I'll largely agree. All the critical issues with the flick are right here on paper.
agentsands77 said:
Agreed. But then you have to ask yourself: is it Koepp's fault for being hired to do the overpaid hack work he's been hired to do for years, or is it Spielberg's fault for tapping him in the first place and subsequently approving the results? Spielberg has hired this man four times, and the quality of his scripts has been pretty consistent.
It's the Beards who let us down. They put their personal interests ahead of the film, and it shows in the final product. The 19 year search for a script was a joke, and it was on us.
I would like to say that Spielberg is also the uncredited screenwriter of this script. I mean that with David Koepp he's also responsible of the overall structure and scenes. They have long conversations about each individual scene and then Koepp goes to put that in words with changes during shooting.
I like the concept of "a bunch of well-directed scenes" for a movie. One of my favourites movies of all time "North By Northwest" originated with Hitchcock's crazy ideas that he have during the years and want to put in a movie. Is the same concept of Raiders: we want to write scenes that we always want to see in the screen. After we have a bunch of great scenes we make the screenplay with the characterization, dialogue, McGuffin... It sounds crazy and against convention but the James Bond movies are based since the beginning in this formula. First the action, exotic locations, gadgets etc and then the characters, plot and dialogue.
Another thing is that you don't like the way Koepp wrote the dialogue / characters, but for me the important thing in this kind of movie is Spielberg's direction (Like in Duel). It's form above content. One of his recent movies that combines perfectly action and characterization is "Munich" (2005).
From Spielberg / Koepp I like:
1. Jurassic Park
2. War Of The Worlds
3. Indiana Jones 4
4. The Lost World
I like the concept of "a bunch of well-directed scenes" for a movie. One of my favourites movies of all time "North By Northwest" originated with Hitchcock's crazy ideas that he have during the years and want to put in a movie. Is the same concept of Raiders: we want to write scenes that we always want to see in the screen. After we have a bunch of great scenes we make the screenplay with the characterization, dialogue, McGuffin... It sounds crazy and against convention but the James Bond movies are based since the beginning in this formula. First the action, exotic locations, gadgets etc and then the characters, plot and dialogue.
Another thing is that you don't like the way Koepp wrote the dialogue / characters, but for me the important thing in this kind of movie is Spielberg's direction (Like in Duel). It's form above content. One of his recent movies that combines perfectly action and characterization is "Munich" (2005).
From Spielberg / Koepp I like:
1. Jurassic Park
2. War Of The Worlds
3. Indiana Jones 4
4. The Lost World
I'm sorry...did you just compare the Raiders of the Lost Ark screenplay to this?
The Lost World and War of the Worlds were terrible movies, and Jurassic Park was good despite the best efforts of the screenplay, which kept it from being anything more than a fun monster flick.
Looking at that list reminds me of Spielberg's classic tendency to hire great actors and seeing how badly he can waste their talents. Just think of some of the names in those four movies: Wayne Knight, Pete Postlethwaite, Arliss Howard, Tim Robbins, Cate Blanchett, Ray Winstone, John Hurt... That's the kind of cast lower profile directors would kill to have, but Spielberg can get actors of that caliber simply because of who he is, and then blesses them with roles like George McHale and wimpy corporate dino food.
Wilhelm said:
The Lost World and War of the Worlds were terrible movies, and Jurassic Park was good despite the best efforts of the screenplay, which kept it from being anything more than a fun monster flick.
Looking at that list reminds me of Spielberg's classic tendency to hire great actors and seeing how badly he can waste their talents. Just think of some of the names in those four movies: Wayne Knight, Pete Postlethwaite, Arliss Howard, Tim Robbins, Cate Blanchett, Ray Winstone, John Hurt... That's the kind of cast lower profile directors would kill to have, but Spielberg can get actors of that caliber simply because of who he is, and then blesses them with roles like George McHale and wimpy corporate dino food.
Last edited:
Yes!!!
No; Raiders, Temple and Crusade are much better screenplays, I only say that the approach was similar in all four movies: first great action scenes (Like in the old serials) and then we write the plot, characters and dialogue around them. Maybe Skull is worse in the ability to make a more cohesive action / characterization plot, but I like it.
Remember that Kasdan didn't like certain aspects of Raiders:
"I guess that all of this bothers me because I have the character background in the script" Kasdan confides " With Indy and Marion's first scene in the Raven Steven even shot the whole thing. We always know it was a little long, but it's been chopped down to almost nothing. My feeling was that we should have edited a little of the chase sequences so that we'd have time to properly establish the characters"
About the genesis of Raiders:
"It took that long because writing Raiders was a big job," comments Kasdan. "Our outlining was immense, but not detailed. We knew who the three main characters would be, but there wasn't a word in anybody's mouth. There were no broad strokes and real structure to Raiders' plot." (STARLOG SEPT 1981)
http://www.apartment42.com/kasdanRoLA.htm
No; Raiders, Temple and Crusade are much better screenplays, I only say that the approach was similar in all four movies: first great action scenes (Like in the old serials) and then we write the plot, characters and dialogue around them. Maybe Skull is worse in the ability to make a more cohesive action / characterization plot, but I like it.
Remember that Kasdan didn't like certain aspects of Raiders:
"I guess that all of this bothers me because I have the character background in the script" Kasdan confides " With Indy and Marion's first scene in the Raven Steven even shot the whole thing. We always know it was a little long, but it's been chopped down to almost nothing. My feeling was that we should have edited a little of the chase sequences so that we'd have time to properly establish the characters"
About the genesis of Raiders:
"It took that long because writing Raiders was a big job," comments Kasdan. "Our outlining was immense, but not detailed. We knew who the three main characters would be, but there wasn't a word in anybody's mouth. There were no broad strokes and real structure to Raiders' plot." (STARLOG SEPT 1981)
http://www.apartment42.com/kasdanRoLA.htm
Last edited: