Dr. Gonzo said:You guys are why I still stick around this tavern.
Exactly. The meals are good and the drinks list impressive. And let's not forget the service!
Dr. Gonzo said:You guys are why I still stick around this tavern.
Mickiana said:And let's not forget the service!
Pale Horse said:Leave Finn out of this. He's neither proletariat OR bourgeoisie...
Montana Smith said:And the snake-rope gag... beyond corny to the point of 'did that really just happen?'
Pale Horse said:Leave Finn out of this. He's neither proletariat OR bourgeoisie...
Dr.Jonesy said:I think a couple people take stuff like this too seriously. More seriously than 90% of people who watch and love all the Indy films. People love the humour in the Indy films. Part of their charm.
Dr.Jonesy said:The snake bit was a big hit with the audiences when I saw it every time times. And last year, especially. I used to hate it and wonder why people were getting such a kick out of it - but I kind of like it now. Crusade is filled with even more humour than Kingdom, and some of it in both films make me cringe, as well. But people enjoy them so I can live with them.
Some jokes work for me - some don't. In the end I enjoy all the films and that's all that matters.
A hint of 'em all, like every reliable Evil Overlord.Montana Smith said:Anarchist, aristocrat, or royalty?
All burgers are good, Mick. Some are just better than others. That said, "Skull" was a sloppy one, indeed. It had a stale bun, the cheese was the stinky kind and was oozing over the sides, there was more cheese than meat and not enough zest in the half-grilled meat that was there. 'Twas a low-ranking burger but I ate it because it had "Indiana Jones" emblazoned on the plate.Mickiana said:With CS's sloppy burger,...
The major point that Dr.Jonesy's litany DOESN'T demonstrate is the answer to this thread's titular question: "Why people are so hard on Indy IV?"Montana Smith said:Dr.Jonesy's litany of the voting habits of the great unwashed - which, incidentally, demonstrates the inherent problems of democracy - portends the coming dictatorship of the proletariat.
Perhaps you aren't aware of something else, brother. Suspending disbelief is about NOT taking a story/film seriously.Indy's brother said:And I am well aware that Indy films aren't meant to be really deep or anything, but if the creators lack the self-awareness to sell the STORY, how can anyone be expected to take it seriously enough to suspend their disbelief through the whole film.
Stoo said:The major point that Dr.Jonesy's litany DOESN'T demonstrate is the answer to this thread's titular question: "Why people are so hard on Indy IV?"
Dr.Jonesy said:In all honesty there's always some people online who are hard on films I love and Temple/Kingdom are two of them. The Dark Knight Rises is also one of those films that a lot of people online hate, lately. Even though they're well received films - the internet provides an outlet for negative voices to dominate the conversation.
Montana Smith said:It might have something to do with the films preceding them being hard acts to follow.
Raiders is generally highly regarded, and often referred to in elevated terms as a pinnacle of action adventure films.
Montana Smith said:the miscellaneous scrapings from the abattoir floor
Dr.Jonesy said:I don't want to quote your entire post - but you make great points all the way through so kudos.
Dr.Jonesy said:Sequels like Temple of Doom, Last Crusade, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and The Dark Knight Rises have extremely hard acts to follow. As sequels I think none of them came close to topping what came before them. But I'll be damned if I don't love them all anyway, you know?
Dr.Jonesy said:Raiders is essentially the only classic of the Indy films. Tonally/stylistically/writing-wise/action - it excels to the top of cinema of the last 50 years. None of the others are ever mentioned in the same breath as cinema classics like Raiders is. And I'm good with that, surprisingly.
Mickiana said:In a rereading the full force of this terrible analogy hit me, terrible in its lack of mercy! But it did make me laugh. I've done shutdown work in abattoirs before, so I know what the floors are like!
Montana Smith said:I was overly harsh!
Stoo said:The thing is, Sabo, you don't drone on & on & on about your aversion like some others do. Initial disappointment in 2008 is understandable but this thread's question was asked in the present tense. Taking that distinction into account, why are certain people "so hard on" Indy 4 almost 5 years later?
Le Saboteur said:I can't offer up a premise that accounts for the perpetual stream of criticism some of the other members elect to present since I don't usually dwell on things I don't like. That said, times does not heal all wounds and bad movies do not age like wine suddenly becoming more palatable. The academic deconstruction that (still) goes on around here to make it... well, palatable to some cannot hide the fact that Crystal Skull is a sub-par entry in the Indiana Jones series. It, as you've said, gets "ate up" because of the Indiana Jones franchise tag.
So, in an attempt to offer a response to the principle question, because "they" have taste. The Beards & Ford laid down an entire list of, let's call 'em rules, with the original entries and then abandoned them almost entirely with the most recent "effort".
Henry W Jones said:So if you on some level like Crystal Skull you lack taste?
Dr. Gonzo said:There are SOME folks in this world who do indeed prefer a dollar menu McDonalds burger to a gourmet 50 dollar hamburger...
Do the people who choose McDonalds over, say Spago, for reasons of taste have no taste?
Is it because they are just so used to McDonalds that they prefer it?
Is it because they really don't care and have lower standards?
Who knows... I don't think there is an answer to be found looking at it like that.
(But by the way, most folks consider the ones who prefer the dollar menu taste to the gourmet taste bat **** crazy)