Why is it "cool" to hate on KOTCS?

kongisking · Oct 9, 2011

Do I really dare join into this discussion? What do you guys think, should I brave the treacherous waters of anti-KOTCS sentiment?

Montana Smith · Oct 9, 2011

kongisking said:
Do I really dare join into this discussion? What do you guys think, should I brave the treacherous waters of anti-KOTCS sentiment?

"...you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"

But seriously, this isn't all anti-KOTCS sentiment.

In reality it is an enigma why the film is perceived to have so much hatred, when the positive views are 65-77% (e.g., IMDB.com, Rotten Tomatoes).

My thought is that the impression is offset by a noisy contingent, for whom it's easier to express hate than it is love. It maybe seen as 'cool' to knock something so big while it's new, whereas it's hard to do the same for ROTLA, as that's generally accepted as an established classic.

Stoo said:
Is it 'cool', though? Trendy doesn't necessarily equal cool.

Yes, 'trendy' is a better description. It also implies trend-setter, and trend-follower. And by implication, 'sheep'. Those that follow without considering why they follow (and this is what I meant by bullying - peer pressure in a situation where hate is more acceptable than love).

Stoo said:
True. It's also worth noting that each of those now-banned, loudest "Skull" haters were all fans of "The Dark Night".

Sadly, probably true!

Finn · Oct 9, 2011

Stoo said:
True. It's also worth noting that each of those now-banned, loudest "Skull" haters were all fans of "The Dark Night".

As annoying as the 'trendy' KotCS hate is/was, many people truly averted a grave argumentation error there.

You can't simply say something's bad without pointing out what's supposedly good as well.

Forbidden Eye · Oct 9, 2011

Raiders112390 said:
But I see some on IMDB proclaiming it to be the "WORST MOVIE EVER!", amongst other ridiculous statements. That it isn't a "real Indy movie", etc.

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on these statements or pay attention to people who lurk on sites like IMDB(or for that matter, young people in general). People of the young generation always talk in hyperboles and exaggerations, often lacking in rational thought with their critiques. That so many people use the phrase "BEST/WORST [insert anything] EVER" should really be evident of that.

Yeah I understand that it gets tiring, it irks me too. In fact, I know one person who literally changed his opinion in KOTCS because of the South Park episode.

Frankly I think we should just ignore it and just express why we like it. That's all we can do. I think in time, people will look back on it realizing its not that bad.

As for the whole critics knew they were going to hate it because of Ford's age debate, they also had similar anticipation for Rocky Balboa. Many people ridiculed Stallone for making it, saying he was a complete joke and that he couldn't make another Rocky film. Yet it went on to get very good reviews from the critics, did very well at the box office and is universally agreed to be the 2nd of that franchise, even coming close to rivaling the original. Take that as you will.

Darth Vile · Oct 10, 2011

Sometimes I think "is it me?". After reading many positive reviews, I finally got chance to sit down over the weekend and watch Thor (didn't catch it in the cinema). Whilst I didn't think it was a bad movie, I was just left thinking "what a trivial piece of proposterous fluff". Did the world really need that movie to be made??? Again, I didn't dislike it, but I thought it was so much less than KOTCS and any of the Star Wars prequels. Are my views that much out of kilter with popular opinion? Was Thor really 'that good' and I just didn't see it/get it?

Rocket Surgeon · Oct 10, 2011

Stoo said:
Is it 'cool', though? Trendy doesn't necessarily equal cool. (Anyone remember duck shoes? Trendy? Yes. Cool? NO!)

HA!

I don't get the whole: "its cool to hate Skull" or even "trendy."

What currency derives from an opinion on Indiana Jones? What is the interest?

Seems to me the character captured the imagination of a couple generations and it was squandered.

IMDB has some fine qualities, but none more than a reference tool and even that is flawed.

Montana Smith · Oct 10, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
What currency derives from an opinion on Indiana Jones? What is the interest?

There's currency in headlines, especially controversial ones. And where there's a headline there's often an advert for something else nearby.

Think of all the rubbish we talk here, all the while there's an advert to the right...

Rocket Surgeon said:
IMDB has some fine qualities, but none more than a reference tool and even that is flawed.

Yes, it was utterly useless in trying to track down your circus perfomer from ROTLA!

Darth Vile · Oct 10, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
HA!

I don't get the whole: "its cool to hate Skull" or even "trendy."

What currency derives from an opinion on Indiana Jones? What is the interest?

Seems to me the character captured the imagination of a couple generations and it was squandered.

IMDB has some fine qualities, but none more than a reference tool and even that is flawed.

I don't think it's "trendy" per se... rather it's a perception too easily taken as a reality. Case in point being the last example I mentioned Thor. The actual evidence from reviews/media (for what it's worth) seems to have both Thor and KOTCS coming out relatively equal in terms of positive reviews. However, I'd say that Thor has taken less headline criticisms (certainly from internet community perspective) than KOTCS has. I can understand that perhaps people thought KOTCS was more disappointing, a lesser movie than Raiders (and certainly Thor didn't have anywhere near the same sense of expectations/anticipation), but that's not a real objective evaluation of a movies merits.

kongisking · Oct 10, 2011

Darth Vile said:
Sometimes I think "is it me?". After reading many positive reviews, I finally got chance to sit down over the weekend and watch Thor (didn't catch it in the cinema). Whilst I didn't think it was a bad movie, I was just left thinking "what a trivial piece of proposterous fluff". Did the world really need that movie to be made??? Again, I didn't dislike it, but I thought it was so much less than KOTCS and any of the Star Wars prequels. Are my views that much out of kilter with popular opinion? Was Thor really 'that good' and I just didn't see it/get it?

I actually adored Thor. It was a very entertaining, well-done story with great acting and a neat visual style. It saddens me that you didn't find it terrific.

Back on topic, I'd say that hatred for KOTCS is more of a reaction to the disappointment people inevitably felt when they realized that it was not going to be at the level of Raiders, which, face it people, that's what we were all hoping. There's a despicable thing called "hype backlash" that tends to destroy films that are otherwise reasonably good and entertaining (like The Phantom Menace*) because the bashers happen to be louder than the lovers, and so us poor apologists get buried in the mudslide of anti-insert-unpopular-film-of-choice-here. It's a sad fact, one I've come to accept.

And hey, the haters ARE capable of giving good, rational and understandable arguments...*cough*Montana Smith/The Man/Darth Vile/Rocket Surgeon*cough*...

*Yeah, I get it. The movie is deeply flawed, dammit. But it still is quite a fun ride, if you ignore Jar Jar...

gabbagabbahey · Oct 10, 2011

First real post, nice forum you guys have here.

I don't remember that many bad reviews of Kingdom either, I seem to recall it was fairly positively recieved.

I remember when TOD came out I thought it was pretty good but that it wasn't quite as good as Raiders. Now I like it as much as ROTLA. Same is true for Crusade. When I first saw it at the theater I thought, "Nah, this is the end, this one is not quite as charming as the other two pics, this is the end of the line." Now I really like it. I bet the same will be true of Kingdom for most here down the road, even those say they really hate it now.

I enjoyed Kingdom right off, and while, yeah, I would have liked to see the movie take a few different turns than it did, over all I'd give it a 7 out of 10. It's a great popcorn movie, which is exactly what the other three were.

You gotta remember where the roots of this series comes from. Outlandish, hard to believe, cliffhanging pulps. They were fun, meant to entertain. IMO KOTCS does that. If he had made it all heavy and dark and serious people would have asked where the fun went.

Stoo · Oct 10, 2011

Finn said:
As annoying as the 'trendy' KotCS hate is/was, many people truly averted a grave argumentation error there.

You can't simply say something's bad without pointing out what's supposedly good as well.

Right, "supposedly good" being the operative words here.

kongisking said:
And hey, the haters ARE capable of giving good, rational and understandable arguments...*cough*Montana Smith/The Man/Darth Vile/Rocket Surgeon*cough*...

Hi, Kong. Here's my take on the 4 you mentioned:

Montana Smith: Mutt hater. Not a "Skull" hater. Sits firmly on fence. Leans hither & thither when wind blows.

Rocket Surgeon: Mutt hater. Enigmatic. Hard to pin down. Likes "Skull" better than Young Indy.

Darth Vile: Literate. Pragmatic. Formerly one of its biggest champions. Not a "Skull" hater.

The Man: Mutt hater. Queen of all "Skull" haters. I've never read any rational or reasonable argument from this guy regarding his hatred of "Skull" (unless it was hidden amidst some Batman or 'new movie' thread). Cheap, sexual jokes about Mutt don't qualify as rational. Over the past few years, the only things that can be gleaned from his posts are that he DESPISES SHIA LABEOUF and has a hard-on for "The Dark Knight" and upcoming film releases.

Montana Smith · Oct 10, 2011

Stoo said:
Montana Smith: Mutt hater. Not a "Skull" hater. Sits firmly on fence. Leans hither & thither when wind blows.

That's a correct assessment. I feel neither love nor hate for the movie as a whole, but disappointment for missed opportunities and for directions I'd rather not see the film have taken.

There are some great moments, particularly Harrison's portrayal as Indy which never fails in my eye. There are scenes, images and music worthy of a classic, but they're brought down to earth by things that strike me as too far out of this earth. It depends on my current mood how much the negatives bother me, though they will always remain negative to a certain extent. (The issue of Mutt is, however, a constant factor!)

The trend or coolness factor doesn't influence me. I just have my opinions, which may or may not tally with those of others. And because these films should work and inspire on a personal level, nobody should worry whether their impressions are out of kilter with a perceived majority.

I still maintain that there were critics who found it 'cool' and catchy to rile against something big, induced by a loss of faith in Lucas brought on by his tampering with his much-loved Star Wars universe. And from them there are those who took this to another level of hate, equivalent to the schoolyard bullies who will pick on somebody for liking something.

When the bully has the loudest voice a majority may keep their heads down and remain silent. So, you hear the hate louder than you hear the love (or at least the defence). I experienced that situation soon after I joined The Raven, when I began to defend the element of humour, the inclusion of aliens, or the fridge for its intentional absurdity.

Within two months this was launched at me from a member who's still current:

Montana Smith, you are a enabler, that is someone who emables bad behaviour. Would you give kids crack? Or Pot? No...but you would feed them poopy. Because letting someone watch that movie is feeding someone poopy and Geroge Lucas made tons of money from feeding you poopy.

Needless to say I wasn't daunted, and in fact relished the argument. Being put on the back foot makes for an interesting situation, and sometimes it's fun to go there just for the hell of it.

Montana Smith · Oct 10, 2011

This is the review written by The Telegraph film critic, David Gritten, which sets the scene after the first showing of KOTCS. It's not hate, but it's certainly not love either. It's a balanced review which finds very little positive to say.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...al-Skull-First-review-of-Cannes-premiere.html

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: First review of Cannes premiere

By David Gritten in Cannes

2:28PM BST 18 May 2008

He doesn't wear the fedora with quite the same jaunty angle, his bullwhip doesn't crack as smartly - and Harrison Ford looks all of his 65 years.

It's not that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, exhumed after 19 years to be the fourth in this series, is bad, exactly. But it's undeniably creaky.

At its world premiere in Cannes, the audience cheered it in advance, even breaking into a wordless singing of its theme tune. But they ended up laughing at moments that weren’t intentionally funny, and they seemed listless for long spells. Their response at the end was polite but muted.

What made the Indiana Jones series so fresh and amusing back in the 80s was its lightness of touch and its tongue-in-cheek, "ripping yarns" spirit.

That hasn’t quite disappeared, but there’s an awful lot of long-winded explanations of myths, legend and hieroglyphics in this story about Indy’s mission to Peru for a crystal skull that’s allegedly the fount of all knowledge.

Thus, between a series of stunt-driven set pieces, many of them implausibly linked, the film gets bogged down in wearying talk.

Director Steven Spielberg is usually a dab hand at maintaining pace and momentum, but the Crystal Skull contains dull passages.

Its story moves on a decade from where the last Indy film left off. Set in 1957, it starts with Elvis singing Hound Dog on the soundtrack.

There’s a terrific effects-driven sequence in which an atomic bomb test destroys a life-size model town peopled by dummies. There’s even an "I Like Ike" joke; what, you wonder, will the film’s young target audience make of that?

The bad guys are no longer Nazis but Soviets — led by Cate Blanchett, with a Ukrainian accent and a Louise Brooks bob, camping it up like an early-vintage Bond villainess.

Shia Le Beouf plays a bratty young James Dean-style rebel on a motorcycle who joins the hunt and - big surprise - turns out to be not unrelated to Indy.

But oh dear, whose idea was it to bring long-forgotten Karen Allen back to the series? She enters the film late, and mostly stands around with nothing to do. Poor John Hurt has a thankless role as an archaeologist who undertook the mission before Indy and was reduced to a crazed wreck by what he learned.

Curiously, Spielberg has said he wanted the film to have an old-fashioned feel, with fewer computer-generated scenes, and longer shots than today’s fast-cut, breathless action-adventures.

Well, The Crystal Skull is certainly old-fashioned, though not necessarily in a good way. And many of its striking scenes — notably a climax that briefly recalls Close Encounters of the Third Kind — could only be computer-generated.

With a cast clearly pre-fabricated to appeal to all ages, an overstuffed plot and an ageing action hero, it feels born of commercial calculation rather than a story that needed to be told.

There’s a reason the previous Indy film 1989 was called The Last Crusade. Now it’s really time to entomb this elderly series once and for all.

Forbidden Eye · Oct 11, 2011

Roger Ebert saw it differently...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/i_admit_it_i_loved_ind.html

At noon Sunday, I attended a press screening of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." I returned to my laptop, wrote my review and sent it off, convinced I would be in a minority. I loved it, but then I'm also the guy who loved "Beowulf," and look at the grief that got me. Now Indy's early reviews are in, and I'm amazed to find myself in an enthusiastic majority. The Tomatometer stands at 78, and the more populist IMDb user rating is 9.2 out of 10. All this before the movie's official opening on Thursday.

Why did I think I would be in a minority? Because of what David Poland at Movie City News poetically described as "one idiot." As everybody knows, an exhibitor attended a closed-door screening last week, and filed a review with the Ain't It Cool News website. This single wrong-headed, anonymous review was the peg on which The New York Times based a breathless story on a negative early reaction to the film. That story inspired widespread coverage: Were Spielberg and Lucas making a mistake by showing their film at Cannes? Would it turn out to be a fiasco like showing "The Da Vinci Code" there? The Code got terrible reviews, and only managed to gross something like $480 million dollars at the box office--suggesting, if not to the Times, that even a negative reception at Cannes might not cut Indy off at the knees.

Maybe even Harrison Ford was influenced by Mr. Wrong-Headed. "It's not unusual for something that is popular to be disdained by some people," he said at the press conference following the Cannes screening, "and I fully expect it." What he got was a standing ovation in the Palais des Festivals that night. The S.O. was heralded in all the coverage, even though any Cannes veteran would tell you it meant--nothing. Every film gets a standing ovation at the black-tie evening premiere at Cannes, unless it is so bad it transcends awfulness.

There are really two premieres at Cannes: The press screening at 8:30 a.m., and the black-tie, or "official," screening in the evening. Both fill the vast, 3,500-seat Lumiere auditorium. The morning offers a tough audience: Critics, festival programmers, people who have may have seen hundreds of other movies in this room. They are free with their boos, and if a movie doesn't work for them have been known to shout at the screen on their way out.

The black-tie screening, on the other hand, includes many people who have a financial motive for wanting a film to succeed: The worldwide distributors and exhibitors, their guests, and lots of Riviera locals. Or they may have been given tickets and are thrilled to be there. ("I recognized the woman sitting next to me from my hotel," Rex Red told me one year. "It was my maid.") In some cases, they may simply think it's good manners to cheer movie stars who flew all the way to Cannes. Then too, the stars are seated in the front row of the balcony. Everybody below stands up after the movie, turns around, and sees them bathed in spotlights. The Standing O creates itself.

Nevertheless, I believe the S.O. was genuine the other night. It takes a cold heart and a weary imagination to dislike an "Indiana" film with all of its rambunctious gusto. With every ounce of its massive budget, it strains to make us laugh, surprise us, go over the top with preposterous action. "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" does those things under the leadership of Spielberg, who knows as much as any man ever has about what reaches the popular imagination. The early reviewer on the web site, on the other hand, knew as little.

Spielberg at heart will always be that kid who sneaked onto the back lot at Universal and talked himself into a job. He's the kind of man who remains in many ways a boy. He likes neat stuff. He thinks it would be fun to have Indiana and friends plunge over three waterfalls, not one. He knows that we know what back projection is, and he uses it blatantly (Indy arriving in frame as if he had jumped there, while the background rolls past a little out of focus). He knows back projection feels differently that perfect digital backgrounds -- it feels more like a movie. He likes boldly-faked editing sequences: We see the heroes in medium shot at the edge of a waterfall, we see a long shot of their boat falling to what would obviously be instant oblivion below, and then he shows the heroes surfacing together and near the shore (no rapids!) and spitting out a little water. The movie isn't a throwback to the Saturday serials of the 1930s and 1940s. It's what they would have been if they could have been.

Consider another action series, the Matrix films. They're so doggedly intense and serious. They seem to think the future of the universe really is a stake. There's a role for serious action, but not when it's hurled at us in a cascade of quick-cutting and QueasyCam shots that make dramatic development impossible. Even if the they are constructed out of wall-to-wall implausibility, the Indy films have characters who aren't frantic. Harrison Ford and Spielberg are wise: They know a pumped-up Indy would seem absurd. Indiana Jones himself is so laid back he sometimes seems to be watching the movie with us. He's happy to be aboard, just as long, of course, as he can stay in the boat/truck/airplane.

Montana Smith · Oct 11, 2011

Forbidden Eye said:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/05/i_admit_it_i_loved_ind.html

...convinced I would be in a minority...Why did I think I would be in a minority? Because of what David Poland at Movie City News poetically described as "one idiot." As everybody knows, an exhibitor attended a closed-door screening last week, and filed a review with the Ain't It Cool News website. This single wrong-headed, anonymous review was the peg on which The New York Times based a breathless story on a negative early reaction to the film. That story inspired widespread coverage: Were Spielberg and Lucas making a mistake by showing their film at Cannes? Would it turn out to be a fiasco like showing "The Da Vinci Code" there? The Code got terrible reviews, and only managed to gross something like $480 million dollars at the box office--suggesting, if not to the Times, that even a negative reception at Cannes might not cut Indy off at the knees.

Maybe even Harrison Ford was influenced by Mr. Wrong-Headed. "It's not unusual for something that is popular to be disdained by some people," he said at the press conference following the Cannes screening, "and I fully expect it."

Is this the source of the fuss?

As in evolution, one set of primates evolved faster, and another remained as the apes we see today.

With the KOTCS hate are we still seeing the strand that never evolved? The one that followed the negative early review which "inspired widespread coverage" ?

It would support my theory that:

Smiffy said:
I think it stemmed from the critics who decided they'd smear the movie with mud, because the concept was somewhat bizarre to them:

replican't · Oct 11, 2011

Darth Vile said:
Sometimes I think "is it me?". After reading many positive reviews, I finally got chance to sit down over the weekend and watch Thor (didn't catch it in the cinema). Whilst I didn't think it was a bad movie, I was just left thinking "what a trivial piece of proposterous fluff". Did the world really need that movie to be made??? Again, I didn't dislike it, but I thought it was so much less than KOTCS and any of the Star Wars prequels. Are my views that much out of kilter with popular opinion? Was Thor really 'that good' and I just didn't see it/get it?

Thor = cool
Indy 4 = embarrassing

Darth Vile · Oct 11, 2011

kongisking said:
I actually adored Thor. It was a very entertaining, well-done story with great acting and a neat visual style. It saddens me that you didn't find it terrific.

Like I said, I didn?t hate the movie? just nonplussed by the positive feedback to what I thought was a decidedly ?average? movie. But that's just me. That in itself is not a criticism? but I certainly wanted to like it more (as I like Kenneth Branagh), and am genuinely surprised that it didn?t get more of a bashing. I don?t think it helps that even as a kid the comic never did it for me. I found Spiderman, The Hulk, Superman and Batman to be much more compelling than the likes of Thor, Fantastic 4, Iron Man etc.

kongisking said:
And hey, the haters ARE capable of giving good, rational and understandable arguments...*cough*Montana Smith/The Man/Darth Vile/Rocket Surgeon*cough*...

LOL ? As Stoo said? I?m not a hater. I like the movie (always have). I?m critical of it, as I am of TOD and TLC, but I certainly find a lot to appreciate in it. Now that much of the noise has settled down, it?s far easier to hold rational conversations and be critical of it whilst acknowledging what it did well. Same applies for the other Indy movies (apart from perhaps Raiders which pretty much has universal approval).

Darth Vile · Oct 11, 2011

replican't said:
Thor = cool
Indy 4 = embarrassing

Based on what? Explain to me why Thor is cool?

Attila the Professor · Oct 11, 2011

Stoo said:
Right, "supposedly good" being the operative words here.
Hi, Kong. Here's my take on the 4 you mentioned:

Montana Smith: Mutt hater. Not a "Skull" hater. Sits firmly on fence. Leans hither & thither when wind blows.

Rocket Surgeon: Mutt hater. Enigmatic. Hard to pin down. Likes "Skull" better than Young Indy.

Darth Vile: Literate. Pragmatic. Formerly one of its biggest champions. Not a "Skull" hater.

You have one of these in your magic bag about me? Or yourself, for that matter?

Rocket Surgeon · Oct 11, 2011

Stoo said:
Rocket Surgeon: Mutt hater. Enigmatic. Hard to pin down. Likes "Skull" better than Young Indy.

I'm paralyzed because I can see all sides of the issue!

My-favorite-Calvin-and-Hobbes-strip-I-think-it-really-captures-the-message-behind-the-Rally-to-Restore-Sanity-and-is-a-great-satire-on-politics-in-America.gif

Simply put I agree with Montana:

Montana Smith said:
That's a correct assessment. I feel...disappointment for missed opportunities and for directions I'd rather not see the film have taken.

I don't hate Mutt really...

Regarding Young Indy: until I've seen them all the jury is out, but erasing Old Indy is a minus and Harrison Ford/John Williams/Steven Spielberg are too much for ANY TV show to hurdle...so far.

Love the assesments though!

Stoo:Has a certain appreciation for Mutt, especially being a "Dippity dude." Has a serious distaste for the Crystal Skull Generation but the inclusion of Pancho Villa is the films greatest validation!

Why is it "cool" to hate on KOTCS?

Active member

Active member

Moderator

Well-known member

New member

Guest

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Guest

New member

New member

Moderator

Guest