Does anyone pretend KOTCS didn't happen?

Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
agull said:
Indy wouldn't say "Intolerable!"...
Click to expand...
Obviously you have no children. People pick up mannerisms from their parents and memories evoke language. Hell words used in specific situations are co-opted by EVERYBODY. Phrases, expressions, (facial and body).

Next time you want to babble about what Indy would or would not say or do, think of all the times YOU'VE used an Indiana Jones line in your everyday life. Hell you dress like him and take pictures of yourself posing like him in the mirror.

So do us all a favor and let that one rest, eh?
 
Cole

Cole

New member
Montana Smith said:
Talking of balls, one of the funniest moments in KOTCS was the expression on Indy's face during the scrub-down after his fridge-ride. :eek:

Now who can say that Indy wasn't in the movie? It's a classic Indy moment!

:hat:
Click to expand...
lol, Then he grabs the thing away.

And as George Costanza would say: I say this with an unblemished record of staunch heterosexuality.........Harrison Ford's body looked amazing.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Next time you want to babble about what Indy would or would not say or do, think of all the times YOU'VE used an Indiana Jones line in your everyday life. Hell you dress like him and take pictures of yourself posing like him in the mirror.

So do us all a favor and let that one rest, eh?
Click to expand...

LOL. Exactly what I was thinking... (y)
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
Cole said:
I don't doubt Spielberg/Ford/Lucas have all become a little more conscientous of gun play.......I think it comes with age. Spielberg made some particularly brash, hyper-realistic films like 'Schindler's List' and 'Saving Private Ryan.' I think more so now, he sees Indy as more of an opportunity to make a fun movie for all ages (but it's still PG-13, so lets not call it some fluffy Mickey Mouse crap, because it doesn't do that either IMO).

Don't think the shooting three guys in 'Crusade' was a continuation of that gag (I think it was a gag in and of itself)........but pulling the gun on the native was still a bad ass moment, and "part-time" was a bad ass line. I think it's one of the many moments that really put a smile on my face in the theater, and one that felt like Indiana Jones through and through.

So I don't think Indy really needed to shoot the guy to make it work........I don't go into an Indy expecting gunfire and violence per se. I don't know, maybe that's just me, but that's not really Indy to me.
Click to expand...

Re. The continuing gun gag... I think in TLC it was probably the moment on the beach when Indy was checking his gun barrel. I don't know wether is was intended to reference the previous movies or not... but clearly there is a 'nice little moment' like that in each movie now.

Re. gunplay and violence in Indy movies. I do think KOTCS is toned down from previous instalments (more on a par with TLC than it is Raiders or TOD). I don't know wether that was a conscious choice on Spielberg's/Lucas' part or just the way it turned out. Does it hurt the movie? IMHO... no it doesn't. The areas of KOTCS that could have been improved for me have little to do with the amount of violence or gore (as they centre more on character/directing elements).
 
Willie

Willie

New member
I watched it again last night. I had just purchased a KOTCS DVD. I really enjoyed the movie. It was fun to see Marion back and the priceless look on Indy's face when he realized he had a son. :D

teampunk said:
i just watched kingdom last night and i can honestly say i still love it. one thought that i had was that if the same movie came out in the 80's would it still get the same hate as it did now?
Click to expand...
I've often wondered about that. I think the reason that some fans hate it is that they took so long to make a sequel, wasn't what they expected, too far-fetched, etc. I myself thought it was fun. I had a mini Indy movie marathon myself this weekend with friends and we watched Raiders, ToD, Last Crusade, KOTCS . My friends loved KOTCS and thought it was loads of fun and no, they didn't hate it. ;) I've been a long time Indy fan and I like all four films. (y)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agent Crab

Agent Crab

New member
Eh... It's an okay movie. I only watched it once at the threater. I own it on DVD, but I reall never have watched it again. I will admit, it was an okay movie. It isn't good. It isn't bad, either. It's more of a happy medium and a fun watch if you're bored or wanna invite some friends or family over and have a weekend night movie party.
 
M

Matt deMille

New member
Willie said:
I watched it again last night. I had just purchased a KOTCS DVD. I really enjoyed the movie. It was fun to see Marion back and the priceless look on Indy's face when he realized he had a son. :D

I've often wondered about that. I think the reason that some fans hate it is that they took so long to make a sequel, wasn't what they expected, too far-fetched, etc. I myself thought it was fun. I had a mini Indy movie marathon myself this weekend with friends and we watched Raiders, ToD, Last Crusade, KOTCS . My friends loved KOTCS and thought it was loads of fun and no, they didn't hate it. ;) I've been a long time Indy fan and I like all four films. (y)
Click to expand...

I think you're right. The time-lapse waiting for Kingdom is where most of its hatred comes from. Looking at things objectively, I actually believe it's a better movie than Crusade. If one looks at Crusade objectively, there's really more bad than good. The ONLY thing that made Crusade great was the magic with Ford and Connery. But if you took Connery away, what would you have? A Raiders Redux, but more cartoony and not nearly as inventive. By rights, people should pick apart Crusade.

Me, I think Kingdom was wonderful. New plot, new villains, new locations -- Lucas and co. were trying hard to give us a new and exciting Indy adventure, and for the most part, they succeeded. Sure, there are flaws, but every movie has 'em.

I think what you did, Willie, was good. Watch ALL FOUR movies together, without any more of an intermission between Crusade and Kingdom than there is between the other shows. Treat them fairly and I think people will see Kingdom better.
 
Gabeed

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
I think you're right. The time-lapse waiting for Kingdom is where most of its hatred comes from. Looking at things objectively, I actually believe it's a better movie than Crusade. If one looks at Crusade objectively, there's really more bad than good. The ONLY thing that made Crusade great was the magic with Ford and Connery. But if you took Connery away, what would you have? A Raiders Redux, but more cartoony and not nearly as inventive. By rights, people should pick apart Crusade.
Click to expand...

I actually completely agree--without Connery, Last Crusade is not a great movie. Their chemistry alone kept it together, and without it, you have a rather shallow plot. But in my case, it was watching KoTCS that made me realize that, since I observed that Last Crusade and KoTCS are closest to each other in tone. They both have that hokey "family reunion" feel to them.

As a result, I find myself appreciating Temple of Doom more, which I never thought would happen a couple years ago. I'm not sure if I can bring myself to say that Temple of Doom is better than Last Crusade, but I'm certainly disappointed that Spielberg felt he had to apologize for the dark tone of Temple of Doom, as I think the light-hearted romp that is Last Crusade is worse for it.
 
M

Matt deMille

New member
Gabeed said:
I actually completely agree--without Connery, Last Crusade is not a great movie. Their chemistry alone kept it together, and without it, you have a rather shallow plot. But in my case, it was watching KoTCS that made me realize that, since I observed that Last Crusade and KoTCS are closest to each other in tone. They both have that hokey "family reunion" feel to them.

As a result, I find myself appreciating Temple of Doom more, which I never thought would happen a couple years ago. I'm not sure if I can bring myself to say that Temple of Doom is better than Last Crusade, but I'm certainly disappointed that Spielberg felt he had to apologize for the dark tone of Temple of Doom, as I think the light-hearted romp that is Last Crusade is worse for it.
Click to expand...

Definitely. I can understand Spielberg's wanting to go more "lighthearted" with Temple given its dark subject matter, but he just continued that lighthearted approach straight into Crusade, where it wasn't necessary. To me, Temple is "pure" Indiana Jones. No relatives, no love triangles (Willie is a fling, not a love-interest), no academia, nothing -- It's just Indy in his element, doing what he does best -- going where he shouldn't. I think, in many ways, Temple is better than all the other films (though Raiders is still #1 in my book).

If there was anything I'd like to have seen less of in Kingdom, it would be Marshall College. Seriously. Indy doesn't get the full hat, coat, and whip together until almost halfway through the movie. It could have gone like this: Area 51 debriefing, cut to the train (like "I need a vacation"), Mutt shows up, Indy and Mutt talk somewhere cool (like a church or theater), and decide to go to Peru. Then the movie continues normally until the temple at Akator. Then, the extra screen time could have been used to explore the temple and its wonders (and dangers). To me, the end felt rushed, while the beginning spent too much time on non-Indy-style stuff. And it was too comical.

I still like Kingdom a lot. I just wish it was more Temple of Doom style. A bit darker, more serious, and more Indy.
 
No Ticket

No Ticket

New member
Matt deMille said:
Definitely. I can understand Spielberg's wanting to go more "lighthearted" with Temple given its dark subject matter, but he just continued that lighthearted approach straight into Crusade, where it wasn't necessary. To me, Temple is "pure" Indiana Jones. No relatives, no love triangles (Willie is a fling, not a love-interest), no academia, nothing -- It's just Indy in his element, doing what he does best -- going where he shouldn't. I think, in many ways, Temple is better than all the other films (though Raiders is still #1 in my book).

If there was anything I'd like to have seen less of in Kingdom, it would be Marshall College. Seriously. Indy doesn't get the full hat, coat, and whip together until almost halfway through the movie. It could have gone like this: Area 51 debriefing, cut to the train (like "I need a vacation"), Mutt shows up, Indy and Mutt talk somewhere cool (like a church or theater), and decide to go to Peru. Then the movie continues normally until the temple at Akator. Then, the extra screen time could have been used to explore the temple and its wonders (and dangers). To me, the end felt rushed, while the beginning spent too much time on non-Indy-style stuff. And it was too comical.

I still like Kingdom a lot. I just wish it was more Temple of Doom style. A bit darker, more serious, and more Indy.
Click to expand...

I've never understood the TOD hate. And I agree with you in a lot of respects. I kind of wanted the fourth Indiana Jones to just jump right into the adventure and not deal with a son or wife or whatever. But they wanted to explore the life of the character of Jones through family. I personally love how TOD just kind of throws Indy right into Hell.

It feels like a much longer journey for some reason, to me, because Indy doesn't do a lot of location changing over long distances. We are there with him from the night in Shang Hai all the way to the bridge breaking and him climbing up the side of that cliff. His appearance is very tattered and torn, echoing the "hell" he just went through. I like how there is so much mystery about his character in that movie. In all the others we explore more about his past, his family... but in TOD we see him more like an outsider.

In answer to this topic's original question. I've actually not even seen KOTCS since 2009. I am starting to, just now, want to watch it again. And I think given all this time, I'll be much more accepting of it. I don't know, if you think of it like, it's just one adventure we've been able to see of many that we "didn't see," then it kind of somehow makes it okay in my mind even if I think it's my least favorite. Not every adventure is necessarily going to be as good as fighting off Nazi germany and recovering the Ark of the Covenant. Just like every movie in a franchise isn't necessarily going to be as good as the last, or as bad (in the case of a possible fifth Indy).
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
Matt deMille said:
Definitely. I can understand Spielberg's wanting to go more "lighthearted" with Temple given its dark subject matter, but he just continued that lighthearted approach straight into Crusade, where it wasn't necessary. To me, Temple is "pure" Indiana Jones. No relatives, no love triangles (Willie is a fling, not a love-interest), no academia, nothing -- It's just Indy in his element, doing what he does best -- going where he shouldn't. I think, in many ways, Temple is better than all the other films (though Raiders is still #1 in my book).

If there was anything I'd like to have seen less of in Kingdom, it would be Marshall College. Seriously. Indy doesn't get the full hat, coat, and whip together until almost halfway through the movie. It could have gone like this: Area 51 debriefing, cut to the train (like "I need a vacation"), Mutt shows up, Indy and Mutt talk somewhere cool (like a church or theater), and decide to go to Peru. Then the movie continues normally until the temple at Akator. Then, the extra screen time could have been used to explore the temple and its wonders (and dangers). To me, the end felt rushed, while the beginning spent too much time on non-Indy-style stuff. And it was too comical.

I still like Kingdom a lot. I just wish it was more Temple of Doom style. A bit darker, more serious, and more Indy.
Click to expand...

One of the things I don't like about TOD is that there is very little structure. It's a personal thing, but for me there is very little sense of build/momentum in that movie. It all just happens at 100mph and rolls along for 2 hours, which is why its structure seems somewhat cartoon like. And similar to Return of the Jedi, the approach taken in TOD has influenced modern action/adventure movies far more than Raiders and The Empire Strikes Back did (IMHO). I think it's one of the reasons why TOD appears more stylistically contemporary than the other Indy movies i.e. relentless action, little exposition, little plotting. On the plus side, TOD is probably the most accessible Indy movie because you can almost dip into it at any point and keep watching.

Re. Marshall College. I personally always liked those sections as it helped give the movies a bit of the aforementioned structure and usually helped set the story up (similar to Bond's briefings with M & Q). Does it need to happen in every movie? Nope no reason why it should... but I've always liked it nonetheless. In KOTCS they could have deleted the college sections in favour of more jungle/Akator action, but I don't think that would have improved the movie any. KOTCS structure was pretty spot on for me as the transition between sections/chapters was quite effortless/natural. I think most peoples gripes seem to centre around the quality of action/direction/characterisation ... and I'm not sure eradicating the college scenes would have improved any of these elements. :)
 
A

AtomicAnt

New member
I've learned to like it.. a little bit. Mostly because I skip the parts I hate. In my mind, the events happened, but they happened a bit more like Frank's script. I own it on DVD (in the collectors set and the single release) just ask I own all the others on DVD (in the collectors set and the single releases.) I wish they'd release it on Laserdisc though, so I can own all 4 on that format too :hat:
 
W

Wilhelm

Member
It's interesting that TOD and KOTCS are the opposites in structure.

TOD: we never see Indy in the University, it's the only time that we see Indy in a country (China) and then he travels to another (India). He uses his "Dr. Jones" side in the Pankot dinner, but it's the most "grave-robber" or dark Indy in the series (Specially with his "fortune and glory" and after drinking the blood of Kali).

KOTCS: it's the opposite. All the adventure is in his home continent (America) and we see more than ever the Marshall College. He is more "Dr. Jones /Henry Jones Jr." than in any of the previous movies. His "grave-robber" side is only present in the Chauchilla Cemetery but after looking into the Skull's eyes (Like the Blood of Kali) he is more Henry Jones Jr ("Intolerable!").
 
M

Maestro

New member
Wilhelm said:
All the adventure is in his home continent (America).
Click to expand...

Perhaps you mean the same hemisphere? Most of the action takes place in South America, which is certainly not his home.

Otherwise, I think your post is interesting. I didn't think of it that way.
 
Forbidden Eye

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
No Ticket said:
I've never understood the TOD hate. And I agree with you in a lot of respects. I kind of wanted the fourth Indiana Jones to just jump right into the adventure and not deal with a son or wife or whatever. But they wanted to explore the life of the character of Jones through family. I personally love how TOD just kind of throws Indy right into Hell.

It feels like a much longer journey for some reason, to me, because Indy doesn't do a lot of location changing over long distances. We are there with him from the night in Shang Hai all the way to the bridge breaking and him climbing up the side of that cliff. His appearance is very tattered and torn, echoing the "hell" he just went through. I like how there is so much mystery about his character in that movie. In all the others we explore more about his past, his family... but in TOD we see him more like an outsider.

In answer to this topic's original question. I've actually not even seen KOTCS since 2009. I am starting to, just now, want to watch it again. And I think given all this time, I'll be much more accepting of it. I don't know, if you think of it like, it's just one adventure we've been able to see of many that we "didn't see," then it kind of somehow makes it okay in my mind even if I think it's my least favorite. Not every adventure is necessarily going to be as good as fighting off Nazi germany and recovering the Ark of the Covenant. Just like every movie in a franchise isn't necessarily going to be as good as the last, or as bad (in the case of a possible fifth Indy).
Click to expand...

Well, I don't have much to contribute to this thread again, but welcome back No Ticket!
 
F

Faleel

New member
the problem for me with KOTCS is the insanely long "car chase" between the "kids" and the russians, the praire dogs, and the "nut jokes"
 
M

Matt deMille

New member
Faleel said:
the problem for me with KOTCS is the insanely long "car chase" between the "kids" and the russians, the praire dogs, and the "nut jokes"
Click to expand...

The prairie dogs could definitely have gone. The Paramount Mountain Dissolve should have faded into something menacing or at least mysterious. I heard one of the original ideas was for the dissolve to go into an atomic blast test, a mushroom cloud. I didn't like that idea, but I don't see prairie dogs as an improvement, either. And a simple desert rock formation would have been too "Last Crusade". Perhaps the Paramount logo should have dissolved into an experiment triangle-plane from Area 51, a crashed UFO, or the sunset in the desert.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
Matt deMille said:
The prairie dogs could definitely have gone. The Paramount Mountain Dissolve should have faded into something menacing or at least mysterious. I heard one of the original ideas was for the dissolve to go into an atomic blast test, a mushroom cloud. I didn't like that idea, but I don't see prairie dogs as an improvement, either. And a simple desert rock formation would have been too "Last Crusade". Perhaps the Paramount logo should have dissolved into an experiment triangle-plane from Area 51, a crashed UFO, or the sunset in the desert.
Click to expand...

Well to keep in line the previous movies it would have to dissolve into some kind of mountain shape... not keen on the prairie dog mound myself (although it's more the prairie dog itself that I could have done without).
 
M

Major Eaton

New member
I tried to pretend what I was watching in the theatre in May 2008 was not really happening in my first viewing. It was too much to take in a couple hours of time. I went back a week later for a second viewing. Still too much. Since I bought it on blu ray back on 14 October 2008, it has grown on me a lot. It can be really fun to watch from time to time, just have a cold beer(or 3) handy. :D I mean, I now acknowledge it as a part of the series but it is still ions below the original trilogy IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top