Why are people so hard on Indy IV?

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
And then you act totally obtuse when I point out exactly the kind of look they were going for and show examples and give reasons why thematically it works.

You did not give "reasons why thematically it works." You put screenshots from the movie next to some photographs and operated under the assumption that everyone agrees with you that they look alike and that it's what the film makers were going for. When I asked you to expound on where you're coming from you chose to have a meltdown.

Also, we call them motion pictures for a reason. If I have objections to what a movie looks like, that's not exactly nit-picking. The broader discussion has currently taken us to the aesthetic of the film, but if you want to talk about something else, please feel free. But simply complaining about the subject matter - in a thread explicitly about airing grievances with this movie, no less - makes it look like you want to micro-manage the discussion rather than contribute to it.
 

Drones33

New member
Raiders112390 said:
Even if it was the weakest of the four, which I personally disagree with, the overreaction to the film by many - both on this forum and off - has been pretty unfair. If KOTCS is anything, it is a B movie in a family of A graders - That's not a sin. On this forum, I've seen people treat it as an abomination, or on par with The Phantom Menace. I've seen people say that the mindlessly dumb Mummy sequels were better than KOTCS. I just think people are too hard to please.

Last Crusade - which for me is a weaker film than Crystal Skull outside of Sean Connery's excellent performance and River Phoenix's Young Indy - gave the audience a perfect Hollywood ending; The Mega-Happy Ending, literally riding off into the sunset. Indy discovered the literal Holy Grail - the end all, be all - in that movie.

How could any sequel not only top only those elements, but also compete with almost 20 years of hope, hype and expectation?

Your constant defence of Crystal Skull is commendable. If a little over-zealous. You prefer it to Crusade, and thats fine. I`m sure theres nothing I can say to change that view, and why would I want to. Its your opinion and you are entitled to it. Because lets not forget, we`re all here because of a shared love of all things Indy. But equally your continued and repeated statement that its not as bad as people say isnt going to make it a better film. All four films have their flaws to various degrees. Its just that Crystal Skull has the most.
In my opinion...
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
You did not give "reasons why thematically it works." You put screenshots from the movie next to some photographs and operated under the assumption that everyone agrees with you that they look alike and that it's what the film makers were going for. When I asked you to expound on where you're coming from you chose to have a meltdown.

Also, we call them motion pictures for a reason. If I have objections to what a movie looks like, that's not exactly nit-picking. The broader discussion has currently taken us to the aesthetic of the film, but if you want to talk about something else, please feel free. But simply complaining about the subject matter - in a thread explicitly about airing grievances with this movie, no less - makes it look like you want to micro-manage the discussion rather than contribute to it.

If you don't like the movie, why bother talking about it? I certainly don't waste my time hanging around talking about movies I dislike.
And unless you're blind, there are great similarities in the color grading between the film and the photos I posted. Kodachrome was a mainstay of the 1950s and Kodachrome is part of the cultural memory of that time period.
But no, let's have it your way, it's not an Indy film, and it doesn't look like a film, period. All films should look like Nolan's Batman films, obvs.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Drones33 said:
Your constant defence of Crystal Skull is commendable. If a little over-zealous. You prefer it to Crusade, and thats fine. I`m sure theres nothing I can say to change that view, and why would I want to. Its your opinion and you are entitled to it. Because lets not forget, we`re all here because of a shared love of all things Indy. But equally your continued and repeated statement that its not as bad as people say isnt going to make it a better film. All four films have their flaws to various degrees. Its just that Crystal Skull has the most.
In my opinion...

My liking of the two is about even. What I feel is that as an Indy film, I feel it is a dud outside of the River Phoenix intro and the bits with Sean. The rest of the film just sort of plods along and doesn't really find a beat until Sean Connery enters the picture.

The action scenes in it lack the kinetic energy of the first two films, and I've written entire threads on how I feel the Tank Chase pretty much sucks especially in comparison to the Truck Chase. It's also not at all subtle or clever. From Indy becoming Indy in less than half an hour, to his father just coincidentally being afraid of rats just as Indy is afraid of snakes, to the gang literally riding off into the sunset - it hits you in the face. Also, turning Sallah into a raving idiot and Marcus into a senile buffoon was a big turn-off for me as I liked bother characters greatly in Raiders...There are great scenes, and great moments, and the score as as good as any of the others....But I don't feel it is up to par outside of the 1912 sequence, which is probably my favorite moment of the entire series, and the ending segment in the Grail Temple.

KOTCS is at least enjoyable as a mindlessly fun B movie, and the science fiction element is to me interesting and clever. It's at least something different, and daring, rather than retreading the tired old ground of the Nazis going after a Judeo-Christian relic.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
If you don't like the movie, why bother talking about it? I certainly don't waste my time hanging around talking about movies I dislike.

I'm sorry you think discussing movies is a waste of time unless your special criteria is met. You have my sympathy if not my understanding.

And again with the Batman thing. I must confess I'm missing the significance of your constant Batman references.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
[Without having read anything in this thread for I don't know how long but constantly amazed at the constant activity here] I think Finn shutting this thread down with one of his signature definitive declarations is long overdue -- especially now that we have something to look forward to in V.

Frankly, I'd bar any and all discussion of this embarrassment of film if I could.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Sometimes we keep this stuff around for:
A) Entertainment in the secret and officially disavowed halls of the moderator lair. You should see the drinking games we come up with.​
B) Archival documentation of how fans and critics alike responded to a film in a series, and how that changes over time​
C) Laziness. We hate being babysitters​
D) Bucking the system
There's a movement in the American Collegiate systems wherein the students are demanding from their institutions the ability to censor the content that they're being exposed to. With the amount of monies being paid for that degree that is supposed to guarantee them a job, they (the students) feel they're entitled for the experience they want because of that money. It's sad to see America use capital to shape what in the past was a opportunity to open your minds, not close them. Here at the Raven, content (for the most part) is encouraged. You may take flak for it, but hey, that's real life. When we start charging for membership, we might change our above stance, but for now, we're the rebel forum (no star wars pun intended)​

My post may or may not reflect the attitudes and opinions of the staff I am blessed to serve with.

_____
edited for spelling and grammar errors
 
Last edited:

Glenville86

New member
Honesty, I like Raiders and Last Crusade. The other 2-movies just did not do much for me. I found Skull very slap-stick with too many way obvious special effects. It was like watching a comedy with forced scenes. Doom's plot and the overall movie was like something made for grade school students. This is just my view and I am only speaking about myself. ;)

I do like the Indy franchise and any movie is better than nothing. Harrison Ford is a good actor. I would like to see a script made for his character that utilizes his abilities more. I understand these movies are meant to be taken lightly and are not serious in any real sense but I would like to see a more serious role in the next movie.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Joe Brody said:
[Without having read anything in this thread for I don't know how long but constantly amazed at the constant activity here] I think Finn shutting this thread down with one of his signature definitive declarations is long overdue -- especially now that we have something to look forward to in V.

Frankly, I'd bar any and all discussion of this embarrassment of film if I could.

It's an official, canon Indiana Jones film.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
It's an official, canon Indiana Jones film.


I respect your restraint. Don't take me too seriously -- I'm just trying to mix things up a bit.

I agree KotCS is canon -- if you look back at my submission in the INDY V contest, you'll see that I respectfully started from where KotCS left us and dutifully incorporated Marion and Mutt.

That said,you have to understand I'm a true Indy purist and pretty much reject everything in the films after the opening scene in Temple of Doom. Heck, I have major issues with Last Crusade, the Henry Senior character and Indy's backstory as a professor's son. Simply put, KotCS, with Oxley and the furthering of Indy's family's academic connections, just furthers the perversion of Indiana Jones as he was originally envisioned.
 

Major West

Member
It took me a few years to like Last Crusade, eventually I got older and realised it was just a movie series about an adventurer and stopped taking it so seriously.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Joe Brody said:
I respect your restraint. Don't take me too seriously -- I'm just trying to mix things up a bit.

I agree KotCS is canon -- if you look back at my submission in the INDY V contest, you'll see that I respectfully started from where KotCS left us and dutifully incorporated Marion and Mutt.

That said,you have to understand I'm a true Indy purist and pretty much reject everything in the films after the opening scene in Temple of Doom. Heck, I have major issues with Last Crusade, the Henry Senior character and Indy's backstory as a professor's son. Simply put, KotCS, with Oxley and the furthering of Indy's family's academic connections, just furthers the perversion of Indiana Jones as he was originally envisioned.

But Oxley isn't a furthering of Indy's family's academic connections, though. Oxley's just an old college buddy from Chicago, which ties in nicely with the original film. It makes sense that Indiana's friend from his youth would be a fellow adventurer/explorer.

It's not like how Brody's role was expanded to a fellow adventurer/boss in Raiders, who five years ago could've went after the Ark himself, to being a dodderng old fool who was friends with Henry, Sr, and watched Indy grow up.
When you think about it, that right there, the Marcus-Indy-Henry connnection makes Indy's universe much, much smaller than the inclusion of Harold Oxley ever did. Instead of just being Indy's legitimate front, his fence for the stolen goods, now Marcus is a good guy, a father figure his entire life. Total character rewrite.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
It's not the very existence of Harold Oxley that irritates me, but the fact that he was a fellow student of Abner Ravenwood who had enough of a sense of responsibility with regard to Marion that he would happen to be Mutt's foster father while also being the world's pre-eminent crystal skull expert. Oh and just for an added eyeroll they make it so that Mutt knows his mom's name as "Mary" rather than "Marion," all to protect a forthcoming surprise that the movie's poster and opening credits give away. It's just lazy and too many contrivances stacked atop each other for me, especially since it didn't add up to much.

I agree that Last Crusade is guilty of a similar antic when it suddenly drops Indy's dad into the saga and consequently turns Brody into comic relief. I
I've got my own issues with Last Crusade, but I think the difference comes down to the fact that it's just a more focused movie. The dynamic between Indy and his dad works so well that you overlook whatever ropey maneuvers were required to get them to share the screen.

In contrast, there's zero pathos between Indy and the various sidekicks - all of them figures from his past - he's assigned in Crystal Skull, and so the retconning doesn't feel nearly as justified despite being even more aggressively employed. Crystal Skull just doesn't have that emotional center Last Crusade does. Temple of Doom didn't either, but then that movie was all muscle and momentum in a way I don't think even Crystal Skull's fans would say is true of that movie.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
It's not the very existence of Harold Oxley that irritates me, but the fact that he was a fellow student of Abner Ravenwood who had enough of a sense of responsibility with regard to Marion that he would happen to be Mutt's foster father while also being the world's pre-eminent crystal skull expert. Oh and just for an added eyeroll they make it so that Mutt knows his mom's name as "Mary" rather than "Marion," all to protect a forthcoming surprise that the movie's poster and opening credits give away. It's just lazy and too many contrivances stacked atop each other for me, especially since it didn't add up to much.

I agree that Last Crusade is guilty of a similar antic when it suddenly drops Indy's dad into the saga and consequently turns Brody into comic relief. I
I've got my own issues with Last Crusade, but I think the difference comes down to the fact that it's just a more focused movie. The dynamic between Indy and his dad works so well that you overlook whatever ropey maneuvers were required to get them to share the screen.

In contrast, there's zero pathos between Indy and the various sidekicks - all of them figures from his past - he's assigned in Crystal Skull, and so the retconning doesn't feel nearly as justified despite being even more aggressively employed. Crystal Skull just doesn't have that emotional center Last Crusade does. Temple of Doom didn't either, but then that movie was all muscle and momentum in a way I don't think even Crystal Skull's fans would say is true of that movie.

The thing with that for me is, you argue there's no pathos between Indy and his various sidekicks. I would tend to agree, yes. But really you have that same problem with Last Crusade. Sallah and Marcus have their characters almost totally rewritten, and like in KOTCS, they're just stuck in the film. I tend to grade Last Crusade equally. For myself, the only times Last Crusade shines are when Sean Connery is on screen or during the River Phoenix segment. There's a very "by the numbers" feel to Last Crusade; I wrote as far back as 2007 how the action scenes felt very lazy in Last Crusade, and the scenes which proceed Connery's appearance drag and lack the taut feel of the first two films. And unlike in KOTCS, Harrison doesn't pull the weaker moments of Last Crusade together. Go back and rewatch Last Crusade; Harrison, to me, feels a lot different than he did n Raiders and Temple. He doesn't seem as into the part as he was in the first two. And honestly, that stupid necktie makes every error of KOTCS bearable.

The novelty of seeing Indiana Jones' father and and the novelty his dad being Sean Connery (which, let's be honest, is a giant gimmicky thing), for me, is equal to the novelty of seeing Indiana Jones as an older man, in a different decade, with aliens. I've never found the Holy Grail all of that interesting as a "MacGuffin" - I find the Skull/Alien mythology a lot more interesting and realistic as a threat.

Every issue that was found in KOTCS, can, in my opinion be found in Last Crusade. Both films try to hit all the beats of Raiders of the Lost Ark, and each with declining returns. Both of the films, for the sake of comedy, to an extent rewrite Indy's friends; both see Indy really completing someone else's quest - In Raiders, Indy is acting as a government agent; In TOD, he willingly goes to Pankot, motived by fortune and glory, whereas Last Crusade and KOTCS are rescue missions Indy would rather not be on ("You've got the wrong Jones, Mr. Donovan - why don't you try my father?"), as such, he's a more passive figure in both. Last Crusade, overall, has even less of a sense of dread or a threat than Kingdom. At least in Kingdom, the power of the skulls is (in theory) a threat to mankind - Spalko's intended use of them is powerful. The Holy Grail isn't going to change the outcome of World War II. While the Holy Grail is more powerful as a symbolic treasure, that's not what Indiana Jones films were originally about. It was about Indy saving the world in pulpy adventures. Both expand while also deflating the size of Indy's universe. Both have stupid gag moments which are thrown on for yucks (Mutt's hits to the crotch vs. the idiot pilot who doesn't realize he's on fire in Last Crusade). Both film feature Indy in a more well-behaved fashion than he'd usually be due to the circumstance: In Last Crusade, he can't go all out because he's restrained by his father's presence; In KOTCS, he doesn't want to look like a total grave robber in front of this kid (his reputation, being, as it is, in the basement at the moment).

Last Crusade in a sense rebooted the character of Indiana Jones. The dark, edgy, mysterious, devil-may-care guy who took an almost sociopathic glee in disposing the bad guys was gone as soon as Indy uttered "it belongs in a museum!". No longer was Indy this n'er-do-well who worked for gangsters; No, now he was a holy warrior with God on his side, a neo-Knight, who if we're to believe Last Crusade's implications was chosen by God the same way the Knight in the Temple was; He's a guy who is always on the right side, and who'll stop the bad guys from taking over the world not because he's being paid or because they're in his way, but because it's the right thing to do. With Last Crusade and beyond, Indy is now a superhero. A borderline Boy Scout. Indiana Jones including and post Last Crusade is a different character from the mysterious and dangerous guy of the first two films, who exists in a smaller and much more comedic universe.

KOTCS and Last Crusade are cinematic siblings who share a lot more "DNA" if you will than Last Crusade shares with the two original films. If you want to watch Indiana Jones be a mercenary, kick ass and take names, watch Raiders or Temple. If you want to see good guy Indy have every mystery revealed, and be cowed down by his father, or his son, go watch Last Crusade or KOTCS. The pulpy anti-hero that Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan dreamed up in 1978 died in May 1989. The guy who replaced him wearing a hat and fedora in two movies afterward is just as enjoyable, but nowhere near as interesting.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
The thing with that for me is, you argue there's no pathos between Indy and his various sidekicks. I would tend to agree, yes. But really you have that same problem with Last Crusade.

I'm actually arguing that Crystal Skull has no pathos, period. In contrast, Last Crusade has the Indy/Henry Sr. dynamic, which serves as the heart of the movie. So no, it's not the same problem.

Nobody expects an Indiana Jones movie to be an emotionally transcendent experience, but the other sequels invest you enough that you actually feel something at the end. Last Crusade has the father/son relationship as its emotional linchpin, and pays it off nicely. Temple doesn't exactly tug at the heart strings, but it nevertheless succeeds in being emotionally exhausting. The first time you watch Temple, there's real relief and triumph at the end, because you feel like on some level you've been dragged through the same hell the characters were. Temple of Doom is a movie you don't so much experience as survive.

Crystal Skull doesn't have a cathartic moment because it doesn't really build to one. Yes, on paper the arc is that Indy is old and alone and by the end has a family. But this family comes pre-packaged, and we don't have enough of a connection to these characters for it to mean anything. Ox is more device than a character and doesn't even have his real identity until the movie's last ten minutes. Mutt starts off as a functional sidekick that swiftly becomes backgrounded once he's revealed to be Indy's son. Even Marion is dead weight after her initial appearance, like they were trusting that our excitement to merely see her again would cancel out any requirement that she be given something to do.

Thus, none of the character work feels particularly motivated, a sense that is exacerbated by other weak aspects of the script: abandoned subplots (Indy's federal scrutiny), characters whose actions are unaccountable (Mac), and everybody treating ostensibly dangerous situations with a casual indifference. The movie puts forth various ideas but does not succeed in having them add up in a satisfying way, in my opinion. And that's particularly fatal when the characters themselves are among those undeveloped ideas.

Perhaps if the movie had focused on one relationship as Last Crusade did (and as Darabont's Indy 4 draft did), the results would have been better. As it is, no character is really able to stand out, and when the movie does try for pathos it just feel like a warmed over version of something done better already. Pointing out similarities in template between Crystal Skull and Last Crusade completely misses what makes Last Crusade work.
 
Last edited:

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Lucas intended for Indy to be constantly in scenarios where he is in over his head, it's part of the charm of the character.

Indy in KOTCS however, he was never was at a loss for what to do next because he always had THE answers. He was always in charge.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Pale Horse said:
Lucas intended for Indy to be constantly in scenarios where he is in over his head, it's part of the charm of the character.

Indy in KOTCS however, he was never was at a loss for what to do next because he always had THE answers. He was always in charge.

Save for that time Marion knew that divine providence sometimes manifests itself in a rubber tree.

(Lovely posts, Raiders112390 and Udvarnoky.)
 

Z dweller

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
The pulpy anti-hero that Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan dreamed up in 1978 died in May 1989.
Just one more reason why I'm rooting for Disney to make prequels set before TOD in the timeline.

Problem solved.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
Save for that time Marion knew that divine providence sometimes manifests itself in a rubber tree.

A lot of people defend that moment by pointing out that there was a setup shot showing Marion noticing the tree. But to me the issue with that scene is not plausibility, but Marion's attitude. The moment she drives off the cliff is played for laughs, with Marion grinning ear-to-ear in confidence while the others scream. But should she really be all that confident? It's part of that casual indifference I mentioned that makes it come off as the characters being cognizant of their immortality.

I keep imagine a lame version of the rope bridge cutting sequence where Indy is as nonchalant about it as Marion is with her arguably more dangerous stunt. If the characters don't take their danger seriously, we sure as heck aren't.
 
Top