Shia and Koepp forced to adress the two major pseudo-complaints of KOTCS

torao

Moderator Emeritus
If there's one person I don't blame for Crystal Skull's shortcomings it's Shia Labeouf.
He did a great job, performance-wise. And the last thing you do when you're 20 years old and hired by Steven Spielberg to play the son of Indiana Jones is to critizice how weak huge parts of the script are and how it lacks those amazing cliffhanger situations of the previous three installments.

That's why I feel a bit sorry for him having to defend the film against those relatively lame "Tarzan" and "fridge" accusations in a most recent mtv interview. (Although I couldn't help but laugh and wonder a bit about the nature of the interview.)

"I think that Steven [Spielberg], George [Lucas] and Harrison [Ford] are the only fans that I care about. ... If they're happy with the movie, then my job is done," LaBeouf said. "And they're happy with the movie."

Of course, he's right. That statement is as professional as only a 22-year old actor who has been in the business for over a decade could issue it. But in the end it's more fullfilling to be part of a classic film that inspires millions of people as well as other filmmakers than one that was just the box office hit of 2008. (Of course I don't know how Crystal Skull will evolve in the cultural conscience in the next ten, twenty, thirty years. I might be very wrong.)


I still find it too unfortunate that those marginal things (concerning the film's plausability and level of silliness) have become the mainstream complaints about KOTCS.
That's mostly because one day I'd love Spielberg to adress the actual problems (as I see them and as they're discussed on this board by some people) of Crystal Skull. I wanna know how he honestly views the aspects some of us regard as failed parts of the film.


I gotta go now. Please remain civil and on-topic.
 

Benraianajones

New member
Peronally I don't think it is fair to quiz him with that, he didn't write the movie and ultimatley decide what goes in the movie, he just did his part as an actor. If anyone should be boiled over it or quizzed, it should be the writer, George or Steven.
 

OmegaSeamaster

New member
Benraianajones said:
Peronally I don't think it is fair to quiz him with that, he didn't write the movie and ultimatley decide what goes in the movie, he just did his part as an actor. If anyone should be boiled over it or quizzed, it should be the writer, George or Steven.

I agree. The stupid plot elements came directly from Lucas.

I'm sick of hearing Shia's defense uttered by both himself and other apologists.

"But the vine-swinging and the nuke are just in keeping with the other three! It's the viewers that have become jaded!!!"

Umm...could it be that it could be the filmmakers that have lost their mojo?

Sorry, but you know you've seen something that doesn't work when you just want to shrink in your chair and hide in embarassment...aka "nuking the fridge."

One other instance that comes to mind is when James Bond out-surfed a tidal wave in "Die Another Day." That was just pushing the boundaries of the character and the cheese-factor.
 

Indy's brother

New member
Shia's in a tough spot with this. No actor in their right mind would turn down an opportunity to appear in the Indy franchise. Even if he has misgivings about the film, or his part in it, he has to keep himself in check to protect his career. I for one don't personally blame Shia for anything, I thought he performed as well as the script could allow. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Mutt Williams character. Mutt fighting Spalko, the main villain, instead of Indy, the main character was a misstep, but that was not Shia's mistake. For Shia's sake, I hope he doesn't go down in history as the guy who killed the franchise. That would be unfair.
 

The Man

Well-known member
But if you thought "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was silly or juvenile, or that it didn't measure up to the first three films, it's not the movie's fault ? it's your fault, co-star Shia LaBeouf told MTV News.

"I feel like people are watching the movie and it's not the same viewer [as watched the originals]. It's not necessarily the style of the films has changed, it's the viewer ? the viewer is different than the viewer was in the 80s," said LaBeouf, who played Indiana's prodigal son Mutt Williams. "It's two different viewers, and I think it was an innocent viewer and a less-jaded consumer [back then].

"To suspend the disbelief ? the swing through these vines and nuking of the fridge. It wasn't like they didn't do fantastical stuff in the first three," he continued. "They did ridiculously fantastical things in the first three. But you could stomach it because you were a different viewer, and I think that the viewership has changed."

Such condescending bullsh!t will only serve to antagonise viewers further. The kid-gloves are now off. We're done being relatively restrained...

THE SCREENPLAY F*CKING SUCKS! IT SUCKS BALLS! MY BALLS, YOUR BALLS, ALL BALLS! WHOSE FAULT IS THAT, LABEOUF? OURS?
 

The Man

Well-known member
09.jpg

"...and, concordantly, to divine contemporary audience sensibilities vis a vis the cultural and, indeed, intellectual leanings of a time before our time, which is, by implication, to achieve an understanding of the dichotomic and contradictory vagaries inherent in zeitgeist blah..."
 

OmegaSeamaster

New member
I just love how the obvious is never asked of these people.

My dream interview:

"Shia....the hallowed Indiana Jones franchise is about treasure hunting...following clues and maps to lost artifacts from lost civilizations...mystical relics...booby traps....DON'T YOU THINK INVOLVING LITTLE GREEN SPACEMEN IS WAY OUT OF GENRE?!?! Don't you think having the most beloved treasure hunter and tomb raider of all-time (whose character and formula was firmly established with three great films) discover a silver FLYING SAUCER a bit out of place? Do you honestly think the Indiana Jones that rode out a nuclear blast wave in a fridge is the same Indiana Jones as in Raiders of the Lost Ark?"

Of course, the argument is "Oh, well the whole intention was to pay homage to the 50's sci-fi film," but guess what...that's not what Indiana Jones is about. That's what the motion picture academy of arts and sciences is about...paying tribute to genres that died out because they were cheesy and laughable.
 

Indy's brother

New member
KOTCS just tried to accomplish too much in one film. Paying tribute to two genres in one film. Too many sidekicks in one film. Reinventing the franchise in one film, after a long hiatus.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
"Our millennial Porky's is different than our 80's Porky's."

Porky's, the gold standard for gauging generational shifts in cultural mores.
I would find it difficult to keep a straight face while referencing any movie as such.
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
First let's consider the source: MTV.

MTV has always been and will always be crap. Their programs are targeted to fools I in no way want to associate with. I couldn't care less if they didn't like KOTCS.

Second, poor Shia having to put up with that. He has been in worse movies: Transformers, right off the bite. Why doesn't he get asked why he was in that crap? But oh yeah, I forgot, obviously, those "fanboys" were pleased with a film that offered nothing(not even a plot) but car-crashes and explosions. Which brings me back to the first point: why the hell care about their opinions?

In fact, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a better than any other movie Shia has starred in before. Yet, he has to put up with these idiots.

In fact, pretty much every major actor has been in at least one bad movie worse than KOTCS. Why don't they ever get asked questions? Oh yeah: MTV sucks. :rolleyes:
 

emtiem

Well-known member
I don't understand why anybody would get upset or wear a T-shirt about any of these things. The fridge thing was a bit of fun in a fun movie; it was original, funny and was a good moment of peril for Indy. The monkey swinging was a bit silly but it's over quickly enough... I just don't know how anyone would find the time to get uptight about these things.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I don't disagree with the notion that people who get themselves bent out of shape over the "unrealistic" action sequences in Indy4 have to some extent grown out of this sort of movie whether it's without realizing it or because they can't admit it. Nothing in Indy4 is any goofier than some of the stuff in the previous films.

The rub is, the atomic blast and the tarzan scene aren't the movie's real problems. They're just the hip thing to gripe about on the internet.
 
The Man said:
Such condescending bullsh!t will only serve to antagonise viewers further. The kid-gloves are now off. We're done being relatively restrained...

THE SCREENPLAY F*CKING SUCKS! IT SUCKS BALLS! MY BALLS, YOUR BALLS, ALL BALLS! WHOSE FAULT IS THAT, LABEOUF? OURS?

I agree completely. I was a kid when the first three came out and my tastes in film haven't really changed over the years. The fact is that the first three films had decent drama, real stunts and not that CG bull****, and the scripts were one hell of a lot better!

Shia is a douche and should shut his friggin mouth! That movie blew. I felt like Lucas was farting in the face of all fo us when I was watching it.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
mindy muffles said:
The fact is that the first three films had decent drama, real stunts and not that CG bull****

We must have been watching different mine cart chases! Mine was full of puppets! :)
There's a lot of real stunts in Crystal Skull, it's just easy to miss them. There were a couple of stunt people having a sword fight on the back of those jeeps, for example, it's just that the shots of Shia and Cate doing it on bluescreen stick in the mind more. Shame.
 

OmegaSeamaster

New member
Stoo said:
Which is exactly what "Raiders" is...:rolleyes:

I don't think I would call "Raiders" cheesy or laughable. It took a cheesy genre, the adventure serial, and elevated it with an amazing story, special effects and solid performances. Crystal Skull was taking a fourth installment of a film franchise heavily rooted in the adventure serial and slapping sci-fi into the mix like a bad skin graft. It just never successfully meshed. The poor scripts reflected this.

Raiders transcended the genre it was trying to emulate. Crystal Skull did no such thing. It was a slapdash, last gasp effort, requested by an aging movie legend badly in need of a hit, with producers who really weren't that interested but who, in the end, saw a quick payday.

Raiders was an homage to bad serials, but done exceptionally well with the intention to thrill, not take you out of the story with extreme camp, CGI gophers and a hero bordering on "man of steel" status.
 

OmegaSeamaster

New member
mindy muffles said:
Shia is a douche and should shut his friggin mouth! That movie blew. I felt like Lucas was farting in the face of all fo us when I was watching it.

It wouldn't be the first time!!!

In fact, he's had gas since 1990.

;)

Sorry for the double post, but I just couldn't resist.
 
Last edited:

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
mindy muffles said:
Shia is a douche and should shut his friggin mouth!

Umm...He was getting interviewed by an(very poor) interviewer who was putting down the movie in a completely unrelated content.

What was he SUPPOSE to do?
 

The Man

Well-known member
Forbidden Eye said:
Umm...He was getting interviewed by an(very poor) interviewer who was putting down the movie in a completely unrelated content.

What was he SUPPOSE to do?

It's sad that MTV(!) are the only ones to level such a pertinent - if, yes, mischievous - question. It's the answer that belittles LaBeouf, not the interviewer...
 
Top