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

Dewy9

New member
I'm glad Shia said that. Maybe before the movie there should have been an MST3K type of disclaimer before the movie: "Repeat to yourself 'It's just a movie, I should really just relax'."

The Well of Souls light thing, the voodoo doll (the most unbelievable thing of all the originals IMO), the entire raft scene, the beating hearts, an ancient knight, the plane sliding through the tunnel in TOD, etc. Science isn't exactly Indy's strong suit.
 

Wugmanmax

New member
We were watching Indy 4 again the other day (no I won't say how) and my eldest son exclaimed when we got to the fridge scene "Oh, I love this part!"
That put me in my freaking place right quick.

I agree with Shia, the audience has changed. It was the same with Star Wars, it's the same here. For crying out loud it's the same with the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels and those were only a few years apart!
 

Johnny Jones

New member
OmegaSeamaster said:
[Crystal Skull]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.
Maybe the script took almost nineteen years to finish. And yes, maybe it was still flawed. But the reason they do these movies is because they enjoy them. George Lucas has said that he views moviemaking as a hobby, and if moviemaking weren't such a hefty investment he would just put the movies on his shelf as a private collection. (You could claim he was lying, but Lucas, regardless of what you may think of his directing skills, is not the jerk disgruntled fanboys make him out to be.) Harrison Ford doesn't need the money or fame either and him I am CERTAIN would not sign onto this project if he wasn't interested in what it really was. Steven may have not been that enthusiastic, but he went in because George and Harrison were there. And of course the other actors were there because it was Indiana Jones.:whip:
They have a good time on the movie sets, and truly enjoy each other's company. Just because you didn't enjoy watching their movie (which I liked by the way) doesn't mean they didn't enjoy making it.
 

DIrishB

New member
Forbidden Eye said:
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:

Thank you, sir, for saying exactly what was on my mind.

Considering MTV's target audience are ten year old girls with median-US educations, I think we can all take the TV channel and its celebrity "interviews" with a BIG grain of salt.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
OmegaSeamaster said:
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.
With all due respect, I think you're missing the point of my quip. "Raiders" is NOT cheesy and laughable
but it is "paying tribute to..." what you said here:

OmegaSeamaster said:
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.
Again, that is what Indy is all about. Being critical is one thing. Being delusional? That's something else...:rolleyes:
Mr. La Boeuf may be right when mentioning that the "viewers" are different.
OmegaSeamaster said:
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.
Get your story straight, Omega! Indy is either is an homage to old serials or he isn't! In '81, many of my friends
(mostly the female ones) laughed at the fact that Indy got dragged behind a truck and wasn't hospitalized
for a few days/weeks. One of them actually used the "Man of Steel" line on me, (believe it or not)!

When "Skull" was being made, I'd never even heard of Shia before but thought that he handled the part well.
The cringe-worthy sword fight/vine swing are no fault of his. Go tell your bosses that they're wrong and see
how well that goes over in the long run.:rolleyes:

I'm no "Skull" apologist but the criticisms towards Shia "The Beef" are misplaced.
 

Inbanana

New member
I don't think people are blaming Shia for criticisms of KOTCS any more than they blamed Ahmed Best for criticisms of the Star Wars prequels... He did his job, and if his bosses didn't like it, I'm sure they would have let him know...

On the other hand... blaming the audience for the perceived flaws of a movie isn't always the smartest of career moves...
 

Sankara

Guest
I really like Shia as an actor. But now it's official: This guy knows nothing about "Indiana Jones"...

I'm very happy that the makers and actors know that they made an embarrassing movie and that most people think that "Skull" is by fare the worst Indy-Movie...

Great!
 

Bvance

New member
SHIA IS RIGHT, the audience has changed. Over the last 19 years we have come to expect excellence when we hear the name Indiana Jones. We were expecting to at least have fun. And then we were delivered a pile of crap.

I for one would love to forget about Shia and ask David Koepp, or George Lucas about the friggin' retarded Tarzan and Nuke the fridge scene. Let's grill them and see if they can explain themselves and give some reason to madness.

Oh and I don't hate Shia, of course he's going to defend the movies he is in.
 

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
That was a bull**** question they asked Shia. But I don't agree with his answer. We didn't change. That's why KOTCS was a soulless mediocre action romp to Indy fans everywhere. If we DID change into brainless Michael Bay enthusiasts we'd think KOTCS would was a masterpiece.

We DIDN'T change. It's everyone else who did. That why KOTCS has a mega amount of CGI shots, cliche writing, soulless action, and boring characters. Because Spielberg and Lucas CHANGED. Not us.

It's like saying,
"Hey remember The Indiana Jones trilogy, the movies you grew up with and still love till this day?"
"Yeah."
"Well, we're making a fourth one! Except we're going to CGI A LOT of the action and locations, make the once perilous predicaments now somewhat silly, cut down character development and fill it with more action, have a mediocre villain, and involve Aliens!"
"That doesn't sound very good to me."
"Then you've changed."

But Shia can't talk bad about Papa Spielberg. Otherwise he'll get the belt.
 

agentsands77

New member
I think KINGDOM is of the same ilk as TEMPLE or CRUSADE (which, let's face it guys, are both mediocre films in their own right). It's not a great effort, but neither were they. The Jones franchise only has one truly good film, and that's RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. I don't really believe that if TEMPLE or CRUSADE came out in the place of KINGDOM, fandom or the public reaction would be much kinder.
 

Lambonius

New member
DocWhiskey said:
"Hey remember The Indiana Jones trilogy, the movies you grew up with and still love till this day?"
"Yeah."
"Well, we're making a fourth one! Except we're going to CGI A LOT of the action and locations, make the once perilous predicaments now somewhat silly, cut down character development and fill it with more action, have a mediocre villain, and involve Aliens!"
"That doesn't sound very good to me."
"Then you've changed."

I really enjoyed KOTCS. Cringed at parts, but enjoyed it thoroughly nonetheless. That said, I think this set of statements is not only hilarious but amazingly profound! Kudos, sir! :hat:
 

TREN KROM

New member
Well we (hardcore Indy fans) haven't changed, but the general audience has.
Look back 50 years ago. The general audience was obsessed with "The men from outer spaaaaace!!!!". That may seem cheesy now, but they still liked it. The exact same thing aplies to modern, explosion obsessed, movies. You may not like it, but your kids do. Just like how you liked Raiders as a kid.
 
TREN KROM said:
Well we (hardcore Indy fans) haven't changed, but the general audience has.
Look back 50 years ago. The general audience was obsessed with "The men from outer spaaaaace!!!!". That may seem cheesy now, but they still liked it. The exact same thing aplies to modern, explosion obsessed, movies. You may not like it, but your kids do. Just like how you liked Raiders as a kid.


Oh yes, hardcore fans who only just discovered the franchise in January? Are those the hardcore fans you're talking about?

Tell me please about all you've been through as a hardcore fan. The wait for a new film must have been excruciating, huh?
 

TREN KROM

New member
ResidentAlien said:
Oh yes, hardcore fans who only just discovered the franchise in January? Are those the hardcore fans you're talking about?

Tell me please about all you've been through as a hardcore fan. The wait for a new film must have been excruciating, huh?
Ok, so I may not be "the biggest fan ever". But that doesn't mean I like the series less than any of you (or more, for that matter.)
 

Darth Vile

New member
Bvance said:
SHIA IS RIGHT, the audience has changed. Over the last 19 years we have come to expect excellence when we hear the name Indiana Jones. We were expecting to at least have fun. And then we were delivered a pile of crap.

I for one would love to forget about Shia and ask David Koepp, or George Lucas about the friggin' retarded Tarzan and Nuke the fridge scene. Let's grill them and see if they can explain themselves and give some reason to madness.

Oh and I don't hate Shia, of course he's going to defend the movies he is in.

Not sure about that. You do know that there are many people who would rate TOD and TLC as "crap" right?

As much as one may like TOD and TLC, I don't think I could ever rate them as great movies or even excellent (unless the bar is set quite low). They have good production values of course; good ideas and some heart... but they are not exactly the pinnacle of movie making. And I think it's precisely this reason why the comments from Shia have some merit i.e. how can one logically try and overcome the opinion of those who honestly believe TOD is an excellent masterpiece of cinema (as that?s what you?d believe if you read some of the comments on these boards)?
 

emtiem

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
As much as one may like TOD and TLC, I don't think I could ever rate them as great movies or even excellent (unless the bar is set quite low).

I don't agree with that- I'm a massive Bond fan and both of those are better than most Bond movies: a comparison which is very pertinent as they're doing exactly the same thing. When you've got Spielberg directing you get quality- there's so much imagination going into pretty much every shot of TOD that few would agree that it's crap. Only people who've watched it too many times and can list any minor faults which have grated with them over those re-viewings would call it that. Sit a casual viewer who likes action/adventure films in front of it and they'll have nothing to complain about.


Darth Vile said:
They have good production values of course; good ideas and some heart... but they are not exactly the pinnacle of movie making.

They're really not far off. I'm not a massive Indy fan; I know what I like- and as I said before, I'm a much bigger Bond fan than Indy. But I know quality when I see it- I think Raiders is one of the few examples of a perfect film, and although TOD and TLC aren't quite on the same pedestal, they're clearly worthy enough to be part of the same series. I find it bizarre to read stuff like this on an Indy board- I think those who think that the other Indy films are so bad need to get some perspective: this really is one of the best movie series- each installment is of a very high quality indeed.
When Spielberg makes The Man With The Golden Gun or The World Is Not Enough; then you can complain! :)

Darth Vile said:
And I think it's precisely this reason why the comments from Shia have some merit i.e. how can one logically try and overcome the opinion of those who honestly believe TOD is an excellent masterpiece of cinema?

You shouldn't be trying to. Why would you try and convince someone that they shouldn't enjoy a fun film that they do? Why would you want to stop someone else having fun? Fan forums can be bad things; you can look too closely at that which you say you like. And thus Shia's comments make a lot of sense: people on this forum were never going to be happy with Indy 5.

Interestingly I heard a DJ here in the UK (who is spending a lot of time in the US as he's writing a new Marvel superhero movie) saying that he went over to Tarantino's house recently, where QT put on a movie in his little cinema. The movie was TOD and QT introduced it as, in his opinion, Spielberg's best directed movie. I think he's got a point.
 

agentsands77

New member
Darth Vile said:
Not sure about that. You do know that there are many people who would rate TOD and TLC as "crap" right?

As much as one may like TOD and TLC, I don't think I could ever rate them as great movies or even excellent (unless the bar is set quite low). They have good production values of course; good ideas and some heart... but they are not exactly the pinnacle of movie making. And I think it's precisely this reason why the comments from Shia have some merit i.e. how can one logically try and overcome the opinion of those who honestly believe TOD is an excellent masterpiece of cinema (as that’s what you’d believe if you read some of the comments on these boards)?
Quite so. The bloated evaluations of DOOM (which, really, would have perhaps been even more despised thank KINGDOM if it had been released in its place) and CRUSADE are part of what contribute to a rather bloated hatred for KINGDOM.
 

Darth Vile

New member
emtiem said:
I don't agree with that- I'm a massive Bond fan and both of those are better than most Bond movies

Movies are a product of their time. Raiders is as good as anything of that genre made today or 30 years ago… but I think one could quite easily argue that ‘Dr No’, ‘From Russia With Love’, ‘Goldfinger’, ‘On her Majesty’s Secret Service’ and “Casino Royale’ are better movies than TOD and TLC.

emtiem said:
When you've got Spielberg directing you get quality- there's so much imagination going into pretty much every shot of TOD that few would agree that it's crap.

Agreed. We're not talking ‘Tomb Raider’ and the like are we?

emtiem said:
Sit a casual viewer who likes action/adventure films in front of it and they'll have nothing to complain about.

Agreed - Same applies to KOTCS would you agree?

emtiem said:
I find it bizarre to read stuff like this on an Indy board- I think those who think that the other Indy films are so bad need to get some perspective: this really is one of the best movie series- each installment is of a very high quality indeed.

One can enjoy or even love a movie whilst being aware of it’s relevance, or lack of, within context of movie history. I like Indy and Star Wars movies, but I'm aware of their shortfalls and lack of significance outside my world. Also – I think your point is more relevant to those that spit hate at KOTCS, Lucas and Spielberg rather than those who view all the Indy movies as pretty much in the same ball park (as far as quality is concerned).

emtiem said:
You shouldn't be trying to. Why would you try and convince someone that they shouldn't enjoy a fun film that they do? Why would you want to stop someone else having fun? Fan forums can be bad things; you can look too closely at that which you say you like. And thus Shia's comments make a lot of sense: people on this forum were never going to be happy with Indy 5.

I think you missed my point. Firstly, I quite like KOTCS. Secondly, it’s hard to discuss KOTCS objectively with some who hate the movie so much but hold TOD up as a measure of excellent cinema. Again – I think TOD, TLC and KOTCS are much of a muchness (TLC being my personal favourite)... but lets get some perspective.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Movies are a product of their time. Raiders is as good as anything of that genre made today or 30 years ago… but I think one could quite easily argue that ‘Dr No’, ‘From Russia With Love’, ‘Goldfinger’, ‘On her Majesty’s Secret Service’ and “Casino Royale’ are better movies than TOD and TLC.

I think Raiders still stands head and shoulders above most films in the same genre no matter when they were made: I really can't think of any fault (aside from the smallest of plot-holes) in it: it's perfectly judged and every element from design to music to direction to casting is on-the-nail perfect. I can't think of many other films in that genre or others that manage the same thing.

As for the sequels vs. Bonds; yeah, there are some great Bond movies and some do merit alongside the lesser Indys- I wouldn't agree that all of those you name manage it, but some certainly do. I'm still not certain that many surpass them, though. TLC's a little ragged, but it doesn't go on too long like Casino Royale; have a major element like a love story swept under the carpet with a montage like OHMSS; have Indy completely inactive like Bond in Goldfinger etc. I do love those films and I'll defend them to the hilt but I do think each is a little more flawed than any of the Indys.

I'm always grateful that Cubby Broccolli turned down Spielberg- if he hadn't I don't think we would have got Indy.



Darth Vile said:
Agreed - Same applies to KOTCS would you agree?

Yeah definitely. It's a very entertaining film.



Darth Vile said:
I think you missed my point. Firstly, I quite like KOTCS. Secondly, it’s hard to discuss KOTCS objectively with some who hate the movie so much but hold TOD up as a measure of excellent cinema. Again – I think TOD, TLC and KOTCS are much of a muchness (TLC being my personal favourite)... but lets get some perspective.

I apologise; yes, I take your point- the sequels are pretty much on a level with each other; it's hard to take seriously claims that Skull is so much worse than Temple.
Skull is the weakest, I'd say, as I don't think Spielberg is as fresh or as interested as he used to be; but that's not to say that it's as far removed quality-wise as the Star Wars prequels are to the proper Star Wars films- Skull is clearly a proper Indy film and stands alongside the others easily.
 
Last edited:
Top