The Haters thread

Attila the Professor said:
It sort of seems as though we are meant to accept some entirely off-screen developments...

As a tease to spice up the onscreen elements it can be alluring, but as a crutch it's hobbling.

There's a balance to be struck and the film can't hack it. There's too much explaining to do in justification of what action(s) there is (are) in Skull.

Too much salt.

Excess_Sodium_Can_Host_Various_Health_Problems.jpg
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
As a tease to spice up the onscreen elements it can be alluring, but as a crutch it's hobbling.

There's a balance to be struck and the film can't hack it. There's too much explaining to do in justification of what action(s) there is (are) in Skull.

Too much salt.

And not nearly enough vinegar.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Too much salt.
Montana Smith said:
And not nearly enough vinegar.
Follwing those French Fried analogies, "Crystal Skull" sure had its share of cheese but not nearly enough gravy!:(

poutine-looks-yummy-cheese-fries-hmm-cubby-demotivational-poster-1278898640.jpg


P.S. The image is dedicated as a little taste of home for AlivePoet.:)
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
It has been suggested that an Indy4 discussion that was going on in the Indy5 speculation thread be continued in a more appropriate place, so unless someone would prefer to spin this off into another thread, I'm going to resume a discussion left off with this post by Attila.

Attila the Professor said:
All of these are points well taken. (Although, while the general point about the rhythm of the thing still stands as a potential reason to cut the Irina/Mac conversation, that was placed in Koepp's script just before the Indy/Marion/Mutt in the truck scene, in a slight breather between the miniature action sequence of the sand pit escape sequence and the jungle chase. Hell, that placement is possibly as strong a reveal of what may be Koepp's exposition dole problem as anything.)

I've got to remove some egg from my face - my memory was that the Spalko/Mac scene took place right after Indy knocked out Dovchenko, rather than before, but upon checking the script again, you are correct. Given that, it's now harder for me to imagine that Spielberg would have cut it for pacing purposes (if that was the reason) without seeing how it would have played out. Maybe he balked at the idea of two extended dialog scenes in a row, but I'm more inclined to agree with you that its existence would have been justifed.

Attila the Professor said:
I disagree about there being an "obligation to maintain a relentlessness from the point where the jungle chase starts all the way to when the crew goes over the waterfalls," as it seems that there is a natural place for a lull following Dovchenko's death.

Well, "obligation" is too strong - I'm speculating about what might have been Spielberg's head. I'm thinking of the extended sequence in Temple of Doom that starts with the fuel being drained from the plane and ending with the arrival at the village - there is no lull indulged in during that insanity. It's possible that Spielberg was attempting to achieve something along those lines. Since I don't think the final result had the breathlessness that it should have, I'm inclined to agree with you about restoring the lost dialog - there was nothing to lose and everything to gain - but we don't know how it played in the assembly cut.

We also have to consider the runtime when evaluating potential reasons for all these excisions. Not breaching two hours is something Spielberg seems to have been pretty keen on. Some of the cuts were arguably misguided, but as I said, I think the structure of the screenplay placed some good material in places that made it more expendable than it might have been with more organic storytelling. If important exposition is doled out in giant bursts, there's really no way to cut such a scene, and some quality "little moments" have to get the axe as a consequence. Koepp's approach leaves very little options for targets when it comes time to trim the movie down.

Attila the Professor said:
I'm curious whether your thoughts on Darabont's method of exposition apply to the earlier scenes: the interrogation scene, the Stanforth scenes, at the diner and at Indy's home with Mutt, Oxley's cell, and the conversation in Orellana's cradle. It is primarily the last of those which I think doesn't work, and the two preceding it exist in a fairly lengthy section without action, so they don't feel shoehorned in, at least to me. I think the problem with the Orellana's cradle scene is not so much one of an improper sense of rhythm for where it ought to stand in relation to other dialogue scenes and to action sequences as that it's uninteresting.

I assume by Darabont you mean Koepp here. True to my reputation as the resident crank, I take issue with pretty much every exposition scene, though I'd say the ones in the cell and the crypt are the chief offenders, largely because they're in the service of this mini-mystery story that doesn't actually go anywhere. I'll share my thoughts on the pre-Peru stuff.

My problem with the interrogation scene, as I've described before, is simply that every bit of information that it conveys has either already been told to us or is just about to be. Who Spalko is and what she wants has already been well enough established by this point, and there's more coming in the tent scene. Telling us what we've already seen is wasteful, glaring, and very disruptive to the movie's flow. Furthermore, the added emphasis the scene places on the Indy vs. The Feds subplot effectively functions as a setup to something that does not pay off in the ending, which is content to just imply that Indy's been cleared, somehow. Stanforth telling Indy he's been fired, the ensuing ruminations at Indy's home, and the Better Red Than Dead protest at the college all effectively anchor the paranoia theme. Finally, Indiana Jones and the Mushroom Cloud was absolutely the perfect closing visual to the prologue.

The Stanforth scenes are good, no real qualms there. I think the "First dad, then Marcus, then Shorty in that industrial accident" part was a little bit too on-the-nose, but I recognize that Connery dropped out after being written into the script. And I'm also with you that cutting the Stanforth dialog that they did was a mistake. And while it may not have moved the plot along enough to justify its existing, I thought Darabont wrote a very touching little scene where Indy says goodbye to his class that might have been carried over.

The diner exposition for me is more about the content of the exposition rather than it presenting pacing issue. Here is the scene where we're told about Oxley and how he has key relationships with all these characters in addition to being a crystal skull authority. Here is where we learn that Mutt's mom "Mary" (really?) has been kidnapped. This is the scene, in short, that's supposed to supply us with the impetus for Indy to go to Peru, and that impetus is for Indy to save some guy whom we don't know and have never seen, and a lady that Indy doesn't realize he knows. It's not that we don't buy it as a motivation, but that as motivation it's pretty weak sauce in comparison to the previous films. Why is it necessary to invent Oxley, and why couldn't Mutt have just said, "My Mom, Mary Ravenwood, has been kidnapped?" Then we're all on board. Concealing Marion's identity is a secret for the sake of it.

Attila the Professor said:
Perhaps the broader question - and the one that might manage to justify us going on about Koepp's script so much in this thread - is whether the beards's prescribing of desired set pieces is an approach with an inherent possibility for disaster.

Based on the draft we have of the Darabont script, my opinion of which doesn't seem to be among the majority here, I'm going to say no. The Beards hand the screenwriter a checklist and their job is write the most entertaining script they can that incorporates all of those things. Koepp would have been given a somewhat different checklist (which included Indy's son, I'd assume) than Darabont, but the evidence suggests that they were both given at least these requirements/suggestions:

- Crystal Skull
- 1950s, Russians (and the associated themes)
- Drag-racing teens in Nevada desert
- Area 51 warehouse
- Rocket sled
- Doomtown
- Nazca lines
- Lost city in the Amazon
- Giant, flesh-eating ants
- Waterfalls

The screenwriter must have at least some input on the story, of course, as we know reprising Marion, and by implication the wedding, was Darabont's contribution. There's possibly an argument to be made that the screenwriters were burdened with too long a checklist for this particular movie given the years in gestation, but it's hard to know for sure exactly how much leash the Beards gave their scribes (and if that changed from scribe to scribe). It's pretty amazing how different the two scripts really are despite the abundances of superficial similarities. It'll be fascinating to see one of Nathanson's drafts should it ever surface.
 
Last edited:

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Udvarnoky said:
I've got to remove some egg from my face - my memory was that the Spalko/Mac scene took place right after Indy knocked out Dovchenko, rather than before, but upon checking the script again, you are correct. Given that, it's now harder for me to imagine that Spielberg would have cut it for pacing purposes (if that was the reason) without seeing how it would have played out. Maybe he balked at the idea of two extended dialog scenes in a row, but I'm more inclined to agree with you that its existence would have been justifed.

Well, "obligation" is too strong - I'm speculating about what might have been Spielberg's head. I'm thinking of the extended sequence in Temple of Doom that starts with the fuel being drained from the plane and ending with the arrival at the village - there is no lull indulged in during that insanity. It's possible that Spielberg was attempting to achieve something along those lines. Since I don't think the final result had the breathlessness that it should have, I'm inclined to agree with you about restoring the lost dialog - there was nothing to lose and everything to gain - but we don't know how it played in the assembly cut.

That Temple of Doom sequence is a fair comparison, but since it's a lengthier action sequence running from the beginning of the jungle chase through to the conclusion of the waterfalls, the apter sequence to look at seems like the Well of Souls escape/Flying wing fight/truck chase or Pankot mines fight/mine car chase/water/fighting on the cliffs sequences, a strung together section of non-stop action near the end of the film. For anything after the generally good jungle chase and the excellent ants/Dovchenko sequence to succeed as an exciting action bit, it needed some room to breathe, since to fall breathlessly into something that wasn't as good won't do that bit any favors. Indeed, I'd say the perfunctory fighting on the cliffs prior to the rope bridge sequence <I>just barely</I> works, and in order to even work as well as it does is dependent on the presence of Williams's score to carry on the momentum of the prior scenes. Giving the waterfalls sequence solely to Ben Burtt didn't do it any favors. Possibly music would have made it succeed better.

Udvarnoky said:
We also have to consider the runtime when evaluating potential reasons for all these excisions. Not breaching two hours is something Spielberg seems to have been pretty keen on. Some of the cuts were arguably misguided, but as I said, I think the structure of the screenplay placed some good material in places that made it more expendable than it might have been with more organic storytelling. If important exposition is doled out in giant bursts, there's really no way to cut such a scene, and some quality "little moments" have to get the axe as a consequence. Koepp's approach leaves very little options for targets when it comes time to trim the movie down.

I agree that runtime was probably a major factor in these choices. To make sure I'm grasping your point here: is your thought that if exposition were better mixed in with the little moments, that it would be less possible to throw out the little moments? Or are you saying something else?

Udvarnoky said:
I assume by Darabont you mean Koepp here.

Naturally.

Udvarnoky said:
True to my reputation as the resident crank, I take issue with pretty much every exposition scene, though I'd say the ones in the cell and the crypt are the chief offenders, largely because they're in the service of this mini-mystery story that doesn't actually go anywhere.

That's true. I think the scene in the cell has an effectively moody tone, but once taking the step further to consider whether it is in service of anything worthwhile, I have to concede that it isn't. The whole mystery of when the aliens, the Spaniards, and Oxley were in any given place is too convoluted to be interesting. This isn't internal to the fact of the aliens or the crystal skull as elements in the backstory, as some claim, but purely as to how they were handled. I'd want to take a look at Saucermen from Mars before actually advancing this claim, but I wonder if some desire to have mystery around the role of aliens in the plot became a liability once they brought in the pre-Colombian as well.

Udvarnoky said:
My problem with the interrogation scene, as I've described before, is simply that every bit of information that it conveys has either already been told to us or is just about to be. Who Spalko is and what she wants has already been well enough established by this point, and there's more coming in the tent scene. Telling us what we've already seen is wasteful, glaring, and very disruptive to the movie's flow. Furthermore, the added emphasis the scene places on the Indy vs. The Feds subplot effectively functions as a setup to something that does not pay off in the ending, which is content to just imply that Indy's been cleared, somehow. Stanforth telling Indy he's been fired, the ensuing ruminations at Indy's home, and the Better Red Than Dead protest at the college all effectively anchor the paranoia theme. Finally, Indiana Jones and the Mushroom Cloud was absolutely the perfect closing visual to the prologue.

And I'm forced to agree with you here as well. Having been around here for years and various "Indy under suspicion" and "corrupt feds" elements having been appealingly discussed, I was predisposed to enjoy those portions of the film since they gestured towards something that some of us liked. However, in the event that there is ever a fifth film, and even if there isn't, the lack of conclusion to the "Indy under suspicion" thread squanders a good idea.

I also agree that the mushroom cloud would be a great ending to that sequence. The thing is, I feel that Indy's interaction with the feds would still need to be something that happened within the story, albeit not on-screen. The scrubbing adds some added plausibility to Indy surviving the bomb. Embedding the references to Indy's wartime service entirely in his interactions with Mac might have proved confusing. Most significantly, Indy's being fired from the university requires knowledge on somebody's part, most likely the feds prior to Marshall itself, of Indy's presence and involvement in what happened at the warehouse. Still, even that could have been glossed over without an interrogation. (I would regret the loss of General Ross, since we had so few bit characters in this film compared to the others, what with the over-inflated main cast, but so it goes.)

Udvarnoky said:
The Stanforth scenes are good, no real qualms there. I think the "First dad, then Marcus, then Shorty in that industrial accident" part was a little bit too on-the-nose, but I recognize that Connery dropped out after being written into the script. And I'm also with you that cutting the Stanforth dialog that they did was a mistake. And while it may not have moved the plot along enough to justify its existing, I thought Darabont wrote a very touching little scene where Indy says goodbye to his class that might have been carried over.

That Darabont scene was pretty good. There's some nice tonal work in this passage of the film - Indy looking around as he boards the train is quite effective - and there was room for it. Still, the Stanforth dialogue would be worth keeping first.

Udvarnoky said:
The diner exposition for me is more about the content of the exposition rather than it presenting pacing issue. Here is the scene where we're told about Oxley and how he has key relationships with all these characters in addition to being a crystal skull authority. Here is where we learn that Mutt's mom "Mary" (really?) has been kidnapped. This is the scene, in short, that's supposed to supply us with the impetus for Indy to go to Peru, and that impetus is for Indy to save some guy whom we don't know and have never seen, and a lady that Indy doesn't realize he knows. It's not that we don't buy it as a motivation, but that as motivation it's pretty weak sauce in comparison to the previous films. Why is it necessary to invent Oxley, and why couldn't Mutt have just said, "My Mom, Mary Ravenwood, has been kidnapped?" Then we're all on board. Concealing Marion's identity is a secret for the sake of it.

Well, we didn't know Marion or Henry Sr. yet either, but the Ravenwoods were treated with the appropriate subtle seriousness and Henry Sr. is Indy's father, so they managed both of those problems well.

Secrets for the sake of them are the name of the game in this script. They can't reveal that Mary Williams is Marion Ravenwood until they're good and ready. They can't out and out acknowledge that they're dealing with aliens even though it's pretty obvious from the get go, and need to invent a convoluted backstory to cover up for it. They add in this half-baked "triple agent" storyline for Mac so as to give him something to do at the end of the film, while getting absolutely nothing (save that "Indy's going to kill Mac" moment at the top of the one pyramid) from the dramatic irony of us knowing Mac is dropping the diodes while Indy doesn't. Only the reveal of Mutt being Indy's son was necessary to hold over until later, so they don't just drop the progeny in the audience's lap from the character's first scene.

The whole "Oxley as Henry Sr." element of the film, in which it was his knowledge and his obsession that lead Indy and his merry band to achieve what they do is regrettable. I like the riddles, the Milton, and the pictograms, but it's all rather on the nose as a translation of Last Crusade elements into Crystal Skull. Indeed, the scene in the cell and the Venice library scene probably bear a closer resemblance to each other than any other pair of scenes in the series.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Continuing on...

Udvarnoky said:
Based on the draft we have of the Darabont script, my opinion of which doesn't seem to be among the majority here, I'm going to say no. The Beards hand the screenwriter a checklist and their job is write the most entertaining script they can that incorporates all of those things. Koepp would have been given a somewhat different checklist (which included Indy's son, I'd assume) than Darabont, but the evidence suggests that they were both given at least these requirements/suggestions:

- Crystal Skull
- 1950s, Russians (and the associated themes)
- Drag-racing teens in Nevada desert
- Area 51 warehouse
- Rocket sled
- Doomtown
- Nazca lines
- Lost city in the Amazon
- Giant, flesh-eating ants
- Waterfalls

The screenwriter must have at least some input on the story, of course, as we know reprising Marion, and by implication the wedding, was Darabont's contribution. There's possibly an argument to be made that the screenwriters were burdened with too long a checklist for this particular movie given the years in gestation, but it's hard to know for sure exactly how much leash the Beards gave their scribes (and if that changed from scribe to scribe). It's pretty amazing how different the two scripts really are despite the abundances of superficial similarities. It'll be fascinating to see one of Nathanson's drafts should it ever surface.

Yeah, I'd love to see Nathanson's draft. I dug up some of your old commentary on the Darabont draft, and I mostly agree with it, with exceptions. I think it could go point for point with Koepp's script as far as hackneyed dialogue goes, for example.

Looking at the list of elements, they really do all seem like things that ought to work rather well together. One could jettison the drag racing teens, since they're irrelevant, and waterfalls are too good an idea to use as cheaply as they did in both of these scripts, but other than that, it's a good set.
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Yeah, I'd love to see Nathanson's draft.
I thought I'd mention this real quick before I left out the door, but for those of you who don't know, I have a huge interest in the Nathanson draft. I've actually spent a lot of time trying to track it down and getting info on what it was. After a lot of research here is what I can tell you:

Nathanson was hired primarily because he is thought of as a character writer, not an action writer. Nathanson's action writing was very general and was really written that way because Steven said, "I can just fill it in with moments". The Darabont draft was liked by Steven and Harrison but thought it could be touched up. Lucas rejected it. After Lucas tried to rewrite Darabont, Nathanson was hired... at first to touch up Darabont, then it was decided to do a page 1 rewrite. From what I've pieced together Nathanson introduced the "son" aspect but as the "nerdy son" that we've heard about from the dvd features.
I may be very close to acquiring a copy, if the guy I'm talking to isn't full of sh!t


I'm a bit rushed for time. Will comment more later.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
I agree that runtime was probably a major factor in these choices. To make sure I'm grasping your point here: is your thought that if exposition were better mixed in with the little moments, that it would be less possible to throw out the little moments? Or are you saying something else?

It's less about how well the characters moments are blended in with the exposition and more about how the exposition is simply too bulky and overwritten in nature. The movie cannot seem to convey information without grinding to a complete halt. The problem with the majority of this movie's big dialog scenes is that they don't HAVE to be big dialog scenes, but because they're designed as such they're almost impervious to being cut down because vital information is nested inside all the haranguing. The information overload we get in Orellana's crypt, for example, is peculiar for its location in the movie and for what it really contributes to the overarching story, but you can't just cut it out either.

I do not know why Spielberg chose to cut out some little character moments from the script, such as the lines with Mac at the campsite that would not seem to have been in the way of anything. But if we operate under the assumption that runtime was the motivation, I would observe that the extraordinary unrhythmic way that Koepp paces this movie does conspire to make anything that isn't within the exposition swathes fit for the chopping block. What I'm getting at here is that the structure of the script tied hands to a degree in the editing room. I would have cut and kept different things than the director that I believe would have made the movie better but not inordinately better. Spielberg did lose good material, but it is a rewrite that was needed to save this movie, not a different edit, however much I may like to see it.

Attila the Professor said:
That's true. I think the scene in the cell has an effectively moody tone, but once taking the step further to consider whether it is in service of anything worthwhile, I have to concede that it isn't. The whole mystery of when the aliens, the Spaniards, and Oxley were in any given place is too convoluted to be interesting. This isn't internal to the fact of the aliens or the crystal skull as elements in the backstory, as some claim, but purely as to how they were handled. I'd want to take a look at Saucermen from Mars before actually advancing this claim, but I wonder if some desire to have mystery around the role of aliens in the plot became a liability once they brought in the pre-Colombian as well.

And I pretty much agree with this. There's probably a decent little mystery story to be mined from those elements, but the script doesn't find it, and it calls into question how justified the scenes in Nazca really are from a narrative standpoint. And it's not like the material in that stretch is thrilling or compelling enough on its own to make up for for the wheel-spinning nature of it (i.e. if there was some slam-bang set piece that happened at the cemetery, the temptation to analyze its plot value would not have been there). Given the assumption that Koepp wasn't able to handle it with more clarity and intrigue, it might have been better to leave the Nazca/conquistadors stuff as an implied subplot, manifesting itself purely in the reference to the Nazca lines and the visual of the dead Spaniards at Akator.

Attila the Professor said:
I also agree that the mushroom cloud would be a great ending to that sequence. The thing is, I feel that Indy's interaction with the feds would still need to be something that happened within the story, albeit not on-screen. The scrubbing adds some added plausibility to Indy surviving the bomb. Embedding the references to Indy's wartime service entirely in his interactions with Mac might have proved confusing. Most significantly, Indy's being fired from the university requires knowledge on somebody's part, most likely the feds prior to Marshall itself, of Indy's presence and involvement in what happened at the warehouse. Still, even that could have been glossed over without an interrogation. (I would regret the loss of General Ross, since we had so few bit characters in this film compared to the others, what with the over-inflated main cast, but so it goes.)

Doesn't Stanforth's line, "You have reason to question your friends these days," imply enough about Indy's adventure at the warehouse being known to the government, at least in light of how much attention the movie ultimately gives this subplot? Give the audience two plus two and let them arrive at four on their own. This movie state too many things that it should be illustrating or implying.

I don't see what would have been confusing about reducing Indy's war background to dialog with Mac. That backstory is completely extraneous in the first place. It's nice to know that Indy served as a colonel in the war and to see General Ross, but that's no justification for the scene. My suspicion is that Spielberg was really attracted to the drama of having Indy's patriotism directly questioned by the Feds, but I think its placement and the amount of redundant information it's held hostage to earns its elimination.

Attila the Professor said:
Well, we didn't know Marion or Henry Sr. yet either, but the Ravenwoods were treated with the appropriate subtle seriousness and Henry Sr. is Indy's father, so they managed both of those problems well.

But in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Ravenwoods were not Indy's motivation to get out of Dodge - the ark itself was. Henry Sr. is a bit more apt a comparison, but in addition to being Indy's dad as opposed to an old friend, the Oxley relationship has got two or three contrivances on it. Above all, he just wasn't necessary - Marion is a good enough reason to bring Indy to South America.

Attila the Professor said:
Secrets for the sake of them are the name of the game in this script. They can't reveal that Mary Williams is Marion Ravenwood until they're good and ready. They can't out and out acknowledge that they're dealing with aliens even though it's pretty obvious from the get go, and need to invent a convoluted backstory to cover up for it.

But that's the thing - they DON'T need a convoluted backstory to cover up the aliens because the movie does NOT keep it a secret. An alien's arm is shown to us in the prologue in a box marked Roswell. The cat's out of the bag in reel one.

Attila the Professor said:
They add in this half-baked "triple agent" storyline for Mac so as to give him something to do at the end of the film, while getting absolutely nothing (save that "Indy's going to kill Mac" moment at the top of the one pyramid) from the dramatic irony of us knowing Mac is dropping the diodes while Indy doesn't. Only the reveal of Mutt being Indy's son was necessary to hold over until later, so they don't just drop the progeny in the audience's lap from the character's first scene.

Agreed. Blowing the "Marion's back!" wad from the get-go does not compromise the son reveal, nor does it tell us anything we didn't already know from glancing at the poster in the theater lobby. The need to keep her identity a secret serves no purpose except to muddle things.

Attila the Professor said:
The whole "Oxley as Henry Sr." element of the film, in which it was his knowledge and his obsession that lead Indy and his merry band to achieve what they do is regrettable. I like the riddles, the Milton, and the pictograms, but it's all rather on the nose as a translation of Last Crusade elements into Crystal Skull. Indeed, the scene in the cell and the Venice library scene probably bear a closer resemblance to each other than any other pair of scenes in the series.

I'm okay with similarities, but nodding Last Crusade seems to have been the only reason they invented Ox. If you think about it, the only function of Oxley's letter was to have Indy head for Nazca. Once he's there he literally just starts asking around for Oxley. I'm not sure it would have been any less believable to just have Indy and Mutt head to South America (where Mutt knew Marion was captive) on the trail of the Russians and let them get to the skull by their own devices. I've already made a lot of fuss about this movie's inclination to let potential detective work for Indy to tackle get solved for him. Indy and Mutt could still wind up in Chauchilla Cemetery by some other, no less plausible lead.

The existence of Oxley just unncessarily complicates the entire first act of the movie. The whole business with the Russians allowing Marion to call Mutt and mail Oxley's letter to him so that he would bring it to Indy and therefore translate it for them is ridiculous and unneeded. And why do the Russians demand the letter at the diner, anyway, if the idea was to let Indy lead them to the skull? The fact that Indy actually has to say the line of dialog that he does before Mutt tells him to get on the motorcycle is like an admission of guilt on the screenplay's part. They'd have been better off making the bruisers at the diner FBI agents, as Indy initially suspected.

Attila the Professor said:
Looking at the list of elements, they really do all seem like things that ought to work rather well together. One could jettison the drag racing teens, since they're irrelevant, and waterfalls are too good an idea to use as cheaply as they did in both of these scripts, but other than that, it's a good set.

In Darabont's draft, the waterfalls appear in the context of a river chase, so there's at least actually stuff going on. The final movie takes what should have been the element of a scene and makes it the whole scene. I feel the same way about the Ugha warriors.

What Dr. Gonzo said.

Very cool. I'd be fascinated to read what you come back with.
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
Just my 2 cents chaps....

The Waterfalls

TOD and ROTJ seem to have set the template for movies that just keep upping the anti from mid point till end. I think that KOTCS clearly tries to follow this template. I agree, if this is what you?re stating, that the waterfall sequence is simply an amuse bouche to what should be a satisfying Akator section? and I agree that the entire waterfall sequence is underplayed (consciously) by not having some of the usual essential Williams score driving it along. Of course, as the Akator section falls flat/fails to satisfy (would we agree?) it serves to underline the somewhat redundant waterfall scene when viewed in context. I think if the Akator section had been much stronger, the waterfall scene would have seemed less incongruous.

Oxley?s Cell/Orellana?s Tomb

As mentioned previously? I really enjoy these two scenes. 1) Because they show Indy doing some detective work/problem solving. 2) I really like the mood they convey... helped enormously by the lighting, set design and some good Williams scoring. As previously discussed with Udvarnoky, I think Orellana?s tomb is very remisinscent of the catacomb sequence from TLC? as it not only tries to work as a bit of exposition, but also attempts to build the tension throughout. A bit of clunky dialogue aside, what?s probably missing from that scene is a climatic moment e.g. booby trap. I?m sure the collapsing floor scene would have improved it significantly for those who felt it was too expositional/clunky, and it probably would have been a better pay off than just finding the skull.

FBI Interrogation

I too like that scene? not only because it shifts the villainy from the pantomime ?Commies? to US officials/foreign policy, but also because it refers to Indy?s war exploits? and General Ross is a welcome addition to Indy lore. However, given that the FBI?s suspicions of Indy never play out in the rest of the movie, the scene is somewhat redundant in context. It?s a shame because a 30 second scene of Indy being exonerated in a hearing (in wedding suit ready to run to the church) probably would have been enough, in a superficial way, to justify some of those elements left hanging?.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
We already know the movie is about aliens once they uncover it in the warehouse, so there is no mystery there. However I think that they were trying a double bluff here. In the original Indy movies the opening scenes have Indy searching for something that is nothing to do with the rest of the story. Yet it turns out that the start of KOTCS is related to the main story, that being aliens. I actually sat there in the cinema and thought, please don’t let the rest be about aliens, trying to convince myself that was just a traditional Indy start to a movie.

The interrogation is purely there to fill in the gaps as to what Indy has been doing in the preceding years since TLC, question his loyalty and then explain Indys involvement in the opening scenes due to the Roswell incident. Half way through the scene Indys voice changes and it becomes almost like a voice over, I was expecting some flashbacks at this point. Do they need to explain what Indy’s been doing? I don’t think so. My assumption was that he has still being lecturing and globetrotting. Do they need to then question his patriotism? I think this was just a story device to ensure he was then removed from his job to free him up for the adventure ahead.

We get more another exposition in Indys house. Spoon feeding us why Sean Connery and Denholm Elliott aren’t in the movie, I didn’t think their story deaths added any emotional depth for me. Sometimes I think some things are better left unsaid and viewers are treated like idiots.

The diner scene and the introduction of Mutt to then then give us the reason for Indys involvement, in my mind should be the equivalent to the US army officials meeting Indy & Marcus, the Shamens speech in TOD or the meeting in Donovans apartment. All simple scenes that leave us in no doubt about what Indy is after. But after the diner scene, is Indy after a skull, Oxley or a strangers mum who at that time he doesn’t know and has been kidnapped?

I would suggest that being in search of Marion should have been Indy’s motivation to get involved. I would of brought into that. And as we’ve discussed before with the SW movies, Lucas has managed to shoehorn in an old character again and in this case turned her into a comedy sideshow instead of the strong character she was in ROTLA. I think the search for Marion could have been more emotional than it actually turned out to be, (the reunion was cringeworthy), and the crystal skull then becomes a side issue to the story. I guess much in the same way the grail became to Indys search for his dad. But as the story stands in KOTCS it’s too muddled for me. Whats the whole point of the skull?

Oxleys cell - the first step in the puzzle, the equivalent of the Venice catacombs or the library maybe? But they seem to stumble over the clues presented and its all too simple to end up at the cradle conclusion. The graveyard scene I really like and as Darth said, it’s just missing an Indy booby trap, and the set is suitably creepy. The only let down on the story side is the fact that the skull is already there and its easily found without any kind of jeopardy. Again from here, what is Indys motivation. Get the skull back? Find the mother? Find Oxley?

I think the story tries to fit in all 3 and from then on throw in too many characters, including a totally pointless and redundant Oxley, and at the end its all too much going on in my opinion. The other 3 film stories seem more clear cut or at least more subtle in TLC case with Indys father being the holy grail to me.

Of course theres a rather embarassing performance from Karen Allen, with her being asked to be the equivalent of Marcus in TLC and provide some unfunny light relief. A pointless jungle escape scene, the reveal of the father / son, overlong waterfall scene, the lack of an epic feel and scope to the film.

I may be totally off the mark here by saying this but its almost as if the story took so long in getting approved that eventually they all decided, "f*ck it - lets go with this one just to get the movie out".

There is still lots to enjoy in the film, but I think some of the story issues, wasted or unnecessary characters (which were my main gripes) could very easily of been sorted out to make it a better movie though.
 

Darth Vile

New member
AndyLGR said:
We already know the movie is about aliens once they uncover it in the warehouse, so there is no mystery there. However I think that they were trying a double bluff here. In the original Indy movies the opening scenes have Indy searching for something that is nothing to do with the rest of the story. Yet it turns out that the start of KOTCS is related to the main story, that being aliens. I actually sat there in the cinema and thought, please don?t let the rest be about aliens, trying to convince myself that was just a traditional Indy start to a movie.
I'm assuming you went into the movie 'unspoiled'?

AndyLGR said:
We get more another exposition in Indys house. Spoon feeding us why Sean Connery and Denholm Elliott aren?t in the movie, I didn?t think their story deaths added any emotional depth for me. Sometimes I think some things are better left unsaid and viewers are treated like idiots.
I think they used the demise of those characters to underscore Indy's isolation from life. He has no wife or children (at that point) and his emotional connections are being severed. I think the intent is clear, even if the result is underplayed and/or unsuccessful. Of course, the fact that the father/son dynamic between Indy and Mutt is always underplayed (and you certainly don't get a sense of resolution as you did with Indy/Henry Jones Snr.) brings into question why they would want to show Indy isolated anyways.

AndyLGR said:
The diner scene and the introduction of Mutt to then then give us the reason for Indys involvement, in my mind should be the equivalent to the US army officials meeting Indy & Marcus, the Shamens speech in TOD or the meeting in Donovans apartment. All simple scenes that leave us in no doubt about what Indy is after. But after the diner scene, is Indy after a skull, Oxley or a strangers mum who at that time he doesn?t know and has been kidnapped?

I thought it was clear that Indy's involvement was due to Oxley's kidnapping. At that point, the skull and Mary Williams were largely inconsequential to Indy (or that's how it appeared to me at least).

AndyLGR said:
I would suggest that being in search of Marion should have been Indy?s motivation to get involved. I would of brought into that. And as we?ve discussed before with the SW movies, Lucas has managed to shoehorn in an old character again and in this case turned her into a comedy sideshow instead of the strong character she was in ROTLA. I think the search for Marion could have been more emotional than it actually turned out to be, (the reunion was cringeworthy), and the crystal skull then becomes a side issue to the story. I guess much in the same way the grail became to Indys search for his dad. But as the story stands in KOTCS it?s too muddled for me. Whats the whole point of the skull?
I think that, even if not a mystery to the audience (for Spielberg/Lucas at least), Marion's reveal in the camp scene is a pivotal moment. To what extent it's really required for the story is more open to debate... but I thought it was a good scene.

AndyLGR said:
Oxleys cell - the first step in the puzzle, the equivalent of the Venice catacombs or the library maybe? But they seem to stumble over the clues presented and its all too simple to end up at the cradle conclusion. The graveyard scene I really like and as Darth said, it?s just missing an Indy booby trap, and the set is suitably creepy. The only let down on the story side is the fact that the skull is already there and its easily found without any kind of jeopardy. Again from here, what is Indys motivation. Get the skull back? Find the mother? Find Oxley?
I think TLC has to win the prize for Indy stumbling across an easy solution (the library scene springs immediately to mind). ;)

AndyLGR said:
I may be totally off the mark here by saying this but its almost as if the story took so long in getting approved that eventually they all decided, "f*ck it - lets go with this one just to get the movie out".
The result of the beards aiming to please I think. The movie is full of compromises be it steering away from the Mccarthyism element too quickly/easily... to the lack of fully embracing the alien theme. Also, Spielberg (and probably Ford?) wanting to make a movie that had the same tropes as the others, in order to make it friendly/accessible to the masses, doesn't help make the movie stand out.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Darth Vile said:
I'm assuming you went into the movie 'unspoiled'?
Absolutely and it killed me to try and keep away from any spoiler material beforehand.

Darth Vile said:
Of course, the fact that the father/son dynamic between Indy and Mutt is always underplayed (and you certainly don't get a sense of resolution as you did with Indy/Henry Jones Snr.) brings into question why they would want to show Indy isolated anyways.
One of the most satisfying aspects of TLC for me is that screen relationship between Indy and his father. I think I cared more about that, but the same wasn't generated in KOTCS. Maybe they didn't want to generate that either.

Darth Vile said:
I think that, even if not a mystery to the audience (for Spielberg/Lucas at least), Marion's reveal in the camp scene is a pivotal moment. To what extent it's really required for the story is more open to debate... but I thought it was a good scene.
I think it should of been a pivotal moment, and was probably intended to be that way. But the comedic value of it wasn't something that worked in that instance I felt. Its didn't seem to fit right.

Darth Vile said:
I think TLC has to win the prize for Indy stumbling across an easy solution (the library scene springs immediately to mind). ;)
Yes very true (y) I just felt the cell scene was like a game of charades in blurting out the clues left to arrive at the conclusion.

Darth Vile said:
The movie is full of compromises be it steering away from the Mccarthyism element too quickly/easily... to the lack of fully embracing the alien theme. Also, Spielberg (and probably Ford?) wanting to make a movie that had the same tropes as the others, in order to make it friendly/accessible to the masses, doesn't help make the movie stand out.
I totally agree. I'd like to think that these short coming would be addressed in a 5th movie. And they are very lucky in the fact that Indy is a franchise that could generate another movie. KOTCS throws up many good things but also some things that are wrong with some of the modern day blockbusters in terms of story, characters, effects and sometimes just hanging stuff on to a large set piece. Maybe its just me looking through rose tinted glasses, but the originals didn't feel like that to me.
 

Darth Vile

New member
AndyLGR said:
Absolutely and it killed me to try and keep away from any spoiler material beforehand.
You clearly have much more will power than me my friend… :hat:
I’m even finding it difficult to keep away from Prometheus spoilers at the mo.


AndyLGR said:
One of the most satisfying aspects of TLC for me is that screen relationship between Indy and his father. I think I cared more about that, but the same wasn't generated in KOTCS. Maybe they didn't want to generate that either. .
Without doubt the dynamic between Shia and Ford isn’t the same as Ford and Connery. Some of that is from the page, but mostly (IMHO) it’s actually Connery’s charisma and what that fuels in terms of Ford’s performance and Spielberg’s direction. Spielberg is on fire when directing Connery... and I don't think Ford has ever been as good as he is when acting with him.


AndyLGR said:
I think it should of been a pivotal moment, and was probably intended to be that way. But the comedic value of it wasn't something that worked in that instance I felt. Its didn't seem to fit right. .
I personally find that scene the most reminiscent of the Indy/Marion relationship in Raiders… but I’m a sucker for nostalgia. ;)


AndyLGR said:
Yes very true (y) I just felt the cell scene was like a game of charades in blurting out the clues left to arrive at the conclusion. .
It’s certainly not the Da Vinci code that’s for sure, but does seem to be somewhat in keeping with the other movies (for me anyway).


AndyLGR said:
I totally agree. I'd like to think that these short coming would be addressed in a 5th movie. And they are very lucky in the fact that Indy is a franchise that could generate another movie. KOTCS throws up many good things but also some things that are wrong with some of the modern day blockbusters in terms of story, characters, effects and sometimes just hanging stuff on to a large set piece. Maybe its just me looking through rose tinted glasses, but the originals didn't feel like that to me.
I think we all tend to use rose tinted glasses when observing Indiana Jones movies… we are fans after all. The problem is, I think, that movies reflect the age they were made… Ironically, we all want a new Indy movie to be like the old ones… but the more it attempts to be, the less relevant it appears. Perhaps KOTCS isn’t as good as the other Indy sequels, but when I watch well-received modern blockbusters such as Iron Man, Thor, Sherlock Holmes and X-Men etc. KOTCS compares pretty favorably in my humble opinion.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Darth Vile said:
I think we all tend to use rose tinted glasses when observing Indiana Jones movies… we are fans after all. The problem is, I think, that movies reflect the age they were made… Ironically, we all want a new Indy movie to be like the old ones… but the more it attempts to be, the less relevant it appears. Perhaps KOTCS isn’t as good as the other Indy sequels, but when I watch well-received modern blockbusters such as Iron Man, Thor, Sherlock Holmes and X-Men etc. KOTCS compares pretty favorably in my humble opinion.
Yep, for me it fell into the modern day trap of being another blockbuster with seemingly very little substance to it and a rather poor story. But the frustrating part is that we know how good the Indy movies could be. I have no qualms with them making an Indy movie like an old style Indy movie, whether thats relevant in todays cinema or not I don't really mind. I just want to see a good Indy movie, and after all theres the nostalgia factor and the quality of the original 3 that will draw people back, not necessarily the desire to see an updated Indy / Bourne hybrid modern action movie.

I quite enjoyed Sherlock Holmes though :cool:
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Of course, as the Akator section falls flat/fails to satisfy (would we agree?) it serves to underline the somewhat redundant waterfall scene when viewed in context. I think if the Akator section had been much stronger, the waterfall scene would have seemed less incongruous.

Speaking for myself here, the objection with the waterfalls is neither redundancy nor incongruity. It is undeveloped, which puts it rather nicely in line with other elements in the film. A better third act would have made it stand out even more, I think. Still, the scene is what it is, and considering how self-contained it is I don't really know how much a slave it really is to context.

Darth Vile said:
I too like that scene? not only because it shifts the villainy from the pantomime ?Commies? to US officials/foreign policy, but also because it refers to Indy?s war exploits?

Reference to either of those things would not have been lost with the interrogation scene.

Darth Vile said:
However, given that the FBI?s suspicions of Indy never play out in the rest of the movie, the scene is somewhat redundant in context. It?s a shame because a 30 second scene of Indy being exonerated in a hearing (in wedding suit ready to run to the church) probably would have been enough, in a superficial way, to justify some of those elements left hanging?.

What you suggest is pretty much what Darabont did with the Eisenhower scene, but the difference there is that an FBI agent was actually part of the entourage, so it makes sense that he could have cleared Indy. Given the final movie's story, I don't know that a perfunctory exoneration scene at the end would be any better than what they actually went with. The issue would remain: how did he get exonerated? Perhaps Mac could have played this role in a rewrite, one in which his involvement with the CIA was legit.

Darth Vile said:
I thought it was clear that Indy's involvement was due to Oxley's kidnapping.

That it's what got him off the train is the only thing that's clear to me. Once Indy (and the audience) gets all these revelations in the diner, it might have been useful to know where Indy's mind was at. If we know the main thing that's driving him, we're in a better position to get behind it. Throwing all these potential motivators at us is far inferior to simply depicting Indy emotionally invested in a single one.

Darth Vile said:
I think TLC has to win the prize for Indy stumbling across an easy solution (the library scene springs immediately to mind). ;)

It is a nice gag and a payoff to an earlier line of dialog, though.

Darth Vile said:
It?s certainly not the Da Vinci code that?s for sure, but does seem to be somewhat in keeping with the other movies (for me anyway).

In my mind, The Da Vinci Code is the polar opposite of what an Indiana Jones movie should aspire to be, so I join you in not lamenting any dissimilarities.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Oxley?s Cell/Orellana?s Tomb

As mentioned previously? I really enjoy these two scenes.
To me, the scene where they find the skull in Orellana's Tomb is extremely dull.:sleep: In fact, so dull that, each of the 3 times I saw it in the theatre, I began to doze off...even on opening night!:eek:
AndyLGR said:
We get more another exposition in Indys house. Spoon feeding us why Sean Connery and Denholm Elliott aren?t in the movie, I didn?t think their story deaths added any emotional depth for me. Sometimes I think some things are better left unsaid and viewers are treated like idiots.
Darth Vile said:
I think they used the demise of those characters to underscore Indy's isolation from life. He has no wife or children (at that point) and his emotional connections are being severed. I think the intent is clear, even if the result is underplayed and/or unsuccessful. Of course, the fact that the father/son dynamic between Indy and Mutt is always underplayed (and you certainly don't get a sense of resolution as you did with Indy/Henry Jones Snr.) brings into question why they would want to show Indy isolated anyways.
@Andy: Mentioning briefly why Henry & Marcus are not there didn't seem 'spoon-fed' to me. The explanation is only a couple of short lines.

@Darth: In my mind, Indy has always come across as "isolated" so I found the scene with The Dean at Indy's house to be very in-character and one of the meatier parts of the movie.
Darth Vile said:
I think that, even if not a mystery to the audience (for Spielberg/Lucas at least), Marion's reveal in the camp scene is a pivotal moment. To what extent it's really required for the story is more open to debate... but I thought it was a good scene.
Goodness gracious. The reunion scene with Marion was TERRIBLE and I absolutely HATE it. Many people gripe about the fridge, Tarzan swings, etc. but Marion's intro is embarrassingly AWFUL and loathsome!(n) (The only other non-action part that is more cringeworthy is the sandpit scene.:sick:)
AndyLGR said:
Absolutely and it killed me to try and keep away from any spoiler material beforehand.
Spoilers were something I actively tried to avoid but eventually succombed to. As a result, there were very few surprises in the film. Looking back, I wonder what my perception would have been had I known nothing. Would I have liked it more or did the spoilers prepare me beforehand for the stupid moments?

Here's an old thread from June 2008: How much did you know going in?
 

Darth Vile

New member
Stoo said:
To me, the scene where they find the skull in Orellana's Tomb is extremely dull.:sleep: In fact, so dull that, each of the 3 times I saw it in the theatre, I began to doze off...even on opening night!:eek:
You sure that wasn't the alcohol? ;)

Stoo said:
In my mind, Indy has always come across as "isolated" so I found the scene with The Dean at Indy's house to be very in-character and one of the meatier parts of the movie.
I'd agree... although his detachment in the earlier movies can be put down to his adventurer/bachelor lifestyle; whereas his isolation in KOTCS seems fuelled by regret and perhaps loneliness???

Stoo said:
Goodness gracious. The reunion scene with Marion was TERRIBLE and I absolutely HATE it. Many people gripe about the fridge, Tarzan swings, etc. but Marion's intro is embarrassingly AWFUL and loathsome!(n) (The only other non-action part that is more cringeworthy is the sandpit scene.:sick:)
Goodness gracious indeed. Just goes to show that "another mans meat"... :)
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
You sure that wasn't the alcohol? ;)
Bwa-ha! Yes, I'm quite sure, Darthy.:D The discovery of the skull in Orellana's tomb was a snooze-fest.:sleep: Alcohol or not! (Anyone who has trouble sleeping at night, pop in the DVD and jump to that chapter. You'll be sleeping like a baby within a minute!:p)
Darth Vile said:
I'd agree... although his detachment in the earlier movies can be put down to his adventurer/bachelor lifestyle; whereas his isolation in KOTCS seems fuelled by regret and perhaps loneliness???
Yes and No. While I'd like to elaborate on this topic, it is good fodder for a thread of its own. (Will try to find a thread that deals with this so we don't derail this one.)
Darth Vile said:
Goodness gracious indeed. Just goes to show that "another mans meat"... :)
Heh. "Each to his own sewage". I can't believe you actually like the Marion reunion scene. Indy's reaction to first seeing her was goofy and Marion's attitude towards him was absurd. She told Mutt to find the guy and when he's actually there, she dismisses Indy's presence and then insults him.:confused: One would think that Marion would be relieved to see the man (whom she sent for) in the bowels of Peru but, instead, she flips him off! The scene is awful.

P.S. I'm not a "Skull" hater but there are parts of it that I DESPISE (and this thread is supposed to be about HATE).:p
 
Top