Why is it "cool" to hate on KOTCS?

gabbagabbahey

New member
Mickiana said:
I like to analyse the pluck out of it. That's why I enjoy coming here and reading everyone else's opinions and analyses. I do it to religion too. It's not enough to just like something. I have to know why.:gun: Oy vont tu no evryting!


I hear ya. It's the modern version of sitting around the wood stove at the county store BSing. : )
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
gabbagabbahey said:
Exactly. I've always thought it was funny how some fans got so wound up about how unbelievable flying saucers and the blast were in Skull. It's all just good popcorn entertainment IMO.

For me it's not about the implausible plot devices, it's about the phoned-it-in feeling I get when I see a laundry list of characters with relatively little import, poorly written and executed dialogue, action sequences depending on gluttonous amounts of CGI, and an attempt to relate to kids with slapstick humor. This film stank of excessive budget and egos, and there was no sense of risk or reward to the story itself. I was intrigued by the MacGuffin but felt like they went absolutely nowhere with it. When you first see the Ark, the Sankara stones, and the grail, you feel a sense of wonder. When I saw the skull, I was completely underwhelmed because there was no real sense of history and significance behind it. It was basically a big refridgerator magnet that coins and other crap wanted to stick to.

To sum this up, the film sucked. When you have the luxury of spending copious amounts of time and money on a project, it tends to accumulate "fluff." Lucas throws money rather than intellect at projects these days and assumes it will impress audiences. When you're struggling to make a name for yourself and every second, dollar, and moment counts, that's when genius is born. It's true of everything in life. That's why we hate on it, not because hating on it for the sake of hating on it is "cool."
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
Oh, our magnificent bastard...




...Mutt Williams.

"Cool". It's all a matter of perspective.

111.jpg


brando1.jpg


Things are also only "cool" when viewed from the perspective of an adherent.

There will be always be some who believe it's "cool to hate on KOTCS", just as there will always be some who believe it's "uncool to hate on KOTCS".

This question can only be answered by the haters. But it won't be an answer that will satsify the lovers.

So the argument will continue. Just remember to feed the stove once in a while, or the only warm place will be in the banana islands! ;)
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Remember the mimicry that Raiders inspired? It was a movie you wanted to mimic and could mimic. Like those guys and gal did when they filmed their own version over seven years or so. You'd know you made something good if it has these types of effects on people. Does CS inspire in this way?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Only if the conversation became so engrossing that nobody remembered to feed the stove.
Or if folks get too delirious...like when Indy forgot to feed the stove in the Congo, 1916.

Zachariah Sloat: "The fire needs stokin', sonny. Better hop to it, lad."

About 6 months ago in The Haters thread, Rocket posted (#92) about the stupid, "HeckleVision" screenings of "Skull", where the audience sends text messages and their deriding comments appear on-screen while the film plays. This has to be one of the most UN-COOLEST things I've ever heard of. What kind of a LOSERS would $pend their money on a ticket (again) to go see a movie they hate?:rolleyes:
 
Stoo said:
Or if folks get too delirious...like when Indy forgot to feed the stove in the Congo, 1916.

Zachariah Sloat: "The fire needs stokin', sonny. Better hop to it, lad."

About 6 months ago in The Haters thread, Rocket posted (#92) about the stupid, "HeckleVision" screenings of "Skull", where the audience sends text messages and their deriding comments appear on-screen while the film plays. This has to be one of the most UN-COOLEST things I've ever heard of. What kind of a LOSERS would $pend their money on a ticket (again) to go see a movie they hate?:rolleyes:

I think that's brilliant! What a great idea! Seriously, it would be fantastic to go to a screening like that.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
Or if folks get too delirious...like when Indy forgot to feed the stove in the Congo, 1916.

Zachariah Sloat: "The fire needs stokin', sonny. Better hop to it, lad."

Nice connection! (y)

Stoo said:
About 6 months ago in The Haters thread, Rocket posted (#92) about the stupid, "HeckleVision" screenings of "Skull", where the audience sends text messages and their deriding comments appear on-screen while the film plays. This has to be one of the most UN-COOLEST things I've ever heard of. What kind of a LOSERS would $pend their money on a ticket (again) to go see a movie they hate?:rolleyes:

That is a pretty irrational thing to do. (n)
 

Stoo

Well-known member
replican't said:
I think that's brilliant! What a great idea! Seriously, it would be fantastic to go to a screening like that.
Would you actually pay money to attend a "HeckleVision" screening of Indy 4?:confused: Buying a ticket in order to read/text messages about a film you hate, while watching it, doesn't exactly come across as cool. Especially when the room would be filled with a bunch of pale, pony-tailed, pimple-popping, nose-picking, fat guys wearing Wolverine T-shirts that are 2 sizes too small and are in dire need of a good shower & shave. Imagine the stink!:sick:
Montana Smith said:
That is a pretty irrational thing to do.(n)
"Irrational" is hardly the word.:p
 

Indy's brother

New member
Montana Smith said:
there is a difference between magic and a kitchen appliance. If it was a magical kitchen appliance there wouldn't be an issue, but this one tests the imagination.

This is far and away the best analysis of The Fridge that I have read in 3 years.

:hat:
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Stoo said:
Or if folks get too delirious...like when Indy forgot to feed the stove in the Congo, 1916.

Zachariah Sloat: "The fire needs stokin', sonny. Better hop to it, lad."

About 6 months ago in The Haters thread, Rocket posted (#92) about the stupid, "HeckleVision" screenings of "Skull", where the audience sends text messages and their deriding comments appear on-screen while the film plays. This has to be one of the most UN-COOLEST things I've ever heard of. What kind of a LOSERS would $pend their money on a ticket (again) to go see a movie they hate?:rolleyes:


I'd pay to do that in a heartbeat. I'd pay more if I thought George Lucas would be strapped to a metal chair and forced to read each and every comment as a painful electrical jolt from a car battery accompanied each.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
HovitosKing said:
I'd pay to do that in a heartbeat. I'd pay more if I thought George Lucas would be strapped to a metal chair and forced to read each and every comment as a painful electrical jolt from a car battery accompanied each.
Hey, Hovitos...only George Lucas strapped to an electric chair? What about Steven Spielberg?
 

Darth Vile

New member
HovitosKing said:
For me it's not about the implausible plot devices, it's about the phoned-it-in feeling I get when I see a laundry list of characters with relatively little import, poorly written and executed dialogue, action sequences depending on gluttonous amounts of CGI, and an attempt to relate to kids with slapstick humor. This film stank of excessive budget and egos, and there was no sense of risk or reward to the story itself. I was intrigued by the MacGuffin but felt like they went absolutely nowhere with it. When you first see the Ark, the Sankara stones, and the grail, you feel a sense of wonder. When I saw the skull, I was completely underwhelmed because there was no real sense of history and significance behind it. It was basically a big refridgerator magnet that coins and other crap wanted to stick to.

To sum this up, the film sucked. When you have the luxury of spending copious amounts of time and money on a project, it tends to accumulate "fluff." Lucas throws money rather than intellect at projects these days and assumes it will impress audiences. When you're struggling to make a name for yourself and every second, dollar, and moment counts, that's when genius is born. It's true of everything in life. That's why we hate on it, not because hating on it for the sake of hating on it is "cool."

So whilst what you state in your first paragraph may or may not be the case (and I personally don’t feel that’s the case whilst accepting there is always an element of truth with any critique), I think you’re being way too emotional and scatter gun in your criticism. Re. the Macguffins… The Ark reveal was far more elaborate than that of the crystal skull. It had a bigger build up, but that’s what the story necessitated. So I’d agree – the Ark had more sense of “wonder”, but we did get to see what it was capable of; the skull not so much. However, I think the Sankara stones were perfunctory at best… and for me, the worst Macguffin of the Indy series to date.... and that's where we see the lumping together of all 3 original Indy movies as a work of genius, rather than looking at them individually and on their own merits.

Your second paragraph is a sweeping generalization which natural conclusion seems to be that works of genius can only come from struggling artists. I don’t agree. It’s never as black and white as that. Necessity is the mother of invention… New ways of doing things can be found, by design or default, when economic factors are first and foremost in mind - which can lead to newer, less established artists being perceived as innovators, radical thinkers etc. etc. However, that doesn’t negate the work of those already out there and doing it.
 
Top