The Haters thread

Darth Vile

New member
AlivePoet said:
Interesting, Stoo...didn't gather that from your posts. Or maybe I thought you were playing devil's advocate while defending it. I'm curious, which parts do you truly despise (or enjoy, for that matter)?

I'd agree with Stoo on this. My percpetion is that opinions, on both sides, have shifted slowly to the middle ground. There certainly doesn't seem to be the same amount of hate... more expressed dissapointment I'd say. Also, IMHO, it seems most here (given some distance from the movies initial release) are able to acknowledge the good/better elements of KOTCS (be it just the warehouse scene or 'Ants!' etc.) even if they still dislike the overall movie.
 

The_Raiders

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
This shouldn't be about changing or picking a side. I don't see it as a competition. If you like it, great... if you don't, then that's cool too. I'd only ever look to defend something if I thought the charges were unjust and/or unwarranted (regardless of me personal views)... and even then I wouldn't see it as a defence, rather it's about questioning the charges. :)


It was the best way I could put it. Through out time, the more I look back on it the more things I see that I don't like about it. There are things that I do enjoy about it. But more and more I'm finding it less memorable, and less appealing than I did when it first came out. ;)
 

Stoo

Well-known member
AlivePoet said:
Interesting, Stoo...didn't gather that from your posts. Or maybe I thought you were playing devil's advocate while defending it. I'm curious, which parts do you truly despise (or enjoy, for that matter)?
The parts I truly despise aren't the usual ones that most people rip apart:

- I loathe Spalko.
- The cemetary guardians and the dumb, animal sounds they make.
- The reunion scene of Marion & Indy.
- The entire sandpit scene. (The worst part of the film, in my opinion.):sick:
- Marion holding the steering wheel at the bottom of the waterfalls.
- Mac deciding to let go of the whip to meet his doom.
AlivePoet said:
Oui! Haven't been posting much lately but I've been around. Mostly observing the amount of hate that people have been shelling out at KOTCS lately. Y'know, the classy conversations. :cool:
There has been a prominent increase in Lucas bashing, as well.
Darth Vile said:
I'd agree with Stoo on this. My percpetion is that opinions, on both sides, have shifted slowly to the middle ground. There certainly doesn't seem to be the same amount of hate... more expressed dissapointment I'd say. Also, IMHO, it seems most here (given some distance from the movies initial release) are able to acknowledge the good/better elements of KOTCS (be it just the warehouse scene or 'Ants!' etc.) even if they still dislike the overall movie.
Many of the extreme haters have gone away but I'm finding that, recently, the vitriol is on the rise amongst regular Ravenheads.
The_Raiders said:
Through out time, the more I look back on it the more things I see that I don't like about it. There are things that I do enjoy about it. But more and more I'm finding it less memorable, and less appealing than I did when it first came out. ;)
I went in with extremely low expectations so it actually turned out better than anticipated.:)
 

The_Raiders

Well-known member
Stoo said:
I went in with extremely low expectations so it actually turned out better than anticipated.:)

I went in with high expectations. I was disappointed from the get go, but tried to convince myself that it was amazing. The fact that a new Indy was coming out seemed like such a huge thing to me at the time and I refused to be let down by it. So I kept trying to convince myself it was just as good as the others, but in my opinion, it's just not.
I don't dislike it, I just don't think it's too great at all. I came to terms with the fact that they just dropped the ball on it. Still think Harrison was great though, and still thought he looked good, even for his age. (y)
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Stoo, I think CS needs vitriol. Vitriol is not an unwarranted thing in my mind. The word pertains to sulphuric acid and other combinations of sulphur in the chemical sense. To attack with vitriol means to sear away with acid. I see it as meaning a severe form of criticism, which CS needs. I do not mean an investment of emotion such as hate. My previous post of saying I am trying to hate it was very much tongue in cheek, but I reckon you know that.

The title of the thread is unwarranted and sensationalistic. It should have been "Balanced critical views of CS" or the like. Boring, but more mature and less likely to attract unbalanced views. Then again I don't know the average age of Raven contributors.

I very much liked your list of the things you despise. Could you elaborate on Spalko and why you despise her. The other ones in the list I understand, especially Mac letting go of the whip. That was like a metaphor for Winstone's whole involvement in the movie. It was like "I'll be right, I'm getting out of this movie right now!"
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
The parts I truly despise aren't the usual ones that most people rip apart:

- I loathe Spalko.

Spalko had a lot of potential to be a femme fatale. There were glimpses, but the writing was too constrained.

Stoo said:
- The cemetary guardians and the dumb, animal sounds they make.

The cemetery was a good set, but the guards appeared to be an unwarranted and illogical addition. I can see the connection if it was to do with the Ed Wood Jr. theme running through the movie.

Stoo said:
- The reunion scene of Marion & Indy.

Marion and the Indy relationship was fairly cheesey throughout.

Stoo said:
- The entire sandpit scene. (The worst part of the film, in my opinion.):sick:

It was probably more lame than anything that ever appeared in an Abbot and Costello movie. It was more of a "What?" moment than the fridge.

Stoo said:
- Marion holding the steering wheel at the bottom of the waterfalls.

See reference to cheese above.

Stoo said:
- Mac deciding to let go of the whip to meet his doom.

Mac was another terribly written character. A really cheap plot device that would have been bad in the worst '80s Saturday morning cartoon.

Stoo said:
There has been a prominent increase in Lucas bashing, as well.

Much of that comes from Lucas' self-flagellation. He practically walks around with a 'Kick Me' label on his back.

Stoo said:
Many of the extreme haters have gone away but I'm finding that, recently, the vitriol is on the rise amongst regular Ravenheads.

The hype for the movie (presumably just because it featured Indiana Jones) is being replaced with reflection on just what it was that 2008 gave us.

Stoo said:
I went in with extremely low expectations so it actually turned out better than anticipated.:)

That was also my experience...

Mickiana said:
The title of the thread is unwarranted and sensationalistic. It should have been "Balanced critical views of CS" or the like. Boring, but more mature and less likely to attract unbalanced views. Then again I don't know the average age of Raven contributors.

...but while it apears more disappointing as time goes on, I've never lambasted it with the full force of hate. My argument all along has been that if there are things you like about a film (inspiration moments), then you can't hate the film. It's something milder, such as dislike or disappointment.
 

Darth Vile

New member
I have to say that I went into KOTCS with the expectation of being dissapointed. My initial thoughts after first viewing were... 'that's probably as good as can be expected given the circumstances'. I've always seen TOD and TLC as being very flawed movies (even if well made and entertaining) and I wasn't expecting anything different from KOTCS - specifically taking into account that, at the time, I was worried about Ford's age and how well that would play for an older Indy... and the evidence which strongly suggested that Spilelberg/Lucas were just re-visiting the genre rather than shaking it up/taking it in a new direction.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
For me it's just deep disappointment. Not hate. I love the film for what it is, a mindlessly fun adventure film and an OK Indiana Jones film...But it could've been much more...I guess a 6.0/10 on an Indy scale? 10 being TOD and Raiders as I can't choose between them, one being absolute sh*t.

TOD: 10/10
Raiders: 10/10
LC: 9.5/10
YIJC (Overall): 8.0/10
KOTCS: 6.0/10

If using the Indy scale for other adventure films, for comparion:
The Mummy (1999): 5.0/10
The Mummy Returns (2001): 3.5/10
Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008): 3.0/10
Tomb Raider (2001): 5.0/10
Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life (2003): 2.5/10
 
Last edited:

Brooke Logan

New member
Raiders112390 said:
Short Round would've made a better "heir" to Indy. At least he didn't comb his hair every five minutes like a Parisian dandy.

Not to veer off from my own point, but: Short Round fearlessly took on vicious Thuggee guards and a possessed prince to try to save Indy and the other children. Mutt Williams got his butt handed to him by a girl.

I loved Short Round. I thought he, Indy and Willie made a much better family unit than the one presented in Crystal Skull.

I know a lot of people don't like Willie, but she grew as a character by the end of the movie. There was nothing like that in CS in my opinion. They kept having Mac bouncing back and forth between good and evil in the movie that by the time he dies, it's hard to care. He sort of reminded me of Elsa's demise at the end of LC. But his character was not nearly as well fleshed out.

I definitely prefer the characterizations in all the other films over this one.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Brooke Logan said:
I loved Short Round. I thought he, Indy and Willie made a much better family unit than the one presented in Crystal Skull.

On balance I agree that the TOD unit was preferable.

Brooke Logan said:
I know a lot of people don't like Willie, but she grew as a character by the end of the movie. There was nothing like that in CS in my opinion. They kept having Mac bouncing back and forth between good and evil in the movie that by the time he dies, it's hard to care. He sort of reminded me of Elsa's demise at the end of LC. But his character was not nearly as well fleshed out.

I definitely prefer the characterizations in all the other films over this one.

I'm with you here as well. For me KOTCS lost something that the other films had: the ability to care for the characters. The original three managed to create pulpy characters that felt more than mere cardboard cutouts. During the 19 years since TLC the Beards lost touch with that, and instead went for over-the-top action scenes to compensate. Action scenes in which you don't care about the characters are tedious, which is probably why the jungle chase fails to engage in the way previous chases played out.

The last great action scene of KOTCS was Indy getting into the fridge. After that it went downhill fast. But not fast enough that you don't feel the need to reach for the remote control.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
On balance I agree that the TOD unit was preferable.



I'm with you here as well. For me KOTCS lost something that the other films had: the ability to care for the characters. The original three managed to create pulpy characters that felt more than mere cardboard cutouts. During the 19 years since TLC the Beards lost touch with that, and instead went for over-the-top action scenes to compensate. Action scenes in which you don't care about the characters are tedious, which is probably why the jungle chase fails to engage in the way previous chases played out.

The last great action scene of KOTCS was Indy getting into the fridge. After that it went downhill fast. But not fast enough that you don't feel the need to reach for the remote control.

It’s a difficult one because KOTCS is so far removed from the originals in terms of age. It’s a given that I was emotionally invested in the relationship between Indy and Marion in Raiders… because I think Raiders (although hugely implausible in itself) is the most naturalistic Indy movie (in terms of the action and human relationships). I was also always emotionally involved in the relationship between Indy and Henry Jones Senior… largely because of what Connery brings to the role and the fact that I think it’s Ford’s best performance in the role (due no doubt to his co-star). I’d have to say that I don’t have any emotional investment at all in TOD… other than it’s a movie that’s easy to like, not so much for any tangible character development/emotion, but for the pace of the movie which keeps you constantly visually engaged, if not emotionally engaged.

Coming onto KOTCS… there doesn’t seem anything as genuine as the original Indy and Marion relationship, which is a shame given the returning charcters, and the key relationship between Indy and Mutt just doesn’t have the same dynamic/quality (and resolution) as the Ford/Connery one. Still, I think Mutt is a much more believable and engaging character than Short Round ever was – who was always, it seemed, just written/performed as ‘cute kid’ (IMHO). And I think Mac is a classic Indy character (although I'd wholeheartedly agree that the way his character is handled in the final 3rd does its best to undnermine the good work leading up to that point).

Also – I’d have to say that I don’t particularly buy into the notion that ‘action scenes in which you don’t care about the characters are tedious’. The best action scenes/sequences (IMHO) are when you don’t have to care. For instance, and taking into account that even the best action sequences age as techniques advance, the truck or tank chase can/could be watched in isolation and they’d still be brilliantly crafted action sequences that kept you on the edge of your seat (Spielberg in his action prime I’d say). Same applies for the Death Star trench run in Star Wars ANH or the car chase in The French Connection. I think the main reason the action scenes in KOTCS don’t work as well as the main sequences from Raiders, TOD and TLC (although I’d still argue there’re better than most of KOTCS contemporaries) is that they are not quite as good… both in terms of concept and execution. And if they don’t visually excite; any emotional investment is largely irrelevant. Again – that’s one of the reasons why I was disappointed that Spielberg didn’t try something new in terms of how he directed/cut the action i.e. it feels a bit dated.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Still, I think Mutt is a much more believable and engaging character than Short Round ever was ? who was always, it seemed, just written/performed as ?cute kid? (IMHO). And I think Mac is a classic Indy character (although I'd wholeheartedly agree that the way his character is handled in the final 3rd does its best to undnermine the good work leading up to that point).

Short Round was certainly conceived and executed the way you describe, but doesn't he still work? For me, Mutt was certainly not as engaging, and Mac is in no way a classic Indy character. Now, I think they very much could have been engaging, classic Indy characters, but I'm obviously going to give Temple more credit for succeeding in its arguably low-ambition character work than I will Indy4 for failing it's characters just because I can see where there was potential.

Darth Vile said:
Also ? I?d have to say that I don?t particularly buy into the notion that ?action scenes in which you don?t care about the characters are tedious?. The best action scenes/sequences (IMHO) are when you don?t have to care.

You do not necessarily have to care about the characters, but you do have to care about something, even if it's just for the high of an action sequence to be sustained. That's what engagement is all about - being interested in what's happening on screen beyond watching passively. I think that's what you're getting at here, but I think it's important to clarify that not caring about the characters isn't the same as not caring at all.

I do not follow you in your conclusion that Indy4's fix for this would have been Spielberg being less old-fashioned in his approach, though. He just never seems to be able to get any momentum going, and that's an issue that transcends the style of the action. You seem to sincerely believe that if Indy4 as it exists would have been released in 1991 the action scenes would have been much better received, and I sincerely doubt it. A study of how the set pieces function in the trilogy versus Indy4 makes it pretty clear, I think, that the problems aren't shallow enough to be resolved with a shallow remedy. We can argue all day about whether or not or how much a change-up on Spielberg's part would have livened up or freshened the movie, but to me that's a bit like painting a new color on a car when the engine's defective.
 

AlivePoet

New member
Darth Vile said:
I think Mac is a classic Indy character (although I'd wholeheartedly agree that the way his character is handled in the final 3rd does its best to undnermine the good work leading up to that point).

What exactly do you favour about Mac? I thought Ray Winstone was solid in the role, considering what he had to work with, and he was probably the strongest supporting character in the film, but he didn't stick out as particularly unique in the Indy universe. We've seen the double agent idea played out in Elsa. He's not as clever as Sallah in Raiders, nor as funny as Sallah/Marcus/Henry Sr. in Crusade (imo). If he has a deep character, it's been clouded by his own words, regarding what he wants: a lot of gold. No clue as to what he wants to do with the wealth. Just that he's a greedy SOB, and he's willing to betray his close friends multiple times to get what he wants. What other sidekick has been portrayed as this shallow?

If you have a case for what makes Mac "classic" or why you favoured his character, I'd be quite interested in hearing it. :hat:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
AlivePoet said:
No clue as to what he wants to do with the wealth. Just that he's a greedy SOB, and he's willing to betray his close friends multiple times to get what he wants. What other sidekick has been portrayed as this shallow?

It was to pay off gambling debts. He was trrapped in a Cold War snare: money over honour.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I gotta say, if my only motivation was loot I'd have taken my chances with the Indy gang once we'd escaped the Russians over the waterfalls and were on our way to the city of gold. Helping Spalko get there doesn't seem particularly beneficial to me at that junction.
 
Top