The Offical KotCS Magazine

Raiders112390 said:
I know, but it seems like a lot of people are thinking this film is a piece of sh*t without even seeing it, and it gets me angry when people are closed minded about a film or judge it before they see it with their own eyes.


After getting s#!t on by Lucas with Star Wars it has become apparent that Lucas doesn't understand his own works. I'm sick of him always downplaying with excuses that "It's only a movie. The fans will hate it." That's no excuse to make a sub-par film when he set the bar for expectation with the original films. If he can't live up to his own hype then **** him.
 

eroc

New member
Have faith. I do. Besides, Lucas doesn't have free reign on this one. He has people to keep him grounded. I believe Ford when he said on Leno that this one is as good as the others, maybe slightly better.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Agent Spalko said:
After getting s#!t on by Lucas with Star Wars it has become apparent that Lucas doesn't understand his own works. I'm sick of him always downplaying with excuses that "It's only a movie. The fans will hate it." That's no excuse to make a sub-par film when he set the bar for expectation with the original films. If he can't live up to his own hype then **** him.

Different doesn't equal sub-par. Different is different; sub-par is sub-par. Lucas is neither directing this film, nor has he written the screenplay. He has the same role in this movie that he did in the previous ones. This is different than the new Star Wars films, which were indeed sub-par. Wooden acting, and stupid CGI characters, and generally rushed storylines (I mean, the whole storyline wasn't so bad but the way Anakin's turn was handled imo was).

This is different. We have great, qualified actors in it including Harrison, Blanchett, Hurt, Karen Allen and others. Shia is not a CGI character, and it seems like he gets bashed in this film by Indy (''c'mon genius" and what ever other barbs), we have a professional guy writing the screenplay (Some of Koepp's scripts were great, some bad), he even got help from Kasdan. Harrison and Berg agreed to it, so there must've been something good about it to finally agree on this script after going through idea after idea and script after script for nearly 20 years.
 
eroc said:
Have faith. I do. Besides, Lucas doesn't have free reign on this one. He has people to keep him grounded. I believe Ford when he said on Leno that this one is as good as the others, maybe slightly better.

Faith?!?!?! I put my faith in Lucas with Phantom Menace. Never again.
 
Raiders112390 said:
Different doesn't equal sub-par. Different is different; sub-par is sub-par. Lucas is neither directing this film, nor has he written the screenplay. He has the same role in this movie that he did in the previous ones. This is different than the new Star Wars films, which were indeed sub-par.
I think after getting blasted for years he's just trying to lower expectations by being honest. It is, after all, only a movie, just like the others which were also just movies.

It's still his story from the horrid Saucer Men From Mars script that has survived because he insisted it. All Koepp, Ford and Spielberg have done is try to throw in more Raiders elements to make it less of a sci-fi movie.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Agent Spalko said:
Ford's career choices the last decade have been awful and Spielberg isn't exactly batting 1000 either.

True, but even during the '80s, Ford and Spielberg made horrible choices (1941 anyone?).
It seems whenever all three come together, however, they've always made magic.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Agent Spalko said:
It's still his story from the horrid Saucer Men From Mars script that has survived because he insisted it. All Koepp, Ford and Spielberg have done is try to throw in more Raiders elements to make it less of a sci-fi movie.

Let's look back at LC. Lucas had the idea to have the Holy Grail as the macguffin. Spielberg initially rejected it, saying it'd be stupid. Then the idea of the whole Father-Son subplot was introduced, I believe by Spielberg, and it turned what might've been a shallow remake of Raiders into something a bit more.
They have probably kept the same Maguffin and some elements from the original script; but added a lot more to it which will make it great. For example, the whole Lost City of Gold idea etc. That's something based off of myth and legend. It may not be bibical, but really, Indy's discovered the two biggest Biblical relics. It'd be ridiculous for him to discover a third.
 
eroc said:
so you are going to hate this movie no matter how great it is.

It could still be entertaining but I'm already disappointed. I'm making the call now that it will be the weakest of all the films.
 

eroc

New member
Agent Spalko said:
It could still be entertaining but I'm already disappointed. I'm making the call now that it will be the weakest of all the films.

Let's talk on May 22 because I think it will be 2nd only to Raiders. could be better. looks like it has more action in it than the other 3 combined. i think there are going to be so many levels to this movie it will blow your mind. not to mention how deep and rich the characters seem to be.
 
eroc said:
Let's talk on May 22 because I think it will be 2nd only to Raiders. could be better. looks like it has more action in it than the other 3 combined.

So did The Mummy and Mummy Returns just to distract audiences from the fact that they had no story.
 
Agent Spalko said:
It could still be entertaining but I'm already disappointed. I'm making the call now that it will be the weakest of all the films.


Ah, then why have you chosen Spalko as your screen name and your avatar? You come across pretty keen on KOTCS.:confused:
 

eroc

New member
Agent Spalko said:
So did The Mummy and Mummy Returns just to distract audiences from the fact that they had no story.

Brendon Fraiser? are you from this planet? how can you compare the two? it's like comparing Bush to JFK. bad analogy, IMHO.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Agent Spalko said:
It could still be entertaining but I'm already disappointed. I'm making the call now that it will be the weakest of all the films.

But you haven't even seen the film yet. You've read things, sure, you've seen pictures, but you haven't seen how the film will flow together on screen.
The idea of the whole Voodoo Doll in ToD probably would sound really cheesy on paper, but it made for a tense scene, as would some of the more slapstick moments of LC. In fact, breaking the plot of LC down you'd get:

Nazis seek ancient arifact in order to dominate the world. Indy must stop them. There is a foxy girl with whom Indy has a love/hate relationship, and
the artifact in question is an all important object of Biblical significance. The main villains are a man who, like Indy, has a penchant for ancient artifacts, and is working with the Nazis for his own gain, and also a Nazi soldier. There is someone from Indy's past with whom Indy has a troubled relationship with who has a big role in the film. After the opening teaser adventure, we see Indy at Marshall College teaching. Marcus meets him. Sallah comes along for the ride in this one.

Now, reading that, it would sound alot like a retread of Raiders, no? Which would be unoriginal. LC is in it's core a remake of Raiders, however the details, along with the father son sub-plot, are very different. Add in the details, and the whole slapstick edge to it and you get a different, if heavily forumulaic film.

This film has another edge to it. It's a different time from the original films, a time past the era of men like Indy. The '50s. The Nazis have gone the way of the dodo, as have men wearing hats. Indy is getting older, wondering just who he is and how he'll be remembered. He's still unmarried and family-less in his late middle age, and time is running out for both of those things. He's lost both his father, and Marcus, his greatest mentor in the span of a few short years. He's watched the world go to war again and him, along with the rest of the world, watched as the atrocities which occured during that war were discovered.
Whereas LC was Indy ''discovering'' his father, this is going to be Indy perhaps discovering just who he himself is and what place he holds in the world in an era which has left men of his ilk behind. It might well have the depth of LC and also be an action packed adventure to make up for the lazy action of LC. And if Indy does become a dad, that'll be a twist too as it'd be interesting to see Indy in that role, with his own child. Also, it'd be interesting to see him with Marion again after 21 years.
This film is going to be different, which doesn't equal bad. It's going to be different because Indy is different. The world is different. It's a totally different time than the previous films. He's older. He's matured a little. This is no longer the '30s with it's art deco and fedoras, this is the the post WWII '50s with communist witch-hunts, early Rock N' Roll, the beginning of the generation gap, the waning of fedoras etc. But it is also an ''innocent'' era in some ways, like the '30s.
It's a different era, therefore some traditions can be broken; new traditions can be made. This may be the beginning of another trilogy, but who knows. Just as Indy's adventures in the 1910's and 1920s were different than those in the '30s, so will his adventures in the '50s be different.

As Lucas accurately predicted, you're hating the film before it's even released because it's not the movie you had in your mind (I.E. a remake of Raiders) Even if it was, it couldn't match 19 years worth of expectations, because in that time expectations can grow to unsurpassable heights.
 
Last edited:
Top