TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-14-2012, 03:12 AM   #1
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 794
Indy IV - - The Success of the Film



Hey Raveners, for a Film Studies class I had to do a project on a film's public reception and gauge how to do a sequel based on that. I chose the last Indiana Jones film, as I felt in the mood to do something based on Indy for a class for once. And the process kind of changed my view on the film's reception, I must say. I used to think I was the only one who liked the film since the online community was brutal in 2008, as they are with most films. And I just wanted to show you guys the successes of this film. I also posted this in another thread as a defense of KOTCS so pardon my usage of it again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

From TheRaven Forum;

Who Likes KOTCS? - Likes - 118 - - 81.94%
Dislikes - 26 - - 18.06%

http://raven.theraider.net/showthrea...t=19049&page=7

This video is very, very telling...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKeqD8w2fb0

Not to mention on places such as KOTCS' Facebook and Myspace you've got tons of positive reviews/comments. Even on places such as 'TheForce.net'.

-Entertainment Weekly Review A-

-Yahoo! Movies Score by Users - B

-NY Times Review- A

-Billboard Review- B

-Saturday Evening Post- A (This is the Indiana Jones you've been waiting for)

-RottenTomatoes Score; 77% (A very good score, mind you.)

-Saturday Evening Post- A (Quoted as saying; "This is the Indiana Jones you've been waiting for!")

-Top 3 DVD sales of 2008

-BoxOfficeMojo Surveys; 41% gave it an A, 37% a B. Compared to Temple of Doom's 37% A ratings, with each film having the same number of votes, relatively.

-CinemaScore= B+ average from surveys taken

-Featured on Empire Magazine's Top 500 Films of All Time; as voted for by readers and EmpireOnline users.

-Comcast Cable Guide Score 3 stars/4; same as other sequels and based on viewer votes.

-Most watched film on Cable in 2010; "“Crystal Skull” was the year’s most watched cable theatrical among P25-54 (2.29 million) and the year’s most watched live-action theatrical among P18-49 (2.18 million), total viewers (4.70 million) and households (3.28 million). It was also USA’s most watched movie since 2008 among P25-54, P18-49, total viewers and households, and since 2009 in P18-34."
Link; http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/1 ... 010/75796/

-"NBC Movie Of The Week" Sunday 9/04/11

-http://www.empireonline.com/500/8.asp

"The film received mostly positive reviews. Rotten Tomatoes reported that 77% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on 246 reviews. The consensus was: "Though the plot elements are certainly familiar, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull still delivers the thrills and Harrison Ford's return in the title role is more than welcome."[110] Metacritic reported the film had a score of 65 out of 100, indicating "generally favorable reviews," based on 40 critics' reviews.[111] Yahoo! estimated an average rating of B from 15 reviews.[112] A CinemaScore survey conducted during its opening weekend indicated a general "B" rating.[113]

Roger Ebert gave the film 3.5 stars out of 4, a rating he also gave to The Last Crusade. Ebert argued that the only critical criterion for judging the latest film was comparing it to the previous three. He found it "same old, same old," but that was what "I want it to be."[114] Leonard Maltin also gave the film 3 1/2 stars out of 4, though he had only given 2 stars to Temple of Doom and 2 1/2 to Last Crusade. "After a 19-year hiatus," Maltin wrote, "Indy returns with the same brand of high adventure that marked the original Raiders of the Lost Ark."[115]

The film was nominated for Best Action Movie at the 2009 Critics' Choice Awards.[116] The Visual Effects Society nominated it for Best Single Visual Effect of the Year (the valley destruction), Best Outstanding Matte Paintings, Best Models and Miniatures, and Best Created Environment in a Feature Motion Picture (the inside of the temple).[117] The film ranks 453rd on Empire's 2008 list of the 500 greatest movies of all time.[118] At the 51st Grammy Awards, John Williams won an award for the Mutt Williams theme.[119] It was nominated at the Saturn Awards for Best Science Fiction Film, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Costumes and Best Special Effects. It won Best Costumes.[120]"

Check out the comments on here; http://www.myspace.com/indianajones/comments

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I also have a ton of links to forums, Yahoo questions, posts, online reviews, YouTube videos and other places where the vast majority of comments are indeed, very positive. It was an exhausting assignment but very fun, got a great score, too!


Most people I know who love Indy also happen to love and accept this film. My theater even applauded at the end, both times I saw it. My friends look upon the film and going to see it with good memories and not ones of a raped childhood really. (Well, I hated it in the first viewing, they had to drag me back since they liked it alot).

Does any of this in any way indicate a failure of a film or a film that is hated severely by the masses? I mean, alot of those who dislike the film are a vocal minority who love to echo that their voice is shared by the majority, but I can't see how that is true anymore.

Long live Indy, guys.
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 03:36 AM   #2
Djd1
IndyFan
 
Djd1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 134
I judge it by the fact that my kid (who was a big Indy fan) didn't like it at all and not one of his friends did.... I wanted to like it. I want to like it every time I watch it... But I just can't. I find it to be very poor not only compared to the previous three films but compared to any other films I might watch. IMDB is not as kind to it as the sample you chose to look at. Facebook pages tend to be full of people who 'like' the thing concerned - that's true even of some really dire stuff. It's really not just a vocal minority you know
Djd1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 03:42 AM   #3
replican't
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 730
putting the sucks into success
replican't is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 03:43 AM   #4
Luisiana Jones
IndyFan
 
Luisiana Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Posts: 656
i liked it, most of the fans liked it, most of the reviews approved it. Where is the big deal? yes, it is certainly not a masterpiece, but we received what we had been asking for years. Besides that, im pretty sure if we ever get Indy V it will be somehting really similar to KOTCS.

Regards,

LJ
Luisiana Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 03:48 AM   #5
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djd1
It's really not just a vocal minority you know

No, I don't know, and I really don't think so.


Adding a few more things, I'd usually just edit my original post but since I can't...oh well. But hey, take a look at user reviews at Netflix and the such. Also the user/buyer reviews on an Ebay official DVD seller (who has over 292,682 ratings) is largely positive, with 169 out of 208 reviews being four stars or above.

3.5 stars out of 4 -- "[H]is witty banter is still decidedly intact....The excitement picks back up and, overall, it's pleasantly nostalgic to see Harrison Ford as Jones again....The stunts and special effects are spectacular..."
USA Today - Claudia Puig (05/19/2008)

"Entertaining on its own right....Spielberg clearly got enormous pleasure employing a lifetime's worth of skill and turning out wave after wave of smartly done stunts and effects set pieces."
Los Angeles Times - Kenneth Turan (05/19/2008)

"At its best, it's a satisfying shuffle of the deck of famous Spielbergian moments....The first 20 minutes, especially, are a blast of old-timey pleasure..."
Entertainment Weekly - Lisa Schwarzbaum (05/30/3008)

4 stars out of 5 -- "Indy is older, but Spielberg hasn't diluted the integrity of the character....[An] adrenalising movie....Cast-wise, it's impeccable
Empire - Damon Wise (08/01/2008)

"In the action-packed opening 45 minutes, Spielberg and Lucas have recaptured the magic of the INDIANA JONES franchise with its signature blend of mysticism, adventure, red-blooded action, and slapstick."
Premiere (05/22/2008)

3 stars out of 5 -- "Back in the hat to stop Soviets mining the mind-control powers of the titular quartz cranium, Harrison Ford still rocks the bullwhip....Lean and keen, he hasn't been this engaging -- and engaged -- for years."
Total Film - Matthew Leyland (12/01/2008)

Last edited by Dr.Jonesy : 05-14-2012 at 04:17 AM.
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 03:55 AM   #6
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by replican't
putting the sucks into success

I don't like that you replied in such a fashion and of course I disagree...but I couldn't help but laugh at that phrase. I may use that sometime...

Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 04:14 AM   #7
Djd1
IndyFan
 
Djd1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Jonesy
No, I don't know, and I really don't think so.

Average ratings on IMDB (taken from tens of thousands of reviews in each case)

Raiders 8.7 / 10
Temple 7.5 / 10
Crusade 8.3 / 10
Skull 6.4 / 10

Its a big old minority...
Djd1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 04:21 AM   #8
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djd1
Average ratings on IMDB (taken from tens of thousands of reviews in each case)

Raiders 8.7 / 10
Temple 7.5 / 10
Crusade 8.3 / 10
Skull 6.4 / 10

Its a big old minority...

Wow you've convinced me!


IMDB had it at a 7.1, unfortunately fans on that forum voted 1's a ton of times (Bruhn was one of these guys) and brought it down to a 6.5. They admitted as such which is not cool. Not that that is all that did it, but it didn't help. I've seen people vote 10's for films like The Avengers or The Dark Knight many, many times. I usually call IMDB the WikiPedia of film.

With the Top 250 having The Dark Knight and The Avengers in the Top 30, I don't consider IMDB to be that great. This isn't because of the Indy rating, I just don't think IMDB is a reliable thing, it's too easily manipulated. Besides, you've provided ONE thing contrary to a thousand of mine.
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 04:21 AM   #9
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
The only opinion that matters is your own.

And the only thing that mattered to Lucas (apart from getting his home movies an international release) is the profit: ticket sales and merchandising.

Those are the figures that count, rather than anonymous internet polling, or critics jumping onto one bandwagon or another.

Indy's still a niche market, compared to a giant such as Star Wars. That's displayed by the lack of enthusiasm in the massive target demographic for Indy: children.

The Hasbro toy line withered and died. The Lego theme didn't continue. Whereas the Star Wars counterparts roll on year after year.

We should revel in his unpopularity. It makes us special.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 04:25 AM   #10
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
The only opinion that matters is your own.

And the only thing that mattered to Lucas (apart from getting his home movies an international release) is the profit: ticket sales and merchandising.

Those are the figures that count, rather than anonymous internet polling, or critics jumping onto one bandwagon or another.

Indy's still a niche market, compared to a giant such as Star Wars. That's displayed by the lack of enthusiasm in the massive target demographic for Indy: children.

The Hasbro toy line withered and died. The Lego theme didn't continue. Whereas the Star Wars counterparts roll on year after year.

We should revel in his unpopularity. It makes us special.

Indy is popular, but not a phenomenon like Star Wars unfortunately...

It's a tad sad, as I'd love for him to be as big as Star Wars but I guess with Star Wars there's a whole other world people loved to get immersed in. I just wish as far as video games and a little fun merchandise goes, Indy would get some attention!
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 04:33 AM   #11
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Jonesy

Indy is popular, but not a phenomenon like Star Wars unfortunately...

It's a tad sad, as I'd love for him to be as big as Star Wars but I guess with Star Wars there's a whole other world people loved to get immersed in. I just wish as far as video games and a little fun merchandise goes, Indy would get some attention!

It's all relative.

If Indy had been as popular as Star Wars, and there had been more films, we might have seen his versions of An Ewok Adventure or Ewoks: The Battle for Endor long before we even got to the relatively heady heights of KOTCS.

There'd probably be his version of The Phantom Menace in there as well. The kids would have loved it, and the toys would stretch from here to Mars. Though I think we would have lost something along the way.

I'm still inspired most by the Star Wars Original Trilogy, just as I am by Indy's own Original Trilogy.

The downside is that we've missed out on a lot more toys. But in there is the biggest mystery: why didn't KOTCS keep the younger demographic on board?

The only answer I can see is that in spite of the kid-friendly inclusions, the man himself is, in their eyes, too old.

The result is a film of mixed success.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 04:35 AM   #12
Djd1
IndyFan
 
Djd1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 134
Dr Joney I think you are in danger of being selective in the material you chose to use for your reseach- and if I were looking at your paper I'd no doubt say as such! IMDB tends to sort out its problems over recent releases within a year or so. If you exclude recent releases where the review sample is quite small, they're top 100s tend to be difficult to argue with.

Lucas tried to turn Skull into a toy selling machine like star wars. He failed because he misunderstood the demographic for the franchise. Raiders was a film for grown ups that kids could enjoy - not the other way around. Skull was an attempt at a kids film to sell toys (what other reason for the jungle cutter was there?). It failed in even that regard.
Djd1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 04:41 AM   #13
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djd1
Lucas tried to turn Skull into a toy selling machine like star wars. He failed because he misunderstood the demographic for the franchise. Raiders was a film for grown ups that kids could enjoy - not the other way around. Skull was an attempt at a kids film to sell toys (what other reason for the jungle cutter was there?). It failed in even that regard.

Raiders was inspired by the cliffhanger serials that children regularly flocked to in the '30s and '40s. Lucas turned the ideas into a quality family movie. Both he and Spielberg were reliving their own childhood experiences.

KOTCS was a necessary compromise, because the leading man was no longer reflective of the heroes of many of those early serials.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 04:44 AM   #14
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djd1
Dr Joney I think you are in danger of being selective in the material you chose to use for your reseach- and if I were looking at your paper I'd no doubt say as such! IMDB tends to sort out its problems over recent releases within a year or so. If you exclude recent releases where the review sample is quite small, they're top 100s tend to be difficult to argue with.

Lucas tried to turn Skull into a toy selling machine like star wars. He failed because he misunderstood the demographic for the franchise. Raiders was a film for grown ups that kids could enjoy - not the other way around. Skull was an attempt at a kids film to sell toys (what other reason for the jungle cutter was there?). It failed in even that regard.

'Dr Joney'?


Selective? I left out IMDB, is that the biggest crime that invalidates ALL the material that suggests the film was positively received? Nope. Even if I included it, it'd be up against a heap of contrary evidence. And the 3 sequels were less adult than Raiders. TOD and LC were comedic-based and TOD was more pulp-centered.

What's in this for you? Are you on a mission to prove everyone hates this film? I'm trying to prove something so that fans who love this film don't feel like outsiders. That's what's in this for me.

Last edited by Dr.Jonesy : 05-14-2012 at 04:50 AM.
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 04:50 AM   #15
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
Raiders was inspired by the cliffhanger serials that children regularly flocked to in the '30s and '40s. Lucas turned the ideas into a quality family movie. Both he and Spielberg were reliving their own childhood experiences.

KOTCS was a necessary compromise, because the leading man was no longer reflective of the heroes of many of those early serials.

Good way of putting it. Never saw it that way.

Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 05:01 AM   #16
Djd1
IndyFan
 
Djd1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 134
What's in it for me? I'm disagreeing with your view that the film was a raging success. That's not my experience of it and as a fan since the first one, it's not a view that I hear from 'normal' members of the viewing public.

As for what was kids entertainment in the 30s and 40s, look at the pulp and kids literature of the period (Edgar Rice Burroughs, Sapper, W E Johns etc) its mainly rather sophisticated and wordy by today's kids standards. I'm not sure that what I liked in the 70s would be any way to judge what kids would like now? I'm pretty sure there's an either greater disparity between the present day and the 30s.
Djd1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 05:04 AM   #17
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djd1
What's in it for me? I'm disagreeing with your view that the film was a raging success. That's not my experience of it and as a fan since the first one, it's not a view that I hear from 'normal' members of the viewing public.

'Raging success'? Who said raging success? You're dismissing that it was ANY success, it seems.

And I'm not 'normal'? Or anyone else who loves this film? What the hell?

I'm saying it was a successful film and mostly positively received. It has it's haters but it still was a good success and was positively received by critics and the general public, it just may have split the fan-base Temple of Doom style, though.

Nobody said it was a raging success.

Last edited by Dr.Jonesy : 05-14-2012 at 05:12 AM.
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 05:26 AM   #18
Djd1
IndyFan
 
Djd1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 134
'normal' members of the public as opposed to Indy fans. I don't imagine I'm 'normal'. No idea if you are.

If you don't want a debate then don't start a topic.
Djd1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 07:24 AM   #19
replican't
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 730
Star Wars is a whole galaxy of stuff, hence its enduring appeal. It's as deep as it is wide.

Indiana Jones is a smirking bloke in a hat doing stunts.

KoCS confirmed that you can only stretch the Indy formula so far and for so long before it snaps and needs a hip replacement.
replican't is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 08:48 AM   #20
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djd1
Dr Joney I think you are in danger of being selective in the material you chose to use for your reseach- and if I were looking at your paper I'd no doubt say as such! IMDB tends to sort out its problems over recent releases within a year or so. If you exclude recent releases where the review sample is quite small, they're top 100s tend to be difficult to argue with.

Lucas tried to turn Skull into a toy selling machine like star wars. He failed because he misunderstood the demographic for the franchise. Raiders was a film for grown ups that kids could enjoy - not the other way around. Skull was an attempt at a kids film to sell toys (what other reason for the jungle cutter was there?). It failed in even that regard.
The IMDB demographic is far too limited. It's like polling AICN members and expecting an intelligent insight into a movie. Lucas neither tried to turn Skull into a toy selling machine nor did he fail to understand the demographic. Quite simply - Lucas, Spielberg and Ford wanted to make KOTCS for themselves and to make some money along the way no doubt... Of course they were going to do a line in Hasbro toys to complement the movie. What movie doesn't these days?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
Raiders was inspired by the cliffhanger serials that children regularly flocked to in the '30s and '40s. Lucas turned the ideas into a quality family movie. Both he and Spielberg were reliving their own childhood experiences.

KOTCS was a necessary compromise, because the leading man was no longer reflective of the heroes of many of those early serials.
On the nose... KOTCS was more about Lucas/Spielberg reliving their own highlights rather than taking on new external cinematic inspirations (although they made a nod to movies of the 50's).
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 11:53 AM   #21
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
The IMDB demographic is far too limited. It's like polling AICN members and expecting an intelligent insight into a movie. Lucas neither tried to turn Skull into a toy selling machine nor did he fail to understand the demographic. Quite simply - Lucas, Spielberg and Ford wanted to make KOTCS for themselves and to make some money along the way no doubt... Of course they were going to do a line in Hasbro toys to complement the movie. What movie doesn't these days?


On the nose... KOTCS was more about Lucas/Spielberg reliving their own highlights rather than taking on new external cinematic inspirations (although they made a nod to movies of the 50's).

I think you're right, all Spielberg and Lucas talk about is how 'damn fun' it was to make the film and there's nothing wrong with enjoying that, IMO. All I know about the toy thing is I bought a couple dolls and a few action figures to satisfy my lack of Indy stuff as a kid.


Lucas simply sold merchandise for the film, I doubt he expected to turn it into a moneymaking machine like Star Wars merch.
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 12:00 PM   #22
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
It's all relative.

If Indy had been as popular as Star Wars, and there had been more films, we might have seen his versions of An Ewok Adventure or Ewoks: The Battle for Endor long before we even got to the relatively heady heights of KOTCS.

The downside is that we've missed out on a lot more toys. But in there is the biggest mystery: why didn't KOTCS keep the younger demographic on board?

The only answer I can see is that in spite of the kid-friendly inclusions, the man himself is, in their eyes, too old.

The result is a film of mixed success.

I doubt we'd have more Indy films if he was as popular as Star Wars, I mean in the end how many films did we have more than Star Wars? Two, and that's not a whole lot. I think Lucas maybe wasn't too keen on trying to bring back Spielberg for more than one last sequel. I mean I don't think Steven even wanted to do (maybe) TOD and LC from the literature I've seen. Lucas had to have known Indy would be a box office cow (not the size of Star Wars, but what studio wouldn't want to distribute Indy?) but for some reason never made more films. I guess I'll never quite have an idea why he didn't make more films.

I think Indy still appeals to the young demographic and did just fine on that front. Maybe the age did make a tiny difference though but there still are three other films they'd see before or after KOTCS with a younger Ford. But Indy would never have the appeal for kids as Star Wars, that's for sure!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Djd1
If you don't want a debate then don't start a topic.


You do see me discussing with Montanna and Darth Vile, right?
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 12:18 PM   #23
Djd1
IndyFan
 
Djd1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 134
I see you discussing because you agree with them. That's not a debate
Djd1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 12:22 PM   #24
Dr.Jonesy
IndyFan
 
Dr.Jonesy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Akator
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djd1
I see you discussing because you agree with them. That's not a debate

How about this; I addressed your point about IMDB.

I also disagreed with Montanna about how if Indy was more popular, there'd have been more films. Also disagreed about the young demographic part.

The difference between you and Montanna/DarthVile is they debate with concise and well articulated points. You cried foul because I didn't mention IMDB.
Dr.Jonesy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 12:38 PM   #25
Djd1
IndyFan
 
Djd1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 134
Im sorry if it came over like that. Really.

You and I obviously disagree on the merits of the film. I'm happy for you that you like it as I wish I could. My point - perhaps clumsily made as I was at work and rushing, was that if you are doing a paper or any piece of research, I'd say that you should take the evidence from where ever it comes and discuss and assess it clearly. Not just take the stuff that suits your particular viewpoint. That's the impression that you gave me. Sorry if I'm mistaken but that's the impression I got.

IMDB has faults but it is a huge survey that has to be considered. Far more reliable than a poll on the raider which you rely upon. If you look at the box office for CS it comes in around 126 I think on the US all time chart (that's the adjusted list taking into account ticket prices). Now, that's below crud like Meet the Fokers.

I don't expect you to agree with me but as someone who deals with evidence on a day to day basis for the last 25 years, I would merely wish to make the point that your argument would be a lot stronger if you looked at the evidence thst doesn't help your point too. I mean that in a helpful way believe it or not
Djd1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 PM.