The Haters thread

JP Jones · Jun 29, 2011

Attila the Professor said:
You're out of line.

And to take off my moderator cap to say a little more, I increasingly don't understand what it is that you think is worth talking about here. Look, for a lot of the people here, the quality of their Indiana Jones product matters to them, and while for most of us it was easy enough to incorporate our mixed feelings about the fourth film into our general feelings on the series, for others maybe it wasn't. It's not like it's just some thing, out there purely for fun that doesn't deserve any further consideration, either intellectual or emotional. Treat them as a simple diversion if you like, but movies mean something, and I'm still not talking about some elaborate theses about hidden meanings. Maybe it's the work of nostalgia, for an earlier time in history, or art, or just in our own lives - to hark back to when we were younger.

And of course you can always find some good in every movie, but don't you care about the diminishing returns? If it's all about grabbing at whatever fun you can, shouldn't you care about whether the movie you're watching is maximizing your fun for you? Or is at all about managing your own expectations so you can manage to have a good time in the face of something that maybe doesn't deserve it?

I apologize Professor. I thought by now you'd know my take on movies. I'll go back to my little review on the Pirates of the Caribbean thread. I understand that that movie wasn't perfect, there were a lot of things that I didn't like about it, but instead of dwelling on the things I didn't like and coming out of the theater disappointed, I let it pass that it wasn't going to be so epic and enjoyed it how it was.

To what you said about giving false praise to a movie because of this. I will not shout it on the mountain how great Pirates 4 is, but I, myself, will personally like it. You get this confused with Indy 4, that I've been praising all over this board because I think it is one damn good movie. I didn't need to lower any expectations or "find" the good in it, but I guess that's just me.

Attila the Professor · Jun 29, 2011

JP Jones said:
I apologize Professor. I thought by now you'd know my take on movies. I'll go back to my little review on the Pirates of the Caribbean thread. I understand that that movie wasn't perfect, there were a lot of things that I didn't like about it, but instead of dwelling on the things I didn't like and coming out of the theater disappointed, I let it pass that it wasn't going to be so epic and enjoyed it how it was.

To what you said about giving false praise to a movie because of this. I will not shout it on the mountain how great Pirates 4 is, but I, myself, will personally like it. You get this confused with Indy 4, that I've been praising all over this board because I think it is one damn good movie. I didn't need to lower any expectations or "find" the good in it, but I guess that's just me.

I appreciate your response. Here's the gap for me. And maybe this is more responding to what you've said other times than purely being in response to what you're saying right now, but bear with me.

Isn't it fun and engaging to look at what's lacking in what is otherwise a worthy effort? You've probably seen enough of my posts on KotCS to know that I liked a lot of it but thought that there were some disappointing missteps as well. (And, frankly, a lot of the things that really upset some other people - the aliens, the fridge - I'm mostly happy with.) I like it. I think it's interesting to look at what works and what doesn't. It's part of appreciating what they were getting at. (And I think there are enough little hints that there were moments in which they were aiming for some subtext - I've talked plenty about the script's obsession with the word "knowledge," and how we have both the ants and the aliens working on Spalko's communistic mind-meld ideal).

And in this respect Indyologist's reaction, if to a perhaps excessive degree, is the sort of reaction that an artist would want, because that's an impressive level of emotional engagement. That's money in the bank, both literally and metaphorically (and I'm more interested in the latter, but you've got to have an audience for the work to be worth making). To create a bond with your audience such that you can disappoint them to tears if you don't give them what they hope for - that's impressive. And that speaks to why the "it's just a movie" sort of response always hits me as a little shallow, like the "you don't have to watch it" sort of response, or the "well, just move to Canada" sentiments you sometimes see in the United States when someone doesn't like how an election went. If you feel a strong tie to something, you don't just pick up and abandon it when it disappoints you. When it comes to citizenship, or something you're a member of and you have some theoretical ability to change, than that's an appropriate response. But fandom doesn't really allow engagement that will change things. So all we can do is talk about it. That's how you stay committed.

JP Jones · Jun 29, 2011

Attila the Professor said:
I appreciate your response. Here's the gap for me. And maybe this is more responding to what you've said other times than purely being in response to what you're saying right now, but bear with me.

Isn't it fun and engaging to look at what's lacking in what is otherwise a worthy effort? You've probably seen enough of my posts on KotCS to know that I liked a lot of it but thought that there were some disappointing missteps as well. (And, frankly, a lot of the things that really upset some other people - the aliens, the fridge - I'm mostly happy with.) I like it. I think it's interesting to look at what works and what doesn't. It's part of appreciating what they were getting at. (And I think there are enough little hints that there were moments in which they were aiming for some subtext - I've talked plenty about the script's obsession with the word "knowledge," and how we have both the ants and the aliens working on Spalko's communistic mind-meld ideal).

And in this respect Indyologist's reaction, if to a perhaps excessive degree, is the sort of reaction that an artist would want, because that's an impressive level of emotional engagement. That's money in the bank, both literally and metaphorically (and I'm more interested in the latter, but you've got to have an audience for the work to be worth making). To create a bond with your audience such that you can disappoint them to tears if you don't give them what they hope for - that's impressive. And that speaks to why the "it's just a movie" sort of response always hits me as a little shallow, like the "you don't have to watch it" sort of response, or the "well, just move to Canada" sentiments you sometimes see in the United States when someone doesn't like how an election went. If you feel a strong tie to something, you don't just pick up and abandon it when it disappoints you. When it comes to citizenship, or something you're a member of and you have some theoretical ability to change, than that's an appropriate response. But fandom doesn't really allow engagement that will change things. So all we can do is talk about it. That's how you stay committed.

That's a very good point you bring up. However, I grew up with the Indy movies as great entertainment, but I've never looked any more into it. I can see that some people do, and believe me I could, but that nostalgia of watching movies innocently as a kid is what prevents me from going so in depth with discussions. I've finished a year of film school and done plenty of analyzing, but for me to preserve that feeling I got back when I was young, I really can't think too much about these movies.

Darth Vile · Jun 29, 2011

Attila the Professor said:
I appreciate your response. Here's the gap for me. And maybe this is more responding to what you've said other times than purely being in response to what you're saying right now, but bear with me.

Isn't it fun and engaging to look at what's lacking in what is otherwise a worthy effort? You've probably seen enough of my posts on KotCS to know that I liked a lot of it but thought that there were some disappointing missteps as well. (And, frankly, a lot of the things that really upset some other people - the aliens, the fridge - I'm mostly happy with.) I like it. I think it's interesting to look at what works and what doesn't. It's part of appreciating what they were getting at. (And I think there are enough little hints that there were moments in which they were aiming for some subtext - I've talked plenty about the script's obsession with the word "knowledge," and how we have both the ants and the aliens working on Spalko's communistic mind-meld ideal).

And in this respect Indyologist's reaction, if to a perhaps excessive degree, is the sort of reaction that an artist would want, because that's an impressive level of emotional engagement. That's money in the bank, both literally and metaphorically (and I'm more interested in the latter, but you've got to have an audience for the work to be worth making). To create a bond with your audience such that you can disappoint them to tears if you don't give them what they hope for - that's impressive. And that speaks to why the "it's just a movie" sort of response always hits me as a little shallow, like the "you don't have to watch it" sort of response, or the "well, just move to Canada" sentiments you sometimes see in the United States when someone doesn't like how an election went. If you feel a strong tie to something, you don't just pick up and abandon it when it disappoints you. When it comes to citizenship, or something you're a member of and you have some theoretical ability to change, than that's an appropriate response. But fandom doesn't really allow engagement that will change things. So all we can do is talk about it. That's how you stay committed.

Well said Attila.

Henry W Jones · Jun 29, 2011

JP Jones said:
That's a very good point you bring up. However, I grew up with the Indy movies as great entertainment, but I've never looked any more into it. I can see that some people do, and believe me I could, but that nostalgia of watching movies innocently as a kid is what prevents me from going so in depth with discussions. I've finished a year of film school and done plenty of analyzing, but for me to preserve that feeling I got back when I was young, I really can't think too much about these movies.

While I agree with the majority of what you've said, if not over analyzing these films is your goal then run don't walk from the Raven before your innocence is lost forever.

This place goes into every nook it can to find something (even if it's really not there) to pick apart in these films.

Sharkey · Jun 29, 2011

JP Jones said:
female or not, you are a f**king loser

and you thought I was bad.

JP Jones · Jun 29, 2011

Henry W Jones said:
While I agree with the majority of what you've said, if not over analyzing these films is your goal then run don't walk from the Raven before your innocence is lost forever. This place goes into every nook it can to find something (even if it's really not there) to pick apart in these films.

I said before I still like to talk about the movies, but not in such a... for lack of a better word... snobby and professional way. You'll also notice that I let others analyze the movies, I just don't ever join.

Stoo · Jun 29, 2011

JP Jones said:
And that makes it less pathetic to cry and take years to get over a "devastating" experience? Please.

I've seen many bad movies, but female or not, you are a f**king loser if you get that worked up over a damn movie.

It is very strange to actually cry over a movie that was a let-down but I only pointed out Indyologist's sex because Dr.Jonesy referred to her as a "him". That's all. It wasn't meant to be an excuse.

JP Jones said:
I personally don't care in the least about a "sophisticated" script and characters. Did the old 30s serials have that or the 50s B-movies. No. If your getting "sophistication" from any of the Indy movies, your not getting the point of them. They're good innocent fun, there is no reason for any of them to win any Oscars. People such as yourself regard them (first 3) as masterpieces of filmmaking, when all they are is very fun, yet juvenile movies.

Even though the action sequences were inspired by old serials & B flicks, the Indy movies raised the cliffhanger genre to a higher level and this is where you are missing the point. They borrow but they aren't carbon copies. Personally, I don't consider "Doom" or "Crusade" to be 'masterpieces" but they are much more 'sophisticated' than their pulpy inspirations! (By the way, some '50s B movies do have 'sophisticated' scripts & characters.)

As for your comment about "no reason for any of them to win any Oscars":

Raiders: Nominated = 8 / Won = 4 (+ 1 Special Acheivement Award)
Doom: Nominated = 2 / Won = 1
Crusade: Nominated = 3 / Won = 1
Skull: Nominated = 0 / Won = 0

13 Oscar nominations and 6 (+1) wins for the original trilogy. "Skull" wasn't even nominated in any category!

The Drifter said:
I don't know which is more fun to read. The nerd-rage over the film where the poster tears apart every damn scene and cries to the Heavens that it's not Raiders, or the defenders who wonder why there is so much hate, yet can't accept the fact that people have differing opinions.

I for one tend to stay outta these sort of topics. I don't blindly love the movie, nor do I rage and hate it.
I enjoy it, but also see it's many flaws. My ass is sitting firmly on the middle of the fence with it.

I emphatically agree with you, Drifter! :hat:

Attila the Professor said:
...or the "well, just move to Canada" sentiments you sometimes see in the United States...

Highly recommended!

Speaking of 'haters', notice how some of the most vitriolic haters of "Skull" have been permantly banned from The Raven. (Just an observation.)

JP Jones · Jun 29, 2011

Stoo said:
As for your comment about "no reason for any of them to win any Oscars":

Raiders: Nominated = 8 / Won = 4 (+ 1 Special Acheivement Award)
Doom: Nominated = 2 / Won = 1
Crusade: Nominated = 3 / Won = 1
Skull: Nominated = 0 / Won = 0

There's no reason to talk to me like I'm stupid. I know that Indy movies have been nominated. The reason I said that they don't deserve Oscars is because they are NOT sophisticated movies. No matter how you look at them. You ask George, Steven, or Harrison, none of them will tell you that Raiders was meant to be sophisticated. It's a great movie, but it wasn't nominated for it's sophistication and characterization.

Bringing up KotCS not being nominated means nothing. Oscar winning movies are usually movies that dwell on being sophisticated or artistic. George and Steven never aspired for that to happen, so that's why it didn't. Simple.

Pale Horse · Jun 29, 2011

Stoo said:
Speaking of 'haters', notice how some of the most vitriolic haters of "Skull" have been permantly banned from The Raven. (Just an observation.)

That's my personal agenda. So know you all know. I live and die KOTCS. Secrets out. ....

brb, my life is calling me in another room...

Stoo · Jun 29, 2011

JP Jones said:
There's no reason to talk to me like I'm stupid.

Well, I'm not talking to you like you're stupid and if that's the way it came across, then I apologize. No malice intended.

JP Jones said:
I know that Indy movies have been nominated. The reason I said that they don't deserve Oscars is because they are NOT sophisticated movies. No matter how you look at them. You ask George, Steven, or Harrison, none of them will tell you that Raiders was meant to be sophisticated. It's a great movie, but it wasn't nominated for it's sophistication and characterization..

Yes, the Indy Oscar nominations were largely technical & musical. My point was that the films are more sophisticated than "old 30s serials & 50s B-movies". You used the oldies as a comparison to justify your stance.

JP Jones said:
Bringing up KotCS not being nominated means nothing.

Please note: I don't hate "Skull" but am just stating facts.

"Crystal Skull" was not

JP Jones · Jun 29, 2011

Stoo said:
Well, I'm not talking to you like you're stupid and if that's the way it came across, then I apologize. No malice intended.
Yes, the Indy Oscar nominations were largely technical & musical. My point was that the films are more sophisticated than "old 30s serials & 50s B-movies". You used the oldies as a comparison to justify your stance.
Please note: I don't hate "Skull" but am just stating facts. "Crystal Skull" was not nominated for anything.
"Raiders" WON 4 (+1) Oscars. I guess it's sophisticated & artistic, then?
Where did you read that?

How would you like me to respond? All you are doing is restating that they are sophisticated. All I can say is that Raiders did win Oscars. It was a fantastic movie. Just stating what I believe is fact, but the reason it won was because it was a fresh exciting take on the old serials and that had never been done before.

Stoo · Jun 29, 2011

JP Jones said:
How would you like me to respond? All you are doing is restating that they are sophisticated.

For some reason, my previous post was chopped (bad internet connection, I presume).

You're missing my point, JP Jones. The Indy films are not very sophisticated but they are LEAGUES above the basic qualities of the old serials (which is what you compared them to.)

JP Jones said:
All I can say is that Raiders did win Oscars.

Well, you DID say that "there is no reason for any of them to win any Oscars". :whip:

JP Jones said:
Bringing up KotCS not being nominated means nothing. Oscar winning movies are usually movies that dwell on being sophisticated or artistic.

"Raiders" WON 4 + 1 Oscars. According to you, that makes it sophisticated & artistic.

JP Jones said:
George and Steven never aspired for that to happen, so that's why it didn't. Simple.

Where did you read that?

JP Jones said:
Just stating what I believe is fact, but the reason it won was because it was a fresh exciting take on the old serials and that had never been done before.

"Never been done before." Did you ever see the "Cliffhangers" TV series from 1979...2 years BEFORE "Raiders"?

JP Jones · Jun 29, 2011

Stoo said:
For some reason, my previous post was chopped (bad internet connection, I presume).

You're missing my point, JP Jones. The Indy films are not very sophisticated but they are LEAGUES above the basic qualities of the old serials (which is what you compared them to.)
Well, you DID say that "there is no reason for any of them to win any Oscars".
"Raiders" WON 4 + 1 Oscars. According to you, that makes it sophisticated & artistic.
Where did you read that?
"Never been done before." Did you ever see the "Cliffhangers" TV series from 1979...2 years BEFORE "Raiders"?

Dude, I'm not arguing with you. You just said that the films are NOT sophisticated in your above post. That's what I was just saying. Sorry for the miscommunication, but we completely agree somehow.

Darth Vile · Jun 30, 2011

JP Jones said:
Dude, I'm not arguing with you. You just said that the films are NOT sophisticated in your above post. That's what I was just saying. Sorry for the miscommunication, but we completely agree somehow.

As much as I think TOD is the weaker Indy movie, it did push the envelope on the action/adventure genre. With all its faults, it was a trail blazer and along with Return of the Jedi, IMHO, really helped create the template which is still used today for action movies (for better and worse).

As much as I think KOTCS is actually a better, more intelligent movie than TOD, I don't think it had half the ambition that TOD did... For me KOTCS biggest flaw is its lack of ambition... the feel of it looking backwards as opposed to forwards. Therefore it's no surprise that it was never nominated for a major award, even though I personally think it's a very good/entertaining action movie.

Rocket Surgeon · Jun 30, 2011

Were the films able to interpret complex issues? In the original trilogy I could easily argue yes. Crystal Skull, I couldn't.

Were they developed to a high degree of complexity? Technically, Raiders was and it was recognized rightfully so. The subsequent films took short cuts, but still achieved a level of technical sophistication.

Did they reveal a great deal of worldly experience and knowledge of culture? No. Despite inspiring people to learn about some of these cultures beyond the films, they themselves didn't on screen.

Did the films appeal to people with such knowledge of experience? Filmakers indeed. Archaeologists? Certainly some, not across the board...but some yes.

Does this make the films sophisticated?

How many aspects of sophistication are required for such a classification?

In my opinion the films all achieve some level of sophistication, Raiders most of all.

Skull...

Darth Vile · Jun 30, 2011

They are all extremely sophisticated movies in terms of production (some more so than others). They don't partuculary say much about the human condition... nor stretch cinema as an art form... but clearly they are not designed to. I think the movies are as sophisticated as they need to be.

Rocket Surgeon · Jun 30, 2011

Darth Vile said:
They are all extremely sophisticated movies in terms of production (some more so than others). They don't partuculary say much about the human condition... nor stretch cinema as an art form... but clearly they are not designed to. I think the movies are as sophisticated as they need to be.

Target audience is one question. For each simple answer, like shooting a swordsman, there are other facets open to interpretation for the sophisticated, I think some of us endevor to prove that almost every day here on the boards. Attila touched on it in one of his fine posts yesterday in response to Indiologist being called a F'ing idiot or the like.

The Raiders story conference shows the desire to incorporate an adult though nuanced approach to an action/adventure film. The result? We are here still after THIRTY years dissecting the film, finding meaning hidden or coincidental.

But since this is in the Crystal Skull forum...I have to say no. We certainly are looking for something deeper, something more meaningful. But beyond the issues of aging there's not much to mine.

Montana Smith · Jun 30, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
Target audience is one question. For each simple answer, like shooting a swordsman, there are other facets open to interpretation for the sophisticated, I think some of us endevor to prove that almost every day here on the boards. Attila touched on it in one of his fine posts yesterday in response to Indiologist being called a F'ing idiot or the like.

The Raiders story conference shows the desire to incorporate an adult though nuanced approach to an action/adventure film. The result? We are here still after THIRTY years dissecting the film, finding meaning hidden or coincidental.

I like all this Mr. Rocket.

Rocket Surgeon said:
But since this is in the Crystal Skull forum...I have to say no. We certainly are looking for something deeper, something more meaningful. But beyond the issues of aging there's not much to mine.

A long while ago we did manage to wrest some deeper meaning from KOTCS, I'm sure it was with the aid of Atilla and Pale Horse. Though there may be a deeper meaning to discover, there is so much over-riding levity (flippancy?) in the film that it loses any real sense of matter. I care about the original three far more deeply, and I think there was much more creative care, as well. Even during the dark times of TOD.

KOTCS was all about having too much fun, without injecting the menace or danger that make Indy's world real, in the pulp sense of the word, of course.

Even fantasy can be made real, if it obeys an inner logic, or an internal system of physics. With KOTCS it was as though they lost restraint, broke the unwritten laws and just made a cartoon for youngsters. It was safe. There was very little challenging in it.

Darth Vile · Jun 30, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
Target audience is one question. For each simple answer, like shooting a swordsman, there are other facets open to interpretation for the sophisticated, I think some of us endevor to prove that almost every day here on the boards. Attila touched on it in one of his fine posts yesterday in response to Indiologist being called a F'ing idiot or the like.

The Raiders story conference shows the desire to incorporate an adult though nuanced approach to an action/adventure film. The result? We are here still after THIRTY years dissecting the film, finding meaning hidden or coincidental.

But since this is in the Crystal Skull forum...I have to say no. We certainly are looking for something deeper, something more meaningful. But beyond the issues of aging there's not much to mine.

Firstly, I'd say that sophistication (however we may define it) doesn't automatically equate to quality... I know a lot of sophisticated ways to cook an egg, but fried always seems to taste better.

Secondly, I'd wholeheartedly agree that Raiders is the movie where there appears to be the best mix of ideas versus technical application of those ideas. A perfect blend so to speak. More sophisticated? Yes - if that's how we qualify it.

Montana Smith said:
A long while ago we did manage to wrest some deeper meaning from KOTCS, I'm sure it was with the aid of Atilla and Pale Horse. Though there may be a deeper meaning to discover, there is so much over-riding levity (flippancy?) in the film that it loses any real sense of matter. I care about the original three far more deeply, and I think there was much more creative care, as well. Even during the dark times of TOD.

KOTCS was all about having too much fun, without injecting the menace or danger that make Indy's world real, in the pulp sense of the word, of course.

Even fantasy can be made real, if it obeys an inner logic, or an internal system of physics. With KOTCS it was as though they lost restraint, broke the unwritten laws and just made a cartoon for youngsters. It was safe. There was very little challenging in it.

Again, I'd agree that KOTCS was safe... certainly too safe for my liking, but I don't think that's reflective of sophistication... just as I don't think TOD's mindless silliness is reflective of its technical intricacy (I happen to think TOD is an extremely sophisticated and intricate, if stupid, 'blockbuster'). Citing another example, I think it could be argued that The Phantom Menace is much more sophisticated than Star Wars: ANH, but which one actually works better as a piece of cinema?

The Haters thread

New member

Moderator

New member

New member

New member

Guest

New member

Well-known member

New member

Moderator

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Guest

New member

Guest

Active member

New member