Indy IV - - The Success of the Film

Montana Smith

Active member
Djd1 said:
No - as I said I'm not trying to start an argument (even if you seem to want one ;) ). I'm just looking at the box office as a measure of success. It doesn't equate to quality necessarily but it's a potential way of gauging what the public thought of it and how much they might desire an Indy V

I agree that economic success is the only quantifiable statistic.

Critical success is something altogether different. It's opinion, and everybody has one, whether it's for, against, indifferent or measured. In that regard what makes the critic special? They may have a more informed view, but the things we like or dislike are as personal as a critic's private opinion.

So, I stand by my argument that it is up to personal opinion whether something is good or not. Watching a film is a subjective experience, even though external influences may be playing a part in the process.

Hence so many opinon-based message board threads do result in acrimony, because some individuals cannot bear that others hold a differing view.

It can be a painful process owning up to liking something perceived as generally unpopular! Yet the voices of hate sting worst, and sound louder and more dominant. It skews perception, and may explain why polls seem at odds with anecdotal evidence.
 

Djd1

New member
I do not disagree with anything you say there. As you say it's personal. Indy is one of the reasons I studied ancient and medieval history many years ago. I Loved the first two films and the third one less so. I was looking forward to number 4 greatly - more so than any other film I can recall (maybe except empire strikes back). So I really wanted to like skull....

The biggest disappointment to me was that my son who was a big Indy fan prior to skull (was in the local paper in costume at the local premier) didn't like it. Really killed the series for him and I saw none of his friends playing Indy. The only people buying the toys were adults like me trying unsuccessfully to get their kids I interested. So just from my own perspective I see the film as a failure on every level
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
To use Box Office Figures is ridiculous, it doesn't indicate quality and to suggest that KOTCS is validated as being a horrible movie BASED on that is even more outrageous, it was the highest grossing film worldwide of 2008. How does that indicate it was bad anyway?

replican't;

You're obviously not interested in any form of intelligent conversation. Djd1 is giving examples and trying to back up what he says, as opposed to you who just writes what you want, but nothing to back it up. I have alot in my original post to contradict everything you say. Saying the film is 'crap' is subjective, bud. Not to mention your little list of what critics and fans 'think' has no basis nor any support.

Being completely honest here, you're a tad like a broken record. You have your little mission to just say 'It sucks', 'It's always gonna be crap'. Sorry buddy, but that's just your opinion.
 
Last edited:

Djd1

New member
Will you calm down - again!

Read my post. Box office is a measure of success - the one the studio are interested in as it happens. I didn't say it spoke to the films quality although it does say something of its popularity. Stop jumping down my throat.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Djd1 said:
Box office is a measure of success - the one the studio are interested in as it happens. I didn't say it spoke to the films quality although it does say something of its popularity.

That was my intention also - since the thread's title is "The Success of the Film".

Financial success is the one statistic that can't be skewed, unless there's some dodgy accounting.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Djd1 said:
Will you calm down - again!

Read my post. Box office is a measure of success - the one the studio are interested in as it happens. I didn't say it spoke to the films quality although it does say something of its popularity. Stop jumping down my throat.

I'm not being hostile, I think you're really taking my words and hearing them with hostility in your head...

Sometimes tone gets lost in the text...
 

Brooke Logan

New member
Djd1 said:
The biggest disappointment to me was that my son who was a big Indy fan prior to skull (was in the local paper in costume at the local premier) didn't like it. Really killed the series for him and I saw none of his friends playing Indy. The only people buying the toys were adults like me trying unsuccessfully to get their kids I interested. So just from my own perspective I see the film as a failure on every level

This is how I most feel.

I was a big fan of the first three movies and could watch them over and over.

But I didn't care for KOTCS and have only seen it twice and have little to no desire to ever see it again. I didn't care for the story or characterizations and outcomes at all.

And my niece who was also a fan of the first three, wasn't impressed with Skull either. I asked her how she liked and she was like, eh, and said something like "it was like they tried too hard, to do too much", and I get what she means.

It just jumped the shark for me and I wish they had just stuck with the original trilogy if this was going to be the result of more films.
 

Djd1

New member
Dr.Jonesy said:

I'm not being hostile, I think you're really taking my words and hearing them with hostility in your head...

Sometimes tone gets lost in the text...
Sorry old chap- I was responding to your "using the box office figures is ridiculous" comment. It wasn't an art film. Its reason for being was to get bums on seats at the theatre. On that basis it's hardly a 'ridiculous' measure of success is it? It made money but it was outdone by a couple of films at the US box office that year, including Ironman. I don't like superhero films as a genre but I have to say I thought it was a far more entertaining film than Skull... On the basis of ticket sales alone it seems the public agreed with that assessment. But, as we keep saying, it's down to personal taste.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Djd1 said:
No - as I said I'm not trying to start an argument (even if you seem to want one ;) ). I'm just looking at the box office as a measure of success. It doesn't equate to quality necessarily but it's a potential way of gauging what the public thought of it and how much they might desire an Indy V

Montana Smith said:
I agree that economic success is the only quantifiable statistic.

Critical success is something altogether different.
Agreed. Ticket sales are a good indicator of a films poularity and its financial success. Empirical technical/artistic quality is more open to debate. :)
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
While it's easy to be confident about these things in hindsight, I'd say there was a certain inevitability to Indy4 being a success financially. Here is a globally beloved franchise whose audience had endured a near twenty year famine. There are movies that people are simply going to show up to based on brand name alone, and this was unquestionably one of them. I would be very surprised if an Indy5, even one superior in quality, would enjoy the "event" status of Indy4's release that carried it to an $800 million pile. And yes, I do believe that the quality of Indy4 would factor into the diminishing returns there.
 
Last edited:

foreverwingnut

New member
A good film...

As has been stated in the above film studies approach, we've discovered that more folks liked the film than was generally known. The problem with complainers (regardless of their minority numbers) is that they have a much louder voice and drown out those that are quietly content. KotCS actually got much better reviews than TOD. KotCS had over-the-top stunts and CG, but what else could we expect? The filmmakers were trying to just keep up with the fast pace and epic scope that has become a hallmark of these films. We live in the age of computers, so it should have been no surprise to anyone that the new film would be loaded with CG. I thought the stunts in the Area-51 sequence were some of the most pinpoint, perfect stunts ever and were aided in no way by CG. Some people weren't ready for aliens (or inter-dimensional beings as it were). However, with the new discoveries and recent popular debate of the ancient aliens theory, I think Indy was a perfect vessel to explore such ideas. Also, and most importantly, KotCS brought the series full-circle. The film climax is in Peru, where the first film began. "This is intolerable" was uttered by Indy to Mutt- the same line used by Indy's own disapproving father. And of course we all recognized an all-too-familiar scornful look from father-to-son on yet another speeding bike. If no other Indy film gets made, I personally feel this was an appropriate swan-song. The mistakes are simply too superficial to discount this film and I for one was delighted to see my favorite childhood hero once more.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
There is a lot of hate for KOTCS at the Raven but I found the movie to be highly entertaining flaws and all. Its far from the perfect Indy film but it is also far from being terrible as well. I liked it the first time.I saw it and still enjoy it today. And as wingnut said it was great to have a childhood hero back on screen regardless of the imperfections.
 

foreverwingnut

New member
A movie for the 50s...

Indiana Jones made many of us fans of archeology and, by extension, history in general, so I wanted to bring up a few details about the 1950s that might help to illuminate the reasons for using aliens as a theme in KotCS. There had been a widespread rash of UFO sightings in the 40s and 50s in the American homefront that some feared were the products of communist spying while others feared were, in fact, little green men. And if you didn't fear the communists, then you had darn, good reason to fear our own government. This fear both hightened the threat of the Cold War and also started a B-movie craze. The B-movies of the day focused on atomic-made monsters and alien attacks and worked well to curb the fear of the Cold War by poking some fun at it. While Spielberg was hesitant to use aliens as a focus in KotCS, he admitted that once he gave in, the mysterious elements in the story became very interesting to him. The filmmakers- Spielberg, Lucas, and the Marshals- as well as Ford himself had lived through the atomic age and would have very personal connections to this film- probably more so than any other previous Indy film. KotCS was purposely not as serious as Raiders or TOD, it instead harkened back to the fun of Last Crusade, which most of the filmmakers remembered as their favorite on-set experience of the original trilogy. This film was made for the sheer pleasure of rejoining the original stars and filmmakers for another fun adventure that they hoped the fans would enjoy. Obviously, some fans weren't happy, but by-and-large I've heard far more compliments for the film than the contrary. Perhaps KotCS doesn't work for some folks because our generation has been fortunate enough not to know the fear of the Cold War as the German Wall fell decades ago and Russia has since turned to democracy. Any thoughts?
 

Henry W Jones

New member
foreverwingnut said:
Indiana Jones made many of us fans of archeology and, by extension, history in general, so I wanted to bring up a few details about the 1950s that might help to illuminate the reasons for using aliens as a theme in KotCS. There had been a widespread rash of UFO sightings in the 40s and 50s in the American homefront that some feared were the products of communist spying while others feared were, in fact, little green men. And if you didn't fear the communists, then you had darn, good reason to fear our own government. This fear both hightened the threat of the Cold War and also started a B-movie craze. The B-movies of the day focused on atomic-made monsters and alien attacks and worked well to curb the fear of the Cold War by poking some fun at it. While Spielberg was hesitant to use aliens as a focus in KotCS, he admitted that once he gave in, the mysterious elements in the story became very interesting to him. The filmmakers- Spielberg, Lucas, and the Marshals- as well as Ford himself had lived through the atomic age and would have very personal connections to this film- probably more so than any other previous Indy film. KotCS was purposely not as serious as Raiders or TOD, it instead harkened back to the fun of Last Crusade, which most of the filmmakers remembered as their favorite on-set experience of the original trilogy. This film was made for the sheer pleasure of rejoining the original stars and filmmakers for another fun adventure that they hoped the fans would enjoy. Obviously, some fans weren't happy, but by-and-large I've heard far more compliments for the film than the contrary. Perhaps KotCS doesn't work for some folks because our generation has been fortunate enough not to know the fear of the Cold War as the German Wall fell decades ago and Russia has since turned to democracy. Any thoughts?

My neighbor grew up in the 50's and she loves the film because it reminds her of her childhood. HF, SS and GL are in the same age bracket so your summation of the situation is probably pretty accurate. As far as it's success I do believe the name Indiana Jones alone sold a lot of tickets but I do feel (while I do enjoy it very much) that if it had not been a sequel (It's own thing) it probably wouldn't have done as well as it did. I think HF's age would have not been as believable if we had not gotten to know Indy 31 years ago. But the character is established already and for me HF still works as Indy because he is supposed to be this ultra lucky bad a** who always manages to escape no matter what. My only major gripe with the film is the action in the truck sequence looks CGI and is very poorly conceived. The monkey swing irks me every time I see it :mad: But otherwise it is a fun adventure. But once again I will state if it had not followed Raiders and Temple I probably wouldn't have paid it much mind along with other folks and it's success would have been probably pretty minimal.
 

foreverwingnut

New member
I agree that if it hadn't been a sequel, then it wouldn't have had as much success. The name Indiana Jones carries a lot of clout. I also agree with you about the truck chase being sub-par CG. Next to the ending, this sequence receives the most widespread gripe. It is odd to me that ILM has always been on the cutting edge of film technology, responsible for spectacles like Titanic and Avatar, but somehow they seemed to put less effort into a film by their own boss, George Lucas. It could be, as you pointed out, that as long as the Indy logo was on it, then maybe they felt they didn't have to try as hard. But, knowing how George Lucas loves to change things in his films, I wouldn't be surprised if he cleans it up a bit for a re-release. If that were the case, then this could be the one time that fans wouldn't want to lynch Lucas for tinkering with his films.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
foreverwingnut said:
I agree that if it hadn't been a sequel, then it wouldn't have had as much success. The name Indiana Jones carries a lot of clout. I also agree with you about the truck chase being sub-par CG. Next to the ending, this sequence receives the most widespread gripe. It is odd to me that ILM has always been on the cutting edge of film technology, responsible for spectacles like Titanic and Avatar, but somehow they seemed to put less effort into a film by their own boss, George Lucas. It could be, as you pointed out, that as long as the Indy logo was on it, then maybe they felt they didn't have to try as hard. But, knowing how George Lucas loves to change things in his films, I wouldn't be surprised if he cleans it up a bit for a re-release. If that were the case, then this could be the one time that fans wouldn't want to lynch Lucas for tinkering with his films.

I'm sure he has to go through Steven before he can do that and Spielberg is not a fan of changing his films.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
I forgot to mention this, but Indy IV inspired a few scenes in some video games, I've found out. Probably old news to you guys.

I thought these were some nice little homages/nods to Indy IV!

:hat:

Fallout - New Vegas

custom_1287856616587_fonvindy.jpg


NukeTown- Call of Duty Black Ops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7BQ-u3nuZM
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Dr.Jonesy said:
I forgot to mention this, but Indy IV inspired a few scenes in some video games, I've found out. Probably old news to you guys.

I thought these were some nice little homages/nods to Indy IV!

:hat:

Fallout - New Vegas

It was discussed.

But pertinent for me, as I received New Vegas yesterday. Still trying to get used to the changes from Fallout 3.

Didn't realize Indy was so close to Goodsprings. I'll have to go back and look for him.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
foreverwingnut said:
As has been stated in the above film studies approach, we've discovered that more folks liked the film than was generally known. The problem with complainers (regardless of their minority numbers) is that they have a much louder voice and drown out those that are quietly content. KotCS actually got much better reviews than TOD.

The internet hate started around...I don't know? July-Octoberish, and it really kicked in once South Park came about.

Nowadays, it's died a hell of alot on the net. Just go on YouTube, every Indy IV video back in December of 2008 usually had the top comment bashing the film and nowadays, you have the top comment saying how awesome it was or how the hate is odd and unwarranted. It's turned around alot on the net, thankfully. Even if I hated the film, I wouldn't want anything Indy to be seen in a bad light, hence why it bugged me how TOD used to get so much flack.

Even looking at IGN's article (or other sites') today on the BluRay Indy films, the top comments and a majority of the regular comments are talking about how the Indy IV hate is ridiculous/confusing and that the film was great. It's good to see it's turned around alot. The internet is a brutal place sometimes, and that's where the discontent with the film mostly was voiced. Like you said, the "haters" (I hate that term, but I'm unsure what else to use) eventually began to speak louder than those who liked/loved it around late 2008ish/early 2009ish.

There's nothing wrong with being discontent with any film, whether it be TOD or KOTCS, however...what always frustrates me is the fact that people have to be antagonistic and obsess about disliking something.
:(


Henry W Jones said:
The monkey swing irks me every time I see it :mad:


As it does me. It's absolutely atrocious. I was over at a friends house and their family was watching this film in the other room, and nobody flinched during that scene. They didn't gripe or cringe. I grimaced on the inside, though. It seems moviegoers simply didn't see it as horrid as we do. I don't know, I find it to be horrid and cringe-worthy to the highest degree! Embarrassingly atrocious piece of celluloid, I don't care if it was only 3 seconds long.

:dead:
 
Last edited:

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
It was discussed.

But pertinent for me, as I received New Vegas yesterday. Still trying to get used to the changes from Fallout 3.

Didn't realize Indy was so close to Goodsprings. I'll have to go back and look for him.

I really tried to get into Fallout since I was so impressed with Elder Scrolls, but I could not get the hang of Fallout. I kept dying all the time!
:(


Good to see you're into games, keeps you young inside!
:hat:

I should play games more often, I only have a few and I really have a hard time getting into them.
 
Top